Applying PCT

Marc_Abrams5 · July 6, 1998, 1:18am

From [Marc Abrams (980705.2030)]

I just got off the phone with Dag Forssell, regarding the European
Conference video tapes ( there just about done ) and the conversation
got around to discussing a passion we both share. The application of
PCT. Dag mentioned a few things that I think are extremely important
and well worth repeating.

PCT provides us with a _functional_ picture of how we ( living control
systems ) work. You can no more "apply" PCT then you can "apply"
Newton's Laws of Motion. What we can do is _utilize our knowledge_ of
Newton's Laws of Motion to help us get to the moon. The same holds
true for PCT. People "see" bits and pieces of PCT everywhere. It
_always_ seems _so_damn close to other sets of beliefs we might have
about behavior. Building a "bridge" seems so simple and straight
forward. The truth of the matter is that _is_ that close. But of
course, the truth of the matter is PCT _is_ everywhere, _all_ the
time. sometimes we "see" more of it, sometimes less. But it's always
there. This I believe is part of the problem with PCT acceptance. You
would be hard put to find anyone who would disagree with the major
tenants of the theory. But everyone seems to have there own
_descriptive_ picture of what is happening. Similar to Ptolemy, And
for most people that works fine. Just don't try going to the moon on
the basis of the _descriptive_ rather then the _functional_ theory.

The point of this being that in order to utilize some knowledge you
have to have it first. Sounds so simple. But you can't "apply" PCT
like paint with a brush. You can _only_ utilize your knowledge of it.
Big Time insight and lesson for me.

Just wanted to share it.

Marc

David_Goldstein1 · August 11, 2001, 5:57pm

[From David Goldstein(2001.08.11.141)]

Yes, I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply PCT.

I am especially interested in the discovery of variables of experience that
people are controlling.

In a therapy discussion, Bill Powers has suggested the MOL procedure. I can
understand how listening for the Background topic leads to identifying new
variables of experience that a person might be controlling.

I was a lot less clear where the variable you identified in the baseball
catching situation came from. I did not get the impression it came from
interviewing people who are good at catching baseballs. So where did it come
from? When I asked this at the meeting, I got a flip remark and let the
topic drop.

However, if we are going to apply PCT to everyday situations, this seems to
be the important question. What is the best way, if any exists, of coming up
with the hypotheses about the variable of perception that is being
controlled.

The answer might be that it is a random process. We just go creative and try
out different possibilities. I can accept this.

This does not seem to be the case in a therapy situation. The higher order
experience seems like an observable thing, at least to the MOL subject.

David M Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Applying PCT

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.11.1040)]

Given that most of those attending the CSG meeting were interested in
applications of PCT, I thought it might be useful to start a discussion
of _how_ to apply PCT in real life situations. It seems to me that
this is a topic that has been ignored or dealt with only implicitly
in discussions on CSGNet. I think it has been assumed that an under-
standing of the PCT model, in the sense of knowing how the model
works, and an understanding of how the model applies to real life
situations, in the sense of knowing how the working model maps to
the behavior we observe, go hand in hand. I no longer think this is
the case. I have seen people who understand the workings of the PCT
model perfectly apply it incorrectly to real life situations and I
have seen people who barely understand the model at all act as though
they were applying it perfectly in those same situations. It seems to
me that an understanding of how the PCT model works and an under-
standing of how to apply that model to real situations are two
separate capabilities.

I think my "PCT Glasses" paper can be viewed as an example of a
discussion that focuses on how to _apply_ PCT to real behavior. The
paper really says nothing about how the PCT model works.

So would a discussion of _how_ to apply the PCT model to various
real world situations be of any interest?

Best

Rick
--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

Richard_Marken2 · August 11, 2001, 6:37pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.11.1040)]

Given that most of those attending the CSG meeting were interested in
applications of PCT, I thought it might be useful to start a discussion
of _how_ to apply PCT in real life situations. It seems to me that
this is a topic that has been ignored or dealt with only implicitly
in discussions on CSGNet. I think it has been assumed that an under-
standing of the PCT model, in the sense of knowing how the model
works, and an understanding of how the model applies to real life
situations, in the sense of knowing how the working model maps to
the behavior we observe, go hand in hand. I no longer think this is
the case. I have seen people who understand the workings of the PCT
model perfectly apply it incorrectly to real life situations and I
have seen people who barely understand the model at all act as though
they were applying it perfectly in those same situations. It seems to
me that an understanding of how the PCT model works and an under-
standing of how to apply that model to real situations are two
separate capabilities.

I think my "PCT Glasses" paper can be viewed as an example of a
discussion that focuses on how to _apply_ PCT to real behavior. The
paper really says nothing about how the PCT model works.

So would a discussion of _how_ to apply the PCT model to various
real world situations be of any interest?

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

Richard_Marken2 · August 12, 2001, 7:11pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.12.1110)]

David Goldstein (2001.08.11.141)

Yes, I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply PCT.

Great!

I am especially interested in the discovery of variables of
experience that people are controlling.

That's great. But this seems more like _research_ to me. What I
meant by "how to apply PCT" was more like "how do we use the
theory as a basis for understanding everyday behavior", including,
of course, the behavior that occurs in clinical situations. I
think this kind of application of PCT may involve some testing for
controlled variables. But I think it will be a fairly informal and
naturalistic type of testing. Much of this testing could occur
during normal conversation. For example, it's pretty easy to tell,
from conversations on CSGNet, what people's agendas are. Bill Powers
was able to go through the room during the last session of the CSG
meeting and identify the agenda of each person there. An "agenda"
is, of course, just a high level controlled perception. Sometimes
an agenda is hard to describe but it's always pretty easy to tell
when one is being controlled for. Being able to understand and see
"having an agenda" from a PCT perspective is what I think of as
"applying PCT". Being able to correctly describe the particular
agenda a person is controlling seems more like "doing research". But
I agree that, in this case, the line between research and application
is a bit fuzzy.

I was a lot less clear where the variable you identified in the
baseball catching situation came from. I did not get the impression
it came from interviewing people who are good at catching baseballs.
So where did it come from? When I asked this at the meeting, I got
a flip remark and let the topic drop.

If it was I who made the flip remark I apologize. But coming up with
hypotheses for controlled variable is as mysterious and creative a
process as is coming up with any hypothesis in science. If you read
my _American Journal of Psychology_ paper you will see that the
hypotheses about the variables a fielder controls when catching a
fly ball did not come from me. The original (and probably correct)
hypothesis came from a physicist who noticed, by diagraming the
situation, that the optical velocity of a fly ball remains constant
when it is hit directly to the fielder. The LOT hypothesis comes from
inspection of the videotape record of what a fielder saw while
catching fly balls. I don't know where the optical acceleration
hypothesis came from; probably from the assumption that controlling
optical velocity and acceleration is like controlling the same
variable, which (as I show in the paper) it is not.

I think the most common source of hypotheses about controlled
variables is observation of organisms acting to resist what a
control theorist would see as disturbances. As I mention in the
"Controlled Variables" paper, you can go from noticing disturbance
resistance to hypotheses about controlled variables by looking at
the situation from the point of view of the behaving system itself.
Why, for example, might you, if you were Pavlov's dog, salivate when
dry food is put in your mouth? When you look at the "reaction" to
food from the dog's perspective you can see that the "swallow-
ability" of the food might be what you are trying to control. So
there is your hypothesis about a perception that Pavlov's dog might
be controlling. I came up with the hypothesis about the gray lag
goose controlling pressure on the inside of the bill by trying to
look at the situation, when the egg is removed, from the goose's
perspective. So I guess that's one way I come up with hypotheses
about controlled variables: observation-based empathy with the
behaving system.

This [random guesses about controlled variables] does not seem to
be the case in a therapy situation. The higher order experience
seems like an observable thing, at least to the MOL subject.

I agree. It's like agendas; they are pretty obvious. But I don't
think the success of the MOL hinges on the "guide" knowing _what_
background variable(s) the "explorer" is controlling. What matters,
I believe, is that the "explorer" see their own controlling from
the new, "background" perspective. It's from this point of view that
the explorer can, perhaps, see that they have incompatible wants
(conflicts). The guide may be able to help the explorer see that
certain wants are incompatible; in this case, it helps if the guide
knows what a conflict is, from a control theory perspective. I see
this -- the ability to recognize conflict -- as one of the ways
a knowledge of PCT might be applied when using the MOL.

It was really great to see you at the conference. I hope this becomes
an annual occurrence (seeing you, that is).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 12, 2001, 10:43pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.12)]

I am an engineer, and applications of theory (not research to develop theory)
have always appealed most to me. Theory that can be applied to real world
situations (i.e., local shortage of electricity or water solved by floating
nuclear power and desalination plants).

It was not until I learned about PCT that I became interested in solving
problems in and between people, problems less physical and more intangible
like those we experience in our minds or our relationships with others.

As you know, the past decade I have worked fairly successfully as a
consultant and educator to managers in how to improve the performance of
their organizations: measurable absolute performance like quality, sales,
profits as well as relative competitive performance such as market share and
customer loyalty.

Most of such performance improvement requires people to change something
about what they do. My focus has been primarily on applying PCT to the
"science" of management where such change and performance improvement often
originates.

IAE, not too much revelation of how to successfully apply PCT to practical,
every day living and working has been evident.

Yes. I have not discussed much about my attempts to apply PCT in management
situations on the CSGNet. I think there are at least three reasons:

1) I have not had any documented experimentally verifiable successes.
2) I am embarrassed to admit that, or
3) that a reason for failure may be my lack of a proper (or complete)
understanding of PCT and this forum will let me know so in a not so kindly
way.

But, after the conference, and because of your return here and your request,
I am throwing caution to the wind and looking for some constructive critique
and knowledge of how to better apply PCT to current management science and
practice. It occurs to me that my time and opportunity to get what I desire
(a successful application) may be running out as my heath and business
steadily decline.

I'll start with what I perceive to be a PCT opportunity to improve the
science of management. I find the Stimulus-Response theory of how to manage
people very prevalent in the actual practice of managing groups of people, in
some organization and specifically in a for-profit business.

One aspect of management theory is that employees must be controlled by
policies and by managers. The concept of using reward and punishment to
control what employees do is almost universal.

from PCT, we theorize that this concept is not only often unsuccessful, it
can be quite detrimental to helping managers improve the performance of
people and their organization. We realize that sticks and carrots do not
always cause people to do what we want them to do. In fact, they can appear
so coercive that rebellion can be the result where performance actually
declines.

One of the issues that always comes up is "if not sticks and carrots, what
can managers do that would help employees improve their individual and
collective results?"

If anyone is interested in this application, I'd like to discuss any views
you have and I will share some of my perspectives. Most of us have either
been managers of people, or have been employees. So, all of us have some
real life experience on how PCT can relate to management science.

I may even discuss a couple of cases where I think the application of PCT
actually was a major factor in obtaining dramatically improved performance.
I have never tried to write these up as studies or articles or get them
published. I have been to occupied with trying to do another application to
where I am convinced something besides wishful thinking is going on.

So, if you have an idea, I have some time in August and will try to engage in
some meaningful discussions that will undoubtedly reveal my ineptness and PCT
stupidity so that it may increase my chances of better results this fall.

Respectfully,

Kenny

David_Goldstein1 · August 13, 2001, 2:08am

[From David Goldstein (2001.08.12.952p)]

Rick,

Thanks for the reply. I found your remarks, which I put in red, as especially helpful.

David

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Marken marken@MINDREADINGS.COM

To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu

Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 3:11 PM

Subject: Re: Applying PCT

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.12.1110)]

David Goldstein (2001.08.11.141)

Yes, I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply PCT.

Great!

I am especially interested in the discovery of variables of
experience that people are controlling.

That’s great. But this seems more like research to me. What I
meant by “how to apply PCT” was more like “how do we use the
theory as a basis for understanding everyday behavior”, including,
of course, the behavior that occurs in clinical situations. I
think this kind of application of PCT may involve some testing for
controlled variables. But I think it will be a fairly informal and
naturalistic type of testing. Much of this testing could occur
during normal conversation. For example, it’s pretty easy to tell,
from conversations on CSGNet, what people’s agendas are. Bill Powers
was able to go through the room during the last session of the CSG
meeting and identify the agenda of each person there. An “agenda”
is, of course, just a high level controlled perception.

Of course, we didn’t follow through to see if the hypotheses were correct.

I did feel an error signal when he described my agenda as “toys”, but

it was funny.

Sometimes

an agenda is hard to describe but it’s always pretty easy to tell
when one is being controlled for. Being able to understand and see
“having an agenda” from a PCT perspective is what I think of as
“applying PCT”. Being able to correctly describe the particular
agenda a person is controlling seems more like “doing research”. But
I agree that, in this case, the line between research and application
is a bit fuzzy.

I was a lot less clear where the variable you identified in the
baseball catching situation came from. I did not get the impression
it came from interviewing people who are good at catching baseballs.
So where did it come from? When I asked this at the meeting, I got
a flip remark and let the topic drop.

If it was I who made the flip remark I apologize. But coming up with
hypotheses for controlled variable is as mysterious and creative a
process as is coming up with any hypothesis in science.

I know this was the point you and Bill were making. However, it seems that

taking the viewpoint of the organism should help. In the baseball example,

looking at video tapes from the viewpoint of the person might have lead to

the hypothesis of what variable was being controlled. It seems that the

physicist did an objective analysis of the situation. He did not talk to the

subject or view video tapes.

If you read

my American Journal of Psychology paper you will see that the
hypotheses about the variables a fielder controls when catching a
fly ball did not come from me. The original (and probably correct)
hypothesis came from a physicist who noticed, by diagraming the
situation, that the optical velocity of a fly ball remains constant
when it is hit directly to the fielder. The LOT hypothesis comes from
inspection of the videotape record of what a fielder saw while
catching fly balls. I don’t know where the optical acceleration
hypothesis came from; probably from the assumption that controlling
optical velocity and acceleration is like controlling the same
variable, which (as I show in the paper) it is not.

I think the most common source of hypotheses about controlled
variables is observation of organisms acting to resist what a
control theorist would see as disturbances.

We know that some perceptual variable is being controlled. We have the whole

perceptual heirarchy as possibilities.

As I mention in the

“Controlled Variables” paper, you can go from noticing disturbance
resistance to hypotheses about controlled variables by looking at
the situation from the point of view of the behaving system itself.
Why, for example, might you, if you were Pavlov’s dog, salivate when
dry food is put in your mouth? When you look at the “reaction” to
food from the dog’s perspective you can see that the “swallow-
ability” of the food might be what you are trying to control. So
there is your hypothesis about a perception that Pavlov’s dog might
be controlling. I came up with the hypothesis about the gray lag
goose controlling pressure on the inside of the bill by trying to
look at the situation, when the egg is removed, from the goose’s
perspective. So I guess that’s one way I come up with hypotheses
about controlled variables: observation-based empathy with the
behaving system.

Can you expand on this?

This [random guesses about controlled variables] does not seem to
be the case in a therapy situation. The higher order experience
seems like an observable thing, at least to the MOL subject.

I agree. It’s like agendas; they are pretty obvious. But I don’t
think the success of the MOL hinges on the “guide” knowing what
background variable(s) the “explorer” is controlling. What matters,
I believe, is that the “explorer” see their own controlling from
the new, “background” perspective.
It’s from this point of view that
the explorer can, perhaps, see that they have incompatible wants
(conflicts). The guide may be able to help the explorer see that
certain wants are incompatible; in this case, it helps if the guide
knows what a conflict is, from a control theory perspective. I see
this – the ability to recognize conflict – as one of the ways
a knowledge of PCT might be applied when using the MOL.

It was really great to see you at the conference. I hope this becomes
an annual occurrence (seeing you, that is).

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

Lloyd_Klinedinst1 · August 13, 2001, 1:39pm

Thanks much, Rick, for this discussion strand.

The way I compare it to some of my experiences is that it's like people
who use language without ever knowing about how language works technically
(like intuitively applied PCT). Linguists have and use a "language about
language" called linguistics (and its many branches; see Bruce Nevin for
greater detail). This is like PCT scientists talking about behavior. Does
this afford the scientist any better chance to behave more effectively? It
seems not in terms of the observable actions part of behavior? But then,
that's "behavior" as "acceptable and conventional" in other than
scientific terms.

In a similar vein does knowing music theory afford me greater appreciation
of a Mahler symphony, much less or more a greater skill in performing it
as a participating musician? This is perhaps what we're believing is
possible in encouraging more and more people (including many
practicioners) to understand PCT. And then, what does "learning to apply
PCT" mean? PCT (or rather, the law of negative feedback or control)
applies, like gravity, whether we step into an elevator or a gaping
elevator shaft.

So I look forward to a discussion of theory and practice, if CSGnet
participants are so inclined.

In reviewing some of David and Rick's interchange - which I find helpful -
I relate it to what I distinguish as the formal and informal versions of
"the test" (for the controlled variable). The one I would proceed with as
a scientific effort; the other I would do, as Rick and David seem to have
general agreement on, when trying to understand and work with my own or
other's behavior. I also recall the phrase I most identify with Bill
Power's expression, for starters, "Just ask the person." A simple start
which leads often on a far from simple MOL path.

Rick Marken wrote:

···

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.11.1040)]

Given that most of those attending the CSG meeting were interested in
applications of PCT, I thought it might be useful to start a discussion
of _how_ to apply PCT in real life situations. It seems to me that
this is a topic that has been ignored or dealt with only implicitly
in discussions on CSGNet. I think it has been assumed that an under-
standing of the PCT model, in the sense of knowing how the model
works, and an understanding of how the model applies to real life
situations, in the sense of knowing how the working model maps to
the behavior we observe, go hand in hand. I no longer think this is
the case. I have seen people who understand the workings of the PCT
model perfectly apply it incorrectly to real life situations and I
have seen people who barely understand the model at all act as though
they were applying it perfectly in those same situations. It seems to
me that an understanding of how the PCT model works and an under-
standing of how to apply that model to real situations are two
separate capabilities.

I think my "PCT Glasses" paper can be viewed as an example of a
discussion that focuses on how to _apply_ PCT to real behavior. The
paper really says nothing about how the PCT model works.

So would a discussion of _how_ to apply the PCT model to various
real world situations be of any interest?

Best

Rick
--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LLOYD KLINEDINST - BARBARA A. BOLLMANN
10 DOVER LANE - VILLA RIDGE, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 742-4039 - FAX: (636) 742-4039
Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571 - Bobbie Mobile: (314)-799-3323
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com
website: http://www.klinedinst.com
email: bbollmann@bbollmann.com
website: http://www.bbollmann.com

bnhpct · August 13, 2001, 3:02pm

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.08.13 11:01 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.12.1110)--

For example, it's pretty easy to tell,
from conversations on CSGNet, what people's agendas are. Bill Powers
was able to go through the room during the last session of the CSG
meeting and identify the agenda of each person there. An "agenda"
is, of course, just a high level controlled perception. Sometimes
an agenda is hard to describe but it's always pretty easy to tell
when one is being controlled for.

So you can tell what someone is doing by watching what they are doing?

What Bill did was to say that he was able to identify the identify the agenda of everyone there (or maybe "almost everyone" or some such). Then he gave us his opinion of the 'agenda' of a few people in a word or two each. Mike Acree: "Anarchy". Bruce Nevin: "Zellig Harris". And so on for one or two others.

Looking back through the archives, I think we would find that the word "anarchy" comes up in discussions in which Bill and Mike did not agree, and that the name Zellig Harris came up (quite a few years ago, now) when I said "you don't understand linguistics" and Bill said "I don't care, it has to be reinvented anyway."

It looks like Bill was announcing labels (words) associated with disturbances to his own controlled variables that occurred during these exchanges. Because of resistance to those disturbances, it is likely that Bill doesn't know much at all about what Mike is controlling that he (Bill) labels "anarchy", and I know that he is almost completely ignorant of what I am controlling that he labels "Zellig Harris." (BTW, Bill, a bit closer to the mark would be to label me "linguistics" and to recognize that I associate "Zellig Harris" with good ways to do the science of linguistics and "Noam Chomsky" with bad ways to do philosophy and call it linguistics.)

This is the main problem with informal identification of controlled variables in this way. Mostly you see your own reflection. And you are too easily satisfied with verbalisms that are only loosely associated with the perceptions that the other person is controlling. Perhaps this is why being categorized by another is usually unpleasant (demeaning, patronizing, etc.).

A couple of quotes seem apt:

"My idea of applying the Test is to try all the alternatives you can think of,
and accept a definition of the CV only when you have diligently but
unsuccessfully tried to rule it out and it is the only one left.
The Test is not a matter of going through a certain ritual. It must be
applied with some understanding of what you're trying to do, which is
to find out what, if anything, is being controlled."
-- Bill Powers (980729.1014 MDT)

"A lot of what we call 'reasoning' is purposive -- that is, we know what conclusion we want and we automatically find the premises and the reasoning that will lead to it. This can feel like conscious deduction, but it's really another form of rationalizing."
-- William T. Powers [Bill Powers (990923.0250 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:11 08/12/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

David_Wolsk · August 13, 2001, 4:17pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.12)]

<Given that most of those attending the CSG meeting were interested in
applications of PCT, I thought it might be useful to start a discussion
of _how_ to apply PCT in real life situations.>

Kenny,
I'm with you.
Although I'm glad that those with good mathematical and modelling skills are
continuing to do further hard research on PCT, I feel it has provided me
with a tool for my educational consulting and health and community
development work for the past 20 years or so.

I use a simple comparison of S-R with PCT at the start of many workshops.
from the thermostat example and diagram to a simple statement that the brain
is set up to control all critical variables around set points to the
simple-minded conclusion: "you can't control other people when they're busy
controlling themselves" is enough to make my point and get on with the WHAT
and HOW issues.
David

Richard_Marken2 · August 13, 2001, 4:50pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.13.0950)]

Lloyd Klinedinst (2001.08.13)

Does this [PCT] afford the scientist any better chance to behave more
effectively?

My main interest, in terms of applying PCT, is in learning how to apply
it _correctly_ to real world situations. I don't think it is possible
to develop applications based on PCT for any situation (therapeutic,
educational, management, etc.) until one knows how to look at the
situation correctly through control theory glasses. Whether any
application based on PCT will make it possible for people to behave more
effectively (assuming people can agree on what "effectively" means) is
an interesting question but I don't think it can be answered until we
know how to apply PCT correctly to any particular real world situations. .

I can think of two possible ways to go from here. One would for an
applied person to volunteer an explanation of what it is about their PCT
understanding of a situation that leads them to use a particular
technique that is presumably "based on PCT". A second would be for
anyone to provide a PCT analysis of some situation and, based on that
analysis, suggest techniques for dealing with it.

Me:

For example, it's pretty easy to tell, from conversations on CSGNet,
what people's agendas are.

Bruce Nevin (2001.08.13 11:01 EDT)-

So you can tell what someone is doing by watching what they are doing?

Yes. That's what you do when you do the test. PCT clarifies the two
meanings of "doing" in that phrase. So you can tell what a person is
"doing" -- what perception a person is controlling -- by watching what
they are "doing" -- whether they are acting to protect that perception
from disturbance. The CSGNet conversations are a continuous application
of the test; what people say on CSGNEt are disturbances to what other
people are controlling, and everyone is defending their perceptions by
replying to the disturbing posts. My agenda(s) should be as obvious to
you as yours are to me.

Because of resistance to those disturbances, it is likely that Bill doesn't
know much at all about what Mike is controlling

Thanks. This is an excellent example of what I think of as an incorrect
application of PCT. You are proposing an analysis that _sounds like_ PCT
in order to explain why Bill doesn't know what variable Mike is
controlling. But I don't think there is anything in PCT that says that
"resistance to disturbances" prevents one from knowing what variable
another person is controlling. This is precisely the kind of thing I
want to focus on in this thread: what seem to me to be misapplications
of PCT (for various reasons) to real world situations.

I think the way to deal with this problem (whenever it comes up) is via
modeling. In this case, I would like to see a model that shows how a
tester's resistance to disturbance of a variable he is controlling
keeps the tester from determining the variable controlled by the testee.

This is the main problem with informal identification of controlled
variables in this way. Mostly you see your own reflection.

This is also a questionable application of PCT. It says that certain
ways of doing the test ("informal" ways) will lead the tester to
conclude that the variable being controlled by the testee is actually a
variable being controlled by the tester. I would like to see this very
interesting (but, I think, completely spurious) prediction explained in
terms of the PCT model.

This is really what I want from this discussion of "applying PCT". I
want people to justify, in terms of working models if possible, their
claims about what PCT says is going on in any particular real life
situation.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

Bill_Powers1 · August 13, 2001, 5:22pm

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.13.1115 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.08.13 11:01 EDT)--

What Bill did was to say that he was able to identify the identify the
agenda of everyone there (or maybe "almost everyone" or some such).

Almost everyone. But on returning home and reflecting, I'd say it was about
half.

Then he
gave us his opinion of the 'agenda' of a few people in a word or two each.
Mike Acree: "Anarchy". Bruce Nevin: "Zellig Harris". And so on for one or
two others.

Looking back through the archives, I think we would find that the word
"anarchy" comes up in discussions in which Bill and Mike did not agree, and
that the name Zellig Harris came up (quite a few years ago, now) when I
said "you don't understand linguistics" and Bill said "I don't care, it has
to be reinvented anyway."

It looks like Bill was announcing labels (words) associated with
disturbances to his own controlled variables that occurred during these
exchanges.

I plead guilty.

Because of resistance to those disturbances, it is likely that
Bill doesn't know much at all about what Mike is controlling that he (Bill)
labels "anarchy", and I know that he is almost completely ignorant of what
I am controlling that he labels "Zellig Harris." (BTW, Bill, a bit closer
to the mark would be to label me "linguistics" and to recognize that I
associate "Zellig Harris" with good ways to do the science of linguistics
and "Noam Chomsky" with bad ways to do philosophy and call it linguistics.)

OK, OK. You know what your agenda is better than I do.

This is the main problem with informal identification of controlled
variables in this way. Mostly you see your own reflection.

Yes. I shouldn't have given in to the temptation to show off.

How would you judge this opinion, though? "Only two or three people at the
meeting had PCT as the top item on their agendas, with all other subjects
being secondary."

I probably should have just asked a question that way.

Sorry, though, about categorizing you.

Best,

Bill P.

Bill_Powers1 · August 13, 2001, 5:32pm

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.13.1125 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.13.0950)--

Bruce N.

This is the main problem with informal identification of controlled
variables in this way. Mostly you see your own reflection.

Rick M.

This is also a questionable application of PCT. It says that certain
ways of doing the test ("informal" ways) will lead the tester to
conclude that the variable being controlled by the testee is actually a
variable being controlled by the tester.

That's not the only interpretation of "reflection." In fact, the test is
passed when a variable perceived by the _tester_ resists disturbance. As in
the coin game, this variable can be _related to_ the actual variable being
controlled without being _identical to_ it. Remember the Z vs. N vs.
"zig-zag" definitions. If B is a reliable side-effect of A, then
controlling A will result in apparently controlling B, especially if any
disturbance that affects B also affects A.

Any serious use of the Test requires much more guessing and poking around
than any of us does informally.

Best,

Bill P.

Richard_Marken2 · August 13, 2001, 6:38pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.13.1140)]

Bruce N.

This is the main problem with informal identification of controlled
variables in this way. Mostly you see your own reflection.

Me:

This is also a questionable application of PCT.

Bill Powers (2001.08.13.1125 MDT)

That's not the only interpretation of "reflection." In fact, the test is
passed when a variable perceived by the _tester_ resists disturbance. As in
the coin game, this variable can be _related to_ the actual variable being
controlled without being _identical to_ it. Remember the Z vs. N vs.
"zig-zag" definitions.

Of course. But that seems somewhat irrelevant to the point I was trying
to make. The Z vs N "reflection" situation can occur even when the test
is done rigorously; indeed, it's more likely when the test is done
rigorously since it's unlikely that the tester would have much
confidence that the controlled variable was a Z (or N) if he were just
doing it informally.

The Z vs. N issue is certainly relevant to the fact that people often
don't like the verbal definitions of their controlled variables (such as
their agendas) that are proffered. But it seems to me that this has
nothing to do with Bruce's claim that with "informal identification of
controlled variables...you see your own reflection" no matter what you
take "reflection" to mean. I don't believe there is any basis in PCT
for suspecting that one will identify a controlled variable as a spatial
reflection (as in Z vs N) of the actual controlled variable if the test
is conducted informally rather than formally. And I am also pretty sure
there is no basis for suspecting that the controlled variable identified
via an informal rather than formal application of the test is more
likely to be a reflection in the sense of being a variable the tester is
controlling. But maybe I'm wrong. If so, could you (or Bruce) explain it
to me.

Given your (kind of surprising to me) defense of Bruce's application of
PCT above, maybe I'm not understanding how to apply PCT correctly
myself. So I wonder what you thought of my criticism of Bruce's
suggestion that:

Because of resistance to those disturbances, it is likely that Bill doesn't
know much at all about what Mike is controlling

This sounded wrong to me. But is it really correct? Is this something
that should be mentioned as something for researchers to consider when
doing the test?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

Lloyd_Klinedinst1 · August 14, 2001, 11:04am

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2001.08.14.000 CDT)]

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.13.0950)]

Lloyd Klinedinst (2001.08.13)

> Does this [PCT] afford the scientist any better chance to behave more
> effectively?

My unstated RS here was that

My main interest, in terms of applying PCT, is in learning how to apply
it _correctly_ to real world situations. I don't think it is possible
to develop applications based on PCT for any situation (therapeutic,
educational, management, etc.) until one knows how to look at the
situation correctly through control theory glasses. Whether any
application based on PCT will make it possible for people to behave more
effectively (assuming people can agree on what "effectively" means) is
an interesting question but I don't think it can be answered until we
know how to apply PCT correctly to any particular real world situations. .

These remarks and some of those from the ensuing posts are helpful leads for me
to explore "applying PCT" which I might define in learning and then applying
steps, some prerequisite for which is knowledge of terms, understanding of
theory in itself, and more or less now, correct identification (then analysis)
of a situation in terms of PCT (lenses). Does this seem a rough outline of a
progression, say in presenting PCT to practioners, not unlike but more extended
than David Wolsk's capsulized thermostat reference?

I can think of two possible ways to go from here. One would for an
applied person to volunteer an explanation of what it is about their PCT
understanding of a situation that leads them to use a particular
technique that is presumably "based on PCT". A second would be for
anyone to provide a PCT analysis of some situation and, based on that
analysis, suggest techniques for dealing with it.

I'll proceed with these ideas. And one other thought: On CSGnet, when we're
communicating, I don't see it as a therapeutic relationship obtaining, just
collegial participants in a common subject interest or professional friends
discussing a profession of science and application. So, as in MOL, I see myself
proceeding rather by asking (as the guide on the side) what "agenda" persons are
pursuing - or asking if what I perceive as "an agenda" is indeed what they are
"agendizing" (making an agenda item for themselves). In one IAACT workshop I
participated in, buttons were made on which the requests, "Ask" and "Ask, don't
tell," were printed. (Enough for this post; I imagine I've already said plenty
for theoretical analysis and deconstruction.)

I look forward to learning from subsequent "application" posts.

···

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LLOYD KLINEDINST - BARBARA A. BOLLMANN
10 DOVER LANE - VILLA RIDGE, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 742-4039 - FAX: (636) 742-4039
Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571 - Bobbie Mobile: (314)-799-3323
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com
website: http://www.klinedinst.com
email: bbollmann@bbollmann.com
website: http://www.bbollmann.com

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 14, 2001, 1:14pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.14)]

David Wolsk says:
"I use a simple comparison of S-R with PCT at the start of many workshops.

from the thermostat example and diagram to a simple statement that the brain

is set up to control all critical variables around set points to the

simple-minded conclusion: "you can't control other people when they're busy

controlling themselves" is enough to make my point and get on with the WHAT

and HOW issues."

I wonder just what point you think this simple affirmation makes with them?
- is it that they can't control people at all?
- is it that that can only control people some of the time, under certain
conditions?

And, after clarifying what you think they learn or become aware of after
considering whether a human mind is like a thermostat as you declare, how
does that improve the delivery or assimilation of the WHAT or HOW issues you
address with them?

Perhaps some examples would allow me to better understand your point. Surely
your clients do not receive any substantive understanding of PCT from this
simple approach. So, it must not be relevant to them learning. Or, is it
enough that you have an understanding in doing your work to help them?

Respectfully,

Kenny

bnhpct · August 14, 2001, 3:22pm

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.08.14 11:22 EDT)]

My (2001.08.13 11:01 EDT) comments started from a difference of interpretation of a brief moment during the long and fruitful discussion of communication that prolonged the business meeting last month in St. Louis. I ignored a great deal that was quite positive and helpful in Rick's (2001.08.12.1110) reply to David. Mea culpa. Rick, that was a good post, and, especially to the point, David said it was helpful.

Why do I apologize? I was just resisting disturbances. As we've frequently said about such exchanges, it's only control systems doing what control systems do. But there are many ways of resisting disturbances that are associated with verbal disagreements. Failure to find them is more than just a failure of imagination. A first step is to identify what I myself am controlling that appears to be disturbed by what someone has said.

Suppose I don't. Then I perceive what the other person has said in terms of disturbances to what I am controlling. This is what I mean when I talk about perceiving a reflection of yourself. All I see of you is those parts that matter to me, and if all that matters to me is what I am controlling and disturbances thereto then that is all that I perceive of you.

Suppose I do. That is, suppose I do identify whatever it is that I am controlling that is disturbed by what another has said. Then I am using a reflection to see myself more clearly and specifically. My control of something is disturbed. What am I controlling that is disturbed by (of all things) these words?

This is an application of PCT that I have not seen mentioned: tracing back from disturbance to controlled perception in oneself. I take it as a given that we control many variables without awareness. It seems to me that any skill we develop at tracing back from disturbances to controlled perceptions
in ourselves is directly transferrable to skill at postulating variables that others are controlling (empathy).

When I perceive more precisely what it is that I am controlling, and how your words seem to disturb my control of my CVs, then my attention can be on restoring control of my CVs rather than on your words.

One variable that might be controlled in a group discussion is agreement, especially the agreement of esteemed others. Another might be to be (perceived as) right, or to "win", etc. Having one's agreement esteemed is another. And so on. Focus on disagreements takes us by a narrowing passage into a hall of mirrors, often called polarization, or what Freud somewhere calls the narcissism of small differences.

Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:11 08/12/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.12.1110)]

David Goldstein (2001.08.11.141)

> Yes, I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply PCT.

Great!

> I am especially interested in the discovery of variables of
> experience that people are controlling.

That's great. But this seems more like _research_ to me. What I
meant by "how to apply PCT" was more like "how do we use the
theory as a basis for understanding everyday behavior", including,
of course, the behavior that occurs in clinical situations. I
think this kind of application of PCT may involve some testing for
controlled variables. But I think it will be a fairly informal and
naturalistic type of testing. Much of this testing could occur
during normal conversation. For example, it's pretty easy to tell,
from conversations on CSGNet, what people's agendas are. Bill Powers
was able to go through the room during the last session of the CSG
meeting and identify the agenda of each person there. An "agenda"
is, of course, just a high level controlled perception. Sometimes
an agenda is hard to describe but it's always pretty easy to tell
when one is being controlled for. Being able to understand and see
"having an agenda" from a PCT perspective is what I think of as
"applying PCT". Being able to correctly describe the particular
agenda a person is controlling seems more like "doing research". But
I agree that, in this case, the line between research and application
is a bit fuzzy.

> I was a lot less clear where the variable you identified in the
> baseball catching situation came from. I did not get the impression
> it came from interviewing people who are good at catching baseballs.
> So where did it come from? When I asked this at the meeting, I got
> a flip remark and let the topic drop.

If it was I who made the flip remark I apologize. But coming up with
hypotheses for controlled variable is as mysterious and creative a
process as is coming up with any hypothesis in science. If you read
my _American Journal of Psychology_ paper you will see that the
hypotheses about the variables a fielder controls when catching a
fly ball did not come from me. The original (and probably correct)
hypothesis came from a physicist who noticed, by diagraming the
situation, that the optical velocity of a fly ball remains constant
when it is hit directly to the fielder. The LOT hypothesis comes from
inspection of the videotape record of what a fielder saw while
catching fly balls. I don't know where the optical acceleration
hypothesis came from; probably from the assumption that controlling
optical velocity and acceleration is like controlling the same
variable, which (as I show in the paper) it is not.

I think the most common source of hypotheses about controlled
variables is observation of organisms acting to resist what a
control theorist would see as disturbances. As I mention in the
"Controlled Variables" paper, you can go from noticing disturbance
resistance to hypotheses about controlled variables by looking at
the situation from the point of view of the behaving system itself.
Why, for example, might you, if you were Pavlov's dog, salivate when
dry food is put in your mouth? When you look at the "reaction" to
food from the dog's perspective you can see that the "swallow-
ability" of the food might be what you are trying to control. So
there is your hypothesis about a perception that Pavlov's dog might
be controlling. I came up with the hypothesis about the gray lag
goose controlling pressure on the inside of the bill by trying to
look at the situation, when the egg is removed, from the goose's
perspective. So I guess that's one way I come up with hypotheses
about controlled variables: observation-based empathy with the
behaving system.

> This [random guesses about controlled variables] does not seem to
> be the case in a therapy situation. The higher order experience
> seems like an observable thing, at least to the MOL subject.

I agree. It's like agendas; they are pretty obvious. But I don't
think the success of the MOL hinges on the "guide" knowing _what_
background variable(s) the "explorer" is controlling. What matters,
I believe, is that the "explorer" see their own controlling from
the new, "background" perspective. It's from this point of view that
the explorer can, perhaps, see that they have incompatible wants
(conflicts). The guide may be able to help the explorer see that
certain wants are incompatible; in this case, it helps if the guide
knows what a conflict is, from a control theory perspective. I see
this -- the ability to recognize conflict -- as one of the ways
a knowledge of PCT might be applied when using the MOL.

It was really great to see you at the conference. I hope this becomes
an annual occurrence (seeing you, that is).

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

Richard_Marken2 · August 14, 2001, 3:24pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.14.0820)]

Me:

Whether any application based on PCT will make it possible for people
to behave more effectively (assuming people can agree on what
"effectively" means) is an interesting question but I don't think it
can be answered until we know how to apply PCT correctly to any
particular real world situations. .

Lloyd Klinedinst (2001.08.14.000 CDT)

These remarks and some of those from the ensuing posts are helpful
leads for me to explore "applying PCT" which I might define in
learning and then applying steps, some prerequisite for which is
knowledge of terms, understanding of theory in itself, and more or
less now, correct identification (then analysis) of a situation in
terms of PCT (lenses).

It's that last part that I'm really trying to focus on here. My
experience with applications "based on PCT" is that these applications
often do a perfectly fine job of describing PCT itself. Where these
applications fall apart (in my opinion) is in the analysis of real world
situations (including the application itself) in terms of PCT.

I had this "revelation" at the meeting. It seemed to me that everyone at
the meeting, nearly all of whom are "applied types", have an excellent
understanding of PCT. So why (I asked myself) are there constant
disagreements on the CSGNet? Part of it has to do with agendas. People
have agendas, some aspects of which conflict with some tenets of PCT
itself. But I think that even more important than agendas is a simple
failure to understand how to _apply_ PCT to real world situations. It's
one thing to understand control theory; it's quite another to understand
how to map the theory to actual behavior.

Since nearly everyone who is interested in PCT is interested in it for
potential applications (rather than for its own sweet self) I think it's
worthwhile to be as rigorous and accurate as possible about how PCT is
applied to real world behavior situations.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

Richard_Marken2 · August 14, 2001, 3:56pm

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.14.0900)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.08.14 11:22 EDT)

...

This is an application of PCT that I have not seen mentioned: tracing
back from disturbance to controlled perception in oneself. I take it
as a given that we control many variables without awareness. It
seems to me that any skill we develop at tracing back from
disturbances to controlled perceptions in ourselves is directly
transferrable to skill at postulating variables that others are
controlling (empathy).

...

Wonderful, extraordinary, courageous, heartening, brilliant post,
Bruce!!! Thanks you.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

bnhpct · August 14, 2001, 4:58pm

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.08.14 11:22 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.14.0900)--

Thank you, Rick. I really appreciate that, very much.

Be well,

Bruce Nevin

Bill_Powers1 · August 14, 2001, 6:57pm

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.14.1241 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.13.1140)--

The Z vs. N issue is certainly relevant to the fact that people often
don't like the verbal definitions of their controlled variables (such as
their agendas) that are proffered. But it seems to me that this has
nothing to do with Bruce's claim that with "informal identification of
controlled variables...you see your own reflection" no matter what you
take "reflection" to mean. I don't believe there is any basis in PCT
for suspecting that one will identify a controlled variable as a spatial
reflection (as in Z vs N) of the actual controlled variable if the test
is conducted informally rather than formally. And I am also pretty sure
there is no basis for suspecting that the controlled variable identified
via an informal rather than formal application of the test is more
likely to be a reflection in the sense of being a variable the tester is
controlling. But maybe I'm wrong. If so, could you (or Bruce) explain it
to me.

I didn't mean to imply that the tester was doing the controlling when I said
"In fact, the test is passed when a variable perceived by the _tester_
resists disturbance." I meant only that the controlled variable, from the
tester's point of view, is always a perception of the tester, which is why
it may prove to be different from what the controller (the other person)
perceives, even though it passes a moderately rigorous Test.

So, to get to the point, while I was naming people's agendas, I was just
saying what they seemed to me to be, and when Bruce N. objected, I was
perfectly willing to back down. After all, Bruce didn't object to my claim
that for most of the people at the meeting, other agendas took first
priority over PCT. He objected only to my definition of what his "other
agenda" was. He wasn't disputing my main assertion.

Given your (kind of surprising to me) defense of Bruce's application of
PCT above, maybe I'm not understanding how to apply PCT correctly
myself. So I wonder what you thought of my criticism of Bruce's
suggestion that:

Because of resistance to those disturbances, it is likely that Bill >>

doesn't know much at all about what Mike is controlling

This sounded wrong to me. But is it really correct? Is this something
that should be mentioned as something for researchers to consider when
doing the test?

Let's not mix professional critiques of formally described research results
with personal reactions to casual statements. I don't think Bruce N. knows
any more about Mike's agenda than I do. We're just talking opinions here.
Low gain is appropriate.

Best,

Bill P.