From [Marc Abrams (2006.07.06.1108)]
In a continuation of my post yesterday I think it might prove useful to be able to talk about perceptual control from a number of different levels of abstraction.
The Method of Levels is _not_ PCT but is proving useful in using the hierarchy as a metaphor and utilizing that for a better understanding of how and what people ultimately control. Can the Method help inform PCT? Maybe, but without any attempts at finding out or utilizing the theory and hierarchy in this way , the answer would have to be a definite not.
I believe the same would hold true for any number of other attempts at utilizing the theory as a metaphor and hopefully moving toward a science and a better understanding
This of course is _not_ a call to abandon any other attempts at understanding perceptual control. It's a call to expand our understanding of perceptual control in _ANY_ manner we can. Whether it be metaphorical or literal, I think there is much to be learned from its use either way
In trying to discuss the importance of perceptual control with others I have come across two things that I believe might be useful in helping to open up a dialogue with others in talking about the need and importance for an understanding of perceptual control
First, from my perspective with economics I think a major avenue and discussion opener is the notion of "rationality". Rationality is a concept not easily discussed at the abstract level of PCT, nor should it be, but is of immense importance in trying to understand economics and the consequences control and controlling has for economicman and economic theory
The concept of "utility" is foundational to economic thought and can only be properly understood in light of perceptual control.
The second idea has to do with thinking about perceptual control as an umbrella framework for all other psychological theories.
If perceptual control is indeed the proper view to take and perceptual control explains the same phenomenon that all other psych theories attempt to explain, than these other theories should simply be explaining various parts of the control process, and indeed I have found that to be the case. At least in my limited travels through the literature.
Behaviorism talks about the influence the environment has on behavior and Cog Sci talks to the influence our schema's have, etc., etc.
What I'm trying to get at here is that in order to show the importance of perceptual control it is _always_ advantageous to show how someone's existing ideas and beliefs fit into a bigger picture and are not necessarily "wrong". But this only works when you actually understand what the differences are between the ideas involved.
I hope the folks in this forum actually believe your own rhetoric. People will only act when their perceptions are _not_ in a desired state. If you want to get folks to act, you need to create a disturbance, but as we all know we walk a _very_ fine line when we create disturbances in others. Of course, not everyone wants or needs to understand perceptual control and as such its a good idea to find out as quickly as possible if there is any real interest in understanding it or not.
The control metaphor is a powerful one and although it may not address the needs of PCT directly it could provide a useful filtering mechanism to see what areas might be worth pursuing and what some of the problems that might be faced in attempting to look at it from a PCT perspective.
Does anyone in this forum have any interest in discussing perceptual control from these two perspectives? That is, rationality and the synthesis of other theories under a perceptual control metaphorical umbrella.
Regards,
Marc
···
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.