dGain in Counseling

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

Thanks for your question about what I've been up to. I'll post this to the
Net because I'd be interested in hearing some general discussion about these
ideas. My thinking about Counseling from the vantage of Perceptual Control
Theory is in its early stages. At the moment I'm not thinking so much of
applied PCT counseling techniques -- it still seems way too soon for that,
although I'm always interested whenever I can hear more of what David
Goldstein is doing.

For now it's more a matter of trying to describe the dyadic counseling
interaction in PCT terms, and starting to imagine ways it might be modeled.
My thinking usually bounces back and forth between two related fronts:
1) the components and processes of the basic *control loop*; and 2) the
levels and linkages of the proposed PCT *hierarchy*. And of course, both
of these get muddied by thinking then of the interactions between counselor
and client, as autonomous control systems mutually disturbing each other!

It seems to me that people come for counseling in the deliberate hope of
"increasing the gain" of their control systems, although of course they
wouldn't express it like that. Many foster the (vain) hope that they or
the counselor can directly change the disturbances (often other people)
in their environment. But while this is rarely an option, the fulcrum of
change can be placed at other points around the control loop.

Often, one of the first to be tried is behavioral change -- i.e., the
output function -- so as to better counteract the effects of those dis-
turbances. I'm not sure if this is a form of reorganization, or simply
discovering and utilizing alternate degrees of freedom. Another option
is to explore the client's goals and desires, including (or especially)
conflicting goals, so that new references might be set. A more difficult
option, it seems, is to "reframe" the whole way of perceiving the problem
-- i.e., alter the perceptual function. This definitely is a form of
reorganization.

The classical form of the control loop (from _B:CP_) suggests one other
possibility: that is the "environmental feedback function", (i.e., the
transfer function 'between' the behavioral output and the controlled
variable.) This is what gets utilized, for example, when someone uses
a power tool to get a job done faster. They are able to "increase their
leverage" with whatever they're working on. That essentially is the proper
role of a counselor, as I see it -- to be used as a *tool* to improve the
gain of control systems significant to the client.

This suggests that incremental changes to that environmental gain coefficient
may be one way to model counseling behavior. I believe Michelle Duggins-
Schwartz's simulations of "helping behavior" basically manipulated that
parameter. It is not clear to me if that really is a valid way to proceed,
because essentially even good counselors are "disturbances" to their clients,
in the technical sense of the PCT model. Coming as they do from _outside_
the client's system, their only access to the client's control loops is as
a disturbance. So says the current model.

Yes, that specific gain coefficient is an environmental linkage. But only
the client can determine whether any given counselor response is a help or
a hinderance, that is, whether it increases or decreases their gain, or just
disturbs. And for that it seems to need to "pass through the loop first",
(although I may be missing something here about analog processes.) In any
event, the counselor, at least, doesn't know which way it's working, until
there's some behavioral response or indication from the client.

There's a side point that may be relevant for modeling the counselor's
internal processes. To the extent they are trying to understand things
from the client's vantage point, it seems they are constantly changing
their own references to more closely match what they believe the client
is saying. In other words, at least with some of the counselor's control
systems, *references are tracking perceptions*, not the other way around.

I have some other ideas about emotion and communication, and what may be
relevant levels of the hierarchy, but maybe I'll send this for now, and
try to write up those thoughts later. Again, thanks for your interest.
Let me know how all this strikes you. (That invitation is open to others
on the Net as well!)

Pondering in Grand Forks,
        Erling Jorgensen
        erljorge@plains.nodak.edu

···

To: Kimberly Copeland

2

<[Bill Leach 950210.00:23 EST(EDT)]

Message: 96143 on Sun, 05 Feb 1995 12:15:28 -0600
Author : Erling O Jorgensen <erljorge@PLAINS.NODAK.EDU>

It seems to me that people come for counseling in the deliberate hope of
"increasing the gain" of their control systems, although of course they
wouldn't express it like that. ...

From a purely technical standpoint, "increasing the gain" of their

control systems is definately NOT something that they desire. Their
error is already high enough to have resulted in their seeking
counseling. I would suggest that what is meant in that term is that most
people have the deliberate hope of increasing the effectiveness of their
output function.

Except in the case of physical faults the "gain" of the control loops is
sufficient to accomplish whatever is physically possible for the output
functions. In a control system, increasing gain increases response speed
but reaches a limiting point where the system oscillates.

