[From Rick Marken (2017.06.26.1200)]
RM: I changed the subject line because I was really interested in Martin’s idea that people are controlling a particular program perception – the TCV – when they interact. I think this is a nice opportunity to discuss the PCT view of complex behavior as the control of complex perceptions, like programs.Â
···
Martin Taylor (2017.06.25.17.54)
MT: True, but that's not responsive to what I said, which you actuallyquoted, but perhaps did not read.
RM: Yes, sorry. I see that you also said: “They do this by acting in ways that would disturb the perceptions they hypothesize that the other is controlling, and observe the actions produced by the other”. This is a description of what you imagine them to be doing. So it is not evidence that they are actually doing this (where “doing” means “doing it intentionally”; controlling). What you imagine them to be doing is controlling a program perception called “carrying out the TCV”. That’s the program perception you partially describe when you say that they are “acting in ways that would disturb the perceptions they hypothesize that the other is controlling, and observe the actions produced by the other”.  “Partially”, because you left out the contingency “if the observed actions don’t counter the disturbance to the hypothesized perception then revise the hypothesis about the controlled perception and act in ways that would disturb that perception”.Â
RM: All we can see when we observe behavior are the system’s outputs and the consequences of those outputs. In verbal interactions the outputs can be considered the things people say to each other (though, in fact, those output are themselves consequences of the most proximate system outputs – muscle contractions and relaxations, such as those of the diaphragm). There are many consequences of those outputs, some intended (such as, possibly, communicating an idea) and some not (like, possibly, making the listener angry). You are proposing that one of the intended consequences of the things people say is a program called the TCV. The only way to determine whether or not this is, in fact, happening, is to test to see if that program perception is, indeed, being controlled.Â
MT: No. My hypothesis, if you want to call it that, is that people whoare trying to find out what each other’s intentions are are carrying
out a Test for the Controlled Variable, whether the actual technique
conforms to the classical TCV or not.
RM: Â Right. But I think any approach to doing the TCV would be a program. So your general hypothesis is that people in interactions are trying to find out other’s intentions by controlling for a program perception that is some variant of the TCV. You would test this general hypothesis by testing different specific hypotheses about the exact program perception being controlled.Â
MT: The "General Protocol Grammar"described in any of my publications of the Layered protocol Theory
describes the technique for a collaborative (or deceptive)
interaction. In fact, I think it does conform, though not to the
version you prescribe below. If it doesn’t, that would be a
demonstration that there’s more than one way to do a TCV.
RM: Great. I assume that the “General Protocol Grammar” is a program so it could serve as one of the hypotheses about the program that is controlled in interactions.Â
MT: Yes, that could be a Test for a controlled variable. It's notunique, however. You offered a 9-step version by Phil Runkel in
[From Rick Marken (2016.09.30.2155)]. Â
MT: Here's another possibility. Ask someone what they want. Give it themand see whether they cease the action that appeared to be involved
in bringing that variable closer to its reference value. Granted,
the result is not unique, but neither is it for your proposal.Â
RM: I agree. These are all possible hypotheses about the program that is controlled in interactions. Some people may control for one type of program, some for another or people may not control for any of these programs. But in order to conclude that anyone is (or is not) controlling for any of these program perceptions you have to test to see whether the program is being controlled. As I said, doing this in natural interactions could be very difficult, though it should be doable. But I believe the best way to start this kind of research is to show how control of program perceptions can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment.Â
RM: So, as a learning exercise I would like to invite proposals for demonstrations of control of a program perception. And if that’s too easy for some of you, you could add a proposal for a demonstration of control of a principle or system concept or any type of higher order (complex) perception!
BestÂ
Rick
–
MT: That there IS an interaction, in which each party istrying to discover the intentions of the other – at
several levels, I should add. They do this by acting in
ways that would disturb the perceptions they hypothesise
that the other is controlling, and observe the actions
produced by the other.
RM: The fact that there is an interaction between
people is not evidence that the parties to the interaction
are carrying out the TCV.
RM: What is the evidence that these
interactions involve mutual use of the TCV?
RM: Your hypothesis is that people who are interacting
are carrying out the TCV.
RM: The TCV is a program of actions inasmuch as it
involves at least one contingency (if-then branch). So you
are hypothesizing that the participants in an interaction
are controlling a program perception called the TCV that
can be described as follows:Â
-
Hypothesize a new controlled variable
2. Apply disturbance that should have an effect on the
variable if it is not controlled
-
If the disturbance does have an effect the goto 1
4. Else tentatively assume the hypothesized variable is
controlled
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery