Closed Loop -- Models and Their Worlds

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

Subject:
        Re Closed LOOP - Models and their Worlds
   Date:
        Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:20:29 +1030
   From:
        Ray &Merry Bennett <sandy@rbe.net.au>
     To:
        CGSNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

from Ray B (01.03.19 . 2115EST Aust.)

I received the attachment from Dag of the Closed Loop and would like to make
some comments and ask some questions . I do this as an aid to my understanding and

to perhaps be able to think usin PCT.
I enjoy and found clear the discussion titled "Conflict,Belief,Standards:Part11".
On page 9&10 Bill Powers talks about leaders and followers. I was surprised to
read that Bill suggests that "There's is nothing I want from anyone that would
make it worthwhile to play the game. Not even the privelege of living." Is Bill
saying that he would rather die than play a game that orders people heirarchially?

He then refers to some microsociety that manage without a concept of Number
One. What microsociety are you referring to Bill? I find it hard to believe that
everything works magically for the better.
Is the use of the term 'persuade' intended to convey the providing of clear
information or are you moving into the world of trying to control others by
persuading?
The idea of leaders and followers is one that marxists contest. Some of what is
described here reminds me of the concept constructed by them with regard to
hegemony.
Dag on P11 talks about selling his idea of leadership and to selling it to people
at
the very top. I have just been to a workshop with Tim Carey who suggested that
when rules are broken or ways of acting in an environment are messed with by
others there are only three ways of responding. 1. ignore - and this begs the
question of why there were rules in the first place.
                                                                       2. persuade
- and this is about
controlling others. 3. remove the
people/ have them
leave the environment.
Am I mixed up here when I read sell and persuade as a way of controlling one's
environment? Isn't it going to lead to counter control or to blind following?
Isn't
selling and persuading people likely to lead to a malfunction?
On p34 Ed Ford says that for him "the ultimate test of a system concept is that
first it brings internal harmony or peace to the person" and second "that
everyone is shown respect". I like that.
He goes on to suggest that "the test for whether our systems of belief are valid
are our own internal harmony and peace, and the respect and value we assign to
others." I think that would be the test for his system, not necesarily
"ours".(Whatever that could be)
Conflict seems to be written about as something to be avoided(p26). PCT explains
conflict but I didn't think it gave it a value or stated that it is to be avoided.
I
thought it helped us to know how conflict comes about and that it will be part of
a
living control organisms experience. Any comments?
I do not have a strong physics or mathematical background. I have heard Tom talk
and I think I undersatnd the article on "Models and Their Worlds" to a limited
extent. Is some one able to write this in way that those of us who don't know
Physics and Maths can understand? Or is for those who do and best left alone
until we do too? I have played with the model on the net site, but i have not met
anyone who finds it helpful. The knot on the dot and the car illustrations, yes.
I look forward to some comment.
Ray

Subject:
        Re Closed LOOP - Models and their Worlds
   Date:
        Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:20:29 +1030
   From:
        Ray &Merry Bennett <sandy@rbe.net.au>
     To:
        CGSNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

from Ray B (01.03.19 . 2115EST Aust.)

I received the attachment from Dag of the Closed Loop and would like to make
some comments and ask some questions . I do this as an aid to my understanding and

to perhaps be able to think usin PCT.
I enjoy and found clear the discussion titled "Conflict,Belief,Standards:Part11".
On page 9&10 Bill Powers talks about leaders and followers. I was surprised to
read that Bill suggests that "There's is nothing I want from anyone that would
make it worthwhile to play the game. Not even the privelege of living." Is Bill
saying that he would rather die than play a game that orders people heirarchially?

He then refers to some microsociety that manage without a concept of Number
One. What microsociety are you referring to Bill? I find it hard to believe that
everything works magically for the better.
Is the use of the term 'persuade' intended to convey the providing of clear
information or are you moving into the world of trying to control others by
persuading?
The idea of leaders and followers is one that marxists contest. Some of what is
described here reminds me of the concept constructed by them with regard to
hegemony.
Dag on P11 talks about selling his idea of leadership and to selling it to people
at
the very top. I have just been to a workshop with Tim Carey who suggested that
when rules are broken or ways of acting in an environment are messed with by
others there are only three ways of responding. 1. ignore - and this begs the
question of why there were rules in the first place.
                                                                       2. persuade
- and this is about
controlling others. 3. remove the
people/ have them
leave the environment.
Am I mixed up here when I read sell and persuade as a way of controlling one's
environment? Isn't it going to lead to counter control or to blind following?
Isn't
selling and persuading people likely to lead to a malfunction?
On p34 Ed Ford says that for him "the ultimate test of a system concept is that
first it brings internal harmony or peace to the person" and second "that
everyone is shown respect". I like that.
He goes on to suggest that "the test for whether our systems of belief are valid
are our own internal harmony and peace, and the respect and value we assign to
others." I think that would be the test for his system, not necesarily
"ours".(Whatever that could be)
Conflict seems to be written about as something to be avoided(p26). PCT explains
conflict but I didn't think it gave it a value or stated that it is to be avoided.
I
thought it helped us to know how conflict comes about and that it will be part of
a
living control organisms experience. Any comments?
I do not have a strong physics or mathematical background. I have heard Tom talk
and I think I undersatnd the article on "Models and Their Worlds" to a limited
extent. Is some one able to write this in way that those of us who don't know
Physics and Maths can understand? Or is for those who do and best left alone
until we do too? I have played with the model on the net site, but i have not met
anyone who finds it helpful. The knot on the dot and the car illustrations, yes.
I look forward to some comment.
Ray

Forssell Translation Team wrote:

···

Friends,

On February 22 I posted to Resposible Thinking net:

=========================
[From Dag Forssell (20010222 18:00)]

Tom Bourbon:

>Tim is right. Here is the citation for one of the most direct
>comparisons we have made between models and modeling in PCT, and
>in traditional behavioral and brain sciences:
>
>Bourbon. WT, & Powers, WT (1999). Models and their worlds.
>International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 445-461.
>
>I don't think this journal is available in very many libraries.
>If it is not in a library near you, then you can order it through
>interlibrary loan.

Tom is right that this journal is hard to find. An earlier version of this
article was published in _Closed Loop, Threads from CSGnet_. Closed Loop
was lovingly edited by Greg Williams from Jan 1991 through Summer 1994, 15
issues in all and a great effort by Greg.

I have now completed four issues of Closed Loop. I am planning an
announcement within the week for the videos (available NTSC and PAL) that
will include a CD with the following:

1) All software handed out during the Jan 2001 PCT workshop in Phoenix

2) The CSGnet archive through mid-March 2001

3) The Responsible Thinking net archive through mid-March 2001

3) Special publications: Bill Powers' 1979 Byte articles.

4) Closed Loop. Four issues restored to date. See list below.

5) Forssell's book and Rubber Band script. Paper by Phil Runkel.

Before I announce the videos with CD, I want to clean-up of the last two
months of CSGnet and pull together my existing files on Responsible
Thinking net.

In the meantime, here are the finished volumes of Closed Loop.

==================
Closed loop: FINISHED

-------------
Winter 1991 Volume 1 Number 1

Edited by Greg Williams

Introductory issue

CONTENTS

The Uses of Control Theory
"Revolutionary" Control Theory?

-------------
Fall 1992 Volume 2 Number 4

CONTENTS

Conflict, Belief, Standards: Part I 1
Ed Ford, Dag Forssell,
David Goldstein, Joel Judd,
Rick Marken, Bruce Nevin,
Bill Powers, Mary Powers,
Martin Taylor, Chuck Tucker,
Greg Williams

----------
Winter 1993 Volume 3 Number 1

CONTENTS

Conflict, Belief, Standards: Part II 1
Ed Ford, Dag Forssell,
Rick Marken, Kent McClelland,
Bruce Nevin, Bill Powers,
Martin Taylor, Greg Williams

Research Reports

The Blind Men and the Elephant:
Three Perspectives on the Phenomenon of Control 37
      Richard S. Marken

Models and Their Worlds 47
      W. Thomas Bourbon and William T. Powers
-------------
Fall 1993 Volume 3 Number 4

CONTENTS

Two Views of Control-System Models 1
Hans Blom, Bill Powers

Research Reports

The Hierarchical Behavior of Perception 33
      Richard S. Marken

Mimicry, Repetition, and Perceptual Control 55
      W. Thomas Bourbon

===============

You responded (not Greg, but as CSG archivist I want you to see this
anyway) to my posting and asked for volume 3, number 1 with "Worlds" by Tom
and Bill in it. I have attached it to this mail.

Happy reading.

Best, Dag

Dag Forssell
dag@forssell.com, www.forssell.com
23903 Via Flamenco, Valencia CA 91355-2808 USA
Tel: +1 661 255 6948 Fax: +1 661 254 7956

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Name: Closed Loop vol3 #1.pdf
   Closed Loop vol3 #1.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
                          Encoding: base64

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.19.1340 PST)

Ray B (01.03.19 . 2115EST Aust.)

I have just been to a workshop with Tim Carey who suggested that
when rules are broken or ways of acting in an environment are
messed with by others there are only three ways of responding.
1. ignore - and this begs the question of why there were rules
in the first place. 2. persuade - and this is about controlling
others. 3. remove the people/ have them leave the environment.
Am I mixed up here when I read sell and persuade as a way of
controlling one's environment?

I think you're right; selling and persuading are ways of control-
ling people. But, of course, so is removing people by having them
leave the environment. And even ignoring people can be used as a
means of controlling people, as, for example, when you ignore a
woman as a means of trying to get her attention.

Isn't it going to lead to counter control or to blind following?

Nothing "leads to" counter control any more than anything leads
to control. So-called counter control is just someone controlling
you by taking advantage of their knowledge of what you are willing
to do to control them. What can be controlled using counter control
is, therefore, very limited; counter control can only be used to
control the action you will use to control the counter controller.
So, if I know that you will keep raising your voice until I leave
the room, I can control the loudness of your speech by moving into
and out of the room.

I have played with the model on the net site, but i have not
met anyone who finds it helpful.

Which model at which web site?

Best regards

Rick

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

from Ray (01.03.20.2345 CST Aust.)

“Richard S. Marken” wrote:

···

[From Rick Marken (01.03.19.1340 PST)
Ray B (01.03.19 . 2115EST Aust.)

And even ignoring people can be used as a

means of controlling people, as, for example, when you ignore a

woman as a means of trying to get her attention.This
has never worked for me. I have ignored many women and men. It hasn’t helped
me to get their attention.

Isn’t it going to lead to counter control or to blind following?

I think with persuasion and selling there
comes a time for closure, a time for decision and the decision is expected
to be with the one doing the persuading. In the classroom environment,
interfering with the rights of others to learn and be safe is something
to which most would agree is not on. There may be a few who think it is
OK, however I doubt if they would be attending school. After asking what
they are doing and finding out(becoming aware) that they are interfering
and that this means that if they continue they will have to leave, most
will leave on the next occasion. The same is not true for those you are
trying to persuade. Some will easily agree. many will continue to ask questions
and try to control the situation. The power in the first situation stays
with the person doing the interfering or disrupting. The power in persuading
is always with the persuader.

Nothing “leads to” counter control any more than anything leads

to control. So-called counter control is just someone controlling

you by taking advantage of their knowledge of what you are willing

to do to control them. What can be controlled using counter control

is, therefore, very limited; counter control can only be used to

control the action you will use to control the counter controller.

So, if I know that you will keep raising your voice until I leave

the room, I can control the loudness of your speech by moving into

and out of the room.

I have played with the model on the net site, but I have not

met anyone who finds it helpful.

Which model at which web site?

The simulation model or The Nature of Control
Demo on the Perceptual Control theory web site which you set up. I am not
making a point aboutwhat it shows but the way it is explained. Physics
experts and the like may be familiar with this kind of explanation. However
those less experienced and new to the idea of control that I have showed
it to, have not found it helpful. Possibly there isn’t a way without studying
science to a level appropriate to understanding this way of explaining
things. I am not arguing any point here or trying to persuade you. It is
comment. Can you explain the nature of control using a demo that makes
easy reading for someone not schooled in the areas you are?

Ray

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2001.03.20.0727 MST)]

Ray (01.03.20.2345 CST Aust.)

Can you
explain the nature of control using a demo that makes easy reading for
someone not schooled in the areas you are?

This is a question that has interested me for a long time. One problem is
that without knowing what a person already knows or thinks he knows, it's
hard to guess what will be new and what will be familiar. I taught a
student-sponsored seminar at Northwestern, in 1971 and 1972, in which I
used the first session to contrast control theory with stimulus-response
theory. At the end of the session, one student raised his hand and asked,
"What's stimulus-response theory?" The other 11 didn't know what it was,
either. These were seniors in college.

My guess is that if the people to whom you want to teach PCT are interested
only in "easy reading," they aren't going to learn it. It could be that
without a certain basic education in math or physics (at least what is
taught in a normal American curriculum to 15-year-old students and to even
younger students in other countries), the basic closed-loop relationships
will be incomprehensible. But maybe that's not true. I hope it's not.

I'm always looking for ways to get the basic idea of closed-loop control
across (I say closed-loop control because there are still people who think
there can be open-loop control, and I don't want to go through all that
again). Here's one I'm using in a paper I'm sort of writing.

Start with any simple chain of causes and effects. Example: opening a
faucet on a pipe containing water under pressure will cause a flow of water
out of the faucet. If there is a container under the faucet, the water will
accumulate in it, causing the water level to rise. So the water level in
the container at any time depends on the prior causes: the water pressure
and the opening of the faucet. The rate at which the water level rises will
increase if the pressure increases, the amount of opening increases, or both.

Suppose we wanted the water level in a vase to be exactly 3 inches.
Approaching this problem in the way a conventional physicist or engineer
would see it, we would first have to determine how much water, in cubic
centimeters. would be needed to fill the container to that level. This is a
problem found in introductory calculus texts. Approximating the shape of
the container with a mathematical formula, we would integrate the equation
and solve it for the volume as a function of depth. Taking the inverse, we
would then obtain the volume required to fill the vase to a predetermined
depth of 3 inches.

Then, knowing the pressure and the opening of the valve, we could compute
the rate of flow in volume units per unit of time. This would require the
use of more formulae involving such factors as pipe diameter and length,
water pressure, water viscosity and temperature, and properties of
turbulent flow through a constriction. Given all these factors, we could
then compute how the flow rate would depend on the angle through which the
faucet handle was turned.

We know what volume of water we need, and we can choose some time in which
to fill the vase (such as 5 seconds). By taking the inverse of the
relationship just computed, we can determine the angle through which the
faucet handle must be turned for the allotted 5 seconds before closing it
again. If all other factors such as water pressure and temperature remain
the same, we can now fill the vase to the required depth by opening the
faucet by the right amount, counting 5 seconds, and closing it again.

That is how physics and engineering have seen control problems for a long
time. So-called "Modern control theory" is based on this approach. But
there is another way to do it.

Since we need a person to open and close the faucet anyway, we will put a
mark on the vase at the 3-inch level and ask the person to use the faucet
handle to fill the vase to that level. The person will open the faucet and
watch the water level rise, and when the water level reaches the mark, will
turn the faucet off (probably slowing the flow as the level approaches the
mark, so the last few drops bring the level exactly to the mark).

What are the differences between these two approaches to achieving the
final result? One main difference is that the second method does not
require the person doing the controlling to compute anything -- the
relationship of volume to depth, or the dependence of flow rate on
pressure, valve opening, and the other physical parameters. The other main
difference is that the person is concerned not with finding out how much to
open the faucet or for how long (the cause of the flow), but with the water
level in the vase (the desired effect). In the second approach, the person
watches the final effect, the water level, and manipulates a prior cause
until the final effect becomes what the person intends for it to be.

The person doing the controlling "reaches back" in the chain of causation
to vary some causal factor prior to the wanted effect, all the while
watching the amount or state of the effect being presently produced. This
"reaching back" is also termed "feedback," but there is something special
about the means by which it is carried out. The reverse effect is achieved
without requiring any significant perturbation of the effect being
controlled. The person filling the vase does not pour the water out to
measure how much there is; instead, the controlling person _looks at the
distance between the water level and the mark_. This process of looking
does not have the slightest effect on the water level (for any practical
purposes). Yet it provides the basis for the "reaching back" which has
drastic effects on the water level through normal cause-effect linkages.

Closed-loop control, therefore, is a process by which we _vary_ causes to
create predetermined effects. How this is done in a physical system such as
an organism is the subject-matter of control theory.

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.21.0930 PST)]

Me:

And even ignoring people can be used as a means of control-
ling people

Ray (01.03.20.2345 CST Aust.) --

This has never worked for me.

It's not whether it works or not that matters. It's whether
it is an action that is part of a control loop. If one ignores
_in order to_ get attention then the ignoring is part of a
(possibly unsuccessful) control loop; it's the means that is
being used to try to produce an intended perception (of
someone attending to you).

I think with persuasion and selling there comes a time for
closure, a time for decision and the decision is expected to
be with the one doing the persuading.

It seems to me that what you say here is precisely why persuasion
and selling _are_ examples of attempts to control behavior. When
you persuade or sell, the goal is to get "closure": a perception
of a another person who is "persuaded" or "sold".

After asking what they [interfering students] are doing and
finding out (becoming aware) that they are interfering and
that this means that if they continue they will have to leave,
most will leave on the next occasion.

Surely you don't think that this means that the person doing
the asking is not controlling for having the interfering
student leave the room.

The same is not true for those you are trying to persuade. Some
will easily agree.

It is not the difficulty with which a perception is produced or
maintained that identifies control. It is whether the system acts
to bring a perception to a preselected state and protect it from
disturbance. Once you understand this feature of control, you
can test to determine whether or not any person (such as a
persuader, a salesman or a teacher) is controlling for seeing
a particular perception of another person's behavior.

Best regards

Rick

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

From Ray (2001.03.23.1230 EST Aust.)
“Richard S. Marken” wrote:

[From Rick Marken (01.03.21.0930 PST)]
Me:

And even ignoring people can be used as a means of control-

ling people

Ray (01.03.20.2345 CST Aust.) –

This has never worked for me.

It’s not whether it works or not that matters. It’s whether

it is an action that is part of a control loop.

Can there be an action that isn’t part of a
closed loop?

···

If one ignores

in order to get attention then the ignoring is part of a

(possibly unsuccessful) control loop; it’s the means that is

being used to try to produce an intended perception (of

someone attending to you).

I think with persuasion and selling there comes a time for

closure, a time for decision and the decision is expected to

be with the one doing the persuading.

It seems to me that what you say here is precisely why persuasion

and selling are examples of attempts to control behavior. Yes.
And that those writers in the articles who were suggesting that PCT required
selling were actually controlling others too. Further in their writing
I got the idea that they were also suggesting that they were not about
control. When

you persuade or sell, the goal is to get “closure”: a perception

of a another person who is “persuaded” or “sold”.

After asking what they [interfering students] are doing and

finding out (becoming aware) that they are interfering and

that this means that if they continue they will have to leave,

most will leave on the next occasion.

Surely you don’t think that this means that the person doing

the asking is not controlling for having the interfering

student leave the room.Surely you are controlling
me here to agree. If a child puts a piece of paper on their hand and goes
to cut it across their hand and I ask, “What are you doing?” and they reply,
“Cutting the paper.”

I then say to them"Will
you also cut your hand?" and they reply,“Yes.”
I then ask,“Is that what
you want?” and they say,“No.”
And I say, “What will
happen next if you continue?” and they reply, “Cut my hand.”
And they start cutting
again. I don’t think it is me controlling them to say,“I see you have chosen
to cut your hand.”
Isn’t this the same process
as the RTP? Is it controlling of me to say, “I see you have chosen to cut
your hand.”? Or is it only controlling of me when I say, “I see you have
chosen to leave the room.”? What is it that you see is being missed out
here, if anything?

The same is not true for those you are trying to
persuade. Some

will easily agree.
It is not the difficulty with which a perception is produced or

maintained that identifies control. Thanks
for making this point. To have things like this clarified is the reason
I control for your response to my issues.Howevr i need more clarity. It
is whether the system acts

to bring a perception to a preselected state and protect it from

disturbance.Can you say this in some other
ways? Could one of the ways use the loop terminology? Once
you understand this feature of control, you

can test to determine whether or not any person (such as a

persuader, a salesman or a teacher) is controlling for seeing

a particular perception of another person’s behavior.I’m
having difficulty with this. Going back the classroom. When I ask a student,
“What are you doing?” I am asking for clarification as to what they percieve
they are doing. IF they perceive it as not a disruption, which usually
doesn’t happen, I usually give it a context(What happens in a classroom,
what classroom environment sounds like and looks like). When they perceive
it as a disruption, which they usually do, they have the choice as to where
they wish to be. They can continue behaviour the way they are, just not
in my classroom. However it is more complicated than just this. Duty of
Care and the Education Act require that their whereabouts is known, that
they are safe and also that schools offer a curriculum of studies.So although
they can’t be in my classroom, they can’t also be where ever. So we have
organised a place. In “RTP Schools” it is called the RTC. I think you know
about this so I won’t continue to describe it. I don’t believe that I am
controlling for seeing a particular perception of the student’s behaviour.
I am checking to see what they are controlling for. I would say I am giving
feedback as part of their environment. How would you describe what I am
doing?

Regards,
Ray

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.23.2200)]

Ray Bennett (2001.03.23.1230 EST Aust.)

Can there be an action that isn't part of a closed loop?

Good question. I can't think of any off hand, now that you mention it.

Me:

Surely you don't think that this means that the person doing
the asking is not controlling for having the interfering student
leave the room.

Ray --

Surely you are controlling me here to agree.

Yes, I suppose I am. I do _want_ you to agree with me. So when I
act (by saying things like "surely you agree") in an attempt to get
what I want, I am controlling for you agreeing with me.

If a child puts a piece of paper on their hand and goes to cut it
across their hand and I ask, "What are you doing?" and they reply,
"Cutting the paper." I then say to them "Will you also cut your
hand?" and they reply,"Yes." I then ask,"Is that what you want?"
and they say,"No." And I say, "What will happen next if you
continue?" and they reply, "Cut my hand." And they start cutting
again. I don't think it is me controlling them to say,"I see you
have chosen to cut your hand."

Isn't this the same process as the RTP?

Very similar. There is one important difference, however. In the
"cut hand" situation the cut hand is a physical consequence of the
action (cutting paper across one's hand); it is not a consequence
imposed by a human being (or beings). In the "RTP" situation, having
to leave the room is not a physical consequence of the action; it
is a consequence imposed (possibly with the student's complete
agreement) by another person.

Is it controlling of me to say, "I see you have chosen to cut your
hand."? Or is it only controlling of me when I say, "I see you have
chosen to leave the room."?

I believe controlling is going on in both cases because I think
everything people do is aimed at controlling various perceptions.
What I don't know is what you are controlling for when you say
these things. All I can see is your actions, which consist of the
phrases "I see you have chosen to cut your hand" or "I see you
have chosen to leave the room".

In order to tell what you are controlling (or trying to control) by
saying these things I would have to do the test, which involves:
1) guessing what you might be controlling 2) applying disturbances
to the guessed perception 3) determining whether disturbances are
effective (whether they cause expected changes in the state of the
controlled perception) and 4) seeing if all disturbances are effective;
if so, start again at 1)-- the variable is not under control. Other-
wise 5) announce discovery of a controlled variable.

Of course, these actions could be part of the process of controlling
_many_ different variables simultaneously. For example, saying
"I see you have chosen to leave the room." may be used to control
for one's own perceptions of 1) keeping disruptive kids out of
class 2) allowing these kids to be in the RTC room 3) showing who
knows most 4) showing respect to the kids, and so on.

What is it that you see is being missed out here, if anything?

What may be missing is simply the realization that phrases like "I
see you have chosen to cut your hand" and "I see you have chosen to
leave the room", in and of themselves, don't tell you what perception
is (or is not) being controlled. For example, someone who tells a
child "I see you have chosen to cut your hand" is not necessarily
controlling for the child _not_ cutting its hand. Indeed, you can
be sure that the person is _not_ controlling for this perception
if he allows the child to actually go ahead and cut the paper. The
person saying "I see you have chosen to cut your hand" could be a
psychologist, for example, controlling mainly for learning something
about the child's concept of causality. Same with the "I see you have
chosen to leave the room" phrase. Perhaps a teacher says it just to
inform a student of their likely future behavior (going to the RTC).
If so, then the teacher would do nothing if the student failed to
produce that behavior.

Going back the classroom. When I ask a student, "What are you
doing?" I am asking for clarification as to what they percieve
they are doing...I don't believe that I am controlling for seeing
a particular perception of the student's behaviour. I am checking
to see what they are controlling for....How would you describe what
I am doing?

Just the same as you would. Except that I can't be sure that you
are _not_ controlling for seeing a particular perception of the
student's behaviour until I test for it. If you are really not
controlling for seeing any particular behavior then it won't matter
to you whether or not a disruptive kid keeps disrupting; the
disruption is not a disturbance to what you are controlling and so
you just keep asking for clarification.

By the way, if I saw my child about to use a knife to cut some paper
she was holding in her hand, I wouldn't say "I see you have chosen
to cut yourself". I'd pull the knife away from her her as fast as I
could. That is, I would control her "cutting" behavior (if I judged
that I knew more than her, something I believed to be true only until
she was about 5). She would probably cry and scream a bit; but she
wouldn't be bleeding.

