[From Fred Nickols (2014.12.11.1155 EST)]
I want to revisit this control of behavior thing. More specifically, I want to check my understanding of something.
If by “control someone else’s behavior” is meant simply that I can get someone to behave the way I want them to, the answer is yes. Putting a gun to their head is more often than not the quickest and most effective if not the best way.
The problem occurs if somebody will not obey you and you’ll have to pull the trigger. It’s question whether you’ll do it or not. Is he controlling your behavior by saying “O.K. pull the trigger” ?
You are not controlling his behavior with your gun. He is. You are disturbing his perceptual control on some important level what makes him behave as you think he has to behaves. But he has always a choice whether he’ll do it or not. But he is controlling some of his important perceptions inside organism, where you caused “error”. Whatever someone can do to other are just disturbances to perceptual control. Whatever happens then is “Control of perception of individual”.
If by “control someone else’s behavior” is meant that I can establish a reference signal for someone else’s behavior and then get them to behave in ways such that their behavior matches my reference signal, my answer is still yes.
No. The problem is how you “get him to behave” as you want. The problem is the same as before. There is no “control of behavior”. It’s just “Control of perception” on many levels of hierarchy.
However, in this scenario I also have to get them to have the same reference signal for their behavior that I do. That might be achieved through communication and negotiation.
I think that’s always the option. But you both set your own references. It’s your separate decision.
If by “control someone else’s behavior” is meant that I can get them to behave in ways that I want without apprising them of my reference signal then I suppose that is possible by fiddling around and creating disturbances for them that eventually results in them displaying the behavior I’m after. Whew! That is likely to take a while.
Anyway, do I have these straight?
There is no way you can “control someone else behavior”. You have to show mechanism that can do that in human nerv net and outputs which will work as you want them to. You can’t see in his “head” what someone is realy controlling when you observe his behavior. Muscles are not the only output that controls the homeostasis in organism. So you have to see all control mechanism in the organism to tell exactly what somebody “controls”. But that is impossible. You will never know what people really think and what they really control. But you can imagine.
Give some examples as that one with the gun. Or you try it with other person how it works. You will see how persons will control your threat.
If everything is so easy to mark as “control of behavior”, why do you need PCT as “Control of perception” ?
Many sociologists have seemed content to rely on the common-sense psychological observation that people produce actions in order to reach goals.1 In other words, social behavior is goal directed, and, when proceeding rationally, behavior results from the control of human actions. The model presented here makes one small but highly consequential change in this line of thinking.
Perceptual control theory holds that human behavior consists of controlling perceptions, not actions. In other words, people’s actions are merely a by-product of their attempts to stabilize their perceptions in conformity with their own desires and preferences.
Nobody can control someone else behavior (actions). That’s the main premise of PCT. If you turn it into “control of behavior”, what is left to be PCT ?
Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting LLC
Assistance at a Distance
The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room
“Be sure you measure what you want.”
“Be sure you want what you measure.”
From: “Fred Nickols” (email@example.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:59 PM
Subject: Back to Control of Behavior