[from Jeff Vancouver 980306.1515 EST]
[From Bill Powers (980306.1146 MST)]
Your list of categories is interesting, but doesn't answer my question.
What ARE the "fundamentals" the non-PCT psychologists assume? Presumably
they must have some sort of picture of how behavior works. Can you say what
it is?
Bill, if we put these two posts together we get an interesting idea.
[From Bill Powers (980306.1150 MST)]
Most basic psychologists have stopped looking for responses to stimuli.
I disagree. They've just changed their terminology. When you explore how
certain words can generate a feeling of being insulted, you're still
talking about responses to stimuli, even if you don't use the words
"response" or "stimulus."
The behavioral illusion might be that you infer that that is what they are
doing from their behavior. Rick is convinced that is what I am
controlling. I have not believed in stimulus-response since before high
school. Think about that for awhile.
But maybe you have believed in antecedents and consequents, or in
independent variables and dependent variables, or in conditions that
influence behavioral tendencies, or in circumstances that set the occasion
for certain behaviors. All these are just different ways of talking about
how environmental conditions or events cause behaviors, perhaps with
feelings "mediating" the effects. You don't have to say "stimulus and
response" to convey the same underlying model that is behind S-R theory.
You are asking what their fundamentals are, but you already think you know
the answer: S-R. I tell you that most do not have fundamentals and you say
"nevermind that what are they?"
I understand that it is hard to believe they do not have fundamentals, but
for many it is like asking the chemist for the fundamentals of physics.
They have a "working" knowledge, but it may be filled with gaps large
enough for physicists to fall to their death.
Certainly it is true that some (even many) believe S-R is at least one of
the fundamentals of psychology, but most basic researchers would say "if I
knew the fundamentals I would be famous."
ME:
The kinds of statements Rick makes to me.
That would be trying to control the _cause_ of the disturbance. Assume that
there's nothing you can do to change what Rick says. Instead, look for an
_effect_ of what Rick says on something that is variable. What would it
mean if you or somebody else perceived what Rick said as true? Would
anything important to you be changed? Do you want that (whatever it is) to
be changed? And if not, what is the intended effect of your reply _on that
same variable_?
See my post to Rick (JV 980306.0900). To add to that: I cannot conceive
of what CV I could affect by what I said other than Rick. I cannot
conceive of what effect my reply might have on anything that is related to
correcting for what Rick said other than through Rick. (I take that back,
if I was controlling for what others think of me besides Rick, then my
statements might effect them, but that is not really any different - the CV
is still people.) The _effect_ of Rick's statements is on my perception,
but my action does not directly effect my perception. If it did, I should
feel like I am in control of this respect thing, I am not. My output is
hitting the brick wall called Rick - the true CV in this ECU.
Isn't she assuming that hearing insulting words ("cues") causes a person to
feel bad, or insulted? That implies an underlying S-R model: sound-waves in
certain patterns entering the ears cause emotions to arise.
This is a circular argument we are in. She is testing an assumption that
can be characterized as cause-effect. But the implication of S-R is your
logic, not mine.
This is the
behaviorist picture of cause and effect in behavior, isn't it?
No. But it is a type of cause-effect picture (there are several - see Cook
& Campbell, 1979).
I agree that
just a little modification would bring her view much closer to PCT -- but
would she be willing to agree that insults don't in themselves make people
feel or do anything?
What does "in themselves" mean? Without o?
Building on the just-previous example, how would _you_ describe the
phenomenon of "reacting to an insult?" What do Rick's words affect
my perception of being insulted.
that
your reaction would affect the opposite way?
Nothing. But if the system was working, Rick.
-------------------------------------------------
But if you are always (in parallel) controlling for perceptions of respect
(or avoiding disrespect), then the psychologist learning that
advertisements of white men playing sports is often insulting to African
American men, that is not trivial. It says get those posters out of South
Central LA.
Sure, that's a very practical finding. But it doesn't explain what is
happening. It just says "Don't do this because that bad thing is likely to
happen." In other words, you're talking about an _observed phenomenon_, not
a theory of behavior. If you let go of something you're holding in your
hand, it will fall to the ground. That's an observation. It's not a theory
of gravitational attraction. When you let go of some things, they blow
away, or even rise into the air, or explode five seconds later. Without a
theory, these observations are just a muddle that nobody can interpret.
It is practical, yet of no use? It is true that it does not explain what
is happening. Followup studies are needed to confirm the controlled
perception, maybe to try to figure out what circumstances lead to the
organization of an input function that creates the perception of insults
from x, etc. It is not a theory, it is the use of your theory to help
create a better world.
Sincerely,
Jeff
