# affordances -- some added thoughts

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995>\
**Category:** CSG2012\
**Created:** [November 9, 2012, 9:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995 "2012-11-09T09:59:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [November 9, 2012, 9:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/1 "2012-11-09T09:59:44Z")

</div>

Hello, all --

After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in my head is the idea that affordances -- and actually feedback functions in general -- are controlled variables.

This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines which affordance we actually use.

This implies that the "standardization" of artifacts like tools is not necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control, from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or change old ones, but if they don't use the result themselves, they create them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any given set of purposes.  
And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance -- I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.

It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback function or affordance is a mistake. It's really the "behavioral illusion" in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the specified goal is achieved.

This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order control systems involved.

Best,

Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/2 "2012-11-09T13:58:15Z")

</div>

To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of controlling a perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect to that higher level purpose. Only the more obvious cases – obvious because perceived as a stable aspect of the environment – have been described as affordances, but the transient and nonce cases are no less so.

> **···**
>
> > /B
> 
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Bill Powers [powers\_w@frontier.net](mailto:powers_w@frontier.net) wrote:
> 
> > Hello, all –
> > 
> > After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in my head is the idea that affordances – and actually feedback functions in general – are controlled variables.
> > 
> > This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.
> > 
> > This doesn’t necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines which affordance we actually use.
> > 
> > This implies that the “standardization” of artifacts like tools is not necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control, from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or change old ones, but if they don’t use the result themselves, they create them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any given set of purposes.
> > 
> > And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance – I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.
> > 
> > It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback function or affordance is a mistake. It’s really the “behavioral illusion” in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the specified goal is achieved.
> > 
> > This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order control systems involved.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/3 "2012-11-09T15:12:19Z")

</div>

Further, reorganization can amount to the discovery of an affordance (construction of a new perceptual input function), or the discovery of how better to employ an existing affordance (e.g. refinement of skill), or of how to employ it for a different purpose.

I was led to this thought because this discussion was on my mind as I was reading in Phil Runkel’s _People as Living Things_, specifically, the paragraph that spans pp. 134-135, which talks of how “the nervous system begins casting about for a reorganization that will reduce the total error.” In that process of rumination, was that paragraph an affordance?

> **···**
>
> > /Bruce
> 
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin [bnhpct@gmail.com](mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of controlling a perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect to that higher level purpose. Only the more obvious cases – obvious because perceived as a stable aspect of the environment – have been described as affordances, but the transient and nonce cases are no less so.
> 
> > > /B
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Bill Powers [powers\_w@frontier.net](mailto:powers_w@frontier.net) wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello, all –
> > > 
> > > After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in my head is the idea that affordances – and actually feedback functions in general – are controlled variables.
> > > 
> > > This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.
> > > 
> > > This doesn’t necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines which affordance we actually use.
> > > 
> > > This implies that the “standardization” of artifacts like tools is not necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control, from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or change old ones, but if they don’t use the result themselves, they create them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any given set of purposes.
> > > 
> > > And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance – I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.
> > > 
> > > It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback function or affordance is a mistake. It’s really the “behavioral illusion” in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the specified goal is achieved.
> > > 
> > > This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order control systems involved.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > 
> > > Bill
> 
> >

---

<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:** [November 9, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/4 "2012-11-09T16:19:27Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2012.11.09.0909 MST)]

> Further, reorganization can  
> amount to the discovery of an affordance (construction of a new  
> perceptual input function), or the discovery of how better to employ an  
> existing affordance (e.g. refinement of skill), or of how to employ it  
> for a different purpose.  
> I was led to this thought because this discussion was on my mind as I was  
> reading in Phil Runkel’s _People as Living Things_, specifically,  
> the paragraph that spans pp. 134-135, which talks of how “the  
> nervous system begins casting about for a reorganization that will reduce  
> the total error.” In that process of rumination, was that paragraph  
> an affordance?
> 
> /Bruce
> 
> To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of  
> controlling a perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect  
> to that higher level purpose. Only the more obvious cases – obvious  
> because perceived as a stable aspect of the environment – have been  
> described as affordances, but the transient and nonce cases are no less  
> so.

BP: I’d prefer to stick with “feedback function” or  
“feedback path” or even just “means of control.” To  
use the term affordance is to endorse the context of naive realism in  
which it was proposed, which I definitely reject even if my reasons are  
somewhat unclear. To say some means of control is an affordance is much  
like saying that certain variables important for an organism to control  
are “reinforcers.” The baggage that comes with the term  
is unacceptable in PCT. And note how such vaguely-defined terms always  
lead to classification problems – is or is not something an affordance?  
I don’t care how it is classified because I don’t accept the  
taxonomy.

Best,

Bill P.

> **···**
>
> At 10:12 AM 11/9/2012 -0500, Bruce Nevin wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin \> [bnhpct@gmail.com](mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com) \> wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/chadtgreen/32/92_2.png) [@chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/chadtgreen)\
**Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/5 "2012-11-09T16:45:38Z")

</div>

[From Chad Green (2012.11.09.1145 EDT)]

Bruce, perhaps you can help me to find an explanation for this experience:

A few weeks ago I woke up for no apparent reason in the middle of the night. This was becoming a pattern so rather than forcing myself to sleep I decided to pass the time by asking a question that I had never asked myself. Off the top of my head I chose this one: What is the opposite of virtue? After about 5 seconds I noticed something tickling my cheek. It was a streaming tear. Many more followed thereafter. I experienced no emotion as this unfolded. My mind was completely blank the entire time.

Is this an example of reorganization?

Best,  
Chad

Chad Green, PMP  
Program Analyst  
Loudoun County Public Schools  
21000 Education Court  
Ashburn, VA 20148  
Voice: 571-252-1486  
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

> > > Bruce Nevin \<bnhpct@GMAIL.COM\> 11/9/2012 10:12 AM \>\>\>

Further, reorganization can amount to the discovery of an affordance  
(construction of a new perceptual input function), or the discovery of how  
better to employ an existing affordance (e.g. refinement of skill), or of  
how to employ it for a different purpose.

I was led to this thought because this discussion was on my mind as I was  
reading in Phil Runkel's \*People as Living Things\*, specifically, the  
paragraph that spans pp. 134-135, which talks of how "the nervous system  
begins casting about for a reorganization that will reduce the total  
error." In that process of rumination, was that paragraph an affordance?

/Bruce

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin \<bnhpct@gmail.com\> wrote:
> 
> > To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of controlling a  
> > perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect to that higher  
> > level purpose. Only the more obvious cases -- obvious because perceived as  
> > a stable aspect of the environment -- have been described as affordances,  
> > but the transient and nonce cases are no less so.
> > 
> > /B
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Bill Powers \<powers\_w@frontier.net\> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello, all --
> > > 
> > > After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I  
> > > see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in  
> > > my head is the idea that affordances -- and actually feedback functions in  
> > > general -- are controlled variables.
> > > 
> > > This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output  
> > > function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects  
> > > them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.
> > > 
> > > This doesn't necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of  
> > > specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we  
> > > intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines  
> > > which affordance we actually use.
> > > 
> > > This implies that the "standardization" of artifacts like tools is not  
> > > necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control,  
> > > from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry  
> > > out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or  
> > > change old ones, but if they don't use the result themselves, they create  
> > > them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the  
> > > designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that  
> > > determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any  
> > > given set of purposes.  
> > > And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance  
> > > -- I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a  
> > > 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely  
> > > bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.
> > > 
> > > It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback  
> > > function or affordance is a mistake. It's really the "behavioral illusion"  
> > > in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback  
> > > path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is  
> > > controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has  
> > > already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose  
> > > in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through  
> > > the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference  
> > > setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the  
> > > specified goal is achieved.
> > > 
> > > This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control  
> > > system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The  
> > > feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order  
> > > control systems involved.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > 
> > > Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kent](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/kent/32/2709_2.png) [@Kent](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kent)\
**Post date:** [November 9, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/6 "2012-11-09T17:08:54Z")

</div>

[From Kent McClelland (2012.11.09.1050 CST)

It looks we are coming to similar conclusions. My reaction to Bill's message below is to endorse it with a hearty YES.

Feedback functions are controlled, and they aren't fixed. Standardization is not by any means what we necessarily need (even though we increasingly see it all around us). Higher-level control systems select feedback paths from a range of possible lower-level control systems. It's all perception and control of perception. "Affordances" is not a helpful term to use to describe this phenomenon.

The only thing that I would add is that the feedback functions individuals employ are sometimes (pretty often) controlled by other people, not necessarily the individuals making use of those paths for controlling their own perceptions.

We live in cooperatively built physical environments in which many possible sources of disturbance have been systematically removed by the massive control efforts of the other people around us. It takes a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy, which overwhelms the collective control systems designed to protect individuals and make their lives more comfortable, to demonstrate the extent to which people in economically developed countries live in artificially constructed physical environments from which a great many natural fluctuations or disturbances have been (as much as possible, but not entirely) ruled out.

Kent

> **···**
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Bill Powers wrote:
> 
> > Hello, all --
> > 
> > After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in my head is the idea that affordances -- and actually feedback functions in general -- are controlled variables.
> > 
> > This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.
> > 
> > This doesn't necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines which affordance we actually use.
> > 
> > This implies that the "standardization" of artifacts like tools is not necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control, from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or change old ones, but if they don't use the result themselves, they create them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any given set of purposes.  
> > And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance -- I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.
> > 
> > It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback function or affordance is a mistake. It's really the "behavioral illusion" in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the specified goal is achieved.
> > 
> > This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order control systems involved.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Bill

---

<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:** [November 10, 2012, 2:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/7 "2012-11-10T02:30:54Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2012.11.09.1901 MST)]

Kent McClelland (2012.11.09.1050 CST) –

> It looks we are coming to  
> similar conclusions. My reaction to Bill’s message below is to endorse it  
> with a hearty YES.

BP: Yay!

KM: The only thing that I would add is that the feedback functions  
individuals employ are sometimes (pretty often) controlled by other  
people, not necessarily the individuals making use of those paths for  
controlling their own perceptions.

BP: If you’ll change that to read “the feedback functions available  
for choosing by other people are sometimes (pretty often) created by  
other people” I will not quibble further about the wording. Other  
people don’t do the actual choosing, do they?

> KM: We live in cooperatively  
> built physical environments in which many possible sources of disturbance  
> have been systematically removed by the massive control efforts of the  
> other people around us. It takes a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy,  
> which overwhelms the collective control systems designed to protect  
> individuals and make their lives more comfortable, to demonstrate the  
> extent to which people in economically developed countries live in  
> artificially constructed physical environments from which a great many  
> natural fluctuations or disturbances have been (as much as possible, but  
> not entirely) ruled out.

I wrote an “essay on the obvious” which extracted a slightly  
different point from the same (agreed) facts:  
The general [accepted] idea is that it is very hard to find any  
regularity or order in the behavior of organisms, so we must look beyond  
the obvious and search for hidden patterns and subtle principles.  
But behavior IS orderly and it is orderly in obvious ways. It is  
orderly, however, in a way that conventional behavioral scientists have  
barely noticed. It is not orderly in the sense that the output forces  
generated by an organism follow regularly from sensory inputs or past  
experience. It is orderly in the sense that the CONSEQUENCES of those  
output forces are shaped by the organism into highly regular and reliably  
repeatable states and patterns.A good many of those regularities are the “artificially  
constructed physical environments” you speak of, such as interstate  
highways, houses, and telephone systems. These consequences of behavior  
are produced, then used, with great precision and repeatability, so much  
that only a control-system model can explain them. One certainly does not  
get an impression of approximate regularities detectable only by  
statistical means and visible only over many repeated trials. If a theory  
can’t explain the most obvious and numerous regularities, how can it  
purport to relate to hidden ones?

If you agree with the ideas I outlined, then you probably also would  
agree that once again, PCT turns cause and effect upside down. As I have  
heard of them, concepts of cultural effects of human artifacts assume  
that the artifacts shape the behavior of the people who live among them.  
The same old “environment in control” idea. But if my view is  
right, the artifacts are a result, not a cause, of behavior, and are used  
only as long as the intentions of the behaving systems require their use.  
Nobody will pay $100 for a Cabbage Patch Doll any more.

Best,

Bill P.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/8 "2012-11-13T18:17:03Z")

</div>

Chad,

I’m not sure why you ask me this. If the affectless tears were an effect of reorganization then more was going on than you have said. If you were unable to control a variable of vital importance to you, you haven’t said so. Nor have you described any change in your behavior (your control of perceptions) such as might result from reorganization.

Maybe just a physiological effect of sleep deprivation?

Some of us have suggested that if you want to experience reorganization, just keep studying and applying PCT. For examples, see [Phil Runkel’s dialog with Bill](http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/books_videos.html#dia).

> **···**
>
> > /B
> 
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Chad Green [Chad.Green@lcps.org](mailto:Chad.Green@lcps.org) wrote:
> 
> > [From Chad Green (2012.11.09.1145 EDT)]
> > 
> > Bruce, perhaps you can help me to find an explanation for this experience:
> > 
> > A few weeks ago I woke up for no apparent reason in the middle of the night. This was becoming a pattern so rather than forcing myself to sleep I decided to pass the time by asking a question that I had never asked myself. Off the top of my head I chose this one: What is the opposite of virtue? After about 5 seconds I noticed something tickling my cheek. It was a streaming tear. Many more followed thereafter. I experienced no emotion as this unfolded. My mind was completely blank the entire time.
> > 
> > Is this an example of reorganization?
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Chad
> > 
> > Chad Green, PMP
> > 
> > Program Analyst
> > 
> > Loudoun County Public Schools
> > 
> > 21000 Education Court
> > 
> > Ashburn, VA 20148
> > 
> > Voice: 571-252-1486
> > 
> > Fax: 571-252-1633
> > 
> > “If you want sense, you’ll have to make it yourself.” - Norton Juster
> > 
> > > > > Bruce Nevin [bnhpct@GMAIL.COM](mailto:bnhpct@GMAIL.COM) 11/9/2012 10:12 AM \>\>\>  
> > > > > Further, reorganization can amount to the discovery of an affordance
> > 
> > (construction of a new perceptual input function), or the discovery of how
> > 
> > better to employ an existing affordance (e.g. refinement of skill), or of
> > 
> > how to employ it for a different purpose.
> > 
> > I was led to this thought because this discussion was on my mind as I was
> 
> > reading in Phil Runkel’s _People as Living Things_, specifically, the  
> > paragraph that spans pp. 134-135, which talks of how "the nervous system
> > 
> > begins casting about for a reorganization that will reduce the total
> > 
> > error." In that process of rumination, was that paragraph an affordance?
> > 
> > /Bruce
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin [bnhpct@gmail.com](mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com) wrote:
> > 
> > > To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of controlling a
> > 
> > > perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect to that higher
> > 
> > > level purpose. Only the more obvious cases – obvious because perceived as
> > 
> > > a stable aspect of the environment – have been described as affordances,
> > 
> > > but the transient and nonce cases are no less so.
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > /B
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Bill Powers [powers\_w@frontier.net](mailto:powers_w@frontier.net) wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > Hello, all –
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I
> > 
> > > > see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building up in
> > 
> > > > my head is the idea that affordances – and actually feedback functions in
> > 
> > > > general – are controlled variables.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output
> > 
> > > > function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects
> > 
> > > > them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > This doesn’t necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of
> > 
> > > > specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results we
> > 
> > > > intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines
> > 
> > > > which affordance we actually use.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > This implies that the “standardization” of artifacts like tools is not
> > 
> > > > necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of control,
> > 
> > > > from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to carry
> > 
> > > > out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or
> > 
> > > > change old ones, but if they don’t use the result themselves, they create
> > 
> > > > them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so the
> > 
> > > > designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that
> > 
> > > > determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy any
> > 
> > > > given set of purposes.
> > 
> > > > And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given affordance
> > 
> > > > – I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a
> > 
> > > > 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely
> > 
> > > > bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback
> > 
> > > > function or affordance is a mistake. It’s really the “behavioral illusion”
> > 
> > > > in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing feedback
> > 
> > > > path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is
> > 
> > > > controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that has
> > 
> > > > already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the purpose
> > 
> > > > in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting through
> > 
> > > > the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference
> > 
> > > > setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the
> > 
> > > > specified goal is achieved.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order control
> > 
> > > > system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The
> > 
> > > > feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order
> > 
> > > > control systems involved.
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > Best,
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > Bill
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/9 "2012-11-13T18:25:11Z")

</div>

Yes. Almost a reductio ad absurdum. If Gibson’s term has the same range of reference, but is less specific, why bother?

Why bother is to be able to say to someone who likes Gibson’s ideas that she is not saying any more than this. Yes, the feedback function (feedback path, means of control) is modeled as properties of the environment, but it is such only because of control systems that choose and employ it. Without control, no affordance exists as such.

> **···**
>
> > /B
> 
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Bill Powers [powers\_w@frontier.net](mailto:powers_w@frontier.net) wrote:
> 
> > [From Bill Powers (2012.11.09.0909 MST)]
> > 
> > At 10:12 AM 11/9/2012 -0500, Bruce Nevin wrote:
> > 
> > > […]
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin \> \> [bnhpct@gmail.com](mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com) \> \> wrote:  
> > > To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of  
> > > controlling a perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect  
> > > to that higher level purpose. Only the more obvious cases – obvious  
> > > because perceived as a stable aspect of the environment – have been  
> > > described as affordances, but the transient and nonce cases are no less  
> > > so.
> 
> > BP: I’d prefer to stick with “feedback function” or  
> > “feedback path” or even just “means of control.” To  
> > use the term affordance is to endorse the context of naive realism in  
> > which it was proposed, which I definitely reject even if my reasons are  
> > somewhat unclear. To say some means of control is an affordance is much  
> > like saying that certain variables important for an organism to control  
> > are “reinforcers.” The baggage that comes with the term  
> > is unacceptable in PCT. And note how such vaguely-defined terms always  
> > lead to classification problems – is or is not something an affordance?  
> > I don’t care how it is classified because I don’t accept the  
> > taxonomy.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/chadtgreen/32/92_2.png) [@chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/chadtgreen)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/10 "2012-11-19T17:31:50Z")

</div>

[From Chad Green (2012.11.19.1231 EDT)]

Bruce, much like I'd like to deny my ignorance of PCT (espoused theory of action), my behaviors (theory-in-use) as a program evaluator reveal otherwise. This article on "responsive evaluation" helped me to bridge the gap (see pp. 20-21) finally: [http://education.illinois.edu/CIRCE/Publications/1975\_Arts\_Eval.pdf](http://education.illinois.edu/CIRCE/Publications/1975_Arts_Eval.pdf) .

As for the tears, perhaps the experience relates to the following quote on page 22:

"Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other's eyes for an instant?" - Henry David Thoreau (Walden)

Thank you!

Chad

Chad Green, PMP  
Program Analyst  
Loudoun County Public Schools  
21000 Education Court  
Ashburn, VA 20148  
Voice: 571-252-1486  
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

> > > Bruce Nevin \<bnhpct@GMAIL.COM\> 11/13/2012 1:17 PM \>\>\>

Chad,

I'm not sure why you ask me this. If the affectless tears were an effect of  
reorganization then more was going on than you have said. If you were  
unable to control a variable of vital importance to you, you haven't said  
so. Nor have you described any change in your behavior (your control of  
perceptions) such as might result from reorganization.

Maybe just a physiological effect of sleep deprivation?

Some of us have suggested that if you want to experience reorganization,  
just keep studying and applying PCT. For examples, see Phil Runkel's dialog  
with Bill \<[http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/books\_videos.html#dia&gt;\](http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/books_videos.html#dia&gt;%5C).

/B

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Chad Green \<Chad.Green@lcps.org\> wrote:
> 
> > [From Chad Green (2012.11.09.1145 EDT)]
> > 
> > Bruce, perhaps you can help me to find an explanation for this experience:
> > 
> > A few weeks ago I woke up for no apparent reason in the middle of the  
> > night. This was becoming a pattern so rather than forcing myself to sleep  
> > I decided to pass the time by asking a question that I had never asked  
> > myself. Off the top of my head I chose this one: What is the opposite of  
> > virtue? After about 5 seconds I noticed something tickling my cheek. It  
> > was a streaming tear. Many more followed thereafter. I experienced no  
> > emotion as this unfolded. My mind was completely blank the entire time.
> > 
> > Is this an example of reorganization?
> > 
> > Best,  
> > Chad
> > 
> > Chad Green, PMP  
> > Program Analyst  
> > Loudoun County Public Schools  
> > 21000 Education Court  
> > Ashburn, VA 20148  
> > Voice: 571-252-1486  
> > Fax: 571-252-1633
> > 
> > "If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster
> > 
> > \>\>\> Bruce Nevin \<bnhpct@GMAIL.COM\> 11/9/2012 10:12 AM \>\>\>  
> > Further, reorganization can amount to the discovery of an affordance  
> > (construction of a new perceptual input function), or the discovery of how  
> > better to employ an existing affordance (e.g. refinement of skill), or of  
> > how to employ it for a different purpose.
> > 
> > I was led to this thought because this discussion was on my mind as I was  
> > reading in Phil Runkel's \*People as Living Things\*, specifically, the  
> > paragraph that spans pp. 134-135, which talks of how "the nervous system  
> > begins casting about for a reorganization that will reduce the total  
> > error." In that process of rumination, was that paragraph an affordance?
> > 
> > /Bruce
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bruce Nevin \<bnhpct@gmail.com\> wrote:
> > 
> > \> To paraphrase: in general, any perception that is means of controlling a  
> > \> perception at a higher level is an affordance with respect to that higher  
> > \> level purpose. Only the more obvious cases -- obvious because perceived  
> > as  
> > \> a stable aspect of the environment -- have been described as affordances,  
> > \> but the transient and nonce cases are no less so.  
> > \>  
> > \> /B  
> > \>  
> > \>  
> > \> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Bill Powers \<powers\_w@frontier.net\> \> wrote:  
> > \>  
> > \>\> Hello, all --  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> After several days of on-and-off thinking about affordances, I think I  
> > \>\> see a few new facets of the problem. What seems to have been building  
> > up in  
> > \>\> my head is the idea that affordances -- and actually feedback functions  
> > in  
> > \>\> general -- are controlled variables.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> This control is done at some lower level, a level in which the output  
> > \>\> function is reorganized to use different lower-level systems, or selects  
> > \>\> them (by sending reference signals to them) in some systematic way.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> This doesn't necessarily mean that we actually change the affordances of  
> > \>\> specific items. It can mean that we select items according the results  
> > we  
> > \>\> intend to produce by using those items. The selection process determines  
> > \>\> which affordance we actually use.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> This implies that the "standardization" of artifacts like tools is not  
> > \>\> necessarily what we need. We need a variety of possible means of  
> > control,  
> > \>\> from which we can select according to the specific purpose we want to  
> > carry  
> > \>\> out. A relatively small number of people actually produce new items or  
> > \>\> change old ones, but if they don't use the result themselves, they  
> > create  
> > \>\> them for the purpose of giving others new choices of means (e. g., so  
> > the  
> > \>\> designers can sell them). It is still the purposes of the user that  
> > \>\> determine which feedback function or affordance will be used to satisfy  
> > any  
> > \>\> given set of purposes.  
> > \>\> And a selection is needed because not everyone can use a given  
> > affordance  
> > \>\> -- I have a friend who, for target practice, selects a bow with a  
> > \>\> 120-pound pull just to get a flat trajectory, a bow that I can scarcely  
> > \>\> bend, much less use to shoot an arrow.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> It seems clearer to me now that the whole idea of a fixed feedback  
> > \>\> function or affordance is a mistake. It's really the "behavioral  
> > illusion"  
> > \>\> in another disguise. It seems that the affordance in the existing  
> > feedback  
> > \>\> path is what controls behavior, but in fact the affordance itself is  
> > \>\> controlled (by selecting one for use) as a way of achieving an end that  
> > has  
> > \>\> already been specified. The actual behavior involved relates to the  
> > purpose  
> > \>\> in the usual way, being adjusted according to the error and acting  
> > through  
> > \>\> the selected feedback path to make some perception match a reference  
> > \>\> setting. The choice of feedback path or affordance is varied until the  
> > \>\> specified goal is achieved.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> This choice process is simply one of the usual ways a lower-order  
> > control  
> > \>\> system is used to produce an input needed by a higher-order system. The  
> > \>\> feedback path that the higher system sees includes all the lower-order  
> > \>\> control systems involved.  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> Best,  
> > \>\>  
> > \>\> Bill  
> > \>\>  
> > \>  
> > \>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tracy\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Tracy\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tracy_Harms)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/affordances-some-added-thoughts/12995/11 "2012-11-23T13:51:08Z")

</div>

[Harms 2012-11-23 08:50 Eastern]

I had not seen the previous posts on this topic, but the clarity of this one is such that it stood on its own. This strikes me as an advancement and clarification. It helps HPCT in several ways, one of which is by enriching the examples that we can draw on in explaining it to newcomers.

Thanks, Bill.