[From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)]
As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.” (After taking a look at the attachment)
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Managing Partner
My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours
“Assistance at a Distance”
Control Is.docx (19.5 KB)
[From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.1605 ET)]
What you say makes perfect sense to me, Eetu. Thanks for commenting.
Fred Nickols
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 3:36 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Control Is
[from eetu pikkarainen 2017-01-29]
Thank you Fred, good questions!
I thik it depends on how and how strictly we define “control”.
We can say that control is somet​hing in the loop (which requires the whole loop) or it is something which the loop does or which happens every where around the loop.
I think this whole thing at the moment in the next way:
The existence, life, action and wellbeing of the living organism depends mostly on on thing: its relationship with its environment - not the environment as such.
What the organism perceives (experiences, senses) is just parts of that relationship.
The organism has to (try to) keep the relationship in such nature and such limits that its life (existence, action) can continue.
The organism “controls” its perceptions i.e. checks their compatibility with its internal goals.
Partly its goal are determined by its internal (homeostatic) structure and the requirements of the continuation of its life, and partly it can “set” goals by itself.
According to the results of the “control” it “adjusts” its output (doings, behavior).
By its behavior it “affects” parts of its environment when it tries to “regulate” its relationship to the environment: the property, CEV, target etc. which caused the original goal-incompatible perception.
When some disturbation again changes the relationship so that perception becomes back unwanted, the new “regulation” should “cancel” the effect of disturbance. When the organism learns more it could be even able to “predict” some distributions and cancel them in advance.
So the loop is not symmetric and homogeny, there happens different events in different places.
But in everyday speech we often call many of these or even all of these “control”. And I have a feeling that this happens also in these discussions?
(Note, I am not engineer, not English speaker and not even a psychologist, so these terms can be selected all wrong!)
Eetu
Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 29. tammikuuta 2017 16:51
Vastaanottaja: ‘Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)’
Aihe: Control Is
[From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)]
As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.� (After taking a look at the attachment)
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Managing Partner
My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours
“Assistance at a Distance�
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.29.1340 PST)]
Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)–
Â
FN: As Admiral Dewey said, âYou may fire when ready, Gridley.â? (After taking a look at the attachment)
RM: Rather than “fire” at this I’ll just suggest a couple things to think about that might lead you to revise this treatise:Â
2, What is the difference between the engineer’s and the psychologist’s perspective on the phenomenon of control?
Best
Rick
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception. Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control. In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance. Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)–
Â
FN: As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.� (After taking a look at the attachment)
RM: Rather than “fire” at this I’ll just suggest a couple things to think about that might lead you to revise this treatise:Â
2, What is the difference between the engineer’s and the psychologist’s perspective on the phenomenon of control?
Best
Rick
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT)]
Notes for a reply… (nothing against you personally, but a response to the conddition into which some PCT communication has devolved, imho)
Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Bill’s definitions before impprovising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing … and, the elephantt in the room of your 457 word house of a definition is the ‘I’ who does all this ‘control’ as you define it all over the textual space you create … so between your polymorphous use of ‘I’ and ‘control’ all over the place-space, no wonder you can conclude in the vein of a popular US President, “To paraphrase Bill Clinton, “It’s the loop, stupid!â€?â€? But doing so slips you into the group so mordantly described by H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956) [Though I take exception to Mencken’s projected motivation, “devious and mediocre.â€?]
“When the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre – the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.â€?
Or in current usage, are some PCT ‘representatives’ using zombie language to wade in the waters of PCT science? And do we, as a PCT “plain folks of the land� get what we allow, rather than (I hope not) our “heart’s desire at last.�
May the PCT House never accommodate a moron, or moronic staff.
Post Script: This is an expansion of my original ongoing objection stated thusly:
We need to use specialized language or language with specialized meanings for key words if we want to align ourselves with the theory…the irony of PCT communicators is that they are meticulous &p; scrupulous on models and mathematical language, but not as attentive with textual verbal language. behavior ≠action … action is onlly one ‘arc’ or section of the control loop; behavior is control, the whole control loop. Otherwise, we are continuing to confuse exact, robust science with inexact, flabby language.
Followup: My intention is to critique your “basic, diagrammatic representation “ with that of Bill’s, as well as the text of your definition essay.
Lloyd
On Jan 29, 2017, at 08:51, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.� (After taking a look at the attachment)
[From Fred Nickols (2017.01.30.0620 ET)]
To be honest, Rick, I can’t readily answer your second question. I’m neither engineer nor psychologist. I was once a pretty good technician, similar to what Bill was, but those days are well behind me. So please set forth the answer to your second question and I will ponder it.
As for the first question, I think the difference ties to intention or purpose, to having a goal or reference value for the desired value of the variable in question. To use the steering a car example, I turn the steering wheel left or right as conditions warrant but what I’m trying to control is the position of my car on the road – as I perceive it to be. Changes in the position of thee wheel are caused by my behavioral output, my perception of the position of the car is controlled – so, or so I believe, is the position of thhe car. If there isn’t a good degree of correspondence between my perception of the car’s position and its actual position, I’m likely to be in deep doo-doo. All that said, if I were to tell someone that I wasn’t controlling the steering wheel, too, they’d probably look at me like I was nuts.
Fred Nickols
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control Is
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.29.1340 PST)]
Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)–
FN: As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.� (After taking a look at the attachment)
RM: Rather than “fire” at this I’ll just suggest a couple things to think about that might lead you to revise this treatise:
2, What is the difference between the engineer’s and the psychologist’s perspective on the phenomenon of control?
Best
Rick
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
That’s a great last point Fred - it seems that in general parlance we use ‘control of’ to mean ‘the agent responsible for actions applied to’ even when that agent has no prespecified plans for those specific movements, and therefore their specific movements are unintended, while the results of those actions are intended…
On Monday, January 30, 2017, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2017.01.30.0620 ET)]
Â
To be honest, Rick, I can’t readily answer your second question. I’m neither engineer nor psychologist. I was once a pretty good technician, similar to what Bill was, but those days are well behind me. So please set forth the answer to your second question and I will ponder it.
Â
As for the first question, I think the difference ties to intention or purpose, to having a goal or reference value for the desired value of the variable in question. To use the steering a car example, I turn the steering wheel left or right as conditions warrant but what I’m trying to control is the position of my car on the road – as I perceive it to be. Channges in the position of the wheel are caused by my behavioral output, my perception of the position of the car is controlled – so, or so I beliieve, is the position of the car. If there isn’t a good degree of correspondence between my perception of the car’s position and its actual position, I’m likely to be in deep doo-doo. All that said, if I were to tell someone that I wasn’t controlling the steering wheel, too, they’d probably look at me like I was nuts.
Â
Fred Nickols
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control Is
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.29.1340 PST)]
Â
Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)–
Â
FN: As Admiral Dewey said, “You may fire when ready, Gridley.� (After taking a look at the attachment)
Â
RM: Rather than “fire” at this I’ll just suggest a couple things to think about that might lead you to revise this treatise:Â
Â
- What is the difference between the behavior of a variable that is caused and that of a variable that is controlled?
Â
2, What is the difference between the engineer’s and the psychologist’s perspective on the phenomenon of control?
Â
Best
Â
Rick
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
[from eetu pikkarainen 2017-01-30 c]
â€?… For in psychologgy there are experimental methods and
conceptual confusion. — The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems that trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by.â€?
(No that was no me! It was Wittgenstein.)
Comment / suggestion on below:
“Behavior� means empirically perceivable happening or changes in some object when something affects it. Like “the behavior of variable
when caused or controlled�. Behaviorism restricted the subject of psychological research to the “behavior� of the testee. The so called behavioral sciences carry this tradition.
“Action� (in the theory of action; in German “Handlung�) means all purposive activity of the human being (or any living organism)
independently of its empirical effability.
“Doing� (consisting of “deeds�) is that part of action, which affects the environment of the subject of action.
(Also here is some confusion: Handlungstheorie translated to Russian and then translated in English in the famous works of so called
soviet psychology, like Vygotsky, Leontjev, Luria etc. became Activity theory)
So what we have acquainted to call behavior is action, and what we call action is doing and the behavior is the perceivable and
measurable doing.
If you push me hardly, I can’t help but fall down. Falling dawn in that situation is my behavior, but not my action. All action
is based on control but some behavior is based on external effects.
Eetu
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT)]
…
Post Script: This is an expansion of my original ongoing objection stated thusly:
We need to use specialized language or language with specialized meanings for key words if we want to align ourselves with the theory…the irony of PPCT communicators is that they are meticulous & scrupulous
on models and mathematical language, but not as attentive with textual verbal language. behavior ≠action … actiion is only one ‘arc’ or section of the control loop; behavior is control, the whole control loop. Otherwise, we are continuing to confuse exact,
robust science with inexact, flabby language.
[From Bruce Abbott (2017.01.30.1220 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2017.01.30.0620 ET), replying to Rick Marken –
FN: To be honest, Rick, I can’t readily answer your second question. I’m neither engineer nor psychologist. I was once a pretty good technician, similar to what Bill was, but those days are well behind me. So please set forth the answer to your second question and I will ponder it.
FN: As for the first question, I think the difference ties to intention or purpose, to having a goal or reference value for the desired value of the variable in question. To use the steering a car example, I turn the steering wheel left or right as conditions warrant but what I’m trying to control is the position of my car on the road – as I perceive it to be. Changes in the position of the wheel are caused by my behavioral output, my perception of the position of the car is controlled – so, or so I believe, is the positionn of the car. If there isn’t a good degree of correspondence between my perception of the car’s position and its actual position, I’m likely to be in deep doo-doo. All that said, if I were to tell someone that I wasn’t controlling the steering wheel, too, they’d probably look at me like I was nuts.
BA: Actually, you (by which I mean your neuro-muscular system) are controlling the steering wheel, too, at least according to the model I would apply to this situation: A three-level hierarchical system. At the top level is your position-control system, which is attempting to keep your car in its lane on the road. The output of this system sets the reference for the system below it, the steering-wheel angle control system.
BA: The output of the steering-wheel angle control system sets the reference levels for the relevant muscle-force (and/or muscle length; there is some debate about this) control systems. The forces produced move the steering wheel angle toward its reference level, changing the steering angle of the car’s front wheels, causing forces to be generated against the road that tend to move the car toward the position you want it to occupy on the road.
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled – controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable) matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact, an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
 RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables –  is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.Â
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Billl’s definitions before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case, being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Chad Green (2017.01.30.1723 EST)]
“It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of the two parties to the interaction as two eyes, each giving a monocular view of what goes on and,
together giving a binocular view in depth. This double view is the relationship.” - Gregory Bateson (Mind and Nature)
Best,
Chad
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled
– controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable)
matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both
the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” is to privilege theory over fact,
an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone
is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be
accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled
variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The
“behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of
controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables – is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory
which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Bill’ss definitions before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing
if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case,
being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact.
I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on
facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Rick, I don’t know how this fits the finding in your computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case. I am not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled - in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that time. I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled. Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in divisive language?Â
Warren
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
–
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled – controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable) matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact, an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
 RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables –  is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.Â
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start wwith chart and with Bill’s definitions before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case, being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
[Martin Taylor 2017.01.30.17.44]
I have to agree with Rick that the observations, or as he likes
to say, the “phenomena”, occur in the environment external to the
person controlling, and any explanation must be theory. But I
cannot agree with him that the controlled variable is in the
environment, no matter what name Bill may have given to what I
have for (almost) the last quarter-century always called the CEV.
The only contact the person has with the environment is what her
senses report through whatever functions she has inside her. The
only influences she has on the variable someone else observes is
by way muscles tensing and relaxing, initiating chains of
influence that alter the observed variable. She can’t control the
CEV. All she can control is the value of something inside her. PCT
is the theory of what that something might be, but no explanation,
not even a combination of clairvoyance and telekinesis could get
past the fact that what she controls must be what she perceives,
not what’s actually out there in the real world, even if to
someone else it may look as though she does control the CEV.
Having said that, it is also true that what matters is not what
happens inside the head, but what happens in the real world that
might affect the ability of the person to survive, prosper, and
produce descendants. So the fact that the environmental variable
seems to be controlled is all important. The fact that it cannot
actually be controlled is irrelevant. Reorganization (building on
evolution) allows us to perceive things that matter to our
effectiveness in surviving “the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune”.
Martin
On 2017/01/30 5:30 PM, Warren Mansell
wrote:
Hi Rick, I don't know how this fits the finding inyour computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was
not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a
parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that
what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being
over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case. I am
not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled
- in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was
debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that
time. I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception
that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled.
Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner
in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in
divisive language?Â
Warren
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM,Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
wrote:WM: Hi Rick, Iadmire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a
dozen times before. The only variable controlled
directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this issimply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to
account for the fact that organism’s control various
aspects of the environment. The aspects of the
environment that are being controlled – controlled
variables – can be objectively determined using the
Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of
a controlled variable is explained as the result of
keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the
state of the controlled variable) matching a
reference specification for the state of that
variable. This matching is achieved via the
operation of a negative feedback loop. The model
keeps the controlled variable under control by
controlling the perceptual correlate of that
variable; both the perceptual variable and the
controlled variable are controlled in the PCT
model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlledthe PCT model would fail as an explanation of their
existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable
controlled directly by a control system is
perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact, an
approach to understanding the world that became
prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the
default position of the US government. And now you
are getting to see, up close and personal, the
terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Otherfeatures of the loop are influenced, directed,
caused, etc, and some of this might entail
stabilisation that lead us to believe these
components are directly controlled, just like a
raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is
steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!)Â but none
of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not puttingphenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental
correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is
stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable
were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting
for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the
way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known
as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for
ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simpletracker task, disturbances are not controlled but
simply acted against, and the cursor movements are
not controlled but change dynamically to counteract
the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuittracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than
“cursor” movements if you are talking about a
compensatory tracking task). But the variable
affected by both these influences – the controlled
variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the
person doing the tracking task is able to vary their
outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect
the controlled variable from the net effects of
disturbances.
WM: Control ofperception is the property of the whole loop, even
though there are plenty of commands and causal
relationships within the loop…
 RM: That's indeed how the theory works. And itis this characteristic of control loops that
explains the observed behavior of the the controlled
variable – the fact that it is protected from
disturbance by the outputs of the system. The
“behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book
is the behavior of controlled variables – which
constitute nearly everything we see people doing.
Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming
(imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection
of controlled variables). This controlling is
explained as the control of perception. That’s why
Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of
perception”. Behavior – controlled variables – Â is
the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by
control theory which says that controlled variables
result from a process of control of perception.Â
I've read all the posts in this thread and theone I like best is Lloyd’s ( Lloyd
Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly
where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on Post TrumpianAlt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning
… start with chart and with Bill’s definitions
before improvising, changing, transmogrifying
even, reinventing if you prefer to put a
positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Languageapproach to PCT – which involves the introduction
of new terminology for both existing and
non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an
Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case,
being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and
how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is,
indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really
the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the
approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I
wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would
move to a fact based approach to understanding the
world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will.
And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up
one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on
facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S.MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved not when you
have nothing more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
            Â
  --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery
–
Dr Warren MansellReader in Clinical Psychology
School of HealthSciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk  Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589  Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psych-2Dsci.manchester.ac.uk_staff_131406&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=z8vHs6KRvd5URIoyJ_d6TsZlz9rkWDWc7rfVv2l0tcg&e=)Â
Advanced notice of a newtransdiagnostic therapy manual,
authored by Carey, Mansell &
Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of
Levels Approach
Available Now
Check [www.pctweb.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pctweb.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=uCVAbOWoiRq9-QWDieHcwIV5Q0oqvN4ROtMlRCwp9S0&e=) for further information onPerceptual Control Theory
Hi Martin, I like the fact you have invoked evolution here. I have often thought that the following are analogous: the fact that over generations we inherit only our genotype (the unit of selection) but it is the phenotype that determines life or death in the world (where the differential survival happens); and the transmission within a nervous system within a lifetime of only perceptual control systems (the unit of selection) yet it is the behaviour acting on the world that determines the success in the environment (where the differential success happens …
Warren
On 2017/01/30 5:30 PM, Warren Mansell
wrote:
Hi Rick, I don't know how this fits the finding inyour computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was
not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a
parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that
what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being
over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case. I am
not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled
- in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was
debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that
time. I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception
that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled.
Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner
in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in
divisive language?
Warren
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM,Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
wrote:WM: Hi Rick, Iadmire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a
dozen times before. The only variable controlled
directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this issimply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to
account for the fact that organism’s control various
aspects of the environment. The aspects of the
environment that are being controlled – controlled
variables – can be objectively determined using the
Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of
a controlled variable is explained as the result of
keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the
state of the controlled variable) matching a
reference specification for the state of that
variable. This matching is achieved via the
operation of a negative feedback loop. The model
keeps the controlled variable under control by
controlling the perceptual correlate of that
variable; both the perceptual variable and the
controlled variable are controlled in the PCT
model.
RM: If controlled variables were not controlledthe PCT model would fail as an explanation of their
existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable
controlled directly by a control system is
perception” is to privilege theory over fact, an
approach to understanding the world that became
prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the
default position of the US government. And now you
are getting to see, up close and personal, the
terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Otherfeatures of the loop are influenced, directed,
caused, etc, and some of this might entail
stabilisation that lead us to believe these
components are directly controlled, just like a
raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is
steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none
of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not puttingphenomena (facts!) first. The environmental
correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is
stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable
were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting
for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the
way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known
as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for
ideologues?
WM: In a simpletracker task, disturbances are not controlled but
simply acted against, and the cursor movements are
not controlled but change dynamically to counteract
the disturbance.
RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuittracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than
“cursor” movements if you are talking about a
compensatory tracking task). But the variable
affected by both these influences – the controlled
variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the
person doing the tracking task is able to vary their
outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect
the controlled variable from the net effects of
disturbances.
WM: Control ofperception is the property of the whole loop, even
though there are plenty of commands and causal
relationships within the loop…
RM: That's indeed how the theory works. And itis this characteristic of control loops that
explains the observed behavior of the the controlled
variable – the fact that it is protected from
disturbance by the outputs of the system. The
“behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book
is the behavior of controlled variables – which
constitute nearly everything we see people doing.
Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming
(imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection
of controlled variables). This controlling is
explained as the control of perception. That’s why
Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of
perception”. Behavior – controlled variables – is
the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by
control theory which says that controlled variables
result from a process of control of perception.
I've read all the posts in this thread and theone I like best is Lloyd’s ( Lloyd
Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly
where he says:
LK: Get Real - on Post TrumpianAlt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning
… start with chart and with Bill’s definitions
before improvising, changing, transmogrifying
even, reinventing if you prefer to put a
positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Languageapproach to PCT – which involves the introduction
of new terminology for both existing and
non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an
Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case,
being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and
how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is,
indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really
the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the
approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I
wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would
move to a fact based approach to understanding the
world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will.
And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up
one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on
facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S.Marken
"Perfectionis achieved not when you
have nothing more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�--Antoine deSaint-Exupery
–
Dr Warren MansellReader in Clinical Psychology
School of HealthSciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589 Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psych-2Dsci.manchester.ac.uk_staff_131406&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=z8vHs6KRvd5URIoyJ_d6TsZlz9rkWDWc7rfVv2l0tcg&e=) Advanced notice of a newtransdiagnostic therapy manual,
authored by Carey, Mansell &
Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of
Levels Approach
Available Now
Check [www.pctweb.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pctweb.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=uCVAbOWoiRq9-QWDieHcwIV5Q0oqvN4ROtMlRCwp9S0&e=) for further information onPerceptual Control Theory
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1745 PST)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I don’t know how this fits the finding in your computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case.Â
RM: Yes, my mistake. You had said that the perception is the only variable that is directly controlled and I read you to be saying that the perception is the only variable controlled in a control loop. If by “directly” you mean the variable that is kept equal to the reference signal in the model then the perceptual signal is the only variable that is directly controlled. The result of this “direct” control, however, is that the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the the perceptual signal is also controlled.Â
RM: In the model of the rubber band task, what is controlled when the perceptual signal is controlled is an aspect of the environment that is a function of the distance between the knot (k) and the dot (d). At first I took this function to be just the distance between k and d: k - d. And, indeed, that distance is controlled; k-d is maintained in a reference state, protected from the disturbances created by movements of the Experimenter’s rubber band.Â
RM: But I noticed that this reference state was consistently to the side of the dot. So, assuming that the Subject was trying to keep k=d (that is, the Subject had a reference of 0 for k-d), I realized k-d was not a good model of the controlled variable; and it hot me that this might be because the Subject was looking at the knot and dot from the side. So the actual controlled variable would be the difference between the optical angles traced out by k and d on the Subject’s retinae. Since I didn’t know the Subject’s eye level relative to k and d I just added a constant to the difference between k and d (rather than compute the difference between the arc tangents of k and d) and that allowed the model to keep the distance between k and d in the same reference state as the subject under the assumption that the Subject had a reference of 0 for the distance between knot and dot. So the aspect of the world that was controlled by the Subject was f(k-d), where f() is the trigonometric function that takes the parallax into account, and this aspect of the environment, f(k-d), corresponds to the perceptual signal that was controlled “directly” by the model. But if you ignore the discrepancy between the observed and what would be the expected reference state of k-d, k-d was definitely controlled (protected from disturbance) though not at the reference state of 0.Â
WM: I am not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled - in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that time.
RM: That’s hard for to believe. I would never have argued that aspects of the environment can’t be controlled; control is all about the fact that aspects of the environment are kept in reference states. Not only can aspects of the environment be controlled; they are always what is controlled: living systems control aspects of the environment that are defined by the perceptual functions of these systems.Â
Â
WM: I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled.
RM: Please don’t use the T word around me unless you’re my partner in bridge;-) The fact that the perceptual signal is what is directly controlled (according to the model that explains control – PCT) should not divert our attention from the fact that that “direct” controlling is an explanation of what we observe – a variable being kept in a reference state.Â
Â
WM: Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in divisive language?Â
 RM: I think not because that would be wrong. What we should be talking about is that the fact of control – the existence of controlled variables – is explained by a theory of control – PCT – that says that the control we observe is the control of perception. That language is divisive only to the extent that it divides those who understand PCT (both the model and the phenomena the model explains) from those who (think they) understand (and want to talk about and modify) only the model. You can’t really understand the model unless you understand the phenomena it explains – the phenomena control. That’s why the phenomenon of control is the first thing we discuss in “Controlling People”.
Best regards
Rick
Â
Warren
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled – controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable) matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact, an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
 RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables –  is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.Â
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Bill’s definitionns before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case, being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Martin Taylor 2017.01.30.23.38]
[Martin Taylor 2017.01.30.17.44]
I have to agree with Rick that the observations, or as he likesto say, the “phenomena”, occur in the environment external to
the person controlling, and any explanation must be theory. But
I cannot agree with him that the controlled variable is in the
environment, no matter what name Bill may have given to what I
have for (almost) the last quarter-century always called the
CEV.
The only contact the person has with the environment is whather senses report through whatever functions she has inside her.
The only influences she has on the variable someone else
observes is by way muscles tensing and relaxing, initiating
chains of influence that alter the observed variable. She can’t
control the CEV. All she can control is the value of something
inside her. PCT is the theory of what that something might be,
but no explanation, not even a combination of clairvoyance and
telekinesis could get past the fact that what she controls must
be what she perceives, not what’s actually out there in the real
world, even if to someone else it may look as though she does
control the CEV.
I forgot the critical point, that in the environment there is no
reference value for variable, even what Bill called the “controlled
variable”. If you are going to control something without distorting
the meaning of the word “control”, there is a point at which the
value of some variable is directly compared with a reference value.
The value of something in the environment has to be translated into
a value inside the head if it is to be compared to a reference value
in the head. The more precise that translation, the better the
environmental variable will give the illusion that it is controlled.
If the translation were instantaneous and perfect, the perception
will (by definition) precisely match the corresponding environmental
variable and the illusion will be perfect.
Martin
On 2017/01/30 5:30 PM, Warren Mansell
wrote:
Hi Rick, I don't know how this fits the findingin your computer model of the rubber band task that the knot
was not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a
parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that
what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot
being over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the
case. I am not saying that aspects of the environment cannot
be controlled - in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent
about who was debating with you taking the opposite point of
view at that time. I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is
the perception that trumps it all as the most direct variable
being controlled. Maybe we should be talking about control in
a continuous manner in terms of the degree of control, rather
than getting stuck in divisive language?Â
Warren
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM,Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
wrote:WM: Hi Rick, Iadmire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here
a dozen times before. The only variable controlled
directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, thisis simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers
to account for the fact that organism’s control
various aspects of the environment. The aspects of
the environment that are being controlled –
controlled variables – can be objectively
determined using the Test for the Controlled
Variable. The existence of a controlled variable
is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual
variable (that represents the state of the
controlled variable) matching a reference
specification for the state of that variable. This
matching is achieved via the operation of a
negative feedback loop. The model keeps the
controlled variable under control by controlling
the perceptual correlate of that variable; both
the perceptual variable and the controlled
variable are controlled in the PCT model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlledthe PCT model would fail as an explanation of
their existence. Thus, saying that the “only
variable controlled directly by a control system
is perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact,
an approach to understanding the world that became
prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the
default position of the US government. And now you
are getting to see, up close and personal, the
terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Otherfeatures of the loop are influenced, directed,
caused, etc, and some of this might entail
stabilisation that lead us to believe these
components are directly controlled, just like a
raindrop falling down a window looks like someone
is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!)Â but
none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not puttingphenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental
correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is
stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable
were not controlled then PCT would not be
accounting for the fact that it is designed to
explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory
over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want
CSGNet to be home for ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simpletracker task, disturbances are not controlled but
simply acted against, and the cursor movements are
not controlled but change dynamically to
counteract the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about apursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather
than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a
compensatory tracking task). But the variable
affected by both these influences – the
controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains
how the person doing the tracking task is able to
vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so
as to protect the controlled variable from the net
effects of disturbances.
WM: Control ofperception is the property of the whole loop, even
though there are plenty of commands and causal
relationships within the loop…
 RM: That's indeed how the theory works. And itis this characteristic of control loops that
explains the observed behavior of the the
controlled variable – the fact that it is
protected from disturbance by the outputs of the
system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of
Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled
variables – which constitute nearly everything we
see people doing. Name a behavior and you are
almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled
variable (or a collection of controlled
variables). This controlling is explained as the
control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is
called “Behavior: The control of perception”.
Behavior – controlled variables – Â is the
phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by
control theory which says that controlled
variables result from a process of control of
perception.Â
I've read all the posts in this thread and theone I like best is Lloyd’s ( Lloyd
Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly
where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on PostTrumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland
on meaning … start with chart and with Biill’s
definitions before improvising, changing,
transmogrifying even, reinventing if you
prefer to put a positive spin on what you are
doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Languageapproach to PCT – which involves the introduction
of new terminology for both existing and
non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an
Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case,
being just people’s ideas about what behavior is
and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT
is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is
really the same as the Republican) approach to
policy; the approach is that of belief
unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the
Trump administration would move to a fact based
approach to understanding the world. But I think
it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains
why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs
(controlled imaginations) based on facts
(evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S.MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved not when you
have nothing more to
add, but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
           Â
   --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery
–
Dr Warren MansellReader in Clinical Psychology
School of HealthSciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk  Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589  Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psych-2Dsci.manchester.ac.uk_staff_131406&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=z8vHs6KRvd5URIoyJ_d6TsZlz9rkWDWc7rfVv2l0tcg&e=)Â
Advanced notice of a newtransdiagnostic therapy manual,
authored by Carey, Mansell &
Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of
Levels Approach
Available Now
Check [www.pctweb.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pctweb.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=K5dUfNnHI6B1qV8WPwCKfYsvVoUb4Y4Eqh2MS4kgVUo&s=uCVAbOWoiRq9-QWDieHcwIV5Q0oqvN4ROtMlRCwp9S0&e=) for further information onPerceptual Control Theory
Thanks Rick, for your response. I am generally on the same page as you. I do think there is still place for the subjective here - even in measuring the control of the corresponding element of the environment. If I happen to be more careful and accurate at measuring the knot vertically over the dot than the actor in the video, then surely as an experimeter I can reveal that the actor in the video is controlling the dot more poorly than the ideal, even though the actor maybe controlling their own perception of the knot over the dot very accurately - they don’t take account of their parallax error. So, in a relative sense, perception is being better controlled than the actual corresponding element of the environment. Findings like this would be evidence for PCT, and would be based on control of perception when taking account of the actor’s perspective, having higher indices of effective control than the modelling of the environmental element without taking this into account? Yes they are both control, but this continuous way of thinking about it allows the ‘slippage’ of accounting for the actor’s perspective.
