X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:28:18 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 13:28:18 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Got them lonely, low-down PCT blues

[From Rick Marken (920726)]

Gary -- Still working on revision of Blindmen. By the way,
why did you send me that direct note about Greg's net feedback
problems?

Martin -- Did you try to simulate the single ECS "hidden bomb" yet?
I think I know what happens -- no bomb again I'm afraid; but try it
and see. I am working on developing an experiment based on my
observation (stimulated by one of your earlier "bomb" posts) that
the addition of a new control system can create problems if control
of that variable requires the inconsistent use of outputs that are
already being used to control another variable -- but that this
depends on how the person originally learned to control the first
variable. I think this should be fairly easy to set up -- and I
think it could be pedagogically interesting also.

The subject line of my post refers to the fact that I was having a
bit of the PCT blues yesterday. I was feeling blue because I was
getting tired of PCT being perceived as such a "fringe" approach in
the life sciences. While I dearly love and enjoy working with the
dozen or so people I know who really understand PCT, it gets a bit
lonely out here without them (though the net helps). I guess I just
don't really like the fact (though I understand why it happens) that
people (often colleagues) have such an allergic reaction to PCT. I
want to cry " What's wrong with PCT? What don't you like? Why don't
you want to just give it a chance? Why don't you want to a least
TRY to understand it?" I know that PCT contradicts much of the basic
dogma of the life sciences. But people seem so eager to overthrow
dogma - to embrace ANY "brave new approach" to understanding life.
Why don't they spend some time trying to understand PCT?

Of course, I know the answers to these questions (at least, from a
PCT perspective) -- but it's still depressing sometimes. My
current depression was set off on friday when I had a meeting with
a fellow human factors engineer from another company. He was a very
nice, charming person. He was also a person who had done research
on control models of people (from the engineering perspective --
trying to discover how the input -- our disturbance -- was related
to output). He was interested in my work and asked for a reprint.
The article looked familar to him and it turned out he had been a
reviewer on it; it was kind of embarassing because he had given it
a relatively negative review (not real bad, luckily, and I didn't
look up how I replied to him -- the article was published, after all --
but that should be a lesson to me to be a lot nicer in my replies
to reviewers; they are just people and I might even know 'em).
The depressing part of this encounter came from the realization
that I was doing research from what I'm sure this fellow saw
as such a "fringe" perspective. Despite what it might seem like, I
DON'T LIKE BEING PART OF A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT. It is NOT fun
being part of a psychological movement that is viewed as "fringe",
"radical" or whatever by 99.9% of my colleagues.  The only
reason I am a member of this weird group is because I value
intellectual integrity even more than I value being part of the
majority (the group I REALLY want to belong to). So please --
save me from the clutches of this radical cadre. TELL ME WHAT IS
WRONG WITH PCT -- PLEASE!! Then I can go off and be in a big,
popular group like the neural net group or the artificial life
group (they have more famous people too; and a glossy covered
newletter).

One helpful therapy for these blues of mine would be if someone
could explain (and show, through modelling and experimentation)
why a particular theory is BETTER than PCT. Randy Beer tried to
help me on this some time ago but failed rather miserably.
Maybe it was my fault -- being too dumb to understand him. So,
for my sake, please keep arguments against PCT simple and clear
(and, hopefully, written in BASIC or PASCAL). Please, NetNiks,
help me figure out what is wrong with PCT -- let me know what
every other psychologist seems to know -- so I can rejoin that
happy (and moral) majority. If you don't know what is wrong with
PCT (possibly because you are already part of CSG) then ask
a friend who knows enough about PCT to know that it's wrong.
Then have the friend explain it to me (why PCT is wrong, that is).

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