I do agree however, that the real hope is that the counselor can provide
the "secret" technique that allows the subject to control in spite of the
disturbance(s).

Often, one of the first to be tried is behavioral change -- i.e., the

output function -- so as to better counteract the effects of those dis-
turbances. ...

I would suggest here that this is not possible. If the counselor
recognizes an unintended effect of the subject's behaviour then it may
well be possible to "cause a change in the output function" but this
change will be rather indirect. By this I mean, for example, if the
manner in which the subject is trying to control a perception is
resulting in a disturbance to another person (which is itself resisted by
control action by the other person) and the disturbance so created is
NOT a necessary component for the subject's controlled perception then
just helping the subject to recognize the unintended effects and how to
achieve control without them should be sufficient.

A more difficult option, it seems, is to "reframe" the whole way of
perceiving the problem ...

Maybe, but it is also probably the most effective and permanent method.
I sincerly believe that once a person is able to perceive stress and
problems in light of a PCT understanding that their life will forever be
easier and more enjoyable to live.

-- i.e., alter the perceptual function. This definitely is a form of
reorganization.

I would be careful about asserting with certainty what is and is not due
to reorganization. It is quite likely that essentially the "same change"
for one person may require some degree of reorganization while for
another it may not.

The classical form of the control loop (from _B:CP_) suggests one other
possibility: that is the "environmental feedback function", (i.e., the
transfer function 'between' the behavioral output and the controlled
variable.) This is what gets utilized, for example, when someone uses
a power tool to get a job done faster. They are able to "increase their
leverage" with whatever they're working on. That essentially is the
proper role of a counselor, as I see it -- to be used as a *tool* to
improve the gain of control systems significant to the client.

Och!! This is the "solution" when the fellow goes home, gets his pistol,
goes back to the office and shoots his boss! The problem is that
conflict exists.

The counselor's task is to help the subject identify the source of the
conflict(s) and then to deal with what is discovered. While overwhelming
force is indeed a method that will work (assuming such is possible), such
is also not acceptable to most of us based upon the systems concepts that
we have developed.

What the counselor is faced with is a situation where a person; has
perceptions not actually consistant with "reality", has references that
are physically not possible, has behaviour which can not bring perception
to the desired reference regardless of disturbance, has behaviour which
can not bring perception to the desired reference BECAUSE of
disturbance(s)... and probably a combination of these.

And again, this is not a matter of loop gain.

... It is not clear to me if that really is a valid way to proceed,
because essentially even good counselors are "disturbances" to their
clients, in the technical sense of the PCT model. Coming as they do
from _outside_ the client's system, their only access to the client's
control loops is as a disturbance. So says the current model.

Not so! The counselor is only a disturbance IF the counselor tries to
CONTROL the subject. As Ed Ford points out rather well, such actions on
the part of the counselor tend to be counter productive. I will agree
that occassionally a good sharp disturbance IS effective but ONLY for
really getting a person's serious attention (and I would suggest that
even for that purpose a counselor would be well advised to reflect
carefully that such is the only remaining option). As a general
counseling method "shocks" are most likely counter productive.

As I see it, the idea of being "judgement free" is necessary for
precisely the reason that getting into a position where one espouses
moral positions will almost certainly lead to conflict (disturbance).

There's a side point that may be relevant for modeling the counselor's
internal processes. To the extent they are trying to understand things
from the client's vantage point, it seems they are constantly changing
their own references to more closely match what they believe the client
is saying. In other words, at least with some of the counselor's
control systems, *references are tracking perceptions*, not the other
way around.

The counselor's references are never the subject's references. In the
situation that you are discussing, the counselor's reference is to
determine the subject's references. The perception is the degree to
which the counselor believes that the subject's references are
determined.

What the counselor believes are the subject's references are then always
perceptions for the counselor. Remember, not all perceptions necessarily
are under a condition of control. For example, if one is trying to learn
"what is" or "the real truth of a matter" then it is very important that
one NOT try to control the perception. Such control is what gives us
N-Rays and other "truths" that are just plain false.

Bill's discussion of "logic" and "rational thought" from around a year
ago is an excellent view of the problems that we humans can so easily get
into while "trying to be completely objective".

