HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:49:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Behaviorist critique
X-To:         CSGnet <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

From Greg Williams (920826)

Rick Marken Says:

>Does anyone know of any written critique of Behaviorism which explicitly
>cites the following problem (that Gary mentioned some time ago) :if
>human behavior is controlled by the environment (as claimed by Behaviorists)
>then Behaviorists themselves should not be able to exert control over people
>(as they say that they can -- and should) because they are under control?
>What I want is a critique that points out that control cannot be exerted
>by agents that are controlled. I have never seen any detailed critique
>of Behaviorism from this perspective.

I've not seen any either -- and I've spent a lot of time investigating
behaviorist philosophy -- probably because the critics are wise enough to
realize that the behaviorists can wheedle out of the charge. When backed
against the wall, they are perfectly willing to admit that their own
environmental and genetic histories have determined their own present-time
"control" of other organisms, where "control" simply means making
certain types of rearrangements of the environment of the other "controlled"
organisms. And they would even admit that (sometimes) the organisms being
"controlled" rearrange aspects of their (the behaviorists') environments,
resulting in a modicum of mutual simultaneous control. They realize that an
organism's environment can be altered by other organisms -- but they claim
that ultimate "control" of any organism is exercised by its entire
environmental and genetic history, so that, for example, an experimenter's
life history "made" him/her starve rats and then "control" what their actions
to get food. Any ability to alter another organism's environment can result,
potentially, in "control" of that organism. So the behaviorist's college
professors helped to "make" him/her (later) starve rats, etc. And the
professors' families helped to "make" them (later) "make" behaviorists (later)
starve rats, etc., etc., etc.

The real problems in this self-consistent scheme are (1) not having
sufficiently detailed (generative) models which can predict the LIMITS of
"control" (i.e., starving THOSE rats results in WHAT DEGREE OF "control"?) and
(2) invoking "history" as a catch-all explanatory notion (and then concocting
"just-so" Whiggish stories, as do some evolutionary theorists). But the
behaviorists say that (1) their models are good enough for their purposes and
(2) that invoking history is as good as we can do right now, given the state-
of-the-art in neurophysiology. (Sometimes when I read speculative musings on
the net, I'm rather sympathetic to the latter claim!)

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:07:20 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Behaviorist critique

[Martin Taylor 920826 1900]
Rick Marken (Quoted by Greg Williams 920826, initial date not immediately
accessible)

>Does anyone know of any written critique of Behaviorism which explicitly
>cites the following problem (that Gary mentioned some time ago) :if
>human behavior is controlled by the environment (as claimed by Behaviorists)
>then Behaviorists themselves should not be able to exert control over people
>(as they say that they can -- and should) because they are under control?
>What I want is a critique that points out that control cannot be exerted
>by agents that are controlled. I have never seen any detailed critique
>of Behaviorism from this perspective.

I'm afraid I don't see the paradox.  What is the problem with controlled
agents themselves controlling others?  Let us take the S-R position
that some pattern in the environment determines the behaviour of an agent
(I assume this is what "control" means in that context).  Then why should
the actions of that agent not create a pattern in the environment that
determines the behaviour of another (sub)agent?

It seems to me analogous to the situation of a high-level ECS controlling its
percept by way of (unknown to it, of course) setting references that lower
ECSs use in controlling their percepts.  Setting a reference level is the
closest behavioural thing in PCT to the S-R idea of control, I think.  Anyway,
whether you buy this analogy or not, I can't see the paradox when the
controlled controller is seen strictly from an S-R viewpoint.

(Incidentally, I'm still very uncomfortable with the conflation of "behaviorist"
and "S-R viewpoint."  As I like to use the word, any psychologist who is not
a behaviourist should be considered a mystic.  PCTers are not mystics.  They
observe what happens in the world and model it using plausible, possible
mechanisms that are as similar as possible to what is known from real
observations of real people and physically described machines.  PCT is a
thoroughgoing behavioural theory, in my view.  And I think you know by now
that I do have a slight inkling of what PCT is all about.)