Controlling is what people do; it is neither good nor bad. It's
just a fact of _behavioral_ life. It can lead to problems (mainly
conflict) when used to arbitrarily control the behavior of other
controllers. But if it doesn't lead to problems -- indeed, if it
is part of a respectful relationship between controllers (like the
one between me and my kids,say) -- then there is no problem. And,
indeed, there are even ways to make our interactions with other
controllers even better when we are able to understand that we,
ourselves, are just a hierarchy of control systems living among
other people who are just the same as we are. That's what I think
PCT is all about.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (01.03.24 11:30 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.03.23.2200)--

Ray Bennett (2001.03.23.1230 EST Aust.)

> Can there be an action that isn't part of a closed loop?

Good question. I can't think of any off hand, now that you mention it.

A few related questions:

Can an action (body movement) be an unintended side effect of control?
Are unintended side effects part of a closed loop?
Are there no purposeless actions?

Suppose we claim that all actions are (possibly ineffective) means of control. To prove this we would have to identify the controlled variable for each action of a person, down to the least fidget and tic. I think this has to remain a principled conjecture or assumption: since many actions have been demonstrated to be variable means of controlling perceptions, we assume that all actions are, or else why would the organism bother to expend energy producing them?

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 21:58 03/23/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.24.1120 PST)]

Ray Bennett (2001.03.23.1230 EST Aust.)

Can there be an action that isn't part of a closed loop?

Me:

Good question. I can't think of any off hand, now that you mention it.

Bruce Nevin (01.03.24 11:30 EST)

Can an action (body movement) be an unintended side effect of
control? Are unintended side effects part of a closed loop?
Are there no purposeless actions?

Your questions make me realize that this is a definitional, not
a factual, matter. I think the convention is to use the word
"action" to describe the output variable in a control loop.
So an action is, by definition, part of a control loop. Mouse or
handle movements, for example, are actions inasmuch as they are
the "output" variable in the cursor control loop.

So, just by definition, it makes no sense to talk about actions
that are not part of a control loop. But these actions can certainly
have unintended side effects. This happens, for example, in the exper-
iments described in my "Degrees of freedom" paper in _Mind Readings_.
In one experiment, vertical mouse movements (one kind of action) affect
both the vertical _and_, to a lesser degree, the horizontal position
of the cursor. The effect on horizontal cursor position is an un-
intended side effect of vertical mouse movement (the intended
effect is on the vertical component of cursor movement). The effect
of vertical mouse movement (action) on horizontal cursor movement
is not only an unintended side effect of action, it is also a _dis-
turbance_ to horizonal cursor position. The unintended side effects
of action -- whether they are a disturbance to another controllled
variable or not -- are, again by definition, not part of a control
loop. The only effects of action that are part of a control loop
are the ones that have an effect on the controlled variable.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (01.03.24 16:54 EST)]

Well, clearly, if you limit "action" to "the output variable into the environment in a control loop" then there can be no "action" that isn't part of a control loop.

Is that restriction valid? Are there no actions other than control actions? To anyone asking to be convinced, and not already sitting in the choir, it will look like we are assuming the very thing that needs proof.

An "incidental" action would not be "behavior" in the sense that behavior is the control of perceptual input. Any effect of an "incidental" action on a variable that the organism is controlling would be an accident, a disturbance. (Distinguish the case where a control action produces unintended side effects in the environment that disturb other variables controlled by the same organism.)

I haven't identified an example.

  Bruce Nevin

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.24.1500)]

Bruce Nevin (01.03.24 16:54 EST)--

Well, clearly, if you limit "action" to "the output variable
into the environment in a control loop" then there can be no
"action" that isn't part of a control loop.

Is that restriction valid?

I don't think there is a validity issue when we are dealing with
definitions. I'm just saying that "output variable in a control
loop" is what the word "action" points to when I use it.

Are there no actions other than control actions?

Not the way I define "action". But I _think_ what you might be
asking about is whether there are results of efferent neural
signals (regardless of the length of the chain of causality that
connects the result to the efferent signal) that are neither a
part of a control loop (as action or controlled result) nor a side
effect of the operation of the control loop. That's an interesting
question. I would call such results "open loop actions" or "caused
actions". So I would say that your question is "do living control
systems produce any caused actions; actions that are neither part
of a control loop nor a side effect of the operation of a control
loop?" My guess is that the answer is probably "no". But, as you
say, finding out would involve doing a ton of research aimed at
determining whether any particular result of an organisms action
is controlled or not. If, while carrying out this research program
(which is the basic research program of PCT, if anyone cares to
join in) we discover results of efferent signals that are neither
a part of a control loop nor a side effect of the operation of
a control loop, then we will know that the phenomenon dubbed
"caused action" does exist.

Best Regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

from Ray Bennett (2001.03.25.820.EST Aust.)

I am amazed at how promptly you reply to posts, Rick. I like it, mind you.
I can't reply as quickly though myself.

Isn't this the same process as the RTP?

Very similar. There is one important difference, however. In the
"cut hand" situation the cut hand is a physical consequence of the
action (cutting paper across one's hand); it is not a consequence
imposed by a human being (or beings). In the "RTP" situation, having
to leave the room is not a physical consequence of the action; it
is a consequence imposed (possibly with the student's complete
agreement) by another person.

OK. I understand the difference.

> Is it controlling of me to say, "I see you have chosen to cut your
> hand."? Or is it only controlling of me when I say, "I see you have
> chosen to leave the room."?

I believe controlling is going on in both cases because I think
everything people do is aimed at controlling various perceptions.
What I don't know is what you are controlling for when you say
these things. All I can see is your actions, which consist of the
phrases "I see you have chosen to cut your hand" or "I see you
have chosen to leave the room".

This is all that I have told you. The person sees the other things like my
facial expression, where I am standing etc.

In order to tell what you are controlling (or trying to control) by
saying these things I would have to do the test, which involves:
1) guessing what you might be controlling 2) applying disturbances
to the guessed perception 3) determining whether disturbances are
effective (whether they cause expected changes in the state of the
controlled perception) and 4) seeing if all disturbances are effective;
if so, start again at 1)-- the variable is not under control. Other-
wise 5) announce discovery of a controlled variable.

Of course, these actions could be part of the process of controlling
_many_ different variables simultaneously. For example, saying
"I see you have chosen to leave the room." may be used to control
for one's own perceptions of 1) keeping disruptive kids out of
class 2) allowing these kids to be in the RTC room 3) showing who
knows most 4) showing respect to the kids, and so on.

Would you say then that the RTP could be used by teachers to control their
perceptions that they are respectful?
If every student were asked if they thought that asking the questions was a
way of showing respect, and they thought it was, wuld this then make it a
'Standard' for the class? Or does this make it too simple as some of the
students may agree because they were controlling for something else?

Controlling is what people do; it is neither good nor bad. It's
just a fact of _behavioral_ life. It can lead to problems (mainly
conflict) when used to arbitrarily control the behavior of other
controllers. But if it doesn't lead to problems -- indeed, if it
is part of a respectful relationship between controllers (like the
one between me and my kids,say) -- then there is no problem. And,
indeed, there are even ways to make our interactions with other
controllers even better when we are able to understand that we,
ourselves, are just a hierarchy of control systems living among
other people who are just the same as we are. That's what I think
PCT is all about.

I would describe PCT in similar ways. What would you guess I am controlling
for by having you repsond in this way? It seems to be a common answer given
to people learning PCT.
By the way, what will your position be at the RAND organisation?

Regards,
Ray

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2001.03.25.0453 MST)]

Ray Bennett (2001.03.25.820.EST Aust.)--

In this conversation about controlling other people, I think we have to
distinguish more clearly between trying to control other people's behavior
and trying to control the effects that other people's behavior is having on
ourselves (I think Rick is saying something similar). Without this
distinction, it looks as though the only way to be with other people
without conflict is to stand very still and say nothing, or just to go away
from other people altogether.

As Rick and others keep repeating, PCT says nothing about whether we should
control other people. It merely provides a way to predict the consequences
of creating conflict between people. If those consequences are OK with you,
then it's up to you (and those with whom you interact) whether you want to
try to control others.

Controlling other people's behavior means just that: it means trying to
make them behave (or quit behaving) in particular, preselected ways, and
producing whatever actions of your own are necessary to be sure they do
behave or not behave that way. This is what leads to conflict, because if
you're really determined that another person shall behave in a way that
suits your own goals, then you have to be prepared to use as much forcible
action as necessary, if it should become necessary. Otherwise your control
will fail the first time there is any resistance.

However, if it's really not the other person's observable actions you want
to control, but only a side-effect of those actions on yourself (or someone
else), then you have options other than applying force directly to the
other person. These options offer ways to control the effects of others on
yourself without creating conflict.

The reason this is possible is that ordinarily, nobody acts in a particular
way just to be acting that way. Behavior is not normally an end in itself.
It's a way of producing an effect on the person doing the behaving, as that
person perceives the effect. When you are with another person, however, you
don't see the perceptual effects that person is controlling; you see only
the actions, the means of control.

Fortunately, it's almost always true that there is more than one way to
control any given perception. This means that when one person's actions
bother another person, there is probably some other way to act that will
achieve essentially the same ends without bothering the other person
(unless, of course, the aim is specifically to bother the other person).
When alternatives are available, there is no need for the people involved
to give up controlling for what matters to each person. All that's
necessary is to find a somewhat different set of actions that will continue
to control the important perceptions, but without impacting the other
person's ability to continue controlling, too.

The exception to this occurs when one person wants another person not just
to quit disturbing the first person's own controlled variables, but to
display or refrain from specific actions. Now the variable one person is
trying to control is the very means of action that the other person needs
to be able to vary freely in order to keep control of what matters to that
person. What the first person wants the second to do removes, in effect,
the second person's ability to continue controlling successfully -- or
would do so if the second person behaved as requested or ordered. The most
likely result is some degree of conflict.

One person can't know the exact perception another is controlling, and even
less the whole hierarchy of perceptions in which any given control action
is embedded. In fact, trying to guess what the other person is controlling
is usually part of trying to tell the other how to behave, as if you were
better able to figure out how the other person should achieve his or her
goals than he or she is. This approach is really a show of disrespect, a
way of saying you are superior to the other person.

If we refrain from trying to tell other people how to control their own
perceptions, we can still describe to other people our own perceptions that
are disturbed by their behavior, and ask them if they can think of a way to
reduce the disturbance. Assuming good will, we can then expect the other
person to figure out some other overt actions that will still be able to
achieve the other's goals, but now without disturbing us so much. And of
course, while the conversation is on that subject, the other person might
well have a few requests to make of us, along the same lines.

Ideally, each person would not just be complaining about bad side-effects
of the other's behavior, but offering to change, if possible, his or her
own behavior to lessen the disturbing effects on the other person. Respect
is a two-way interaction. To respect another is to want the other to be in
control of his or her own life; to demand respect is to claim the same
right for oneself.

Where there is no good will, no mutually-agreed goal of getting along
together, interactions based on mutual respect are impossible. If I'm
concerned only about controlling my own perceptions and am indifferent to
your ability to do the same, then conflict is almost inevitable. But
conflict carries a price, especially conflict between equals. To be
indifferent to the autonomy of others is to risk having to pay the price of
being side-tracked from your own real goals just to counteract the
resistance of other people to your effects on them. I think it's through
consequences like this that children, most children, learn eventually that
peace is better than conflict. To give respect is to receive respect, in
the long run, and that makes life much easier.

There's lots more to say along these lines, but I've said enough for now.

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.25.0915 PST)]

Ray Bennett (2001.03.25.820.EST Aust.)

I am amazed at how promptly you reply to posts, Rick.

I have the international date line working in my favor;-)

Would you say then that the RTP could be used by teachers to
control their perceptions that they are respectful?

I don't quite understand this question? I guess I would say
that it looks to me like people _are_ using RTP to control their
perception of being respectful.

If every student were asked if they thought that asking the
questions was a way of showing respect, and they thought it was,
wuld this then make it a 'Standard' for the class?

I don't quite understand this either. I'll just answer with a
question: What if just one kid found it to be disrespectful? Is
it still a standard?

By the way, what will your position be at the RAND organisation?

I think they'll call me what I am: Behavioral Scientist.

Bill Powers (2001.03.25.0453 MST)--

When alternatives are available, there is no need for the
people involved to give up controlling for what matters to
each person. All that's necessary is to find a somewhat different
set of actions that will continue to control the important
perceptions, but without impacting the other person's ability to
continue controlling, too.

I think it might be useful if you described a concrete example of
how this might work. You are describing this from the point of view
of the "disturber". When the "disturber" is informed that he is
disturbing then he finds a different set of actions to control the
same perceptions without disturbing the perceptions of others
(assuming he is so inclined). But what do you do when you are the
"disturbee" (such as a teacher or student in a classroom) and the
"disturber" is not inclined to find a different set of actions to
control his perceptions? How can we, the "disturbees", control the
effects the "disturber" is having on ourselves without trying to
control the disturber's behavior?

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.03.25 22:36 EST)]

Bill Powers (2001.03.25.0453 MST)--

Nice post. One cavil.

The exception to this occurs when one person wants another person not just
to quit disturbing the first person's own controlled variables, but to
display or refrain from specific actions. Now the variable one person is
trying to control is the very means of action that the other person needs
to be able to vary freely in order to keep control of what matters to that
person.

Not quite. In the illustration, the first person restricts but does not necessarily eliminate the means that the second person has to control their perception. The problem is unintended equivocation: the variable that the first person is trying to control started out as "specific actions" but then slithered over to "means of action that the other person needs to be able to vary freely" in order to control a perception.

The exception you are looking for I think is when one person wants another person to control (or relinquish control of) a specified perception, by any means whatsoever.

[From Rick Marken (01.03.25.0915 PST)]
what do you do when you are the
"disturbee" (such as a teacher or student in a classroom) and the
"disturber" is not inclined to find a different set of actions to
control his perceptions?

It can be possible for either person to find alternative means of control, so long as both parties are not controlling the same perception. Conflict often results from going down a level -- focussing attention on the actions that were currently the means of control and that are now being challenged or prevented, forgetting the higher-level purpose of those actions, and neglecting possible alternative means. Then both parties are controlling the same perception in conflict, below the level at which they were controlling previously.

Hence, asking what you're doing, what you're doing it for, is it getting you what you want, and so on. Glasser may have used some phrases like these with poor understanding, but that doesn't make the phrases bad. The teacher never stops controlling "teaching" even when interrupting a particular academic process to deal with a disruption. The disruption itself becomes a "teachable moment".

When you say "the 'disturber' is not inclined to find a different set of actions to control his perceptions" I think you mean that the disturber is controlling a perception of disturbing the other's control. That's an instance of the exception as I rephrased it above. The disturber identifies a controlled variable, not for the sake of understanding or demonstrating control, but for the sake of controlling the behavior of the other, even if only in a disruptive way. This is often construed as craving attention. Seems to me there's something deeper than that going on, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Any ideas?

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 06:13 03/25/2001 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:
At 09:14 03/25/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

From Ray Bennett (2001.03.26.2050.EST Aust.)

Thanks Bill for your clear and helpful reply.

In this conversation about controlling other people, I think we have to
distinguish more clearly between trying to control other people's behavior
and trying to control the effects that other people's behavior is having on
ourselves (I think Rick is saying something similar).

This is an important distinction, especially for teachers. Up until reading
your work I thought that controlling people's behaviour would mean that the
effects of it would be controlled as well. Teachers at my school spend a lot of
time talking about the behaviour of others and ways of controlling it. And we
spend a lot of time complaining about the effects it has on us. This afternoon
I had three conversations with three different teachers about the behaviour of
students in their classes. They wanted to know why they persist with behaviours
that don't help them and don't help others. And they wanted to know how to deal
with them. Two of them didn't want to be punitive and they all were sick and
tired of the way these students were messing up their teaching and had been
doing so all this year.

Controlling other people's behavior means just that: it means trying to
make them behave (or quit behaving) in particular, preselected ways, and
producing whatever actions of your own are necessary to be sure they do
behave or not behave that way. This is what leads to conflict, because if
you're really determined that another person shall behave in a way that
suits your own goals, then you have to be prepared to use as much forcible
action as necessary, if it should become necessary. Otherwise your control
will fail the first time there is any resistance.

I presume this is why Ed and Tim suggest that teachers need to be very clear as
to what behaviours will necessitate a student having to leave the classroom or
yard and go to the RTC. They suggest that there are only three. 1. disruptive
behaviour
                                      2. unsafe behaviour
                                      3. anti social behaviour or that
behaviour that our society polices
I have written this not to tell you, but to make clear what i have understood
and to give information on which you may comment.

Behavior is not normally an end in itself.

I like this point. The way we teachers talk at times you would think that it
was.

Fortunately, it's almost always true that there is more than one way to
control any given perception. This means that when one person's actions
bother another person, there is probably some other way to act that will
achieve essentially the same ends without bothering the other person
(unless, of course, the aim is specifically to bother the other person).
When alternatives are available, there is no need for the people involved
to give up controlling for what matters to each person. All that's
necessary is to find a somewhat different set of actions that will continue
to control the important perceptions, but without impacting the other
person's ability to continue controlling, too.

I thought that choosing another way was about going up a level. I am wondering
now if this is the case. It seems from what you have said that it may but not
necessarily be the case. Am I on the right wavelength here?

The exception to this occurs when one person wants another person not just
to quit disturbing the first person's own controlled variables, but to
display or refrain from specific actions.

This is what a lot of teachers would specify. Over the last decade there has
been an emphasis on explicit teaching and with this emphasis has come an
explicitness about what behaviours are wanted. For example, students are not
only required to be quiet while another speaks, but also need to make eye
contact, have their body positioned in an open way plus make active listening
sounds such as uh hu etc..

Now the variable one person is
trying to control is the very means of action that the other person needs
to be able to vary freely in order to keep control of what matters to that
person. What the first person wants the second to do removes, in effect,
the second person's ability to continue controlling successfully -- or
would do so if the second person behaved as requested or ordered. The most
likely result is some degree of conflict.

And this is often the case.

One person can't know the exact perception another is controlling, and even
less the whole hierarchy of perceptions in which any given control action
is embedded. In fact, trying to guess what the other person is controlling
is usually part of trying to tell the other how to behave, as if you were
better able to figure out how the other person should achieve his or her
goals than he or she is. This approach is really a show of disrespect, a
way of saying you are superior to the other person.

Aren't teachers superior? I say that facetiously, however a lot of students
believe that they are inferior and not a lot is done to contest this concept.

There's lots more to say along these lines, but I've said enough for now.

Thanks for what you have said and I'm looking forward to what else (more) you
have to say.
Regards,
Ray

[Ray_Merry_Bennett]

From Ray B (2001.03.26.2200EST Aust.)
Bruce Nevin wrote
When you say "the 'disturber' is not inclined to find a different set of
actions to control his perceptions" I think you mean that the disturber is
controlling a perception of disturbing the other's control.

Would you say it was pushing their buttons? Is it what you do to find out what
it is another is controlling for?

That's an
instance of the exception as I rephrased it above. The disturber identifies
a controlled variable, not for the sake of understanding or demonstrating
control, but for the sake of controlling the behavior of the other, even if
only in a disruptive way. This is often construed as craving attention.
Seems to me there's something deeper than that going on, but I'm not quite
sure what it is. Any ideas?

A lot of teachers would say that this happens often. Attention seeking would
rate highly as the reason for students disturbing the class. I have my
suspicions about this, especially after having talked with some of the students
so labelled. However, there seems to be in me and others have said that it is
true of them, that we do like attention and we do like to disturb others. I
think it may give a sense of power, even if it is a false one.
Regards,
Ray

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.26.0800)]

Me:

what do you do when you are the "disturbee" (such as a teacher or
student in a classroom) and the "disturber" is not inclined to
find a different set of actions to control his perceptions?

Bruce Nevin (2001.03.25 22:36 EST)

It can be possible for either person to find alternative means
of control, so long as both parties are not controlling the same
perception.

Actually, it's possible for both parties to find alternative means
of control even if they are controlling the same perception (but,
of course, if they are controlling the same perception, even using
alternative means to control, it still won't solve the conflict).
But this doesn't answer my question. The question is: How can we,
the "disturbees", control the effects the "disturber" is having
on ourselves without trying to control the disturber's behavior?
I think the answer to this would be to "dodge these effects".

When you "dodge" you avoid the effects of the disturber's behavior
without controlling that behavior. But what happens when "dodging"
would cause you to lose control? I think this is the problem a
teacher has in a classroom with a persistent disturber. The behavior
of the disturber is interfering with the teacher's control of
teaching. The teacher can't really "dodge" the disturber's effects
(by waiting for quiet, for example) without losing control of her
teaching It seems to me that the teacher's only option, assuming
that the disturber is persistent, is to try to control the behavior
of the disturber, ultimately by having the disturber leave the
classroom.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.03.26 18:17 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.03.26.0800)--

  The question is: How can we,
the "disturbees", control the effects the "disturber" is having
on ourselves without trying to control the disturber's behavior?
I think the answer to this would be to "dodge these effects".

When you "dodge" you avoid the effects of the disturber's behavior
without controlling that behavior. But what happens when "dodging"
would cause you to lose control? I think this is the problem a
teacher has in a classroom with a persistent disturber.

Well, if you *define* the situation this way then by your definition there are two possibilities: suffer the disturbance or force the person to stop making the disturbance. That's just a tautology: if A or B, then A or B. Not very useful, since you still have the problem of determining whether or not a given situation fits the definition.

My understanding of RTP is that if a teacher makes that judgement, the student goes to the RTC. Maybe that was what you were thinking of?

It is easy (and common) to label as impossible what really is only a failure of imagination. We have talked about something like this in the search for controlled variables, e.g. in the coin game. For example, if the teacher perceives this as an opportunity to teach some skill to the class (and possibly to the persistent disturber) then they never stop controlling teaching, and since they have not lost control (at the level that matters to them) the situation does not fit your tautology. Good teachers I have known do things like this. It's something like aikido.

When you say "persistent disturber" (or when you previously said "the disturber is not inclined to find a different set of actions to control his perceptions") I think you mean that the disturber is controlling a perception of disturbing the other's control. That's an instance of the exception to Bill's (2001.03.25.0453) generalization "All that's necessary is to find a somewhat different set of actions that will continue to control the important perceptions, but without impacting the other person's ability to continue controlling, too." The "persistent disturber" will then just vary their actions to continue the disturbance.

It might be useful to determine what perception they are controlling by means of disturbing your control.

An alternative is not to be disturbed by having one's control disturbed. I'm equivocating here, the first occurrence of the word has to do with equanimity. Bruce Gregory may have indicated something like this in his account of his view of teaching.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 08:08 03/26/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.03.26.1700)]

Me:

When you "dodge" you avoid the effects of the disturber's behavior
without controlling that behavior. But what happens when "dodging"
would cause you to lose control? I think this is the problem a
teacher has in a classroom with a persistent disturber.

Bruce Nevin (2001.03.26 18:17 EST)--

Well, if you *define* the situation this way then by your
definition there are two possibilities: suffer the disturbance
or force the person to stop making the disturbance. That's just
a tautology

I don't think a teacher would consider this a logical problem. If
it were, the teacher could just prove that it's a "tautology" and
send the kids off with a QED. In real life, however, the teacher
is trying to teach a class and some kid is persistently interfering
with his ability to do this. This is a real situation that occurs
in schools all the time and teachers deal with it in different ways.
Some teachers may deal with it without controlling the behavior
of the disruptive kid (by waiting until the disruption stops, by
moving all but the disruptor to a different venue, etc). But I can't
see how teachers could do this without disrupting their own teaching .
My guess is that most teachers (certainly most of the ones I've seen
or heard about) solve this problem by trying to control the behavior
of the disruptive kid. The worst way to exercise this control (in my
opinion) is to try to get the kid to behave properly right there in
class. This takes time away from teaching, time that is now taken up
with distracting conflict. The best way to exercise this control (in
my opinon) is simply to ask the student to leave class.

My understanding of RTP is that if a teacher makes that
judgement, the student goes to the RTC. Maybe that was what
you were thinking of?

Somewhat. Mostly it was based on my own observations of and reports
from teachers on their classroom experiences.

When you say "persistent disturber" (or when you previously
said "the disturber is not inclined to find a different set of
actions to control his perceptions") I think you mean that the
disturber is controlling a perception of disturbing the other's
control.

Not at all. There are many reasons why the kid might persist in
being a disturbance. Maybe he just wants to keep hitting on Mary
Lou in the first row. Or maybe she wants to practice her role in
_Grease_. The disturber might not even care that he or she is being
a disturbance to the teacher.

It might be useful to determine what perception they are con-
trolling by means of disturbing your control.

Yes. It certainly would be. But I've got a class to teach. I
don't have the time to test to determine what variables are being
controlled by every kid who disrupts. The main thing for me, as
a teacher, is to stop the disruption so that I can teach the class.
I would do this by asking the disruptive kid to leave class. But
it would be nice to remove the kid to a place where someone could
dedicate their time to figuring out what the kid is controlling for
(what s/he wants). Hmmm. I wonder what we could call such a place.

Best regards

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com