X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:41:54 PDT
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: Modeling vs. WHAT?
X-To:         CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu
              26 Aug 1992 10:48:48 -0700
              <92Aug25.195055pdt.11839@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 920826)

   From:	Avery Andrews <andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>

   I'm not convinced that PCT-ers really understand that interactionist
   arguments are aimed at a fairly specific group of people, the `Planning
   weenies', a group of people who really seem(ed?) to believe that an
   Agent or a critter can make its way through the world by concocting
   elaborate plans with its eyes closed, and then following them (still
   with its eyes closed).

i want to emend this just a bit.  most of the authors we've been
discussing are coming mainly out of (and addressing) ai.  however,
there's definitely collaboration w/ other fields, particularly
philosophy (cf. preston), anthropology (ethnomethodology/conversation
analysis), and (some) psychologists.  the interactionist argument is
in general deemphasizes individuals and emphasises their interactions.

it's an intellectual movement that is taking hold and still growing
and gradually being assimilated, and it has its merits and demerits
like any other.  i think it's not going to go away, at least insofar
as it gets assimilated.  but it's not the ultimate truth, and more
than anything else (incl pct) is.

cheers.

				--penni


   people actually tend to think that there needs to be an exhaustive
   categorization of everything in the visual field, plus precise
   metric information.  Part of Sonja's mission is to demonstrate that this
   assumption is unnecessary (and, by implication wrong).  The idea is not
   no machinery, but minimal machinery, surely scientific Right Thinking.

   I think that PCT diverges from standard Interactionism by denying that
   much in the way of useful results will emerge from accidental outcomes
   of the dynamics of activity.  One of Agre's examples is that if you have
   a stack of bowls in your cupboard, the ones you use most will tend to `drift'
   to the top, not because you mean for them to be there, but just as an
   accidental side-effect of the fact that the top of the stack is the easiest
   place to put a bowl you've used when you've finished with and washed it.
   Agre sees this as evidence of the cooperativeness of the world, while I
   imagine that Bill or Rick would say that this kind of effect is of marginal
   importance (as would I), & most good stuff has to be controlled for.  (On
   the other hand, setting places up so that their natural dynamics tends to
   support the results you want is definitely a good idea, & I suspect that
   Agre could make a fortune as a business consultant if he wanted to).

   At any rate,  we don't have to have an argument about this - analyse enough
   specific cases in detail, and a trend will probably emerge.

   Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

   So PCT seems cognitivist to Penni
   (I think) because of the emphasis on the internal representation (as
   reference levels) of
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU