[From Rick Marken (970520.1830 PDT)]
Bill Powers (970520.1133 MDT) --
I'd set up a lot of individuals controlling for some mix of
variables, put them in an environment where certain actions
affect those variables, and set the program in motion to see
what happens. I think you'd get what LOOK like social laws and
relationships, but nobody would be controlling for them --
they'd be totally emergent.
I keep forgetting the facility with which we observers read
complexity (such as social laws and even philosophies) into
behavior that involves control of the simplest perceptions
(eg. proximity to others people and things). Watching your
"Gatherings" program is very good therapy; I should do it
every time I feel inclined to wax "deep" about social behavior.
Jeff Vancouver (970520.16:45) --
I have been thinking about what we (you, me, joe blow) mean by
cause. I was thinking about this in the context of the recently
reported finding of the connection between second hand smoke
and heart attacks. The researcher was talking about one of
those conventional studies with random assignment (probably
of rats, for ethical reasons) and mean differences. He noted
that the studied confirmed a causal relationship. This is
common parlance and I think the kind of usage of the word
"cause" that bothers you.
No. It is not this usage of the word "cause" that bothers me.
I am happy to hear people talk about smoking being a cause of
heart attacks; I don't think it is, but it _could_ be.
What bothers me about "cause", when it comes to psychological
research, is the assumption made by most (all?) researchers that
behavior is the end result of a _lineal causal_ process; that
behavior is the last step in a _chain_ of causes and effects that
begins in the environment or the brain and ends with behavior.
In fact, behavior is the control of perception. There is a _big_
difference between a lineal "causal" system and a closed-loop
"control of perception" system. Many of our PCT demonstrations
are aimed at making this difference clear and palpable. Much (most?) of
what Bill Powers has written about PCT has been aimed at
explaining the difference between a causal and a control system.
The great tragedy of the behaivoral sciences is that researchers
have mistakenly concluded that organisms are lineal causal rather
than control systems. This mistake has been perpetuated by the existance
of the "behavioral illusion" -- the fact that the actions
of a control systems _appear_ to be caused by environmental
events -- disturbances to controlled variables.
Once you know that organisms are, at least possibly, control
systems, you simply stop doing research that is aimed at
discovering the causes of their behavior (research that would
be perfectly OK if organisms were, indeed, lineal causal systems);
you start doing research aimed at discoving what variables these
organisms are controlling.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@leonardo.net
http://www.leonardo.net/Marken