Hello again,
I am pleased that my introduction got such a response. Being ignored would
have been the ultimate insult. I did not feel unduly rebuffed, but, of
course, I will respond back. My response centers around themes, not
necessarily individuals. Specifically, I consider the following issues: self-
regulation, modeling, some theorists in my field, and some minor issues:
Self-regulation:
Forgive my ignorance, but I think Tom Bourbon and Bill Powers think that the
difference between self-regulation models and PCT is that PCT is about
controlling perceptions and self-regulation is about controlling behavior.
This is no doubt because the promoters of many self-regulation models _say_
they are about regulating behavior. However, if the model incorporates a test
of the difference between a perceived state and a desired state, the result of
which drives behavior, then the model is describing the control of
perceptions. If the modeler says the model describes how individuals control
behavior, they either don't realize their error or they are trying to reach a
certain audience. But the model still describes the control of perceptions.
D. Ford's Living Systems Framework is that type of model. I am still trying
to get a handle on the consequences of the error for those models. So, to
answer Marken's (940606.1800) post, yes there are others that describe the CSG
loop.
Modelling:
A major theme in the responses to my introduction was the role of modelling as
a test of PCT and the other models I mentioned (indirectly through
proponents - e.g., Locke, Bandura). I think something that people on this net
understand that many in psychology do not understand is that the ultimate goal
of science is to create a comprehensive model of the phenomenon they study.
(Don't misunderstand me here. That goal will never be achieved. Indeed, the
science should be constantly refining, filling in gaps, and occasionally
rejecting the model - if one is to believe Kuhn - which I do.), But
psychology, burned by previous attempts at grand theories and comprised of
individual, autonomous control systems is leery of such models. As I
understand it, this is not unique to psychology. Other sciences have gone or
are going through similar periods (the pre-paradigm or pre-paradigm shift
period, Mary Powers 940607). As a result, grand theories are eschewed for
mini-theories. Mini-theories, because of their reliance on exogenous
variables, do not lend themselves to modeling. That is, they won't work
because importance relationships and variables are left out of the model -
usually feedback relationships. Nor do the architects of these theories
understand how to model or what it can do for them. Further, these theories
are empirical generalizations of relationships between latent variables, not
structural models of underlying architecture (Powers, 1973). The question,
that we might answer differently, is whether these mini-theories are of any
scientific value. (Practical value is a related, but separate question). I
think they are because I think there are gaps in PCT that have been addressed,
certainly not resolved, by these mini-theories. More on these gaps later.
But the previous argument is mostly on an intellectually level. The reality
of rejection letters and lack of collaborative spirit from the powers-that-be
is painful, dispiriting, and financially and occupationally challenging. I
apologize for raising any of those feelings. I have numerous colleagues with
less than kind rejection letters based on the same reasons that many of you
alluded to. On the other hand, I know others who have had little trouble on
that score. Of course, their work is probably not completely in line with the
"core." Most notably, they do not require a working model as a requirement
for their work (there is also an emerging appreciation for which journals are
"friendly" and which are not). Herein lies one of my concerns with the
solipsism among the netters. Marken (940606) says "PCT is tested by comparing
the performance of working models to actual behavior. In order to compare
alternative theories to PCT we often have to translate verbal descriptions
into working models." This requirement confounds the test of a theory with
the theory. Marken is applying his criteria for a theory on the other's
theory. I do not condemn the criteria, merely the blind application. If
empirical data is always required, Einstein's GTR would never have lasted the
20 (?) years before it could be tested.
Now I realize that these mini-theories are not GTR. Indeed, many are very
problematic. But I try to separate the chafe from the wheat. Carver &
Scheier's self-awareness construct was clearly wanting, but they exposed many
to control mechanisms that had not known them before. To quote Bill P.
(940607) "Now that more people are coming around to the view that behavior is
purposive, goal-directed, intentional, etc., it is at least a little easier to
start explaining what PCT is about." No doubt there are errors in the views
perpetuated by the non-PCT models, but it is a step. Further, theories like
Carver & Scheier's deal with many social processes which PCT does not deal
with as throughly. Identifying the discrepancies between these models and
PCT, and developing empirical tests the results of which both parties can take
as evidence one way or another is, I believe, a reasonable next step. And let
me be perfectly clear, I think sometimes they have a point and PCT needs to
incorporate it.
The problem with Marken's approach is that they don't buy/understand the data
you use. Most don't understand modeling and/or don't trust its results. The
rigorous requirements, central to your understanding of science, are seen as
too rigorous for a science in it's infancy. You say it need not be that way
and I TEND to agree, but one must lead, not force the transition. (Some will
never change, leave them behind). Where I do not agree, perhaps because I was
raised as one of them, is at the higher-level processes. Here I will talk
about gaps. (I suspect I will learn of my ignorance, but that is one reason
for being here.)
Gaps & theorists in my field
First, as Bill P. said in his intro to Living Control Systems, there is no
content. What are the intrinsic signals and where do they come from? What
are, if not the higher-order references signals, likely candidates and where
do they come from? How are actions choosen and how does reorganization
proceed? I see stabs at the first question on this net (biological needs) but
another type of intrinsic signal is probably system efficiency variables. The
recent discussion of uncertainty is one such variable. You are absolutely
right to attempt to figure out how the organism could perceive uncertainty and
reject it if it can't (but beware, just cause you cannot figure it out does
not mean it doesn't exist). The point is that another perspective has inform
the guess that uncertainty is a reference signal.
My reading of your literature and posts is that the identification of higher-
order reference signals is truly a gap (although I fear I misunderstand the
posts here). Many in psychology are seeking to study candidates for reference
signal, including Little, Deci & Ryan, Emmons, Pervin (See edited books by
Pervins, 1989, _Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology_, and Ford
& Ford's, 1987, _Human's as Self-Constructing Living Systems.). These are
self-regulation theorists, and like I said above, I don't care what they think
they are doing, I find what they are doing useful and interesting and I think
some of you should too.
To the third question, dealing with reorganization (and other matters like
stress and leadership) are people in my field. Proponents of PCT-like models
(forgive them their transgressions), including Tsui & Ashford (e.g., Journal
of Management, 1994), Edwards (e.g., Academy of Management Review, 1992),
Cropanzano, James, & Cetera (Research in Organizational Behavior, 1993), Lord
& Levy (Applied Psychology: An international review, 1994) and Manz (Academy
of Management Review, 1986) to name a few. Other interesting thinkers include
the Germany action theorists (Kuhl, Hechausen) and others (Vallacher &
Wegner). Many or most of these authors or theories may have already been read
and rejected. I do not agree with everything _any_ of them say. But herein
lies the challenge: finding which loops conflict, proposing alternatives, and
testing the them.
Marken (940606) says you have rejected social control. Well, I am not exactly
sure what is meant by social control, but my impression from earlier threads
(and B:CP) is that you rejected social influence. I find this very
problematic. Marken (same post) says you have rejected "information about the
cause of variation in perception." Again, I don't know exactly what Marken
means by that phrase, but I get the impression from my readings that PCT
eschews attributions and other beliefs (like self-efficacy) as relevant. This
I find very problematic. Now I even find that the DME is not part of PCT.
You mean that all conscience thought is irrelevant? This is VERY problematic.
Reorganization is not simply random. A model that shows that it could be
(e.g., E. coli, which some of you have contented) does not make it so. But I
think I must be misunderstanding you here, too. Planning and thinking is part
of PCT. Figuring out how that planning and thinking translates into choosing
and doing is where contemporary psychology can help. PCT has been tested in
only "limited circumstances" (Marken, 940606), where it has not been tested
improvements can be articulated and empirical tests constructed (hopefully).
