Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@pucc.Princeton.EDU:marken@aero.org>
Posted-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 18:16:33 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:16:33 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Why adopt a different theory?

[From Rick Marken (920105.1800)]

Greg Williams (920105 - 2) --

>I think they would want to [change to PCT] if
>PCT allowed them to solve problems which they already want to solve but cannot
>solve without PCT.

>To date, I've seen more emphasis on trying to influence nonPCTers to
>change their notions about what problems are important than on trying to use
>PCT to solve the problems nonPCTers are having problems with.

This is indeed a big problem. But it's not that PCTers are arguing that
the problems of the nonPCTers and unimportant; just that they may not be
problems at all, or problems only because they are looking at behavior
the wrong way. Just today I was asked to help with a task at work that
involved trying to find a "reliable and valid test instrument" that could
be used to ascess some behavioral variables. Well, there is a problem;
how can PCT help solve it? First I could point out that the
tests are useless unless the reliabilities are on the order of .99. There
are no such tests and right off hand I don't know how to design them.
I think they are just barking up the completely wrong tree simply because
this is the conventional way of dealing with things (by the way, I will
help with this task -- because they are paying me to do it -- I will
statistically evaluate their data until their hair turns blue -- and if
possible I will gently suggest that maybe the whole exercise is useless.
But I can't tell them how PCT can help them solve their problem--designing
a more reliable and valid test--because 1) I don't know and 2) I think the
answer would require a major shift in the direction of the whole effort --
away from what they consider their problem).

>Beating them at YOUR game is guaranteed to merit a
>"so what?"

But part of the problem is that PCT says that much of their game
is based on an illusion -- or at least a misconception. So it's
not that simple to just say "watch, we can solve your problem". As
I said above -- many of their problems are simply not problems from
a PCT perspective.

I'm also surprised that you're saying this given your experience
with "Science"; you offered a model that solved a problem that was
only partially solved (and inelegantly, at that) by some "biggies"
in the field of motor behavior; was anyone interested in it?

I have done research which could be seen as providing a solution
(or, at least, the start of a solution) to some problems of concern
to psychologists -- the problem of how to coordinate actions in a
disturbance prone environment. My "Degrees of freedom" paper explained
the solution to two specific "problems" (and called such) in motor
behavior psychology; the paper was published -- but I have never seen
any use of the approach in recent editions of the Journal of Motor Behavior
or any other place where one might expect to find motor behavior
problem solvers solving problems.

I know that you believe that PCTers should spend more time showing what
they can do to help the nonPCTer and less time saying what the  nonPCTer
can't do. That sounds GREAT -- but I have tried it -- earnestly -- with
virtually no success. Bill has done it too -- look at the 1971 Behavioral
Science paper, for example -- a beautiful model of operant behavior that
predicted the data to within 1% (as I recall) and not a SINGLE reference
to it in the operant literature.

Maybe a shotgun approach might help; why don't you describe all the
problems you know about (in any field) that PCT might help with.
Then we could try to solve ALL those problems and maybe a person
dealing with ONE of those problems will notice. I'm really interested
in knowing what these PROBLEMS are that people need to have solved?
What if they are problems like "how does reinforcement strengthen
behavior"? Do you think they would really want to know the solution
to THAT problem?

Best

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU