[From Fred Nickols (970924.1645 ET)]
Rick Marken (970923.0900)
The October issue of _Discover_ magazine is all about "Behavior".
I bought a copy because I though it might be fun to read through
it to see if there was any trace of an understanding of behavior
as a purposeful process of controlling perceptions relative to
internal references. So far, no luck. But I have learned that the
new, trendy approach to understanding behavior is in terms of
genes (combined with influences from the environment) and evolution.
In the first article I read, the author makes the point that genes
don't determine behaviors; rather they determine _tendencies_ to
behave in certain ways in the presence of environmental events. So
the _new_ view of human nature is that we behave as we do because
our genes determine _tendencies_ to respond in various ways to
environmental stimuli. I'm probably biased, but this doesn't seem
like a huge step beyond S-R psychology to me.
On the one hand, I can see where the view expressed above might have some
appeal in accounting for "instinctive" reactions; on the other hand, I doubt
it does. The scary part is that we'll probably soon be hearing a courtroom
defense claiming that, "My genes made me do it!"
Acts and Results
What is missing from everything I have looked at in the _Discover_
issue so far is any understanding of the fact that when we talk
about "behavior" we are talking about both _actions_ and the
_results_ of those actions; we are talking about both hand
movements (actions) and the signature on the contract (the result).
Here's where non-PCTers who have been mucking around in the areas of
behavior and performance have a problem. A distinction is typically drawn
between an action and the result it produces. In human performance
technology circles, the action is usually labeled "behavior" and the result
of action is labeled an "accomplishment." (See Tom Gilbert's book, Human
Competence.) I assume that the PCTer insistence on having the term behavior
include the action and its outcome owes to the closed-loop view of control.
Do I have this right?
Also missing is the understanding that most consistently produced
results are produced by different actions every time -- and
necessarily so or the results (due to disturbances to those results)
would not repeat. So the same "behavior" (result) is (and must always
be) produced by different behaviors (actions).
Most people I know would say, "Yeah, you're right, but so what?" to the
comment immediately above. I have written dozens of articles and my actions
from article to article have only superficial resemblance to one another.
That said, the general pattern of behavior is fairly consistent: I write a
little, rewrite a lot, go away and come back, write some more and rewrite
even more. Then I get someone else to read and comment and the cycle starts
all over again. Then it's a lot of go away and come back; an extended
period of tinkering. Finally, when I think I'm about finished tinkering, I
send it off to an editor somewhere for consideration.
Control
This kind of "behavior" (variables actions producing consistent
results) can only be accomplished by a system that perceiives the
state of the result (the signature), compares this percpetion to a
reference for what that perception _should be_, and continuously
acts (moves the hand) to keep the discrepency between perception
and reference near zero. The behavior of this system -- the
relationship between acts, results and disturbances to those
results -- is called _control_. This control system generates
neither actions or results; rather, it generates a _perception_
(of the intended result) that meets the specifications provided
by the reference for the perception.
I don't know about you, Rick, but if you looked at my signature, you'd say I
have a pretty loose set of reference conditions. Speaking of signatures,
what about reference conditions that might be embedded in muscles and joints
(e.g., as is the case if I sign my name with my eyes closed). Visual
perceptions are only part of the picture, right?
With this understanding of the natujre of behavior, the authors of
the _Discover_ articles on "Behavior" would realize that, if
anything about behavior is inherited it is reference specifications
for the states of perceptions -- not specific ways of
generating actions. They would also undertsand that the apparent
influence of the environment on responses is not an effect of the
environment at all; it is the control system acting to protect
controlled perceptions from environmental disturbance.
Anyone who's ever toyed with making change in organizations ought to
appreciate the paragraph above.
Extremism
Reading the _Discover_ issue made me realize why a PCT revolution
is such a remote possibility in the near future. The problems with
the discussions of behavior in that issue are fundamental. I see
two ways for control theorists to deal with these problems: 1) try
to critique the papers carefully and try to explain the flaws in
detail or 2) explain the fundamental problem (that they are based
on an incorrect understanding of thenature of behavior itself) and
reject them out of hand, calling for a new start for behavioral
science.The first approach seems like the most reasonable; but it has not
been very effective because when you get into the details you tend
to lose the big picture. This is what is happening in the discussion
with Bruce Abbott; when we get into the details of the problems
with the EAB view of behavior we (and the people listening) tend to
miss the big picture -- which is that events in the environment
don't cause or control behavior (actions or results); rather,
behavior (actions) control environmantal results (as perceived).The second approach focuses on the big picture but it can't help
but come off as extremist. When the big picture is "everything
you are reading about behavior in the psych journals, textbooks
and reputable national science magazines (like _Discover_) is
based on a fundamental misconception about the nature of behavior
and is, thus, wrong or misleading" you can't help sounding like an
extremsist. Nobody wants to imagine that behavioral science has been
built, for the last century, on a basic misconception about behavior.
No one wants to think that nearly all the research done to date is
virtually useless. People want to take a moderate position on issues;
they want to believe that the old psychology can't just be all wrong.
The problem for PCT is that science is not politics; the old
psychology simply is _demonstrably_, fundamentally wrong.I see no solution to this problem. I don't see how either approach
to presenting the PCT view of behavior can "work". I think all we
can do is hope that people of courage and integrity will discover
PCT, be convinced of its merits based on the _evidence_, and start
studying and dealing with other people as what they are; living
control systems.
I don't know what the solution is, either, Rick, but I do know one thing:
PCT won't get very far with most people if PCTers insist on defining terms
that are in common usage in ways that are inconsistent with that common
usage. The case in point, of course, is behavior. Don't misunderstand; I'm
not taking issue with your definition of behavior or your right to redefine
it, I'm simply saying that, as a practical matter, you won't get far seizing
terms that are in common use, redefining them, and then attempting to
communicate using your definition. Nor will you get very far with a
concerted effort to prove everyone else wrong. Even if you're right, so
what? As I understand it, the objective is to gain acceptance for the PCT
point of view. I might be alone in this, but I don't think gaining
acceptance for PCT requires actively discrediting other points of view.
That sounds more like a jihad. Gaining acceptance for PCT means introducing
it in ways that people can understand and make use of it. Frankly, I think
most people do deal with other people as "living control systems." They
might lack the theoretical base offered by PCT, and know next to nothing
about the nature of closed-loop control systems, but they darn well know
about people and how to deal with them; they've been doing it for thousands
of years, and passably well, I might add. More important, if PCT doesn't
lead to a better way of dealing with other people, it's not likely to gain
any acceptance at all because it adds no value; it's just one more in a long
line of theories, none of which have led to much of anything except for an
occasional disaster or two.
Mercy! Let me get down off this soapbox before I fall and hurt myself
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Senior Consultant
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net