Hi Bruce
BN: We’ve noticed many times that there are two senses of ‘behavior’, behavior from the control system’s point of view and behavioral actions or outputs as seen from an observer’s point of view. […]
RM: This is … a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific basis of PCT
BN: Indeed it is.
RM: Actually, you left out the part that I was referring to as a fundamental understanding:
You said: “Behavior (from the organism’s point of view) is the control of perception” is consistent with “behavior (from the observer’s point of view) is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions.”
RM: The misunderstanding here is that “behavior is the control of perception” (from any point of view) is consistent with “behavior is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions" (also from any point of view). In PCT, “behavior is the control of perception” means that what we see as behavior is controlled aspects of the environment (which are perceptual variables).
BN: Trouble is, everybody in the world who does not understand PCT has this misunderstanding. Over the years, to help them understand PCT we have sometimes said that outputs, actions, control actions, behavioral outputs, etc. are the observable means for affecting the state of the controlled variable. I agree that we should reserve “behavior” to refer to what the entire control loop does.
RM: I think it’s far more important to explain to those new (and old) to PCT what I explained at the beginning of this thread: that what we call an organism’s “behavior” is a controlled aspect of the organism’s environment; it is a controlled perceptual variable, and controlled variables are the basic data of the study of behavior from a PCT perspective.
BN: The lay meaning of “behavior” corresponds to observed reference states of controlled variables when the lay meaning refers to the intent of the observed actions.
RM: Actually, I think the lay meaning of “behavior” doesn’t confine itself just to intended results of action. It also often refer to the actions themselves, even when the result was unintended (she “knocked” over the cup by accident). Of course the actions that we see as the means of producing an intended or unintended result are also controlled variables (the arm movement that knocked over the cup was a controlled results, though poorly when overturning over the cup was not the intended result.
BN: He’s pushing the doorbell, he’s seeing if anyone is home, he’s selling vacuum cleaners, etc. It’s hard to describe an activity without implying intent.
RM: Right, and what PCT brings to the party is not just the idea that behavior has goals or purposes but also an explanation of what goals and purposes are: they are the reference states of controlled variables. So the first step in understanding these behaviors is determining, in detail, what variables are being controlled. My initial hypothesis of each of your examples would be 1) the sound of a doorbell 2) the sight of someone at the door 3) the receipt of payment for purchase.
BN: Does anybody except a conventional psychologist attempt that veneer of ‘objectivity’, with no attribution of purpose?
RM: I think behavioral scientists in general are prone to avoiding talk of purpose. Economists, for example, are big on “incentives” which are events that are seen as the cause of behaviors rather than the goals of purposeful action, which they actually are. I have found, by he way, that Gary Cziko’s The Things We Do is a treasure trove of examples of life scientists who were quite unabashed about describing behavior in terms of its possible purposes – that is, in terms of the variables that the organism is controlling.
BN: With PCT, we describe intent as reference values in a hierarchy of controlled perceptions. There lie avenues of communication.
RM: More importantly, I think, is that PCT describes what intended results are: they are controlled variables, which are the observable consequences of an organisms actions that are protected from the effects of disturbance. Controlled variables are not only an avenue of communication with psychologists; psychologists have to learn controlled variables are the data that are essential to the development of a science of purpose.
BN: Blast from the past, this is from another nice exposition of yours, Rick, that’s worth revisiting:
RM: So I believe Bill used the word “perception” in the title of his book because he knew that psychologists would see it as referring to the “input” of an organism, while the word “behavior” would be seen as referring to the organism’s “output”…It’s the first claim – that output controls input – that is the tough one (for psychologists), so tough that it has been nearly impossible to get psychologists to pay attention to PCT for more than a few seconds.
RM: Thanks. It’s nice to know that some people are reading my stuff.
Best, Rick