[From Bruce Abbott (971201.2030 EST)]
Rick Marken (971201.1530) --
Bruce Abbott (971201.1550 EST)
I agree with Mark Twain: if heaven is anything like the way it's
described, I don't want any part of it.
Since I was talking about "PCT heaven", I think it's nice that
you have finally admitted that you want no part of PCT. I would
find you a lot more tolerable if you would just admit that you
are arguing against an idea (PCT) that you find intolerable
instead of trying to make us think that you are arguing for an
idea (PCT) that you love.
It's not that I don't like PCT, it's that I don't agree with some of what I
call "meta-PCT." These are views that have little or nothing to do with
control theory per se, but which one must adopt in order to be accepted as a
"true" "PCTer." (Example: the belief that PCT has failed to win over
"conventional" psychology because "conventional" psychologists do not wish
to risk their careers, or were brainwashed in grad school, or are being paid
to stay in line by the CIA and, oddly enough, Oliver Stone.) So I differ
with the Convinced on a number of points, so what? I think I've gained a
working grasp of control theory, understand how these systems can be
arranged in hierarchies, know how to develop working control simulations,
and understand that most behavior serves to control certain perceptions. If
you can't tolerate a little diversity, I suggest you try therapy (maybe by
going up a level or three).
Under my definition of "cause" the statement is true; under yours
it isn't.
This is more than a word problem. It's an understanding problem.
I think that it is very possible that you do understand what's
going on here -- that you can't study a closed loop system in
the same way that you study an open loop system -- and that you
simply reject the implications (that psychology has to start the
study of behavior all over again, using a new methodology). You
may just be trying to use words to defend the psychological
status quo that you so admire.
Ah, just using WORDS. I think I spy a new hydra head amid the crowd of them.
Perhaps this is why you say things
like what you say to Bill in Bruce Abbott (971201.1700 EST):
What other method is there, than to manipulate some variable under
controlled contitions and observe what happens to other variables
in the system?
Sounds like it's to the point, but it's a misdirection.
Yep, good ol' misdirection, that's what it is. Just like David Copperfield.
PCT doesn't
say that we should study living systems using some method other
than "manipulating a variable under controlled conditions and
observing what happens to other variables in the system".
So, both "conventional" psychologists and "control theorists" agree that the
only way to understand how a system works is to manipulate variables under
controlled conditions and observe what happens to other variables in the
system. I could have _sworn_ you said research by "conventional
psychologists" was all crap because they do this.
PCT explains
how to do this manipulation when some of the system variables _may
be_ in a closed loop relationship. You are trying to use words
to make it seem that conventional psychologists have been studying
behavior the right way all along -- because it's the only way to study
behavior.
Ah, there it is again, trying to use WORDS. Well, you got trouble, my
friend, right here in River City, trouble and that starts with T and that
rhymes with P and that stands for Pool. Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble
--- WORDS, like "gee whiz" and ---- well, you know the rest (from the Music
Man). Oh, my, not WORDS! And trying to USE them, no less! Criminal!
(Actually my claim is that the method per se is not the problem, and that
for certain types of question it can yield perfectly valid results. I make
no claim that this mythical group called "conventional psychologists"
applies these methods correctly where closed loops are involved.)
But this is self-deception. There is a difference -- a BIG
difference -- between what conventional psychologists do when they
"manipulate some variable under controlled contitions and observe what
happens to other variables" and what a control theoriest does when
he does this. The difference (which you steadfastly refuse to
recognize as important) is described in my "Dancer..." paper.
That's me, all right, the Self Deceiver (not to be confused with the Self
Mover). The difference is that the control theorist does it with a little
flourish, right?
When I said I would hold other conditions constant while varying
the disturbance, I did not include the output, which is after all
the dependent variable whose changes are to be accounted for.
But the output is not _just_ a dependent variable. It is also a
_confounding_ variable because it varies along with the IV and
contributes to the variance in the DV (the output itself). Calling
the output a DV is another linguistic trick; an attempt to make
it seem like there is no closed loop (effect of output on itself)
when there is. It's just another example of the kind of dopey things
you have to say to defend an incorrect point of view (the causal
model of conventional psychology).
Another linguistic trick! Pay no attention to this man, ladies and
gentlemen, it's just another linguistic trick! Do not be deceived by his
clever talk and promises of a better tomorrow. Not only is he extremely
clever, he's dopey as well! Duh, you talkin' ta me?
See. There you go with "the only way to study behavior is by
manipulating variables under controlled conditions and observing
changes in other variables".
Imagine that -- Rick Marken playing Ronald Regan. Who wouldda thought?
Both conventional IV-DV methods and the TCV can be described as
"manipulating a variable under controlled conditions and observing
changes in other variables". But the two methods are different in
some very important ways -- ways that you could learn about by
reading my "Dancer.." paper. You _could_ learn about it, that is,
if you weren't busy defending the demonstrably indefensible
status quo to yourself.
Been there, done that, understood it; it's still "IV-DV." (I know, in the
Test you look for _lack_ of effect.)
I think PCT would get a lot more milage out of your interest in
it if you would devote your energies to writing a paper about
"Why PCT Sucks". So far, your efforts to write the paper on
"PCT: The great new model of operant behavior" have been manifestly
unimpressive. Why not get in touch with yourself Bruce. Do what you
clearly love to do. Tell conventional psychologists what a dangerous,
wrongheaded piece of crap PCT is. Then maybe they'll pay attention
to it;-)
I'll pass. But thanks for the refreshing appeal to emotion,
misrepresentation, and irrelevancies. I was getting really tired of having
to deal with logical arguments.
Most sincerely sincerely,
Bruce
