video of presentation at Stanford February 2012

[bnhpct]

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer and provided copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some of which they could take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html. Previously, I had been unable to get either of the two researchers (Shira Katseff and John Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who makes these suggestions (now graduated and a newly minted professor elsewhere) takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the manner that we do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or include a cc) to bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

···

/Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From RIck MArken (2012.11.04.0820)]

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer and provided copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some of which they could take and keep.

Thanks Bruce. I have it bookmarked. I look forward to seeing it after Nov. 6, when I will, hopefully, be very happy and will no longer have to be going to the poll sites every few minutes to assure myself that Obama is going to win;-) Of course, regardless of who wins I will have to somehow live with the fact that I am living in a country where nearly half the people are comfortable (and maybe even favor) with corporate fascism.

Best

Rick

···

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html. Previously, I had been unable to get either of the two researchers (Shira Katseff and John Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who makes these suggestions (now graduated and a newly minted professor elsewhere) takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the manner that we do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or include a cc) to bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

/Bruce

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.11.04.1255 MST)]

Last February, I gave a talk to
a colloquium at Stanford, called the “Stanford Psychology and
Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag has given a lot of support to my
work and to my currently in-process career change back to linguistics. On
this occasion he was videographer and provided copies of a bunch of books
for the attending faculty and students to see, some of which they could
take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and
linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in
some recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of
what they said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates
a solution to the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A
working simulation has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be
welcome.)

It’s interesting how the people involved in “ecological
psychology” (Gibsonians) assume that ecological psychology
appeared before PCT did. Gibson’s The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception was published in 1979, 6 years after BCP and 19 years
after the original Powers-Clark-MacFarland paper. The dynamical-systems
kind of modeling was well established in the PCT world shortly after 1985
when the CSG was formed, and was actually part of my activities at the VA
Research Hospital using an analog computer from around 1953 to 1954
onward.

Gibson’s concept of “affordances” (“the opportunities for
action provided by a particular object or environment”) is
exceedingly naive, “Opportunities” is a qualitative notion,
with the number of different opportunities provided by any single
affordance, when expressed quantitatively, being for all practical
purposes infinite. Furthermore, since organisms control not actions but
consequences of actions, an affordance can actually relate to any number
of different controlled variables which are affected via similar feedback
functions. Gibson simply wanted to believe that we experience the real
world directly, and would accept any line of reasoning, spurious or not,
that led to that conclusion. As a theoretician, in my view, Gibson
qualifies as a lightweight.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 11:34 PM 11/3/2012 -0400, Bruce Nevin wrote:

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.11.04.1310)]

Bill Powers (2012.11.04.1255 MST)–

BP: Gibson’s concept of “affordances” (“the opportunities for
action provided by a particular object or environment”) is
exceedingly naive, “Opportunities” is a qualitative notion,
with the number of different opportunities provided by any single
affordance, when expressed quantitatively, being for all practical
purposes infinite. Furthermore, since organisms control not actions but
consequences of actions, an affordance can actually relate to any number
of different controlled variables which are affected via similar feedback
functions. Gibson simply wanted to believe that we experience the real
world directly, and would accept any line of reasoning, spurious or not,
that led to that conclusion. As a theoretician, in my view, Gibson
qualifies as a lightweight.

Ouch! Glad I didn’t say that

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[wmansell]

Hi Bruce, this is great to see, and I really like the level of detail you go into Bruce! It is now linked from pctweb on the psychology page.

I watched the questions afterwards too.

I think it is important to maybe correct what you said about publication. It may be hard to get PCT stuff published but this makes us sound fringe. We are not. Most of the good empirical work on PCT is published. See the downloadable working document I have produced.

I think there is a balancing act to do between validating some of the similarities between PCT and Gibson, at the same time as being very clear about the differences too. I think the student is being too opinionated to say that the equations are ‘exactly the same’ - this could not be established from such a comparison based on his memory and viewing your talk - it would need to be analysed in much more detail.

We commonly get the argument that PCT is the same as this or that theory - and it is a really hard one to counter, I think because there are so many components to compare. We can’t just say PCT is completely different and they just can’t say it is the same. There needs to be a thorough, systematic analysis.

Great stuff and thanks for the link!

