behavior and controlled perceptions

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

Jim Dundon

March 29 2006

Rick, you said,

“the problem is that the term behavior is pretty vague”.

That is my point. We have languaged many concepts using the word behavior. And these are what people hear and when they hear the word behavior. It is only with more careful attention to what is meant and more attention to what is happening that we can come up with clearer, more consistent, common usage. The same holds true for the word spontaneous. One of the impressions I had of it is that it refers to behavior that is free and uninhibited, so it takes a little work to reconcile this with the concept of controlling perception. I think most people would think of them as opposites. In rereading pages 13 to 16 of making sense of behavior, as Bjorn suggested, I can see that Bill Powers does in fact use the word to represent uninhibited perceptual control. I had read this already several months ago and lost sight of it.

There are other words that I think people consider representing experiencings which are contrary to what they think of when they think of control; words such as love, let, feeling, letting go, laughing, joy, to name a few. So I think you can see the difficulty many people face in achieving a rapid associating of the notion of control with something positive. In thinking about human relationships it is not usually perceived as positive and is usually labeled a threat, inducing an attitude of rejection.

Of course a control systems engineer would have an easier time calling control positive. Most people do not want other people to think of them as a controller. But then no one wants to be equated with a man made machine. The social norm today is to think of control as undesirable. I doubt that a song titled “I’m a Controller” could become a major hit. Besides I think from a PCT standpoint, control is neutral, only the perception is judgeable. So maybe “I’m a Controllin’ Fo’ Yo’ Love” stands a better chance; but not much more.

So these words really are used in many ways and for purposes of our discussions we need to be really clear about what we’re saying. As I see it, PCT reserves the word “behavior” for Control of perception.

So to continue in that vein:

Rick, you said

“We are perceiving many things all the time that we are not controlling”.

Martin, you said:

“Those are called disturbances if they affect controlled perceptions. Otherwise they are just perceptions not currently being controlled”.

With the above in mind, looking at B:CP and what it says,

would it not be equally accurate but more revealing, more comprehensive, to say:

B:CSP “Behavior: the Control of Some Perceptions” OR:

B:COSP “Behavior: The Control Of Only Some Perceptions” OR:

B:CSOSB “Behavior: The Control of Some and Only Some Perceptions” OR,

if we must achieve singularity;

B:COOOP Behavior: The Control of One and Only One Perception"?

Mine, of course. Could it be otherwise, from a PCT perspective?

Jim D

2

Re: behavior and controlled
perceptions
[Martin Taylor 2006.03.29.17.24]

Jim
Dundon
March 29
2006

Jim, It’s conventional on this mailing list to use a time-stamp
header such as the above. People sometimes refer back to messages
months, or even recently 10years back, and having that time stamp
makes cross-referencing much easier.

I won’t quote most of your message, but your point about words
being used in ways that are not those of everyday speech is one that
has been brought up many times, here. I think Bill P. made the point
right at the beginning of PCT that when one is trying to describe the
variables of a science, one either must use terms from everyday
langauge that convey some of the meaning but that may mislead, or one
must create neologisms that nobody could understand without learning
the scientific context. It’s a choice between conveying something
ofthe idea to a naive person or walling your science with a barricade
of jargon.

Bill chose to use the term “perception” to mean any
internal signal dependent on external data (more or less). That
corresponds somewhat to the everyday usage, but misleads because in
PCT many (most) “perceptions” are not consciously
“perceived”. However, I don’t think “behaviour”
misleads in the same way. The PCT use is much closer to the everyday
use.

So these words really
are used in many ways and for purposes of our discussions we need to
be really clear about what we’re saying. As I see it, PCT
reserves the word “behavior” for Control of
perception.

Actually, I think it’s the other way round. PCT starts with the
notion of “behaviour” as being anything one does that is
observable by an external observer. I think that’s about as wide a
definition of behaviour as you could justify in normal language.

Then PCT makes the assertion that ALL of this can be explained as
the consequence of controlling perceptions.

PCT does NOT say that all perceptions are controlled by some
behaviour. It DOES say that all behaviour is the result of controlling
some perceptions.

PCT does NOT say that all behaviour successfully controls any
perception (that’s the beginning of the answers to your initial set of
questions about clinically abnormal behaviour). And PCT does NOT say
that all the effects of behaviour on the outer world are intended as
part of the control of any perceptions. Some (most?) of the effects of
our behaviour on the outer world are what PCT calls
“side-effects” – effects on the world that do not influence
the perception the behaviour is attempting to control.

So to continue in that
vein:
…would it not be
equally accurate but more revealing, more comprehensive, to
say:
B:CSP “Behavior:
the Control of Some Perceptions” OR:
B:COSP
“Behavior: The Control Of Only Some Perceptions”
OR:
B:CSOSB “Behavior: The Control of Some and Only
Some Perceptions” OR,
if we must achieve
singularity;
B:COOOP
Behavior: The Control of One and Only One
Perception"?
Mine, of course.
Could it be otherwise, from a PCT perspective?

Do you see why none of your suggestions are appropriate, except
possibly the first? Personally, I don’t think even the first would
have been a reasonable title, because it puts the emphasis on the
someness of the perceptions, whereas the actual title puts the
emphasis on the “allness” of the behaviour.

Following in your vein, one could imagine a really catchy title:
All Behaviour is in service of the control of Perception (ABIISOTCOP)
:->

Does this all make sense?

Martin

3

[From Rick Marken (2006.03.29.1450)]

Jim Dundon
March 29 2006

Rick, you said,
"the problem is that the term behavior is pretty vague".

That is my point. We have languaged many concepts
using the word behavior. And these are what people
hear and when they hear the word behavior.

Yes. One of the first and most important things people should learn when studying PCT is about the nature of behavior itself. Psychologists of all stripes have always assumed that they know what behavior is - and they have been quite wrong. PCT started with a careful look at the nature of behavior. What Bill Powers found that behavior is not what it seems; it is neither a caused not an emitted output. It is a control process. If psychology had started with this kind of analysis it would have become a science by now.

There are other words that I think people consider
representing experiencings which are contrary to what
they think of when they think of control; words such as
love, let, feeling, letting go, laughing, joy, to name a few.
So I think you can see the difficulty many people face in
achieving a rapid associating of the notion of control with
something positive. In thinking about human relationships
it is not usually perceived as positive and is usually labeled
a threat, inducing an attitude of rejection.

Yes, we know the difficulty. But there is really no better word to describe control than "control".

Of course a control systems engineer would have an
easier time calling control positive.

I think ordinary people who want to "get control of their lives" also tend to have no problem seeing control as positive. A friend of mine, a research psychologist, became a fan of control theory when he went into being a counselor and realized that the most common complaint he was getting was that people felt that they were not in control of their lives. They were going to counseling to get control back. People like to be in control a lot, even if they don't like the word.

Most people do not want other people to think of them as a
controller.

I think they don't want others to think of them as controllers of other people. But many people like to think of themselves -- and have others thing of them -- as being _in control_ of their life.

The social norm today is to think of control as undesirable.

In certain contexts.

I doubt that a song titled "I'm a Controller" could become
a major hit.

One of my favorite Dylan songs -- "Too much of nothing" -- bemoans the fact that when there's too much of nothing (like when people are victims of Republican economic policies) "no one's in control". So the song recognizes (correctly) that it sucks to not be in control (but apparently people will put up with this lack of control as long as the president isn't getting a blow job from an intern and gay people are not allowed to get married;-)

Rick, you said

"We are perceiving many things all the time that we are not controlling".

Martin, you said:

"Those are called disturbances if they affect controlled perceptions. Otherwise they are just perceptions not currently being controlled".

With the above in mind, looking at B:CP and what it says,
would it not be equally accurate but more revealing, more comprehensive, to say:

B:CSP "Behavior: the Control of Some Perceptions"

I think it would be more correct to say B: SCMPBNAP (Behavior: The simultaneous control of a multitude of perceptions but not all perceptions). But it's really no that catchy -- or that necessary.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken, PhD
Psychology
Loyola Marymount University
Office: 310 338-1768
Cell: 310 729 - 1400