-bill

3

(Erling Jorgensen 950217.08:45CST)

[Bill Leach 950210.00:23EST]

Thanks for your comments on my remarks about counseling, especially
the correction about how I was viewing "gain". I can see that if there
is unresolved error, or particularly a positive feedback situation,
then "increasing the gain" would just result in more error. I also
tried setting up two interacting control systems in a two level hier-
archy each -- using Rick's basic spreadsheet format -- and could see
the oscillatory effect of too high gain that you mentioned, (although
I'm still not clear as to why that happens.)

You're right: What I was trying to refer to was clients increasing the
effectiveness of their control by coming for counseling. But I still
think the basic form of the control loop can summarize the main options
that are available toward that end. (More on that below.)

My confusion about loop gain was coming from how I was interpreting
the Appendix in _Behavior:The Control of Perception_. The way the
equations are set up there, it looks like a change in any of the
transfer functions is a change in the gain. In fact, Bill says on
p.273, "The k-constants shown represent a linear approximation to the
actual input-output relationships of the various functions involved."

The basic concern for counseling, as I'm thinking of it through a PCT
framework, is how might a client alter the nature of their output
function, input function, and/or reference-goal, in order to achieve
better control of their own perceptions. Trying to "overpower dis-
turbances" directly, especially if those are other control systems
(i.e. people!), is not recommended, since that usually leads to
other forms of conflict.

Let me refer back to >>my remarks and >your remarks.

Often, one of the first to be tried is behavioral change -- i.e., the
output function -- so as to better counteract the effects of those dis-
turbances. ...

I would suggest here that this is not possible. If the counselor
recognizes an unintended effect of the subject's behaviour then it may
well be possible to "cause a change in the output function" ...

I didn't mean the counselor was (directly) 'causing the change'. Only
the client can try some other behavior to "see if it works" to control
something important to them. But isn't this simply recognizing and using
alternate degrees of freedom, if they're available? The counselor's
role may be in "suggesting various options." If it works, I suspect
it's because the client adopts new references which *approximate* the
suggestion. But even here, there's no guarantee the client won't just
counteract the effect of the counselor's _disturbance_ -- "Yeah, I
thought of that, but I've tried stuff like that before and it's never
worked..." (or something to that effect.)

The classical form of the control loop (from _B:CP_) suggests one other
possibility: that is the "environmental feedback function", ...
That essentially is the
proper role of a counselor, as I see it -- to be used as a *tool* ...

Och!! This is the "solution" when the fellow goes home, gets his pistol,
goes back to the office and shoots his boss! The problem is that
conflict exists.

You mention one form of an environmental tool, and obviously one that
the counselor would not encourage; in fact, if the client speaks of doing
that, the counselor has a legal and ethical "duty to warn" the intended
victim, which overrides confidentiality. But your example doesn't
address whether we can consider the counselor as a tool, functioning in
that part of the control loop.

What I was thinking of was an approach such as "evocative empathy", in
which the counselor tries to put into words what [the counselor believes]
is the client's implicit message. In other words, it is hearing and
giving voice to what the client is intending and _trying_ to say. Some
of the basic attending skills seem to fall in this camp, for instance,
paraphrasing, reflection of client's feelings, etc. If those are used
effectively, often the response is something like, "Yes, that's it
exactly!" An "interchangable response" is one way the literature speaks
of these, suggesting that the counselor is closely mimicing here what
'could have been' the client's behavioral output.

A good description of the difference between counselor-as-disturbance
and counselor-as-tool occurs in David Martin's _Counseling and Therapy
Skills_, (p.26): "You can often tell after the fact when you have gone
beyond the intended message, since the other person rejects what you
have said or falls silent and withdraws or suddenly changes the topic."
All of these seem to be negative feedback responses that counteract
the effect of what the counselor has said, because it is taking the
client 'off target' so to speak.

What the counselor is faced with is a situation where a person: has
perceptions not actually consistant with "reality", has references that
are physically not possible, has behaviour which can not bring perception
to the desired reference regardless of disturbance, has behaviour which
can not bring perception to the desired reference BECAUSE of
disturbance(s)... and probably a combination of these.

This is a nice summary of what's at stake. I'm not sure "consistent with
reality" is how I'd put it, since I lean toward a constructivist view of
'multiple subjectivities'. But I agree that these are the main issues,
including (as one of the "combinations") Bill's notion of intrinsic
conflict.

... essentially even good counselors are "disturbances" to their
clients, in the technical sense of the PCT model. Coming as they do
from _outside_ the client's system, their only access to the client's
control loops is as a disturbance. So says the current model.

Not so! The counselor is only a disturbance IF the counselor tries to
CONTROL the subject. As Ed Ford points out rather well, such actions on
the part of the counselor tend to be counter productive.

I agree that trying to control a client is counter productive. But
"disturbing" goes on even when control-of-client is not the counselor's
goal. That is the nature of interacting control systems. We *all*
function as (technically) "disturbances" to each other. With sufficient
degrees of freedom, that often is not a problem -- remember our new
slogan: "Living is collision avoidance in hyperspace!" Sometimes that
happens readily, as in passing other pedestrians on a crowded sidewalk.
Sometimes it takes quite a bit of wrestling and jostling before outcomes
are found that satisfy as many of the parties as possible. Sometimes it
seems there is intractible conflict, that people simply live with (or
die from). I simply cannot see any other point of input to the control
loop than the reference (accessible only to the client) or the distur-
bance (accessible to the environment, including counselors). Reorganiza-
tion is a whole 'nother question, and who knows what parameters that
changes?

... changing
their own references to more closely match what they believe the client
is saying. In other words, at least with some of the counselor's
control systems, *references are tracking perceptions*, ...

The counselor's references are never the subject's references. ...
What the counselor believes are the subject's references are then always
perceptions for the counselor.

I probably overstated what I was driving at. I agree that references
and perceptions are never literally shared between client and counselor.
At best it is only *beliefs about* what the other may be perceiving or
intending; (and "belief" is itself a type of perception.)

What I meant to put into the mix is whether we can _model_ this matter
of "gathering data" or "understanding another's point of view" as a
process of adjusting level N references (from the output of level N+1),
to match the incoming perceptions at level N. This would be akin to
"passive observation," for which no behavioral response is needed.
Isn't "abandoning one's goal" a way to accept the current state of one's
perceptions? (And isn't this 'controlling for perceptions' in a certain
way? -- which goes to your next point.)

Remember, not all perceptions necessarily
are under a condition of control. For example, if one is trying to learn
"what is" or "the real truth of a matter" then it is very important that
one NOT try to control the perception.

Here is where I get confused. If a given perception registers at all,
what level of its reference signal does _not_ control for it? A zero-
reference will still generate error, (unless I'm missing something about
neural currents not being able to have 'negative' values.) Are such
perceptions not involved in any control loops? Don't we have to think
of non-controlled perceptions in terms of references that drift to keep
error at zero? (And can't this be accomplished by cycling those percep-
tions through at the N+1 level, maybe with inverting the sign in the
process?)

This is getting pretty far afield from counselor-client interactions.
It's part of a side-goal I have, for what would be the most useful
techniques for *modeling* the basic properties of those interactions.
Again, thanks for all your useful comments.

Still pondering in Grand Forks,
        Erling

4

<[Bill Leach 950218.23:19 EST(EDT)]

(Erling Jorgensen 950217.08:45CST)

... the oscillatory effect of too high gain that you mentioned,
(although I'm still not clear as to why that happens.)

In the perfect control loop (theoritical of course); gain is infinite and
response time is zero.

In such a control loop ANY disturbance to the controlled variable is
instantaneously corrected with the application of overwhelming force.
The controlled variable stays at exactly the reference value no matter
what disturbance(s) are present.

In a real control system there is always a non-zero response time. If a
disturbance occurs the controlled variable will change and continue to
change... at some later time, the perception will change which of course
results in a change in the error output signal. Even later the actual
output action will occur in an attempt to correct the perceptual error.

Now if the gain is too high, the output signal will be too large causing
the output function to be greater than is necessary to correct the
original error creating a condition refered to as "overshoot" by control
systems engineers.

Again, the excessive output corrections effect on the controlled variable
is eventually seen in the perceptual signal and an error signal will be
generated to correct this new error but as before the output function
will be too great and overshoot again occurs. (As an aside; note that
the control system itself "does not know" that this is an error in its'
own control operations as opposed to an oscillatory disturbance).

If the gain is just slightly too high, overshoot will occur but what is
seen is what is commonly called "damped oscillations". That is, an
transient disturbance will result in overshoot but the correction for the
first overshoot result in less overshoot than the initial one, etc.