All the best,
Warren
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I don’t know how this fits the finding in your computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case.
RM: Yes, my mistake. You had said that the perception is the only variable that is directly controlled and I read you to be saying that the perception is the only variable controlled in a control loop. If by “directly” you mean the variable that is kept equal to the reference signal in the model then the perceptual signal is the only variable that is directly controlled. The result of this “direct” control, however, is that the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the the perceptual signal is also controlled.
RM: In the model of the rubber band task, what is controlled when the perceptual signal is controlled is an aspect of the environment that is a function of the distance between the knot (k) and the dot (d). At first I took this function to be just the distance between k and d: k - d. And, indeed, that distance is controlled; k-d is maintained in a reference state, protected from the disturbances created by movements of the Experimenter’s rubber band.
RM: But I noticed that this reference state was consistently to the side of the dot. So, assuming that the Subject was trying to keep k=d (that is, the Subject had a reference of 0 for k-d), I realized k-d was not a good model of the controlled variable; and it hot me that this might be because the Subject was looking at the knot and dot from the side. So the actual controlled variable would be the difference between the optical angles traced out by k and d on the Subject’s retinae. Since I didn’t know the Subject’s eye level relative to k and d I just added a constant to the difference between k and d (rather than compute the difference between the arc tangents of k and d) and that allowed the model to keep the distance between k and d in the same reference state as the subject under the assumption that the Subject had a reference of 0 for the distance between knot and dot. So the aspect of the world that was controlled by the Subject was f(k-d), where f() is the trigonometric function that takes the parallax into account, and this aspect of the environment, f(k-d), corresponds to the perceptual signal that was controlled “directly” by the model. But if you ignore the discrepancy between the observed and what would be the expected reference state of k-d, k-d was definitely controlled (protected from disturbance) though not at the reference state of 0.
WM: I am not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled - in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that time.
RM: That’s hard for to believe. I would never have argued that aspects of the environment can’t be controlled; control is all about the fact that aspects of the environment are kept in reference states. Not only can aspects of the environment be controlled; they are always what is controlled: living systems control aspects of the environment that are defined by the perceptual functions of these systems.
WM: I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled.
RM: Please don’t use the T word around me unless you’re my partner in bridge;-) The fact that the perceptual signal is what is directly controlled (according to the model that explains control – PCT) should not divert our attention from the fact that that “direct” controlling is an explanation of what we observe – a variable being kept in a reference state.
WM: Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in divisive language?
RM: I think not because that would be wrong. What we should be talking about is that the fact of control – the existence of controlled variables – is explained by a theory of control – PCT – that says that the control we observe is the control of perception. That language is divisive only to the extent that it divides those who understand PCT (both the model and the phenomena the model explains) from those who (think they) understand (and want to talk about and modify) only the model. You can’t really understand the model unless you understand the phenomena it explains – the phenomena control. That’s why the phenomenon of control is the first thing we discuss in “Controlling People”.
Best regards
Rick
Warren
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled – controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable) matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” is to privilege theory over fact, an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables – is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Biill’s definitions before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case, being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Martin Taylor 2017.01.31.10.16]
Thanks Rick, for your response. I am generally on the same page as you. I do think there is still place for the subjective here - even in measuring the control of the corresponding element of the environment. If I happen to be more careful and accurate at measuring the knot vertically over the dot than the actor in the video, then surely as an experimeter I can reveal that the actor in the video is controlling the dot more poorly than the ideal, even though the actor maybe controlling their own perception of the knot over the dot very accurately - they don't take account of their parallax error.
What you are saying is that the environmental variable corresponding to the perception they are controlling (the visual separation between the knot and the mark) is not the one the experimenter would like them to be controlling (the vertical separation between the knot and the mark). The subject is also not controlling for the price of grapefruit in the local market. So what?
So, in a relative sense, perception is being better controlled than the actual corresponding element of the environment.
Reword this: "perception is better controlled than the experimenter's guess about the corresponding element of the environment."
Findings like this would be evidence for PCT, and would be based on control of perception when taking account of the actor's perspective, having higher indices of effective control than the modelling of the environmental element without taking this into account?
I don't get it. From my perspective, what the experimenter expects the subject to be controlling is entirely up to the experimenter, not the subject. Maybe the experimenter is controlling for having the subject control a perception of X, but if the subject actually controls a perception of Y, how is that evidence for PCT?
Martin
On 2017/01/31 4:29 AM, Warren Mansell wrote:
(Vyv H 1630GMT.31.01.17)
Hi Martin,
I think Warren is talking about difference between the actors and the experimenter perspective only in terms of the reference value?
In this example the camera’s eye view would see the knot consistently staying off centre in relation to the the dot. But this shows
the participant is
definitely countering the disturbances because the knot’s relationship to the dot is consistent (there is control). However, it is consistently off centre from the camera’s eye view so i n
terms of reference value from that perspective there is consistent error.
But shouldn’t be possible to use this information to model the participant’s eye view of the dot? That is the the x, y co-ordinates of the consistently off centre knot should could allow participant’s perspective
to be computed? Assuming they are keeping the knot on the dot from their perspective?
I also don’t see how this example is further evidence for PCT but shows an interesting application of PCT maybe?
All the best
Vyv
From: Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Sent: 31 January 2017 16:00
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Control Is
[Martin Taylor 2017.01.31.10.16]
On 2017/01/31 4:29 AM, Warren Mansell wrote:
Thanks Rick, for your response. I am generally on the same page as
you. I do think there is still place for the subjective here - even in
measuring the control of the corresponding element of the environment.
If I happen to be more careful and accurate at measuring the knot
vertically over the dot than the actor in the video, then surely as an
experimeter I can reveal that the actor in the video is controlling
the dot more poorly than the ideal, even though the actor maybe
controlling their own perception of the knot over the dot very
accurately - they don’t take account of their parallax error.
What you are saying is that the environmental variable corresponding to
the perception they are controlling (the visual separation between the
knot and the mark) is not the one the experimenter would like them to be
controlling (the vertical separation between the knot and the mark). The
subject is also not controlling for the price of grapefruit in the local
market. So what?
So, in a relative sense, perception is being better controlled than
the actual corresponding element of the environment.
Reword this: "perception is better controlled than the experimenter’s
guess about the corresponding element of the environment."
Findings like this would be evidence for PCT, and would be based on
control of perception when taking account of the actor’s perspective,
having higher indices of effective control than the modelling of the
environmental element without taking this into account?
I don’t get it. From my perspective, what the experimenter expects the
subject to be controlling is entirely up to the experimenter, not the
subject. Maybe the experimenter is controlling for having the subject
control a perception of X, but if the subject actually controls a
perception of Y, how is that evidence for PCT?
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.31.1300)]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Thanks Rick, for your response. I am generally on the same page as you.
RM: Â When you are on the same page as me you’ll get the secret PCT decoder ring.Â
WM: I do think there is still place for the subjective here - even in measuring the control of the corresponding element of the environment. If I happen to be more careful and accurate at measuring the knot vertically over the dot than the actor in the video, then surely as an experimeter I can reveal that the actor in the video is controlling the dot more poorly than the ideal, even though the actor maybe controlling their own perception of the knot over the dot very accurately - they don’t take account of their parallax error.
RM: People always control more poorly than is ideally possible. But who cares? PCT is mainly about finding out what perceptions are being controlled – and only incidentally about finding out how well these perceptions are being controlled. But you can’t even evaluate how well a perception s being controlled until you know what it is.
Â
WM: So, in a relative sense, perception is being better controlled than the actual corresponding element of the environment.
RM: Actually, I have no idea why you would conclude this. I think this idea comes from privileging theory over facts. The perceptual signal is a theoretical concept that, along with the reference signal (another theoretical concept) accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment (the controlled variable, as perceived by an observer) is controlled. The idea that the perceptual signal is controlled better (or more poorly) than the perceptual aspect of the environment that is seen to be controlled can only be the result of an inability to discriminate fact from theory.Â
WM: Findings like this would be evidence for PCT,
RM: I don’t understand what the “findings” are that you think would constitute such evidence. I don’t believe it is possible to obtain such findings; how do you show that a theoretical concept behaves differently than the phenomenon that concept’s behavior is designed to mimic – the behavior of the observed controlled variable?
Â
WM: and would be based on control of perception when taking account of the actor’s perspective, having higher indices of effective control than the modelling of the environmental element without taking this into account? Yes they are both control, but this continuous way of thinking about it allows the ‘slippage’ of accounting for the actor’s perspective.
RM: I think it allows one to slip off the slippery slope of science. But if you can show me how to demonstrate that the perceptual signal is controlled better than the aspect of the environment to which it corresponds, I’ll turn in my PCT decoder ring on the spot.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
All the best,
Warren
On 31 Jan 2017, at 01:45, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1745 PST)
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I don’t know how this fits the finding in your computer model of the rubber band task that the knot was not controlled to be exactly over the dot, but suffered a parallax error from the perspective of the actor, showing that what was in fact controlled was the perception of the knot being over the dot, even though this was not, exactly, the case.Â
RM: Yes, my mistake. You had said that the perception is the only variable that is directly controlled and I read you to be saying that the perception is the only variable controlled in a control loop. If by “directly” you mean the variable that is kept equal to the reference signal in the model then the perceptual signal is the only variable that is directly controlled. The result of this “direct” control, however, is that the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the the perceptual signal is also controlled.Â
RM: In the model of the rubber band task, what is controlled when the perceptual signal is controlled is an aspect of the environment that is a function of the distance between the knot (k) and the dot (d). At first I took this function to be just the distance between k and d: k - d. And, indeed, that distance is controlled; k-d is maintained in a reference state, protected from the disturbances created by movements of the Experimenter’s rubber band.Â
RM: But I noticed that this reference state was consistently to the side of the dot. So, assuming that the Subject was trying to keep k=d (that is, the Subject had a reference of 0 for k-d), I realized k-d was not a good model of the controlled variable; and it hot me that this might be because the Subject was looking at the knot and dot from the side. So the actual controlled variable would be the difference between the optical angles traced out by k and d on the Subject’s retinae. Since I didn’t know the Subject’s eye level relative to k and d I just added a constant to the difference between k and d (rather than compute the difference between the arc tangents of k and d) and that allowed the model to keep the distance between k and d in the same reference state as the subject under the assumption that the Subject had a reference of 0 for the distance between knot and dot. So the aspect of the world that was controlled by the Subject was f(k-d), where f() is the trigonometric function that takes the parallax into account, and this aspect of the environment, f(k-d), corresponds to the perceptual signal that was controlled “directly” by the model. But if you ignore the discrepancy between the observed and what would be the expected reference state of k-d, k-d was definitely controlled (protected from disturbance) though not at the reference state of 0.Â
WM: I am not saying that aspects of the environment cannot be controlled - in fact that was what I was agreeing with Kent about who was debating with you taking the opposite point of view at that time.
RM: That’s hard for to believe. I would never have argued that aspects of the environment can’t be controlled; control is all about the fact that aspects of the environment are kept in reference states. Not only can aspects of the environment be controlled; they are always what is controlled: living systems control aspects of the environment that are defined by the perceptual functions of these systems.Â
Â
WM: I am just saying that on a spectrum, it is the perception that trumps it all as the most direct variable being controlled.
RM: Please don’t use the T word around me unless you’re my partner in bridge;-) The fact that the perceptual signal is what is directly controlled (according to the model that explains control – PCT) should not divert our attention from the fact that that “direct” controlling is an explanation of what we observe – a variable being kept in a reference state.Â
Â
WM: Maybe we should be talking about control in a continuous manner in terms of the degree of control, rather than getting stuck in divisive language?Â
 RM: I think not because that would be wrong. What we should be talking about is that the fact of control – the existence of controlled variables – is explained by a theory of control – PCT – that says that the control we observe is the control of perception. That language is divisive only to the extent that it divides those who understand PCT (both the model and the phenomena the model explains) from those who (think they) understand (and want to talk about and modify) only the model. You can’t really understand the model unless you understand the phenomena it explains – the phenomena control. That’s why the phenomenon of control is the first thing we discuss in “Controlling People”.
Best regards
Rick
Â
Warren
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.01.30.1250 PST)]
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Rick, I admire your patience with Fred but we’ve been here a dozen times before. The only variable controlled directly is perception.
RM: And as was true a dozen times before, this is simply incorrect. PCT was developed by Powers to account for the fact that organism’s control various aspects of the environment. The aspects of the environment that are being controlled – controlled variables – can be objectively determined using the Test for the Controlled Variable. The existence of a controlled variable is explained as the result of keeping a perceptual variable (that represents the state of the controlled variable) matching a reference specification for the state of that variable. This matching is achieved via the operation of a negative feedback loop. The model keeps the controlled variable under control by controlling the perceptual correlate of that variable; both the perceptual variable and the controlled variable are controlled in the PCT model.Â
RM: If controlled variables were not controlled the PCT model would fail as an explanation of their existence. Thus, saying that the “only variable controlled directly by a control system is perception” Â is to privilege theory over fact, an approach to understanding the world that became prevalent on CSGNet well before it became the default position of the US government. And now you are getting to see, up close and personal, the terrible consequences of that approach…
WM: Other features of the loop are influenced, directed, caused, etc, and some of this might entail stabilisation that lead us to believe these components are directly controlled, just like a raindrop falling down a window looks like someone is steering it downward (duh - it’s gravity!) but none of these causes equate to control.
RM: Again, this is all a result of not putting phenomena (facts!) Â first. The environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable is stabilized by the loop; if the controlled variable were not controlled then PCT would not be accounting for the fact that it is designed to explain. By the way, the privileging of of theory over fact us known as ideology. Do we really want CSGNet to be home for ideologues?Â
Â
WM: In a simple tracker task, disturbances are not controlled but simply acted against, and the cursor movements are not controlled but change dynamically to counteract the disturbance.
 RM: Correct (if you are talking about a pursuit tracking task; it would be “mouse” rather than “cursor” movements if you are talking about a compensatory tracking task). But the variable affected by both these influences – the controlled variable – is controlled. PCT explains how the person doing the tracking task is able to vary their outputs (cursor or mouse movements) so as to protect the controlled variable from the net effects of disturbances.
WM: Control of perception is the property of the whole loop, even though there are plenty of commands and causal relationships within the loop…
 RM: That’s indeed how the theory works. And it is this characteristic of control loops that explains the observed behavior of the the controlled variable – the fact that it is protected from disturbance by the outputs of the system. The “behavior” referred to in the title of Bill’s book is the behavior of controlled variables – which constitute nearly everything we see people doing. Name a behavior and you are almost certain naming (imprecisely) a controlled variable (or a collection of controlled variables). This controlling is explained as the control of perception. That’s why Bill’s book is called “Behavior: The control of perception”. Behavior – controlled variables –  is the phenomenon to be explained; it is explained by control theory which says that controlled variables result from a process of control of perception.Â
I’ve read all the posts in this thread and the one I like best is Lloyd’s (Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.01.30.0501 CT), particularly where he says:Â
LK: Get Real - on Post Trumpian Alt-Language , cf Alice in Wonderland on meaning … start with chart and with Bill’s definitioons before improvising, changing, transmogrifying even, reinventing if you prefer to put a positive spin on what you are doing / writing
RM: I would just add that this Alt-Language approach to PCT – which involves the introduction of new terminology for both existing and non-existent PCT concepts – seems to stem from an Alt-Fact approach to PCT; alt-Facts, in this case, being just people’s ideas about what behavior is and how it works. The Alt-language approach to PCT is, indeed, equivalent to the Trumpian (which is really the same as the Republican) approach to policy; the approach is that of belief unconstrained by fact. I wish both CSGNet and the Trump administration would move to a fact based approach to understanding the world. But I think it’s unlikely that either will. And PCT explains why; it’s very difficult to give up one’s beliefs (controlled imaginations) based on facts (evidence). C’est la vie.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery