Control of behavior

R_Marken · August 31, 1998, 10:09pm

[From Rick Marken (980831.1510)]

Me:

What is being negotiated?

Tim Carey (980901.0540)

It really depends on the situation. I don't think I could give
a blanket answer. If the kid wanted to sit in a different position
in the class because that would help them be less distracted or
whatever the teacher usually goes along with that...

Does this help?

Yes. Very much. And it sounds great. I think it would be nice if
"making a plan" had been called something else -- like "negotiating
a solution" and that the negotiation process had been more clearly
described as such. When I read about "making a plan" it sounded
more like an ultimatum than a negotiation; I thought the student
had to produce a plan that the teacher approved or the kid couldn't
get back into the class. But the way you describe it, it sounds
like the student isn't the only one who has to "make a plan"; the
teacher has to make a "plan" too; one that is approved by the
student as much as the student has to make a plan that is approved
by the teacher. That is, indeed, a negotiation.

Me:

The controller is controlling the "victim's" controlled variable.
Look at your diagram; if A decided to control B's cv', instead
of just disturbing it to control B's qo', then you would have
the situation I described; a controlled variable (cv') that is
controlled by the controller. Try altering your diagram to show
this.

Tim Carey (980901.0545)--

I'm really struggling with this one and perhaps this is behind my
difficulty in understanding other things you've explained. How do
I represent this on the diagram? In order to control their cv, do
I make their qo my cv?

No. You make their cv your cv.

If, while doing this ["Test for the Controlled Variable"] demo,
my reference was to keep two squares "clear" would the demo
still work?

Sure. The way it's set up, when you intend to move one, then the
other two remain clear. So you can control for two being clear
by controlling for one being filled.

if I was just controlling for two squares staying clear then it
could be the case that, at times, the other square would go black
and in this instance that would seem to be an unintended side
effect wouldn't it?

Controlling doesn't just involve setting references; it also
involves having a control system in place that can produce and
maintain the perceptual variable in the reference state.It's not
enough to just _want_ the two squares unfilled; you also have to
be able to control this result; the only way to control this
result (in the context of the demo) is by intentionally moving
one of the squares so that it turns black; the two other squares
are now unfilled (as you wanted). It's true that this perception
is a "side effect" of intentionally moving one square. But it is
the perception you wanted and you can produce it reliably only by
intentionally moving one square. Indeed, you could even resist
disturbances using this strategy. For example, if a randomly
selected square went black every so often, even if you weren't
controlling it, then sometimes you would have only one unfilled
square on the screen. You could correct for this disturbance by
letting go of the mouse so that you are no longer in control of
_any_ square. Eventually, only the one randomly blacked out square
will be visible so you will have the desired "two unfilled squares"
perception once again. So you could control for "two unfilled squares"
(against the random blacked out square disturbance) by intentionally
moving one or none of the squares.

If I see someone sitting on a park bench and I observe him to be
stationary. Do I say that he is just sitting?

Sure. If that's all you think he's doing.

If he is running through different scenes in his imagination (say
the romantic dinner he's looking forward to tonight...from the
PCT perspective none of this would be considered "behaviour"
would it because none of it is observable. Am I right in assuming
this?

Yes and no. Obviously, he's the only one who can observe this
behavior. So it's behavior from the point of view of the actor,
not the observer. In order to study this kind of behavior, we
would have to figure out how to make that behavior visible to
the observer. I suppose what you are getting at is that this
behavior is not controllable by an external observer -- and I
agree. The external observer can only control aspects of the
actor's behavior that he (the observer) can perceive. So you can't
control what other people think; but you can control what other
people do.

If a baby cries and I've picked it up then I've controlled it's
orientation, is that what you're saying?

Yes. If orientation is a variable the baby is capable of
controlling. If not, then you are not controlling one of the
baby's controlled variables.

If it was controlling for being picked up, does this make me
part of the babies feedback function?

Yes. The baby is controlling its perception (of being picked
up) by creating a disturbance to one of your perceptions (baby
loudness). You try to control this perception by acting on
the baby (picking it up). If all goes well (which it does in
10% of the cases) everybody is happy; the baby has controlled
for being picked up and you have controlled for shutting it up.

OK, so behaviour is only considered to be what you can see. Does
that mean that once qi becomes p it is no longer behaviour? Is
behaviour then, anything that's not a neural signal?

The behavior of perception (p) is another aspect of behavior;
but it is behavior that is _only_ observable from the point of
view of the actor.

Best

Rick

···

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

Chris_Cherpas · September 1, 1998, 12:27am

[From Chris Cherpas (980831.1724 PT)]
Regarding: plans negotiated in Responsible Thinking

Rick Marken (980831.1510)--

What is being negotiated?

Tim Carey (980901.0540)--

If the kid wanted to sit in a different position
in the class because that would help them be less
distracted or whatever...

Sounds specific to what might make it easier to
not disrupt the class, or is that not necessarily so?
If not, is what the kid gets something s/he might
not have gotten by just asking for it (without it being
a negotiation chip for returning to the class)?

Regards,
cc

Tim_Carey1 · September 1, 1998, 12:47pm

[From Tim Carey (980901.2300)]

[From Chris Cherpas (980831.1724 PT)]

Sounds specific to what might make it easier to
not disrupt the class, or is that not necessarily so?
If not, is what the kid gets something s/he might
not have gotten by just asking for it (without it being
a negotiation chip for returning to the class)?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The purpose of the kid making a plan is
to help the kid succeed back in class.

Regards,

Tim

Tim_Carey1 · September 1, 1998, 1:02pm

[From Tim Carey (980901.2305)]

[From Rick Marken (980831.1510)]

Yes. Very much. And it sounds great. I think it would be nice if
"making a plan" had been called something else -- like "negotiating
a solution" and that the negotiation process had been more clearly
described as such.

Yep. I think that would sound heaps better.

When I read about "making a plan" it sounded

more like an ultimatum than a negotiation; I thought the student
had to produce a plan that the teacher approved or the kid couldn't
get back into the class.

Again, I agree. I think a lot of what's written about RTP and even some of
the verbal explanations can sound really heavy handed.

But the way you describe it, it sounds

like the student isn't the only one who has to "make a plan"; the
teacher has to make a "plan" too; one that is approved by the
student as much as the student has to make a plan that is approved
by the teacher. That is, indeed, a negotiation.

Yep, this is about the way I see it. A large contribution to the success of
the plan (I believe, although I don't have any hard evidence yet) is the
degree to which the teacher gets involved in the negotiation process and
the interest they show in the extent to which the kid follows the plan down
the track.

No. You make their cv your cv.

OK, I think I could represent this on the diagram (just one common cv) but
how does this actually occur? For me to control your cv it would seem that
I would have to know what you were controlling for and I would also have to
know when you changed what you were controlling for. On this diagram would
there still be disturbances or is each person a disturbance to the other?

Yes and no. Obviously, he's the only one who can observe this
behavior. So it's behavior from the point of view of the actor,
not the observer. In order to study this kind of behavior, we
would have to figure out how to make that behavior visible to
the observer. I suppose what you are getting at is that this
behavior is not controllable by an external observer -- and I
agree. The external observer can only control aspects of the
actor's behavior that he (the observer) can perceive. So you can't
control what other people think; but you can control what other
people do.

At this stage I'm not so concerned about tackling the "who controls what"
stuff, I'm still trying to sort out the term "behaviour". A couple of posts
ago I thought it was stated that behaviour referred to qo and qi. Was this
only from an external perspective? Would p also be considered "behaviour"
from an internal perspective?

The behavior of perception (p) is another aspect of behavior;
but it is behavior that is _only_ observable from the point of
view of the actor.

I think this answers my question above. Am I right in saying then, that qo,
qi, and p are all _aspects_ of behaviour?

In the chapter on Reward and Punishment in Bill's new book at one point he
says: "But in the back of your mind, you'll have a little virus working
called PCT. It will whisper to your inner ear, "You didn't *make* him
do that; he's trying to get what he wants and that's why he did it." Does
this still fit in with concepts like controlling someone else's cv?

Thanks for sticking with this Rick ... in some areas the fog seems to be
lifting?

Regards,

Tim

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · September 1, 1998, 3:09pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980901.1050 EDT)]

Victim? The person wants to keep his finger on yours! The leader is not
controlling the voluntary behavior of the other person. You do not "make"
the other person follow your finger. They want to and do so voluntarily!
They are controlling their own perceptions of where they want their finger
to be by moving it in accord with the leader's finger.

This is exactly like the rubber band experiment. The "victim" student can
stop his actions at anytime he wants to do so. When no longer perceiving
to want the knot on the dot, the student stops his behaving (actions)
opposite to those of the instructor.

The instructor cannot prevent the abandonment of the student's actions
short of coercion, use of force against the student's will. Are you now
teaching that the instructor is not only behaving to control his own
perceptions, but is unilaterally controlling the motions of the student's
finger?

Finger movements in the example you gave are the behavior of the student
controlling their perception for wanting to keep a spatial relationship to
the instructor's finger. All the instructor can do change the location of
his own finger and see if the student still wants to maintain that
relationship. If cooperation ends, the instructor may be able to coerce
the student to continue even if the student resents this, because of the
power of teacher over student (controls his grade).

Your interpretations of these interactions and models which show what you
want to show do not help me learn. To me, they make PCT a special form of
S-R. Just one more S-R theory a guy who did a model and experiment with
rats and lever pressings did and made irroneous conclusions about what the
rat was doing from what he observed. A behavioral illusion.

Rick, you cannot control my actions except through the use of overwhelming
force. If these actions are against my will, we call it coercion. If
these actions are in my will, we call it cooperation. In cooperation,
behavior of A and B is properly described as two parties controlling their
own perceptions for the same variable and reference level. Your post did
not cause me to respond. I responded because your characterizations are
destroying my excitement over the PCT explanation of how behavior works in
people and how it affects interactions between people.

I wish this could be straightened out. Judging from the many posts on this
subject which I have not yet read, I imagine people sure aren't acceding to
your ever changing views and definitions of basics.

R_Marken · September 1, 1998, 3:21pm

[From Rick Marken (980901.0820)]

Tim Carey (980901.2305)--

For me to control your cv it would seem that I would have to
know what you were controlling for and I would also have to
know when you changed what you were controlling for.

You don't have to know what another person is controlling in
order to control what they are controlling. In fact, most behavior
controllers are completely oblivious to the fact that they are
controlling a variable that another agent is trying to control.
The world we experience is a world of perceptual _variables_;
intensities, colors, shapes, movements, sequences, programs,
principles, etc.

The world is varying in many ways all the time. Some of these
variations are caused by variations in the inanimate world; the
level of the water in a bucket may vary, for example, as the
result of variations in weather conditions. Other variations
are _controlled_ by living systems; the level of water in the
bucket may, in fact, vary because it is being controlled by
the farmer who lives in the house where the bucket sits.

The water level in the bucket is just a variable aspect of your
own perceptions. Suppose, however, that the water level _is_ being
controlled by the farmer and you don't know it. If, for whatever
reason, you decide to control the water level in the bucket,
then you are controlling one of the farmer's controlled variables.
If control of that variable is very important to you and you are
strong enough to resist all disturbances to that variable (including
the farmer coming at you with a gun to get you away from the
bucket) then you can successfully control a variable that is
being controlled by another control system. And you did it without
even knowing that you were doing it; you didn't know that the farmer
was also trying to control the water level; when the farmer comes
at you with a gun you just think he's a crazy loon terrorist and
blow him away.

I think most control of behavior happens like this; people want
to control something that other people want to control and they
may not know (or care) that these other people are trying to
control for the same variable.

I think this answers my question above. Am I right in saying then,
that qo, qi, and p are all _aspects_ of behaviour?

Yes!

In the chapter on Reward and Punishment in Bill's new book at one
point he says: "But in the back of your mind, you'll have a little
virus working called PCT. It will whisper to your inner ear, "You
didn't *make* him do that; he's trying to get what he wants and
that's why he did it." Does this still fit in with concepts like
controlling someone else's cv?

Yes! I think this is the most important sentence in Bill's book;
if you understand this, then you understand how PCT will eventually
(in three or four hundred years or so) make the world a decent
place for _all_ people to live, not just the clever and strong.

What Bill is saying here can be illustrated with the finger
tracking demo. When you (the "controller") move your finger so
that your subject (the "victim") moves hers in the way _you_
want, you are definitely _controlling_ the subject's behavior
(actions, in this case). What Bill is saying is that there are
basically two different attitudes you can take toward this
controlling. The first is the non-PCT attitude: I want this
person to move her finger in a circle and I have figured out
a way to _force_ her to do it. The second is the PCT attitude:
I want this person to move her finger in a circle and she is
doing it because she is getting what she wants, too.

The non-PCT attitude is the _controlling_ attitude; it assumes
that people will _only_ do what you want if they are forced, in
some way, to do it. What's interesting about the contrlling
attitude is that it fails to recognize the controlling done
by oneself _and_ the victim. This is actually one of the
tenets of MOL; you can't see your own attitude from the point
of view of the attitude itself; you can't see your controlling
attitude from the point of view of that attitude; you just
want to be in control.

The PCT attitude is "up a level" from the non-PCT attitude;
the PCT attitude is the _non-controlling_ attitude; it recognizes
that both you _and_ the victim are controllers; that both you
and the victim want the world (including each other) to behave
in certain ways. It's the attitude that allows negotiation.
That is, it allows you to go from surreptitiously controlling
the victim's finger movements by taking advantage of her intention
to keep her finger near yours to openly asking the victim "do
you mind if I move your finger in circles, but slowly enough to
allow you to keep you finger near mine"? In other words "I'll
let you control yours if you let me control mine".

Best

Rick

···

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

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 3:35pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980901.1135 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980901.1050 EDT)

Rick, you cannot control my actions except through the use of overwhelming
force. If these actions are against my will, we call it coercion. If
these actions are in my will, we call it cooperation. In cooperation,
behavior of A and B is properly described as two parties controlling their
own perceptions for the same variable and reference level. Your post did
not cause me to respond. I responded because your characterizations are
destroying my excitement over the PCT explanation of how behavior works in
people and how it affects interactions between people.

I wish this could be straightened out. Judging from the many
posts on this
subject which I have not yet read, I imagine people sure aren't
acceding to
your ever changing views and definitions of basics.

I am sympathetic to your distress. I can offer what I hope is a constructive
suggestion. Ignore whatever Rick says, but pay attention to his models. The
model of finger-following posted by Tim is very clear and Rick agrees that
it is accurate. It demonstrates what Rick means by controlling the behavior
of another. The model is totally consistent with what you say in this post
as well. When it comes to the model, you and Rick are in total agreement.
When it comes to talking about the model, you and Rick _sound_ as though you
are greatly at odds. Rick often says things in ways that sometimes upset
even mild mannered folks like me. The only way around this seems to be to
stick to the models. I suspect Rick would say that ballroom dancing is a
form of coercion. I think it's cooperation. But we both model it in the same
way.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 3:48pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980901.1145 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980901.0820)

Tim:

> In the chapter on Reward and Punishment in Bill's new book at one
> point he says: "But in the back of your mind, you'll have a little
> virus working called PCT. It will whisper to your inner ear, "You
> didn't *make* him do that; he's trying to get what he wants and
> that's why he did it." Does this still fit in with concepts like
> controlling someone else's cv?

Rick:

Yes! I think this is the most important sentence in Bill's book;
if you understand this, then you understand how PCT will eventually
(in three or four hundred years or so) make the world a decent
place for _all_ people to live, not just the clever and strong.

While I agree with your sentiments, I want to note that they do not require
PCT to adopt nor does PCT lead to them. Adolph Hitler could understand PCT
perfectly and behave in exactly the way he behaved. If you want to dominate,
all PCT tells you is that you will encounter resistance. Those who
masterminded the holocaust managed to minimize even this resistance. In a
sense they did so by allowing those they dominated to exercise control
(organizing trains to the death camps) without interfering with their own
destruction.

Bruce Gregory

R_Marken · September 1, 1998, 4:57pm

[From Rick Marken (980901.1000)]

Kenny Kitzke (980901.1050 EDT)--

Victim? The person wants to keep his finger on yours! The leader
is not controlling the voluntary behavior of the other person.
You do not "make" the other person follow your finger. They want
to and do so voluntarily!

You are half way there! You are right that the person tracking the
finger is, indeed, doing this voluntarily. But you fail to see that
the "leader" is controlling this behavior. PCT is about recognizing
one's _own_ controlling as well as the controlling done by others.

Are you now teaching that the instructor is not only behaving
to control his own perceptions, but is unilaterally controlling
the motions of the student's finger?

I am teaching that both phrases of this sentence are saying
the _same thing_. Saying "the instructor is controlling his own
perceptions" is exactly the same (in the finger tracking
situation) as saying thet the instructor is "unilaterally
controlling the motions of the student's finger". The motions
of the student's finger are the perceptions the instructor is
controlling.

Remember, you can be organized to control a variable (like
the position of a house or the behavior of another person)
even if you cannot reliably control it.

In cooperation, behavior of A and B is properly described as
two parties controlling their own perceptions for the same
variable and reference level.

This is one kind of cooperation; another is where A controls
for something via B so that B can control for something via A;
A controls for money via B so that B can control for getting
a product made by A.

I think the only thing you are missing is that the essense of
cooperation -- what distinguishes it from blind mutual control --
is _communication_. The people in the finger tracking situation
are cooperating _if_ both have _agreed_ to accept the controlling
done by the other ; the "victim" agrees to control for keeping
her finger aligned with yours so that _you_ can control the
pattern of her finger movements; and you have agreed to allow
the victim to control finger alignment (by moving your finger
slowly and smoothly) so that you can control her pattern of
finger movements. All parties are aware of (and have _agreed
to_) the controlling done by the other.

People can't stop being controllers but they can work out
agreements with other control systems about what they will
all be controlling. This is called negotiation.

I'm sure you (Kenny) know that communication is essential
for successful cooperation. The problem is that you keep
leaving this out of your descriptions of interactions between
control systems. You seem to be saying that a person, like a
leader, is not controlling other people if what he wants
those people to do is what those people happen (unbeknowest
to the leader) to want to do anyway.

The problem is that you never talk about whether the leader
makes any effort to determine whether his followers really
want to do what s/he wants them to do. You talk as though a
leader becomes cooperative if, by chance, s/he happens to
want people to do what they want to do anyway. I don't think
this is real cooperation; at best it's "lucky" cooperation. If
this kind of "cooperation" happens (and it may happen occasionally)
it happens by chance rather than design. And if, as is more
likely, this lucky form of cooperation doesn't happen (the leader
wants people to do what they _don't want to do) you provide no
hint about how to solve the problem . All you can do is suggest
that the leader start wanting from his followers what his
followers want. But you don't say how the leader can do that,
even if s/he _wants_ to do that.

I wish this could be straightened out.

I think it will be.

Best

Rick

···

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

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 5:14pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980901.1310 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980901.1000)

I think the only thing you are missing is that the essence of
cooperation -- what distinguishes it from blind mutual control --
is _communication_. The people in the finger tracking situation
are cooperating _if_ both have _agreed_ to accept the controlling
done by the other ; the "victim" agrees to control for keeping
her finger aligned with yours so that _you_ can control the
pattern of her finger movements; and you have agreed to allow
the victim to control finger alignment (by moving your finger
slowly and smoothly) so that you can control her pattern of
finger movements. All parties are aware of (and have _agreed
to_) the controlling done by the other.

What does a PCT model of communication look like? We could certainly make
good use of it on this net.

Do the posted speed limits on the turnpike serve as communication? Clearly
we are not explicitly asked to agree to the control exercised by the
government. Are we therefore not cooperating?

Bruce Gregory

R_Marken · September 1, 1998, 7:30pm

[From Rick Marken (980901.1230)]

Me:

I think the only thing you are missing is that the essence of
cooperation -- what distinguishes it from blind mutual control --
is _communication_.

Bruce Gregory (980901.1310 EDT)--

What does a PCT model of communication look like? We could
certainly make good use of it on this net.

It would be like the PCT model of all behavior: closed loop
control of perception. But I don't think we need a model of
communication in order to be able to negotiate successfully.
All we need is the willingness to do it.

Do the posted speed limits on the turnpike serve as
communication?

I'll treat this as though it were a serious inquiry.

The answer is no; this is obviously not the kind of communication
I was talking about. Posted speed limits don't negotiate.

Clearly, we are not explicitly asked to agree to the control
exercised by the government. Are we therefore not cooperating?

No. Cooperation is not a one way street, although some people
do use the term that way -- the businessman "cooperates" with
the mob by paying money in exchange for their "protection";
the witness "cooperates" with Starr by giving testimony in
exchange for immunity.

In real cooperation, all parties respect each other's intentions;
one party doesn't try to impose it's intentions on the other.
This is obviously not the case with the mob (the mob enforcer
will take steps to force the businessman to pay for protection
if he seems disinclined to pay for it), the Starr chamber (Starr
will take steps to force a witness to testify if she seems
disinclined to do so) and the government (a government agent -- a
policeman -- will take steps to force you to drive within the
speed limit if you seem inclined to drive faster).

Best

Rick

···

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

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 8:04pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980901.1600 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980901.1230)

It would be like the PCT model of all behavior: closed loop
control of perception. But I don't think we need a model of
communication in order to be able to negotiate successfully.
All we need is the willingness to do it.

I've grown suspicious of anything we don't model.

> Do the posted speed limits on the turnpike serve as
> communication?

I'll treat this as though it were a serious inquiry.

Thanks. It _was_ serious.

The answer is no; this is obviously not the kind of communication
I was talking about. Posted speed limits don't negotiate.

> Clearly, we are not explicitly asked to agree to the control
> exercised by the government. Are we therefore not cooperating?

No. Cooperation is not a one way street, although some people
do use the term that way -- the businessman "cooperates" with
the mob by paying money in exchange for their "protection";
the witness "cooperates" with Starr by giving testimony in
exchange for immunity.

Fair enough. Most societal constraints are definitely not cooperative. Short
of going back to the New England Town meeting (which I have) and a much
smaller scale society it seems unlikely that they ever will be. Like the
disappearance of Athenian democracy, a negotiated society seems an
unrealizable ideal.

Bruce Gregory

Chris_Cherpas · September 1, 1998, 8:52pm

[From Chris Cherpas (980901.1345 PT)]

Bruce Gregory (980901.1600 EDT)--

...Like the disappearance of Athenian democracy,
a negotiated society seems an unrealizable ideal.

While I agree that the evidence does not look good
on this issue, the possibility exists that if it
were universally accepted that behavior is the
control of perception, and people recognized that
trying to control others' behavior inevitably
leads to (more) conflict, then they may eventually
give up trying (e.g., "Control Theory: The Road to
Utopia" -- in LCS II).

Meanwhile, neither the committed pessimist nor the
committed optimist can revise his/her belief on
the basis of new evidence.

Best regards,
cc

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 9:04pm

[From Bruce Gregory 9980901.1705 EDT)]

Chris Cherpas (980901.1345 PT)

Bruce Gregory (980901.1600 EDT)--
> ...Like the disappearance of Athenian democracy,
> a negotiated society seems an unrealizable ideal.

While I agree that the evidence does not look good
on this issue, the possibility exists that if it
were universally accepted that behavior is the
control of perception, and people recognized that
trying to control others' behavior inevitably
leads to (more) conflict, then they may eventually
give up trying (e.g., "Control Theory: The Road to
Utopia" -- in LCS II).