Insufficient gain just results in "poor" control (with "poor" meaning
less than is possible). Low gain control is NOT necessarily a "bad"
thing. Sometimes even engineered control systems are intentionally
designed for "low gain control".

An additional aspect of control systems that is probably relevent to
application to living systems is the concept of "deadband". Control
systems are often designed to ignore "small" changes perceived in the
controlled variable. From an engineering standpoint this is often done
to avoid "thrashing" (continous or almost continous output actions to
correct errors that are of no consequence to the process).

I think that living systems use this technique a great deal. That is
there are many times where "that's good enough" when we know we could do
better. Since "driving a car" seems to be a popular "control topic":
When you drive a car, your reference is to keep the car roughly in the
correct lane. You are generally not concerned whether the car is exactly
centered in the lane. Nor are you concerned with the exact position with
respect to the "lane divider".

This last brings up yet another common characteristic of many control
systems and that is the characteristic of non-linear response. When
driving a car that is drifting toward the lane divider your control action
to compensate will become increasingly more vigorous the closer to the
lane divider that you get (typically).

Of course this example (as in almost all such examples suffers from
excessive simplicity). An additional factor for the "real" example is
that for most people their perception related to the possibility of a
head on collision increases sharply if they perceive that their car will
be in the on-coming traffic lane. In this case, we could be talking
about control action from a different control system adding to the
existing error signal.

The basic concern for counseling, as I'm thinking of it through a PCT
framework, is how might a client alter the nature of their output
function, input function, and/or reference-goal, in order to achieve
better control of their own perceptions. ...

I agree naturally. I also realize that there was a problem with how I
was viewing your statements.

When you talked about changing the "input function" or the "output
function" I was thinking in terms of changing the function itself and not
changing the selection of function. That is, I was thinking in terms of
"rewiring the existing function" (clearly a reorganization action). Not
that this would not necessarily be possible but also not (I think) what
you were actually talking about.

Erling:

Often, one of the first to be tried is behavioral change -- i.e., the
output function -- so as to better counteract the effects of those
disturbances. ...

Me:

I would suggest here that this is not possible. If the counselor
recognizes an unintended effect of the subject's behaviour then it may
well be possible to "cause a change in the output function" ...

Erling:

I didn't mean the counselor was (directly) 'causing the change'. Only
the client can try some other behavior to "see if it works" to control
something important to them.

This still bothers me but at least now I think I know why. The emphasis
here is on the wrong part of the problem. The client may well not know
that "their behaviour" is a problem and their might be some value in
discussing the conflict resulting from this perception (by others).

It seems to me that the issue is always the reference -- what is it that
the client is trying to do? If what the client wants to accomplish is
itself not the source of conflict but rather something like unintended
consequences then by all means, the counselor's efforts should be
directed at helping the client see how to achieve the goal (including
setting references for not creating unnecessary conflict).

Changing "input functions" might actually be easier than one would think
since Ed Ford has worked in this particular area with specific techniques
that seem to work well. It may be instructive to those that think that
just telling someone that they are viewing the world incorrectly will
work to see what Ed has the client do and why. Changing what we expect
from the world and therefore our perceptions is definately NOT an easy
task.

... But isn't this simply recognizing and using alternate degrees of
freedom, if they're available?

I don't think so... at least not exactly. While "degrees of freedom" get
bantered about a lot on CSG-L the reference is usually to mathematically
possible freedom. We all "know" that there is often many different ways
to accomplish a task and most recognize that there are ways to accomplish
a given take of which we have no knowledge. However, we DO choose some
method for some reason. Just the suggestion that another method would be
better is not sufficient. Having a person "think out" an alternate
method would likely be more successful.

... environmental feedback loop

I'm still not sure that I am following you on this one. The ways in
which the counselor can become a part of the feedback loop are when the
counselor becomes an intervener... that is the counselor applies a
disturbance to what the client is attempting to control in hopefully a
"co-operative" manner.

The "evocative empathy" that you mention may well be a useful tool for
the counselor in trying to understand the client and indeed it may well
be very useful in helping the client to understand the "issue".

A very real danger in this "evocative empathy" is that the counselor's
own standards and references can become involved. It is, I believe, very
important to not be "judgemental". One should be very reluctant to
"offer advice". There is in my mind a crucial difference between the
sort of thing that Ed does and most "well intentioned" counseling.

