From: frankred@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Martin Redington)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Tavistock Institute - Brainwashing Center
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:00:04 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <18hq2eINNsob@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>frankred@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Frank Redington)
>responds to my post of Tavistok material. 
>
>
>>>  but is admirably suited for transforming 
>>>  psychological problems into computer-programmable problems.  This was 
>>>  promptly done.  
>
>>Aha. I've got a degree in Psychology (does that make me 
>>one of them?) and am about to receive one in AI. This 
>>is rubbish. If it's been done, by whom, where are the 
>>references, and can I ftp it from anywhere ;-)
>
>Well, this time you are asking something I know a little about. As
>a freshman at Michigan State in the sixties, I did some programming
>for an organization called the Computer Institute for Social Science
>Research.

 I went looking for library references, and what I found was
>scanty. However, finding even this amount from a brief catalog search
>is enough to indicate that computer modeling of personality and social 
>interaction exists as a discipline. I guess the fields of psychology and AI
>are both large enough that it is posible to get a degree in each without
>necessarily being aware of all the subfields of those disciplines.

references deleted

When I said "This is rubbish", I was referring to the phrase

>>>  admirably suited for transforming psychological problems into 
>>>  computer-programmable problems.  

In the context of the rest of the article, this implies that 
the simple model

   Behaviour = Personality * Environment 

(b. is a function of the interaction between p. and e.)

is so sophisticated that knowing two of these variables allows
prediction of the third. 

However, except where someone had actually gone out and looked,
exactly what the function and interaction are is unknown.
Even where they are known, that knowledge is limited to
mostly small statistical effects, with small samples, from
unrepresentative populations. In addition, the scales on
which I.V's and D.V.'s are measured are often of dubious
quality or limited utility. To suggest that such information,
and what is effectively a common-sensical formula (people
behave in different ways, according to their nature and 
circumstances) allow computer aided prediction or 
manipulation of behaviour, that is good enough to be used
effectively in setting propaganda policy, IS RUBBISH.

Yes, I am aware of computer modelling of personality and
social interaction. Computer models of social behaviour do 
exist, as do computer models of mass social behaviour. I 
recall a particularly good one that modelled the jury process, 
and produced the same type of verdicts (hung, unanimous etc.)
as real juries, given similiar cases, ON AVERAGE. However, it
did not do so good when trying to predict the outcome of 
individual trials. Similarly, there is work going on at Kent,
attempting to model people`s behaviour in fires. Such models
tend to be limited to very specific situations, and do NOT
predict individuals behaviour, except in a statistical sense.


I'm sorry, but social psychology just isn't up to
what you believe it to be capable of (no matter what
SOME social psychologists might LIKE to believe). 

                                  cheers,
                                         Martin.