This redirects the digression at Elections as collective control - #12 by rsmarken.
Before a conjecture or proposal can be modeled, it must be understood. Understanding a new idea is a process of integrating it with what is already known and understood.
If what was already known and understood does not change in this process, then either the idea was not new, or it was misunderstood. The misunderstanding re-states the new idea in a form that requires no change to established ideas.
We have seen this in psychologists distorting “behavior is the control of perception” and hearing it as “behavior controls perception”. When we concoct a PCT explanation of their resistance to change we adduce controlled variables like reputation in the field, being a consistent authority to students, admission of error, and so forth. This narrative of why PCT is not universally accepted is frankly speculation based sometimes on anecdotal information and rather free interpretation of correspondence, conversations, and interpersonal interactions as instances of the Test for controlled variables.
Rick, your motives for resisting new proposals in PCT are for you to identify, I won’t speculate. This has been a challenge for you for many years. I take as illustration your reduction of atenfel to ‘feedback function’. The acronym derives from ‘atomic environmental feedback links’. Here is your objection in June of 2016, five years ago.
Despite the explanation that Kent and Martin plainly and patiently laid out at that time, you persist in this distortion to this day.
What would be a constructive response? You could ask or propose how a new idea could be tested, what data are needed to model it, programming strategies for creating a computer simulation. These would be constructive responses. They are impossible to state without first accepting the new idea arguendo—for the sake of discussion.
You don’t have to agree with it in order to understand it, but you do have to understand it in order to discuss it.
Take some mental allergy medicine and actually read that “useless armchair speculation”; or if you really think it is useless and unworthy of your time to understand it, then stand aside. If your aim is to stop it and make it go away, muddying the water with gross distortions does not work. So stop doing that.
In other areas, you are much more open minded, as for example this very helpful reply about the notion of levels in MoL, which Martin lauded as worthy of preservation in a permanent collection of exemplary posts. Maybe this link is a step in that direction.