[From Rick Marken (950606.1330)]
Bruce Abbott (950606.1220 EST) --
Just a few posts ago you said that you only felt a need to respond when you
perceived error... As the above [my "Yes!" responses] seems to indicate that
your criterion for responding has changed, I'll be looking for your
enthusiastic Yes! to some of my statments too, yes? (;->
I'm still just responding to error. In this case the error was in my
"control for acknowledgment of great posts" control system. The error was
created by the following statement from Bill:
I haven't been acknowledging your great posts much, but the reason is that
I get tired of saying yes, yes, yes.
You ask:
Or does it make a difference WHO says it?
No, just the content. If your name were at the head of the post to which I
responded I still would have responded "Yes!". But I think it would be fun
to test this out. Why not put your header at the top of a Powers post
sometime and see if I notice.
Bruce Abbott (950606.1155 EST) --
HAVING control can be QUITE stressful if you're not good at correcting
error.
This statement implies that it is sometimes less stressful to have no
control. The only time I can imagine that this would be the case is when you
are talking about a variable that doesn't matter to you -- one for which
you have no reference specification, such as the temperature of the
earth's magma. It's true that poor control of a variable you care about
(have a reference for) is stressful; but NO control of that variable is
always as bad or worse
Illusory control may reduce stress (so long as the illusion persists) if
what you are worried about is the POSSIBILITY of uncontrollable error.
Dumbo's feather is a nice example: he was unwilling to try to fly so long as
he believed that the attempt would result in a painful impact with the
ground.
Ah. I see what you mean by illusory control. I would call this regular
control (no illusions involved); it's just that an outside observer can see
that some aspect of the control process is irrelevant. Controlling for
holding the feather is part of the means Dumbo uses to control for flight; he
has no was of knowing it's irrelevant; only the Disney animators know it's
irrelevant. If you try to take the feather away you are disturbing Dumbo's
feather control process; this creates error and, hence, stress.
Some stress might also occur because Dumbo IMAGINE'S the result of flying
without the feather (which, from his point of view, is the same as flying
without ears); the imagined perception is of him falling which is different
that what he wants to perceive (staying up). So Dumbo experiences error
(stress) as a result of magining the perception he would get if he flew
without a feather; again, strress is error.
Stress (error) that results from the imagined consequences of actions is,
indeed, very common (I know from personal experience). The stress is real
even if the imagined consequences are not. But I think it's a STRETCH to
imagine that rats, deprived of the "illusion" that they are controlling
shock, experience stress due to the imagined consequences of this loss.
I have a real problem with the notion that the rat's control systems are
continually undergoing massive reorganization here. Their behavior appeared
to be well organized and adaptive at all times during the study, not
continuously varying in some random fashion.
I didn't think the reorganization would be "massive" but I did imagine
there would be some. But apparently there is little or none because you say:
What they DID do was stay in whatever condition they were placed into. When
the condition was switched, the rats made no attempt to switch back.
I assume that the rats pressed the bar to switch conditions in the early
parts of training but eventually stopped. This would be how you know
that the rats knew that they could influence the condition they were in,
right?
Nice try, but no cigar.
I'm sorry. I find it hard to concentrate on this kind of research. I'm
rooting for the rat.
Best
Rick