Congratulations, Warren. Excellent news.
Ted
···
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:37 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Watch this space folks!
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stories.vassar.edu_2017_170222-2Dandrew-2Dwillett.html&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kpT0e720z9HgE0_0cjmN0j-I0FUTnSHlqB5XUEhtlPI&s=GC7kB9fnMceogozBTNShrGKWdTDQT_WGHanKr1DwyNU&e=>http://stories.vassar.edu/2017/170222-andrew-willett.html
I love the idea that a rubber band and a couple of pens can yield to more insights than a confocal microscope!
···
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:
Congratulations, Warren. Excellent news.
Ted
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:37 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Watch this space folks!
Indeed, I love the picture of Andrew with the rubber band, a young scientist in 2017 brimming with enthusiasm to test for the first time a demonstration first published in 1973…
···
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:
Congratulations, Warren. Excellent news.
Ted
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:37 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Watch this space folks!
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.01.2230)]
···
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM:Â http://stories.vassar.edu/2017/170222-andrew-willett.html
RM: Since the paper is based on PCT I suppose I should be glad of the publicity. But I was a little taken aback by this review, which said that the conclusion of this research was that “it is almost impossible to guess people’s intentions simply by observing their behavior.” It may, indeed, be almost impossible to guess (correctly) people’s intentions simply be looking at their behavior. But you couldn’t conclude that based on this research.
RM: What we did conclude from this research was that, in this particular instance of intentional behavior (intentionally keeping the knot in a pair of rubber bands over a target dot) observers tended to identify unintended side effects of intentional behavior as the intended behavior. Observers seemed to be “blind” to the true intention of the actor in this task, which was to control the position of the knot relative to the target dot – hence the title “Control Blindness”. Indeed, my role as one of the authors of the paper was to create a model to demonstrate that what were being identified as the intentional behaviors of the actor were demonstrably unintentional (uncontrolled) side effects of control.
RM: So what was demonstrated is that in situations like that in the rubber band demo-- where the intended result (the controlled variable) is not obvious – an observer is likely to see an unintended side effect of control as the intended result of the actor’s actions. This is especially true when the side effects of control “look like” something that a person might  intend to do (like mimicking the actions of the person applying disturbances to the knot).Â
RM: This was a very interesting and important finding in itself and Andrew Willett is to be congratulated for carrying out this research and getting it published. But I am very uncomfortable – especially in this era of “fake news” – about publicizing this research by saying that it had discovered something that it hadn’t; that people can’t accurately guess what people intend by just looking at their behavior. Maybe they can’t? But this study doesn’t allow that conclusion. It does allow the conclusion that observers could not guess the actor’s intention in this particular task. But, more importantly, it shows that observers who do not see the actor’s true intention consistently misidentify some unintended side effect of carrying out that intention as the actor’s true intention.Â
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.02.0705 ET)]
Hmm. I find myself agreeing with Rick. It might be a minor point to some but it strikes me as an important one.
Fred Nickols
···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Watch this space folks!
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.01.2230)]
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: http://stories.vassar.edu/2017/170222-andrew-willett.html
RM: Since the paper is based on PCT I suppose I should be glad of the publicity. But I was a little taken aback by this review, which said that the conclusion of this research was that “it is almost impossible to guess people’s intentions simply by observing their behavior.” It may, indeed, be almost impossible to guess (correctly) people’s intentions simply be looking at their behavior. But you couldn’t conclude that based on this research.
RM: What we did conclude from this research was that, in this particular instance of intentional behavior (intentionally keeping the knot in a pair of rubber bands over a target dot) observers tended to identify unintended side effects of intentional behavior as the intended behavior. Observers seemed to be “blind” to the true intention of the actor in this task, which was to control the position of the knot relative to the target dot – hence the title “Control Blindness”. Indeed, my role as one of the authors of the paper was to create a model to demonstrate that what were being identified as the intentional behaviors of the actor were demonstrably unintentional (uncontrolled) side effects of control.
RM: So what was demonstrated is that in situations like that in the rubber band demo-- where the intended result (the controlled variable) is not obvious – an observer is likely to see an unintended side effect of control as the intended result of the actor’s actions. This is especially true when the side effects of control “look like” something that a person might intend to do (like mimicking the actions of the person applying disturbances to the knot).
RM: This was a very interesting and important finding in itself and Andrew Willett is to be congratulated for carrying out this research and getting it published. But I am very uncomfortable – especially in this era of “fake news” – about publicizing this research by saying that it had discovered something that it hadn’t; that people can’t accurately guess what people intend by just looking at their behavior. Maybe they can’t? But this study doesn’t allow that conclusion. It does allow the conclusion that observers could not guess the actor’s intention in this particular task. But, more importantly, it shows that observers who do not see the actor’s true intention consistently misidentify some unintended side effect of carrying out that intention as the actor’s true intention.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Bruce Nevin (20170315.18:21)]
So the reviewer exemplifies your point. He did not see what the purpose of the demonstration was (to show that “observers who do not see the actor’s true intention consistently misidentify some unintended side effect of carrying out that intention as the actor’s true intention”), and he misattributed purpose to an effect of it (that observers couldn’t predict purpose from observed behavior). Ironically, this effect is well expressed by your old slogan that you can’t tell what someone is doing by watching what they’re doing. As you say, it’s not false, but it’s not what the demonstration showed.
···
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.01.2230)]
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM:Â http://stories.vassar.edu/2017/170222-andrew-willett.html
RM: Since the paper is based on PCT I suppose I should be glad of the publicity. But I was a little taken aback by this review, which said that the conclusion of this research was that “it is almost impossible to guess people’s intentions simply by observing their behavior.” It may, indeed, be almost impossible to guess (correctly) people’s intentions simply be looking at their behavior. But you couldn’t conclude that based on this research.
RM: What we did conclude from this research was that, in this particular instance of intentional behavior (intentionally keeping the knot in a pair of rubber bands over a target dot) observers tended to identify unintended side effects of intentional behavior as the intended behavior. Observers seemed to be “blind” to the true intention of the actor in this task, which was to control the position of the knot relative to the target dot – hence the title “Control Blindness”. Indeed, my role as one of the authors of the paper was to create a model to demonstrate that what were being identified as the intentional behaviors of the actor were demonstrably unintentional (uncontrolled) side effects of control.
RM: So what was demonstrated is that in situations like that in the rubber band demo-- where the intended result (the controlled variable) is not obvious – an observer is likely to see an unintended side effect of control as the intended result of the actor’s actions. This is especially true when the side effects of control “look like” something that a person might  intend to do (like mimicking the actions of the person applying disturbances to the knot).Â
RM: This was a very interesting and important finding in itself and Andrew Willett is to be congratulated for carrying out this research and getting it published. But I am very uncomfortable – especially in this era of “fake news” – about publicizing this research by saying that it had discovered something that it hadn’t; that people can’t accurately guess what people intend by just looking at their behavior. Maybe they can’t? But this study doesn’t allow that conclusion. It does allow the conclusion that observers could not guess the actor’s intention in this particular task. But, more importantly, it shows that observers who do not see the actor’s true intention consistently misidentify some unintended side effect of carrying out that intention as the actor’s true intention.Â
Best
Rick
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–