[From Rick Marken (940613.1030)]
Jeff Vancouver (940613) --
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.
Yes, partly. But, for me, the main problem is that their research shows no
evidence that they understand "control of perception"; there is no testing
for controlled variables -- or anything like it. Self-regulation promoters
have described PCT-like models pretty well; but they don't evidence any
understanding of these models in terms of how they do their research. The
proof is simply in the pudding; self-regulation research is NOT PCT pudding.
If all you care about is whether the theory described by the self-regulation
people looks (in diagrams) and sounds (in words) like PCT then I will
concede that self- regulation theories are very similar to PCT. As I recall,
the first two chapters in the Carver/Scheier "Self-regulation" book give an
excellent description of PCT -- really good. It's only by reading the rest of
the book -- the research "based on the theory" -- that you can see that they
didn't "get it" at all. Actually, the Carver/Scheier book is a good example
of how people can "talk the talk" of PCT with rather remarkable fidelity and
still not be able to "walk the walk" -- ie. do PCT.
Again, I think the basic problem is that people can describe the theory
pretty well; they are just not aware of the phenomenon that they theory
explains; the phenomenon of control. I think people really have to experience
the phenomenon up close and personal, in all its manifestations -- from
controlling the position of your hand to controlling where you worship god -
- to really "get" PCT. Anyone can give a good account of the model, but it's
a pretty empty exercise unless you know what in the world the model is there
for; and it's there for explaining something that's all around you all the
time -- control.
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.
But SOME empirical data is required or you have no basis for evaluating a
theory at all. I think Einstein's theory was constrained by one hell of a lot
of data.
The problem with Marken's approach is that they don't buy/understand the data
you use.
What would you suggest that I do?
The rigorous requirements, central to your understanding of science, are
seen as too rigorous for a science in it's infancy.
I know. I've heard people say that research like that done by Tom, Bill and
myself is trivial because we always get what we expect -- often to the third
decimal place. A cognitive psychologist friend of mine (who thinks PCT is
hogwash, by the way) thinks we could make a better impression if we would
get results more like what psychologists are used to -- the kinds where you
really need a statistical test to find out what happened. I'll leave it to
Tom Bourbon to comment on this (if he's around and wants to), since the guy
who said this is one of my dearest friends; we obviously don't talk about PCT
much.
These are self-regulation theorists [studying higher level variables], 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.
Great. Tell us what they are doing and how they do it. It's hard for me to
get access to all this stuff. I think the net would be a great place to
discuss it. Believe me, if these people have some good hypotheses about
higher level controlled variables and some good ways to test those hypotheses
we will be interested -- VERY interested!
Marken (940606) says you have rejected social control...I find this very
problematic. Marken (same post) says you have rejected "information about
the cause of variation in perception."... This I find very problematic. Now
I even find that the DME is not part of PCT...This is VERY problematic.
Well, I think you misunderstand what is meant by each of these terms.
1. We reject "social control" in the sense that we reject the idea that there
is an entity (called "society") that is a control system exerting control
over groups of individuals. Individuals control and when this occurs in
interaction with other individuals, this is "social control".
2. There is no information about the disturbance to a controlled perception
in the variance of the controlled perception itself because this variance 1)
is a simultaneous result of both disturbance(s) and output and 2) there are
an indetermine number of variables that may be a disturbance to the
percpetual variable. This is an important point because it rules out models
of control that view the controlling system as one that calculates the
appropriate "disturbance cancelling" output based on perceptual input.
3. The DME is simply an open question; there are no data suggesting its
necessity, beyond what can already be handled by mechanisms suggested in BCP.
So it's not currently part of PCT but it certainly could become part if PCT
were this demanded by the data.
Reorganization is not simply random.
This may or may not be true. This is why data is important; if you want to
convince me that this is true then you have to present me with data that
support this contention. If the data is convincing, I will certainly accept
this claim. The current model of the reorganizing system is random, not
because data demand that that be the case, but for logical reasons; ie. how
do you know how to change control parameters when things go wrong? There may
indeed be biases in reorganization; but this is something to be determined by
experiment, not reason.
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 averagebehavior 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.
And it's what I mean by "no debate at all". Why don't we just discuss
Vallacher & Wegner; if the debate get's unhealthy, we can consult a
physician 
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.
Get Dag's demo disk!!! The speadsheet model comes with it's own 1.2.3
compatible spreadsheet program. Everything on Dag's disk works. If you don't
have this disk, GET IT. No wonder you think that conventional psychology
still has something worthwhile to say
Get thee to Dag's Diskery!
Best
Rick