[from Wayne Hershberger]
Bill (WTP), I've been out of town for 2 weeks and
missed your post regarding a joint effort (paper).
Could you please post it to me. Thanks.
Bruce Nevin (930427.1232) --
A while back (it has been a while) as I was
going over something that I was preparing to send
to CSG-L, I made the following correction:
controlling for the perception of X ==>
controlling the perception of X. Since then, I
have noticed this locution a number of times, even
in something that Bill wrote. The reason I
thought of it as an error and corrected it is
because it seems to say "controlling actions for
the perception of X," when what we want to say is
that perception and not action is what is
controlled.
Bill Powers (930428.0815)
This was something that my students in a 1972-1973
seminar started saying, and I picked it up.
Bruce, I share your concern with the expression
"controlling for," essentially for the reason you
mention. I am afraid that the students in Bill's 1972-
73 seminar did not understand HPCT as well as he would
like to believe. Clearly, they came to believe him,
but not necessarily to understand him--at least, not as
well as you do. To me, your correction of their
mislocution is a clear indication that you understand
HPCT far better than they did.
During the final session of our 8th annual meeting
last summer in Durango, I initiated an hour-long
colloquy among those present by asking what the
expression "controlling for" means. My purpose was not
to answer a rhetorical question, but to do some
consciousness raising. I wish you had been there to
participate because your point is very well taken.
The symbol X in the expression "controlling for X"
appears to be something that is wanted, either (a) as a
reference signal or (b) as a wish. An example of (a)
is a cruise-control system "controlling for" a road
speed of 60 mph (i.e., it wants to keep the sensed road
speed at that reference value). An example of (b) is a
man buying a lotto ticket, wanting to win the prize
money; that is, he controls his eligibility for the
prize which he wishes (i.e., only hopes) to win.
Since, a want is a wish (i.e., only a hope)
precisely to the degree that it is NOT a reference
signal of a control system, "controlling for the prize
money" is simply an awkward oxymoron. And, more often
than not, the expression "controlling for" is used
precisely in this way; that is, as a terribly
inappropriate substitute for the expression "wishing
for." In my view, it is a bad habit.
This is not to say that wishes are improper
conative concepts, but only that they do not imply
control, but, rather, the lack of control, or the need
to develop control. I think that this is what Bill was
talking about in the remainder of his reply cited
above. But the precise role that wishing may play in
reorganization has yet to be systematically examined.
Warm regards, Wayne
Wayne A. Hershberger Work: (815) 753-7097
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology Home: (815) 758-3747
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb IL 60115 Bitnet: tj0wah1@niu