[From Rick Marken (940928.1600)]
Bruce Nevin (940926.1457) says --
I recognized that I have nothing to contribute but speculative theory
Bill Powers' (940927.0230 MDT) replies:
The apprentice observed the master struggling with a bottle and a cork,
knocking things off the table and muttering to himself.
"Master," said the apprentice, "I perceive that you are experiencing
some kind of error signal. If you will tell me what variable you're
controlling and your reference level for it, I will endeavor to augment
your loop gain or supplement your output function."
The master replied "Hang on to this bottle, will you? I'm trying to get
the goddamn cork into it."
Everybody has something to contribute to PCT science. People are controlling
all the time. It's so common that it doesn't seem like anything special. What
we need is to have people document this phenomenon and the best place to do
it is on CSG- L. The student becomes a master when he sees that what is not
obvious is what is obvious; the master is controlling for getting the cork
into the bottle while the student looks for theoretical constructs; the
student needs to stop thinking about the theory of control and start testing
to see what the master is doing; ie. controlling.
When I say we need more PCT science, I mean we need more everyday
demonstrations of controlling using fairly systematic (though not
necessarily quantitative) applications of the test. I suggest that people
report everyday use of the test to see what variables people control. I just
tried it on the way to lunch; as two friends and I were walking to the
cafeteria I tested to see whether the fellow next to me was following me; so
I started gradually increasing the distance between us; he did nothing to
compensate; he wasn't following me. Now, if I had the nerve, I could have
obstructed his entry to the cafeteria to test whether he was controlling
another variable. What might that variable be? What are some of its possible
values?
Bruce Buchanan (940927.20:45 EDT) --
>Those with an interest in PCT can only contribute what they are able.
I am well aware of this and I appreciate contributions of any kind. I was
not addressing my complaints to anyone in particular. I was (as usual)
simply crying out into the great unknown, wondering why, since the 1974
publication of B:CP, there have been only three people I know of who have
carried out anything close to a SUSTAINED program of research and modelling
based on PCT. This is not meant as a slap at PCT fans who are not carrying
out PCT-based research programs. It is simply meant as an observation -- an
astounding, puzzling observation. I'm glad people like to get together to
talk about PCT and how it applies to philosophy and practical problems and
whatever. But ultimately all of this talk and application must be based on
something "real", something "standard" that is the way it is regarless of how
you talk about.
The "gold standard" of PCT is the phenomenon of control and the working model
that explains it. This standard exists in the form of a simple demonstration
that people can maintain a cursor in any target position despite
unpredictable and undetectable disturbances. It also exists as the
operation of the simple model that can do this. We need more than three
people working to maintain and expand these gold reserves. Without
several sustained and honest PCT-based research programs I am sure that PCT
will disappear for sure -- no matter how promising the applications
or how fascinating the implications.
I think, that the basic notion of PCT concerning the control of behavior by
perception is so true and fundamental that it has always been understood
See how important research and modelling is. Just based on your words, I
would conclude that you still have not grasped the basic insight of PCT; that
behavior is the control OF perception. It sounds like you still think that
behavior is controlled BY perception. But your words may not reflect what you
actually know. If we had the working model in front of us, you could point to
the perceptual vsignal changing in response to changes in the reference
signal. You could also show me that disturbance variables contribute nearly
nothing to the variance in the perceptual signal. In other words, you could
point to the essential aspects of the phenomenon of control and not worry
about words (though you should worry about them a bit).
The fact that the phenomenon and model of control work as they do assures us
that PCT will be correctly passed from teacher to pupil, from generation to
generation. If all we had was talk or application we would eventually get
into arguments about what control _really_ is and how the model really works.
Then there would be factions, some of whom like to say that PCT is
about "the control of behavior by perception" and others who shout that it is
about the "control of perception by behavior" and others who stand on the
side laughing, saying it's really about the "behavior of control by
perception" , etc. See the problem?
Has PCT anything of interest to say to advertising theorists and agencies
concerning the role of fantasy and perception as these may control
behavior?
Again, it sounds like you're off by about 180 degrees. PCT might have
something to say about how advertising might influence the way people control
their perceptions but it doesn' t have much to say about how perceptions
control behavior other than "THEY DON'T"
Francisco Arocha (94/09/27) --
I would like to comment on the spirit of the series of posts titled
What are our goals? and Help! Is CSG going through a midde-life
crisis? ; -)
Well, I'd feel better about calling it a mid life crisis if I knew more
people who were 100, but I suppose it is that. I'm realizing that I have been
involved with PCT since the publication of B:CP and since that time I have
run into only harly anyone who is carrying on a SUSTAINED program of research
based on PCT. And PCT has been around since 1961. So it's over 30 years and
very few people working on it.
Again, I'm not saying anyone on this net should do something they don't do
well. I'm not criticizing those who are not PCT researchers. But it is pretty
amazing to me that there are so few people who have dedicated themselves to
PCT research and modelling. I thought we would add one or two a year maybe,
but we haven't come close.
If research and modelling are not the continuing basis of PCT then PCT
can continue only only as a belief system -- a religion. Luckily, I won't
be around to see it.
Best
Rick