The test, standards, and the accpetance of PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From francisco arocha 970825; 13.22 EDST]

The application of the test (or some version of it, as in the cases
below) tells us a bit about why PCT would have a hard time being
accepted.

Consider the case of Alan Sokal, the physicist who submitted a paper,
which was basically a bunch of crap to a "leading" social studies
journal. He wanted to test the hypothesis that indeed the standards of
social sciences was so low that they would accept a paper which, although
nonsense, would say the right things (what the editors and reviewers
wanted to hear). Sokal did not even attempt to make sense. The paper was
accepted and later Sokal wrote a letter to another social science journal
telling the story. The editors of the leading journal were not amused and
responded with a number of ridiculous claims (Sokal really believed what
his paper said when he submmitted it, but changed his mind; Sokal has no
ethical standards, etc.).

Similarly, a few years ago, some psychologists (forgot who) took a bunch
of already published papers, changed the names of the university and of
the authors -- from "big" universities to small colleges and from
recognized "authorities" to unknown researchers -- and resubmmitted them
to the same journal where they had been published. The results was that
all the papers (except one, if my memory serves me well) were rejected
because they were not up to the standards of the journals (BTW, the time
between the publication and the resubmmission, was not very long--don't
remember exactly).

If behavioral scientists cannot tell crap from what are, in their own
terms, quality papers, how can even they evaluate PCT papers?

hasta pronto,

francisco

2

[Dan Miller (970825)]
Francisco Arocha (970825):

If behavioral scientists cannot tell crap from what are, in their own
terms, quality papers, how can even they evaluate PCT papers?

Some behavioral scientists have a well developed crap detector. The
problem is that once we have detected crap a few times we are no
longer asked to do so. I suspect that the important issue is to
somehow get to be an editor of a respected journal, write some
editorial policy, get a good list of referees, and do it. This would
mean that the behavioral scientists in question would have to gain
positions in respected departments and suffer the slings and arrows
of outragious ontologies, as well as from the entrenched majority.

That few of us have been willing or able to do this is no surprise.
I, as have others on this list, have difficulty getting students to
use the concept of behavior from the PCT rather than behaviorist
perspective. They do it with some difficulty, then slip back into
causal statements about behavior as a dependent variable. If I can
get them to think and imagine with different metaphors I am
successful. How this might be done with graduate students and
professionals who know the "truth" is only imaginable. I suggest
that we continue attacking behaviorist metaphors - both with specific
studies and up a level or so with general concepts and principles.

The test for this is not our detection of crap, but rather our
detection of their detection of crap.

Keep the faith,
Dan

Dan Miller
miller@riker.stjoe.udayton.edu

3

[From Bill Powers (970826.0528 MDT)]

Dan Miller (970825)--

Francisco Arocha (970825):

If behavioral scientists cannot tell crap from what are, in their own
terms, quality papers, how can even they evaluate PCT papers?

Some behavioral scientists have a well developed crap detector. The
problem is that once we have detected crap a few times we are no
longer asked to do so.

Every now and then, when this discussion comes up yet again, I get an
overwhelming sense that we must be doing something wrong. The message of
PCT is too damned simple to be misunderstood. The evidence is too clear to
be refuted. Maybe that's the only thing we should be concentrating on. We
can see people controlling stuff; when we disturb, or try to disturb, what
they are controlling, they alter their behavior to counteract the effects
of our actions. Yet on other occasions they will spontaneous change their
behavior and bring whatever they were controlling to a new state where it
is again stabilized agains disturbances.

That's it: that's what all the fuss is about. If scientists would simply
get that idea and admit that these phenomena are going on, the door would
be open.

Darwin's idea was no more complex than that. All he said was that there are
natural variations in the forms of organisms from generation to generation,
and that those organisms that fail to reproduce as well as others because
of these variations get weeded out, just as a pigeon breeder weeds out
forms that are not desired. He claimed that the processes of random
variation, competition, and natural selection could account for all the
varied forms of life that we see, including ourselves.

Whether Darwin got it just right (or whether I have stated it just right)
is beside the point. His idea is obviously feasible and logical. Nobody
could have rejected it because they didn't understand it. In fact, those
who rejected it most strongly did so because they DID understand it, and it
conflicted with their beliefs or theories, particularly about human beings.

We're in the same position with PCT. We have a simple idea that can be
demonstrated with a pair of rubber bands, including all the main features
of control that we talk about, even levels of control and multiple-person
control. If anyone who has experienced the demonstrations rejects the idea
of control, it can only be because they DO understand it, and are
threatened or offended or invalidated because of it.

There is really very little we can do about that. If we start arguing
against the objections, we get drawn into tangled webs of rationalization
which can't be straightened out by facts and logic. Whenever we point out a
flaw in one aspect of an objection, the person objecting will simply switch
to another aspect of it, certain that there must be some explanation of the
apparent flaw. We can't, from outside another person, find the loose ends
that will unravel the tangle for that person. That's something that each
person has to work out alone.

I think we should change the logo of the Control Systems Group from a block
diagram of the theoretical model to a picture of two rubber bands (which
also happens to be a nice synbol: infinity). And I think that each of us,
whatever the field of expertise, should concentrate on simply presenting
the phenomenon of control in as simple and clear a fashion as possible,
making sure it is understandable and making no great effort to push our
explanation of it onto anyone.

There will always be objectors. In science, people will object because the
phenomenon doesn't fit their own theories. In ordinary life, people will
object (although in a smaller proportion) because it conflicts with what
they have been taught and believe. That's life. But many people, even
scientists, will also understand what they are seeing, and many of them
will start wondering about explanations, new explanations. That's all we
need, and the most we can hope for.

When scientists reject the concept of control, they do so because they are
blinded by their own theories and can't see what they are looking at. They
see only what the theory leads them to consider important. Our job is to
keep shoving other phenomena under their noses, patiently and persistently,
until the phenomena are noticed. Until the phenomena are noticed and
acknowledged, there's no point in promoting any theoretical explanations.

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From francisco arocha, 970826;10.35 EDST]

[From Bill Powers (970826.0528 MDT)]

Dan Miller (970825)--

Some behavioral scientists have a well developed crap detector. The
problem is that once we have detected crap a few times we are no
longer asked to do so.

Every now and then, when this discussion comes up yet again, I get an
overwhelming sense that we must be doing something wrong. The message of
PCT is too damned simple to be misunderstood. The evidence is too clear to
be refuted. Maybe that's the only thing we should be concentrating on. We
can see people controlling stuff; when we disturb, or try to disturb, what
they are controlling, they alter their behavior to counteract the effects
of our actions. Yet on other occasions they will spontaneous change their
behavior and bring whatever they were controlling to a new state where it
is again stabilized agains disturbances.

The problem points, as in the Sokal story, to a deeper problem than
understanding or misunderstanbding PCT. It has to do with the standards
of science in the behavioral sciences. How could have they publshed a
paper that was complete nonsense? What criteria the reviewers or editors
used to accpet such a paper? It seems to me that the more obscure a paper
is the better the chances of being published. When presented with a PCT
paper (no jargon, no convoluted sentences), how are these people going to
evaluate it? I think thay can't. Their standrds are not those of science,
but something else, although they are presented as being scientific. This
is not relevant to PCT only, but to any research that has high standards,
regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not.

We're in the same position with PCT. We have a simple idea that can be
demonstrated with a pair of rubber bands, including all the main features
of control that we talk about, even levels of control and multiple-person
control. If anyone who has experienced the demonstrations rejects the idea
of control, it can only be because they DO understand it, and are
threatened or offended or invalidated because of it.

Whenever I show the rubber bands demo to friends (psychologists or
cognitive scientists) or ask them to read PCT papers, what I get in
response is "that's too simple" or "it doesn't apply to real issues". I
see no evidence of any understanding, PCT simply gets rejected out of
hand. My feeling is simply that they just dont get it or seem unable to
follow the logical consequences of the demo or the papers and this goes
beyond understanding the content of PCT theory or even the fact of
control.

There is really very little we can do about that. If we start arguing
against the objections, we get drawn into tangled webs of rationalization
which can't be straightened out by facts and logic. Whenever we point out a
flaw in one aspect of an objection, the person objecting will simply switch
to another aspect of it, certain that there must be some explanation of the
apparent flaw. We can't, from outside another person, find the loose ends
that will unravel the tangle for that person. That's something that each
person has to work out alone.

Yes, and now I know it from personal experience.

I think we should change the logo of the Control Systems Group from a block
diagram of the theoretical model to a picture of two rubber bands (which
also happens to be a nice synbol: infinity). And I think that each of us,
whatever the field of expertise, should concentrate on simply presenting
the phenomenon of control in as simple and clear a fashion as possible,
making sure it is understandable and making no great effort to push our
explanation of it onto anyone.

You're assuming that people like simple facts and understand their
implications. In my experience -- mostly with the cognitive science
types-- people really like what appear to be complex phenomena;
furthermore, they have a lot of trouble separating their complex facts
from theories (sometimes it is very hard to make the separation,
specially when both are expressed in ordinary language).

