Controlling for controlling

[From Rick Marken (940524.1330)]

Tom Bourbon (940524.1437) --

Me:

For those who still think that perceptual control theory applies only to
"stick wiggling" manual control tasks, I submit the following as an example
of control -- collective at that -- of a rather high level variable, and
not a stick in sight.

Tom:

Good example. Of course none of the people you quoted would disagree
with your interpretation, would they? (Or would someone?)

I think this is an excellent question. When I read it, it made me
realize that there is another possible reason (besides it's revolutionary
nature) why PCT is actively ignored; actually, two reasons: 1) people
don't like to think of what they are doing as controlling and 2) they
don't like to be TOLD that they are controlling, whether or not they
are willing to think of themselves as controllers.

I have a feeling that, even if the people I quoted don't disagree with
my claim that they are controlling (that is, even if they don't mind
thinking of themselves as controllers) some probably felt a little (or
maybe alot) annoyed at being told that they were controlling.

I would like to hear the the answer to Tom's question, viz. does anyone
disagree with my interpretation of the quotes as being evidence of
controlling? But I would also like to have all of you -- Gary, Tom,
Bill C. and Bill P. -- answer as honestly as you can how you FELT when
your controlling (if you agree that that's what it was) was pointed out
to you. I wonder if there wasn't a bit of emotion; a little anger at
someone (me) saying something kindda "nasty" about your behavior (that
you were "controlling"). I have a feeling that what you felt (if you felt
it) is what many people must feel when PCTers point out to them that they
are controlling. When people are controlling I think they always think
what they are doing is "right" (and it is; it's their reference signal,
after all). But when people hear that what they are doing is "controlling"
the implication is that what they are doing is "wrong". I think this may
be becuase we usually become aware of controlling when we are the victims
of it; and we don't want to think of what we are doing as the same thing
as that to which we have been so painfully subjected.

Besides, wouldn't you rather be told that you were a dynamical system,
a complex information processor, a layered network, or even an emitter
of operant behavior -- anything but a (yuch) controlling person.

Best

Rick

Tom Bourbon [940524.1714]

[From Rick Marken (940524.1330)]

Tom Bourbon (940524.1437) --

Rick:

For those who still think that perceptual control theory applies only to
"stick wiggling" manual control tasks, I submit the following as an example
of control -- collective at that -- of a rather high level variable, and
not a stick in sight.

Tom:

Good example. Of course none of the people you quoted would disagree
with your interpretation, would they? (Or would someone?)

Rick:

I think this is an excellent question. When I read it, it made me
realize that there is another possible reason (besides it's revolutionary
nature) why PCT is actively ignored; actually, two reasons: 1) people
don't like to think of what they are doing as controlling and 2) they
don't like to be TOLD that they are controlling, whether or not they
are willing to think of themselves as controllers.

Hmm. I wonder how my question made you think of that. Your two reasons
certainly don't apply to me.

I have a feeling that, even if the people I quoted don't disagree with
my claim that they are controlling (that is, even if they don't mind
thinking of themselves as controllers) some probably felt a little (or
maybe alot) annoyed at being told that they were controlling.

Perhaps some did. They'll need to identify themselves. I can't imagine
which of the others might feel that way

I would like to hear the the answer to Tom's question, viz. does anyone
disagree with my interpretation of the quotes as being evidence of
controlling? But I would also like to have all of you -- Gary, Tom,
Bill C. and Bill P. -- answer as honestly as you can how you FELT when
your controlling (if you agree that that's what it was) was pointed out
to you. I wonder if there wasn't a bit of emotion; a little anger at
someone (me) saying something kindda "nasty" about your behavior (that
you were "controlling").

As honestly as I can? OK, here it is, but can you take it? :wink:
No "feeling" whatsoever. No "emotion." Just agreement -- "Yep, I was
acting to control my perceptions of what I see on csg-l."

I have a feeling that what you felt (if you felt
it) is what many people must feel when PCTers point out to them that they
are controlling.

I don't think so. I doubt that they think what I thought (think, not feel
-- I "felt" nothing) when I read your post. All I thought was that you were
right; I was acting to control my perceptions.

When people are controlling I think they always think
what they are doing is "right" (and it is; it's their reference signal,
after all).

Glad to see you think I was "right!" :-))

But when people hear that what they are doing is "controlling"
the implication is that what they are doing is "wrong".

Now you have me wondering. Do you think one or more of us (Gary, Bill C.,
Bill P., or I) thought we were doing something wrong? Just because you said
you thought we were controlling? Which one(s) do you believe drew that
implication? Or was that the implication you intended and I failed to
catch it? :wink:

I think this may
be becuase we usually become aware of controlling when we are the victims
of it; and we don't want to think of what we are doing as the same thing
as that to which we have been so painfully subjected.

"We?" The four us plus you? Speak for yourself!

Besides, wouldn't you rather be told that you were a dynamical system,
a complex information processor, a layered network, or even an emitter
of operant behavior -- anything but a (yuch) controlling person.

Not me, brother! Give me good old-fashioned control any time.

Later,

Tom "The Controller" B.