Control of behavior

Bruce_Gregory · September 2, 1998, 2:15pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980902.1015 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980902.0735 EDT)

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 modeling. This seems to be
the case concerning PCT. Hardly anyone can understand it, except the
experts, and they change their mind about the basics.

The minute we talk about "behavior", "coercion" or "cooperation" we are
talking about the correspondence between PCT and the everyday world where
language is often imprecise. I think this is a the heart of many
misunderstandings of PCT. Tim's diagrams are a great step forward in making
this language more precise.

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.

I agree. Understanding how people work is a key in knowing how to eliminate
conflict.

<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.>

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.

It really means that one control system is adapting to the disturbances
produced by another control system. (How's that for a PCT description of
ballroom dancing? Doesn't sound all that attractive, does it?)

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.

Agreed.

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.

Again I think the problem is introducing words that have no formal
counterpart in PCT. Rather than saying that my behavior is coerced by the
state troopers, I think it might be more illuminating to say that I adjust
the perceptions I am controlling to minimize the chance that I will disturb
their perceptions of proper speed. My version is long-winded, but it makes
the PCT connections more obvious, I hope.

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.

Yes I agree. Diagrams are probably the place to start. The way they are set
up tells a great deal about how we are attempting to use PCT to reflect the
"real world". We can't really move on to dynamics until the statics are
clear.

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?

I doubt they have. But understanding which perception needs to be controlled
has made my flying a lot more consistent.

Bruce Gregory

R_Marken · September 2, 1998, 6:02pm

[From Rick Marken (980902.1100)]

Kenny Kitzke (980902.0735 EDT)--

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.

But this is only true when both parties are being cooperative.
PCT can't make uncooperative interactions cooperative. Conflict
happens. PCT just explains how conflict works. What a person
does about conflict is just up to that person.

For someone who sees PCT as the kernel for finally eliminating
conflict among men...

PCT can't eliminate conflict; only people can eliminate conflict.
PCT just shows what the problem of conflict is.

Perhaps we are just having a communication problem, Kenny. I
say that people can control behavior; you say that PCT shows
that they can't. I think we may just be ignoring each other's
point of view.

You are correct when you say that one person cannot control
another person's behavior, except through the use of extreme
force. Even in the finger tracking demo, the controller is
not really _in control_ of the subject's behavior because the
controller cannot protect this perception from disturbance
(changes in the subject's reference), except by grabbing the
subject's finger and pulling it along. So the control exerted
by the controller (while the subject's finger goes along with
the controller's) is (as you say) somewhat illusory; it depends
on the existence of a feedback path that goes through an
autonomous control system -- a very different kind of environmental
feedback path than the ordinary, cause-effect kind.

My point is that, even though the control exerted by the
controller is somewhat illusory, the controller is still
_organized as a control system_ with respect of the controlled
aspect of the subject's behavior (finger movements). The
controller is acting as a controller even though his control
depends on the subject maintaining her reference for finger-
finger distance. That is, the controller is acting as a
controller even though he is really not _in control_.

The situation is rather like the experiment I describe starting
on p. 67 of _Mind Readings_. That experiment is a simple
tracking task where the subject actually loses control of
the cursor in the middle of the task. For the last minute
of the tracking task the subject is just seeing a playback
of cursor movements from the first part of the task. So the
subject has been completely cut off from the controlled
variable (the cursor's position); the subject has _no control_
over what he sees on the screen. But the transition to this
"open loop", no control situation is made smoothly so that
the subject _doesn't know_ that he is no longer in control
of cursor position. So the subject goes on _controlling the
cursor_ even though he is not really in control of the
cursor.

I think the controlling done by the subject during the
open loop part of this experiment is very much like
the controlling done by "behavior controlling" people.
Like the subject, the behavior controllers are really
_controlling_; but, like the subject in the "open loop"
experiment, they are not _really_ in control of the
controlled variable.

So it's correct to say (as you do) that the behavior of a
control system cannot really be controlled, just as it would
be correct to say that cursor position in the open loop phase
of the experiment cannot really be controlled. But it's also
correct to say that behavior controlling people are acting as
controllers of the (in fact) uncontrollable variable, just
as the subject in the open loop experimentare is acting as
controller of the (in fact) uncontrollable cursor.

Sometimes I think you are saying that, because people's
behavior cannot really be controlled, people cannot act as
behavior controllers. This is where I have problems. I am
willing to agree that people's behavior can't _really_ be
controlled (except by force) but I think it's very important
to see that people can still act _as though_ behavior can
be controlled (just as the subject acted _as though_ the
cursor could be controlled in the open-loop experiment). People
try to control behavior _even though_ behavior cannot really
be controlled. This is a problem because, even though the
"victim's" behavior cannot really be controlled by the would-be
behavior controller, this approach to dealing with behavior
is almost certain to produce _conflict_.

The only way to eliminate the conflict that results from human
efforts to control other humans (even though those other
humans can't really be controlled) is to get people to _see_
what's wrong with even _wanting_ to control other people.
Although you are correct in arguing that would-be behavior
controllers cannot really succeed in controlling behavior,
they can succeed in creating a lot of conflict and pain.

I (like you) take for granted that people can't really be
controlled (without the use of force); but I also see that
there are people acting _as though_ people _can_ be controlled.
You seem to think these people are not a problem because people
can't really be controlled. This is where we seem to part ways;
not about the fact that people can't be controlled but about
whether people who believe they _can_ are not a problem.

I think people can't _stop_ being would-be behavior controllers
until they are able to see when they are doing it; they have to
be able to see when they are organized as controllers of behavior.
People can't do this if the existence of behavior controlling
is denied by the non-controllability of behavior. People _do_
try to control behavior; PCT doesn't just tell us that
behavior control won't work; it also tells us what behavior
control _is_

It seems to me that many behavior controllers who learn PCT
but still don't _want_ to become aware of their own behavior
controlling orientation are likely to try to divert attention
from their behavior control agenda by pointing out that PCT
shows that people can't really be controlled. I hope you
can see now that this doesn't really solve the problem created
by a behavior controlling attitude.

Best

Rick

···

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

Tim_Carey1 · September 2, 1998, 8:06pm

[From Tim Carey (980903.0610)]

[From Rick Marken (980902.1100)]

A great post Rick. This makes a lot of previous issues very clear.

So it's correct to say (as you do) that the behavior of a
control system cannot really be controlled, just as it would
be correct to say that cursor position in the open loop phase
of the experiment cannot really be controlled. But it's also
correct to say that behavior controlling people are acting as
controllers of the (in fact) uncontrollable variable, just
as the subject in the open loop experimentare is acting as
controller of the (in fact) uncontrollable cursor.

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.

Regards,

Tim

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · September 2, 1998, 9:20pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980902.1535 EDT)]

Perhaps. And if that is all it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to
resolve.

On reflection, this perhaps can apply to *both* the person's external
observable actions and their internal behavior (the functioning of their
internal loop). If I force you to take mind altering drugs or sleeping
pills to reduce or eliminate your consciousness, I can control your actions
*and* also take control of your ability to compare and control your own
perceptions = behavior.

However, it does seem impossbile to control the internal thoughts,
reference values or perceptions of a conscious person. This false
expectation or hope is what seems to cause a great deal of conflict between
people: "Do this because I think you should do this whether you want to or
not."

PCT has helped me realize why telling people what I think they should do
(whether well intentioned or not) does not work well in changing others
actions much less their behavior. In fact, it often leads to conflict.
Not saying anything would have not raised a conflict. This is a
consultant's dilemma.

But, I know this. So, why can't I stop doing trying it? This is a hard
change to make (at least for me). Ask my wife or my kids or my associates
or my clients or you. When my wife says, "I don't know what to do about
going to the bank and getting cash or travelors checks" (said this morning
as we are going away for a week. I usually tell them what I think they
should do. A better response might be "What do you think you should do?"
Because, if she does not do what I responded, it brings on conflict and I
say, don't ask and I won't tell.

Why does it seem that certain people without any knowledge of PCT do much
better than me in getting B to change themselves to what A wants of B?
What value does understanding PCT have if I still fail about the same
percent of the time in getting others to do what I say or suggest? Or, is
this possibly just an illusion?

That is for sure. Some people seem to figure out what not to do without
knowledge of PCT and some of us can't seem to straighten ourselves out even
with PCT.

No. I think it is a huge problem. But, don't you still try to control the
behavior of others? People who don't test for the controlled variable in
behavior studies drive you crazy. You still try to change what they do,
don't you? Why? Doesn't it almost always lead to conflict and ill
feelings?

The more you master this change, the more likely people will
PCT can explain how behavior works, conflict works, coercion works,
cooperation works, motivation works, etc., If a person (or persons party
to an interaction) get a better understanding of these phenomena through
PCT over current psychology, then, shouldn't we expect people who prefer
cooperation and dislike conflict to be able to control more effectively for
what they want?

Chris_Cherpas · September 3, 1998, 2:46am

[From Chris Cherpas (980902.1935 PT)]

Chris Cherpas (980901.1345 PT)--

...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).

Bruce Gregory 9980901.1705 EDT)--

My experience is that people never "give up trying".
It has something to do with being a control system,
I suspect.

If conflict/error continues after the output capacity of
the control system is reached, then I would think that
one's resources would diverge from the reference/perception
in question (e.g., controlling someone else's behavior), and
less coercive replacements would begin to take shape:

- higher orders may begin to achieve their goals through
different means (e.g., negotiating with others);

- reorganizing may construct principles (e.g., trying to
control others can't be sustained) which ultimately
generate less conflict;

- new system concepts (e.g., I am one who observes himself with a
   detachment that allows me to understand my internal conflicts
   and resolve them _as_ internal conflicts; others live in
   the kind of subjective, perception-controlling world as I do;
   what I used to try to control are just my perceptions of
   the side effects of others' internal processes, which are not
   fundamentally different than my own).

"The best of me greets the best of you,"
cc

Bruce_Gregory · September 3, 1998, 1:43pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.0942 EDT)]

Chris Cherpas (980902.1935 PT)

Bruce Gregory 9980901.1705 EDT)--
> My experience is that people never "give up trying".
> It has something to do with being a control system,
> I suspect.

If conflict/error continues after the output capacity of
the control system is reached,

Wow! Let's hope it doesn't have to get this bad!

then I would think that
one's resources would diverge from the reference/perception
in question (e.g., controlling someone else's behavior), and
less coercive replacements would begin to take shape:

- higher orders may begin to achieve their goals through
different means (e.g., negotiating with others);

This involves reorganization. As such there is no way to predict the
outcome. You identify one of many possibilities.

- reorganizing may construct principles (e.g., trying to
control others can't be sustained) which ultimately
generate less conflict;

Again this involves reorganization at the highest levels of control. There
is, again, no way to predict the outcome.

- new system concepts (e.g., I am one who observes himself with a
   detachment that allows me to understand my internal conflicts
   and resolve them _as_ internal conflicts; others live in
   the kind of subjective, perception-controlling world as I do;
   what I used to try to control are just my perceptions of
   the side effects of others' internal processes, which are not
   fundamentally different than my own).

I am not sure this is a new system concept. It seems more like an idea. What
I am trying to say is that we need a method of _controlling_ this perception
at the system level. My guess is that such a change is possible only if it
leads to greater control. If conceptualizing yourself as a control system
leads to enhanced control, this is what you will do.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory · September 3, 1998, 2:24pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1023 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980902.1535 EDT)

Rick said,

<People try to control behavior _even though_ behavior cannot really
be controlled.>

Kenny said,

But, I know this. So, why can't I stop doing trying it?

Because you are a control system! A control system that doesn't control is
broken.

This is a hard
change to make (at least for me).

You are not alone.

Ask my wife or my kids or my associates
or my clients or you. When my wife says, "I don't know what to do about
going to the bank and getting cash or travelors checks" (said this morning
as we are going away for a week. I usually tell them what I think they
should do. A better response might be "What do you think you should do?"
Because, if she does not do what I responded, it brings on conflict and I
say, don't ask and I won't tell.

The problem here is that you are hearing her statement as a request for
advice, when it is probably a request for sympathetic understanding. Try
adopting the principle that no one wants your advice. I works for me!

Why does it seem that certain people without any knowledge of PCT do much
better than me in getting B to change themselves to what A wants of B?
What value does understanding PCT have if I still fail about the same
percent of the time in getting others to do what I say or suggest?

PCT simply tells you how people work. Knowing this does not necessarily
improve your ability to work with people. Knowing Newton's laws has failed
to make me a better tennis player.

That is for sure. Some people seem to figure out what not to do without
knowledge of PCT and some of us can't seem to straighten
ourselves out even
with PCT.

Some people control some relationships better than others.

The more you master this change, the more likely people will
PCT can explain how behavior works, conflict works, coercion works,
cooperation works, motivation works, etc., If a person (or persons party
to an interaction) get a better understanding of these phenomena through
PCT over current psychology, then, shouldn't we expect people who prefer
cooperation and dislike conflict to be able to control more
effectively for
what they want?

Yes, but like everything else, it takes practice.

Bruce Gregory

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · September 3, 1998, 3:13pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980903.1100 EDT)]

Thanks for this. Practical and PCT! I will try placing this in my
principle reference perception for family interactions. I will make them
ask so intensely, disturb my perceived variable for "no advice given" that
answering is the solution of last resort for my error reduction. Neat.

While this might work (I am going to try it) for family situations, how can
it be used when people hire you to consult with them and provide them sound
advice?

Best wishes,

Kenny

Bruce_Gregory · September 3, 1998, 8:30pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1630 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980903.1100 EDT)

While this might work (I am going to try it) for family
situations, how can
it be used when people hire you to consult with them and provide
them sound
advice?

I don't know. But you sure would stand out from all other consultants.

Bruce Gregory