“Controlling” is used when you are
successfully holding something in a reference state. Controlling for a
reference state explains what you’re doing by saying what the intended
outcome is, but without claiming success, yet.
Bruce Gregory (2003.01.011457)–
[…] we are
“trying” when we are
“controlling for”. The pitcher is always trying to put the ball
where he
wants it to go (“controlling for”) but he demonstrates control
(in the
vernacular) when his efforts are
successful.
I have been corrected in the past that one is controlling in both cases,
and the difference is only in how successfully one is controlling.
We talk of gaining control over a variable, or losing control, while
continuously controlling that variable. For example, during a training
period or during the initial part of a tracking session when error is
progressively reduced we are controlling - control doesn’t start
when error approaches zero.
So “controlling for” is simply “controlling” when
error is high due to disturbances, or low gain, or ill-adapted control
systems, i.e. lack of skill, etc.
“Controlling for” seems to me vague (which of these causes the
error?) and possibly misleading or confusing.
I have been corrected in the past that one is controlling in both cases,
and the difference is only in how successfully one is controlling.
Quite so, which is why I distinguished between the vernacular and the
PCT use to the term control. If I say that I am controlling peace in the
Middle East one might seriously misinterpret my goals in view of the
extremely large error.
<I have been corrected in the past that one is controlling in both cases, and the difference is only in how successfully one is controlling.>
It is questions like this that drive me crazy because when PCTers can’t seem to express a clear, unified and scientifically valid understanding, then I can understand why people dismiss it without much concern.
<“Controlling for” seems to me vague (which of these causes the error?) and possibly misleading or confusing.>
Wow. I think “controlling” is vague and not very informative. I believe that we are always controlling (our perceptions). When we add the purpose (what we are controlling for), the reference variable and its condition or state, the “knot on the dot,” then we can understand what we observe as someone’s behavior, their controlling of their perceptions. Without the “for” we might as well say we are responding to our environment in ways we cannot understand.
I have been corrected in the past
that one is controlling in both cases, and the difference is only in how
successfully one is controlling.
We talk of gaining control over a variable, or losing control, while
continuously controlling that variable. For example, during a training
period or during the initial part of a tracking session when error is
progressively reduced we are controlling - control doesn’t start
when error approaches zero.
So “controlling for” is simply “controlling” when
error is high due to disturbances, or low gain, or ill-adapted control
systems, i.e. lack of skill, etc.
[From bill Powers (2003.01.02.1105 MSTZ)]
Bruce Nevin (2003.01.01 23:00 EST)–
I see that by these objections, you’re in the process of controlling
something, but it’s not clear what the desired effect is. Which of the
various effects your words are producing are you controlling for?
[From bill Powers (2003.01.02.1105 MSTZ)]
I see that by these objections, you’re in the process of controlling
something, but it’s not clear what the desired effect is. Which of the
various effects your words are producing are you controlling for?
It appears that here (in what I have just quoted) “controlling
for” is a term used by an observer when the CV controlled by the
observed person is still unspecified.
One or more of the effects that you perceive as possible might correspond
to what I am controlling. Instead of testing (by disturbing one of those
perceptions of yours that you think might correspond to what I am
controlling), you are asking me what my CV is.
The fact that it is unclear to you does not mean that it is unclear to
me. “Controlling for” seems appropriate for you to say because
of that unclarity, but it is inappropriate for me to say
“controlling for” because of your uncertainty, and it is also
inappropriate for you to say “controlling for” about me, since
as far as you know I am controlling a specific CV, you just don’t know
what it is. And for that reason, it is inappropriate for you to say
“controlling for” about me.
So there seems to be no justifiable occasion to use “controlling
for” in the sense that you appear to have used it here - as an
attribution to another person, an attribution made only because of your
own uncertainty, as observer, about what that person is controlling.
Perhaps it’s only justifiable to make this distinction between
“controlling” and “controlling for” when talking
about oneself. That would require the assumption that you are aware of
the variables that you are controlling, or at least those that affect the
perceptions that you have under observation.
It appears that here (in what I
have just quoted) “controlling for” is a term used by an
observer when the CV controlled by the observed person is still
unspecified.
One or more of the effects that you perceive as possible might correspond
to what I am controlling. Instead of testing (by disturbing one of those
perceptions of yours that you think might correspond to what I am
controlling), you are asking me what my CV is.
[From Bill Powers (2003.01.02.1927 MST)]
Bruce Nevin (2003.02.01 21:18 EST)–
Well, that, but also even when I know your CV, I may not know what the
reference level is. As a passenger in your car I see that you drive at
59, 53, 56, 48, 52 … miles per hour. I get the idea that speed is
controlled, but I don’t know what speed you’re aiming, or controlling,
for. Are these changes intentional, or do they represent a slightly loose
way of driving 55 miles per hour? Or 57, as we often do in a 55 mph zone,
figuring nobody will object to that little excess.
I think the addition of “for” to “controlling” is a
way of recognizing the difference between what you hope to achieve and
what you actually achieve by controlling something. I find the
distinction useful, in that a lot of people seem to think that
controlling is an either-or proposition; either you’re controlling some
CV or you’re not, with the perhaps unconscious assumption that if you’re
controlling, the error must be zero. If I say I’m controlling for three
meals a day, this doesn’t mean I always get them. It just says that my
actions can be understood if you know I’m trying my best to keep that
particular variable (number of meals per day) at that specific reference
level (3).
I think the addition of "for" to "controlling" is a way of recognizing the difference between what you hope to achieve and what you actually achieve by controlling something. I find the distinction useful, in that a lot of people seem to think that controlling is an either-or proposition; either you're controlling some CV or you're not, with the perhaps unconscious assumption that if you're controlling, the error must be zero.
If people find this useful then it is or will become correct usage in the sublanguage of PCT, especially if it is used and deemed useful by those of highest prestige in the field, regardless of marginal carpers like me.
In vernacular English I decline to follow my children's generation in saying that something is "funner" than something else (even my grandchildren don't say "funnest" - yet), and I still resist using "email" as a count noun (as in "send me an email" "Look at all the emails I got today"), preferring early 1980s "email message". But ongoing conventionalizing overrides both reason and dated custom.
In technical domains and especially in the sublanguage of a science terms are subject to more strict definition and usage is subject to more deliberate prescription than in less disciplined domains, but this increases with the maturity of the science, and ours is quite young. Perhaps one day we will have a precise definition of "control for" vs. "control" but for the present we have a phrase that wobbles in a usefully sloppy way over a range of situations where the CV, or control of it, or both, are imprecisely determined.