[From MK (2014.12.06.2210 CET)]
···
Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET (1998-08-02)
Subject: Re: Definitions & Meanings
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 14:43:31 -0600
[From Bill Powers (980802.1439 MDT)]
Hank Folson (980802) –
A very thoughtful and valuable post, Hank. In a way, you’re advocating what
have advocated from time to time: starting over. That was almost the
title of the new book. Obviously, there are people who don’t like the idea
of abandoning psychology as we know it. And just as obviously, not
abandoning it is what generates most of the heat on this net.
Imagine how chemistry would look today if there were still people arguing
hat oxygen is nothing but dephlogisticated air.
Best,
Bill P.
Hank Folson Hank@HENRYJAMES.COM (1998-08-02)
Subject: Re: Definitions & Meanings
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 09:35:28 -0800
[From Hank Folson (980802)]
Fred Nickols (900802.0520)
[ 20 more citation lines. Click/Enter to show. ]
I started poring over the unread digests and came across the following
remarks, one about Bill P’s new book and the other about the distinction
between actions and behavior. Both suggest to me reasons why PCT is a
tough sell…
… in PCT the term “behaviour” refers to the
working of the entire loop and “actions” refers to the muscle activity that
an outside agent can observe. Rewards, then, would be used to control a
person’s actions and not their behaviour.
I think I became acquainted with this PCT definition soon after joining the
list–Bill P pointed it out to me–and I think I understand it. However, I
suspect most ordinary people would reverse the definitions, that is, they
would be inclined to see “actions” as referring to the loop, and “behavior”
as referring to the muscle activity. I know that is my inclination. I
have to work at it to keep the two straight when on this list.
Why do efforts to explain PCT seem to almost hinge on
redefining terms already in use instead of by-passing
what is sure to be a formidable obstacle, namely, getting
people to let go of their existing definitions?
Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated…
Fred, I’ve been experiencing the same error for some time now. I have
been dealing with positive feed back from some important controlled
variables 
which has kept me from the subject, but my error signals
regarding your topic have become too big to ignore. So here goes:
The basic (PCT) reason you have a problem with the definitions used by
some PCT researchers is that the use of these redefined terms interferes
with your controlling efforts to apply or teach PCT. It follows that
those who are not trying to apply PCT will not experience the error you
are perceiving OR they perceive other controlled variables as having a
higher priority.
If PCT is anywhere close to how organisms are structured and work, then
every other psychology must have been promoted and put in to general
usage long before it was proven or ready. My guess is that an awareness
of this led PCTers to be prudently cautious about repeating the mistake.
But do we know enough about PCT today to be able to prudently promote and
apply it? I think so, although I am still open to wise counsel.
Long before PCT came along, and continuing today, it is generally
accepted by biologists and others, with no PCT axe to grind, that
‘feedback systems’ occur in organisms, both plant and animal. The only
thing missing is Bill’s unifying insight that all organisms are
control systems. The rules Bill Powers has laid down for the development
of his theory (e.g. The test for the Controlled Variable, modeling, etc.)
will allow both PCTers and outsiders to disprove his theory, should it be
basically flawed.
The Unintended Consequence of not intentionally exploring how to apply
PCT (in my opinion) is that pre-PCT methods of communication and
erroneous understandings of human ‘behavior’ continue to be used today on
CSGnet. Perhaps the most egregious example is that most, if not all,
posts to CSGnet are assumed to be the end result of a process. Under PCT,
a post to CSGnet is but an output of a hierarchical living control system
that is trying to control a variable. Under PCT, what is important is
not what is being said, but why it is being said. But posts are
routinely responded to according to what was said, not why it was said.
Another egregious example is that the communication techniques used on
CSGnet usually recognize that the sender is an independent living control
system, but the recipient is treated as a stimulus-response based
creature. Communication techniques designed to work with passive
stimulus-response systems have got to be very ineffective with
independent living control systems.
Perceiving that I may have one interested listener, Fred, I have dug out
this post I have been massaging for some time now:
BEHAVIOR: THE PHLOGISTON OF PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY (PCT)
Phlogiston was the word used in an early combustion theory to describe a
substance believed to create heat when it escaped from a burning
material. When the modern theory of combustion was being developed in the
1700’s, the word phlogiston was not redefined, it was abandoned. Why
wasn’t it simply redefined? I suggest because in the new oxygen theory of
combustion, there was no part of the process that was comparable to the
original concept of phlogiston as something escaping unaltered from a
burning material. Thus the word phlogiston was simply abandoned. The word
phlogiston already had a commonly and deeply accepted definition for
everyone. Its continued use, however redefined, would only lead to
confusion and errors.
The word ‘behavior’ is the phlogiston of Perceptual Control Theory. It
should be abandoned.
A generic definition of behavior, compatible with most pre-PCT theories,
is this: Behavior is the end result of a process.
Behavior is the end result of a process. If this is a reasonable
generalization, the word behavior has intrinsic to any use of the word,
the idea that behavior relates to the completion of a process.
If behavior is generally defined as being the end result of a process,
can the word have any place in perceptual control theory? No, it cannot.
What is traditionally described as ‘behavior’ is an interpretation of
observable human activity. This is a reasonable approach only if one
has no awareness of negative feedback systems. According to PCT,
observable human activity is our only means to do what living control
systems do, which is to control our perceptions. Any observed activity,
then, is not the end result of a process, and so it is not “behavior” as
the word is generally defined. Observed activity is a part of the
functioning of a control loop, specifically, the output. There is never
an ‘end result’ for control loops. Whenever there is no perceived error
signal, the control system does not turn off, it simply stops producing
outputs, as there is no perception that needs to be brought to a
reference level. Any attempt to use the word behavior in describing this
ongoing, unending loop process can only create ongoing, unending
confusion.
If we really believe in PCT, we cannot redefine the word ‘behavior’ for
use in PCT. Under PCT, we hold that whatever definition people have for
the word ‘behavior’, that definition is firmly established, and any
attempt to redefine the word will either be resisted as a disturbance, or
the word will still be understood as originally defined, interfering with
everyone’s controlling of perceptions, (viz. Fred Nickols (980802.0520)).
Think about this: How often will “behaviors” seem to match internal
goals? Often enough to lead many to believe that ‘behavior’ can be the
basis of a psychology?
So what will happen when we say there is no such thing as behavior? For
sure, you get people’s attention. Big error signal! Then you have to say
that “behavior”, as non-PCTers know it is an illusion. An illusion that
has to do with the way living control systems operate. And PCT holds that
people are living control systems. So where does the illusion come in?
The curse of PCT is that the functioning of healthy control loops can
look like a cause-effect response system. All of us were raised to
believe that what we observe in humans and lab rats is cause-effect
related. It seems so fundamental that we are observing a cause, and then
seeing an effect in response to the cause. “It is just common sense”, we
say. What could be more obvious?
When we deny the existence of behavior in our perceptual control theory,
we force the listener to look for something different. What do we do
next? I suggest that we get the listener to agree that what they call
“behavior” is the end of a process. Now they have acknowledged, and are
reminded of, what they believe. Then we can try and introduce the concept
of the endless loops of control systems. No beginning, no end, just
continual adjustment of controlled variables, or no activity if nothing
has been disturbed.
One thing I would hope will happen will be an awareness that the polarity
between PCT and all other psychologies is absolute. Only one can be right
(Okay, both can be wrong.)
We need to offer an alternative to the word ‘behavior’ that has meaning
in PCT, and does not have an inappropriate definition in the non-PCT
world. I suggest simply using the word “activity”. The PCT-unaware can
see ‘activity’ as a partial description of ‘behavior’, as they know it.
The word, ‘activity’ does not include the concept of completion in either
PCT or non-PCT psychologies. Thus the definitions of the words ‘activity’
and ‘behavior’ are easy to keep separate. Of course, we should look for
other possible replacement words, in hope of finding something even
better. (I haven’t thought about whether your comments Fred,
(980802.0520) may disqualify ‘activity’.)
"Response to Stimulus: The Manipulation of Fanciful Interpretations of
Reality" Does this sound familiar? It is "Behavior: The Control of
Perception", restated as many people understand these words.
My purpose isn’t to play with the title of Bill Power’s book, but to move
on to other words that have problems in PCT. I think that when Bill wrote
the book, the word perception was generally used as Bill used it. Today,
I see many examples of people defining perception as a choice, a personal
- even arbitrary - interpretation. The tendency to define control as
manipulation has been discussed on CSGnet.
I close by suggesting that it is just as important to look at other words
that conflict with PCT. The circular arguments we see too often on CSGnet
are examples of the problems that arise. I have always wondered why
whenever someone offers an equation like a=b+c, each term is always
defined. But when we use words, there is seldom a definition offered,
even after it is clear to the participants that they are talking past
each other. I must mention that clear definitions will help lead to
resolution of conflicts only if that is what the participants are
controlling for. This is another curse of PCT!
Sincerely, Hank Folson