Finally, in reference to Vallacher and Wegner, apparently Bill P. thinks they
are using PCT, just not acknowledging it. So Marken, when you say
Yes. It looks very interesting. Let's discuss the Vallacher & Wegner
model, by all means. But, before we get started, I've got to know: if
their model produces no quantitative results, if it predicts average
behavior over subjects or over trials, if it doesn't work at all, do I
still have to like it and not criticize it in order to have a "healthy
debate'? If so, then we can save a lot of time since I can give you my
evaluation...
This is what I mean by unhealthy debate.
Some minor issues:
I has largely responding to Dag's post when I warned of solipsism. That post
was meant for those outside the net. So my comments regarding presentation
were legitimate. I did, however, appreciate the distinction between messages
on the net and messages to the outside world. It is call impression
management and the research in it has some interesting points for PCT to
consider (although they do seem to miss the point that one can only attempt to
manage the perceptions of impressions).
Some mentioned I should send my recent paper to them and others for comment.
I appreciate that, copies are on their way. One comment: The paper argues
for the adoption of a PCT-like model as a paradigm for organizational
behavior. The impetus for the argument came from a recent article in my field
calling for a paradigm. Just before I finished my article a third article
appeared condemning the paradigm approach because it lead to elitism and gate-
keeping. This is a problematic argument because we have elitism and gate-
keeping now, as you know. I think that once PCT come to it's own (and it
looks like I am betting my career that it will), the new gate-keepers will be
you people. Now do you understand my fear regarding solipsism as it appears
on the net.
Regarding the non-optimizing reference signal. I realize now that it was not
a well-thought-out question. Nor is it worth considering further, I can deal
with it. Thank you Bill P. for at least trying to address the question.
Marken, your comment was very helpful, NOT! 
Regarding my "primary reference signal." (promoting interdisciplinary
collaboration). Bill P. (940607.0200) took me too literally. Promoting
interdisciplinary collaboration is an espoused, higher-order, professional,
self-concept, reference signal (EHOPSCRS). Why I really do what I do is
beyond me (although attempting to find out is important to me). My EHOPSCRS
identifies a niche that I hope to convince others needs filling and that I can
help fill. And yes Bill, cross-discipline collaboration may be easier than
within, as my religion analogy was attempting to say. It may be harder as the
modeling issue shows (social sciences does not use the methods of physical
sciences).
I do need to get the demo's and simulations. I have Marken's Lotus program,
which was when I found out about CSG_net (I also heard about it from Lord). I
did not understand it then and I don't think it worked when I tried it since.
(Rick, you might remember, I am the one who had Quattro Pro, it worked fine on
that version, but I have since updated and I think that may be the problem).
Prologue:
There are some very ridiculous criticism to PCT out there. Clearly, the
behavior we observe among the dominant coalition is based somewhat on the
error they anticipate when their life's work is rendered as superfluous by PCT
(e.g., Locke). Another is the mistaken implications associated with the word
"control." I think its tendency to be overplayed and the connotation it
evokes has caused many to misunderstand PCT, which has evoked a strong counter
response from PCTers that is also misinterpreted (for example, I think I have
mis-interpreted your social control posts). But the negative PR factor is a
real problem. I cannot see the average citizen accepting the theory as they
have accepted the general theory of relativity simply because of the name.
Call this superficial, but I now refer to my work a part of living systems
theory (of course, it is not core PCT, so you probably appreciate that -
although I do cite PCT references often).
In conclusion, there are many roles to be played here. To evoke the religous
analogy again (understanding that science seeks data more emphatically than
religion, but it is so appropriate). The high priests will attempt to
maintain the purity of their belief system, as well they should. The clergy
will attempt to bring the message to the people, even if the message loses
some purity by incorporating local beliefs. But eventually, some of those
local beliefs bubble up to the high priests, who, seeing their merit,
incorporate them into their the religion's belief system. Conflict and
acromony will mark the way, but such is the nature of social interaction.
Shall we get on with it?
Later,
Jeff
P.S. It was Cliff Joslyn who made many of the same arguments I am making, only
he is in ST/Cyb and I am in psychology. Also, he is more literate than I
in your methods. Cliff, if you are out there, I think we are kindred
spirits.