Why so few serious commentators? (was Controlled Variables (was Re: Levels of perception))

[Martin Taylor 2009.03.22.17.51]

Here is a not untypical set of extracts from a recent discussion.

-----[From Rick Marken (2009.03.20.1430)] He is saying that in the Schouten experiment, subjects imagine which button they press (that's the imagined "Answer") while also producing an actual press open loop .

-----[From Rick Marken (2009.03.20.1820)]
Martin's model is that the controlled variable is the perception of the state of a _relationship_ between the light (S1), which is above either the right or left button, and the _imagined_ response (S2), which is either pressing the right or left button. This model says that the subject doesn't care which button is actually pressed, just which button is imagined to have been pressed.

------[Martin Taylor 2009.03.20.23.30]
No it doesn't. I thought you had understood what the model says, but it isn't what you describe, so I guess you didn't. I'll quote you up to the point where your description diverges from mine.

"Martin's model is that the controlled variable is the perception of the state of a _relationship_ between the light (S1), which is above either the right or left button, and the _imagined_" answer (S2), which is whether it was the left or the right light that was lit [NOT: response (S2), which is either pressing the right or left button]. The value of S2 at the required time of the response (third bip) is the reference value for the control system that controls a perception of which button is pushed. This model says that the subject controls which button is pushed, to correspond with the answer that the experimenter has requested when either the left or the right light was lit.

-------in [Martin Taylor 2009.03.20.17.56] I showed a diagram (copied from a much earlier message) of my model in which the control loop for matching perception to answer and a control loop for pressing the button corresponding to the answer are both shown, with the reference signal for which button to push clearly marked as such.

-------[From Rick Marken (2009.03.21.1150)]
I have a question about whether am I to understand that the actual button press that is made (the "Answer" in your prior diagram) is always the same as the imagined one (the one that goes into the perceptual function along with the light presentation)? I take it from you diagram that this is the case; that the subject does (or, at least, sets a low level reference to do) what is imagined: press the right or left button.

Your model implies that a disturbance to the relationship between S1 and S2 will not be resisted since it is not controlled; ----[Note by MMT now: This comment is in direct contradiction to both the text and the diagram on which Rick is commenting]

[From Rick Marken (2009.03.22.1030)]
I guess I just get frustrated because the number of people who are currently in the PCT research game, besides you and
me, remains so frustratingly close to zero.

Does this fairly typical extract suggest a possible lead on an answer to why so few people contribute constructively on CSGnet? It gets very tempting just to simply leave either the discussion or to leave CSGnet when my every attempt to explain a mistake in interpreting something I wrote has zero effect, and the same misinterpretation is repeated and repeated again. Trying to come to some agreement on technical matters is very trying(!) under such circumstances. And this is seems to be a standard practice. Over the years, how many people who used to contribute fairly regularly and sensibly no longer contribute at all? How many of them are even still onthe mailing list?

I know of at least three groups of researchers who do use PCT in their work. Not one of the people in those groups will contribute onCSGnet, though I have tried to suggest that they should join. They look for a while, and leave in disapointment withut contributing. I think that's sad, but it's very easy to understand. I've been asked why I stay, and I ask "Where else can I get my ideas criticised sensibly by people who really understand PCT?" The answer is a variant on "Sensibly???" I am not so cynical, usually, but sometimes I do begin to feel that they may be right.

I think this is unhealthy. PCT needs to be developed and propagated.

Martin

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2009.03.22.2250)]

Martin Taylor (2009.03.22.17.51)

Here is a not untypical set of extracts from a recent discussion…

Does this fairly typical extract suggest a possible lead on an answer to why

so few people contribute constructively on CSGnet?

Well, I can see where I might have been confusing in at least one place. You quote me as saying:

Your model implies that a disturbance to the relationship between S1 and S2 will not be resisted since it is not controlled;

And you comment on this saying:

[Note by MMT now: This comment is in direct contradiction to both the text and the diagram on which Rick is commenting]

I can see why you might have thought this. In your diagram you show the controlled variable (P) as a function of an actual observation (S1) and an imagined answer (S2). In my reply from which you took my quote I called the imagined answer S2’ and the actual answer S2. So when I said what you quote above, I was using S2 to refer to the actual answer (called “Answers” in you diagram), not the imagined answers that are part of your hypothesis about the controlled variable. I should have said that your hypothesis is that a controlled variable in the experiment is the relationship between S1 and S2’ so a disturbance to the relationship between S1 and S2 will not be resisted. (Actually, looking back on the post, I see that I did say this but I can see how you might have missed it). I’m sorry if this confused you.

It gets very tempting
just to simply leave either the discussion or to leave CSGnet when my every
attempt to explain a mistake in interpreting something I wrote has zero

effect, and the same misinterpretation is repeated and repeated again.

I’m trying my best. But I’ll keep trying harder.

I know of at least three groups of researchers who do use PCT in their work.

Not one of the people in those groups will contribute onCSGnet, though I

have tried to suggest that they should join. They look for a while, and
leave in disapointment withut contributing. I think that’s sad, but it’s
very easy to understand.

I agree. I think it is. But I bet we have different ideas about what is being understood.

Best regards

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com