Saying it like it is

[From Rick Marken (930322.1100)]

Mary Powers --

Ken Hacker: I think you've expressed the
Carver/Scheier/Karoly/etc/etc version of control theory pretty
clearly. This is how to talk about control theory without having
to change your mind about traditional psychology.

Ascribing "ability" to a message and "stimulating" [to] feedback are
precisely the brick walls PCT is up against. All the evoking is
in the control system, not the message, which is why the
message's ability seems to vary. Feedback is a property of the
system, it does not get stimulated or turned on (or off) by an
outside agency.

Mary, Oh Mary, Why don't you post more often? In a few
graceful words you have explained the whole point of this
"information about the disturbance" series clearly and
precisely. I only disagree with you about one thing --
what we run into with the Karolyans is not a brick wall,
it's an anti-matter force field.

The difference between feedback and
input is fudged over in the self-regulation literature. It is a
consequence of using control theory metaphorically rather than
rigorously. I'm afraid most psychologists do not know the
difference, having never before encountered a real model.

Again, right on target. But I'm sure glad you said it instead
of me.


Rick (ready to let anyone else take the heat for saying it like
it is)