(ps 921097.1400)
[From Rick Marken (921007.1230)]
>Can you point out something they do that is incompatible with "already
>knowing that"?
Well, the "experimental method" as commonly used in psychology; they don't
test for controlled variables.
take an example from the psych lit.. show yr claim is true. show why
they should. show what they miss if they don't. if you can't come up
w/ a telling example of why experimentaly methodology is wrong, and
why your way fixes (some of) the problems, that's your problem, not
the reviewers'.
The paper was somewhat philosophical. I tried to make one big point
explicitly -- that performance limitations (in terms of speed of
behavior) may be limitations on the ability to perceive (rather than
to produce the actions that produce) the results that are being controlled.
that's a reasonable point, and i'm not surprised they didn't disagree.
but unless you have *some* (new) way of demonstrating it or arguing it
(in their paradigm, not yours), then you haven't in fact added to the
literature.
I also tried to show how one can explore the perceptual (and, thus,
behavioral) hierarchy. There was a lot in this paper that I thought was
fairly new and interesting; alas, not the reviewers.
but it's not interesting if one doesn't agree w/ the underlying
assumptions and doesn't see how the discussion has any impact on one's
own assumptions. if you showed how well-known phenomena can be
analyzed differently and novelly in yr hierarchy--*that* way you can
make an *argument* for your hierarchy. but that won't work if the
reader must assume the hierarchy first and have no way to relate the
discussion to their own ways of looking at things.
they also mentioned people who had presumably worked on the relation between
perception and behavior
why ``presumably''? plenty of people have had things to say about
this.
(apparently ignoring the fact that the paper was
about the fact that, from the perspective of the HPCT model, behavior IS
perception).
but see, i'm not convinced, from the kinds of things you write about,
that it's coherent for you to say ``perception is behavior.'' i think
i can map from your model straightforwardly into one w/ pieces labeled
``perception'' and ``behavior.'' you haven't convinced me i should
consider the terms synonymous or what that would mean.
cheers.
--penni