Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[David Goldstein (07.01.01.0842)]

Martin, thanks for the interesting article.

Just one comment: While it may be true for roses, it is not true for
applications of factor analyses. It is possible to use factor analysis
on a case study who is asked to sort the same set of items by the same
instruction at different times.

This is the kind of analysis that I used in the following publication
that just came out, which involved assessing changes in the person
during MOL Therapy sessions:

Method Of Levels Therapy:Helping the normal change process within a
person when normal change doesn't seem to be happening by itself.
David M. Goldstein, PhD
This in-depth study demonstrates the value of single-case research, as
well as confirming the value of the particular method that was studied.
'Method of Levels (MOL) Therapy is described and applied to the case of
a woman whose husband died. MOL Therapy is derived from Perceptual
Control Theory. Session to session changes within the woman were
quantified by means of Q Methodology and Personal Construct analyses.
MOL Therapy identifies the important conditions for therapy change to
occur. The case study results were supportive of the ideas of MOL
Therapy.'

It can be seen at:

http://ijhc.org/

David

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:58 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[Martin Taylor 2006.12.31.22.57]

From Phil Runkel on 31 Jan at 17:06 PST

Replying to Rick Marken's of 2006.12.30.1840.

Rick: I agree with what you say about factor analysis. I made the
same point, if more verbose, on pages 50-52 of Casting Nets. Making
any statement about an individual after taking data from a group
requires making very shaky assumptions.

Happy New Year, which it will be for most of you before you see this.

I think you might enjoy the atteched, from the current issue of
American Scientist.

Martin

2

Message
[David Goldstein (2007.01.01.0910)]

Dear Bill and listmates,

If we take a well analyzed task from PCT, say the pursuit tracking task, what does ‘understanding the mechanism’ mean?

How can we study an individual to find out what the parameters mean in the results?

What kinds of variables of task and subject-state change the results of the parameters?

What is going on in different parts of the person’s nervous system as the person does the task as reavealed by functional mri?

And how are we going to do this without using statistics, even for the single case study?

Best wishes to all for 2007,

David

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] ** On Behalf Of** Bill Powers
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:37 AM
To:
CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Bill Powers (2007.01.01.0540 MST)]

Very hard to get the fingers to type 2007. Happy new year to all.

Martin Taylor 2006.12.31.22.57 –

I think you might enjoy the attached, from the current issue of American Scientist.

Thanks. Most interesting. One of the remarkable features of this paper is that it shows how to improve treatments, on the average, without knowing ANYTHING AT ALL about what is wrong with the patient. By examining symptoms, one can determine risk factors for subgroups, and then use the results of clinical trials within subgroups to determine treatments. This gives results that are clearly better, on the average, than using just one measure of past outcomes for everyone.
Phil Runkel has pointed out that subdividing a population has its own risk factor, in that this strategy reduces the numbers within each subgroup and increases the standard deviation of any measure. He calls this “fine slicing.”
There is a spectrum of fine slicing with the whole group at one end and a single individual at the other end. Statistical analysis does no good at all with single individuals – however any judgment about an individual is stated on the basis of group statistics, it inevitably includes terms like “in the long run” or “on the average” or “typically” which refer to the whole population, not one person. The probably of a single event is zero if it doesn’t happen, and 1 if it does happen, and you don’t know which is going to be the case if there is to be only a single event (this patient’s experience of the treatment).

Obviously, the larger the clinical study is, the smaller is the average effect of a treatment that can be shown to be significant. But by the same token, the larger the clinical study needed to achieve significance becomes, the less significant must the measured effect in any given size of subgroup. The Am Sci paper shows that there is a tradeoff, with improvements being achievable when the subgroups are based on estimated risks. But there must be some number of subgroups at which the increasing uncertainty of measurement offsets the gain due to segregating people into a larger number of risk groups. And way over at one end of the spectrum, where the doctor must decide on the treatment of a single individual and the individual must decide whether to allow it, even the improved forecasting does that individual no good at all (except perhaps to make the person feel better about the prognosis, which of course is a population prediction).

My complaint is not that we shouldn’t do studies like these and use statistics to try to improve treatments. When that is all we have, it would be foolish not to do what is possible. My complaint is that until quite recently, that statistical approach to treatment has been essentially all we do have, most particularly at the level of patient treatment as opposed to research. A very large part of the “education” of a general practitioner comes from the salesmen representing drug companies, the “detail men” (If women insist on being included in this dubious group, I will amend the wording, but I have yet to hear a feminist complaining about phrases like “the evil men do.”). And the drug companies, by and large, rely far more on statistics than on science.

I see hints here and there that a new movement is afoot, called (I think) “systems biology.” I’ve been advocating this for years, but most of the money spent on research into cures has been of the old statistical kind, with very little support for trying to understand how the damned thing works. Systems biology, as I understand the hints, is aimed at dealing with all the variables that are simultaneously interacting in a living system, instead of looking for simplistic causal relationships between one variable and a whole complex of symptoms.

The systems approach is what we need to deal with people at the specimen level. It’s what we need in order to say what is wrong with someone who exhibits the symptoms we carelessly label with words like “schizophrenia” or “measles” or “headaches.” It’s what we need to start recognizing that side-effects result from real and important changes in variables in the whole system that are caused by the treatment. You can’t affect just one thing in a system.

We have to get beyond the statistical approach before we can start trying to say what is wrong with a person who exhibits certain symptoms. “Depression” is not a name for a disorder, it’s a name for a set of symptoms that arises from some as yet unknown underlying malfunction. The same holds true for most of the other names we give to maladies. Because putative “sciences of life” have relied so heavily on statistics, what they think they know about the human system is at a terribly superficial level, like the level of the cargo cultists trying to bring prosperity back by cutting crude landing strips through the jungle. Treating symptoms is what we do before we have science. The basic premise of statistics is that the future will (for no reason at all) be like the past, which is no way to get anywhere.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.01.1000)]

David Goldstein (07.01.01.0842)

It is possible to use factor analysis on a case study who is asked to sort the same set of items by the same
instruction at different times.

Absolutely, though to use factor analysis you have to collect a lot of correlations, which means asking one person to make a lot of comparisons. Maybe this is what the Q methodology makes more efficient. But for individual analysis it might be better to use some sort of non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis. This approach requires only ratings of similarity rather than correlations for the matrix of interrelationships between variables (statements, in your case) that are used in the analysis. This scaling approach has been used to derive individual "mental maps" of geographical areas based on subjective estimates of distances between points (like cities) in the region. I can see how such an approach could be used to map changes in a person's perceptual relative to their goal structure.

This is the kind of analysis that I used in the following publication
that just came out, which involved assessing changes in the person
during MOL Therapy sessions:

This sounds good to me! Q methodology does make sense if used in this way. Sorry I misunderstood what you were up to.

Happy New Year!!

Best

Rick

Method Of Levels Therapy:Helping the normal change process within a
person when normal change doesn't seem to be happening by itself.
David M. Goldstein, PhD
This in-depth study demonstrates the value of single-case research, as
well as confirming the value of the particular method that was studied.
'Method of Levels (MOL) Therapy is described and applied to the case of
a woman whose husband died. MOL Therapy is derived from Perceptual
Control Theory. Session to session changes within the woman were
quantified by means of Q Methodology and Personal Construct analyses.
MOL Therapy identifies the important conditions for therapy change to
occur. The case study results were supportive of the ideas of MOL
Therapy.'

It can be seen at:

http://ijhc.org/

David

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:58 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[Martin Taylor 2006.12.31.22.57]

From Phil Runkel on 31 Jan at 17:06 PST

Replying to Rick Marken's of 2006.12.30.1840.

Rick: I agree with what you say about factor analysis. I made the
same point, if more verbose, on pages 50-52 of Casting Nets. Making
any statement about an individual after taking data from a group
requires making very shaky assumptions.

Happy New Year, which it will be for most of you before you see this.

I think you might enjoy the atteched, from the current issue of
American Scientist.

Martin

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

···

-----Original Message-----

4

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.01.1100)]

Bill Powers (2007.01.01.0540 MST) --

Very hard to get the fingers to type 2007. Happy new year to all.

Man, I was jumping the gun; I almost wrote 2007 twice yesterday. I couldn't wait to get past 2006. 2007 just _has_ to be better, now that the Dems have subpoena power. I think they're going to find plenty of impeachable "blow it" jobs.

re: Martin Taylor 2006.12.31.22.57 --

One of the remarkable features of this paper is that it shows how to improve treatments, on the average, without knowing ANYTHING AT ALL about what is wrong with the patient...

Yes. As you note it's just a "fine slicing" approach to "evidence-based" medicine, which was the big thing at RAND when I was there. I could live with that because, at the policy level, you are dealing with groups, not individuals. Some of the evidence-based physicians at RAND did have clinical practices; I presume they just did what the evidence said to do, regardless of the status of the individual case. But at the policy level, where these physicians are recommending policies for dealing with groups of patients, the evidence- based approach makes sense. It gives you the best average result. When I teach statistics and methods classes, I try to make it clear that what they are learning is relevant at the group level but is of no use at all when dealing with individuals (as in clinical practice).