Hasta pronto,

francisco

5

[From Bill Powers (970826.1053 MDT)]

Francisco Arocha, 970826;10.35 EDST

Whenever I show the rubber bands demo to friends (psychologists or
cognitive scientists) or ask them to read PCT papers, what I get in
response is "that's too simple" or "it doesn't apply to real issues". I
see no evidence of any understanding, PCT simply gets rejected out of
hand. My feeling is simply that they just dont get it or seem unable to
follow the logical consequences of the demo or the papers and this goes
beyond understanding the content of PCT theory or even the fact of
control.

...

You're assuming that people like simple facts and understand their
implications. In my experience -- mostly with the cognitive science
types-- people really like what appear to be complex phenomena;
furthermore, they have a lot of trouble separating their complex facts
from theories (sometimes it is very hard to make the separation,
specially when both are expressed in ordinary language).

All you're saying is true. But what shall we do -- wait for people to
reform themselves so they can hear what we're saying and see what we're
showing them? I don't have that long, and although you have longer than I,
neither do you.

I think Rick has exactly the right idea: collect carefully-examined
examples of control behavior, and try to get them published somewhere.
Years and years ago I said that this should be the first step: just collect
large numbers of examples of control behavior, using the Test to formally
establish control, without worrying about hierarchies or models or anything
like that. I didn't listen to myself any more than anyone else did. But
maybe everyone has now reached a level of frustration with conveying PCT to
the world through argumentation that will make this simple alternative more
appealing. Remember Bill Glasser's and Ed Ford's first two questions: What
are you doing? And is it getting you what you want? Obviously, if what
we're doing isn't getting us what we want, we might consider doing
something else.

Maybe we should just collect these examples, put them in a standard format,
and when we have enough of them publish Human Control Behavior, Vol 1. Then
start collecting more.

When we pile enough observations against that wall, it may collapse.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Bruce Gregory (970903.1635 EDT)]

Bill Powers (970826.0528 MDT)]

Whether Darwin got it just right (or whether I have stated it just right)
is beside the point. His idea is obviously feasible and logical. Nobody
could have rejected it because they didn't understand it. In fact, those
who rejected it most strongly did so because they DID understand it, and it
conflicted with their beliefs or theories, particularly about human beings.

In fact, Darwin's model apparently enjoyed little support until
the 1930's. The entire scientific establishment managed to
successfully ignore it for seventy-five years. Perhaps, like
PCT, it was too simple.

We're in the same position with PCT. We have a simple idea that can be
demonstrated with a pair of rubber bands, including all the main features
of control that we talk about, even levels of control and multiple-person
control. If anyone who has experienced the demonstrations rejects the idea
of control, it can only be because they DO understand it, and are
threatened or offended or invalidated because of it.

There is really very little we can do about that. If we start arguing
against the objections, we get drawn into tangled webs of rationalization
which can't be straightened out by facts and logic.

Sounds like a network I know...

Whenever we point out a
flaw in one aspect of an objection, the person objecting will simply switch
to another aspect of it, certain that there must be some explanation of the
apparent flaw. We can't, from outside another person, find the loose ends
that will unravel the tangle for that person. That's something that each
person has to work out alone.

Now I'm sure its a network I know!

I think we should change the logo of the Control Systems Group from a block
diagram of the theoretical model to a picture of two rubber bands (which
also happens to be a nice synbol: infinity). And I think that each of us,
whatever the field of expertise, should concentrate on simply presenting
the phenomenon of control in as simple and clear a fashion as possible,
making sure it is understandable and making no great effort to push our
explanation of it onto anyone.

There will always be objectors. In science, people will object because the
phenomenon doesn't fit their own theories. In ordinary life, people will
object (although in a smaller proportion) because it conflicts with what
they have been taught and believe. That's life. But many people, even
scientists, will also understand what they are seeing, and many of them
will start wondering about explanations, new explanations. That's all we
need, and the most we can hope for.

When scientists reject the concept of control, they do so because they are
blinded by their own theories and can't see what they are looking at. They
see only what the theory leads them to consider important.

Don't we all.

Our job is to
keep shoving other phenomena under their noses, patiently and persistently,
until the phenomena are noticed. Until the phenomena are noticed and
acknowledged, there's no point in promoting any theoretical explanations.

Is this a way of saying that what we want to do is to make
control _their_ problem instead of _our_ problem? We want them
to worry about explaining control. If they are nice, we might
even give them some help....

Bruce