I don’t mean to offend if this comment comes from my ignorance, but lately, many of the discussions on csgnet seem like philosophical discussions and arguments similar to those I use to get into back in my undergrad days. Shouldn’t we be spending our time modeling (and I know there are some doing so) and talking about modeling, research methods, and practical applications of PCT? If we can develop actual solutions to real world problems based on the theory, it will get the recognition we all know it deserves, unlike the recent travesty promulgated by the APA Dictionary fiasco.
AN: I don’t mean to offend if this comment comes from my ignorance, but lately, many of the discussions on csgnet seem like philosophical discussions and arguments similar to those I use to get into back in my undergrad days. Shouldn’t we be spending our time modeling (and I know there are some doing so) and talking about modeling, research methods, and practical applications of PCT?
RM: No offense taken, at least on my part. I would also prefer that the discussions on csgnet be more directly relevant to modeling, research and applications of PCT. But I find that often things that seem very “philosophical” have definite concrete implications. The discussion of perception is an example. Few things can become more philosophical than discussions of perception but I do think these discussions have very concrete implications for research methods, as I tried to point out in my last post. The test for the controlled variable is based on the PCT assumption that all perceptions have an environmental basis – where the environment consists of variables external to the organism (disturbances such as light waves) as well as environmental effects produced by the organism itself (outputs, such as changes in the organisms position in the environment). I use this fact all the time when using modeling to test for controlled variables in object interception behavior.
AN: If we can develop actual solutions to real world problems based on the theory, it will get the recognition we all know it deserves, unlike the recent travesty promulgated by the APA Dictionary fiasco.
RM: I kind of doubt that,mainly because I don’t think PCT really has the solutions to any real world problems. I think PCT shows why there are no such solutions. What I think PCT shows is a way to reduce our problems, not how to solve them. But maybe this could be a topic in itself. I argue that PCT does not have the solutions to real world problems; indeed, PCT shows that such problems are an inevitable result of the fact that people are control systems. These problems can be reduced but they cannot be solved. If you or anyone disagrees that might make for an interesting discussion. What do you think, Andrew?
Best regards
Rick
Just my two cents.
With regards and respect to all members,
Andrew
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
Agreed… I see Andrew’s point, for sure, but as I continue to watch these discussions, as “lively” as they may be from time to time (!), something positive usually seems to arise eventually; progress is made and lessons are learned.
Just to stir the pot a little more, I might use the word “conflict” rather than “problem.” ;o)
AN: I don’t mean to offend if this comment comes from my ignorance, but lately, many of the discussions on csgnet seem like philosophical discussions and arguments similar to those I use to get into back in my undergrad days. Shouldn’t we be spending our time modeling (and I know there are some doing so) and talking about modeling, research methods, and practical applications of PCT?
RM: No offense taken, at least on my part. I would also prefer that the discussions on csgnet be more directly relevant to modeling, research and applications of PCT. But I find that often things that seem very “philosophical” have definite concrete implications. The discussion of perception is an example. Few things can become more philosophical than discussions of perception but I do think these discussions have very concrete implications for research methods, as I tried to point out in my last post. The test for the controlled variable is based on the PCT assumption that all perceptions have an environmental basis – where the environment consists of variables external to the organism (disturbances such as light waves) as well as environmental effects produced by the organism itself (outputs, such as changes in the organisms position in the environment). I use this fact all the time when using modeling to test for controlled variables in object interception behavior.
AN: If we can develop actual solutions to real world problems based on the theory, it will get the recognition we all know it deserves, unlike the recent travesty promulgated by the APA Dictionary fiasco.
RM: I kind of doubt that,mainly because I don’t think PCT really has the solutions to any real world problems. I think PCT shows why there are no such solutions. What I think PCT shows is a way to reduce our problems, not how to solve them. But maybe this could be a topic in itself. I argue that PCT does not have the solutions to real world problems; indeed, PCT shows that such problems are an inevitable result of the fact that people are control systems. These problems can be reduced but they cannot be solved. If you or anyone disagrees that might make for an interesting discussion. What do you think, Andrew?
Best regards
Rick
Just my two cents.
With regards and respect to all members,
Andrew
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
AN: If we can develop actual solutions to real world problems based on the theory, it will get the recognition we all know it deserves, unlike the recent travesty promulgated by the APA Dictionary fiasco.
RM: I kind of doubt that,mainly because I don't think PCT really has the solutions to any real world problems. I think PCT shows why there are no such solutions.
Rick you talk a lot of sense but I struggle to understand this one, especially as I know of so much experience of ‘.how PCT is key to ‘solutions, and I can see more. Look solutions is a big word, nothing stays fixed for ever, there are not absolute solutions, the universe is evolving. But PCT radically changes our understanding. By apology it [often] shows us the hole we are about to fall into and a path around it. Often it works in conjunction with other scientific methods, like ternary cybernetics, but you sound defeatist. Why am I wrong?
I agree with Angus; PCT does lead to some real world solutions. I’ve used it for years as a framework for analyzing, understanding and solving problems related to human behavior and performance in the workplace. I’ve written about them, too. Is PCT itself the solution? No, but it leads you to them.
AN: If we can develop actual solutions to real world problems based on the theory, it will get the recognition we all know it deserves, unlike the recent travesty promulgated by the APA Dictionary fiasco.
RM: I kind of doubt that,mainly because I don't think PCT really has the solutions to any real world problems. I think PCT shows why there are no such solutions.
Rick you talk a lot of sense but I struggle to understand this one, especially as I know of so much experience of ‘.how PCT is key to ‘solutions, and I can see more. Look solutions is a big word, nothing stays fixed for ever, there are not absolute solutions, the universe is evolving. But PCT radically changes our understanding. By apology it [often] shows us the hole we are about to fall into and a path around it. Often it works in conjunction with other scientific methods, like ternary cybernetics, but you sound defeatist. Why am I wrong?
Good story Fred, selling, and ‘management’ are great applications, as is understanding the principle (the Deming also referred to) of gaming the system to get controlled results. I have similar
experience.
RM: I kind of doubt that,mainly because I don’t think PCT really has the solutions to any real world problems. I think PCT shows why there are no such solutions.
AJ: Rick you talk a lot of sense but I struggle to understand this one, especially as I know of so much experience of ‘.how PCT is key to ‘solutions, and I can see more. Look solutions is a big word, nothing stays fixed for ever, there are not absolute solutions, the universe is evolving. But PCT radically changes our understanding. By apology it [often] shows us the hole we are about to fall into and a path around it. Often it works in conjunction with other scientific methods, like ternary cybernetics, but you sound defeatist. Why am I wrong?
RM: No, you are right. I was being too general. I do think there are some problems that PCT can solve, or at least help with. I think PCT can help people solve their personal problems. Indeed, I recently published a paper with Tim Carey explaining how PCT approaches the solution to psychological problems:
RM: I also think PCT can help solve certain engineering problems, such has how to build better robots and prostheses.
RM: When I said PCT couldn’t solve problems I think I had in mind the fact that PCT won’t help you solve interpersonal problems in the way most of us think of solving such problems; by controlling for a solution. For example, if your problem is a misbehaving employee then the solution is an employee who behaves correctly. This implies doing things to get the employee to behave the way you want. This approach to solving such problems involves control of behavior and PCT shows that problems are likely to arise if you try to solve problems this way.
RM: The PCT approach to such problems doesn’t guarantee a “solution”; all PCT does is help you understand what is going on and then you can take it from there. So it’s in this sense that I think PCT doesn’t solve problems because some problems are not really solvable in the way we think of problems being solved. Another way to look at this is that problems are simply inherent in the fact that living systems are control systems; there will be conflict no matter what. I do think an understanding of PCT can help mitigate these conflict problems when they arise but it can’t solve them in the way we would probably like them to be solved .
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble