determining controlled variables

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 14:45 EDT)]

Standard procedure in PCT for identifying controlled variables and reference values for them is to test by disturbing what you believe is the state of what is controlled.

An alternative is available when the CV is controlled as means of controlling something else.

Some time ago I described getting my chickens to use the henhouse I had built for them. They had got used to roosting in a tree that overspread the edge of the fenced henyard. Rather than going in at night, they even used the coop as an intermediate stage to get up into the branches. They stayed out even when it was raining or snowing.

At the time, I reported chasing them in and shutting the door on them. The reply was, well, you know that's not going to work.

Actually, by the second day almost all of them were going in on their own, and the few laggards joined them long before the week was out, with no further coercion on my part. It appears that going into the henhouse and jumping up onto the roosting bars enabled them to control other variables (presumably things like security, warmth, and dryness) with less error than flying up onto the branches of the tree did. They've been using it ever since.

It's not important to know exactly what they are controlling by these means in order to know that they are in fact controlling being in the coop as the afternoon draws on. Conversely, information about these alternative means of control is really excellent for figuring out what those other variables are. What do these alternative ways of going to roost have in common? So observing alternative means of controlling a given variable can be very useful, a kind of parallax.

You could say that I found out about this by disturbing controlled variables after all, and of course that's true, but it's not the simple 1-1 relationship described for the standard PCT procedure.

  /Bruce Nevin

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.02.1100)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 14:45 EDT)

Standard procedure in PCT for identifying controlled variables and
reference values for them is to test by disturbing what you believe is the
state of what is controlled.

It's "standard procedure" for a good reason. The model tells us that that's the
only way to determine whether or not a perceptual is under control.

An alternative is available when the CV is controlled as means of
controlling something else.

All controlled variables (CVs), except those at the highest levels of the
hierarchy, are controlled as the means of controlling other variables. So this
alternate "test for controlled variables" should work for all but the highest
level variables.

It appears that going into the henhouse and
jumping up onto the roosting bars enabled them to control other variables

OK.

It's not important to know exactly what they are controlling by these means
in order to know that they are in fact controlling being in the coop as the
afternoon draws on.

So you are saying that, because the hens appear to be controlling _something_ by
going into the hen house, going into the hen house is clearly a controlled
variable? I don't follow this.

You could say that I found out about this by disturbing controlled
variables after all

I'm not convinced that you found a variable the hens are controlling. I think you
have found some likely candidates for controlled variables: dryness, warmth, etc.
But I think it's unlikely that hens control for being "in the coop". I think you
still have to do the test the old "standard" way to find out what variables are
actually under control. Remember, it's the variables perceived and controlled by
the hen that are the controlled variables, and these are not necessarily the same
as the variables the hen _appears_ (from your perspective) to be controlling.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[from Mary Powers (2003.06.03.9:00]

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.02.1100)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 14:45 EDT)

> Standard procedure in PCT for identifying controlled variables and
> reference values for them is to test by disturbing what you believe is the
> state of what is controlled.

It's "standard procedure" for a good reason. The model tells us that
that's the
only way to determine whether or not a perceptual is under control.

> An alternative is available when the CV is controlled as means of
> controlling something else.

All controlled variables (CVs), except those at the highest levels of the
hierarchy, are controlled as the means of controlling other variables. So
this
alternate "test for controlled variables" should work for all but the highest
level variables.

> It appears that going into the henhouse and
> jumping up onto the roosting bars enabled them to control other variables

OK.

> It's not important to know exactly what they are controlling by these means
> in order to know that they are in fact controlling being in the coop as the
> afternoon draws on.

So you are saying that, because the hens appear to be controlling
_something_ by
going into the hen house, going into the hen house is clearly a controlled
variable? I don't follow this.

> You could say that I found out about this by disturbing controlled
> variables after all

I'm not convinced that you found a variable the hens are controlling. I
think you
have found some likely candidates for controlled variables: dryness,
warmth, etc.
But I think it's unlikely that hens control for being "in the coop". I
think you
still have to do the test the old "standard" way to find out what
variables are
actually under control. Remember, it's the variables perceived and
controlled by
the hen that are the controlled variables, and these are not necessarily
the same
as the variables the hen _appears_ (from your perspective) to be controlling.

Best regards

Rick

I believe that Rick is right. To test for the variables the hens are
controlling you might, for example, install a sprinkler system in the coop
and see if the hens prefer to stay out in the dry.

Or try an air conditioner set high to see if they prefer to stay out in the
warm.

I think the real point is that YOU wanted to control where the hens spend
the night, and their motives for using the coop are irrelevant to that. And
not a topic of interest to you at this time.

Now to figure out why you are controlling for having the hens spend the
night in the coop. :wink:

Mary P.

[from Bruce Nevin (2003.06.03 15:52 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.06.02.1100)

> An alternative is available when the CV is controlled as means of
> controlling something else.

All controlled variables (CVs), except those at the highest levels of the hierarchy, are controlled as the means of controlling other variables. So this alternate "test for controlled variables" should work for all but the highest level variables.

You're understanding a bit too quickly.

> It appears that going into the henhouse and
> jumping up onto the roosting bars enabled them to control other variables

OK.

> It's not important to know exactly what they are controlling by these means
> in order to know that they are in fact controlling being in the coop as the
> afternoon draws on.

So you are saying that, because the hens appear to be controlling _something_ by going into the hen house, going into the hen house is clearly a controlled variable? I don't follow this.

They walk in to the henhouse and roost consistently every day toward evening, and every hen and rooster does so. I don't know for sure what perceptions they are controlling by means of this action, but I do know that they are controlling being in that location at that time of day, and staying there until morning. I have taken a bird from the roost and carried it outside and set it down and it has gone back inside and gone up on the roost.

If I walk outside, open the car door, and sit down in the driver's seat, it might be a step in controlling driving to the store, or to pick up my daughter, or to a meeting, or to sit there and listen to the radio, or to clean the car, or any number of things. Whatever else I'm controlling by means of getting in the car, can there be any doubt that I'm controlling getting in the car? What if I do it every day at the same time, without exception?

> You could say that I found out about this by disturbing controlled
> variables after all

I'm not convinced that you found a variable the hens are controlling.

No, I didn't find any variable that the hens and roosters are controlling by means of going in the hen house and roosting every day at dusk. But I did find that they are controlling a perception of being on a roost up in the air inside the hen house at dusk, and dusk happens every day. Just as previously they controlled a perception of being on a roost up in the air (a branch of a tree) at dusk every day.

(Mary Powers (2003.06.03.9:00)--

I think the real point is that YOU wanted to control where the hens spend the night, and their motives for using the coop are irrelevant to that.

Not entirely.

And not a topic of interest to you at this time.

Actually, I had what appeared to be their motives very much in mind in designing the hen house. If it did not have long poles conveniently arranged they would not be able to fly up and roost. I did not test this, but reports of others tell me that chickens don't go into a building at night to squat on the floor. They don't stay at ground level at night if there is something to roost on, unless they're brooding eggs. Then they find and modify a 'cave' deep in some brush, a space just large enough for them, with one opening and one pathway in through the brush, which they face as they spread their feathers over their eggs. Or anyway I've seen three hens do this.

Now to figure out why you are controlling for having the hens spend the night in the coop. :wink:

That's not hard. In the mornings some would fly from the tree outside the hen yard into my cousin's field, where they were prey to dogs and other critters. In the tree at night they were vulnerable to enterprising raccoons in warmer weather. (The tree is outside the electric fence that surrounds both the hen yard and the goat yard.) In winter they froze their wattles and became more susceptible to disease. Their eggs were laid in the open where skunks nabbed them at night. Some took to staying outside the hen yard entirely, and while one was able to hatch a clutch of eggs in the woods we lost two other hens and their clutch, and the one who was successful brought her chicks in to the goat yard herself, and then into the hen yard when I provided a way for her to do that. Now they're safer, healthier, their eggs aren't stolen (unless we forget to close the coop at night and a skunk gets in), and we've had several broods of chicks that are now adults.

The point that's escaping notice here is that the prediction was made that forcing them to go into the hen house would fail, and that prediction was false. I only needed to prevent them from flying up into the tree, and 'encourage' them into the coop, one or two times. I conclude that, whatever they are controlling by roosting, they prefer to control those variables by means of going into the coop rather than by means of flying up into the tree.

Actually, the prediction was that the coercion would fail and that the hens would just do what they wanted to do. The second part is true. They are continuing to do what they want to do, using different means. Part of what they want to do now is to use the new means of roosting in the chicken coop. Previously part of what they wanted to do was to use the old means of flying up into the tree. Sounds like control to me.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:04 AM 6/2/2003, Richard Marken wrote:
At 11:40 AM 6/3/2003, Mary Powers wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.03.1630)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.03 15:52 EDT)--

Rick Marken (2003.06.02.1100)

>So you are saying that, because the hens appear to be controlling
>_something_ by going into the hen house, going into the hen house is
>clearly a controlled variable? I don't follow this.

They walk in to the henhouse and roost consistently every day toward
evening, and every hen and rooster does so. I don't know for sure what
perceptions they are controlling by means of this action, but I do know
that they are controlling being in that location at that time of day, and
staying there until morning.

You are saying that a result that is produced consistently is a result this is
controlled. I would say that such consistency is suggestive that some variable is
under control -- a variable that looks like "roosting" to an observer, for example
-- but that's not enough to demonstrate that the result is actually under
control.

I have taken a bird from the roost and carried
it outside and set it down and it has gone back inside and gone up on the
roost.

Now you have looked for more than consistency. You have applied a disturbance
(taking the bird from the roost) to see if it effectively pushes roosting from
it's apparent reference stare. It did not -- the hen went back to the roost --
which is more evidence that some variable related to what you see as "roosting" is
under control. But I think there is still a lot more to be done to determine the
perception for which the hen is controlling. That's what PCT research is about:
trying to figure out what perceptual variable(s) another system is controlling
when it is producing the behavior we see.

If I walk outside, open the car door, and sit down in the driver's seat, it
might be a step in controlling driving to the store, or to pick up my
daughter, or to a meeting, or to sit there and listen to the radio, or to
clean the car, or any number of things. Whatever else I'm controlling by
means of getting in the car, can there be any doubt that I'm controlling
getting in the car? What if I do it every day at the same time, without
exception?

Yes, there is still some doubt that you are controlling for a perception that
would be called "getting in the car". You might be controlling for something more
like "going through the door", which is like "getting in the car" but it's a more
specific set of perceptions. This could be tested by locking the door but leaving
a window open. If you are really controlling for "getting in the car" then you
would take the window. If it's "going through the door" you would get the key to
open the door. There are surely better ways to test this but you get the point.

I agree that when organisms produce consistent results it's a good indication that
some perception _related_ to that result is under control. PCT shows that what is
actually under control is a perceptual variable -- a perception related to the
result but _from the organism's perspective_. This is an important point when you
get down to actually trying to do the science of PCT. For example, my interest in
understanding fly ball catching was kindled by a study showing that fielders
consistently produce a particular optical result when they catch fly balls: a
linear (straight line) optical path. It turns out, however, that this consistent
result is very likely a side-effect of controlling another optical variable:
vertical and horizontal optical velocity. In fact, there is now good evidence
(using a version of the test where dogs catch frisbees rather than balls) that
optical paths can be quite non-linear when the object to be caught moves in
something other than a parabola. Right now it looks like a model that controls
vertical and horizontal optical velocity mimics the frisbee results and the fly
ball results quite well.

My point is that when you start getting technical (and quantitative) about
determining the results an organism is producing on purpose, consistency is not a
sufficient indication of what these results actually are.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0800)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)

Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0700 MDT)

>Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of
>controlling something else? I wouldn't think that location itself would be
>very important to a chicken.

Certainly the bird's reference value for controlling its location is varied
by systems that control other variables.

What, exactly, do you mean by "location"? What perceptual variable do you think
the chicken is controlling?

Do you mean that chickens (like new cars) now come with an optional GPS navigation
system? It's been quite some time since I've bought a new chicken, though, so who
knows?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.06.03.1630)--

···

At 07:32 PM 6/3/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

You have applied a disturbance
(taking the bird from the roost) to see if it effectively pushes roosting from
it's apparent reference stare. It did not -- the hen went back to the roost --
which is more evidence that some variable related to what you see as "roosting" is under control.

No. I only said that the bird is controlling its location. I agree that there are other variables that it is controlling that I did not identify.

         /Bruce Nevin

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0700 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)--

No. I only said that the bird is controlling its location. I agree that
there are other variables that it is controlling that I did not identify.

Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of
controlling something else? I wouldn't think that location itself would be
very important to a chicken.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0910)]

Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0800)--

>What, exactly, do you mean by "location"? What perceptual variable do you
>think the chicken is controlling?

The chicken doesn't need a GPS device to perceive a location up on one of
the horizontal bars that traverse the space inside the hen house, to
perceive its distance from that location, and to control that distance at
zero.

I thought you meant "location" in the geographical (lat-lon) sense since you were
talking about the chickens controlling for being in the coop. But the above
definition of location makes more sense to me because it's a perception the
chickens might actually have. I would say that your hypothesis is that the
chickens are controlling for a visual relationship (on the bar) rather than a
geographical location (the lat-lon position of the bar). Of course, this could be
tested by moving the bar to different locations, which should _not_ affect control
of the relationship if that's what is being controlled. But you still can't tell
whether or not this result (being on the bar) is one the chickens are controlling
for by simply observing that that it is produced consistently. I'm not saying
that I know the chickens are _not_ controlling for the consistently produced
result that you observe. I am just saying that observing that a particular result
is produced consistently is a necessary but not a sufficient basis for concluding
that the result is under control. I think that you still have to make sure that
the result can be sensed by the behaving system and that it is protected from
disturbances by the actions the system. That is, you still have to do the test
for the controlled variable.

During the brief period when I was in conflict with the chickens about
where they should roost the conflict must have been about location, since
by definition of conflict two control systems want the same variable to be
in different states. I wasn't controlling their temperature, etc., I was
controlling their location. If they weren't controlling their location,
then I guess we weren't in conflict. But it sure seemed that we were in
conflict for a while there.

Conflict will also occur if one of the systems is controlling a variable that is
strongly related to the one in conflict. For example, you were trying to control
the geographical location of the chickens; the chickens were controlling for
roosting that was strongly related to geographical location due to the location
of their familiar roost. Such conflicts are actually kind of artificial, as you
discovered, since the chickens really didn't care where the roost was located
geographically, as long as it was accessible. You cared about the location of the
chickens were but not that they roosted. So there was no conflict once you got the
chickens to the new location; you controlled your perception of the location of
the chickens; the chickens controlled their perceptions of roosting and everyone
was happy.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0700 MDT)

···

At 09:01 AM 6/4/2003, Bill Powers wrote:

Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of
controlling something else? I wouldn't think that location itself would be
very important to a chicken.

Certainly the bird's reference value for controlling its location is varied by systems that control other variables.

         /Bruce Nevin

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0918 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)]

Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of
controlling something else? I wouldn't think that location itself would be
very important to a chicken.

Certainly the bird's reference value for controlling its location is varied
by systems that control other variables.

How did I know you were going to say that? Telepathy, I guess.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0800)]

> Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)
>
> Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0700 MDT)
>
> >Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of
> >controlling something else? I wouldn't think that location itself would be
> >very important to a chicken.
>
> Certainly the bird's reference value for controlling its location is varied
> by systems that control other variables.

What, exactly, do you mean by "location"? What perceptual variable do you think the chicken is controlling?

Do you mean that chickens (like new cars) now come with an optional GPS navigation system? It's been quite some time since I've bought a new chicken, though, so who knows?

The chicken doesn't need a GPS device to perceive a location up on one of the horizontal bars that traverse the space inside the hen house, to perceive its distance from that location, and to control that distance at zero. It appears to be using its eyes to identify this location before jumping and flapping its wings, actions which result in it perching at the point on the bar that it appeared to be foveating.

During the brief period when I was in conflict with the chickens about where they should roost the conflict must have been about location, since by definition of conflict two control systems want the same variable to be in different states. I wasn't controlling their temperature, etc., I was controlling their location. If they weren't controlling their location, then I guess we weren't in conflict. But it sure seemed that we were in conflict for a while there.

For more on control of location, I refer you to your edifying response to Bruce Gregory:

Rick Marken (01.01.17.0810)--

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.0956) --

> In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering
> with B's efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result.
> Otherwise, conflict does result.

Not quite. Even if A _does_ interfere with with B's efforts to
achieve its goals there is not necessarily conflict. For example,
A might be sitting in front of B in a theater, interfering with
B's goal of seeing the screen. If B compensates for this
interference (disturbance) in a way that does not involve pushing
back against any variables A is controlling, there is no conflict.
For example, B might move his head to the side, restoring the
controlled perception (view of the screen) to the reference (goal)
state. In this case, there is obviously no conflict despite the
fact that A was interfering with B's efforts to achieve its goals.
If, however, B tries to push A out of the way, B will be disturbing
a variable (A's location) that A is controlling. If A pushes back
against B then there will be escalating conflict. If A & B don't
come to their senses (go up a level) soon there will be violence.
The conflict is over the state of a variable that both A and B are
controlling relative to different references: the location of A.
A wants that variable centered in the seat in front of B; B wants
it somewhere else.

I assume that neither A nor B is equipped with a GPS device.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 08:00 AM 6/4/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 15:00 EDT)

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0910)]

I would say that your hypothesis is that the
chickens are controlling for a visual relationship (on the bar)

Well, when they're on the bar I don't think it's a visual relationship any more. That's why I thought of it as a location perception. But perhaps it's a grasping perception (feet grasping bar), and the chicken controls the visual perception as means for controlling the grasping perception, somewhat as a human controls visual perceptions in catching a ball. The analogy breaks down because the bar is not moving (when I walk in the yard carrying a pole on my shoulder the chickens don't roost on it, they make alarm calls and run), and because for a much longer portion of the interception path they can't see the bar (they don't bend their heads down to look underneath, whereas the catcher's glove obscures the view for only a very small portion of the ball's trajectory).

But grasping is controlled as means of controlling a location up off the ground. If I lay a bar on the floor, the chicken walks over it and all around it without grasping it and staying balanced on it ('roosting'). Foveating a bar or branch up off the ground is means of controlling a location up off the ground by means of grasping with the feet. If a chicken is put on the floor after dark it's stuck there for the night. It gets as high or as much in a corner as it can get, apparently by touch, and stays there.

rather than a
geographical location (the lat-lon position of the bar).

A latitude/longitude perception just didn't occur to me as a possibility.

Of course, this could be tested by moving the bar to different locations,

Or by presenting a bar in a different location. That is what I did.

you still have to make sure that
the result can be sensed by the behaving system

See above.

and that it is protected from
disturbances by the actions the system.

When I put the chicken on the floor of the coop it flies back up on the roost. Unless it's too dark to see -- see above.

That is, you still have to do the test
for the controlled variable.

Still don't know what it is controlling by means of location. My guess is innate references pre-set during the evolution of the population of avian species. A few sub-populations have undone this: ostriches, penguins.

Conflict will also occur if one of the systems is controlling a variable that is strongly related to the one in conflict.

I would say that a side effect of what A is controlling disturbs the variable that B is controlling. Makes "strongly related" a bit more specific.

For example, you were trying to control the geographical location of the chickens; the chickens were controlling for roosting that was strongly related to geographical location due to the location of their familiar roost.

So there's a guess that 'familiarity' is controlled.

Such conflicts are actually kind of artificial, as you
discovered, since the chickens really didn't care where the roost was located
geographically, as long as it was accessible. You cared about the location of the chickens were but not that they roosted. So there was no conflict once you got the chickens to the new location; you controlled your perception of the location of the chickens; the chickens controlled their perceptions of roosting and everyone was happy.

They couldn't see the roosts until they went in.

One point that I attempted to state at the outset was that one could identify common elements in the two situations where the chickens roosted, and this would help to narrow down what the chickens were controlling. And one could identify elements that differ in the two situations, and then examine these for variables that the chickens were able to control in one but not the other (or better able to control in one than in the other). In this way the process could provide information about controlled variables without explicitly identifying a candidate for CV and disturbing it. So it suggests possibilities for a more open and flexible experimental design and a methodology for narrowing the field of possible CVs.

Since the SOP (guess at a CV, nudge it, see if the nudge is resisted) has resulted in cultivation of a communication style that has often had undesired side effects (say something provocative, see if the correspondent is provoked - several CSG correspondents have said that they do this), it is possible that this could suggest a more flexible and open communicative style. The therapeutic maneuver called 'reframing' also comes to mind.

A second point, not as important but very much related, was that a prediction (that coercing the chickens would fail) was not borne out.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 09:10 AM 6/4/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.04.1505)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 15:00 EDT)

>Rick Marken (2003.06.04.0910)--
>
>I would say that your hypothesis is that the
>chickens are controlling for a visual relationship (on the bar)

Well, when they're on the bar I don't think it's a visual relationship any
more.

I think we're losing the thread here. I'm not saying I have any better idea of
what chicken's control for than you do. All I'm saying is that you can't tell from
the fact that certain results are produced consistently that those results are
under control. You still have to do the test for the controlled variable.

One point that I attempted to state at the outset was that one could
identify common elements in the two situations where the chickens roosted,
and this would help to narrow down what the chickens were controlling. And
one could identify elements that differ in the two situations, and then
examine these for variables that the chickens were able to control in one
but not the other (or better able to control in one than in the other). In
this way the process could provide information about controlled variables
without explicitly identifying a candidate for CV and disturbing it.

I strongly disagree with this. You have to have a candidate CV and disturb it in
order to see if that variable is, indeed, under control. Looking at common and
differing elements in a situation tells you nothing unless you have some
hypothesis regarding how these elements contribute to a CV. There is just no way
to do the test except by doing the test -- ie. look for variables that are sensed
and protected from disturbance by the actions of the behaving system. You can't
just look at an organism's environment and tell what aspects of that environment
the organism is controlling.

Again, I'm not saying I know what chickens control for. Nor am I saying that I am
particularly good at testing for controlled variables. All I'm saying is that I
don't think you can discover what variables an organism is controlling without
doing the test for the controlled variable.

So it
suggests possibilities for a more open and flexible experimental design and
a methodology for narrowing the field of possible CVs.

I think there are many different ways to perform the test. But all of them must
incorporate an understanding of what a controlled variable _is_: a variable that
is sensed and maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance by the
actions of the behaving system. Once you know that, then you know that the only
way to tell whether or not a variable is controlled is by determining that the
variables is, indeed, sensed and maintained in a reference state, protected from
disturbance by the actions of the behaving system.

Since the SOP (guess at a CV, nudge it, see if the nudge is resisted) has
resulted in cultivation of a communication style that has often had
undesired side effects (say something provocative, see if the correspondent

is provoked - several CSG correspondents have said that they do this), it

is possible that this could suggest a more flexible and open communicative
style.

This is just a problem for people who are communicating with the aim of
determining what people are controlling for. And if this testing is leading to
problems in communication it is probably not being done very well. When you apply
disturbances to a controlled variable they should be applied so as to be easily
correctable if the variable actually is under control. Otherwise you might
conclude that a variable is not being controlled when it actually is, just not
successfully. It would be like concluding that a thermostat is not able to
control temperature because the room temperature goes down substantially when you
remove all the outside walls when the temperature outside is -20.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 19:39 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.06.04.1505)--

You have to have a candidate CV and disturb it in order to see if that variable is, indeed, under control.

Oh of course. I see -- you thought I was proposing an alternative to the test. No, I'm proposing something to help determine what to test. As I said,

> a methodology for narrowing the field of possible CVs.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 03:09 PM 6/4/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.04.2000 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 19:39 EDT)--

I have a problem translating Harris' term "contrast" into quantitative
language. At times it seems the word means a transition; at others, a ratio
or a difference. Can you illuminate?

I'm having the same problem with this new term, "dependence." In
mathematics, y depends on x if y = f(x) (any function). What kind of
dependence are you referring to: dependence on magnitude, logical
dependence, cause-effect dependence? I don't know how many kinds there are,
but there are lots.

If we can get behind these words to the relationships being referred to,
maybe we can come up with clear definitions.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Erling Jorgensen (2003.06.05.1320 EDT)]

[Bill Powers (2003.06.04.0700 MDT)]

[Bruce Nevin (2003.06.04 08:41 EDT)]--

No. I only said that the bird is controlling its location. I agree that
there are other variables that it is controlling that I did not identify.

Is it possible that the bird is _varying_ its location as a means of controlling something else? I
wouldn't think that location itself would be very important to a chicken.

This is something that comes up every so often, in terms of certain variables varying and other ones being controlled.

It seems to me that variables that are varied can still be controlled. As you indicate, Bill, it may be "as a means of controlling something else". It's just that the primary variable of interest is being stabilized and controlled essentially as a _compensatory_ tracking task, while the lower implementing variables (like location in this example) are being varied and controlled as _pursuit_ tracking tasks. In other words, the higher of the control systems may be sending varying reference outputs to the lower level systems, but that is still a form of control of those lower level variables. In a HPCT hierarchy, just as it is perception all the way in, it is control all the way out.

I believe the only way to be clear that a varying variable is not being controlled is if it seems that disturbances are creating all the variations, with no corrective action being taken, (AKA, The Test).

I make no claims here about whether chickens care about location or not... :wink: (although, if they are controlling for it, I guess they do).

All the best,
        Erling