Control of behavior: Real and Illusory

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Rick Marken (980903.0900)]

Tim Carey (980903.0610)--

Is part of the problem the fact that you need to consider both
perspectives of behaviour simultaneously? Fro the inside
perspective, behaviour can't be controlled, but from an
external perspective it appears that behaviour can be controlled.

Not quite. I now think the distinction I am trying to make is
between _real_ and _illusory_ control of behavior.

Real control of behavior is what I call "coercion". In _real_
control of behavior, the behavior controller influences the
controlled behavioral variable via an "open loop", causal
feedback path. Real control of behavior occurs when I control
the movement of your finger, say, by physically seizing your
finger and moving it as I wish. The link between my actions and
the controlled variable are Newton's causal laws. I move your
finger in the same way as I move a rock; by exerting the
necessary forces on it in order to make it behave as desired.
If you happen to be moving the finger as I desire then I don't
have to exert much (or any) force; as soon as your movements
deviate from what I want I simply exert the necessary force
to get the movements I want. In _real_ control of behavior,
the controllee's nature as a control system is irrelevant;
the controller controls the controllee in the same way as he
controls a rock; by exerting force (if necessary) to make it
behave as desired.

In _real_ control of behavior, the behavioral variable is
controlled from _both_ the controller's (external) perspective
and from the controllee's (internal) perspective.

Illusory control of behavior is what we see in the finger
tracking demo and operant conditioning experiments. In
_illusory_ control of behavior, the controller influences the
controlled behavioral variable via the closed loop properties
of the controllee. Illusory control of behavior occurs when I
control the movement of your finger by disturbing a variable
(the distance between our fingers) that you want in a particular
state (zero distance). In this case I can control my perception
of the aspect of your behavior (finger movement) that you _must_
vary in order to keep the distance between our fingers at zero.
The same is true in operant conditioning; I can control an aspect
of an animal's behavior (like bar press rate) that it must vary
to protect a controlled variable (food input rate) from my
disturbances (change in number of presses required to produce
food).

In _illusory_ control of behavior, the behavioral variable is
controlled from the controller's (external) perspective but not
_necessarily_ from the controllee's (internal) perspective.

Illusory control is illusory because there is not a causal
feedback path from action to controlled behavioral result;
the feedback path goes through a closed loop control system.
So when the controlled behavioral variable stops behaving
as desired there is no systematic action the controller can
take to restore the controlled variable to it's reference
state. This is not true in _real_ control of behavior; in real
control of behavior, when the behavioral variable (like finger
movement) stops behaving as desired (it stops moving in a circle),
the controller simply exerts the necessary force (by pulling or
pushing on the finger as necessary) to restore the controlled
variable to the reference state (circular movement).

In illusory, the controller takes advantage of the closed-loop
characteristics of a control system to control its behavior; but
these characteristics actually make real control of a control
system impossible. The behavior of the control system can only be
controlled as long as the control system itself creates no
"disturbance" to the controlled behavioral variable (by changing
it's references, abandoning control of a variable, taking control
of the variable or whatever autonomous little things it decides
to do).

Real control takes advantage only of the "open loop", physical
characteristics of a control system to control its behavior;
characteristics like it's mass, strength limits, etc. Real
control only works if the controller is physically capable of
exerting the forces necessary to control the behavioral variable
(just as a person can control the location of a rock only if he
is strong enough to lift the rock). In practice, this means
that real control of a behavioral variable can only be carried
out by a control system that is considerably stronger that the
control system being controlled.

In both real and illusory behavior control, the controller
is _controlling_ behavior, in the sense that the controller
is organized as a closed - loop control system with respect
to the controlled behavioral variable. The only difference
between real and illusory is the nature of the feedback
path connecting controller and controlled variable; in real
control it's a causal path; in illusory control the path goes
through a closed loop control system.

Whether control is real or illusory, you can tell that the
controller is actualy _controlling_ a behavioral variable in
the usual way, by doing The Test. I tried a little Test last
to see if I could sho that real controlling is going on even
if the control itself is illusory. I asked my wife to
control my finger movements by moving her finger. I Tested
to see whether she was actually trying to control my finger
movements by occasionally stopping my finger; I predicted
that she would move her finger back to mine and try to
"pull it along". This was based on my own experience of
controllling finger mvovements, which is that it feels like
controlling the movement of metal filings with a magnet;
when the filings fail to come along it's usually because
you've moved the magnet too abruptly. Sure enough, when
I stopped my finger, her finger came right back to mine and
she tried to move my finger just as though her's were a magnet
and mine were iron filings. After a few "pumps" from her
finger I let my finger go along again. I was actually
able to do this a couple times. Linda was definitely trying
to control my finger movements.

So whether the control we exert is real or illusory (in terms
of the effect we have on the controlled variable) we can
really be _controlling_ (or, in the illusory case, really be
_trying_ to control). And whether or not we are really
controlling can be established by Test.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

2

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1225 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980903.0900)

So whether the control we exert is real or illusory (in terms
of the effect we have on the controlled variable) we can
really be _controlling_ (or, in the illusory case, really be
_trying_ to control). And whether or not we are really
controlling can be established by Test.

Very nice post. Very clear. Most societal control is illusory (it relies on
our cooperation). Only when cooperation breaks down completely is it
necessary for individuals representing societal institutions to really
control the offenders. A traffic ticket is an "admonition" illusory control
that requires my cooperation. If I fail to pull over and a high speed chase
ensues, the troopers will exercise real control.

Bruce Gregory

3

[From Rick Marken (980903.1140)]

Bruce Gregory (980903.1225 EDT)--

Very nice post. Very clear. Most societal control is illusory
(it relies on our cooperation).

Some societal control is illusory (like controlling for
productivity by wage and profit "incentives") and some is
real (like controlling for law-abiding behavior by
incarceration and execution)

Only when cooperation breaks down completely is it necessary
for individuals representing societal institutions to really
control the offenders.

This is not true; you're succumbing again to the idea that
control (real or illusory) is happening only when the controller
must act to compensate for a disturbance to the controlled
behavioral variable. This was not the point of my post. A
behavior controller is _always_ controlling, whether, at the
moment, he happens to be acting to protect the controlled
variable from disturbance or not; it's just that when the
behavior controller is controlling a behavioral variable
via a causal feedback path (real control), he will be able
(if he is strong enough) to compensate for any disturbance to
that variable; when the behavior controller is controlling a
behavioral variable via another control system (illusory
control) he will not be able to compensate for disturbances to
that variable. The policeman who is controlling for law abiding
behavior will throw you in jail if you break the law; he has
real control over your physical location. The employer who is
controlling for productivity can control your productivity as
long as you are willing to work for the pay; he has illusory
control over your productivity. If you stop working because
you no longer like the work or need the pay there is nothing
he can do; changing your wage will have no more effect on your
productivity than my wife's finger movements had on my finger
movements when I decided to stop moving the finger.

The point of my post was (or was supposed to be) that whether
the control exerted by a behavior controller is real (causal
laws as feedback funtion) or illusory (control system as
feedback function) the behavior controller is still _controlling_.
According to PCT, conflict occurs because people act as
behavior controllers; whether the control they exert is real
(like the control exerted by the police) or illusory (like
the control exerted by the employer) it's still one person
trying to control the behavior of another -- and it creates
conflict between people.

If you want to reduce conflict, then (according to PCT) you
simply have to stop trying to control other people. This (as
Ken Kitzke notes) is _very_ hard to do. But it's _impossible_
to do it if we don't even know when we _are_ trying to control
people. PCT helps us understand when we are trying to control
people. If we know how to recognize our own controlling we
might be able to go up a level and notice our own controlling;
then we can decide whether we really need to approach the
situation as a controller (which is possible, like when someone
is trying to hurt us) or as a negotiator (like when the employer
recognizes that the employee's productivity is the result of a
cooperative agreement between them; it's not something for the
employer to try to _control_).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

4

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1610 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980903.1140)]

Bruce Gregory (980903.1225 EDT)--

> Very nice post. Very clear. Most societal control is illusory
> (it relies on our cooperation).

