[Martin Taylor 2010.04.20.14.52]
[From Bill Powers (2010.04.19.1529 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2010.04.19.1120) –
RM: A good example is the Bourbon and
Powers research described in their “Models and their worlds” paper (I
think it’s on the net somewhere but I couldn’t
find it).
Tom and I actually tried to publish this paper in 1992; we submitted it
to “Theory and Psychology” and it was rejected. My answer to the
editor, Stam, after the rejection, is attached, too. As you can see, I
was boiling with anger at the stupid reviewers.
There’s nothing special about PCT in this. All reviewers are, by
definition, stupid (unless they praise your paper and say it is worthy
of an award, in which case they are obviously of prime intelligence).
Your letter reads very much as I have felt after receiving reviewers’
comments on quite a few of my papers. For example, when Doug Creelman
and I submitted our first paper on the PEST psychophysical technique to
Science, it was rejected because of two unfavourable reviews, one of
which said it was too complicated for any ordinary psychophysicist to
understand, while the other said it was so simple that any ordinary
psychophysicist would obviously reinvent it for the occasion. On
another occasion, one of the reviewers of the first Layered Protocol
Theory paper (which was invited by the Editor who knew the work, and
sent for review only pro forma) said that not only would it be
a disgrace for the journal to publish it, but it was a disgrace that
the Editor had even considered it worthy of being sent out for review.
He made no further comment. The Editor published it unaltered, but that
doesn’t always happen.
Reviewers are strange beasts, as I can aver from having often been one.
They are volunteers, and on occasion they may take an a priori
dislike to the theme or content of the paper without saying why (like
the one who said my first LPT paper would disgrace the journal). Like
you, I always asked for my review to be signed unless the author seemed
to be a student, junior, or to have problems with English. I figured
people in those classes would not care to joust with a reviewer of some
reputation, though they might with an anonymous reviewer, whereas more
senior and confident authors would be happy to fire back at me.
More seriously, as I have said many times on this mailing list: if
you don’t understand me, the fault is mine. That the “you” is a
reviewer does not change the proposition.
Anyway, I would not take the reviewers’ comments and your reaction to
them as saying anything special about PCT in the wider world.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.20.1815)]
Martin Taylor (2010.04.20.14.52) --
Bill Powers (2010.04.19.1529 MDT)
Tom and I actually tried to publish this paper in 1992; we submitted it to
"Theory and Psychology" and it was rejected. My answer to the editor, Stam,
after the rejection, is attached, too. As you can see, I was boiling with
anger at the stupid reviewers.
There's nothing special about PCT in this. All reviewers are, by definition,
stupid (unless they praise your paper and say it is worthy of an award, in
which case they are obviously of prime intelligence).
I kind of agree with this. But having had the experience of publishing
both conventional and PCT-based papers I perceive a real difference in
the way they are reviewed. This shows up in the reviews that try to
make substantive points, not the ones that just say nasty things.
I have seen very few substantive reviews -- negative or positive -- of
my conventional papers where the reviewer didn't understand the main
points of the paper. But I see this all the time in substantive
reviews -- both negative _and_ positive -- of my PCT papers. Indeed, I
don't think I have ever had a paper _accepted_ for publication where I
thought any of the reviewers (or the decision editor) really
understood what the paper was about. This, of course, is my subjective
evaluation of the reviews.
But there are tell tale signs of non-understanding that can be
considered somewhat objective. For example, I have had papers accepted
where both the positive reviewers and decision editor referred to
"controlled variables" as "control variables". Sure, the difference is
just in the "ed" ending, but when this substitution is used
consistently in a review or decision letter it suggests to me, anyway,
that the reviewer does not understand PCT, which, of course, says that
environmental variables (perceptual functions thereof) are
_controlled_ by control systems; these variables don't _control_ the
system.
There are other examples of misunderstanding but the
"control"--"controlled" replacement is the simplest and clearest. I
really don't think I have ever read a substantive review of one of my
PCT papers -- positive or negative -- where I thought that the
reviewer actually "got it". Of course, if any reviewer actually did
get it, then he or she would have some serious rethinking of their
life work to do. And who needs that?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2010.04.21.0730 MDT)]
From Rick Marken (2010.04.20.1815)
RM: I have seen very few
substantive reviews – negative or positive – of
my conventional papers where the reviewer didn’t understand the main
points of the paper. But I see this all the time in substantive
reviews – both negative and positive – of my PCT papers. Indeed,
I
don’t think I have ever had a paper accepted for publication where
I
thought any of the reviewers (or the decision editor) really
understood what the paper was about. This, of course, is my
subjective
evaluation of the reviews.
But there are tell tale signs of
non-understanding that can be
considered somewhat objective. For example, I have had papers
accepted
where both the positive reviewers and decision editor referred to
“controlled variables” as “control
variables”.
BP: I have the same impression. The “control variable” error is
a signal that the reviewer has at least seen adn perhaps studied the
conventional plan-and-execute version of control theory or the
“modern control theory” version, because in those versions the
control variable is the output of the system that gets computed – the
variable that does the controlling of the output, the external
“plant” or the environment.
I have had articles accepted in which the editor referred to PCT as
“control of behavior” theory. And one favorable citation of
B:CP listed it as “Perception: the control of behavior.” I
sometimes wish I hadn’t chosen a subtly ambiguous title and had titled it
“Behavior controls perception.” Why the heck couldn’t those
early control engineers have realized that their new devices were
controlling their own inputs, not their outputs? Calling the controlled
variable the output actually contradicts the usual engineering usage of
output, and using input for the reference signal leaves no word to use
for the actual input to the sensor – which has become the output of the
control system. A horrible mess caused by engineering students being
allowed to graduate without learning to use their native language as well
as they could use a slide-rule.
Clark McPhail solves this problem by calling PCT “Perception control
theory,” which removes the ambiguity.
I’ve always admired verbal play in which the writer deliberately phrases
something so you automatically assume a stereotyped interpretation, and
then
as the story unfolds it makes you realize you picked the wrong one and
that it was a stereotype. As a device for humor or education, I
found that this approach usually falls flat outside science fiction. I
wish I had understood that sooner.
Best,
Bill P.
···
Sure, the difference
is
just in the “ed” ending, but when this substitution is
used
consistently in a review or decision letter it suggests to me,
anyway,
that the reviewer does not understand PCT, which, of course, says
that
environmental variables (perceptual functions thereof) are
controlled by control systems; these variables don’t control the
system.
There are other examples of misunderstanding but the
“control”–“controlled” replacement is the simplest
and clearest. I
really don’t think I have ever read a substantive review of one of
my
PCT papers – positive or negative – where I thought that the
reviewer actually “got it”. Of course, if any reviewer actually
did
get it, then he or she would have some serious rethinking of their
life work to do. And who needs that?
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Dick Robertson,4.22.10.1001CDT]
This issue of reviewers, who obviously did not understand control theory (never mind PCT particularly) reviewing PCT submissions, has come up over and over through the years. Is there no remedy? For example, have there ever been petitions to SCIENCE (for example) to have an impartial review by scientists outside the field review a set of reviews for the question of whether they were reasonable? Wouldn’t a panel of physicists (let’s say) be more likely to have both an understanding of control and an impartial view of “proof” in experimentation? Has it ever been tried, or is the whole idea impractical?
Best,
Dick R
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: Reviewers (was Is PCT falsifiable (was Why we do that))
RM: I don’t think I have ever had a [PCT] paper accepted for publication where I thought any of the reviewers (or the decision editor) really understood what the paper was about.
[From Dick Robertson,04.21.10.1012CDT]
[From Bill Powers (2010.04.21.0730 MDT)]
From Rick Marken (2010.04.20.1815)
But there are tell tale signs of non-understanding that can bew.mindreadings.com> BP:
I’ve always admired verbal play in which the writer deliberately phrases something so you automatically assume a stereotyped interpretation, and then as the story unfolds it makes you realize you picked the wrong one and that it was a stereotype. As a device for humor or education, I found that this approach usually falls flat outside science fiction. I wish I had understood that sooner.
Bill, don’t you remember the many ironic articles Mike Royko published in the old Daily News where a flood of letters to the editor would say “right on?”
Best,
Dick R.
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.21.0910)]
Dick Robertson (4.22.10.1001CDT)--
This issue of reviewers, who obviously did not understand control theory
(never mind PCT particularly) reviewing PCT submissions, has come up over
and over through the years. Is there no remedy?
I don't think so. The only people who can properly review a PCT
submission are people like you, who understand PCT, and there are
precious few of you, and even fewer (zero?) who would be picked by an
editor to review one of our papers. So for the foreseeable future I
think our only hope, in terms of getting papers accepted, is to hope
that a reviewer will like it for the wrong reasons and recommend
acceptance (which is what has happened every time with my published
papers). When a conventional psychologist who is positively disposed
to PCT starts to get a glimmer of what its about they can become very
hostile (as we have seen happen many times on the Net).
Sorry to be so pessimistic but for some reason I find some solace in it.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com