[From Rick Marken (2003.05.04.2215)]
Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.2103)--
I gave the example of a diet. We have "goal" of losing 100lbs. This "goal is
made up of controlling many variables over a period of time. Bill and I
spoke about this. My point was ( it might have changed ) over long periods
of time our "goals" are often "disappated" over time by disturbances. That
is, I set a "goal" of losing the weight. But I am forced to deal with
disturbances to any number of variables I am controlling for losing that
weight on a minute by minute, hour, by hour, etc. you get the picture. When
we act to correct for Error we are "adjusting for error" to help reach our
"goal". It is the "adjustments" that put us on different courses because any
"adjustment" (action) we take will lead to different Perceptions, which in
turn will lead to other Errors and further "adjustments". I am almost using
the term as a figure of speech. Bill does not disagree with the notion, he
points out, maybe correctly or equally, that it is over _short_ not long
periods of time. We both agreed that making long range goals are easy. You
don't have to do anything _now_ to realize them LOL. I'm giving his
suggestionsome thought. But that does not change my use of the phrase or my
view of the model. "adjusting for error" is nothing more, nothing less then
a meta view of the "affects" of the total summation of all control in a
human over a period of time.
This looks like a set of observations you've made about your own controlling.
I'll try to paraphrase:
A person on a diet wants to lose weight. But that goal can be achieved only by
achieving many sub goals, like eating only certain foods, exercising, and so
on. When the person has been on a diet for a while it seems like some of these
goals weaken (dissipate) or disappear. The person passes deli (disturbance) and
suddenly a blintz seems a lot more interesting than a piece of celery. When the
person eats the blintz things feel better (an adjustment to error) but a little
while latter there is regret and we return to our diet (error puts us on a
different course). As the person goes through the day, eating blintzes then
switching to celery on the way to the club to exercise and then home for a nice
dinner of carrot slices. Throughout this little odyssey the person goes from
feeling good to feeling bad to feeling good as some goals are achieved while
others are not. Our Ulysses is always "adjusting for error" by satisfying the
goal that seems the most pressing at the moment.
Whether you think the paraphrase is right or not, I do think your diet example
is a fine description of what it feels like to be on a diet. There is really no
theory involved at all. You are describing a phenomenon -- a personal
experience that is probably familiar to most of us. I don't think you need to
use PCTish terms like "adjusting to error" and "disturbance" or even "goal" to
describe what's going on. All you have to say is that a person on a diet wants
to lose weight and wants to eat blintzes. When a person wants both of these
things it hurts because the person can't have it both ways. Bakeries and good
cooking make it hurt even worse because they make it harder to lose the weight
the person want to lose.
I think what you might be trying to do when you talk about correcting errors
and reaching goals is simply describe the experience of being in situations
like being on a diet. In such situations it seems that the main driving force
is pain -- error. It doesn't fell like one is acting to reach goals when one is
on a diet. One is just trying to make the pain less (correcting error) by doing
whatever works -- eating blintzes or going to the gym or whatever.
I think what you are describing as "correcting errors rather than reaching
goals" is the experience of being in conflict. When we are in conflict we have
lost control so we really don't reach our goals (certainly not skillfully),
except as we are pushed toward them by the whims of environmental disturbance
(the appearance of a bakery versus a gym). But we are almost constantly
experiencing error (pain) and anything we do that brings one or the other side
of the conflict closer to its goal will be experienced as something that
lessens our pain (adjusts for error).
Does this seem like what you're getting at?
Best regards
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313