Some societal control is illusory (like controlling for
productivity by wage and profit "incentives") and some is
real (like controlling for law-abiding behavior by
incarceration and execution)

True, but that's _exactly_ what I said. Unless incarceration and execution
are the major societal activities in California, in which case I retract
"most".

> Only when cooperation breaks down completely is it necessary
> for individuals representing societal institutions to really
> control the offenders.

This is not true; you're succumbing again to the idea that
control (real or illusory) is happening only when the controller
must act to compensate for a disturbance to the controlled
behavioral variable.

No, you are not listening to what I said. I don't care if the state troopers
are control freaks, as long as they don't interfere with me, they can
control all they like. They can sit in their cruisers and control till Hell
freezes over.

This was not the point of my post. A
behavior controller is _always_ controlling, whether, at the
moment, he happens to be acting to protect the controlled
variable from disturbance or not; it's just that when the
behavior controller is controlling a behavioral variable
via a causal feedback path (real control), he will be able
(if he is strong enough) to compensate for any disturbance to
that variable; when the behavior controller is controlling a
behavioral variable via another control system (illusory
control) he will not be able to compensate for disturbances to
that variable. The policeman who is controlling for law abiding
behavior will throw you in jail if you break the law; he has
real control over your physical location.

I, however, can prevent him from ever exercising this control where I am
concerned. In fact, I've done it successfully for decades.

The employer who is
controlling for productivity can control your productivity as
long as you are willing to work for the pay; he has illusory
control over your productivity. If you stop working because
you no longer like the work or need the pay there is nothing
he can do; changing your wage will have no more effect on your
productivity than my wife's finger movements had on my finger
movements when I decided to stop moving the finger.

The point of my post was (or was supposed to be) that whether
the control exerted by a behavior controller is real (causal
laws as feedback function) or illusory (control system as
feedback function) the behavior controller is still _controlling_.

Yes, did I say something to lead you to doubt that I understand this? The
distinction you seem to be making is that only the state (or the Mafia) is
empowered to exercise real causal control. I agree.

According to PCT, conflict occurs because people act as
behavior controllers; whether the control they exert is real
(like the control exerted by the police) or illusory (like
the control exerted by the employer) it's still one person
trying to control the behavior of another -- and it creates
conflict between people.

Again, did I say something that makes you doubt I agree with this?

If you want to reduce conflict, then (according to PCT) you
simply have to stop trying to control other people.

But most controllers don't _want_ to reduce conflict. They simply want to
control successfully, right?

This (as
Ken Kitzke notes) is _very_ hard to do. But it's _impossible_
to do it if we don't even know when we _are_ trying to control
people.

Indeed.

PCT helps us understand when we are trying to control
people. If we know how to recognize our own controlling we
might be able to go up a level and notice our own controlling;
then we can decide whether we really need to approach the
situation as a controller (which is possible, like when someone
is trying to hurt us)

Or when they are a child. My dogs are living control systems, but I rarely
negotiate with them. In fact, I rarely negotiate with anyone. I suppose if I
were buying a car I might, but otherwise I find few examples of negotiating
in modern life. the farmer's market being one of the only exceptions. I
can't ever recall negotiating with gas station attendant or the check out
person at the supermarket.

or as a negotiator (like when the employer
recognizes that the employee's productivity is the result of a
cooperative agreement between them; it's not something for the
employer to try to _control_).

Or we can decide how best to control without appearing to do so. Salesman
are very good at this. If you have a non-controlling employer, good for you.
I don't.

I have the feeling that you have a very utopian view of social interactions.
I don't share this view, but I do understand what you are saying about
control and I agree with you.

Bruce Gregory

5

[From Tim Carey (980904.0602)]

[From Rick Marken (980903.0900)]

I really enjoyed this post Rick and I think the distinction you make is an
important one. I think I understood it all except:

In _real_ control of behavior, the behavioral variable is
controlled from _both_ the controller's (external) perspective
and from the controllee's (internal) perspective.

I understand that when you physically grab someone and move their body or
part of their body you are treating them like a rock. I don't see how that
translates though into controlling their internal perspective. I don't
understand how one person can control another's internal perspective.
Perhaps this isn't even what you meant. Could you explain this bit a little
more please?

Thanks,

Tim

6

[From Rick Marken (80903.1400)]

Bruce Gregory

Only when cooperation breaks down completely is it necessary
for individuals representing societal institutions to really
control the offenders.

Me:

This is not true; you're succumbing again to the idea that
control (real or illusory) is happening only when the controller
must act to compensate for a disturbance to the controlled
behavioral variable.

Bruce Gregory (980903.1610 EDT)

No, you are not listening to what I said.

I'm afraid I am.

I don't care if the state troopers are control freaks, as long
as they don't interfere with me, they can control all they like.
They can sit in their cruisers and control till Hell freezes
over.

So what you should have said above is "Only when cooperation
breaks down completely is it necessary for individuals
representing societal institutions to really _take action_
against the offenders". Individuals representing societal
institutions are always controlling, they are just not always
_acting_ against disturbance. The way you said it above, it
sounded an awful lot like the individuals representing societal
institutions are not controlling until people violate the
rules, which, of course, is not the way control works at all.

Me:

The policeman who is controlling for law abiding behavior
will throw you in jail if you break the law; he has real
control over your physical location.

Ye:

I, however, can prevent him from ever exercising this control
where I am concerned. In fact, I've done it successfully for
decades.

Again, this way of saying it is wrong. I know now that what
you must have meant is that you can prevent him from acting
against you as a disturbance (this, by the way, is an example of
illusory control on your part of the policeman's behavior;
if the policeman suddenly decides to throw you in jail you
can't stop him by doing whatever it was that was working for
you for decades) but this was not clear from the way you
said it.

Me:

The point of my post was (or was supposed to be) that whether
the control exerted by a behavior controller is real (causal
laws as feedback function) or illusory (control system as
feedback function) the behavior controller is still _controlling_.

You:

Yes, did I say something to lead you to doubt that I
understand this?

Yes. You said that the policeman isn't controlling when
the variable he is controlling is not being disturbed. You
also said:

The distinction you seem to be making is that only the
state (or the Mafia) is empowered to exercise real causal
control.

Which is not the distinction I am making; indeed, it has
absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

But most controllers don't _want_ to reduce conflict. They
simply want to control successfully, right?

Wrong. All people are controllers. Some (most) want to reduce
conflict. So some controllers also want (are controlling
for) conflict reduction. They just don't know that their
own controlling is the reason the conflict exists.

My dogs are living control systems, but I rarely negotiate
with them.

Yes. But I bet you are sensative to their wants. That's all the
negotiation that is usually needed. Also, dog wants rarely conflict
with human wants.

I have the feeling that you have a very utopian view of social
interactions.

No. I have a very control theory view of social interactions.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

7

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1738 EDT)]

Rick Marken (80903.1400)

So what you should have said above is "Only when cooperation
breaks down completely is it necessary for individuals
representing societal institutions to really _take action_
against the offenders".

Not true. They can and do give out tickets all the time.

Individuals representing societal
institutions are always controlling, they are just not always
_acting_ against disturbance.

YES, YES, YES, YES, .......

The way you said it above, it
sounded an awful lot like the individuals representing societal
institutions are not controlling until people violate the
rules,

I understand that you interpreted my remarks this way. But if you read what
I said, you will see that this interpretation is not supportable.

which, of course, is not the way control works at all.

Of course. I give up trying to convince you that I understand this.

Me

> I, however, can prevent him from ever exercising this control
> where I am concerned. In fact, I've done it successfully for
> decades.

