[From Rick Marken (950105.1330)]
CHUCK TUCKER (940105) --
several issues are being discussed for the third time. The discussion of
statistics and IV-->DV research is back again with about the same
results... If anyone doubts that then have them give an analysis showing
that not to be the case and we can examine it carefully otherwise one can
read (and accept) Runkel's statements in this book.
I don't think we can avoid having this discussion over and over again; it is
bound to come up each time a new PCT admirer comes on the net. The problem is
that it is easy to admire PCT (as a "theory") without understanding what it
is about (control).
PCT shows that the fact of control is inconsistent with a cause-effect view
of behavior. But the cause-effect view of behavior is at the _heart_ of the
way social and behavioral scientists do business -- whether their business is
primarily research or theory. Acceptance of PCT means rejection of the most
fundamental assumption made by workers in the social and behavioral sciences
-- the assumption that observable behavior is caused by external events or
internal processes. We call this assumption the "cause- effect model" of
behavior. Most people who accept PCT don't understand the implications of
PCT for the cause-effect model and, when these implications are pointed
out, there is VEHEMENT resistance. This resistance is what you see in the
discussion of IV-DV research; it is what wou saw in the discussion of
"information in the disturbance".
People don't walk around consciously saying to themselves "I believe in the
cause-effect model of behavior". Many who actually accept this model would
reject the words "cause-effect model"-- perhaps because they don't like to
think of people in cause-effect terms. But the cause-effect model is "in the
bones" of social and behavioral scientists. You can see it in how they go
about their business and in what they consider interesting data. The cause-
effect model is to a social and behavioral scientist what a supernatural
being is to almost everyone -- built into their view of the world.
I don't think you can expect someone to "read an analysis" and then blythly
abandon the cause-effect model of behavior. Behavioral scientists have real,
serious comittments to this point of view. If the cause-effect model is
rejected, for example, it means (as we "extremists" have said) that all of
the data collected within the framework of this point of view (ie. all
behavioral science research) is junk -- even the kind where there is a nearly
perfect relationship between presumed cause (IV) and presumed effect (DV).
Giving up the cause-effect model means giving up A LOT. But _not_ giving it
up means _not_ giving up the most basic misconception one can have about how
living systems work. Not giving up the cause-effect model means not
understanding PCT.
So it is important (I think essential) to try to help every would-be
perceptual control theorist understand why the cause-effect view of behavior
is wrong. Giving up the cause-effect model is as essential to getting the
right view of purposeful behavior as giving up the "stationary earth-centered
model" is to getting the right view of the Newtonian universe.
When we get into these discussions about the cause-effect model, I think it
would help enormously if all those on the net who really understand PCT would
join in the discussion. If we had 30 or 40 rather than 3 or 4 heads trying
to think of ways to show why the cause-effect view of behavior is wrong, we
might have something other than "the same results" (ie. nobody changing
theior minds). Again, it is NOT easy to give up the cause-effect model,
especially if one has been trained to do research in the behavioral sciences.
But giving up the cause-effect model is (I believe) the _sine qua non_ of
understanding the phenomenon of purposeful behavior and the model that
explains it (PCT).
I can't help thinking that we might be more successful at getting people to
at least consider revising this most fundamental assumption about behavior if
there were lots of people trying to show, with demos and modelling, why
the cause-efefct model of behavior is wrong. With more people involved we
should get many different kinds of "spades" chipping away at the foundation
of scientific psychology (the cause-effect model) and one of these spades
just might "click" for behavioral scientists who are still caught in the
throes of lineal causality.
CHUCK TUCKER (940105b)
I think these data present some severe problems for the model.
Which model? Why do you think so? If I read the symbols right, it looks like
precisely the kind of data we would expect from people who control line
position well and tone frequency poorly.
What do you think?
I think you need an appointment with Dr. Powers;-)
Best
Rick