# A Stupid Question or Two

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [April 21, 1999, 9:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627 "1999-04-21T21:09:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 1999, 9:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/1 "1999-04-21T21:09:53Z")

</div>

Help me out here, fellas...

If engineers who design control systems don't really understand control  
theory (i.e., they use an S-R model and dismiss PCT), how do they manage to  
design control systems that work. Presumably, whoever designed the  
thermostat mechanism that is cited so often on CSG didn't know or care  
about PCT. Yet, from my miserable layperson's perspective, the darn things  
works just fine. Ditto for the weapons systems on board ship. The  
engineers associated with those systems didn't know squat about PCT either,  
yet the weapons systems they built worked. That leads me to ask a couple  
of stupid questions:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If an understanding of PCT isn't needed to design workable control  
systems, what value does PCT offer?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If all PCT does is offer an alternative explanation for phenomena (e.g.,  
the thermostat and shipboard weapons systems) that are adequately accounted  
for by other explanations (namely, those in the minds of the designers and  
builders of such systems), where is the "competitive edge" of PCT as the  
would-be theory of choice?

> Rick Marken (990420.1810)]
> 
> > Bruce Gregory (sometime 990420) --
> 
> > That's certainly true. But Rick is not talking about student  
> > misconceptions. He is saying that engineers who design control  
> > systems don't really understand control theory and that only  
> > "we" truly understand control theory.
> 
> Real engineers who design real control systems have used control  
> theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have  
> dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control  
> objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.  
> These engineers are not students. Do they understand control  
> theory?

Regards,

Fred Nickols  
Distance Consulting "Assistance at A Distance"  
[http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
nickols@worldnet.att.net  
(609) 490-0095

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 1999, 12:32am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/2 "1999-04-22T00:32:13Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (990422.1755.MDT)]

> If engineers who design control systems don't really understand control  
> theory (i.e., they use an S-R model and dismiss PCT), how do they manage to  
> design control systems that work.

I think Bruce Gregory answered this question, as did you. We don't need  
correct understandings to make things work. All we have to do is stick with  
it, patching and fixing and fiddling around, until we achieve the result we  
want. We're control systems, and that is what self-reorganizing control  
systems do.

Some engineers, of course, have a perfectly sound understanding of control  
theory. My understanding came from their writings, or the writings of their  
mentors in the 40s and 50s, not just from my own experiences. These  
engineers design control systems that work properly, and they understand  
their workings as negative feedback control systems. They find nothing  
alarming about the idea that control systems control their own inputs. Not  
being interested in psychology, most of them don't care, either.

It's been my experience, however, that many engineers are simply not  
innovators or pioneers (which could be said about members of practically  
any profession). They learn what they are taught, and if they become  
teachers, they pass it on as the truth. If you tell them something  
different from what they were taught, they become upset and say you are  
wrong. This happens even if you tell them the same things they were taught  
but in different words. If they happen to come under the influence of a  
teacher trying to make a name by coming up with something new, it will  
never occur to them that the teacher might not speak for everyone in the  
field. So we come up with "fuzzy controllers" and "modern control theory"  
and other similar trendy stuff, invented and promoted, often, by one  
venturesome person or a small group and adopted and defended as the latest  
hot poop by crowds of faithful followers.

In the meantime, most of the control systems that do the world's work and  
quide our rockets into space work in the good old fashioned way, without  
fuzziness or Kalman filters or neural nets. And a lot of control systems go  
right on working even though they are horrible kludges, cost way more than  
they needed to, and what with all the patches and fixes, are too complex  
even to think about.

Don't forget that half of the control engineers have skills that are below  
average.

Best,

Bill P.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Presumably, whoever designed the

> thermostat mechanism that is cited so often on CSG didn't know or care  
> about PCT. Yet, from my miserable layperson's perspective, the darn things  
> works just fine. Ditto for the weapons systems on board ship. The  
> engineers associated with those systems didn't know squat about PCT either,  
> yet the weapons systems they built worked. That leads me to ask a couple  
> of stupid questions:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If an understanding of PCT isn't needed to design workable control  
> systems, what value does PCT offer?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If all PCT does is offer an alternative explanation for phenomena

(e.g.,

> **···**
>
> > the thermostat and shipboard weapons systems) that are adequately accounted  
> > for by other explanations (namely, those in the minds of the designers and  
> > builders of such systems), where is the "competitive edge" of PCT as the  
> > would-be theory of choice?
> > 
> > > Rick Marken (990420.1810)]
> > > 
> > > > Bruce Gregory (sometime 990420) --
> > > 
> > > > That's certainly true. But Rick is not talking about student  
> > > > misconceptions. He is saying that engineers who design control  
> > > > systems don't really understand control theory and that only  
> > > > "we" truly understand control theory.
> > > 
> > > Real engineers who design real control systems have used control  
> > > theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have  
> > > dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control  
> > > objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.  
> > > These engineers are not students. Do they understand control  
> > > theory?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Fred Nickols  
> > Distance Consulting "Assistance at A Distance"  
> > [http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
> > nickols@worldnet.att.net  
> > (609) 490-0095

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hank\_Folson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Hank\_Folson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Hank_Folson)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 1999, 3:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/3 "1999-04-22T15:27:09Z")

</div>

[From Hank Folson (990422.0800)]

> Bill Powers (990422.1755.MDT)

> Don't forget that half of the control engineers have skills that are below  
> average.

Don't forget that half of the PCTers have skills that are below  
average. 😉

Which leads me to the important observation:

> We don't need  
> correct understandings to make things work. All we have to do is stick with  
> it, patching and fixing and fiddling around, until we achieve the result we  
> want. We're control systems, and that is what self-reorganizing control  
> systems do.

Whether we are unaware of it, believe it, know it, aren't sure of it, or  
deny it, or consider PCT a half-baked theoretical construct that has  
everything backwards from all existing 'successful' schools of  
psychology, we are \_all\_ applying PCT every moment of our lives.

Which brings me back to Fred's question:

> If an understanding of PCT isn't needed to design workable control  
> systems, what value does PCT offer?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If all PCT does is offer an alternative explanation for phenomena  
> .... where is the "competitive edge" of PCT as the would-be theory of choice?

If you understand the rules of the game, and apply them intelligently,  
you can play a lot better, and enjoy the game a lot more. And maybe win  
more often. 🙂

Sincerely,  
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277  
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 1999, 8:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/4 "1999-04-22T20:20:12Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (990422.0625)]

> [From Hank Folson (990422.0800)]

> psychology, we are \_all\_ applying PCT every moment of our lives.

Sorry to nitpick but I don't think PCT is something we "apply". PCT is just  
an explanation that may be used to inform certain "application" theories.  
Hugh Petrie gave a wonderful explanation of the difference but I'm not sure  
of the date of the post.

I don't think we apply PCT in exactly the same way as we don't apply gravity  
when we stumble and fall over.

Cheers,

Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hank\_Folson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Hank\_Folson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Hank_Folson)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 1999, 1:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/5 "1999-04-23T13:43:09Z")

</div>

[From Hank Folson (990422.2000)]

Tim Carey (990422.0625)

> > Hank Folson (990422.0800)

> > psychology, we are \_all\_ applying PCT every moment of our lives.

> Sorry to nitpick but I don't think PCT is something we "apply". PCT is just  
> an explanation that may be used to inform certain "application" theories.

Thanks, Tim. Sloppy wording on my part. How about:

"psychology, perceptual control is occuring every moment of our lives."

Sincerely,  
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277  
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 1999, 7:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-stupid-question-or-two/627/6 "1999-04-23T19:48:50Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (990424.0555)]

> [From Hank Folson (990422.2000)]

> "psychology, perceptual control is occuring every moment of our lives."

Beautiful!! Thanks for the reply.

Cheers,

Tim