Warren

···

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer
and provided copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some of which they could take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they said was disturbed in real
time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html . Previously, I had been unable to get either of the two researchers
(Shira Katseff and John Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who makes these suggestions (now graduated
and a newly minted professor elsewhere) takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the
manner that we do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or include a cc) to
bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

/Bruce

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I

University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College, University of London. For further information as it appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[wmansell]

Just wondering whether stairs works all ways. Do people say all the other theories said to be 'the same’as PCT are the same as one another?This is the logical conclusion. If not, it must be about overlap, and therefore if the overlap is greater between PCT and other theories than they are with one another, this suggests PCT is tapping the common theoretical substrate of living things…

Warren

···

On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Bruce Nevin wrote:

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer
and provided copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some of which they could take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they said was disturbed in real
time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html . Previously, I had been unable to get either of the two researchers
(Shira Katseff and John Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who makes these suggestions (now graduated
and a newly minted professor elsewhere) takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the
manner that we do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or include a cc) to
bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

/Bruce

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester

Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College, University of London. For further information as it appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[fxp]

Hi Warren,

The student that made remarks after Bruce’s presentation
said that according to him PCT is a subset of what is going on in Ecological
Psychology and Dynamic Systems Theory. I am inclined to reverse that and say:
Ecological Psychology and Dynamic Systems Theory are subsets of PCT as a
unifying theory for psychology, since there is so much more in psychology that
can be explained by PCT compared to those two fields. That is an
important characteristic of a theory for it to be preferred over other
theories.

By the way, did you see Louise Barrett’s book “Beyond
the Brain” already? She refers in a very positive way to Bill’s
1973 book.

Warm regards,

Frans Plooij

···

---

From:
Warren Mansell
[mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: maandag 5 november 2012
11:54
To: Bruce Nevin; bruce.nevin@gmail.com
Cc: Control Systems Group Network
(CSGnet); Hugh Petrie; Hugh Gibbons; Henry Yin; Tim Carey;
fplooij@kiddygroup.com; Sara Tai; Warren Mansell;
Tom Bourbon; Karin Forssell; Bart Madden; Mohammad Goli; Bjorn Leffler; Monica
Leffler; Lisa Forssell; Bruce Abbott; Gary Cziko; Alice Powers McElhone; Lloydk
Klinedinst; Dick Robertson; mathwerkx@yahoo.com; j richard kenneway; Dag
Forssell
Subject: Re: video of presentation
at Stanford February 2012

Hi Bruce, this is great to see, and I really like the level of detail
you go into Bruce! It is now linked from pctweb on the psychology page.

I watched the questions afterwards too.

I think it is important to maybe correct what you said about
publication. It may be hard to get PCT stuff published but this makes us sound
fringe. We are not. Most of the good empirical work on PCT is published. See
the downloadable
working document I have produced.

I think there is a balancing act to do between validating some of the
similarities between PCT and Gibson, at the same time as being very clear about
the differences too. I think the student is being too opinionated to say that
the equations are ‘exactly the same’ - this could not be established from such
a comparison based on his memory and viewing your talk - it would need to be
analysed in much more detail.

We commonly get the argument that PCT is the same as this or that
theory - and it is a really hard one to counter, I think because there are so
many components to compare. We can’t just say PCT is completely different and
they just can’t say it is the same. There needs to be a thorough, systematic
analysis.

Great stuff and thanks for the link!

Warren

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called
the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag
has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career
change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer and provided
copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some
of which they could take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and
linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some
recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they
said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to
the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation
has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html. Previously,
I had been unable to get either of the two researchers (Shira Katseff and John
Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who
is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so
I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for
Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we
might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who
makes these suggestions (now graduated and a newly minted professor elsewhere)
takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but
that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is
expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the manner that we
do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching
the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication
opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or
include a cc) to bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

/Bruce

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13
9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP
Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College,
University of London. For further information as it
appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available
from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[bnhpct]

Yes, his address is

Stephen Flusberg stephen.flusberg@purchase.edu

I sent him the pctweb link and he has responded. The comments here from Bill, Frans, and you will inform my reply, you may be sure! I’ll certainly link him to the summary of publications at

http://pctweb.org/EmpiricalEvidencePCT.pdf

This is really good to see, and will be of lasting usefulness. Thank you for putting it together and maintaining it. This will be a good antidote to my unbalanced complaint about publishing – point taken! I continue to be a great admirer of your acumen in presenting PCT effectively.

Your comment about intersection of theories is an interesting test, useful in the aggregate, but might not be effective pairwise with just one advocate at a time, because the same logic can be employed in the converse way. A proponent of, say, Gibson = PCT and a proponent of theory X = PCT could each just say that the other’s claim to be ‘the same as’ PCT is wrong, precisely because in their view theory X and Gibsonian theory are not ‘the same’.

