As with most factual debate outside of behavioral science itself,
PCT itself makes no distinction, provides no support nor denies
support for differing opinions. Though PCT does provide a rich
plethora of questions to ask about any debate or argument on any
subject that can lead to much greater understanding on the part of
the observer as to what might really be ‘going on’ in such an
activity.
PCT does, in my opinion, provide solid scientific basis for what
virtually any Marketing 101 course will tell you. An
understanding of PCT does enable one that is trying to develop a
‘sales pitch’ to better understand and learn to deal with possible
problems associated with marketing, it does not tell you how to do
it.
The Marketing 101 idea that you want to frame your pitch to
satisfy a goal of the target (reference value for a controlled
perception in PCT) is valid. Marketing 101 even recognizes that
your proposal should anticipate a recognition by the target that
something about your proposal is likely to interfere with another
goal (cause a disturbance to a different perception also under
control). But again, PCT does not tell you how to do that.Â
Marketing 101 is likely to suggest ‘playing up the value of the
benefit while down-playing the potential negative aspect(s).’
I would suggest that the therapeutic applications of PCT
principles employed by the Method of Levels (MOL) is really the
PCT approach that would be most likely to succeed but is certainly
not something that I can see as a practical 'sales tool.'Â Trying
to use that method first requires that the subject want to
participate. Use of snail mail, e-mail, or even telephone
probably would not work. Indeed, even using personal one-on-one
therapy sessions usually requires multiple sessions.
Anthropogenic global warming (or cooling) is an extremely complex
issue with far more questions than answers. In fact just
determining factors that can have a causative effect, the
magnitude of such effects, the direction such effect have, and
then the feedback effects on such factors is a staggering
undertaking.
Most atmospheric scientists agree that we are still in an era
referred to as an ice-age.
There is a difference in opinion between scientists about which
causes which with respect to atmospheric CO2 concentration and
global average temperature. That is does rising CO2 concentration
cause temperature to rise or does rising temperature cause CO2
concentration to rise. In my opinion, the physical evidence seems
to point rather strongly to the latter case.
As far as I know there are few if any scientists in the
atmospheric fields that do not believe that mankind’s contribution
to atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased and increased
significantly in the last 60 years or so.
Many biologists maintain that CO2 concentration is, even today
about 1000ppm lower than it should be for the overall health of
the planet!
Now several scientific studies from several different universities
and other environmental research and activism organizations show
that just abolishing our confinement feeding operations (CFOs) and
returning to both a more natural grazing process as well as changing
much of the commercial growing practices to more sustainable methods
(while actually NOT reducing production) would have a much larger
effect in CO2 emissions than even stopping the use of all fossil
fuels would! I believe the first of these reports was from UC
Berkeley a few years ago.
Additional recent work has shown that fast growing grasses (as in
pasture lands) sequester far more atmospheric CO2 than do forests of
trees. This has been shown to be true because that researcher were
able to determine that the grasses and associated biota sequester
more of the CO2 in the ground rather than above ground where plant
decay and fire returns the CO2 to the atmosphere.
There is a very strong correlation (again correlation not proven
causation) between solar activity and global average temperature
(where the temperature change follows the activity change as would
be necessary for causation to be involved).
The strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and
global average temperature suffers somewhat from the fact that CO2
concentration changes seems to lag rather than lead temperature
change. Proponents of the concept that CO2 does cause temperature
change are currently searching (quite seriously I might add) for an
explanation for how CO2 change might appear to lag as opposed to
actually lag. For some scientists (again serious environmental
scientists and yes that includes such scientists that believe that
anthropogenic change is likely) this really is still an open
question. When one considers the waters of the oceans and that
about 98% of all atmospheric CO2 is due solely to ocean effects, it
is hardly surprising that these scientists are engaging in oceanic
studies.
All of the climate models that predict 'the disastrous' global
warming assume that CO2 concentration has a positive feedback effect
on warming as well as a positive effect on release of CO2 from the
oceans. However, analysis of empirical data suggests that
increasing CO2 concentration has an overall negative feedback
effect! I used the term ‘overall negative’ effect because indeed
the analysis of empirical data does reveal that when certain
conditions exist in some localized places the effect is just as
clearly a positive feedback effect. That analysis has not however
ever shown an overall positive feedback effect.
We know that the analysis that produced the 'hockey-stick' curve was
flawed to the point of being criminal behavior. Not only is there
no particular urgency to act in the absence of solid science, the
data shows that we have been in a period of global cooling for about
the last 20 years (not at an alarming rate but without question
cooling not warming).
It just goes on-and-on about these and hundreds of other issues
on just this subject.
So good luck creating a few convincing 'sound-bite' (to convince
people either way) to use on someone that has looked into this
matter a bit further than the sensationalist media drivel
provides.
Personally I seriously doubt that anthropogenic global climate
change is occurring in any perceptible way. A significant factor
in that belief for me is that research in climate science has
shown that a sometimes amazingly strong negative feedback effects
seem to exist for every factor that seems to have a link to
climate change.
···
On 06/08/2017 10:54 AM, John Kirkland
wrote:
[John Kirkland 2017.06.09 1934 Israel]
I’m sure PCTers can help me out here.
If somebody was to make a PCT-informed pitch to a certainPresident about global warning, what could be the gist of
for and against arguments in a (reasonable) debate?
The entrenched affirmative: "You're been right all alongmate. It’s merely a figment of people’s biased perceptions,
right outside anything they do intentionally."
The greenie negative: "Hey look, this is serious. Thereare multiple repeated measurements suggesting the
environment is at risk from human interventions and is being
wrecked even as we speak. It’s up to us all to something
constructive about this, now".
Yeah, I remain confident potential contributors can seewhat I’m driving at here.
Cheers
JohnK
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:58 AM, EetuPikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
wrote:[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-06-08]
Â
Bruce, I largely agree. Some commentsthough:
Â
[BruceNevin (2017.06.08.07:48 ET)]
Beginwith some PCT truisms.
Allthat we can know of our environment is our
perceptions of it.
Â
(Not sure about this, but I will turnto it sometimes later – it depends on definitions. I
agree that all our knowledge is based on
perceptions.)
Â
Allthat we can control of our environment is our
perceptions of it.
Â
That is funny and fuzzy saying, atleast for me: sounds like our perceptions were in
the environment. I would say that we cannot control
anything in the environment but only our perceptions
of it.
Â
Icontrol many perceptions of our environment
without exerting the actions that maintain them
under control. Other people, or other agents,
exert the actions that maintain them under
control.Â
Â
Or they just happen to be (temporarily)so that our perceptions of them remain near the
reference.
Â
Amongthe evidence that I control such perceptions is
the observation that, should control of them
lapse, I act in such a way that other people or
agents resist the disturbance and re-establish
control of them.
Arecent example: the street signs for Pinehurst
Avenue and Chase Road were swapped, so that each
designated the other road. My wife called my
attention to it. We contacted the Public Works
Department. They fixed it.
What'sthe point of this? All that we can know of our
environment is our perceptions of it, and we
presume that our perceptions are the realities
that we perceive. (We presume this even though we
know that our perceptions are selective and omit
infinitely many aspects of the environment, some
of which we know about because we or others have
extended the senses with scientific instruments.)
This presumption is justified by our success
controlling in the environment and by the like
success of all our human and pre-human ancestors
without whose survival we would not be here.
Â
That is extremely important. Oursuccess in control of our perceptions is highly
depending on other people and other actors – and
finally on the objects or our perceptions.
Â
Bythis justified presumption, we project the
universe of our perceptions into the otherwise
unknowable universe of our environment.
Â
Thatjustified presumption extends to the fact that all
that we can control of our environment is our
perceptions of it. We are justified in the
presumption that the controlled variable is in the
environment. Every time two or more of us control
what we perceive to be the same variable in the
environment we obtain further justification of
that presumption. Examples of two or more of us
controlling what we perceive to be the same
variable in the environment are conflict,
collective control, and the Test for the
Controlled Variable.
Â
Here I disagree. This is a naturalpresumption of our everyday life. But I think that
PCT just makes us abandon that presumption at least
in theoretical i.e. scientific context. In everyday
talk and thinking we may say that we control
something in the environment and that something is
possibly controlled also by some other person. But
we should know better that we and those other
persons are controlling only our or their own
perceptions and nothing in environment. That object
or something in the environment OF which our
perception is may be the same OF which the other
persons’ perceptions are. But we do not control that
object or whatever there is in the environment but
just our own perceptions.
Â
Weroutinely forget that this is a presumption, and
we are justified in doing so.
Â
No, we are not justified in doing so ifwe are scientifically studying “behavior as control
of perception�.
Â
It isimpossible to argue whether or not the controlled
variable is in the environment without forgetting
that we make this presumption, and that it is a
presumption. If we accept the justification (which
we must, in order to do things together, including
arguing, and which we routinely do to survive)
then we thereby assert that it is in the
environment. But when we wish to identify things
in a control theory diagram as a tool of analysis,
we remember that this is a presumption, merely the
projection of our perceptions onto the otherwise
unknowable environment, and we must acknowledge
that it is in the perceived environment, the
universe of perception, which we perceive to be
shared between and among us, and really out there,
largely because of the routine successes of
collective control.
Â
Yes that is right, I agree with this.
Â
I knowof no way out of the conundrum other than to
acknowledge it. I believe it is foolish to argue
about it.
Â
The only way out perhaps is stayingstrict and careful with our concepts. We must tell
when we use every day “control� and when PCT
“Control�.
Â
Â
–
Eetu Pikkarainen
PhD (Ed.), Dos., University Lecturer(in Education)
Faculty of Education, University ofOulu, Finland
Â
Schools in Transition: Linking Past,Present, and Future in Educational Practice
   Edited by Pauli Siljander, KimmoKontio and Eetu Pikkarainen
  Â
https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/other-books/schools-in-transition/
Â
Â
Â
                           Â/Bruce
Â
Â
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:33 PM,Martin Taylor <mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2017.06.07.22.48]
Â
On 2017/06/7 8:25 PM, Alison Powerswrote:
Martin - I am confused because yousay:
Â
MT: Rick says the controlled variableis in the environment, which I say cannot be true,
because in the environment there exists no
independent reference variables nor sources from
which they can be determined independently of
observation of the moment-by-moment values of the
environmental variable itself.
But then Rick responded to me in thePCT Research thread:
Â
RM: The controlled variable is not inthe outer environment; rather it is a function of
physical variables that are in the outer
environment; the function is called a perceptual
function.
Â
Â
I construed that sentence from Rickto be a shot in a different long-standing and
apparently irresolvable argument, which I had
intended to ignore. I realize there’s no point in
reiterating the fact that the result of applying a
function to a bunch of variables is itself a
variable, but that’s the nub of the argument in
which that sentence was a shot. Rick disagrees –
it’s mathematics and therefore just an opinion
open to contradiction.
Â
However, to me he certainly suggestsin that sentence that the controlled variable is
in the environment, whether it is a function of
other variables in the environment (presumably
controlled ones) or should be treated as the
result of that function. Certainly the function
that defines the CEV is the perceptual function.
We have never had any disagreement about that. The
question is whether the arguments to that function
are in the environment as he explicitly says they
are.
Â
But consider instead Rick's recentstatements about “behaviour”, which provide the
context for interpreting the sentence you quote
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225). I have
highlighted a few phrases and sentences. I don’t
think I need more than this, though I could go
back into the archives and find interactions
between us when Rick has argued against me that
the controlled variable IS in the environment,
quite explicitly. Yesterday’s message should be
enough to make the point:
RM: Â Saying that "behavior iscontrol" simply calls attention to the fact what
we call “behaviors” are both actions and results;
in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the
variables controlled by those outputs –
controlled variables. So the behavior called
“tying shoelaces” points to a control process
where the controlled variable is the state of the
laces, the reference state of this variable is
“tied” and the outputs that produce this result
are the hand movements the get the laces tied.
Moreover, what we see as the output component of a
behavior are typically controlled variables
themselves and what we see as the controlled
variable component of behavior is typically an
output itself. For example, the movements
(outputs) used to produce the reference state of a
controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a
controlled variable; their speed and direction are
the controlled result of muscle forces. And the
tied laces (the controlled variable) that result
from those outputs (movements) are themselves
outputs that are the means of controlling another
variable, the “onness” of the shoes.
Â
RM: So "control" is just a moreprecise definition of the informal term
“behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of
a variable being maintained in a reference state,
protected from disturbance. And this is what we
can see is what is going on with the things we
call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example,
refers to the observation that a variable (the
state of the laces) is maintained in a reference
state (consistently brought to the state “tied”)
protected from disturbance (the different initial
state of the laces, variations in the forces the
affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see
behavior – any named behavior – as being both
output that affects the state of a controlled
variable and a controlled variable itself – you
have learned to see behavior through control
theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed
in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.
Â
MT. In all of that is there anysuggestion that a controlled variable might be a
perception? I think not. Everything refers to the
controlled variable being a state of the
environment that can be observed by another
person. In those two paragraphs, the only
reference to perception is in the “P” of “PCT” up
front. If Rick had said, for example, in the
second highlighted clause “the controlled variable
is the [perceived] state of the laces”, I would
have no problem. But he didn’t, and any casual
reader might think he meant (and maybe he did
mean) the actual state of the laces in the
environment.
Â
MT. We all know the form of thecontrol loop, at least in its simplest “canonical”
form. We also know that real organisms have
limitations such as sensory thresholds, which mean
that any particular value of an external variable
gives rise to an uncertain value of the perceptual
variable that is produced by its perceptual
function (actually a hierarchy of perceptual
functions), and we know that neural firings are
actually not a continuous smooth “neural current”.
What we also know is that the reference value for
a perceptual signal is generated from within the
organism, and does not exist in the environment
(contrary to what Rick seems to imply in the
fourth line of each paragraph). Control of a
perception may not even correspond to control of
anything another observer could perceive in the
environment, if the perception includes any
component from imagination.
Â
MT. It seems to me that regardless ofwhat may be in Rick’s mind (and he agreed with me
the other day about Behaviour being the control of
perception), the words he uses can easily lead a
reader to conclude that controlled variables exist
in the environment. I would like to keep clear
that however well the perception corresponds to a
state of the environment, it is not the state of
the environment, though it is the state that is
controlled.
To confuse the two is…confusing.
Â
Martin
Â