what does PCT say about X?

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Bill Powers (960606.1015 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (960606.1005 EDT) --

     Clearly spectator sports exercise a deep hold on the human psyche.
     Does PCT have anything to say about this situation?

Peter Cariani (960606) --

     More generally, can PCT explain persistent masochistic
     fascinations, such as those (enjoyed? indulged in? endured?) by Red
     Socks fans?

These are the wrong questions. Any theory can explain any phenomenon, in
the hands of someone who believes the theory and wishes to explain the
phenomenon.

I could answer as a behaviorist: spectators direct their attention to
sporting events because they have been reinforced for doing so. If I
were a Freudian, I might say that unresolved Oedipal conflict leads to
identifying one or more players as a father figure and enjoying their
suffering over losing just as much as the vicarious thrill of victory. I
might believe in conspiracies, and explain the series of losses as
interference by an FBI-mafia consortium manipulating the odds to reap
betting profits to buy weapons to make the United Nations more powerful.
And I would explain the attendance of fans of the chronic losers by
saying they are part of the conspiracy, hired to give the charade a
semblance of legitimacy.

Or I could answer as a control theorist, and say that the fans remain
loyal because they are controlling for something other than a winning
record by their team -- for example, a sense of solidarity, or a
reputation for loyalty, or a chance to spend an afternoon out of the
office.

All these answers are superficial, the grist of the dilettante. People
offer answers like these when they just want to look intelligent without
doing any actual work. At least that's why I offer answers like these
when I do. Getting a real answer would require setting up hypotheses in
the light of the theory and past data, making predictions against new
data, and judging the adequacy of the theory on how well its predictions
were borne out in every case.

Remember the motto of the National Reorganization Association (NRA):
Theories don't explain phenomena; People explain phenomena.

···

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.

2

[From Bruce Gregory (960606.1325 EDT)]

(Bill Powers 960606.1015 MDT)

These are the wrong questions. Any theory can explain any phenomenon, in
the hands of someone who believes the theory and wishes to explain the
phenomenon.

Properly chastened I nevertheless persist.

Or I could answer as a control theorist, and say that the fans remain
loyal because they are controlling for something other than a winning
record by their team -- for example, a sense of solidarity, or a
reputation for loyalty, or a chance to spend an afternoon out of the
office.

All these answers are superficial, the grist of the dilettante. People
offer answers like these when they just want to look intelligent without
doing any actual work. At least that's why I offer answers like these
when I do. Getting a real answer would require setting up hypotheses in
the light of the theory and past data, making predictions against new
data, and judging the adequacy of the theory on how well its predictions
were borne out in every case.

That's kind of what I had in mind. If the control theory dilettante
answer given above is the best PCT can do, PCT doesn't have anything
very interesting to say about Red Socks Fans. The persistence of
masochism may be perfectly consistent with PCT, but then so is
Copernican model of the solar system. Applying PCT to interpersonal
conflicts can be illuminating and can suggest solutions of the type
Ed Ford has developed. Apparently applying PCT to understanding the
appeal of spectator sports is not nearly so fruitful. This confirms
my initial reaction, but is disappointing never the less.

Bruce G. (Go Socks!)