Control of behavior

[From Rick Marken (960208.0850)]

Hans Blom (960208e) to David Goldstein --

I consider the [boy's] fighting to actually be an improvement, a step
towards being in control.

I assume you are using the word "control" here in the PCT sense, right?

Now, can you tell me whether or not the envinronment controls behavior
using this meaning of "control"?

Here's another way to look at it. Would you have said:

"I consider the wind's lashing to actually be an improvement, a step
towards being in control".

Best

Rick

[From Rick Marken (980828.1550)]

Mary Powers (980828) --

She may not feel disturbed at all if she can change her actions
to the ones A wants and still achieve her own purposes.

Tim Carey (980829.0615) --

Thanks for the reply Mary. I have just experienced situations where
I've seen person A controlling person B's actions and because
person B wasn't controlling these actions at that point in time,
or probably because what A was doing wasn't interfering with
what B was controlling for ... there was no disturbance. I think
parents use this all the time when they "distract" kids

I agree. What you and Mary are describing is control of action by
disturbance to a known controlled variable. This kind of control
of behavior is easy to demonstrate. Just ask someone to track your
finger with their finger. If the person agrees to do this, then
you can make that person's finger trace out the spatial patterns
_you_ would like to see by tracing out those spatial patterns with
your own finger. Your finger movement is a disturbance to the variable
your "victim" is controlling (distance between their finger and
yours); to compensate for this disturbance and, thus, keep their
finger aligned with yours, they must mirror your finger's movements
with their's. As long as doing this doesn't inconvenience (conflict
with any existing goals of) the victim, you can control the victim's
finger movements to your heart's content.

This disturbance-based control is a very gentle form of control
of behavior. The "victims" of this kind of control typically don't
even notice that they are being controlled. The problem, of course,
is that the victim might get upset if he finds out that he was being
controlled; this happens if the victim happens to have the goal
of "not being controlled". I suspect that the desire to "not be
controlled" -- ie., to not be "taken" -- is one reason why some
people get so upset about being lied to, even when the lie caused
them no problem at all before they knew it was a lie.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Tim Carey (980829.1410)]

[From Rick Marken (980828.1550)]

I agree. What you and Mary are describing is control of action by
disturbance to a known controlled variable. This kind of control
of behavior is easy to demonstrate. Just ask someone to track your
finger with their finger.

Thanks for the post Rick. The activity you suggest is a really neat
demonstration of what we're talking about.

I guess I still have a problem though (and even more so since my attention
was drawn to it from Mary's post) with using the term "control" in what
seem to different ways.

Is it correct in PCT terms to use "control" in this way:

Your finger movement is a disturbance to the variable
your "victim" is controlling (distance between their finger and
yours

and also in this way:

is that the victim might get upset if he finds out that he was being
controlled

??

To me, "controlling" and "being controlled" seem to be describing 2
different processes from 2 different theoretical paradigms.

Regards,

Tim

[From Rick Marken (980829.0850)]

Tim Carey (980829.1410)--

Thanks for the post Rick. The activity you suggest is a really
neat demonstration of what we're talking about.

I guess I still have a problem though...with using the term
"control" in what seem t[w]o different ways.

Is it correct in PCT terms to use "control" in this way:
> Your finger movement is a disturbance to the variable
> your "victim" is controlling (distance between their finger
> and yours

and also in this way:
> is that the victim might get upset if he finds out that he
> was being controlled

??

To me, "controlling" and "being controlled" seem to be describing
2 different processes from 2 different theoretical paradigms.

It's the same process of control in both cases. Think of it in
terms of a tracking task. When you are keeping the cursor on
the target you are _controlling_ the position of the cursor; the
position of the cursor is _being controlled_.

The same thing is true when you control the pattern of movement
of the finger of a "victim" who is controlling the distance between
his finger and yours. When you make the victim move his finger
in a circular pattern (say) you are _controlling_ the pattern of
movement of the victim's finger; the pattern of movement of the
victim's finger is _being controlled_.

One theoretical paradigm (PCT) explains how you _control_ the
victim's finger movements and why the victim's finger movements
can _be controlled_. I think you would clearly see how this
works if you made a control system diagram of the interaction
between you and the victim in this finger movement pattern
control situation. If you do this, I think it would be great
if you could post your result; I think many people would benefit
from seeing it. If you have problems or questions I'd be happy
to try to help.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980820.1450 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980829.0850)

It's the same process of control in both cases. Think of it in
terms of a tracking task. When you are keeping the cursor on
the target you are _controlling_ the position of the cursor; the
position of the cursor is _being controlled_.

No, your perception of the position of the cursor is being controlled.
Remember, behavior is the control of _perception_.

The same thing is true when you control the pattern of movement
of the finger of a "victim" who is controlling the distance between
his finger and yours. When you make the victim move his finger
in a circular pattern (say) you are _controlling_ the pattern of
movement of the victim's finger; the pattern of movement of the
victim's finger is _being controlled_.

But not by you. The "victim" is controlling her perception of the location
of her finger. If you don't believe me, blindfold the "victim" and see what
happens.

One theoretical paradigm (PCT) explains how you _control_ the
victim's finger movements and why the victim's finger movements
can _be controlled_. I think you would clearly see how this
works if you made a control system diagram of the interaction
between you and the victim in this finger movement pattern
control situation. If you do this, I think it would be great
if you could post your result; I think many people would benefit
from seeing it.

_I_ would greatly benefit. By the way, I'm still anxiously awaiting your
answer to my question. Is the governor of Massachusetts controlling my qi or
qo when I am driving on the turnpike? It would _really_ help me to
understand how one is able to control others without perceiving their
behavior if you would answer this question.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980830.1230)]

When you make the victim move his finger in a circular pattern
(say) you are _controlling_ the pattern of movement of the
victim's finger; the pattern of movement of the victim's finger
is _being controlled_.

Bruce Gregory (980820.1450 EDT) --

But not by you. The "victim" is controlling her perception of
the location of her finger. If you don't believe me, blindfold
the "victim" and see what happens.

The victim is controlling the _distance_ between her finger and
mine; she is _not_ controlling the pattern of movement of her
finger; I am controlling that.

If you blindfold the victim all you would show is that the
victim cannot control _any_ visual variables. You can see that
the victim is controlling (among other things) the distance
between her finger and mine because she compensates for all
my disturbances to that variable (my finger movements) and
keeps the distance between her finger and mine very close to
zero. The fact that she _is_ controlling the distance between
her finger and mine is what makes it possible for me to control
the pattern of movement of her hand.

The victim is _not_ controlling the pattern of movement traced
out by her finger (the aspect of her behavior that _I_ am
controlling). If she were controlling that variable, then she
would not be able to control the distance between her finger
and mine and you I not be able to control (successfully) the
pattern of movement of the victim's hand. If you actually try
the demo you will see what I mean.

By the way, I'm still anxiously awaiting your answer to my
question. Is the governor of Massachusetts controlling my qi
or qo when I am driving on the turnpike?

I have no idea whether the governor is controlling your behavior
or not. My guess is that he's not. Is there some reason you
believe that your behavior is being controlled by the governor
himself? I think your behavior is being controlled by his agents
(the state troopers) when they see you driving down the turnpike.

It would _really_ help me to understand how one is able to
control others without perceiving their behavior if you would
answer this question.

Where in the world did you get the idea that people can control
others without perceiving their behavior? Try the demo I suggested;
notice how you are able to control your victim's finger movements
(make her trace out a circle, a square or whatever you wish). This
is obviously control of behavior. But you can only do it if you
can perceive the pattern of finger movements made by your victim.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.1648 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980830.1230)

> When you make the victim move his finger in a circular pattern
> (say) you are _controlling_ the pattern of movement of the
> victim's finger; the pattern of movement of the victim's finger
> is _being controlled_.

Bruce Gregory (980820.1450 EDT) --

> But not by you. The "victim" is controlling her perception of
> the location of her finger. If you don't believe me, blindfold
> the "victim" and see what happens.

The victim is controlling the _distance_ between her finger and
mine; she is _not_ controlling the pattern of movement of her
finger; I am controlling that.

I didn't say she was controlling the pattern, I said she was controlling the
location. You have to read more carefully, I'm afraid. Nor are you
controlling the pattern of movement of her finger. You have the "behavioral
illusion" that you are controlling the pattern because at heart you _seem_
to be a S-R psychologist. What happened to the Rick who wrote "that living
systems control and cannot be controlled."? We'd all like to see him return.
But there seems to be little chance of that.

Since you seem to have done an about face on the question of the governor
controlling my behavior, and now wonder where I got this admittedly bizarre
notion, I have no idea what you believe or why. I don't think I want to.
You've been doing battle with the forces of evil so long that you seem to
have become one of them. I'll stick to Mind Readings. The old Rick was a
great PCT experimental psychologist. The new Rick... Well let's just say
there is no comparison. None at all.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980829.1420)]

Me:

The victim is controlling the _distance_ between her finger and
mine; she is _not_ controlling the pattern of movement of her
finger; I am controlling that.

Bruce Gregory (980829.1648 EDT) --

I didn't say she was controlling the pattern, I said she was
controlling the location.

Yes. That's true too. In order to control the distance between
her finger and mine (a visual variable) the victim must also
control the locatoin of her arm in space (a visual/kinesthetic
variable).

Nor are you controlling the pattern of movement of her finger.
You have the "behavioral illusion" that you are controlling the
pattern

No. That's not the behavioral illusion. See my discussion and
demonstration of the behavioral illusion at my web site. I
am, indeed, controlling the pattern of movement of the victim's
finger. Again, if you draw a diagram of the situation I think
you will see that this is the case.

Perhaps what you are thinking is that I will lose control
of the victim's pattern of finger movement when the victim
stops controlling the distance between her finger and mine.
This is true; the victim's control loop -- the one that controls
the distance between her finger and mine -- is part of the
feedback function connecting my actions (finger movements) to
the controlled variable (the victim's pattern of finger
movements); this fact will become clear to you if you take the
trouble to draw a diagram of the finger tracking control loops
for both the controller and the victim.

I have no idea what you believe or why.

I really think you have to attend both the lectures _and_ the
labs. Try drawing diagrams of the control loops involved in
the topics we discuss. Do the demos at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

and read the write-ups carefully (by the way, I have a _slightly_
improved version of the baseball catching program up now as
well as the source code, for those who are interested). Also,
try to participate in the modeling class when it begins. Once
you know how to apply the model in many different behavioral
situations you will have no problem understanding what I believe
and why. Just reading books (even great books like _Mind
Readings;-)) isn't enough.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[From Tim Carey (9808300710)]

[From Rick Marken (980829.0850)]

The same thing is true when you control the pattern of movement
of the finger of a "victim" who is controlling the distance between
his finger and yours. When you make the victim move his finger
in a circular pattern (say) you are _controlling_ the pattern of
movement of the victim's finger; the pattern of movement of the
victim's finger is _being controlled_.

So are you saying that "the pattern of movement of the victim's finger"
equates to "the victim's behaviour"? Is that what you're thinking of when
you say that the victim's behaviour is being controlled? If so, what were
you meaning when you wrote that sentence in the foreward of LCS (the
relevant bit was: "that living control systems control and cannot
becontrolled")? It seems to be at odds with what you're saying here.

One theoretical paradigm (PCT) explains how you _control_ the
victim's finger movements and why the victim's finger movements
can _be controlled_. I think you would clearly see how this
works if you made a control system diagram of the interaction
between you and the victim in this finger movement pattern
control situation. If you do this, I think it would be great
if you could post your result; I think many people would benefit
from seeing it. If you have problems or questions I'd be happy
to try to help.

Yep, good suggestion, I'll give it a go.

Regards,

Tim

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.1800 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980829.1420)]

Just reading books (even great books like _Mind
Readings;-)) isn't enough.

You're absolutely right. Look at how misled I was reading your Foreword to
_Living Control Systems_. It's clear you need a very special talent to
understand PCT. I now know why only three (two?) people understand it.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980829.1630)]

Tim Carey (9808300710)

So are you saying that "the pattern of movement of the victim's
finger" equates to "the victim's behaviour"?

Yes.

Is that what you're thinking of when you say that the victim's
behaviour is being controlled?

Yes.

If so, what were you meaning when you wrote that sentence in the
foreward of LCS (the relevant bit was: "that living control
systems control and cannot be controlled")? It seems to be at
odds with what you're saying here.

As I said in an earlier post [Rick Marken (980898.1610) -- actually
posted (980827.1610)] what I said in the forward to LCS was _wrong_
[NB. Bruce Gregory (980829.1810)]; living control systems certainly
_can_ be controlled. Apparently you and Bruce Gregory missed the
post where I admitted my error because you just said the above
and Bruce Gregory just wrote:

Bruce Gregory (980829.1648 EDT)

What happened to the Rick who wrote "that living systems control
and cannot be controlled."? We'd all like to see him return.

and Bruce Gregory (980829.1800 EDT)

Look at how misled I was reading your Foreword to _Living Control
Systems_.

So I'll append what I said in my earlier post about my "living
control systems control but can't be controlled" comment in the
LCS forward; it starts right below the dotted line. Please try
to read it this time. I would like to hear what you have to say
about it.

It would sure be too bad if you guys have gotten involved with
PCT because of that one (incorrect) phrase of mine. I hope it's
not too late to say "never mind":wink:

···

--------
This was posted by Rick Marken on (980827.1610)

......

What I said in the forward is false. It just shows that what
is important is not what people _say_ but how the model _works_.
Just because I said "living control systems control and cannot
be controlled" doesn't make it so.

Of course, I understood the model when I wrote those words. My
only excuse is that I must have been controlling for the punchi-
ness of the prose rather than the accuracy of the semantics.
What I should have said is ""living control systems control and
cannot be controlled _arbitrarily_". You can't get a person to
produce any, arbitrarily selected behavior, even if you are willing
to use coercive force. But you certainly can control _some_
behavior _sometimes_. Control of behavior can be (and is regularly)
done in many different ways: through the use of reward and
punishment, through the use of disturbance to controlled variables,
through deception and through the use of physical force (coercion).

PCT shows what is actually going on when people control behavior
using any of these methods; and it shows the limitations of these
methods. But PCT certainly does _not_ show that living systems
_cannot_ be controlled. Whoever says that (me included) is wrong.

So one of my biggest mistakes (saying that "living control systems
control and cannot be controlled") is now enshrined in print in
one of my favorite books. So? Just because someone (even me;-))
wrote something down in a book doesn't mean it's true -- right?

Best

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

[From Tim Carey (980830.0910)]

[From Rick Marken (980829.0850)]

control situation. If you do this, I think it would be great
if you could post your result; I think many people would benefit
from seeing it. If you have problems or questions I'd be happy
to try to help.

OK ... I've had a go (gulp). It's probably fairly primitive but it's a
start and it will give us something to talk about. I've done it as a word
document because I always find it hard to follow those little diagrams that
are done in these messages. I'll attach it to this. If you need me to send
it in another form just let me know. Currently, I'm trying to represent the
situation where Person A has a reference for seeing Person B's finger trace
a figure 8 pattern and person B has a reference for seeing his fingertip
one inch away from Person A's fingertip. It seems to me at the moment that
Person A's is a disturbance to Person B's cv and Person B is part of Person
A's feedback function.

Regards,

Tim

PCT diagram 2.doc (66 Bytes)

[From Tim Carey (980830.0940)]

[From Rick Marken (980829.1630)]

_can_ be controlled. Apparently you and Bruce Gregory missed the
post where I admitted my error because you just said the above
and Bruce Gregory just wrote:

Yep, I did miss it. Thanks for resending it.

cannot be controlled _arbitrarily_". You can't get a person to
produce any, arbitrarily selected behavior, even if you are willing
to use coercive force.

OK, here is my first query. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic with the use of
the term "behaviour" but is it accurate to say that people "produce"
behaviour? I thought we just controlled perceptions. Are you using the term
"behaviour" to refer to the externally observable output of the person?

But you certainly can control _some_

behavior _sometimes_. Control of behavior can be (and is regularly)
done in many different ways: through the use of reward and
punishment, through the use of disturbance to controlled variables,
through deception and through the use of physical force (coercion).

Again, my problem is with your use of the term "behaviour". If you are
meaning "externally observable output" or "actions" then I don't have a
problem with that. If you're meaning the "working of the entire loop" then
I don't understand that at all.

PCT shows what is actually going on when people control behavior
using any of these methods; and it shows the limitations of these
methods.

It would seem to me that the biggest limitation of these methods that have
as their purpose the control of someone's else actions is that behaviour
(that is the working of the entire loop) CAN'T be externally controlled. If
we really could control "behaviour" (the entire loop) there wouldn't be a
problem. I could set my wife's references for her and adjust her gain and
tweak her input and output functions and we could live happily ever after.
It seems to me that this is what a lot of the "once upon a time" theories
of human behaviour are suggesting.

So our differences at this point may simply be a difference in the use of
the term "behaviour".

Regards,

Tim

[From Tim Carey (980830.0945)]

[From Rick Marken (980829.1420)]

This is true; the victim's control loop -- the one that controls
the distance between her finger and mine -- is part of the
feedback function connecting my actions (finger movements) to
the controlled variable (the victim's pattern of finger
movements); this fact will become clear to you if you take the
trouble to draw a diagram of the finger tracking control loops
for both the controller and the victim.

What you've just described is the conclusion I came to when I tried to draw
the diagrams. I actually just sent my post with the diagram attached and
then starting reading this post. I'd really appreciate your comments.

Regards,

Tim

[From Rick Marken (980829.1715)]

Tim Carey (980830.0910)

I tried reading the Word document but no luck. I read it
as text and MS-DOS text and saw nothing. Is it an ASCII
graph? Could you just make a text file and send it? Or
just copy it into the body of an e-mail.

I would really like to see it; it sound like you've did a
nice job.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.2116 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980829.1715)

Tim Carey (980830.0910)

I tried reading the Word document but no luck. I read it
as text and MS-DOS text and saw nothing. Is it an ASCII
graph? Could you just make a text file and send it? Or
just copy it into the body of an e-mail.

I would really like to see it; it sound like you've did a
nice job.

I had no troubling opening it as a Word document. Perhaps you are using an
older version of Word?

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.2120 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980829.1630)]

Of course, I understood the model when I wrote those words. My
only excuse is that I must have been controlling for the punchi-
ness of the prose rather than the accuracy of the semantics.
What I should have said is ""living control systems control and
cannot be controlled _arbitrarily_". You can't get a person to
produce any, arbitrarily selected behavior, even if you are willing
to use coercive force. But you certainly can control _some_
behavior _sometimes_. Control of behavior can be (and is regularly)
done in many different ways: through the use of reward and
punishment, through the use of disturbance to controlled variables,
through deception and through the use of physical force (coercion).

Can you give me an example of something that can be controlled
"arbitrarily"?

Bruce Gregory

[From Chris Cherpas (980829.1900 PT)]

Rick Marken (980829.1630)--

So one of my biggest mistakes (saying that "living control systems
control and cannot be controlled") is now enshrined in print in
one of my favorite books. So? Just because someone (even me;-))
wrote something down in a book doesn't mean it's true -- right?

It's also a wonderful, enduring (!) reminder that revising what
we say (or model), because we now see an inconsistency we weren't
seeing previously, is simply the only game in town -- so more
power to us. Patrick Suppes was fond of saying that he'd
"rather be precisely wrong than vaguely right." Fortunately,
laying it out in print can be a big help in getting to "precisely
wrong." (Having said that, I think Suppes could have been
a little less anal retentive in the matter: without vaguely correct
principles and system concepts, there wouldn't but much to
write about).

Best regards,
cc

[From Tim Carey (980830.1505)]

[From Rick Marken (980829.1715)]

I tried reading the Word document but no luck. I read it
as text and MS-DOS text and saw nothing. Is it an ASCII
graph? Could you just make a text file and send it? Or
just copy it into the body of an e-mail.

I've just saved it as a Word 6.0 document so I'll try that. I tried saving
it as a text file but the diagram didn't come out.

If this doesn't work I'll try something else.

Regards,

Tim

PCT Interaction.doc (68 Bytes)

[From Rick Marken (980830.0910)]

Tim Carey (980830.1505) --

If this doesn't work I'll try something else.

I am using Word 6. This time I saw the text description
of the variables but no diagram. Sorry. I have no
idea what the problem is. How about Ascii?

Best

Rick

···

--

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