"You can often tell after the fact when you have gone beyond the
intended message, since the other person rejects what you have said or
falls silent and withdraws or suddenly changes the topic." All of these
seem to be negative feedback responses that counteract the effect of what
the counselor has said, because it is taking the client 'off target' ...

This is undoubtedly true but there is some "assumptive baggage" here.
'Off target' carries the implication that the target is the issue to be
resolved and ignores the references that the client may have for their
perception of what the counselor "thinks of them". A very real problem
is always that the reference that the client TALKS about is not actually
the reference that is at issue.

"consistent with reality"

I admit that I was loose with that term. The extreme is the sort of
thing that a counselor would not want to deal with... people that think
that they can defy gravity and such.

Such is a "judgement call" but at times one does encounter people that
really do misinterpret what is going on around them in some often simple
way.

counselor as a disturbance

At some point and undoubtedly at some times it is likely that a counselor
has to be a disturbance to the client. This should not be intentional
however (except as I mentioned before as an attention getting device).

From a PCT standpoint, the counselor is trying to help the client to

control well. This can only be accomplished with the client establishes
references that are consistant internally and with the client's
environment. If the counselor has additional goals such as a corporate
counselor may have then yes disturbances and conflict become more
probable.

My view of "our counselor" is that the counselor is a disinterested party
only interested is helping the client to control well. This is not
completely realistic of course but as soon as you add the counselor's own
standards and systems concepts the discussion becomes hopelessly complex.

... I simply cannot see any other point of input to the control loop
than the reference (accessible only to the client) or the disturbance
(accessible to the environment, including counselors).

Remember, not all environmental variables are under control and thus not
all perceptions are controlled. Providing information to a client is not
necessarily a disturbance -- hopefully it results in a perception (client
is not asleep, etc). For example, if you provide information to a client
that results in the client having a perception that the client has done
something wrong (by the client's own reference standards) -- YOU have not
really 'disturbed' the client (in the PCT sense) if your information was
accepted as truth and the client has a high reference level for truth.
The disturbance is rather the result of an internal conflict.

Reorganization is a whole 'nother question, and who knows what
parameters that changes?

Yes, it is but it also might be the source of "If you don't succeed at
first ..." I don't believe that we know enough about reorganization yet
to talk much about "intentionally" causing its activation.

modeling "understanding another's point of view"

You probably should talk with Tom Bourbon about the modeling question but
I suggest that the still tentative nature of the levels of perception may
make any attempt difficult. I don't want to dump "cold water" on an idea
and I know that many really creative modeling ideas can overcome the most
"rational" of "it can't be dones"...

Isn't "abandoning one's goal" a way to ...

Yes.

Well, actually there are several ways that such could occur. In the
first place any known biological comparitor has a single "polarity"
output signal. A single comparitor is essentially a subtractor. The
effect then is that either the perception is subtracted from the
reference or vice versa but not both. Thus if the perception is
subtracted from the reference and the reference is zero then the error
output for all values of the perception is also zero.

In the case of "bi-directional" control loops, what actually exists are
multiple simple control loops. Thus for the example given above, the
second control loop would (in effect) subtract the reference from the
perception in its' comparitor. For a "don't care" condition the
reference would be set for maximum and as long as the perception could
not exceed a maximum reference (not likely) then this error output would
also be zero.

For such a "loop" to begin controlling, the references for both
comparitors would be changed. The zero reference of the first comparitor
would be raised to some non-zero value and the maximum of the second
comparitor would be lowered. Depending upon relative signal strenghts,
desired deadband and the like the two reference may even be very close to
the same absolute magnitude.

Martin brought up several interesting concepts concerning this sort of an
arrangment. If the effective references overlap but the two loops are
non-linear control is still possible. A possible case might be when one
"tenses" muscles while keeping the limb in a fixed position. It is in
fact highly likely that the particular situation described by Martin IS
what happens.

... perceptions not involved in any control loops? Don't we have to
think of non-controlled perceptions in terms of references that drift to
keep error at zero? (And can't this be accomplished by cycling ...

I don't know that anyone will argue too vigorously that it is not
possible that this is what is going on except that such calls for
switching that is not included in the current model. The current model
can handle the "uncontrolled" perception quite well as it now stands just
by setting the reference at one extreme or the other. There is some
biological research data that is at least somewhat supportive of this
concept.

-bill