We have to get beyond the statistical approach before we can start trying to say what is wrong with a person who exhibits certain symptoms.

RIght. And one of the big problems in psychology (and medicine, for that matter) is that group level data is still used as the basis for building models of individual behavior. So conventional psychological research is twice cursed: it is based on an open loop model of individual behavior and it uses group data to test this model. And you wonder why we have trouble talking about PCT with conventional psychologists. We might as well be from another planet.

Happy New Year!

Best

Rick

"Depression" is not a name for a disorder, it's a name for a set of symptoms that arises from some as yet unknown underlying malfunction. The same holds true for most of the other names we give to maladies. Because putative "sciences of life" have relied so heavily on statistics, what they think they know about the human system is at a terribly superficial level, like the level of the cargo cultists trying to bring prosperity back by cutting crude landing strips through the jungle. Treating symptoms is what we do before we have science. The basic premise of statistics is that the future will (for no reason at all) be like the past, which is no way to get anywhere.

Best,

Bill P.

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.01.1135)]

David Goldstein (2007.01.01.0910)
�
Dear Bill and listmates,
�
If we take a well analyzed task from PCT, say the pursuit tracking task, what does 'understanding the mechanism' mean?

To me, it means having a model that behaves exactly like as the person does under the same circumstances.

How can we study an individual to find out what the parameters mean in the results?

I'd say that it's by using models. We see how variations in the model parameters affect the behavior of the model and, assuming the model behaves just like the person, infer that variations in corresponding parameters in the person would affect the person's behavior in the same ay.

What kinds of variables of task and subject-state change the results of the parameters?

I don't think that can be answered without knowing what model is assumed.

What is going on in different parts of the person's nervous system as the person does the task as reavealed by functional mri?

I think you would have to do research to find out.

And how are we going to do this without using statistics, even for the single case study?

I think you will always have to use measures that are basically descriptive statistics. The data we collect is really only a sample of behavior and the relationships we measure are, therefore, sample statistics. All measurements in science are like this. There is also error in measurement that affects the accuracy of your sample findings. But when the data are consistent enough -- as they are in the physical sciences and in PCT research -- you don't really need to use inferential statistical methods. You can just evaluate the results in terms of how well they fit are fit by your model. So if the deviation of observed data from model behaivor is less than, say, 3% of the total variation in the data then you're probably on the right track.

Best wishes to all for 2007,
David

Same to you,boobalah!

Best

Rick

�

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:37 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Bill Powers (2007.01.01.0540 MST)]

Very hard to get the fingers to type 2007. Happy new year to all.

Martin Taylor 2006.12.31.22.57 --

I think you might enjoy the attached, from the current issue of American Scientist.

Thanks. Most interesting. One of the remarkable features of this paper is that it shows how to improve treatments, on the average, without knowing ANYTHING AT ALL about what is wrong with the patient. By examining symptoms, one can determine risk factors for subgroups, and then use the results of clinical trials within subgroups to determine treatments. This gives results that are clearly better, on the average, than using just one measure of past outcomes for everyone.

Phil Runkel has pointed out that subdividing a population has its own risk factor, in that this strategy reduces the numbers within each subgroup and increases the standard deviation of any measure. He calls this "fine slicing."

There is a spectrum of fine slicing with the whole group at one end and a single individual at the other end. Statistical analysis does no good at all with single individuals -- however any judgment about an individual is stated on the basis of group statistics, it inevitably includes terms like "in the long run" or "on the average" or "typically" which refer to the whole population, not one person. The probably of a single event is zero if it doesn't happen, and 1 if it does happen, and you don't know which is going to be the case if there is to be only a single event (this patient's experience of the treatment).

Obviously, the larger the clinical study is, the smaller is the average effect of a treatment that can be shown to be significant. But by the same token, the larger the clinical study needed to achieve significance becomes, the less significant must the measured effect in any given size of subgroup. The Am Sci paper shows that there is a tradeoff, with improvements being achievable when the subgroups are based on estimated risks. But there must be some number of subgroups at which the increasing uncertainty of measurement offsets the gain due to segregating people into a larger number of risk groups. And way over at one end of the spectrum, where the doctor must decide on the treatment of a single individual and the individual must decide whether to allow it, even the improved forecasting does that individual no good at all (except perhaps to make the person feel better about the prognosis, which of course is a population prediction).

My complaint is not that we shouldn't do studies like these and use statistics to try to improve treatments. When that is all we have, it would be foolish not to do what is possible. My complaint is that until quite recently, that statistical approach to treatment has been essentially all we do have, most particularly at the level of patient treatment as opposed to research. A very large part of the "education" of a general practitioner comes from the salesmen representing drug companies, the "detail men" (If women insist on being included in this dubious group, I will amend the wording, but I have yet to hear a feminist complaining about phrases like "the evil men do."). And the drug companies, by and large, rely far more on statistics than on science.

I see hints here and there that a new movement is afoot, called (I think) "systems biology." I've been advocating this for years, but most of the money spent on research into cures has been of the old statistical kind, with very little support for trying to understand how the damned thing works. Systems biology, as I understand the hints, is aimed at dealing with all the variables that are simultaneously interacting in a living system, instead of looking for simplistic causal relationships between one variable and a whole complex of symptoms.

The systems approach is what we need to deal with people at the specimen level. It's what we need in order to say what is wrong with someone who exhibits the symptoms we carelessly label with words like "schizophrenia" or "measles" or "headaches." It's what we need to start recognizing that side-effects result from real and important changes in variables in the whole system that are caused by the treatment. You can't affect just one thing in a system.

We have to get beyond the statistical approach before we can start trying to say what is wrong with a person who exhibits certain symptoms. "Depression" is not a name for a disorder, it's a name for a set of symptoms that arises from some as yet unknown underlying malfunction. The same holds true for most of the other names we give to maladies. Because putative "sciences of life" have relied so heavily on statistics, what they think they know about the human system is at a terribly superficial level, like the level of the cargo cultists trying to bring prosperity back by cutting crude landing strips through the jungle. Treating symptoms is what we do before we have science. The basic premise of statistics is that the future will (for no reason at all) be like the past, which is no way to get anywhere.

Best,

Bill P.
�

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

···

-----Original Message-----

6

This is Phil Runkiel thanking Martin Taylor for sending along the article by the physicians in the Amer. Sci'ist. Glad they published it. --Phil R.

7

Phil Runkel replying to David Goldstein and Rick Marken about factor analysis.

I agree with both of you that factor analysis (of some sort) can be used profitably with data taken from one individual over various times. I, too, recommend considering non-metric scaling. A catalog can be found in A Theory of Data by Clyde Coombs, 1964. Also a couple of chapters in Research on Human Behavior by Runkel and McGrath, 1972. Coombs gives methods of data collection that reduce the dependence between times of presenting data.

Even with sophisticated methods, however, one always faces the weaknesses characteristic of all testing.

8

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I could suggest for students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The students will mainly be Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a couple of Chemistry majors, for example. So there might be some students who have some mathematical or programming skills that could be useful for building PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll suggest. Of course, another project is the usual research paper on some topic related to PCT. But it would really be nice if I could get some of them to develop a hands on projects that might be useful to those of us who are teaching PCT. Any ideas?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

9

[From David Goldstein (2006.12.27.0448)]

Project 1:
Some drivers tailgate and some do not, I think.
What are each controlling?
A Q-Methodology study, which incorporates MOL-type interviews to obtain
the Q-items, could be done to try to identify different views on the
subject of tailgating.

Project 2:
Then the people who most strongly represent each view could be put into
a driving similation situation.
from the simulation, we might see if people with different views of
tailgating perform differently in the driving simulation.

Project 3:
If the driving simulation is one that you create Rick with Java, you may
be able to do some tests of possible controlled variables based on what
the Q-Methodology study shows.

David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I could suggest for
students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The students will mainly be
Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a couple of Chemistry
majors, for example. So there might be some students who have some
mathematical or programming skills that could be useful for building
PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll suggest. Of course, another
project is the usual research paper on some topic related to PCT. But
it would really be nice if I could get some of them to develop a hands
on projects that might be useful to those of us who are teaching PCT.
Any ideas?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

10

[From Fred Nickols (2006.12.28.0959 EST)]

Keying off David's suggestion about drivers who do and don't tailgate, how
about one on students who do and don't cheat? There are lots of studies out
there about student cheating but, so far as I know, not one from a PCT
perspective. I think the matter of what cheaters and non-cheaters are
controlling for might be interesting. Presumably, David's MOL methodology
could be employed but that's not for me to say.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of D Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:04 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From David Goldstein (2006.12.27.0448)]

Project 1:
Some drivers tailgate and some do not, I think.
What are each controlling?
A Q-Methodology study, which incorporates MOL-type interviews to obtain
the Q-items, could be done to try to identify different views on the
subject of tailgating.

Project 2:
Then the people who most strongly represent each view could be put into
a driving similation situation.
From the simulation, we might see if people with different views of
tailgating perform differently in the driving simulation.

Project 3:
If the driving simulation is one that you create Rick with Java, you may
be able to do some tests of possible controlled variables based on what
the Q-Methodology study shows.

David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I could suggest for
students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The students will mainly be
Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a couple of Chemistry
majors, for example. So there might be some students who have some
mathematical or programming skills that could be useful for building
PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll suggest. Of course, another
project is the usual research paper on some topic related to PCT. But
it would really be nice if I could get some of them to develop a hands
on projects that might be useful to those of us who are teaching PCT.
Any ideas?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

11

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.12.28.0900 CST)]

Yes, this sounds like a good way to proceed, to disturb presumed controlled
variables. I did it this way too in my work.

But if the interviewer used "tailgating" wouldn't that skew the results?
Because that is a word that would identify the behavior that is bad, which the
perps of it might not agree is so. That is, are you saying that you use a
variety of vocabulary in your items allowing the subject to latch onto
words/phrases like: tailgating (of course), time-is-money, late, other-drivers-
slow, special permission, etc.? And then ranking them, would a top-down ranking
necessarily obtain the behaviors or just the vocab item? Is it possible that
images on q-items rather than words would not be better? Like images of seeing
the emblem on a car trunk vs. seeing a stretch of road between the "driver" and
car ahead, how much road? Other cars in adjacent lanes? Is tailgating a verbal
thing, therefore, or is it a psychomotor "gamer" perception related to winning,
occupying space, etc.?

This got my interest, Rick and David, thanks!

--Bry

···

[David Goldstein (2006.12.27.0448)]

Project 1:
Some drivers tailgate and some do not, I think.
What are each controlling?
A Q-Methodology study, which incorporates MOL-type interviews to obtain
the Q-items, could be done to try to identify different views on the
subject of tailgating.

Project 2:
Then the people who most strongly represent each view could be put into
a driving similation situation.
From the simulation, we might see if people with different views of
tailgating perform differently in the driving simulation.

Project 3:
If the driving simulation is one that you create Rick with Java, you may
be able to do some tests of possible controlled variables based on what
the Q-Methodology study shows.

David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I could suggest for
students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The students will mainly be
Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a couple of Chemistry
majors, for example. So there might be some students who have some
mathematical or programming skills that could be useful for building
PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll suggest. Of course, another
project is the usual research paper on some topic related to PCT. But
it would really be nice if I could get some of them to develop a hands
on projects that might be useful to those of us who are teaching PCT.
Any ideas?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

12

[From Dick Robertson, 2006.12.28.0948CDT]

Here are a couple that I thought of.

1. How about redoing My & David's experiment on
control of the self-image. Only this time take it to
the next step. After you get students resisting what
they consider incorrect attributions to their
self-image, interview them on the question of how
they perceived the attributions. I would bet those
who have begun to learn their PCt would describe
the process quite differently from those who come
from the old tradition.

2. With any enthusiastic PCT converts--ask them how
would they study their own controlling of course
grades? You might still come up with something very
interesting there. It has material relevance for
them, I would think; and I wonder if it might not
have "clinical" relevance also, in the sense
that--if a person begins to analyse what he/she
actually is controlling in working for course
grades, they might enlighten themselves, discovering
variables they weren't aware of controlling.

Best,

Dick R

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:32 pm
Subject: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I

could suggest

for
students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The

students will mainly be

Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a

couple of Chemistry

majors, for example. So there might be some

students who have some

mathematical or programming skills that could be

useful for

building
PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll

suggest. Of course,

another
project is the usual research paper on some topic

related to PCT.

But
it would really be nice if I could get some of

them to develop a

hands
on projects that might be useful to those of us

who are teaching

PCT.
Any ideas?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

13

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.28.0950)]

Thanks for the suggestions David, Fred, Bryan and Dick. This helps.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

14

[David Goldstein (2006.12.29.0440)]

Perhaps you are right about the term 'tailgating.' Perhaps the more
general topic should be 'driving experiences'.
Yes, pictures have been used in Q Methodology studies. But I am thinking
that an MOL-type interview with a person about his/her experience of
driving would reveal more. The items in the Q-set selected would come
from interviewing a number of people, who might have different
experiences with driving, for example: a student, a truckdriver, a
cabdriver, a pizza delivery guy, a mother with young children, a bus
driver, a person who doesn't drive himself/herself, an older adult, a
person who has received a DUI, a policeperson, a person who has been in
accidents, an environmentalist.

Bill Powers has created a computer run program to make the data
collection much easier. It is called PC-Sort. Once the Q-set is obtained
from the MOL-type interviews, this program could be used with a group of
students. Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition
of instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my
experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor
analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar
views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could be
studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.

This would be project 1.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bryan Thalhammer
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:08 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.12.28.0900 CST)]

Yes, this sounds like a good way to proceed, to disturb presumed
controlled variables. I did it this way too in my work.

But if the interviewer used "tailgating" wouldn't that skew the results?
Because that is a word that would identify the behavior that is bad,
which the perps of it might not agree is so. That is, are you saying
that you use a variety of vocabulary in your items allowing the subject
to latch onto words/phrases like: tailgating (of course), time-is-money,
late, other-drivers- slow, special permission, etc.? And then ranking
them, would a top-down ranking necessarily obtain the behaviors or just
the vocab item? Is it possible that images on q-items rather than words
would not be better? Like images of seeing the emblem on a car trunk vs.
seeing a stretch of road between the "driver" and car ahead, how much
road? Other cars in adjacent lanes? Is tailgating a verbal thing,
therefore, or is it a psychomotor "gamer" perception related to winning,
occupying space, etc.?

This got my interest, Rick and David, thanks!

--Bry

[David Goldstein (2006.12.27.0448)]

Project 1:
Some drivers tailgate and some do not, I think.
What are each controlling?
A Q-Methodology study, which incorporates MOL-type interviews to
obtain the Q-items, could be done to try to identify different views
on the subject of tailgating.

Project 2:
Then the people who most strongly represent each view could be put
into a driving similation situation. From the simulation, we might see

if people with different views of tailgating perform differently in
the driving simulation.

Project 3:
If the driving simulation is one that you create Rick with Java, you
may be able to do some tests of possible controlled variables based on

what the Q-Methodology study shows.

David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.27.2130)]

I'd appreciate any suggestions for projects that I could suggest for
students in my PCT seminar this Winter. The students will mainly be
Freshmen but not all are Psych majors; I saw a couple of Chemistry
majors, for example. So there might be some students who have some
mathematical or programming skills that could be useful for building
PCT demos. That's one kind of project I'll suggest. Of course, another

project is the usual research paper on some topic related to PCT. But
it would really be nice if I could get some of them to develop a hands

on projects that might be useful to those of us who are teaching PCT.
Any ideas?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

15

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.29.0945)]

David Goldstein (2006.12.29.0440)--

Bill Powers has created a computer run program to make the data
collection much easier. It is called PC-Sort. Once the Q-set is obtained
from the MOL-type interviews, this program could be used with a group of
students. Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition
of instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my
experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor
analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar
views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could be
studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.

This would be project 1.

Not in my class. But this project would be perfect for the undergraduate Personality or Motivation course.

In my class I want students to learn how to determine whether an individual controls a perception (such as distance to the car in front of them) and, if so, how their reference for that perception changes as a function of higher level goals. I hope to help students understand that how a person is categorized on some dimension (such as their attitude regarding tailgating) has no force on how they control (such as the variables involved in driving).

Speaking from personal experience, I usually keep a nice distance from the car in front, proportional to speed: the faster I'm going, the farther I stay behind the person in front. But when I am on surface streets and in a rush and I find myself behind some slow moving clod, I will get as close behind as I can get and -- if the person is obviously old and infirm or has a pro-Bush bumper sticker-- honk and flash my lights;-) Obviously, there are some higher level goals in there that have a lot to do with where I set my reference for how closely I follow in any particular situation.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

16

[From Bill Powers (2006.12.29.1445 MST)]

Rick Marken (2006.12.29.1050) --

And I don't really honk and flash my lights. But, yes, I have tailgated slow pokes -- and I hate myself for it;-)

Oh, no you don't! I've used that trick often enough to know it when I see it. If I hate myself first, then you don't have to hate me (since it's already being done) and I can go on doing whatever it is I'm hating myself for. It's good PCT strategy.

Best,

Bill P.

17

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1700)]

David Goldstein (2006.12.30.1004)

Rick,

If we were doing a Q-Methodology study, your statements might make it into the Q-set. Namely,

"I usually keep a nice distance from the car in front, proportional to speed: the faster I'm going, the farther I stay behind the person in front. "

"When I am on surface streets and in a rush and I find myself behind some slow moving clod, I will get as close behind as I can get and ... honk and flash my lights."

