[From Rick Marken (970811.1440)]
CHUCK TUCKER (970811) --
Rick frequently complains that is very little (he usually
says 'none') research which compares PCT (or HPCT) with
other "theories."...there are a number of other research
studies which do make the comparison of other theories to PCT.
Most of the examples you give are not really the kind of
comparisons I'm talking about. To me, a theoretical comparison
is done by determining how working models derived from two
theories behave in the same situation. Then you test living
organisms in that situation and see whether their behavior is
better fit by one model or the other. A good example of this
kind of comparison can be found in Tom and Bill's paper called
"Worlds and their Models".
Let me just mention a few that fit my specifications for such
research....in all of Kent's papers he cites many studies (Peter
Burke's work is published in the major journals of sociology)
which show the support for PCT against other theories.
Kent's work is great but so far there have been no systematic
tests to compare (based on real data) the behavior of the
control model to that of other models. Kent shows what one can
expect to see in the behavior of interacting control systems
but we don't know what to expect from the behavior of
interacting "selection by consequences" systems or interacting
"decision making" systems. SO there have been no tests to
determine whether the predictions of the PCT based model are
better or worse than those of models derived from other theories
in the situations Kent describes.
Peter Burke has done excellent quantitative comparisons of PCT
to other theories of group behavior. So after 25+ years of PCT
there is 1 (count them, 1) sociologist who is testing (with _data)
PCT based models to non-PCT based models. I call this "ignoring
PCT" on the part of sociology.
It seems to me that Gary Cziko's book WITHOUT MIRACLES shows
how PCT can be used (and is being used) to explain a wide variety
of phenomenon from biological behavior to the development of
knowledge... The SELECTIONIST explanation is the type of
explanation found in PCT (as Gary documents in Chapter 8).
The PCT explanation is not SELECTIONINST in the same way that
Darwininan evolution is SELECTIONIST. In PCT, the organism
selects (controls) the (perceived) environment; in Darwininan
evolution the environment selects (filters out) organisms.
So I think it is very misleading to call PCT selectionist. It
would be much better to call PCT INTENTIONALIST or PURPOSIVIST
since it says that organisms produce certain results intentionally
(on purpose).
Thus, what Gary shows is that all behavior of organisms is
explained by PCT.
Would that that were so. Showing that organisms evolved does not
show that their behavior is explained by PCT. Nor, for that
matter, does it show that organisms themselves were "selected"
by the environment. For example, organisms might have evolved
purposefully, by a PCT-like mechanism such as that proposed by
Bill Powers.
Another member of CSG, Clark McPhail follows a similar strategy
to Gary...he shows that they [alternative theories] are faulty
on definitional and empirical grounds; none of them can be used
to explain collective action...Then, he shows that PCT (HPCT)
does explain collective action.
Again, this doesn't really count as a comparison of a PCT to a
non-PCT model; there was no quantitative comparison of
real behavior to that of a PCT and a non-PCT model. But even
if we do count this as a comparison o PCT to other theories,
that just brings the total count of sociologists who have
publicly considered PCT up to about 4. I would guess that there
are about 35,000 sociologists in the US. So now, after 25+ years
of PCT, only about .01% of US sociologists have even _talked_
about PCT.
It seems to me that Rijt and Plooij's WHY THEY CRY does an
excellent job of showing how PCT is very useful for explaining
human development
Agreed. But their work had nothing to do with comparing the
behavior of a PCT to a non-PCT model. And it is still just one
PCT blip on the psychological horizon. Moreover, Rijt/Plooij
don't mention PCT or Powers in their best selling "Why they cry".
So the publicity value of the book for PCT is nill.
Finally, it seems to me that all of Ed Ford's work (and some
of Glasser's) has been designed to demonstrate that
reinforcement theory does not work when dealing with people
in the home, at school or at work.
Again, agreed. But Ed's work, great as it is, does not really
involve a formal, scientific comparison of PCT and non-PCT
models of behavior.
Even if we grant that every one of your examples (and then some)
count as "... research which compares PCT (or HPCT) with other
theories" I think this still shows that PCT has been accorded
_very_ little attention (after either 40 or 25 years of PCT,
depending on whether you count its birth as the Perceptual and
Motor Skills monograph or B:CP) compared to other theories that
were developed at about the same time as PCT and are still accorded
a great deal of attention, respect and research.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken