How about: BAVARAMAD
where B=Bring
A=A
V=Variable of experience
A=A
R=Refererence State or specific experience
A=And
M=Maintain
A=Against
D=Disturbances
Some uses in context:
The pitcher BAVARAMADDED the ball well and had 20 strike-outs.
The driver did not BAVARAMAD the speed of his car and the policeman gave him
a ticket.
The fighter was BAVARAMADDing his temper and did not bite the other
fighter's ear.
The person was overBAVARAMADDED and did not show his feelings.
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Carver, Behavior, Phologiston [From Bill Powers (981013.2046
MDT)]
Date: 10/14/98
[From Rick Marken (981014.0720)]
It seems like Bruce Abbott disappears from the conversation
every time I ask about the way controlled variables are
discussed in conventional psychology. So I'll try again.
I would really appreciate an answer to the questions below
from Bruce Abbott (though answers from anyone else who is
knowledgable on this subject would also be welcome) because
I'm writing a paper on controlled variables and it would be
nice to get answers to these questions from a recognized expert
in both control theory and behavioral research (like Bruce A.).
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are real
phenomena?
2. If so, then what are these variables called in conventional
psychology? In particular, what are these variables called in
textbooks on behavioral research (such as yours)?
Thanks
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (981014.1030 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981014.0720)
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are real
phenomena?
Would you be so good as to provide us with examples of "real phenomena"? Are
phantom limbs real phenomena? Optical illusions? Good intentions? Electrons?
or to ask Dick Feynman's question, is a brick a real phenomenon?
Metaphysically disadvantaged
[From Bruce Gregory 9981014.1045 EDT)]
Hank Folson (981013.2230)
Bruce Gregory (981013.1215 EDT)
>It is not always a bad idea to distinguish between
>_what_ you want to do and _how_ you are able to accomplish this.
Actually, it is essential if we are to understand PCT. One, or both of
us, is wrong about this tennis example :-).
I don't see how one of us can be wrong, since I have no trouble accepting
your description of the PCT model. I was describing a tennis serve, not
proposing a model of it. I have no goal to perceive the ball behaving in
some way. My goal is for the ball to behave in some way that can be
perceived by my opponent and the thousands of cheering fans in the stands.
(PCT models show me achieving this goal by perceiving certain things. I like
those models as much as anyone on this net. However whenever I seek to point
out that the model is not the performance, I seem to be speaking tongues as
far as some on the net is concerned.)
PCT says our goals are internal, and we use _varying_ outputs (What
everyone else calls 'behaviors'.) to achieve our goals. Other theories
(including Carver?) say that our 'behaviors' are our goals.
The problem here is what you mean by goals. If you stick to PCT terminology,
you talk about reference levels. I'm not sure that reference levels have
direct analogues in other theories. The real question is not what "PCT
says", but what models allow us to predict. I'll go with a PCT model every
time.
The question
that raises is this: If our outputs ('behaviors') are our goals, what
means can we possibly we have to achieve these goals???
Can you see that this question may be meaningful in PCT but not in another
model?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981014.0750)]
Me:
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are real
phenomena?
Bruce Gregory (981014.1030 EDT)
Would you be so good as to provide us with examples of "real
phenomena"?
Maybe I should have said "observable phenomena"; to me, real
phenomena are observable phenomena. So phantom limbs, optical
illusions, good intentions and bricks are real phenomena; electrons
are not.
So, for the metaphysically petulant, my question can be rephrased as:
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
phenomena?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (981014.1100 EDT)]
Bill Powers (981013.2046 MDT)
PCT is about the kind of control that can go on working under a very
considerable relaxation of the "ceteris paribus" disclaimer. It's this
ability to maintain accurate control when disturbances are NOT prevented
that makes the PCT model unique among other models.
I am not disputing you, but you raise an interesting question. If someone
can understand how a thermostat works, by do they find it so difficult to
understand how PCT works? Do they simply fail to see that one is a model of
the other? Or do they simply refuse to believe that thermostats can tell us
anything about the workings of living systems?
Bruce Gregory
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
phenomena?
Of course not, by definition.
--Oded
[From Bruce Gregory 9981014.1115 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981013.1430)
But that's not the point. It's not frequent usage that makes saying
"people control variables" ordinary English. It's the fact that
the ordinary meaning of these words communicates a concept (of
a controlled variable) that other words (like "behavior" or "action"
or "dependent variable" or "behavior pattern") don't.
But apparently only to a chosen few.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (981014.0915 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory 9981014.1045 EDT)--
I don't see how one of us can be wrong, since I have no trouble accepting
your description of the PCT model. I was describing a tennis serve, not
proposing a model of it. I have no goal to perceive the ball behaving in
some way. My goal is for the ball to behave in some way that can be
perceived by my opponent and the thousands of cheering fans in the stands.
Ah, then you will not object to being blindfolded when you serve the ball.
This will not interfere with the behavior of the ball, or with what your
opponent and the cheering fans perceive.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (981014.0922 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (981014.1100 EDT)--
PCT is about the kind of control that can go on working under a very
considerable relaxation of the "ceteris paribus" disclaimer. It's this
ability to maintain accurate control when disturbances are NOT prevented
that makes the PCT model unique among other models.
I am not disputing you, but you raise an interesting question. If someone
can understand how a thermostat works, by do they find it so difficult to
understand how PCT works? Do they simply fail to see that one is a model of
the other?
First, it's not true that a thermostat is a model of living control
systems. The overall relationships are similar, but few human systems
employ on-off perceptions and output functions.
Second, most people who understand the closed-loop principle as exemplified
in a thermostat can extend it to continuous systems in organisms without
much difficulty. The main difficulties come from other theories that a
person believes in and is reluctant to discard. Academics, in my
experience, are the slowest to learn PCT.
Or do they simply refuse to believe that thermostats can tell us
anything about the workings of living systems?
There are those, too. They can't believe the heart is a pump, or that
neurons carry information, or that the muscles act through limbs as through
levers, or that the eye operates like a camera. Oddly, many of these people
find it easy to think that behavior works like a doorbell.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (981014.0929 MDT)]
Oded Maler (981014) --
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
phenomena?
Of course not, by definition.
Do you agree that the position of your hand (relative to some background)
is an observable phenomenon? Do you agree that you can control that position?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory 9981014.1130 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981014.0750)
So, for the metaphysically petulant, my question can be rephrased as:
1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
phenomena?
No. Unless you are identifying controlled variables with qi. In which case,
yes, I agree that qi are observable. Controlled variable is the way we talk,
in the context of a model, about qi with certain time histories, e.g.,
stability in the face of disturbances.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (981014.0935 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory 9981014.1115 EDT)--
Rick:
It's the fact that
the ordinary meaning of these words communicates a concept (of
a controlled variable) that other words (like "behavior" or "action"
or "dependent variable" or "behavior pattern") don't.
But apparently only to a chosen few.
Bruce, that's a silly remark. If I define a term and always use it that
way, and tell you clearly how I'm defining it, whose fault is it if you
refuse to accept that definition and therefore fail to understand me? Most
people understand and accept the definition. You are among the "chosen few"
who reject it and then complain that I am being elitist.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Oded Maler (981014)]
···
(Bill Powers (981014.0929 MDT))
Oded Maler (981014) --
>> 1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
>> phenomena?
>
>Of course not, by definition.
Do you agree that the position of your hand (relative to some background)
is an observable phenomenon? Do you agree that you can control that position?
[From Bruce Gregory (981014.1155 EDT)]
Bill Powers (981014.0915 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory 9981014.1045 EDT)--
>I don't see how one of us can be wrong, since I have no trouble accepting
>your description of the PCT model. I was describing a tennis serve, not
>proposing a model of it. I have no goal to perceive the ball behaving in
>some way. My goal is for the ball to behave in some way that can be
>perceived by my opponent and the thousands of cheering fans in
the stands.
Ah, then you will not object to being blindfolded when you serve the ball.
This will not interfere with the behavior of the ball, or with what your
opponent and the cheering fans perceive.
That would be true if I were Bobby Riggs, but unfortunately I have keep my
eye on the ball to even try to produce the effects I desire.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (981014.1205 EDT)]
Hank Folson (9810.0900)
But once we understand PCT, and
decide to believe it and practice it,
PCT is a model. You can get into real trouble by making a model a belief and
start practicing it as a religion.
we know that statements (or any
other 'behavior') are but _variable_ outputs of our control systems. When
PCT-aware people see a statement, they know its sole purpose is to help
the person making this output control some variable(s) in order to make
some perceptions to match reference levels that are internal to the
person, and unavailable directly to the reader.
This analysis, of course, applies to the statement that embodies it. Are you
telling me that I can simply quote it back to you under any and all
circumstances?
If there is any useful
information in the statement, it is possibly an "Unintended Consequence"
of the controlling actions. I think I'll paste this on my computer
screen. 
Can you see how most people might consider the above statements as bizarre?
It sounds very much as if you are describing the babbling of someone
confined to a mental institution (which of course you are, among other
things). This is a good example of what happens when you focus exclusively
on the model and forget what the model was designed to explain.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (991014.0910)]
Me:
That's why Carver et al. are correct when they say that "behavior
patterns" are controlled.
Hank Folson (9810.0900)--
I don't think so.
I don't either. I was joking. Sorry.
I thought your original post (to which I made the joking reply
above) was right on target! I agreed with everything you said!
Me:
Hank is just trying to do what I did: ....
Hank:
How can you make an accurate statement about what I meant,
when all you really can perceive is just what I said?
Again a misunderstanding. All I can say is that I [Rick Marken
(981013.0930)] was agreeing with you; the sarcasm was aimed at
those who thought Carver was actually talking about controlled
variables.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Oded Maler (981014) - II]
( Bill Powers (981014.0929 MDT))
Oded Maler (981014) --
>> 1. Do you agree that controlled variables (PCT sense) are observable
>> phenomena?
>
>Of course not, by definition.
Do you agree that the position of your hand (relative to some background)
is an observable phenomenon? Do you agree that you can control that position?
The position of my hand is observable both by me and by you.
Hence when I try to control it, you have the illusion of having
access to my controlled variable. The variable I am controlling
for while entering (and hopefully exiting) this discussion is
not an objective observable phenomenon. At least not more observable
to you than the big bang.
--Oded
[From Hank Folson (9810.0900)]
Rick Marken (981013.0930)
Bruce Abbott (981012.1240 EST) already answered Hank's question.
What Carver calls "behavior" is what we call the "controlled
variable" in PCT. That's why Carver et al. are correct when they
say that "behavior patterns" are controlled.
I don't think so. What Carver appears to be doing is not redefining what
behavior is, but _redescribing_ how 'behaviors' are produced. So those
"behavior patterns" of classic psychology are still the same, and still
important (to pre-PCT psychologists). I don't think he has any problems
at all with what are called 'behaviors'. Isn't he just saying that they
are the results of control systems operating, specifically that they are
the goals of the control systems? Yes? No?
Hank is just trying to do what I did: ....
You didn't run the Test for the Controlled Variable on me. How can you
make an accurate statement about what I meant, when all you really can
perceive is just what I said?
We do not help the advancement of PCT when we make statements like yours.
There are people new to CSGnet that still have a pre-PCT understanding of
how humans work. To them (and Carver?), what I said was the end result of
a process. My 'goal' was to say what I said. It follows, to them, that my
words should be accepted at face value. But once we understand PCT, and
decide to believe it and practice it, we know that statements (or any
other 'behavior') are but _variable_ outputs of our control systems. When
PCT-aware people see a statement, they know its sole purpose is to help
the person making this output control some variable(s) in order to make
some perceptions to match reference levels that are internal to the
person, and unavailable directly to the reader. If there is any useful
information in the statement, it is possibly an "Unintended Consequence"
of the controlling actions. I think I'll paste this on my computer
screen.
Sincerely,
Hank Folson
704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-361-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com
[From Rick Marken (981014.1050)]
Bill Powers (981014.0929 MDT)
Do you agree that the position of your hand (relative to some
background) is an observable phenomenon? Do you agree that you
can control that position?
Oded Maler (981014) - II]
The position of my hand is observable both by me and by you.
Hence when I try to control it, you have the illusion of having
access to my controlled variable.
I know that you are controlling a perceptual correlate of my
perception of the position of your hand. So what's the illusion?
The variable I am controlling for while entering (and hopefully
exiting) this discussion is not an objective observable phenomenon.
It's observable by anyone who can see which of _their own_
perceptual variables remains uninfluenced by disturbances; it's
objective in the sense that two or more people who know what to
look for will agree that that variable is under control. A
controlled variable is as objective and observable as any
perceptual variable. It is certainly as objective and observable
as the independent and dependent variables of scientific research.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