I don't understand how you can say that:

"I hope to help students understand that how a person is categorized on some dimension (such as their attitude regarding tailgating) has no force on how they control (such as the variables involved in driving)."

Actually, I said it in response to this from you:

Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition of instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could be studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.

So even if my statements made it into the Q-set, the result of the Q-sort, according to what you say here, would be a set of factors, on each of which I would "stand" somewhere because of where my statements were ranked. The factors are derived (as you note) from the correlations between the Q-sorts for a group of people. So the factors represent something like "traits". One of those factors might be called "cautiousness" because statements like my first one above ("I usually keep a nice distance...") load high on it. So you might conclude from the factor analysis result that I have a high level of "cautiousness". Another factor might be called "punitiveness" because it loads high on questions like the second ("... honk and flash my lights"). So I might also end up having a high level of "punitiveness". So the result of the Q-sort will be that I have been categorized as high in "punitiveness" and "cautiousness". It looks to me like the Q-sort technique is (like all psychometric techniques) an attempt to analyze people in terms of personality "traits" based on the correlations between their responses to tests (like the Q-sort). This is certainly fun to do but I, personally, don't care for it as an approach to the scientific study of closed loop systems.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

18

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1720)]

Bruce Nevin (2006.12.30 17:51 EST)--

A number of goals involve perceived motion relative to other cars, as
distinct from relative to stationary landmarks:

- Going with the flow.
- Going with flow in the fastest-moving lane.
- "Progress in the journey" perceived as forward motion relative to
other cars.
- Another driver cutting in front of you as something to avoid or
prevent.

Other goals:
- Not annoying other drivers.
- Always being in the faster-moving lane
- Avoiding accidents (as my grandfather used to say, 99% are caused by
the other guy)

Drivers may control more than one of these goals at once. Many pairs of
these goals conflict, not always in immediately obvious ways.

A useful student exercise could be just to tease out these variables.

That sounds interesting but, frankly, I don't know what I would be asking them to do or how I would evaluate whether they had done it correctly. How do you tease out variables? How do you know whether or not the variables have been teased out correctly?

Best

Rick

···

----

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

19

David Goldstein (2006.12.30.2032)

Rick,

You are not understanding the results of a Q-Methodology study involving
a group of people.
The different factors represent different groups of people. Each person
is assigned to one group.
The Q-sort for each factor goes from statements which are most like the
persons in the group to statements which are most unlike the persons in
the group.
By examining the rank order of items in each factor, one might obtain a
suggestion for what variables of driving experience a person in a group
was controlling.
People in different factors would have different rank orders of items
and might be controlling for different variables of experience.

You should really understand something before rejecting it.

The statements that Bruce Nevin had in his email could result in some
other statements about what experiences people are controlling when they
are driving.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1700)]

David Goldstein (2006.12.30.1004)

Rick,

If we were doing a Q-Methodology study, your statements might make it
into the Q-set. Namely,

"I usually keep a nice distance from the car in front, proportional
to speed: the faster I'm going, the farther I stay behind the person
in front. "

"When I am on surface streets and in a rush and I find myself behind
some slow moving clod, I will get as close behind as I can get and ...

honk and flash my lights."

I don't understand how you can say that:

"I hope to help students understand that how a person is categorized
on some dimension (such as their attitude regarding tailgating) has
no force on how they control (such as the variables involved in
driving)."

Actually, I said it in response to this from you:

Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition of
instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my
experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor
analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar
views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could be

studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.

So even if my statements made it into the Q-set, the result of the
Q-sort, according to what you say here, would be a set of factors, on
each of which I would "stand" somewhere because of where my statements
were ranked. The factors are derived (as you note) from the
correlations between the Q-sorts for a group of people. So the factors
represent something like "traits". One of those factors might be called
"cautiousness" because statements like my first one above ("I usually
keep a nice distance...") load high on it. So you might conclude from
the factor analysis result that I have a high level of "cautiousness".
Another factor might be called "punitiveness" because it loads high on
questions like the second ("... honk and flash my lights"). So I might
also end up having a high level of "punitiveness". So the result of
the Q-sort will be that I have been categorized as high in
"punitiveness" and "cautiousness". It looks to me like the Q-sort
technique is (like all psychometric techniques) an attempt to analyze
people in terms of personality "traits" based on the correlations
between their responses to tests (like the Q-sort). This is certainly
fun to do but I, personally, don't care for it as an approach to the
scientific study of closed loop systems.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

20

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1840)]

David Goldstein (2006.12.30.2032)

Rick,

You are not understanding the results of a Q-Methodology study involving a group of people. The different factors represent different groups of people. Each person is assigned to one group. The Q-sort for each factor goes from statements which are most like the persons in the group to statements which are most unlike the persons in
the group. By examining the rank order of items in each factor, one might obtain a suggestion for what variables of driving experience a person in a group was controlling. People in different factors would have different rank orders of items and might be controlling for different variables of experience.

You should really understand something before rejecting it.

I agree. But I don't think I un-understood it all that much;-) You say a factor represents a group of people. That's a different notion of factor than what I am familiar with but let's go with it. So there are "factor A" people and "factor B" people and so on. You go on to say that the "Q-sort for each factor goes from statements which are most like the persons in the group to statements which are most unlike the persons in the group". So this sounds like, for all "factor A" people, there is an ordering of statements that are most like to least like "factor A" people. And so on for "factor B" people, etc. So "keeping your distance from the car in front" might be a statement most like "factor A" people and "flashing you lights at slow drivers" might be a statement least like "factor A" people. Then you say "By examining the rank order of items in each factor, one might obtain a suggestion for what variables of driving experience a person in a group was controlling". This seems to mean that, if I'm a "factor A" person, then I probably control for "keeping my distance from the car in front" because that statement is highly ranked for "factor A" people.

This seems to me to be exactly what I thought it was, except that what I call "trait" is what you call "factor". You are inferring what variable(s) I control from a trait you think I have: the trait of being a "factor A" person.

It seems to me like this approach is like going around Hogan's barn to get people to say what they think they control for. Hogan's barn, in this case, is the Q-sort procedure., which seems like an unnecessarily complicated way to ask a person "what are your goals when you drive?" It also seems to be unnecessarily invalid, since you are coming to conclusions about individuals based on group membership (their being in a particular "factor"). That is, you are concluding that a goal of mine is "keeping my distance from the car in front" because I'm a "factor A" person

And finally, even if everything about this procedure weren't as overly complex and invalid as it looks, it doesn't seem to provide much more than _hypotheses_ about the variables a person controls when driving. Why should I put any weight on verbal descriptions of what a person _thinks_ they control? If you asked a fielder what he's controlling when he catches a fly ball I think the last thing you would hear is "vertical optical velocity", which is one of the variables that fielders almost certainly do control. If you asked George Bush what he's controlling for with the "war on terror" I think the last thing you would hear is "income for the military industrial complex", which I would bet is at least one goal that has produced this tragic and costly canard.

Asking people about what they are controlling for may be a good source of hypotheses about controlled variables. But, ultimately, the only way to determine what perceptions people are actually controlling is to use some version of the test for controlled variables.

The statements that Bruce Nevin had in his email could result in some
other statements about what experiences people are controlling when they
are driving.

You and Bruce seem to put a lot more faith in what people say than I do.

Best

Rick

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT

[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1700)]

David Goldstein (2006.12.30.1004)

Rick,

If we were doing a Q-Methodology study, your statements might make it
into the Q-set. Namely,

"I usually keep a nice distance from the car in front, proportional
to speed: the faster I'm going, the farther I stay behind the person
in front. "

"When I am on surface streets and in a rush and I find myself behind
some slow moving clod, I will get as close behind as I can get and ...

honk and flash my lights."

I don't understand how you can say that:

"I hope to help students understand that how a person is categorized
on some dimension (such as their attitude regarding tailgating) has
no force on how they control (such as the variables involved in
driving)."

Actually, I said it in response to this from you:

Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition of
instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my
experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor
analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar
views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could be

studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.

So even if my statements made it into the Q-set, the result of the
Q-sort, according to what you say here, would be a set of factors, on
each of which I would "stand" somewhere because of where my statements
were ranked. The factors are derived (as you note) from the
correlations between the Q-sorts for a group of people. So the factors
represent something like "traits". One of those factors might be called
"cautiousness" because statements like my first one above ("I usually
keep a nice distance...") load high on it. So you might conclude from
the factor analysis result that I have a high level of "cautiousness".
Another factor might be called "punitiveness" because it loads high on
questions like the second ("... honk and flash my lights"). So I might
also end up having a high level of "punitiveness". So the result of
the Q-sort will be that I have been categorized as high in
"punitiveness" and "cautiousness". It looks to me like the Q-sort
technique is (like all psychometric techniques) an attempt to analyze
people in terms of personality "traits" based on the correlations
between their responses to tests (like the Q-sort). This is certainly
fun to do but I, personally, don't care for it as an approach to the
scientific study of closed loop systems.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

···

-----Original Message-----