Applying PCT

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.14.2140)]

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). 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?

Yes. I like it alot.

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.

This reminds me that one of the things I had in mind for this
discussion of "applying PCT" was to have people explain how PCT
informs whatever procedures they have developed as part of their
application. The "Ask" and "Ask, don't tell" buttons seem to be
this kind of procedure. Apparently there was a PCT-based rationale
for the buttons: they allow you to proceed "as in MOL". But I wonder
if you would be willing to _tell_ more about how you think PCT
informs this procedure (when you get a chance; I know you are
vacationing with the grandkids at the moment, you lucky dog). I know
that by _asking_ this I am putting you in the position of having to
violate a button (if you choose to answer) and _tell_ me what you
think;-) So do what you judge is right (I know that you have excellent
judgement, as evidenced by your choice of wives, restaurants and
conference centers;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

--

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

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.15.0845 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.14.2140)--

This reminds me that one of the things I had in mind for this
discussion of "applying PCT" was to have people explain how PCT
informs whatever procedures they have developed as part of their
application. The "Ask" and "Ask, don't tell" buttons seem to be
this kind of procedure.

I, too, have some reservations about "Ask, don't tell." There are probably
circumstances in which this is exactly the right thing to do, but I can
think of too many others (a) where it would be extremely awkward to carry
out (giving someone directions for getting to your house, or telling
someone who it is that is calling them on the telephone -- "Would you like
to know that it's Bill calling you?") and (b) where the "asking" is merely
a thinly disguised criticism, threat, or negative evaluation ("Would you
like to sit up in your chair like a civilized person, or would you rather
go to your room?"). If there is an intent to criticize, demean, evaluate,
or dominate, questions can be used just as effectively as declarative
statements. And conversely, one can be just as non-coercive using
declarations as questions, provided that the intent is not to be coercive.

Like the saying, "It's all perception," slogans quickly turn into
meaningless strings of sounds.

Best,

Bill P.

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2001.08.18.1705)] --

I like the idea of discussing how PCT can be applied, especially to
situations encountered in the workplace. Actually, that's why I hang
around this list. I'm no engineer or scientist so I keep looking for
scraps that I can use in a practical way. With that in mind, here's one
possible illustration.

While working with a sales canvassing crew that was part of the old AT&T
directory organization (Yellow Pages), the manager of the unit asked me if
I could get to the bottom of a mysterious pattern he had spotted and that
had him stumped. Some really good salespeople would be on a roll, racking
up sales and then, with no warning, they'd call in sick. He knew they
weren't really sick (and they knew he knew). What puzzled him was why, if
they were on such a roll, they'd let the commissions from those sales slip
away.

After a few beers one night, I got one of the sales reps to tell me what
was going on. The way the compensation system worked, the reps got paid
the commissions on their sales in the pay period in the one after the one
in which the sales were made. But, they were paid for any sick time in the
check covering the pay period in which the sick time was taken. Moreover,
they were paid for their sick time at a rate equal to their average
commissions earnings. So, if the reps had had a couple of bad days in the
preceding pay period, they were likely to take a day or two of sick time in
the subsequent pay period to offset the lowered commissions they were
expecting. The reps were doing a pretty good job of managing their cash
flow (and manipulating the compensation system in the process).

In PCT-related terms, it seems to me that the sales manager thought the
reps were controlling for "making hay while the sun shines" (i.e., bagging
all the commissions they could while they were hot or on a roll). In
contrast, the reps were controlling for cash flow and they were using the
average commissions rate associated with sick time to offset days when
commissions in the preceding pay period hadn't been up to snuff. The way I
articulated it for the sales manager, the reps were doing a pretty good job
of stabilizing their income stream in a job where there were lots of ups
and downs in commissions.

What's the utility of this example? Well, even if only anecdotally, I
think it illustrates the notion of people exercising control. It also
illustrates how we can think someone is controlling for one thing when in
fact they're controlling for something else. And it suggests an angle of
attack for diagnosing performance issues (namely, just what is it the
performer is or might be controlling for and how does that differ from what
management thinks is going on?).

Regards,

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

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2000.08.19.0655)] --

In thinking some more about applying PCT to practical problems of
performance in the workplace, I was reminded of a point I raised on this
list a long time ago, namely, the notion of "adoption of reference
conditions." Suppose I'm the employer and you're the employee. If I want
you to perform in ways that meet my expectations, I clearly have to
communicate those, you clearly have to have an understanding of them that
is sufficiently similar to mine that your performance satisfies me and you
have to adopt them, i.e., use them as reference conditions for your
work. Many people in the workplace would recognize this immediately as
setting or negotiating job performance expectations. How might a good
grasp of PCT better inform or improve this already commonplace
practice? Something akin to "the test" might help. Suppose I explain to
my expectations and you say that you understand them and will work to
achieve whatever's involved. How do I know you know? Well, one way is to
test your understanding with examples. Does this qualify? Does that
qualify? If the performance involved entails producing a finished product
can you in fact discriminate between a product that meets specifications
and one that doesn't? If you can't, then your claim to understand and your
commitment to perform are nice but insufficient.

I happen to think that getting someone like Jack Welch to say that PCT is
"good stuff" will probably do more to advance its cause than the complete
conversion of the membership of APA but as we explore the practical
application of PCT (if some of us do indeed go down that path), I am
concerned that we might give the appearance of reinventing some wheels
already out there. It will not be enough to show that PCT can do a fine
job of explaining what goes on around us or even do a better job of
explaining it. We will have to show how applying PCT delivers better
results -- and probably faster and cheaper as well.

Let's assume that PCT is indeed a much better theoretical model, that lots
of good research has and is being done to confirm and improve the theory
and the model, and that practical applications are pouring out of the R&D
facility known as CSGNet. We would still be faced with a problem that some
call "the diffusion of innovation." It's one thing to have a better
mousetrap; it's something else to get people beating a path to your
door. To accomplish the latter will require that some successful
practitioners attribute their success to PCT principles and related
methods, techniques and tools. Is anyone doing that?

Regards,

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

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.19.1330)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.19)--

Probably like you Fred, I have found executives very willing to
spend time and money on improving business results....It has not
been so easy to demonstrate to CEO's how improving ones under-
standing of human behavior improves business results.

Fred Nickols (2000.08.19.0655) --

I happen to think that getting someone like Jack Welch to say
that PCT is "good stuff" will probably do more to advance its
cause than the complete conversion of the membership of APA but
as we explore the practical application of PCT...I am concerned
that we might give the appearance of reinventing some wheels
already out there.

I think this is because, so far, applications of PCT _are_ reinvent-
ing wheels (or using new terms to describe those wheels). This dis-
cussion of "applying PCT" has made me realize how "in the box" the
thinking about PCT applications has been. You and Kenny talk about
advancing PCT by convincing people like Jack Welch (CEOs) that it
can "deliver better results" or "improve business results" But I have
not seen either of you go "out of the box" to question the results
themselves. For example, both of you seem to take it for granted
that certain business results -- the ones desired by CEOs -- are
just fine: greater productivity, greater profit, and higher stock
values, for example. These may be fine goals. But they are goals
that have been around since the beginning of the industrial
revolution. I don't think PCT has anything new to suggest about how
to achieve these goals that hasn't been tried at one time or another
during that last 150 years by those who want to achieve them.

I would like to see those who apply PCT try a little more thinking
out of the box. I think this could lead to suggestions that are
definitely not reinventions of the wheel. For example, you might
point out to CEOs that the economy is a closed loop system, which
means that the CEOs won't be able to sell the results of their
productivity if people (many of whom are helping to produce those
results) can't buy them. So you could help your CEOs "get better
results" by recommending that they 1) cut their own salaries and
bonuses so that so much of their income isn't just leakage out of
this closed flow 2) pay all their workers a living wage (defined as
a salary that allows the worker's family to comfortably control
the variables that matter for life: food, clothing, education,
shelter and medical care) and 3) support government efforts to
redistribute wealth (progressive taxation, infrastructure spending
programs) so that poverty is eliminated (which means increased
demand for the fruits of the productivity of the CEO's company;
poverty is just reduced demand so it is bad for business, too).

The CEOs might not like these suggestions but they certainly couldn't
call them "reinventing the wheel".

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.20)]

<Rick Marken (2001.08.19.1330)>

<I think this is because, so far, applications of PCT _are_ reinvent-
ing wheels (or using new terms to describe those wheels). This dis-
cussion of "applying PCT" has made me realize how "in the box" the
thinking about PCT applications has been. You and Kenny talk about
advancing PCT by convincing people like Jack Welch (CEOs) that it
can "deliver better results" or "improve business results" But I have
not seen either of you go "out of the box" to question the results
themselves.>

I don't think you know squat about my applications of PCT in business or
management or how much "out of the box" they have been in the past six years.

<For example, both of you seem to take it for granted
that certain business results -- the ones desired by CEOs -- are
just fine: greater productivity, greater profit, and higher stock
values, for example. These may be fine goals.>

Yes, I think they are fine goals for for-profit businesses. But, that does
not mean there are not other goals, some of which might conflict with one
another.

<But they are goals
that have been around since the beginning of the industrial
revolution. I don't think PCT has anything new to suggest about how
to achieve these goals that hasn't been tried at one time or another
during that last 150 years by those who want to achieve them.>

If true, then learning PCT is in fact quite useless for business leaders.
But, I do not agree. And, I wish you would explain why your pursuit of
understanding human errors in writing e-prescriptions would be of value?

<I would like to see those who apply PCT try a little more thinking
out of the box.>

Taken as a sincere suggestion. And, I am all ears.

<I think this could lead to suggestions that are
definitely not reinventions of the wheel. For example, you might
point out to CEOs that the economy is a closed loop system>

I sure won't because I don't believe it to be true. In fact, just the
allowance for leakage in your model seems to confirm that it is _not_ a
closed system. You may argue that it should be, but now we are into absolute
right and wrong, not science or behavior.

<which
means that the CEOs won't be able to sell the results of their
productivity if people (many of whom are helping to produce those
results) can't buy them.>

There aren't many businesses I can think of that depend upon their employees
buying their produced products to generate sufficient sales to make a profit.
Sounds more like a commune to me.

<So you could help your CEOs "get better
results" by recommending that they 1) cut their own salaries and
bonuses so that so much of their income isn't just leakage out of
this closed flow 2) pay all their workers a living wage (defined as
a salary that allows the worker's family to comfortably control
the variables that matter for life: food, clothing, education,
shelter and medical care) and 3) support government efforts to
redistribute wealth (progressive taxation, infrastructure spending
programs) so that poverty is eliminated (which means increased
demand for the fruits of the productivity of the CEO's company;
poverty is just reduced demand so it is bad for business, too).>

Sounds like the way things should be through Rick Marken's glasses. Why not
start by telling that to the CEO of Rand where you labor, and tell us what
your out of the box thinking accomplishes?

<The CEOs might not like these suggestions but they certainly couldn't
call them "reinventing the wheel".>

The CEOs I know might call them socialism, which is nothing new at all. And,
the record of success is not so hot either. But, why not try it first with
the Rand CEO and prove them wrong?

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.20.0900)]

Me:

I don't think PCT has anything new to suggest about how to achieve these
goals that hasn't been tried at one time or another during that last
150 years by those who want to achieve them.

Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.20)--

If true, then learning PCT is in fact quite useless for business leaders.

I don't think this follows. I think PCT could be quite useful to
business leaders, even though it is not new. I think PCT suggests ways
to make some work environments more civilized, cooperative and
satisfying than they currently are. The fact that this is nothing new --
that companies have had (and many still have) civilized, cooperative and
satisfying work environment without PCT -- doesn't diminish the value of
PCT.

My point above, about PCT having nothing new to suggest, was a reply to
Fred Nichols who said that PCT applications often seem like reinventions
of the wheel. I was just saying that these applications may seem like
reinventions of the wheel because they _are_ reinventions of the wheel.
But the wheel is still a _great_ invention. If people lose their
knowledge of the wheel, its a great credit to the person (like you) who
reinvents it for them.

Sounds like the way things should be through Rick Marken's glasses. Why
not start by telling that to the CEO of Rand where you labor, and tell
us what your out of the box thinking accomplishes?

The CEO at RAND hasn't asked me for my ideas on these subjects. But if
he did I would be happy to let him know. But RAND is a non-profit and
the CEO doesn't make a hell of a lot more than I do (And least I don't
think so; I base this assumption on the fact that I ran into -- and shot
the bull with -- the RAND vice-CEO at Macy's the other day. A very nice,
down to earth guy). It's the CEOs of for-profit companies who are making
100 to 1000 times more than their employees who I need to have a talk
with.

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]

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.20.1343 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.20)

I don't think you know squat about my applications of PCT in business or
management or how much "out of the box" they have been in the past six years.

This is the sort of belligerent snotty remark that set off a whole wave of
nasty stuff on CSGnet not too long ago. I hope Rick just ignores it.
There's no way to reply to this sort of thing.

Bill P.

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2001.08.20.1545)] --

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.19.1330)]

Fred Nickols (2000.08.19.0655) --

> I happen to think that getting someone like Jack Welch to say
> that PCT is "good stuff" will probably do more to advance its
> cause than the complete conversion of the membership of APA but
> as we explore the practical application of PCT...I am concerned
> that we might give the appearance of reinventing some wheels
> already out there.

I think this is because, so far, applications of PCT _are_ reinvent-
ing wheels (or using new terms to describe those wheels). This dis-
cussion of "applying PCT" has made me realize how "in the box" the
thinking about PCT applications has been. You and Kenny talk about
advancing PCT by convincing people like Jack Welch (CEOs) that it
can "deliver better results" or "improve business results" But I have
not seen either of you go "out of the box" to question the results
themselves.

Questioning the results sought is risky business and must be done
carefully, not casually. I've done it a lot but always in the context of
placing the result sought in a larger context of cause-effect or result
chains (e.g., You want to reduce costs? Why? To improve profit? No? To
improve competitiveness? Why? To recapture market share? On and on the
questions go. I don't blithely accept the stated sought after results nor
do I cavalierly challenge them. I generally try to help the client
understand how what they say they're after fits into some larger context
and that almost always changes the way we approach the client's
problem. It is not unheard of for the focus to shift from the presenting
result to some other result that was not obvious at first encounter. None
of that requires going "out of the box."

For example, both of you seem to take it for granted
that certain business results -- the ones desired by CEOs -- are
just fine: greater productivity, greater profit, and higher stock
values, for example. These may be fine goals. But they are goals
that have been around since the beginning of the industrial
revolution. I don't think PCT has anything new to suggest about how
to achieve these goals that hasn't been tried at one time or another
during that last 150 years by those who want to achieve them.

I take very little for granted, especially a client's starting statement of
what he or she is after. As for the age of the goals, I care very little
about that. Reducing cruelty has been a goal of a lot of people much
longer than improving productivity and I see nothing wrong with that goal
despite its age. If what you say about PCT not having anything new to
suggest about how to better achieve long-standing goals then it is likely
the case that my time spent hanging around here has indeed been a
waste. However, I don't happen to believe that what you say is the
case. I happen to believe that PCT does in fact have something to say
about how to better achieve goals -- whether those goals are long-standing
or brand-new. PCT provides a much more powerful argument for getting
expectations clear up front; it sheds light on what will and won't work in
the way of feedback and why; it offers some novel approaches to diagnoses
of performance problems and, in general, it is a much more satisfactory
explanation of human behavior than any other I've encountered.

I would like to see those who apply PCT try a little more thinking
out of the box. I think this could lead to suggestions that are
definitely not reinventions of the wheel. For example, you might
point out to CEOs that the economy is a closed loop system, which
means that the CEOs won't be able to sell the results of their
productivity if people (many of whom are helping to produce those
results) can't buy them.

As it happens, I pointed that out in an article I wrote a long time
ago. Furthermore, many people I know understand full well that the global
economy is a closed system (at least until interplanetary commerce comes
along). They don't care. It's not their problem. They know they're in a
zero sum game and their aim is not to break up that game but to win
it. (By the way, if you meant by "the economy" the United States economy,
that is not a closed system and your example doesn't hold water. All you
need to do is look at countries producing stuff their citizens can't buy
but that we can and do to understand that point.)

So you could help your CEOs "get better
results" by recommending that they 1) cut their own salaries and
bonuses so that so much of their income isn't just leakage out of
this closed flow 2) pay all their workers a living wage (defined as
a salary that allows the worker's family to comfortably control
the variables that matter for life: food, clothing, education,
shelter and medical care) and 3) support government efforts to
redistribute wealth (progressive taxation, infrastructure spending
programs) so that poverty is eliminated (which means increased
demand for the fruits of the productivity of the CEO's company;
poverty is just reduced demand so it is bad for business, too).

What do those things have to do with applying PCT? I don't get the connection.

The CEOs might not like these suggestions but they certainly couldn't
call them "reinventing the wheel".

I'm less interested in converting them or changing their point of view (and
reference conditions) than I am in being able to demonstrate to them that I
can make some things happen that they can't. That buys me credibility in
their eyes -- and, except for those who are completely jaded, it also
arouses their curiosity. That affords me the opportunity to share with
them some of what I know and believe. If that leads to change on their
part, fine; if it doesn't, that's fine, too, because my objective is not to
change them.

Regards,

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

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2001.08.20.1610)] --

I had to back up a couple of digest issues to get to this so bear with me
if I seem late in responding ...

Rick Marken (2001.08.17 09:20 PDT)

My sudden insight was this: When we see a person commit an error we can
be sure this happened because the person who committed the error
experienced _no error_ at all.

<snip>

From a control theory perspective, the physician who incorrectly writes
a prescription for "Take 2 of medication X once a day" either 1)
intended to produce that result or 2) was not controlling for some
aspect of that result at the time it was produced. In either case, the
physician would have experienced no "error" (SE) when he produced the
result that is seen as an "error" (OE) by an observer. Errors (OE) occur
when people _are not_ making an error (SE).

Regarding 1) above, what if the physician knowingly, intentionally wrote a
"bad" prescription? Regarding 2) above, would my comment about the
physician being distracted lead him or her to not control for the reference
condition in question? I ask because that was my aim in raising the issue
of being distracted. Unfortunately, I used the term "disturbance" which
has a particular, technical meaning. My apologies.

The goal of human factors engineering, then, is to find ways to get
actors to experience errors (SE) when they _should_ (when the result of
not experiencing the error, SE, would be an error, OE). When, for
example, we find (as we do) cases where the physician writes "Take 2 of
medication X once a day" instead of "Take 1 of medication X once a day"
we have to develop schemes (this is the engineering part) for either 1)
creating an error (SE) for the actor (this is typically done with
alarms, warnings, etc.) at the right time or 2) making it unnecessary
for the actor to control for the aspects of the result that often turn
out to be in error (OE); for example, develop systems that automatically
but in the dosage (1 rather than 2) when drug X is specified.

Engineering out human error has always been a goal of those concerned with
human performance; it's not peculiar to human factors engineering. It
wasn't me, your honor, it was my reference conditions.

One quick note: Some may reject this analysis because it seems to
require the assumption that a trained physician, one who always
prescribes medication X and who knows that the appropriate dosage is 1
rather than 2 per day, would _intend_ to produce a prescription that
says "Take 2 of medication X once a day". But all the analysis requires
is that we assume that, for whatever reason, the physician did intend to
produce that result _on that occasion_. I have no doubt that, if the
physician reviews the prescription shortly after he writes it he would
see the prescription as an error (SE) and correct it. But my analysis
suggests that, at the time the prescription was produced (and not
corrected) the physician did _not_ see it as an error (SE); so the
prescription either matched his intention or there was no intention to
produce a particular dosage. This is what we would call a mistake or
lapse on the part of the physician. But we don't have to know _why_ such
lapses occur. The important point is that when such lapses occur (and
result in an OE) the result of the lapse, from the actor's (physician's)
perspective, is that the _was no error_ (SE).

The bottom line of the paragraph above has all the makings of a wonderful
defense case in lawsuits charging negligence, incompetence, etcetera. PCT
to the rescue.

I think human factors engineers already do many of the things that would
be recommended by this insight. But I think my insight (and, of course,
the theory on which it is based, PCT) provides a nice, simple, clear and
principled basis for doing human factors engineering. The principle is:
objectively observed "errors" (OE) result when the actor experiences no
"error" (SE).

No, I don't think so. I have no problem with the assertion that
objectively observed errors (OE) CAN result when the actor experiences no
error (SE), but I don't think the principle as stated is correct. It seems
to me there can also be situations in which there is no SE and no OE. It
also seems to me that there can be SE's but no OE's. To see what I mean
try the consultant's favorite - a 2x2 matrix with OE (yes and no) on one
side and SE (yes and no) on the other side.

···

-----------------------------------------

                   > >
          1 | 2 | Yes
                   > >
----------------------------------------| OE
                   > >
          3 | 4 | No
                   > >

-----------------------------------------
           Yes No

                    SE

Quadrant 1 says the observer and the performer agree that an error has been
made (reference conditions and perceptions are aligned).

Quadrant 2 says the person has made a mistake but doesn't think he has.

Quadrant 3 says the person thinks he's made a mistake but hasn't.

Quadrant 4 says the observer and the performer agree that no error has been
made (again, reference conditions and perceptions are aligned).

Regards,

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

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.20.1530)]

Fred Nickols (2001.08.20.1545)--

Reducing cruelty has been a goal of a lot of people much longer than
improving productivity and I see nothing wrong with that goal despite
its age.

I agree. And I celebrate your efforts to reinvent this particular wheel.

PCT provides a much more powerful argument for getting expectations
clear up front; it sheds light on what will and won't work in the way
of feedback and why; it offers some novel approaches to diagnoses
of performance problems and, in general, it is a much more satisfactory
explanation of human behavior than any other I've encountered.

Yes. I agree. All I'm saying is that a notion like "getting expectations
up front" is not a new wheel. It's a good wheel. And PCT explains why
its an important wheel. But it's not a new wheel.

(By the way, if you meant by "the economy" the United States economy,
that is not a closed system and your example doesn't hold water. All you
need to do is look at countries producing stuff their citizens can't buy
but that we can and do to understand that point.)

That's true. Economies are not tightly closed. There are leaks. But the
basic organization of an economy is closed loop. An economy is just
people producing goods and services for themselves to consume; and they
consume so that they can live to produce more: output causes input while
input causes output.

Me:

So you could help your CEOs "get better results" by recommending that
they 1) cut their own salaries and bonuses so that so much of their
income isn't just leakage out of this closed flow...

Ye:

What do those things have to do with applying PCT? I don't get the
connection.

They are based on a closed loop model of the economy. That model
certainly has a ways to go before you can make these kinds of
recommendations with any confidence. I was just giving them as examples
of "outside the box" kinds of conclusions you might come up with based
on a PCT analysis of the economy.

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]

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.20.1600)]

Fred Nickols (2001.08.20.1610) --

what if the physician knowingly, intentionally wrote a "bad" prescription?

This is not that rare. Physicians certainly intentionally write
prescriptions that they know are medically unnecessary. I don't think
these would be caught as OEs by the error classification systems I've
seen. If the physician intentionally writes a prescription for a
medication knowing that it is seriously contraindicated (for example,
prescribing penicillin to a patient who is known to be allergic to
penicillin) then we're dealing with malpractice.

would my comment about the physician being distracted lead him or her to
not control for the reference condition in question?

Yes. This makes sense to me. The written prescription was intended. It
was just a wrong intention due to disturbance to higher level variables.
I agree.

Me:

The important point is that when such lapses occur (and result in an OE)
the result of the lapse, from the actor's (physician's) perspective, is
that the _was no error_ (SE).

Ye:

The bottom line of the paragraph above has all the makings of a wonderful
defense case in lawsuits charging negligence, incompetence, etcetera. PCT
to the rescue.

I don't think so. I don't think absence of SE indicates absence (or
presence) of negligence.

Me:

I think my insight...provides a nice, simple, clear and principled basis
for doing human factors engineering. The principle is: objectively
observed "errors" (OE) result when the actor experiences no "error" (SE).

Ye:

No, I don't think so. I have no problem with the assertion that
objectively observed errors (OE) CAN result when the actor experiences no
error (SE), but I don't think the principle as stated is correct. It seems
to me there can also be situations in which there is no SE and no OE.

Yes. I think this is the nominal case in medicine.

It also seems to me that there can be SE's but no OE's.

I agree. But this would be an odd one. It would mean that you produced a
result (X) that was not intended (X'), were unable to correct the result
(make X = X') and it turns out that X was the objectively right result
after all. I think this kind of thing happens more often in Charlie
Chaplin comedies than in real life.

To see what I mean try the consultant's favorite - a 2x2 matrix with OE
(yes and no) on one side and SE (yes and no) on the other side.

-----------------------------------------
> > >
> 1 | 2 | Yes
> > >
>----------------------------------------| OE
> > >
> 3 | 4 | No
> > >
-----------------------------------------
           Yes No

                    SE

Very nice representation. The main problem for my analysis of OEs, I
think, is quadrant 1: OEs that are associated with SEs. I just don't
think this is a credible scenario; it implies that the physician writes
the prescription, sees it is not what is intended (SE) and is unable to
fix it. I suppose this could happen if the physician writes the
incorrect prescription, sees it's wrong but has it immediately pulled
from his hand by the patient who runs off to the pharmacy and cuts off
all communication between physician and pharmacy so that the physician
can't call and say "don't fill it". This may happen occasionally but I
think I'll devote most of my efforts to the OEs in quadrant 2.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.20)]

<Bill Powers (2001.08.20.1343 MDT)>

Kenny Kitzke (2001.08.20) responding to Rick's observations, opinions and

suggestions about applications folks like me:

I don't think you know squat about my applications of PCT in business or
management or how much "out of the box" they have been in the past six years.

<This is the sort of belligerent snotty remark that set off a whole wave of
nasty stuff on CSGnet not too long ago. I hope Rick just ignores it.
There's no way to reply to this sort of thing.>

My, my, my. Must have disturbed some CV of yours at fairly high gain. I see
it as a simple statement of fact. Was it the "squat" that so disturbed you?
Would "diddly squat" be better? How about "next to nothing?" I apologize
for my careless choice of words, and feel sorry for your agony.

Of all the possible belligerent snotty remarks made on this net, I don't
think this one of mine qualifies for the lower quartile of degree. But, hey,
everyone can judge for themselves. Right?

I think Rick has successfully controlled himself and ignored my remark, or
compared it differently than you. There is a way to respond to this sort of
thing, and _you_ did. You could have let it slide, but I guess your response
helped you control something.

Thanks for your feedback.

Respectfully,

Kenny

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.22.1100)]

Chris Cherpas (2000.09.21.1100 PT)--

I like Rick too: 'nuff said.

Bill Powers (2000.09.22.0842 MDT) --

Too much.

Gee, it seemed about right to me;-)

I'm getting back to PCT again.

To quote Mickey Rooney from nearly every Andy Hardy movie
ever made "Hey, I've got an idea!" Why don't you talk about
applying PCT. I don't mean applying PCT to a particular
human endeavor, like management or education. I mean
applying the PCT model to _any_ observable phenomenon.

I think this is one of the difficult aspects of PCT science.
It seems to me that many people understand the PCT model
pretty well: reference compared to perception; difference
(error) causes output variations that drive the variable
represented by perception (the controlled variable) back to
the reference state; the result is control of perception
(and of the the controlled variable represented by the
perception). But some of these same people have trouble
relating the model to readily observable behavioral phenomena.

The problem of applying PCT -- of knowing how to relate the
model to phenomena -- could explain why people who understand
the PCT model quite well end up disagreeing with each other
about what might be going on when they see a dog salivate
when food is placed in its mouth or when they see a teacher
ask "What are you doing" when a student disrupts the class.

So I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about what
we might think about when we try to look at the world of
behavior through PCT glasses. That is, how do we go about
applying the model -- this little diagram on a piece of
paper -- to the actual, mundane reality of human behavior
that we see everyday?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.09.22.1620 EST)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.22.1100) --

The problem of applying PCT -- of knowing how to relate the
model to phenomena -- could explain why people who understand
the PCT model quite well end up disagreeing with each other
about what might be going on when they see a dog salivate
when food is placed in its mouth or when they see a teacher
ask "What are you doing" when a student disrupts the class.

So I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about what
we might think about when we try to look at the world of
behavior through PCT glasses. That is, how do we go about
applying the model -- this little diagram on a piece of
paper -- to the actual, mundane reality of human behavior
that we see everyday?

We end up disagreeing with each other because we have no firm _data_ with
which to test one formulation versus another. As most subscribers to CSGnet
have little or no interest in collecting real data, the arguments
necessarily become philosophical rather than scientific, where the only
criteria of "goodness" are logical consistency and apparent fit with
anecdotal observations or prior beliefs.

Classical conditioning of salivation is a good example. One can propose a
control-system model in which some arbitrary sensory input-change becomes
able to disturb a system controlling for the level of saliva in the mouth
(or some such CV); the model may even appear behave much like the dog in
Pavlov's classic experiment. But without the observations necessary to rule
out alternative models, and without detailed data against which to test the
model, or a mapping of the actual circuitry that generates the behavior, we
are left to evaluate the model on other, less rigorous criteria. Because
different people use different criteria, differences of opinion as to the
success of the model are almost inevitable. (For example, Rick and I differ
in our opinions of how successful his fielder model is in capturing the
details of real fielding.)

If your goal is to pursuade folks that PCT offers a viable explanation of
human behavior, then it may be sufficient to show that some PCT-based model
can provide at least a plausible account of some observed behavior (the
following behavior of the little circles in the Crowd demo comes to mind
here). One should keep uppermost in mind, however, that plausible models
can be wrong and, absent rigorous testing, any such model is nothing more
than a hypothesis as to what might be. Even in the case of models that work
very well against real data (i.e., the tracking studies), the underlying
reality is likely to be much more complex, in ways that matter to the
behavior of the system, than the simple negative feedback control system
with leaky integrating output that is embodied in the computer model.

The best one can hope for in the absence of real experimental tests is to
show that a given way of applying PCT provides a reasonable and plausible
account of behavior observed under some set of conditions. Others may
develop a different way of applying PCT to that problem (a different model)
that may appear to them to be just as reasonable and plausible. One
occasion where the arguments get heated, it seems to me, is when one of the
other side asserts, without firm supporting data, that its particular way of
applying PCT to the problem is the correct way.

Bruce A.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0922.1848)]

Bruce Abbott (2000.09.22.1620 EST)

Bruce A.

One should keep uppermost in mind, however, that plausible models
can be wrong and, absent rigorous testing, any such model is nothing more
than a hypothesis as to what might be. Even in the case of models that

work

very well against real data (i.e., the tracking studies), the underlying
reality is likely to be much more complex, in ways that matter to the
behavior of the system, than the simple negative feedback control system
with leaky integrating output that is embodied in the computer model.

Meet Bruce A:

We end up disagreeing with each other because we have no firm _data_ with
which to test one formulation versus another. As most subscribers to

CSGnet

have little or no interest in collecting real data, the arguments
necessarily become philosophical rather than scientific, where the only
criteria of "goodness" are logical consistency and apparent fit with
anecdotal observations or prior beliefs.

BG

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.22.1600)]

Me:

how do we go about applying the model -- this little diagram
on a piece of paper -- to the actual, mundane reality of human
behavior that we see everyday?

Bruce Abbott (2000.09.22.1620 EST)

We end up disagreeing with each other because we have no firm
_data_ with which to test one formulation versus another.

To some extent this is true. But this is not quite the problem
I had in mind.

I remember sitting in my first undergraduate class in _Learning_,
at Ucla trying to learn _how_ to perceive behavior in S-R terms.
I wasn't doing this consciously, of course. But I remember thinking
that this was a very unfamiliar way of looking at behavior. In
fact, I had no existing organizational framework in terms of
which to see behavior. People walked, talked and (if I was lucky)
gave me a kiss. I didn't see behavior in terms of a particular
organizational scheme. But, by the end of the course I was able
to see behavior through S-R glasses: people "emitted" walking,
talked in response to questions and kissed in response to begging.

So I learned to perceive behavior in terms of the prevailing
organizational framework of psychology: S-R. When I started to
learn Powers' control theory (now PCT), I had to learn to see
behavior in terms of a completely new organizational framework;
control. I didn't realize this right away. At first I approached
PCT as "just another theory of behavior". I had no idea that I
was looking at _behavior_ itself from the point of view of the
wrong organizational framework.

I think I didn't really understand PCT until I learned to look
at behavior from a control perspective: the organizational
framework of PCT. My ability to see behavior in this way
came _after_ I understood the model itself; I knew how to write
a program to implement a simple control model before I was
really able to see behavior itself as a control phenomenon.

When I talk about "applying PCT" I am talking about applying
the organizational framework of control to our perception of
real, everyday behavior; I am talking about learning to _see_
behavior through PCT glasses.

Seeing behavior as control is a skill that must be learned, just
like the skill of seeing behavior in S-R terms. I don't believe
we come into the world with a tendency to see behavior in terms
of S-R or control. At least, I didn't.

What I want to discuss in this thread about "applying PCT" is not
which organizational framework, S-R or control, is the right one.
If I wanted to know that, I would, indeed, have to collect data. But
I think my concerns come before data collection. I don't think one
would even be interested in getting the data to decide the question
of S-R vs control unless they had learned to see behavior from the
point of view of _both_ organizational frameworks.

I think the reason the data doesn't exist to decide between the
organizational schemes of S-R and control is because people have
_not_ learned to look at behavior through PCT glasses. People
won't do research to determine whether, say, "classical conditioning"
is S-R or control if they can't see "classical conditioning"
through PCT glasses.

Also, I think there are plenty of people who don't (and will never
do) research who would, nevertheless, benefit from learning how
to see behavior through PCT glasses.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.09.22.2230 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0922.1848)]

Bruce A.

Meet Bruce A:

And Bruce G. and many others.

Bruce A.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.23.0721 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.22.1100)--

Why don't you talk about applying PCT. I don't mean applying PCT to a
particular human endeavor, like management or education. I mean
applying the PCT model to _any_ observable phenomenon.

I'll consider it. Right now I'm trying to unload some pressure, not take on
more. It's a good suggestion. Bill Williams' contribution is an example of
a good application, on which I'll comment fairly soon.

I don't really "apply PCT." I just build models; in fact, when I try to set
up a model I don't try to stick to PCT. In the Little Man, for example,
there are four levels of control, but they don't have anything to do with
the 11 levels I proposed previously. They're just what falls out of trying
to represent the known organization of the reflexes. You can see how the
basic simple PCT model relates to the result, but the final model is
certainly not identical to the simple model (for one thing, a single
comparator serves the first three levels of control systems in the real
system. It's a really clever arrangement). The "official" PCT model is like
an artist's sketch, intended only as a guide to building the real model,
piece by piece, on experimental data.

Building "the real model" is perfectly feasible if we simply start from
where we are and go one step at a time. The range of possible models is not
infinite, and there are ways to eliminate most of the alternatives through
behavioral experiments and physiological investigations. To me, that's the
real science in PCT. The rest is more or less fluff.

There, I've done a Rick. Now's the chance to get mad at the person you're
really mad at (an insight Mary had a few days ago. Rick is just the
whipping boy).

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0923.1036)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.23.0721 MDT)

There, I've done a Rick. Now's the chance to get mad at the person you're
really mad at (an insight Mary had a few days ago. Rick is just the
whipping boy).

Nice try, Mary, but no cigar. Nice post Bill.

BG