Again, this way of saying it is wrong. I know now that what
you must have meant is that you can prevent him from acting
against you as a disturbance (this, by the way, is an example of
illusory control on your part of the policeman's behavior;

Yes, I know.

if the policeman suddenly decides to throw you in jail you
can't stop him by doing whatever it was that was working for
you for decades) but this was not clear from the way you
said it.

No, but I can and would sue for false arrest.

Yes. You said that the policeman isn't controlling when
the variable he is controlling is not being disturbed.

No, you attributed this to me. I neither said it nor believe it. I have no
idea why you seem committed to misreading me. I can only guess that you are
convinced that I do not understand control. Therefore, whatever I say must
be wrong. OK. you win. I don't understand control and whatever I say is
wrong.

> The distinction you seem to be making is that only the
> state (or the Mafia) is empowered to exercise real causal
> control.

Which is not the distinction I am making; indeed, it has
absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Oh, who else can exercise causal control over me with impunity? Never mind.
If I'm not wrong, I'm irrelevant.

> But most controllers don't _want_ to reduce conflict. They
> simply want to control successfully, right?

Wrong. All people are controllers.

True.

Some (most) want to reduce
conflict.

No evidence for "most." I suspect that most want to reduce conflict by
having others stop resisting their efforts to control.

So some controllers also want (are controlling
for) conflict reduction. They just don't know that their
own controlling is the reason the conflict exists.

This might be true but there is no evidence that it is. Most parents know
perfectly well that the crying child at bed time would stop crying if only
the parents would stop trying to send the child to bed. They have no doubt
at all why the conflict exists. Why do you think they don't realize this?
You may think its appropriate to negotiate with a child about bed time, but
you are in the minority.

> My dogs are living control systems, but I rarely negotiate
> with them.

Yes. But I bet you are sensitive to their wants. That's all the
negotiation that is usually needed. Also, dog wants rarely conflict
with human wants.

Being sensitive to wants is negotiation? So if the teachers are "sensitive"
to the students' wants they are negotiating? What a remarkable turn around.
You never cease to amaze me. (I guess that you don't have a dog, either.)

> I have the feeling that you have a very utopian view of social
> interactions.

No. I have a very control theory view of social interactions.

Indeed you do.

You seem to enjoy erecting straw men and cutting them down. I find it as
hard to agree with you as I do to disagree with you. I think I'll stop doing
either.

Bruce Gregory

8

[From Rick Marken (980903.1610)]

Bruce Gregory (980903.1738 EDT)--

This is getting to be like the "drawing forth" discussion.
I think we just speak English differently. Much of what you
say about control sounds wrong to me; much of what I say (often
to correct you) sounds wrong to you. Why don't we just drop
it. If you understand control theory as well as you think
you do then I'm sure you will be making wonderful contributions
to PCT very soon. Since you have nothing to learn from me, I'll
try to avoid "correcting" you any more, since you are always
correct anyway and I just imagine error on your part.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

9

[From Rick Marken (980903.1830)]

Tim Carey (980904.0602)--

I understand that when you physically grab someone and move
their body or part of their body you are treating them like
a rock. I don't see how that translates though into controlling
their internal perspective. I don't understand how one person
can control another's internal perspective. Perhaps this isn't
even what you meant. Could you explain this bit a little
more please?

I meant that when you control a cv that another person is
controlling you are effectively controlling the perceptual
variable in that person that corresponds to that cv. For
example, if I were strong enough to control the position
of your finger in the finger tracking task I would be effectively
controlling _your_ perception of the position of your finger.
One perception you have of the location of your finger is visual;
the image of your finger relative to the background. When I
control the location of your finger, variations in your perception
of this variable (variations in the location of the image of your
finger relative to the background) are determined completely
by me.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

10

[From Tim Carey (980904.1840)]

[From Rick Marken (980903.1830)]

the image of your finger relative to the background. When I
control the location of your finger, variations in your perception
of this variable (variations in the location of the image of your
finger relative to the background) are determined completely
by me.

Yep. Thanks, this explanation makes sense. I think the part where I was
having difficulty was that I thought you were saying that you could control
whether or not this was a cv of the individual.

Thanks,

Tim