A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

FredNickols · June 6, 2016, 8:55pm

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.1653)]

Actually, Kent McClelland convinced me to essentially use your example.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

Thank you Fred. I appreciate hearing your reasoning on this. Based upon that reasoning, I also think that your example provides a richer starting point for discussion than would have mine.

On 06/06/2016 06:16 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:

Bill:

I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.

Fred Nickols

From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

Hi Fred,

I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.

In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.

I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.

On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:

One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Writer & Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

FredNickols · June 6, 2016, 8:55pm

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.1652 ET)]

Good points, all, Rick. I’ll make sure to heed your advice.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:18 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.06.1015)]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

FN: I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

FredNickols · June 7, 2016, 12:14pm

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.07.0812 ET)]

Thanks, Rick. Your suggestions and comments were very helpful. I made major revisions to the levels diagram.

The 11 levels diagram is part of an upcoming Knowledge Workers column that I write for ISPI’s PerformanceXpress. A draft is attached.

Further comments and suggestions are welcome.

Fred Nickols

PCT - Plain and Simple.docx (59 KB)

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:18 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.06.1015)]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

FN: I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

_Erling_Jorgensen · June 7, 2016, 2:13pm

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.06.07 1000 EDT]

Hi Fred,

I like the clarity of your “PCT: Plain and Simple” document very much. You lay out the basic control loop very well, with a nice clean example. Then you show that PCT can easily handle added detail, with the HPCT diagram. I think your revised diagram here is stronger than it was before. It seems to me that your explanations further the project that Rick suggests, to invite further reflection and testing of HPCT as a proposed way to understand the reasons for our actions. You make that invitation very accessible.

I believe there is one remaining typo in your document, in the first paragraph. In the last sentence, “Give…” should be “Given…”

Excellent work!

Erling

“Fred Nickols” fred@nickols.us 6/7/2016 8:14 AM >>>

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.07.0812 ET)]

Thanks, Rick. Your suggestions and comments were very helpful. I made major revisions to the levels diagram.

The 11 levels diagram is part of an upcoming Knowledge Workers column that I write for ISPI’s PerformanceXpress. A draft is attached.

Further comments and suggestions are welcome.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:18 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.06.1015)]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

FN: I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

Lynndal_Daniels · June 7, 2016, 3:09pm

HI Rick,

As a relative newbie to the depths of PCT theory and one interested more in the therapeutic MOL side of things, I’m wondering if you can help clarify something for me from your comments below.

You said “being a vegetarian” was a highest level control process and that a lower level would be “it’s wrong to eat animals.” In working with and reading Tim C’s writings, he talks about asking “how” and “why” questions to help move someone’s attention up and down levels. Why questions typically move levels up and how levels down.

So, if I could as “why do you want to be a vegetarian?” And there’s an answer for that… Wouldn’t that imply there’s another level above “be a vegetarian.”?

Thanks,

Lynndal

···

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

FN: Iâ€™d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if itâ€™s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

Martin Taylor (2016.06.04.07.00)

MT: I’m still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies for probable incoherence.

RM: Hope you feel better soon.

MT: How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphorical power in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct
a road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get
to the top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent and I call these components of environmental feedback
loops “atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).

RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement) name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”. It’s true that putting a more powerful engine in a car does change the feedback connection between your output and a controlled variable,
such as your speed. But all the hierarchy has done in this case is controlled for a perception of a more powerful engine. Once installed the engine does change the feedback connection between your output and speed. Which is a good observation but why does
it merit a new name for the feedback function?

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

Â

FN: Iâ€™d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if itâ€™s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2)Â to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee withÂ [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.Â

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

Hey Rick, thanks.
BTW, noting what I actually wrote rather shocked me... or at least
the comment that I made.Â I had already noted that you stated that
you had not read the whole thing so my ‘…is so obvious…’ remark
must be understood as not having any reference to an opinion of your
comprehension!
Great point on the gaze heuristic.Â  I did sort of ponder that for a
moment.Â I noted that I had not seen anything (even yet) on just
what that heuristic actually is beyond the loose reference to
'maintaining a constant angle.'Â Like yourself, is seriously doubt
that the fielder example is such a case or at least would typically
be such a case.
I don't know if this is 'way out on a limb' but I suspect that a
fielder probably controls head position and eye rotation in the
socket to do something like maintain the image of the ball centered
in the visual image.Â I think that it could well be more complex
than that where there might yet another object in the visual plane
that also must be tracked (where neither would be centered) but
essentially the changes in eye position and head position required
to maintain the ball at some referenced point in the full perceived
image would then be the input to yet another control system that
would, presumably through another heuristic, correct running
velocity to keep the ball’s visual position at the reference point
without the head or eye position sensors having to make changes.
I fully realize that even if what I just said about that is close to
what is true that it is still a gross oversimplification.Â Since
anyone that has successfully caught as opposed to falling down or
being hit by the ball realizes that in most cases the head has to
tilt back when the ball gets close to overhead just to see it.
  On 05/31/2016 03:59 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

      [From
Rick Marken (2016.05.31.1500)]

      RM: Thanks to Bill Leach and Vyv Huddy for explaining the
1/N “investment in child” heuristic.Â

          On Mon, May 30,
2016 at 10:05 PM, Bill LeachÂ wrleach@cableone.netÂ wrote:
              BL: Rick, the reason that he
presents is so obvious that it almost hurts! Â Â

Vyv

(31.05.2016 935 BST)]

              RM: Yes, it is quite simple. I guess my problem was

not carefully reading the y-axis label: “Child care
received over 18 years (hours)”. I thought they were
just measuring “investment” using hours during
childhood, which I think lasts until 12 at most, so
that all kids are in the house at the same time. The
fact that they managed to measure hours over 18 years
for each kid is amazing. The study must have started
quite some time ago. Â

              RM: So their hypothesis is simply that parents try

to control for spending an equal amount of time with
each kid. A side effect of this is that the first and
last kid get more time spent with them from birth to
18 years assuming that all kids move out at 18. So the
dependent variable in this study – child care
received over 18 years (hours) – is assumed to be a
side effect of controlling for equal time with each
kid.Â

              RM: It seems that a far easier way to test this

“equal time with each kid” (1/N) hypothesis would be
to monitor the amount of time parents of 2, 3 or 4
kids spend with each kid, perhaps measured over a
month.Â

              RM: I've seen this hypothesis about the controlled

variable before. It’s on the right track, but it
obviously can’t be gaze (angle of the eyes/head) that
is controlled; it’s got to be a consequence of the
direction of gaze – visual angle – that is actually
controlled. I think they choose gaze as the variable
that is controlled because they just can’t get their
heads around the fact that organisms control input,
not output.Â

              RM: By the way, can you think of a way to show that

gaze is not the variable that is controlled when
moving to intercept a ball (or avoid a boat coming at
you)? Hint: it would involve doing the Test for the
Controlled Variable.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                            Author, with Timothy A.

Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of
Being Human.Â

VH:

He says that the first born and last
bornÂ are alone with the parents for a
certain amount ofÂ time (41.30). So there
is an assumption the children are born
in sequence and then fly the nest in
sequence. This meansÂ N increases for
each born and then decreases as
children leave. For families withÂ more
than two children the middle born are
never alone so the averageÂ N is always
higher for them than for theÂ first or
last born.

VH:

Rick - what did you think of the “gaze
heuristic”?Â

FredNickols · June 7, 2016, 3:44pm

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.07.1143 ET)]

Nice catch, Erling. Fixed. Thanks.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Erling Jorgensen [mailto:EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:13 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; fred@nickols.us
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.06.07 1000 EDT]

Hi Fred,

I like the clarity of your “PCT: Plain and Simple” document very much. You lay out the basic control loop very well, with a nice clean example. Then you show that PCT can easily handle added detail, with the HPCT diagram. I think your revised diagram here is stronger than it was before. It seems to me that your explanations further the project that Rick suggests, to invite further reflection and testing of HPCT as a proposed way to understand the reasons for our actions. You make that invitation very accessible.

I believe there is one remaining typo in your document, in the first paragraph. In the last sentence, “Give…” should be “Given…”

Excellent work!

Erling

“Fred Nickols” fred@nickols.us 6/7/2016 8:14 AM >>>

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.07.0812 ET)]

Thanks, Rick. Your suggestions and comments were very helpful. I made major revisions to the levels diagram.

The 11 levels diagram is part of an upcoming Knowledge Workers column that I write for ISPI’s PerformanceXpress. A draft is attached.

Further comments and suggestions are welcome.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:18 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.06.1015)]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

FN: I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.

RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the “reply” feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

DagArchive · June 7, 2016, 5:55pm

[From Dag Forssell (2016.06.07.1055 PDT)]

Fred, I am only now looking closely at your work. I see that your text
reflects good counsel from Rick, Kent and others.

Two nitpicks for text:

You have an unintended double space on line two: serve to
get.

You may want to search your doc for double spaces so you only have them
where you want them, such as between sentences.

hit by other cards ==> hit by other cars.

I like your presentation very much.

Diagram: The task you are undertaking is not easy

Compare LCS I page 206 for Bill’s effort at this kind of description.

Also:

www.tinyurl.com/InsightMgmt, page 41 for mine and Plooij’s
description. Page 53 may also be of some interest. And how about

http://www.zelligharris.org/Embodied.grammar.pdf page 15.

Your latest effort reads to me like way too complex for what Powers meant
and how I understand that you create successively complex
“images” from the lowest level “intensity” neural
currents. To me, “Perceived level of water in pot” fits MUCH
higher in the hierarchy than where you have it. Your descriptions for
levels 1 through 5 and a half fail to give a sense of what HPCT stands
for in terms of neural signal progression.

Here is an alternate take for discussion:

Level 1, Intensity: Neural current from tension sensor

     (Indistinguishable from

any other neural current,

      such as pressure

on skin, sour on tongue, high pitch in ear).

Level 2, Sensation: Sensed muscle tension

     (What kind of sensation?

Not sweet taste or red color)

Level 3, Configuration: Position of hand

     (Configuration of

sensations. Not taste of lemonade)

Level 4, Transition: Moving hand

     (Changing configuration.

Move hand with cup toward faucet)

Level 5, Event: Turning faucet handle

     (With the other hand,

moving or cranking until water flows)

Level 6, Relationship: Holding cup UNDER faucet

Level 7, Category: From here up I think you could stick with what you
have.

     Bruce Nevin has pointed

out to me that Plooij’s The Wonder Weeks

     does not actually

describe categories under this heading.

     It might be that

Categories is the prime candidate for redefinition

     in the hypothesized HPCT

scheme. I cant’t wait for the

     forthcoming articles in

the book being edited by Warren.

Best, Dag

rsmarken · June 7, 2016, 7:49pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.07.1250)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.06.05.20.30)–

MT: An atenfel is a component link in an environmental feedback path.

RM: OK. It’s hard for me to see what this might have to do with understanding social power from a PCT perspective. Rather than wait to read your (and Kent’s) contributions to LCS IV I’ll start a thread on Social Power when I get a chance and see if you can explain it in that context.Â

MT: Oh wow! Two more concepts from very different domains combined in

the word “gain”.

RM: Yes, you’re right. Range is not gain so you were not talking about gain. But it is true that the gain of the feedback function contributes to overall loop gain. Actually, the range may do something like affecting loop gain since a feedback function with a limited range of output will certainly reduce the ability of the control system to control.Â

MT: No, two controllers have independent perceptions. And why would you
want to replace the precise term “variable” with the loose “aspect”?
Perceptual variables are, at heart, functions of physical variable.

RM: Yes, that’s what I mean by “aspects”; aspects of physical variables are functions of those variables. For example, area and perimeter are two different aspects (functions) of the same physical variables (height and width of a rectangle).Â

MT: That’s an incoherent statement if there ever was one.

RM: Maybe it would be more coherent to you if you substitute “functions” for “aspects” and “orthogonal” for “different”. You can control two orthogonal functions of the same physical variables without conflict.Â

MT: You have 6 perceptual variables that are different functions of 6

components.

RM: Yes. Those “components” (the P(1,i)) are the sensory representation of the corresponding physical variables (Q(i)) in the system’s environment. The P(2,i) are six orthogonal linear combinations of the P(1,i), which is why all six of the P(2,i) perceptions can be controlled without conflict.Â

MT: Think again. It has nothing to do with gain. Difference in gain
affects only the value at which the conflicted variable gets stuck,
not whether the parties can control their perceptions of it. If your
last sentence means anything, that meaning is lost to me.

RM: Sorry about that.Â

Best regards

Rick

Yesterday I was afraid I might have been incoherent in the message
to which you respond, but I can’t believe I was so incoherent as to
have infected you so badly so quickly.
By the way, the jet lag and the cold are improving, but restoration
of normality is far from complete.
Martin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

          RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement)

name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”.

          RM: Yes, the feedback function contributes to the gain

of the entire control loop. So the higher the gain of the
feedback function (greater the range of output)

RM: Not the same physical variable; the same * aspect*(perception) of physical variables.

          RM: It's possible to control different aspects of the same

physical variables without conflict.

          RM: This is demonstrated in my spreadsheet hierarchy model

(http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/SpreadsheetHierarchy.zip )
where different aspects (perceptions) of 6 physical
variables are controlled by 6 different control systems at
three different hierarchical levels.

          RM: But I think what you mean is that when the output

gains of the two conflicted systems are equal they cancel
each others efforts and, thus, both lose control of the
controlled variable. Good control leads to loss of
control: the paradox of controlling people;-)

Best regards

Rick

Â

              The perception just stays where it is as both of them
increase their influence on it. But there comes a
point when one of the antagonists reaches a limit of
it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output)
now provides the winner with Type 1 power. The winner
is able to control its perception regardless of what
the loser does.

              As a social example, consider an auction. The person
able (and willing, because of internal conflicts) to
apply most money gets the thing being auctioned, while
all the competitors get nothing. The winner had more
Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels that
provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a
variety of perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those
atenfels can be seen as being what was actually
auctioned.

              To control many perceptions, one must be able to
control perceptions of one’s location. “Be able”
implies both Type 1 and Type 2 power. A person in jail
has both, but the range of Type 2 power is very small
compared with someone at liberty. If a person controls
those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for
him to be in jail, and he does not have enough money
to hire skilled lawyers (Type 2 power), he will be
unable to control his location beyond the confines of
his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an atenfel
essential for controlling variables he wants to
control, so that for those perceptual variables he has
no Type 1 power – no ability to influence them.

              More generally in power relationships, the conflict
issue is in the availability of atenfels. The one with
more global power (more ability and strength to
control a lot of perceptual variables) has more
ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny
them to others. It is not necessarily true that as the
rich get richer, the poor get poorer, because the
stock of potential atenfels may be increasing, but it
is not unlikely.

              I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is
relevant to the thread. I know it’s not relevant to
Fred’s original question, but I think it is relevant
to understanding the hierarchy of control. If it isn’t
too incoherent.

Martin

On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickols wrote:

Chad:

                    I'll defer to the experts but I will say
this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In
other words, power is diffused and distributed
up and down the hierarchy. Now if you want to
talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under
the heading of “disturbances.”

Fred

Fred Nickols, CPT

Writer & Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”

View My
Books on Amazon

Sent from my iPad

                    On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org                        >

wrote:

                            [From

Chad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]

Â

                            Fred,
nice work.Â What about power?Â Where
does it fit?Â How is it regulated?

Â

                            According
to megaproject researcher Bent
Flyvbjerg, power trumps rationality
(Level 10):

Â

                            "Foucault
says that knowledge-power and
rationality-power relations exist
everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that
where power relations take the form of
open, antagonistic confrontations,
power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations; that is, knowledge and
rationality carry little or no weight in
these instances. As the proverb has it,
‘Truth is the first casualty of war.’

Â

                            In
an open confrontation, actions are
dictated by what works most effectively
to defeat the adversary in the specific
situation. In such confrontations, use
of naked power tends to be more
effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or
rationality, even though feigned
versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to
legitimize naked power.

Â

                            The
proposition that rationality yields to
power in open confrontations may be seen
as an extreme case of proposition no. 4,
‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields
completely, or almost completely, to
power in open, antagonistic
confrontation because it is here that
naked power can be exercised most
freely."

Â

                            Source:

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Rat&Pow03.pdf

Â

Best,

Chad

Â

                              Chad

T. Green, PMP

                              Research Office

                              Loudoun County Public Schools

                              21000 Education Court

                              Ashburn, VA 20148

                              Voice: 571-252-1486

                              Fax: 571-252-1575

Â

                              â€œWe
are not what we know but what we are
willing to learn.â€? - Mary Catherine
Bateson

Â

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016
1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the
11 Levels of HPCT

Â

                            [From

Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]

Â

                            Good
point, Lloyd.Â Iâ€™ll make that change.Â
Nutrition is a much better choice.

Â

                            Fred

Nickols

Â

From: lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02,
2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the
11 Levels of HPCT

Â

                              [From

Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]

Â

                              Just some thinking
on quickly glancing - more later, if
anything else emerges…

Â

                                I would think
Healthy diet more a sequence or
program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science,
Literature, …

Â

Lloyd

                                      On Jun 2,

2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols
<fred@nickols.us >
wrote:

Â

                                          One
of my upcoming columns
will speak to PCT and I am
including a version of the
11 levels diagram shared
earlier with the list.

Â

                                          Iâ€™d
like to ask those who are
willing to do so to take a
look at the diagram and
let me know if anything is
so off that I need to fix
it or if itâ€™s a viable
example.

Â

Regards,

Â

                                          Fred

Nickols, CPT

                                          Writer

& Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

                                           â€œAssistance at a

Distanceâ€?*^SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

Â

                                      <HPCT

Levels v2.jpg>

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                        Author, with Timothy A. Carey,

ofÂ Â Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being
Human.Â

rsmarken · June 9, 2016, 5:01pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.09.1000)]

···

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lynndal Daniels lynndal@hotmail.com wrote:

LD: As a relative newbie to the depths of PCT theory and one interested more in the therapeutic MOL side of things, I’m wondering if you can help clarify something for me from your comments below.

LD: You said “being a vegetarian” was a highest level control process and that a lower level would be “it’s wrong to eat animals.” In working with and reading Tim C’s writings, he talks about asking “how” and “why” questions to help move someone’s attention up and down levels. Why questions typically move levels up and how levels down.

LD: So, if I could as “why do you want to be a vegetarian?” And there’s an answer for that… Wouldn’t that imply there’s another level above “be a vegetarian.”?

Hi Lynndal –

RM: This is a great question and it shows why I think treating the hierarchy as “holy writ” can lead to problems.

RM: I gave my example of controlling for “being a vegetarian” because “being a vegetarian” fits the description of a system concept type perception as defined in B:CP. It is hypothesized to be the highest level type of perception we control; there is nothing above it in theory. But it’s just a theory and it needs to be tested. We have to figure out what the different types of perceptions people control are and how they control them.

RM: As far as MOL is concerned, what is relevant about the hierarchical model is that it IS a hierarchy. I think there is pretty good evidence that higher level perceptions are controlled by means of varying the references for lower level perceptions. What is NOT relevant to MOL (or much else) is the specific characteristics of this hierarchy: the number of levels, the types of perceptions controlled at each level, etc. That’s all theory that needs to be tested.

RM: The hierarchical nature of control is relevant to MOL because it is the basis for understanding why intrapersonal conflict exists. Conflict presumably results when higher level systems set different goals (references) for systems controlling the same or virtually the same lower level perceptions. So, in theory, the way to solve those conflicts is to get the higher level systems to change the way they set the references for the lower level systems. And this presumably involves moving awareness (or consciousness or point of view or whatever it is) to the systems above those that are setting the incompatible references. So MOL involves helping a a conflicted person move their awareness “up a level”, above the systems that are causing the conflict, to the systemjs that can presumably be reorganized to solve it.

RM: Since, *in theory, *higher level systems are the reason why lower level goals are set, asking a person why they are doing something is presumably asking them to go “up a level” and describe the higher level goals that are responsible for setting the lower level goals that they are currently describing. So if I say “I want to see a movie called Gunga Din” and you ask me “why” you are asking me to go “up a level” and tell you what higher level goal(s) would be achieved by going to see that movie.

RM: But asking “why” you want something (or are doing something) doesn’t guarantee that you will really go “up a level” and describe the real reason why. What probably happens most often is that people make up what they think are acceptable answers to “why” questions that have nothing to do with the real, higher level reasons why they do things. Sometimes people may go up a level when asked “why” but probably more often they don’t; and I would guess that more often than not people go up a level without having been asked “why” at all.

RM: “Why” questions are, I think, just a good way to keep people talking. That’s certainly how my little, unbelievably adorable 2.75 year old granddaughter uses “why”. We’ll say something then she’ll say “why” and then we’ll explain and then she’ll ask “why” about the explanation and then we’ll come up with another explanation for that and then she asks “why” again. This goes on as long as we keep giving answers to the “why” questions. I’m pretty sure this is just her clever way to keep us talking so that she can learn how language works.

RM: If we were actually going “up a level” every time Alaia asked “why” then we would regularly be at the 20th level or so of the hierarchy; indeed, there would be no top to the hierarchy because we always answer her "why questions. So clearly asking “why” is not a guarantee that the answer will be from a higher level point of view. Sometimes it will but sometimes it will be just something to say in a desperate attempt to end the sequence;-)

RM: So “in theory” higher level control systems are the reason “why” lower level goals are set. But that doesn’t mean that asking “why” will get an answer from a higher level perspective. What I think we know for sure in MOL is that people do go “up a level”. But the levels they go to and from are not necessarily the levels hypothesized in B:CP.

RM: So for MOL I think the best way to deal with the hierarchy is to just understand that control IS hierarchical but not a hierarchy that is necessarily composed of the proposed levels. The exact nature of the hierarchy must be determined by PCT research.

RM: But I think MOL can contribute to our understanding of hierarchical control by describing how one can notice “up a level” events. One way to do this might be to make videos of MOL sessions and have people trained in doing MOL independently indicate where in the videos “up a level” events have occurred. Then see how much agreement there is and where the agreement is highest. This would be a nice example of “qualitative” research aimed at detecting the hierarchical nature of control in people’s talk.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

Lynndal_Daniels · June 9, 2016, 5:19pm

Hi Rick,

Thanks so much for your responseÂ Â Â it was very helpful.Â Iââm sharing it with the MOL list as well, since I think itâs very relevant there.

I think this nugget is the most important piece of the take away from your response.

RM: This is a great question and it shows why I think treating the hierarchy as “holy writ” can lead to problems.

Tim, has fairly clearly stated that he doesnât try to conceptualize or map out what levelâs a personâs âproblemsâ? might be coming from and I sense youâre absolutely right that itâs basically irrelevant to MOL (what level)â¦Â the more important thing being the basic idea/theory of the levels being hierarchical

Very helpful,

Thanks so much.

Lynndal

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 10:02 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Lynndal Daniels lynndal@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT