Hi Bruce,
I’m sorry to »jump in« here, but it seems odd that you make a final conclussion based on so »ambigous« oppinions about »Behavior is control«. I hope you’ll wait on »final deccision« on the bases of many arguments. But what it is, it is. I’d like to remand you that you also »changed« your mind about »Behavior is control«, as Bill and Rick did some times.
BN :
The key insight is that we do not control our behavior. Rather, behavior is variable in just the manner and extent necessary to make our experience be the way we want it to be. The title of the locus classicus of this science of psychology is Behavior: The control of perception, published in 1973 by William T. Powers
HB : It seems that something is not yet clear about PCT, because there is so much »double« meaning.
BN :
That reason is that the nature of behavior has been misunderstood until the advent of PCT. This is why Bill said in 2011, and I quote him again, “behavior is control of perception”. Or as he wrote in the 1973 Preface to B:CP, “Behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data” (that’s in the last paragraph, on p. xiv of the 2005 edition). Not just the observable activities; the entire process.
HB : Of course I can give you much more Bill’s statements in which he affirm that »Behavior« or »Output« or »actions« are not Control.
Bill P : It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception, and that we do so specifically to make the state of that world conform to the reference conditions we ourselves have choosen (to the extent we change the perceptions of our actions).
Bill P : Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world. We can make sense not only of other people’s behavior, but of our own, using the same concept of perceptual control.
Bill P : It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception,
Bill P : If you change perception you change the world arround as it appears to be.
Bill P : Half of the jokes in the world are about one person assuming that everyone else sees the world the same way.
Bill P : Human beings do not plan actions and then carry them out; they do not respond to stimuli according to the way they have been reinforced. They control. They never produce any beahvior except for the purposes of making what they are experiencing become more like what they intend or want to experience, and then keeping it that way even in a changing world. If they plan they plan perceptions, not actions.
Bill P :
The output function … represents the means thiss system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
HB : And also other authors…
RM: Actually the other player (like everyone else) is controlling their own perceptions, not their actions.
RM : The basic tenet of the model is that organisms control perceptual input, not motor output. This is the fact of motor system operation. Control systems acts to keep their perceptions matching referene of what those perceptions should be. They do this by acting on the environment, producing effects which, when combined with prevailing environemntal disturbances, produce the desired perceptions….
RM :
To understand the behavior of a living control system, the observer must learn what perceptions the system is controlling : what reference images the system is trying to match. Living control systems produce many results, some of which may be contolled and others not. The observer must learn which results correspond to the percetpual variables that the system is actually controling.
Kent M : People’s actions are merely a by-product of their attempts to stabilize their perceptions in conformity with their own desires and preferences.
Kent M :
Experientially, then, controlling perceptions means controlling the world around us, and in practice controlling a perception can be equated with controlling some aspect of our physical or social environment.
Kent M :
In any event, we can only control our perceptions of our own actions, not the actions directly, because control depends upon perception.
Kent M :
Even when directing attention most closely to our actions and doing our best to act in a “controlled” manner … we end up controlling perceptions of our actions, not the actioons themselves, because our perceptions are our only means for controlling anything.
MT :
My “behaviour” is not control, but is the means by which the controller acts on the environment to influence the perception
BN :
The key insight is that we do not control our behavior. Rather, behavior is variable in just the manner and extent necessary to make our experience be the way we want it to be. The title of the locus classicus of this science of psychology is Behavior: The control of perception, published in 1973 by William T. Powers.
HB : So I think that labeling whether »Behavior« is control or not, can’t be done on the bases of frequency of statements. Everyone could have said also something contrary. But mostly, maybe I could estimate in 80 % of texts in PCT in not about »Behavior is Control«. So from this point, this hypothesis is unacceptable.
BN :It is central to the success of PCT to communicate that behavior is not what we have been led to believe. “Behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data.” “Behavior is control of perception.”
HB :  If most members will decide that »Behavior is control«, then I have no reason to stay on CSGnet. I could never prove with physiological means that »Behavior is Control« so I have nothing to do hear any more. But I stronlgy advice that you get YIn’s oppinion (if he is physiologist) or any oppinion of any physiologist to confirm  that »Behavior can be control«.
I think that Bill was explicit about how much we can control our behavior despite his »changing of mind« :
Bill P :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state … we have no direct knowledge of what wee are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…
Bill P.
If the driver had to execute any of the behaviors in Table 1 blindly, with no visual, auditory, kinestethic, or other sensory information to tell him the current status of the variable, it would be impossible for him to vary his actions so as to oppose unexpected disturbances. In Fact, we would find through continuing experiment that the only reliable consequences of the driver’s actions are those the driver can sense. This is a crucial hint about how this sort of phenomena is created.
HB : I think that in both cases Bill emphasized that »Behavior can’t be Control«. Both are clear cases at least to me, that »Behavior« is not possible without perception. It’s just »blind« action, not knowing what it’s doing to it’s environment. With perception it becomes action, which is just changing perception.
My other arguments why it’s not good to keep the definiton »Behavior is Control«  are :
-
First I think that introducing »Behavior is Control« into PCT, PCT becomes cheap »self-regulation« theory, where »Behavior is Control« is mantra. Please read Mary Powers about PCT and »self-regulation«
.
-
I see also a problem in interpreting everyday activites. Do we eat, drink, dirve, walk, etc… with »Controllling our hands, legs…« ?
-
I think that »Behavior« can't be "Control", because we don't know what is "behavior". At the best shot we know what is "Perception of behavior (ouput)". All is perception. In this case "Perception of behavior can be controlled", as Martin mentioned many times. It depends from observer in whatever view we take perception (internal or external view). It's subjective. That's how individuals make their own interpretation of behavior, what depends on their references. If you and Rick observe behavior you will say that it is "control". If I observe it I would say that "Behavior" just affect environment, makes changes to my perception. People who do not know anything about Control Theory, would probably make interpretations of their own perceptions in whatever they beleive what is happening.
-
In any of Bill's "definitions" I exposed in my previous post, I can't see that "behavior" could be any kind of control or that "behavior" is involving control. So if you put in definition that "Behavior is Control" or at least that "involves control", you'll have to change at least some "definitions". But would Powers ladies agree with this ? Wouldn't it be better that we left "definitions" as they are, but you and Rick make your own theory based on "Behavior is Control".
-
Considering your and Rick's statements also Bill's generic diagram has to be changed, because you'll want to put in the generic diagram "CV" in the external environment which is "controlled" by behavior. But then diagram would not represent "general theory" anymore but special theory of something called "Behavior is Control". And even Rick based on my suggestion about »turning our heads« admitted that "actions" has double meaning.
RM :
This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment… For example, when I move my head…
HB : So putting it all together my oppinion is that “BEHAVIOR IS NOT CONTROL” and it would be dangerous to introduce it into PCT. The most important problem I see, is that it can’t be proved with physiological means. So again I appeal that you provide physiological evidences for »Behavior is Control«. You mentioned Yin, or you can get anyone else or your can provide your own evidences. I think this is the most important evidence that is coming from the highest arbiter : nature.
Bill P : »If the effects of the model are just as hypothetical as the model, we don’t have a model, because we can’t check it against direct experience. The ultimate authority is always direct experience, the real reality we are incapable of doubting…« (LCS II, p.185)
Best,
Boris
···
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:12 PM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: Behaviour and “Behaviour” (was Re: – a lot of things)
[Bruce Nevin (2015.10.30.18:04 ET)]
Martin, my friend, we may secretly be in violent agreement. That’s often the case in terminological quarrels. Your main concern is to communicate clearly without undue barriers. I share that concern. Now let us reconsider just what it is that must be communicated. It doesn’t matter how clearly understood our words are if our readers understand from them the wrong thing.
Let’s back up. I believe the origin was in discussion of Rick’s spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is organized according to the table on p. 172 of LCS I and the discussion on pp. 171-176. I note that on p. 171 Bill called it “a partial listing of activities”. The first column is labeled “Behavior” and contains “phrases of a kind used both in ordinary discourse and in scientific psychology to denote what an organism is doing.” For lay people and for most scientists “No analysis takes place.”
A partial analysis is laid out in the other three columns. Bill says (p. 173, 4th paragraph) “We can see immediately that the real actions of the driver … are all in the Means column. What is so casually called behavior results from the conjunction of many forces, only one of which is contributed by the driver. The Behavior column really lists consequences of the driver’s actions, consequences that are not determined by the driver’s actions, but are only influenced by them.” As an example, “Grasp, pull” gives more detail to “open [the] door”. Of course, yet more detail could be given, e.g. for “grasp”: extend fingers, reduce distance between fingers and handle, flex fingers around handle, etc. This is a partial analysis.
If the real actions are in the Means column, the intended consequences of the actions are in the last two columns, the controlled variable (“angle of door”) and the reference state for that variable (“80 degrees”). Because these consequences of actions are not just any consequences.
I apologize for belaboring this. This is the stuff of a PCT 101 class, or even a Pre-PCT cass. (Wouldn’t that be an excellent thing for our children to attend!) I know you have no quarrel with anything that Bill wrote here. You just feel that we should use the word “behavior” to mean “observable activity”, because it is the usage of the word that is most familiar to everyone. Why erect barriers to understanding, you ask. I laud your desire to be easily understood. I recently quoted a bit of your writing as an example of good communication over difficulties a lot of people have with the word “control”.
But just as you helped your readers understand that control is not what they might think, we also must help people understand that behavior is not what they might think. Behavior is not just observable activity. Behavior is always purposeful. (Setting aside the metaphoric usage in e.g. “the behavior of sodium chlorite in the presence of an acid” or “the behavior of trees in a high wind”.) Behavior has consequences and (unless it is thwarted) those consequences are intended.
You say we have a perfectly good word for this, namely, control. Well and good, but we also have perfectly good words for that to which you want to limit “behavior”, namely, observable actions, behavioral outputs, etc. There are good reasons why Bill and others have always employed such words to be clear, rather than referring to them as “behavior”, which the naive reader would naturally understand in the old way.
That reason is that the nature of behavior has been misunderstood until the advent of PCT. This is why Bill said in 2011, and I quote him again, “behavior is control of perception”. Or as he wrote in the 1973 Preface to B:CP, “Behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data” (that’s in the last paragraph, on p. xiv of the 2005 edition). Not just the observable activities; the entire process.
It is central to the success of PCT to communicate that behavior is not what we have been led to believe. “Behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data.” “Behavior is control of perception.”
/Bruce
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2014.10.30.10.57]
[Bruce Nevin (2015.10.29.23:15)]
RM: Behavior – any behavior – is not just the visible Means we see a person using to get a Variable to the Reference state; “Opening the door” is not just the grasping/pulling forces exerted on the door.
MMT: No, of course it isn’t. Those are lower-level behaviours used in controlling lower-level perceptions.
Behavior has a visible public aspect and a private aspect that can only be inferred from the model. The private aspect includes the perception by the actor and the reference for that perception…
I don’t agree that this is a good use for the word “behaviour”. “Control” is a perfectly good word for what you describe. “Control”, like other words with technical meanings in PCT, also means something to a PCT-naive person. As with “perception”, the everyday meaning of “control” is closely related to the technical meaning. The way I prefer to use the word “behaviour”, it also is closely related to the everyday meaning.
Nothing in this discussion has persuaded me that it is a good idea (from the viewpoint of trying to propagate PCT) to (1) destroy the relation between the technical and the everyday meaning, and (2) use the word to mean something different for which a perfectly good technical word already is in ordinary usage. Even eliminating use of the word “behaviour” from PCT discourse (which I do not favour) would be preferable.
I see little chance of reconciliation, but little does not mean none. I think it’s a bad idea to have PCT-lingo split into mutually unintelligible dialects, and a worse idea to widen unnecessarily the inevitable split between PCT-lingo and its parent language – English as understood by those we hope will learn and develop PCT.
Martin