My experience is that people never "give up trying". It has something to do
with being a control system, I suspect. My concern is that knowing how
people work will lead to more efficient methods of control, not an
abandonment of the effort. It's clear that bad things happen when people
feel they have no control. Let's allow them _some_ control then, so we can
divert their attention from what we are up to. Bread and Circuses, I think
the Romans called the approach.

Bruce Gregory

Tim_Carey1 · September 1, 1998, 8:53pm

[From Tim Carey (980902.0615)]

[From Rick Marken (980901.0820)]

The water level in the bucket is just a variable aspect of your
own perceptions. Suppose, however, that the water level _is_ being
controlled by the farmer and you don't know it. If, for whatever
reason, you decide to control the water level in the bucket,
then you are controlling one of the farmer's controlled variables.

OK. I've used this example and had a go at drawing another diagram. Can we
try the same pony express with Bruce G. passing it on to you? I'd
appreciate your comments (and anyone else who wants to chime in).

I think most control of behavior happens like this; people want
to control something that other people want to control and they
may not know (or care) that these other people are trying to
control for the same variable.

Yep, I can see how this applies to lots of situations involving more than
one person (the happiness of a marriage, the noise level in a classroom,
etc), essentially it just seems to refer to the idea that two people are
both controlling the same aspect of their collective environment.

> I think this answers my question above. Am I right in saying then,
> that qo, qi, and p are all _aspects_ of behaviour?

Yes!

This is what I was referring to when I used the vague and clumsy term "the
working of the entire loop".

Yes! I think this is the most important sentence in Bill's book;
if you understand this, then you understand how PCT will eventually
(in three or four hundred years or so) make the world a decent
place for _all_ people to live, not just the clever and strong.

I'd like to think this too but it does sound a tad cause/effect ... certain
knowledge will produce certain results

What Bill is saying here can be illustrated with the finger
tracking demo. When you (the "controller") move your finger so
that your subject (the "victim") moves hers in the way _you_
want, you are definitely _controlling_ the subject's behavior
(actions, in this case). What Bill is saying is that there are
basically two different attitudes you can take toward this
controlling. The first is the non-PCT attitude: I want this
person to move her finger in a circle and I have figured out
a way to _force_ her to do it. The second is the PCT attitude:
I want this person to move her finger in a circle and she is
doing it because she is getting what she wants, too.

Yep.

The PCT attitude is "up a level" from the non-PCT attitude;
the PCT attitude is the _non-controlling_ attitude; it recognizes
that both you _and_ the victim are controllers; that both you
and the victim want the world (including each other) to behave
in certain ways. It's the attitude that allows negotiation.

This sounds like the PCT I thought I knew.

That is, it allows you to go from surreptitiously controlling
the victim's finger movements by taking advantage of her intention
to keep her finger near yours to openly asking the victim "do
you mind if I move your finger in circles, but slowly enough to
allow you to keep you finger near mine"? In other words "I'll
let you control yours if you let me control mine".

Thanks,

Tim

PCT - same cv’s.doc (68 Bytes)

R_Marken · September 1, 1998, 10:29pm

[From Rick Marken (980901.1530)]

Tim Carey (980902.0615)--

OK. I've used this example and had a go at drawing another
diagram. Can we try the same pony express with Bruce G.
passing it on to you?

No need. I can read it here at work (I have one of those cool
machines that can be BOTH a PC and a Mac). The diagram is
perfect, right down to the appropriate labels for the
disturbances! You get an A+. This is a model of conflict such
as the kind that exists in my "Cost of Conflict" and
"Different Worlds" demos. Very nice work, Tim!

Best

Rick

···

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

Bruce_Gregory · September 1, 1998, 11:26pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980901.1945 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980901.1530)

No need. I can read it here at work (I have one of those cool
machines that can be BOTH a PC and a Mac). The diagram is
perfect, right down to the appropriate labels for the
disturbances! You get an A+. This is a model of conflict such
as the kind that exists in my "Cost of Conflict" and
"Different Worlds" demos. Very nice work, Tim!

Rarely have we enjoyed such unanimity of opinion. Thanks Tim. And Rick.

Bruce Gregory

Tim_Carey1 · September 1, 1998, 11:48pm

[From Tim Carey (980902.0955)]

[From Rick Marken (980901.1530)]

No need. I can read it here at work (I have one of those cool
machines that can be BOTH a PC and a Mac). The diagram is
perfect, right down to the appropriate labels for the
disturbances! You get an A+. This is a model of conflict such
as the kind that exists in my "Cost of Conflict" and
"Different Worlds" demos. Very nice work, Tim!

Thanks Rick, I actually enjoyed doing it. Now when I eventually learn how
to build the thing I'll _really_ be happy :-). Incidentally, would this
diagram cover both conflict and cooperation by just changing the
references? For example if we both want the bucket half full this would
seem to be cooperation but if I want it half full and you want it full then
we would seem to have conflict.

Thanks for your comments,

Regards,

Tim

Rupert_J_Young · September 2, 1998, 10:03am

[From Rupert Young (9800902.1100 BST)]

Tim Carey (980902.0615)

OK. I've used this example and had a go at drawing another diagram. Can we
try the same pony express with Bruce G. passing it on to you? I'd
appreciate your comments (and anyone else who wants to chime in).

In all versions posted so far all I can see is a list of variables. I have
word7. Is there a diagram ? Has anyone worked out how to get it ?

Regards,
Rupert

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · September 2, 1998, 12:13pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980902.0735 EDT)]

Thanks. And, thanks for trying to understand my distress.

I admit that I never have run Rick's models. Maybe that is why I can't
understand what he claims? I have saved the recent replies between Rick
and Tim because they deal with items that simply are not clear. This is
helpful because when the basics are unclear, it is difficult to get people
to understand the theory which the model is modelling. This seems to be
the case concerning PCT. Hardly anyone can understand it, except the
experts, and they change their mind about the basics.

It leaves us neophytes trying to understand the theory and apply it in a
fuzzy haze. Kids may tolerate fuzzy things. Working with managers, they
want things more clear cut. When someone I am training says, "Just what do
you mean by behavior?" and I have to struggle to give an answer (like this
whole thread), I won't have much credibility. If the best I can do is tell
them its qo, qi and p, except when your cv is the same as mine and you have
run Rick Marken's demos, it will be the last session at that client.

That is why I am so frustrated right now. After learning that we behave to
control our perceptions (that we *do not* behave because the environment or
another human is causing me to behave and it is just an illusion if you
observe it) I saw great applications for eliminating personal conflict and
even conflict with other people.

Rick might say that an aspect of the woman's behavior during ballroom
dancing is being controlled by the man partner (leads the steps, tempo,
etc.). This is S-R theory to me.

Where PCT is unique and valuable is in understanding that both parties are
controlling their own perceptions and the interaction is cooperative
because they have mutually supportive wants. When the man wants to twirl
faster than the woman wants, there will be conflict. It may turn to
coercion. Both are inferior to cooperation.

The current revised perceptions (complete with apologies) of the basics of
the theory have not only made PCT harder to understand (if that is
possible) but detracts from what is a rather simple conceptual model of a
control system that others can grasp without devoting 20 years of their
life to PCT modeling. If this is what it takes to grasp PCT as well as
Rick claims to have done, many will conclude this PCT stuff is not worth
learning.

For someone who sees PCT as the kernel for finally eliminating conflict
among men, Rick has a propensity to cause conflict that seems no better
than a PCT-illiterate. Again, the value of PCT is questionable or at least
diminished. If PCT basics are fuzzy and understanding PCT does not solve
many problems, its future looks dim based on these observations.

But, I still feel PCT is a better theory of behavior and has enormous
potential. I've proved this sufficiently to myself without running models.
So, I will hang in there. I certainly will read Bill's new book with a
clean sheet of paper. Then, I'll see whether running Rick's models help
me. They seem to help him. Have they helped any baseball fielders catch
fly balls better?