I probably won’t get my reply to Flusberg out until late or perhaps tomorrow, as today is shaping up to be rather crowded.

Dag has pointed out that replies just to csgnet are not reaching everyone who is on the cc list; and as I mentioned, I see email to bruce.nevin@gmail.com much more timely than email to csgnet.

···

/Bruce

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Warren

Hi Frans, I was thinking exactly the same! Bruce, maybe you could have a word if you have his email! I have ordered the book you refer too - thanks for the heads up!

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, F.X. Plooij fplooij@kiddygroup.com wrote:

Hi Warren,

The student that made remarks after Bruce’s presentation
said that according to him PCT is a subset of what is going on in Ecological
Psychology and Dynamic Systems Theory. I am inclined to reverse that and say:
Ecological Psychology and Dynamic Systems Theory are subsets of PCT as a
unifying theory for psychology, since there is so much more in psychology that
can be explained by PCT compared to those two fields. That is an
important characteristic of a theory for it to be preferred over other
theories.

By the way, did you see Louise Barrett’s book “Beyond
the Brain” already? She refers in a very positive way to Bill’s
1973 book.

Warm regards,

Frans Plooij

---

From:
Warren Mansell
[mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: maandag 5 november 2012
11:54
To: Bruce Nevin; bruce.nevin@gmail.com
Cc: Control Systems Group Network
(CSGnet); Hugh Petrie; Hugh Gibbons; Henry Yin; Tim Carey;
fplooij@kiddygroup.com; Sara Tai; Warren Mansell;
Tom Bourbon; Karin Forssell; Bart Madden; Mohammad Goli; Bjorn Leffler; Monica
Leffler; Lisa Forssell; Bruce Abbott; Gary Cziko; Alice Powers McElhone; Lloydk
Klinedinst; Dick Robertson; mathwerkx@yahoo.com; j richard kenneway; Dag
Forssell
Subject: Re: video of presentation
at Stanford February 2012

Hi Bruce, this is great to see, and I really like the level of detail
you go into Bruce! It is now linked from pctweb on the psychology page.

I watched the questions afterwards too.

I think it is important to maybe correct what you said about
publication. It may be hard to get PCT stuff published but this makes us sound
fringe. We are not. Most of the good empirical work on PCT is published. See
the downloadable
working document I have produced.

I think there is a balancing act to do between validating some of the
similarities between PCT and Gibson, at the same time as being very clear about
the differences too. I think the student is being too opinionated to say that
the equations are ‘exactly the same’ - this could not be established from such
a comparison based on his memory and viewing your talk - it would need to be
analysed in much more detail.

We commonly get the argument that PCT is the same as this or that
theory - and it is a really hard one to counter, I think because there are so
many components to compare. We can’t just say PCT is completely different and
they just can’t say it is the same. There needs to be a thorough, systematic
analysis.

Great stuff and thanks for the link!

Warren

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called
the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag
has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career
change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer and provided
copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some
of which they could take and keep.

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and
linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some
recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they
said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to
the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation
has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html. Previously,
I had been unable to get either of the two researchers (Shira Katseff and John
Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who
is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so
I will now send him the link.

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for
Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we
might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who
makes these suggestions (now graduated and a newly minted professor elsewhere)
takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but
that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is
expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the manner that we
do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching
the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication
opportunities.)

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or
include a cc) to bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

/Bruce

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13
9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP
Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College,
University of London. For further information as it
appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available
from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I

University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College, University of London. For further information as it appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[gcziko]

Franz wrote:

Â

By the way, did you see Louise Barrett’s book “Beyond
the Brainâ€? already? She refers in a very positive way to Bill’s
1973 book.

Some screen shots of the book provided by Google books (Chapter 6, pp. 99 ff.)

Â

Â

Warm regards,

Frans Plooij

Â

---

From:
Warren Mansell
[mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: maandag 5 november 2012
11:54
To: Bruce Nevin; bruce.nevin@gmail.com
Cc: Control Systems Group Network
(CSGnet); Hugh Petrie; Hugh Gibbons; Henry Yin; Tim Carey;
fplooij@kiddygroup.com; Sara Tai; Warren Mansell;
Tom Bourbon; Karin Forssell; Bart Madden; Mohammad Goli; Bjorn Leffler; Monica
Leffler; Lisa Forssell; Bruce Abbott; Gary Cziko; Alice Powers McElhone; Lloydk
Klinedinst; Dick Robertson; mathwerkx@yahoo.com; j richard kenneway; Dag
Forssell
Subject: Re: video of presentation
at Stanford February 2012

Â

Hi Bruce, this is great to see, and I really like the level of detail
you go into Bruce! It is now linked from pctweb on the psychology page.

Â

I watched the questions afterwards too.Â

Â

I think it is important to maybe correct what you said about
publication. It may be hard to get PCT stuff published but this makes us sound
fringe. We are not. Most of the good empirical work on PCT is published. See
the downloadable
working document I have produced.

Â

I think there is a balancing act to do between validating some of the
similarities between PCT and Gibson, at the same time as being very clear about
the differences too. I think the student is being too opinionated to say that
the equations are ‘exactly the same’ - this could not be established from such
a comparison based on his memory and viewing your talk - it would need to be
analysed in much more detail.Â

Â

We commonly get the argument that PCT is the same as this or that
theory - and it is a really hard one to counter, I think because there are so
many components to compare. We can’t just say PCT is completely different and
they just can’t say it is the same. There needs to be a thorough, systematic
analysis.Â

Â

Great stuff and thanks for the link!

Â

Warren

Â

Â

Â

Last February, I gave a talk to a colloquium at Stanford, called
 the “Stanford Psychology and Language Tea”, a.k.a. SPLaT. Dag
has given a lot of support to my work and to my currently in-process career
change back to linguistics. On this occasion he was videographer and provided
copies of a bunch of books for the attending faculty and students to see, some
of which they could take and keep.

Â

The presentation aims to introduce this audience of psychologists and
linguists to PCT. It focuses on the solution to a puzzle that emerged in some
recent experimental work in which speakers’ auditory perception of what they
said was disturbed in real time. A proposed PCT model indicates a solution to
the puzzle. We discussed this on CSGnet some years ago. A working simulation
has not yet been built. (Assistance with this would be welcome.)

Â

The video, edited to include the slides, is at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/SPLaT/SPLaT_Nevin.html. Previously,
I had been unable to get either of the two researchers (Shira Katseff and John
Houde) to reply to email, but when I was in Berkeley last February I met John Houde, who
is now at UCB, and he was friendly and interested in seeing my presentation, so
I will now send him the link.Â

Â

In the video, there’s a plug for Frans Plooij’s work and a plug for
Rick’s baseball demo. In the Q&A there are some suggestions as to where we
might be more successful at getting PCT research published. The student who
makes these suggestions (now graduated and a newly minted professor elsewhere)
takes the Gibsonians to mean, not that information is in the environment, but
that the organism and the environment are tightly coupled in a way that is
expressed by integration of simultaneous equations in just the manner that we
do in PCT. (IMO they equivocate, but being tactful about this, and approaching
the correction of it gradually, might indeed open some publication
opportunities.)

Â

I may not see comments on this in a timely way unless you send them (or
include a cc) to bruce.nevin@gmail.com.

Â

/Bruce

Â

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13
9PL

Â

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Â

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

The next spring BABCP conference will take place in Belfast from 4th to 5th April 2013. The BABCP
Annual Conference will take place from 16th July - 19th July 2013 at Imperial College,
University of London. For further information as it
appears, see www.babcpconference.com.

Â

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

For further information on the ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the

Self Network Grant, please see: www.erosresearch.org

Â

The highly praised therapy manual on Transdiagnostic CBT using Method of Levels is available
from November 2012.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Â

Â

T compared to those two fields. That is anÂ
important characteristic of a theory for it to be preferred over other
theories.

···

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

–

Any views contained in this message are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organizations, commissions, committees or groups with which I am associated.

**"In a livable community the drivers of human powered vehicles are respected and expected as a normal part of traffic.

• Keri Caffrey (2012; presentation)**

Five Steps to Cyclist Empowerment:
(1) Knowledge of the Law, (2) Knowledge of Bicycle Safety, (3) Knowledge of Traffic Cycling Problem Solving, (4) Bike Handling Skills, and (5) Traffic Cycling Skills.

These five steps are provided by CyclingSavvy. See also Smart Moves for Cyclists

and CyclingSavvy handout (pdf).

Gary Cziko (“ZEE-ko”), PhD,

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI) & League Cycling Instructor (LCI)
Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Past President & Current Steering Committee Member, Champaign County Bikes
Member, Urbana Sustainability Advisory Commission
Member, Urbana Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Commission