controlling people

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

5/9 11:18 am

PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.09.15.19]

The aphorism that applies here is "You can lead a horse to water but

you can’t make him drink." No, you can’t, and neither can you lead
him to water unless he wants to follow you. So what do you do if you
want to see the horse drinking? You make sure that he is thirsty by
keeping him away from water. Then when you get to the water, you are
pretty likely to see him drink (never guaranteed). How do you get
him to follow you when you lead him? By getting him to reorganize so
that something you do, such as stroking his cheek and walking away
results in some perception he controls, such as for perceiving a
sweet taste, has its error reduced if he follows you (and has
previously got a lump of sugar when he has done).
No, you can’t control another person, but you can control your
perception of some aspect of their behaviour if you know something
about what perceptions they might be controlling and what they are
likely to do to correct the error(s) if you disturb one or more of
those perceptions in some particular way. You can increase that
probability if you physically influence their environment to
eliminate other ways that they might possibly correct the error.
Make public transport expensive or unavailable, and you can make it
probable that they will go by car if you can induce them to want to
be in a different part of the city (such as by inviting them to a
party you expect them to want to attend).
Martin

···

On 2018/05/9 2:21 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

5/9 11:18 am

        PCT

shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

        In

10 minutes, Bill writes:

2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

          Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people

that doesn’t involve physical violence?

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

···

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say "It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence." PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another withoutÂ
physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating "control by manipulation" where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.Â

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

–
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

[richardhpfau]

[From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50 EDT)]

For what it’s worth, I’m in the process of proposing to present a paper at our Annual IAPCT Meeting this October (2018)Â with the title Can We Control the Behavior of Others or Only Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal Perspectives.

The description at present reads: “This paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory perspectives concerning whether we can control the behavior of others or only influence that behavior. Related issues are also discussed concerning how to effectively affect the behavior of others and interpersonal aspects of doing so.”

I hope that you-all will be coming to the conference so we can have an informed discussion of this important topic.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

···

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say "It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence." PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another withoutÂ
physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating "control by manipulation" where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.Â

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

–
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

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

···

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say "It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence." PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another withoutÂ
physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating "control by manipulation" where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.Â

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

–
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

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

on p 196 of B:CP (2005) Bill said in the section titled PUNISHMENT
Â
all that punishment can do is cause behavior to reorganize; it cannot produce any specific behavior, because reorganization can be terminated by any change that destroys the feature of behavioral organization causing the intrinsic error…one can be sure of eliminating some aspect of behavior, but can have no way of predicting what the resulting new organization will do. Â

Reading this made me think about whether disturbing a controlled variable has a similar function as punishment. Looking at the examples above, they are all consistent with the hypothesis that disturbing a controlled variable may eliminate some aspect of behavior, but cannot produce any specific behavior. If we deduce a conclusion, it follows that one cannot attain a specific goal by disturbing a controlled variable because all they can do is cause behavior to reorganize. Â

···

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

From Barb Powers, 20180510, 06:30

At the conference I think it would be beneficial to go back to basics and ry the rubber band demonstration. Also, I hope it will be possible for you to play a few rounds of the TTTriples board game. Both are excellent demonstrations of attempting to influence the behavior of others. while still attaining your own goal.

My recollection of conversations with Dad about this is that ultimately one does not actually have control over what somebody else chooses to do. One may, of course, attempt to try to influence them. It still is their decision whether or not to be influenced.

This is why conflict resolution is not very effective when attempted through physical means (whether violent or not), or threats or coercion. I think we all are familiar with the way people have a natural tendency to resist being told what to do, or feel forced to do something. This may create a further internal conflict for them because it may not necessarily be helping them to achieve their own internal goal.

If one attempts to influence another and the other concedes, it gives the appearance of having influenced or controlled the other. That is only the perception of the one (and gives him a great deal of satisfaction at the same time!). Â

The fact remains that the other still has made their own independent decision. They may or may not have made that decision because of this apparent influence. Ultimately it isx still because they have shifted their perception of the situation and either seen a new path toward their goal or set a new goal.

On May 10, 2018 02:13, “PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Richard Pfau csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50 EDT)]

For what it’s worth, I’m in the process of proposing to present a paper at our Annual IAPCT Meeting this October (2018)Â with the title Can We Control the Behavior of Others or Only Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal Perspectives.

The description at present reads: “This paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory perspectives concerning whether we can control the behavior of others or only influence that behavior. Related issues are also discussed concerning how to effectively affect the behavior of others and interpersonal aspects of doing so.”

I hope that you-all will be coming to the conference so we can have an informed discussion of this important topic.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say "It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence." PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another withoutÂ
physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating "control by manipulation" where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.Â

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

–
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

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_16:59:54]

···

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:13 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

RM: Because civilized society requires that people control for following laws, contracts, agreements and values so that the life of the individuals that make up that society are not nasty, brutish and short. People have found that they are better off when they agree to allow themselves to be controlled in specific ways in return for being allowed to control others in specific ways. So, for example, people enter into mortgage contracts that allow themselves to be controlled (they have to pay $X/mo) so that they can control others (here’s your $10,000,000 now give me that 1 bdr cottage in LA).Â

RM: The controlling here is non-arbitrary as long as the parties to the mortgage contract have entered into it voluntarily. But some contracts --such as laws – are not entered into voluntarily, at least not by everyone to which they apply. Nevertheless, I would still consider these contracts non-arbitrary to the extent that they were developed while taking into consideration the desires of everyone affected by them. So laws imposed by a dictator without much consideration of the desires of everyone who might be affected by them are arbitrary; laws developed by democratic methods that take into consideration, as much as possible, the desires of everyone affected by them are somewhat less arbitrary.Â

RM: But there will always be people who don’t like to follow any laws – they don’t like to be controlled – and they will feel unfairly oppressed (controlled) by the requirement to follow any laws that inconvenience them. These people are known as adolescents, libertarians and free-market economists.Â

RM: While writing this I realized that it is probably better to refer to the kind of interpersonal control that is the basis of civilized society as “respectful” rather than “non-arbitrary” control of behavior. This is because there are examples of non-arbitrary interpersonal control that take the desires of the would-be controllee into consideration specifically in order to get them to do something that they don’t desire. One horrible example of this kind of non-arbitrary interpersonal control is called “torture”, where the known desire of the controllee to not experience pain is the reason why the controllee is forced to do things that produce pain.Â

RM: I think “respectful” is a better description of how to approach interpersonal control because it implies not only that one takes the desires (references) of the would-be controllee into account; it also implies that the would-be controllee will not be forced to do (experience) what is not desired. So I would say that a “respectful” approach to control of behavior is the basis of civilized society.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
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

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_18:09:44]

on p 196 of B:CP (2005) Bill said in the section titled PUNISHMENT

Â
BP: all that punishment can do is cause behavior to reorganize; it cannot produce any specific behavior, because reorganization can be terminated by any change that destroys the feature of behavioral organization causing the intrinsic error...one can be sure of eliminating some aspect of behavior, but can have no way of predicting what the resulting new organization will do. Â

PY: Reading this made me think about whether disturbing a controlled variable has a similar function as punishment. Looking at the examples above, they are all consistent with the hypothesis that disturbing a controlled variable may eliminate some aspect of behavior, but cannot produce any specific behavior. If we deduce a conclusion, it follows that one cannot attain a specific goal by disturbing a controlled variable because all they can do is cause behavior to reorganize. Â

RM: Reorganization is thought to happen when error is large and/or persistent. When control is good, disturbances have very little effect on the state of the controlled variable so error is very small and reorganization doesn't kick in. This is why it is possible to control behavior very precisely via disturbance to a controlled variable. If the variable you are controlling is being controlled well -- as it will be in the rubber band game after some practice and if the controller's (E's) pulls on the rubber band are not too large or abrupt -- the a person's behavior can be controlled rather precisely. Try the "control by manipulation" demo using the rubber band game as described in B:CP (2nd edition, p 245) and see for yourself. It's always best to see the phenomenon that is to be explained (in the case control of behavior) before drawing conclusions about the phenomenon from the theory that is designed to account for it!Â
BestÂ
Rick
 >

From Barb Powers, 20180510, 06:30
At the conference I think it would be beneficial to go back to basics and ry the rubber band demonstration. Also, I hope it will be possible for you to play a few rounds of the TTTriples board game. Both are excellent demonstrations of attempting to influence the behavior of others. while still attaining your own goal.
My recollection of conversations with Dad about this is that ultimately one does not actually have control over what somebody else chooses to do. One may, of course, attempt to try to influence them. It still is their decision whether or not to be influenced.
This is why conflict resolution is not very effective when attempted through physical means (whether violent or not), or threats or coercion. I think we all are familiar with the way people have a natural tendency to resist being told what to do, or feel forced to do something. This may create a further internal conflict for them because it may not necessarily be helping them to achieve their own internal goal.
If one attempts to influence another and the other concedes, it gives the appearance of having influenced or controlled the other. That is only the perception of the one (and gives him a great deal of satisfaction at the same time!). Â
The fact remains that the other still has made their own independent decision. They may or may not have made that decision because of this apparent influence. Ultimately it isx still because they have shifted their perception of the situation and either seen a new path toward their goal or set a new goal.

Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

[From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50 EDT)]
For what it's worth, I'm in the process of proposing to present a paper at our Annual IAPCT Meeting this October (2018)Â with the title Can We Control the Behavior of Others or Only Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal Perspectives.
The description at present reads: "This paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory perspectives concerning whether we can control the behavior of others or only influence that behavior. Related issues are also discussed concerning how to effectively affect the behavior of others and interpersonal aspects of doing so."
I hope that you-all will be coming to the conference so we can have an informed discussion of this important topic.
With Regards,

Richard Pfau
Website: <http://richardpfau.com>richardpfau.com

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

PY: PCT shows that you can't control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It's easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person -- and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:
PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from
the amoeba to Humankind. It explains
why one organism can’t control another without
physical violence.

···

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:57 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, <mailto:bara0361@gmail.com>bara0361@gmail.com <<mailto:bara0361@gmail.com>bara0361@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 2018 02:13, "PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN" <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Richard Pfau <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:
RM: I'm pretty sure Bill meant to say "It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence." PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can't control another person "arbitrarily" without physical violence in the sense that a person can't, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn't want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn't involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don't involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee's behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S's finger. Or, as Bill says "if S wants to control the knot, E can control S's finger...". So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above -- that "one organism can’t control another without physical violence" -- what we have here is Bill demonstrating "control by manipulation" where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.Â
RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn't want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S's finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S's finger -- getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee's finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee's references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.
RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.
Best
Rick

--

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

--
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

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.10.23.03]

Punishment isn't just disturbance. Its a disturbance to controlled

perceptions of a victim imposed by another living control system,
which the currently reorganized control hierarchy of the victim has
no means of effectively opposing, A normal disturbance to a
controlled perception is opposed by means that are already built
into the currently reorganized hierarchy. There’s no need to
reorganize (although reorganization is supposed always to be ongoing
at some rate). From the victim’s point of view, avoiding or opposing
the punishment can be possible only if reorganization can build so
method of doing so.
Your second paragraph suggests that you are looking at the problem
from the viewpoint of someone wanting to perceive a particular
action output from the person whose environmental variable
corresponding to a controlled perception may have been disturbed.
From the viewpoint of that person, there’s no issue. The influence
of the disturbance is simply opposed by means already at hand.
Martin

···

On 2018/05/10 7:57 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

    on p 196 of B:CP (2005) Bill said in the section

titled PUNISHMENT
Â
all that punishment can do is cause behavior to
reorganize; it cannot produce any specific behavior, because
reorganization can be terminated by any change that destroys
the feature of behavioral organization causing the intrinsic
error…one can be sure of eliminating some aspect of
behavior, but can have no way of predicting what the
resulting new organization will do. Â

        Reading this made me think about whether disturbing a

controlled variable has a similar function as punishment.Â
Looking at the examples above, they are all consistent with
the hypothesis that disturbing a controlled variable may
eliminate some aspect of behavior, but cannot produce any
specific behavior. If we deduce a conclusion, it follows
that one cannot attain a specific goal by disturbing a
controlled variable because all they can do is cause
behavior to reorganize.Â

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, bara0361@gmail.com
bara0361@gmail.com
wrote:

From Barb Powers, 20180510, 06:30

          At the conference I think it would be beneficial to go

back to basics and ry the rubber band demonstration.Â
Also, I hope it will be possible for you to play a few
rounds of the TTTriples board game. Both are excellent
demonstrations of attempting to influence the behavior of
others. while still attaining your own goal.

            My recollection of conversations with Dad

about this is that ultimately one does not actually have
control over what somebody else chooses to do. One may,
of course, attempt to try to influence them. It still
is their decision whether or not to be influenced.

            This is why conflict resolution is not

very effective when attempted through physical means
(whether violent or not), or threats or coercion. I
think we all are familiar with the way people have a
natural tendency to resist being told what to do, or
feel forced to do something. This may create a further
internal conflict for them because it may not
necessarily be helping them to achieve their own
internal goal.

            If one attempts to  influence another and

the other concedes, it gives the appearance of having
influenced or controlled the other. That is only the
perception of the one (and gives him a great deal of
satisfaction at the same time!). Â

            The fact remains that the other still has

made their own independent decision. They may or may
not have made that decision because of this apparent
influence. Ultimately it isx still because they have
shifted their perception of the situation and either
seen a new path toward their goal or set a new goal.

                On May 10, 2018 02:13,

“PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

                  Why

would you say that non-arbitrary control of
behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

                  On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Richard Pfau <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                      >

wrote:

                        [From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50

EDT)]

                        For what it's worth, I'm in the process

of proposing to present a paper at our
Annual IAPCT Meeting this October
(2018)Â with the title ** Can We
Control the Behavior of Others or Only
Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal
Perspectives**.

                        The description at present reads: "This

paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory
perspectives concerning whether we can
control the behavior of others or only
influence that behavior. Related issues are
also discussed concerning how to effectively
affect the behavior of others and
interpersonal aspects of doing so."

                        I hope that you-all will be coming to the

conference so we can have an informed
discussion of this important topic.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

                        On Wed, May 9, 2018

at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

                            [Rick Marken

2018-05-09_16:53:40]

                                On Wed, May

9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

                                        PY:

PCT shows that you can’t
control the behavior of
another person.

                                  RM: If PCT showed that then it

would be showing something that is
demonstrably false. It’s easy to
show that you can control the
behavior of another person – and
that another person can control
yours.

                                        PY:

In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

                                          PY: 2. Control theory

explains how organisms can
control

                                            what happens to them.

This means all organisms
from

                                            the amoeba to 

Humankind. It explains

                                            why one organism

can’t control another
without

physical violence.

                                  RM: I'm pretty sure Bill meant

to say " It
explains why one
organism can’t arbitrarily
control another without physical
violence."Â PCT shows that a
person can indeed control
another without physical
violence; a person just can’t
control another person
“arbitrarily” without physical
violence in the sense that a
person can’t, without physical
violence, make another person do
what that other person doesn’t
want to do.

                                        PY: Are we proposing

there is a way of
controlling people that
doesn’t involve physical
violence?

                              RM:Â  There are many ways to control

people that don’t involve physical
violence. The most common way is
described in B:CP (2nd edition,
p.245). It involves having the
controller disturb a variable
controlled by the controllee in a way
that requires that the controllee make
a compensating action that is
precisely the aspect of the
controllee’s behavior that the
controller wants controlled. Powers
demonstrates this kind of control
using the rubber band game. If one
player (S) controls the position of
the knot, the other player (E) can
control the position of S’s finger.
Or, as Bill says “if S wants to
control the knot, * E can control
S’s finger* …”. So contrary to
what Bill said in the quote above –
that " one
organism can’t control another
without physical
violence" – what we have here is
Bill demonstrating "control
by manipulation" where one
person (E) controls another (S)
without any physical violence at
all.Â

                              RM: Control

will lead to violence only if the
controller persists in trying to get
the controllee to do something the
controllee doesn’t want to do. For
example, if E in the rubber band game
tries to get S to run S’s finger into
a hot soldering iron, S will resist.
If E is committed to getting S to run
his finger into the soldering iron and
starts using physical force to get
that to happen, S is likely to fight
back. If E is much stronger than S
then E might succeed in controlling
S’s finger – getting it to run into
the soldering iron. And this would be
an example of controlling behavior
using physical violence. It is also an
example of arbitrary control
of behavior because E is forcing S to
do something without regard to how S
feels about doing it. Using the
concepts of PCT, we can define
arbitrary control of behavior as a
situation where a controller is trying
to get the controllee to control a
variable (like the distance of the
controllee’s finger from the soldering
iron) without regard to the
controllee’s references for the state
of that variable. So what the
controller wants the controllee to do
is arbitrary with respect to
the desires of the controllee.

                              RM: Arbitrary

control of behavior almost always
involves physical violence.
Non-arbitrary control of behavior
never involves physical violence and,
I would argue, is the basis of
civilized society. Non-arbitrary
control of behavior is  controlling
that is done with awareness that you
want another control system to do
something that it might not want to
do; it is controlling that is only
done contingent on the agreement of
the controllee.

Best

Rick

–
Richard
S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)]

···

On 09/05/2018 19:21, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

5/9 11:18 am

        PCT

shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

  I'd say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of

another person.

  Though, more specifically, although you can't make someone do

what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

  You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else's home).

When you are next at a friend’s house, when they are not looking,
tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer
horizontal. After a while (providing they are a
picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have
just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required.
And you’ve also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.12.1807 ET)]

I’m sorry, Rupert, but I think your example contradicts your assertion. You want your friend to straighten the picture. You tilt it. Your friend straightens the picture. Your friend wants the picture level; you want your friend to level it.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)]

On 09/05/2018 19:21, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

5/9 11:18 am

PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

Though, more specifically, although you can’t make someone do what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else’s home). When you are next at a friend’s house, when they are not looking, tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer horizontal. After a while (providing they are a picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required. And you’ve also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

RY: I'd say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.Â
RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.Â
BestÂ
Rick
 >

···

Though, more specifically, although you can't make someone do what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else's home). When you are next at a friend's house, when they are not looking, tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer horizontal. After a while (providing they are a picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required. And you've also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

--
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

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

Boris,Â

What is behavior in PCT? Other than not control.Â

···

On Saturday, May 12, 2018, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

Rick stop confusing people. You’re making PCT look like “behavioristic” theory. RCT and PCT are in total opposition.

Â

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 5:01 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

Â

[Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

RY: I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.Â

Â

HB : Where ? In your imagination. How many times do I have to compare your RCT with PCT that you’ll understand your wrong understanding of PCT.

Â

This is your Theory RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory):

Â

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
3. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
4. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
5. COMPARATOR : ???
6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
   Â

You proved with your writings only that your RCT theory is totatly opposite to PCT

Â

RCT (Ricks Control Theory)

PCT (Perceptual Control Theory)

Behavior is control

Behavior is not control

Controlled variable in outer environment

There is no controlled variable in environment

Controlled Perceptual Variable

Ordinary perceptual signal

Â

This is PCT Theory :

Â

Â

Â

RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.Â

Â

HB : Where PCT explains this “fact” ?

Â

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
   Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
   Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box reppresents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
   Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
   Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
   Bill P (B:CP)

1.  ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
   Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Though, more specifically, although you can’t make someone do what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else’s home). When you are next at a friend’s house, when they are not looking, tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer horizontal. After a while (providing they are a picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required. And you’ve also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

Â

Â

Â

–

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

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 13.10)]

(

Where’s the contradiction?
Regards,
Rupert

···

Fred Nickols (2018.05.12.1807 ET)]

        I’m sorry,

Rupert, but I think your example contradicts your
assertion. You want your friend to straighten the picture.
You tilt it. Your friend straightens the picture. Your
friend wants the picture level; you want your friend to
level it.

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 13.10)]

(Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

We’re in agreement then?
Rupert

···

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

              RY: I'd say that PCT shows that you CAN control the

behaviour of another person.

          RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the

behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation.
PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

          RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that

explains the fact.

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

Boris,

According to you, behavior is output caused by the control of perception. Is this how you would like to state your expression?

···

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

              RY: I'd say that PCT shows that you CAN control the

behaviour of another person.

          RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the

behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation.
PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

          RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that

explains the fact.

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-13_08:46:02]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 13.10)]

RY: I'd say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.Â
RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.Â

RY: We're in agreement then?

RM: I think so. My objection to what you said was only to the phrase "PCT shows". PCT doesn't show that you can control the behavior of another person. It's an observable fact that you can (demonstrated each time a person passes the salt to you when you ask them to "pass the salt"). PCT explains this fact. If you agree with this then we are indeed in agreement!
BestÂ
Rick

···

--
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

[rupert]

I don’t think this went to the list.

···

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

  (

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.
To clarify, Regards,
Rupert

Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

          You wrote

earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but
you can make them do what they want,

    you can’t make someone

do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-18_09:03:49]Â

Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

FN: You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

RY: That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

RY: To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

RM: This is demonstrably false. A "want" in PCT is a reference for a particular state of a perception. For example, if you agree to track my finger -- controlling the perception of the alignment of your finger with mine -- I can control the position of your finger by moving my finger. So I can make your finger trace out a pattern, such as a figure 8, which you did not want to make but that I wanted you to make. All you wanted was to keep your finger aligned with mine. All I wanted was for you to make a figure 8 pattern with your finger. I got you to do what I wanted you to do even though you didn't want to do it; indeed, you didn't even know you were doing it.Â
Best
Rick

···

--
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

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.18 23.59)]

(Rick Marken 2018-05-18_09:03:49]

Sure. Though you are stating something as false that I wasn't

implying in my point.

Regards,

Rupert

···

Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)

( Fred Nickols
(2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

                      FN: You wrote earlier

that you can’t make someone do what you want
but you can make them do what they want,

RY: That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

              RY: To clarify,                     you

can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you
can make them do what they want,

      RM: This is demonstrably false. A "want" in PCT is a reference

for a particular state of a perception. For example, if you
agree to track my finger – controlling the perception of the
alignment of your finger with mine – I can control the
position of your finger by moving my finger. So I can make
your finger trace out a pattern, such as a figure 8, which you
did not want to make but that I wanted you to make. All you
wanted was to keep your finger aligned with mine. All I wanted
was for you to make a figure 8 pattern with your finger. I got
you to do what I wanted you to do even though you didn’t want
to do it; indeed, you didn’t even know you were doing it.