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:43:05 PDT
Reply-To:     sibun@parc.xerox.com
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: agre, chapman
X-To:         CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu
              23 Aug 1992 16:43:46 -0700
              <92Aug23.164745pdt.11973@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 920823.1900)

   In article <92Aug22.140417pdt.38019@huh.parc.xerox.com>
   sibun@parc.xerox.com writes:

   >i really recommend preston's paper.  it starts at exactly the same
   >place as yr blind men paper, adn draws a v. diff conclusion.

   I send a preprint request to Beth Preston but I am just burning
   with curiosity. Did she start off with the simultaneous equations
   for a closed loop system and come up with different conclusions
   about its apparent "behavior" in relationship to environmental
   variables and constraints?

no; you saw the abstract.  she started off w/ saying that behaviorism
and cognitivism are looking at different aspects of the same thing.

   They do make some, well, strange statements, the meaning of which
   seem to be left to the reader's imagination. For example, I never
   got a clear explanation (I thought) of this gem (also on p. 21):
   "We have found, in the case studies that we conducted, that
   participating  in the flow of the environment, rather than attempting
   to control it, can simplify the machinery required to account for
   the organization of activity". If they are not saying something
   trivially obvious I would really like to know what it is. As it stands,

they are talking about ``leaning on the world.''

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:01:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      The phenomenon of control

[From Dag Forssell (920903-1)]

Bill Powers (920903.0800) in response to Penni Sibun (920902.1400)

>This is why we don't start with the math, but with the phenomenon of
>control. Once you have experienced and understood control as something
>happening, the PCT explanation becomes the only feasible one; it's clear
>that no other explanation can even come close to handling what you see
>happening. It would, in fact, take an enormous act of faith to believe
>that the control-theoretic explanation is wrong.

Penni, if you give me your snail mail address, I will be pleased to send
you my information packet which includes a do-it-yourself demonstration
of the phenomenon of control. The demo includes a narrative adapted from
Bill's work and several illustrations. You perform the demo with another
person (preferred) or by just reading and visualizing.

By getting some personal, physical experience with control and what it
looks like in action, you may gain a fresh perspective on the discussions
here.

Dag Forssell
23903 Via Flamenco
Valencia, Ca 91355-2808
Phone (805) 254-1195    Fax (805) 254-7956
Internet:  0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 14:38:37 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:38:37 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Cognition and Control

[From Rick Marken (920901.1430)]

I have a new question, particularly for those who support
some version of "cognitive psychology". It is related to the
recent discussion of behavior manipulation. The question is:

What does cognitive psychology have to say about the control
of behavior?

As far as I can tell, behavior control does not seem to be
much of an issue for cognitive psychologists. Why? There are
some cognitivists who have spoken to this issue. Chomsky,
for example, seems to think it's possible but not nice to do.
Neisser seems to think it is impossible because people are
too smart. I don't know if AI types deal with the issue at
all, though they seem to believe in "reinforcement" (see Minsky's
"Society of Mind"). So what is the cognitive (or, in general, the
"non-behavioristic") position on control of behavior? Can the behavior
of an organism (viewed as a "cognitive" system) be controlled? Why or
why not? Please, when answering this question, assume that "control"
means "to bring behavior to a state selected by the controller
and to maintain it in that state against disturbance".

I would really like an answer to this. I think this discussion
could help us articulate the difference between cognitive and PCT
views of behavior. I, of course, would also love to see how an
interactionist deals with this topic (control of behavior). What
do interactionists say about shaping and operant control?

Thanks

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:06:28 PDT
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: SR; Interactionism;Agre's Cooking program
X-To:         CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu
              27 Aug 1992 09:57:21 -0700
              <92Aug27.100310pdt.11602@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 928027.1300)

this is just a placeholder that i will comment more on bill's msg.
when i can (this list goes by so fast!), but basically i think his
analysis of toast is excellent, and shows real promise of a
rapproachment bet. pct and interactionism.

more later!

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"lstsrv-l@uga"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:19:00 EDT
From:         CHRIS TANSKI <CAPTANSKI33@SNYCORVA.BITNET>
Subject:      List

I'm thinking of starting a discussion list. Any ideas of how I should go
about doing that? Thanks

Please reply to: captanski33@snycorva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:56:18 CST
From:         GT2150@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Subject:      Professional???

From:         Cristina Blanxer <ZCOCBF01@EBCESCA1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: My experiences with LISTEARN
Comments: To: Darren Evans-Young <DARREN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
              3 Sep 1992 17:11:15 CDT from <DARREN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>

On Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:11:15 CDT you said:
>
>Harry,
>
>You are not alone. I went through HELL trying to remove my IBM-MAIN
>peer.  I was never personally advised that EB0UB011 was going away.
>I just happened to get wind of it through RELAY-L. It took me hours

|  Right, Darren. As the node is going to fade away, the server RELAY
|was been shut down.
|  Let me tell you that you work stupidly more than you needed. It shows
|that you don't have much work to do otherwise, you would have thougt
|f a way of getting in contact with the postmaster of listserv, who
|s SERVEMAN@EB0UB011, where i got nothing from you.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<DELETED TEXT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

|I hope I don't have never more to work together, because it's a real
|pain in the ***.
| Sincerely yours:
|             Cristina Blanxer (postmaster of LISTSERV@EB0UB011,
                               postmaster of LISTSERV@EBCESCA1)


    I find this a little disturbing, is this the expected reply or attitude
that I am going to get from the postmaster when a problem arises. While I may
not be entirely versed in the subject or the particular matter at hand I am
concerned with the attitude of those I am likely to be working with at some
future date.   I work with a server and am still learning the ins and outs
and it is likely that i will have to call upon the Postmaster from time to
time, and I do not like being told that being a bit netter makes me a pain
in the ****. I would have expected a more professional attitude from a
postmaster, perhaps I have expected too much from one that is obiouslly not
a *BITNET* netter.

                                          C.W. Turner
                                       GT2150@SIUCVMB           (BITNET)
                                       GT2150@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU   (INTNET)
                                       GT2150@AIX370.SIU.EDU    (INTNET)
                                       CTURNER@NYX.CS.DU.EDU    (FREENET)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:39:16 +0200
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Distribute work/local list mail
              25 Aug 1992 15:31:09 EDT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

Read the 1.7a release notes for a description of how things work.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
X-Envelope-to: Lstsrv-L@rutvm1.bitnet
X-VMS-To: SPCVXA::LSTSRVL
X-VMS-Cc: TERRY
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:27:21 -0400
From:         "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <TERRY@SPCVXA.BITNET>
Subject:      What text does LISTSERV use to detect bounced mail?

Hello -

  We have set up a mailing list to which users must be subscribed before they
can post to the list. This is on a VAX/VMS system, and thus can't run LISTSERV.
Also, we didn't get any responses to a request for a LISTSERV to host the list.

  Anyway, I'd like to make sure that the message our software sends to a user
who is not a list member won't be accpeted as a LISTSERV posting. I can think
of no reason why a mail loop between LISTSERV and our list would occur, but I
have seen enough strange things in the past that I'd like to make sure this
won't happen.

  I can't readily set our mailing list "from" address to one of the things
that LISTSERV checks for, as it's already set to the moderator's address. Thus
I need to either use a subject or some body text that will trip LISTSERV's
"bounce detector", hopefully without confusing the user that is receiveing
the message.

  Alternatively, I could add an additional mail header like "X-Listserv: Ig-
nore" if LISTSERV looks at header lines.

  A quick look at the archives shows a number of discussions about this, but
I was unable to find a complete current list. Pointers to the location of the
release notes or any other hints would be appreciated.

        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        terry@spcvxa.bitnet     St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
        terry@spcvxa.spc.edu    +1 201 915 9381
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:37:52 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Problem: It says it can't reach a node for 3 days. Huh?
              1 Sep 1992 00:01:56 GMT from <FHD@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>

 As you say, it's generally impossible to know what is causing the mail
 delivery failures from the contents of the "countdown" messages.  Nice
 way to describe them by the way. :)  I would recommend sending a note
 the postmaster asking him/her for information.  I've found that sometimes
 such notes actually are the first indication the postmaster has that
 there is a problem.  In those cases, they serve a more important purpose
 than just providing you with an explanation of the mail delivery problems.
 I generally don't mail postmasters at the regional Bitnet/Internet gateways
 since they are providing a generic service, and probably don't know anything
 about most of the machines they are asked to contact via SMTP connections.
 That is, if aardvard.xyz.edu is a workstation that has been down for a
 week, the postmaster at the xyz.edu mail gateway is probably going to know
 what's going on (or can find out).  But the postmaster at your regional
 INTERBIT isn't likely to know more than you've learned from the mail
 rejection notice already.

 -jj

 PS - I also consider the postmaster to be another person that's been
 bitten by whatever software/hardware problem has caused the delivery
 failure.  So, my notes tend not to be "flames" but rather requests for
 assistance and/or information.  There are exceptions of course, but
 you'll have to decide for yourself if/when the bounces are caused by
 unforseeable hardware/software problems or negligence and phrase your
 responses accordingly.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:14:01 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: List

In article <LSTSRV-L%92082220405589@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>, CHRIS TANSKI
<CAPTANSKI33@SNYCORVA.BITNET> says:

>OK, let me be more specific. I'd like to start a discussion list about
>golfing. I think that's a little more specific. I don't know how or
>where to begin. Any help would be appreciated.

Chris:

The Standard Advice for starting a list is to FIRST search for existing
lists that might already exist in your subject area.  To get a great
set of instructions (compiled/authored by Marty Hoag) for doing this
(including the Listserv Database Search script), issue a GET LISTSOF
LISTS to listserv@ndsuvm1.  While you're at, issue an INDEX NEW-LIST
which will return some filenames that you will also want to retrieve
(later) by additional GETs.

/Pete
--
Peter M. Weiss                     | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
31 Shields Bldg -- Penn State Univ.| "Connectivity is more than a Connection"
University Park, PA USA 16802-1202 | E. Michael Staman, _The Circuit_, Apr 92
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:27:51 EDT
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: My experiences with LISTEARN

I know I started this, but I'd rather cool things down a little.

I know there was a lot of frustration in my memo, but I'd rather
view this as saying, we got some real differences in facilities,
operations, etc here.  This is a real problem.  Hopefully,
our customers don't see it, but Listowners and postmasters
are really begining to see it, and it is begining to hurt.

The problems I had with GET are a real live example.  I still
don't know how to turn off the global GET of a list.  To me this
is a problem.  I probably use the global option on GET for
LISTSERV less than 5% of the time, because I don't need all the
peers, but one.  For example, I need to delete a ...@UK.AC....
user, or a uunet user.  Half the time, I have to get a copy
of the list, and manually inspect it.  I don't need the peers.
A local review won't show me those concealed.

The problem I had with GET listname FILELIST (CTL was another.
I was having problem.  I don't think I have the same situation
with LISTSERV.  So was it because LISTEARN is now different?
or was that function of LISTSERV added after 1.5o?  Sure I
have(or think I have) the announcements archived, but thats
more time searching, and you know how easy it is to find
a negative acknowledgement in a manual.

As it stands now, I would never reccomend peering a LISTSERV and
a LISTEARN list.  Not that LISTSERV is better, but because the
inconsistancies are not worth the aggrevation.  Sure it will
mean more traffic on the international links, but that is not
my problem.  (I've become very parochial, and getting my job
done is more important than traffic on links.  Of course,
sometimes traffic on links keeps me from getting my job done,
but that is another story.)

So, can we turn this around into dealing with the real problems,
rather than ad hominem arguments?
/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:11:15 CDT
From:         Darren Evans-Young <DARREN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: My experiences with LISTEARN
              2 Sep 1992 07:28:34 EDT from <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>

Harry,

You are not alone. I went through HELL trying to remove my IBM-MAIN
peer.  I was never personally advised that EB0UB011 was going away.
I just happened to get wind of it through RELAY-L. It took me hours
and hours to get everybody moved because I had to do a lot of
manual intervention.  The GLOBAL default on the GET command was a real
PITA.  Finally, got things squared away...probably lost some subscribers
along the way too.  I contacted the postmaster to remove the list. This
was months ago, it's still there.  I give up. IBM-MAIN is stable now
and I'll be glad when EB0UB011 goes away completely. My fists are
still sore from banging the table months ago when I tried to move my peer.

Darren

Darren Evans-Young                                  darren@ua1vm.ua.edu
Seebeck Computer Center                             70651.2605@CompuServe.COM
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa               (205)348-3988
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:16:32 EDT
From: Bill Verity <WHV@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: Compilation of LISTSERV

I don't have a measure of performance but I doubt that it can hurt.
I compiled most of the execs in mid-August and it seems to have been
running fine since then.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU