Dialog on QUALITY-L

[Dag Forssell (940804 1650)] Receiving: dforssell@mcimail.com

An exchange on QUALITY-L. (listserv@pucc.princeton.edu)
This list has 1000 subscribers. I have offered an article and the
PCT Resource Guide. 68 people have asked for it. This is the
first comment:

···

Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 10:12:10 EDT
From: DACKLIN@aol.com
Subject: The Achilles' Heel of TQM

-----------------------Original message------------------------
Listserv members:

In regards to Dag Forsell's "Psychological Theory: The Achilles'
Heel of TQM," of which some QUALITY listserv members have requested
and received a copy.

First, I am missing a fundamental understanding of PCT (Perceptual
Control Theory). Using the distinctions of descriptive
generalization, descriptive non-explanation, and causal mechanism,
I can not root out the philosophical underpinnings of PCT. To
point, I am left with what is in my perception a Janus. PCT seems
to encompass both behaviorism and cognitive psychology. A theory's
epistemological consequences aside, I am not sure I understand the
why and why again of PCT. Here is my "understanding" based on the
reading:

PCT uses linear causality to follow the chains of events in reverse
to describe definitively the cause of sequences ending in the
result observed and investigated (the causal chain keeps reacting,
or moving forward, while the scientists study the isolated event).

More direct then would be my need to know if this is based on
linear causality and, thus, uses ceteris paribus as a scientific
tool. This may clarify a great deal, since I expected language
conducive to systemic understanding when Deming was noted as the
foundation for your paper. Could you calrify please?

Second, pertaining to the utility of information/observation: "I
have heard people say: 'Dont' bore me with theory. Tell me what to
do to implement the Deming Management Philosophy." I agree with the
need for studying the theory of knowledge first. Suggestion: Find
Karl Weick's book "The Social Psychology of Organizing" (1979, not
1974). Chapter 6 on enactment may provide new insights into
perceptual alteration (and for later on in the paper, the
construction of reality). This is an excellent text. I also suggest
Daniel Goleman's "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" for a discussion of
our ability to "edit" experiences and perceptions (a psychological
perspective).

I liked your comments on the absence of objective reality and the
existence of subjective reality, which is used as a "map" or
standard operating procedure in spurious environments: "All anyone
can know is subjective reality. But the dependability--the
effectiveness--of a person's subjective map reality varies
greatly." In Gregory Bateson's "Mind and Nature" there is chapter
called "Every schoolboy knows..." which includes an interesting
discussion of the 'map is not the territory/the name is not the
thing named' idea.

In discussing the black box and a newborn's clumsiness--I perceived
this to make the argument that a newborn has no innate (allow for
the analogy) software, but must learn everything by
trial-and-error. Was this the intention?

Again, in reference to the black box--"the brain acts in order to
affect what it experiences." Awhile back, Bill Moyers made a
documentary on images called "The Public Mind: Image and Reality in
America." Focusing on advertising, marketing, political campaigns
and such it tackles the question "how would I be better than me if
I were ________?" The difference comes when, in considering the
black box as behaviorist in a sense, the program offers a cognitive
approach as a means to the same ends.

Per language: "As humans, we benefit from a well developed
capability to hear and utter sounds.... While some sounds are
associated with singular experiences, many words soon come to
represent a whole class of experience.... Instead of having to
duplicate experience, we can describe and categorize experiences in
a general way." All language is metaphor; we are symbol-using
creatures. I would contend that a great deal of mis-management
occurs, much like you have noted, under the guise of behaviorist
models of management. I would go further in saying that it comes to
a question of context of language and symbol use. In studying
language we can identify the miscommunication within organizational
culture that creates their own vicious cycles and
deviation-amplifying loops to create stress. Any understanding of
psychology within an organization, therefore, should be predicated
by solid organizational communication and ethnographical research.
In other words, the psychologist with his new hammer must
understand what nails, screws, and bolts are and what function they
serve beforing hammering everything that appears to be a nail.

I liked the three distinctions for theory: descriptive
generalization, descriptive non-explanation, and causal mechanism.
It seems, with a quick mental check, to make a great deal of sense
and, if nothing else, forces one to check the assumptions and
premises of any mental modus operendi. I also enjoyed the
discussion of applications--not being especially thrilled with
medicine's approach to "medicine" I found the comments reaffirming
of the "ability-to-use-bigger-words-based-in-other-languages-to-
sound-informed" idea of perverse or false professional credibility.

Sincerely, Dave Acklin <dacklin@aol.com>

--------------------------------------------------------
My reply posted today:

Subject: The Achilles' Heel of TQM

[Dag Forssell 940804] Receiving address: dforssell@mcimail.com

Dave Acklin <dacklin@aol.com> writes Tue, 2 Aug 1994:

In regards to Dag Forssell's "Psychological Theory: The Achilles'
Heel of TQM," of which some QUALITY listserv members have
requested and received a copy.

First, I am missing a fundamental understanding of PCT (Perceptual
Control Theory). Using the distinctions of descriptive
generalization, descriptive non-explanation, and causal mechanism,
I can not root out the philosophical underpinnings of PCT. To
point, I am left with what is in my perception a Janus. PCT seems
to encompass both behaviorism and cognitive psychology. A theory's
epistemological consequences aside, I am not sure I understand the
why and why again of PCT. Here is my "understanding" based on the
reading:

Dave, I appreciate your comments and an opportunity to clarify.

This particular paper was designed to establish criteria and a way
of thinking by which theories can be evaluated first, and only
secondarily to tease you with the availability of a new theory in
the field of psychology -- one that works. Unless you question the
validity of existing theory, you have no reason to look closely at
something else. I did provide brief thumbnail sketches of PCT in
the article and in the PCT Resource Guide.

PCT does not *encompass* behaviorism and cognitive psychology, but
*explains* the appearance, or illusion, of stimulus-response etc.

Allow me to use an analogy. In about 140 AD, Ptolemy formalized an
Earth-centered model of the universe. This explanation was a
Causal Mechanism. As astronomers used it, they found discrepancies
and refined this systems model with additional features in order to
bring theory and observation closer together. One of the problems
was that some planets occasionally move backwards in their circular
motion around the Earth. The solution was to add epicycles -- small
circular motions around the points in space that did (were thought
to) move in a perfect circle around Earth.

Ptolemy's model made so much sense, that it became accepted
science. Copernicus did not dare publish his Sun-centered model
until he was on his deathbed. Galileo got in trouble because he
supported it, and contemporary "scientists" refused to even look
through his telescope, where Galileo claimed they could see for
themselves that Jupiter has moons of its own.

The many epicycles of Ptolemy's model were *facts* of life in the
1500's. Scientists totally believed in this causal mechanism.

Today, most of us are taught at an early age that the Sun-centered
model of our universe is a *fact*. It is really a systems model;
a causal mechanism which was proposed initially as a guess, then
tested and validated in many experiments. Personally, I have never
seen any "fact" beyond my observation that the Sun rises in the
East and moves across the sky in a circular motion. (The same fact
Ptolemy saw). Yet I totally believe in the mental construct of a
Sun-centered universe and recognize that this successful causal
mechanism has allowed us to land on the Moon and planets.

We now recognize that the Earth-centered causal mechanism was a
false guess, and reject out-of-hand any argument about the reality
of apparent epicycles based on it. Yet, the epicycles are still
there for all to see. The difference is that we now realize that
the Sun-centered "systems model" (I am trying to be careful with my
language here, systems model means something different and more
physical than flow chart or word model -- boxes on paper with words
in them) *explains* the appearance or *illusion* of epicycles. It
does not *encompass* them. Another way to say this is to say that
epicycles *emerge* from the normal operation of the Sun-centered
system, but do not really exist.

If you traveled back in time to the 1500's and participated in a
discussion of epicycles, you would likely be thought of as arrogant
if you tried to mention the mere possibility that the Earth-
centered model is mistaken and that epicycles don't exist at all.
Scientists would struggle to fit what you are saying into their
mental construct of an Earth-centered universe, dismiss you or
change the meaning of what you say -- thus misunderstanding you.

PCT uses linear causality to follow the chains of events in
reverse to describe definitively the cause of sequences ending in
the result observed and investigated (the causal chain keeps
reacting, or moving forward, while the scientists study the
isolated event).

Here, I guess you are using your existing understanding of flow
chart and word model analysis in modern psychology. Norbert Wiener
was misunderstood in the same way. I said nothing of the kind. My
systems illustrations, taken to be flow charts or word models as
you interpret them, probably give rise to this interpretation in
your mind. Closed control loops control continuously, never step
by step. To describe them without giving you the opportunity to
misunderstand is nearly impossible. Signals in nerve fibers travel
with close to the speed of sound, and the distances are in inches.
Action is smooth and fast. Get those computer demonstrations and
tutorials. Play with control. Get a personal feel for how it
works.

More direct then would be my need to know if this is based on
linear causality and, thus, uses ceteris paribus as a scientific
tool. This may clarify a great deal, since I expected language
conducive to systemic understanding when Deming was noted as the
foundation for your paper. Could you clarify please?

Control requires and depends on causal relationships between
components (see exhibit 4 in the article describing the tendon
reflex loop, for example) but the fact that the loop is closed
means that there is no beginning and no end. Causality is *not*
linear.

Deming was *not* noted as the foundation for my paper. I offered
my personal assessment of the four elements of Profound Knowledge.
I am fond of Deming, appreciate what he stood for and -- most
important -- his values of respect for your fellow human being.
But I believe that psychological theory is truly the fatal
Achilles' Heel of the Deming Management Philosophy and any other
approach to TQM or management in general. Psychology is rightly
one of the four elements of PK. Deming had plenty of experience
with psychology, just like wise counselors and the rest of us.
Unfortunately, Deming did not have any valid psychological theory,
because our scientific community does not. This leaves the vital
subject of psychology up to the experience of each individual.
Personal interpretations vary widely and it is next to impossible
to compare notes, because nobody has had a causal mechanism to
present--one that works that is. Management programs, no matter how
wise, become very difficult to implement.

When you yourself behave or when you observe others behave, the
PHENOMENON OF CONTROL stares you in the face. We act to make our
purposes (wants) come true, and stay true, even as they change
rapidly.

Psychological theory has yet to attempt to explain this obvious
phenomenon. Behaviorist theories explicitly denied it. Research
results based on behaviorist theories have been piss-poor by any
engineering standards, but get published anyway because with a
large enough sample you can make anything "statistically
significant" regardless of the basic correlation, and "this is the
best we can do." Thus our culture has become permeated by
"epicycles" of modern psychology, falsehoods which superficially
appear to be true and sound interesting, but which when viewed from
the perspective of control are readily explained as emerging from
the operation and interaction of control systems. The multitude of
falsehoods are exposed and the perspective simplified tenfold.

Cognitive psychology is not much better. The various approaches
make other bad guesses and introduce additional "epicycles", which
again can be shown to emerge from the operation of control systems.

Please don't expect me to debate 67 different theories of
psychology, and read all the interesting books. Ask yourself why
there are so many "theories" and why not one of them can validate
tests with 99% correlation. I limit myself to telling you about
the availability of PCT, which does test at the 99% level in
simple, basic demonstrations of the phenomenon of control, and to
show some of the basic implications of this understanding to
management issues of many kinds.

I am well aware that as a "time traveler" from the future PCT
science of psychology, I come across as arrogant when I dismiss
most of contemporary psychology "epicycles" as irrelevant
falsehoods. Note that the field of psychology itself gives strong
clues that its foundation is false. Clinical psychology and
Research psychology are two different fields, with their own
separate societies and journals. The political schism and
infighting is real, I am told -- they hardly talk to each other.
A mechanical, electrical or chemical engineer would be
flabbergasted to see theory and application fight, poles apart. I
am personally puzzled by the acceptance of this sad state of
affairs in the social "sciences." My personal guess is that a
basic problem is the absence of training in the basic, "techie"
sciences among a majority of psychologists and social scientists.
Here we have people dealing with this most complicated (but still
physical) mechanism (our brain), avoiding techie subjects in school
because they are too difficult and complicated? My arrogant
conclusion is that few social scientists are qualified to work in
their fields. In the small group developing PCT, clinicians and
theoreticians support each other and work hand in hand, because the
theory has proven valid as far as it has been possible to test it.
Our few clinicians have excellent results.

I once heard that Deming was asked what books on quality he would
recommend. His reply: 95% of them should be burned.

I am convinced that our widespread "psychological" practice of
using statistics from groups when making decisions about
individuals is damaging, that the foundations of contemporary
psychological theories are demonstrably false, and that 99% of
books on psychology should be burned. Now you *know* I am
arrogant.

Second, pertaining to the utility of information/observation: "I
have heard people say: Don't bore me with theory. Tell me what to
do to implement the Deming Management Philosophy." I agree with
the need for studying the theory of knowledge first. Suggestion:
Find Karl Weick's book "The Social Psychology of Organizing"
(1979, not 1974). Chapter 6 on enactment may provide new insights
into perceptual alteration (and for later on in the paper, the
construction of reality). This is an excellent text. I also
suggest Daniel Goleman's "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" for a
discussion of our ability to "edit" experiences and perceptions (a
psychological perspective).

I have Goleman's "Vital Lies, Simple Truths; The Psychology of
Self-Deception," and have looked again (briefly). (I confess to
buying it in a former life, before I saw the bright light of PCT :slight_smile:
I probably saw an interesting review). I see an uncritical review
and parade of useless, unproven and unprovable psychological word
models with lots of fancy words (various Earth-centered universes
with epicycles).

An excerpt from the cover:

   Everything the mind perceives is sorted, filtered and censored
   by the unconscious _before_ it reaches awareness, and as much as
   99% is never even registered. Our blind spots block these
   perceptions and in so doing offer us a sense of security, but at
   a psychological cost. The mind actively shields itself from
   anxiety by twisting attention away from painful truths. Thus,
   in an effort to avoid anxiety, the unconscious censors
   information, whether it be perceptions of the moment or distant
   memories. The result of this filtering is a soothing self-
   deception which diminishes anxiety--but the price to be paid is
   a blunted experience of life.

Our unconscious (whatever that is in this context) sure is busy.

From my perspective, this is 99.44% pure BS, typical of the genre.

But it sure sounds good if you are not among the unfortunate few
who have learned how a living control system works and can cut
through the crap.

I liked your comments on the absence of objective reality and the
existence of subjective reality, which is used as a "map" or
standard operating procedure in spurious environments: "All anyone
can know is subjective reality. But the dependability--the
effectiveness--of a person's subjective map reality varies
greatly." In Gregory Bateson's "Mind and Nature" there is chapter
called "Every schoolboy knows..." which includes an interesting
discussion of the 'map is not the territory/the name is not the
thing named' idea.

I have not studied Bateson myself, but I know that some of my peers
in PCT have and respect him greatly.

In discussing the black box and a newborn's clumsiness--I
perceived this to make the argument that a newborn has no innate
(allow for the analogy) software, but must learn everything by
trial-and-error. Was this the intention?

Essentially, yes. (I am not in a position to know just how much
may be genetically determined). When it comes to basic physical
functions, the environment dictates what works, so we arrive at
near-identical "software" for things like moving our bodies. At
higher levels we have more options. You prefer a cold beer, I grab
apple juice to quench that thirst. Either way, we control just the
right perception of H2O inside, which *is* genetically and
biochemically specified. You are taught, learn and decide to
believe in eternal life submerged in the Hindu Nirvana; I am a
card-carrying atheist. Neither system concept affects our vital
body chemistry directly, but could in different circumstances.

Again, in reference to the black box--"the brain acts in order to
affect what it experiences." Awhile back, Bill Moyers made a
documentary on images called "The Public Mind: Image and Reality
in America." Focusing on advertising, marketing, political
campaigns and such it tackles the question "how would I be better
than me if I were ________?" The difference comes when, in
considering the black box as behaviorist in a sense, the program
offers a cognitive approach as a means to the same ends.

I can't make this out. More epicycles?

....... Any understanding of psychology within an organization,
therefore, should be predicated by solid organizational
communication and ethnographical research. In other words, the
psychologist with his new hammer must understand what nails,
screws, and bolts are and what function they serve before
hammering everything that appears to be a nail.

"Solid .. research" is extraordinarily rare in the social sciences,
because social scientists in the late 20th century still have not
figured out what nails, screws and bolts are. (That is one reason
social science research is almost never replicated, another might
be that they never get the same results twice). Social scientists
of all stripes talk of epicycles which emerge from control, even
talk of control without understanding it, and fail over and over.
They are often limited to a pretense of knowledge, supported on the
crutch of statistics--which allows them to ignore the failure and
disproof of their theories.

I liked the three distinctions for theory: descriptive
generalization, descriptive non-explanation, and causal mechanism.
It seems, with a quick mental check, to make a great deal of sense
and, if nothing else, forces one to check the assumptions and
premises of any mental modus operandi. I also enjoyed the
discussion of applications--not being especially thrilled with
medicine's approach to "medicine" I found the comments reaffirming
of the "ability-to-use-bigger-words-based-in-other-languages-
to-sound-in formed" idea of perverse or false professional
credibility.

Thank you. Now, see if that holds true in most of the life
sciences of today, including your cherished personal field of
management interest--whatever it is--where you have a personal
investment in being "right." This is a very difficult challenge.
As a living control system you have developed your higher levels of
understanding, decided to believe in those principles and systems
concepts, and control your perceptions with them as references. As
a control system, it is your nature to resist disturbances to
whatever perceptions you control, at whatever level of complexity.
Therefore, you are highly likely to dismiss altogether or interpret
what I am saying so it fits with what you already know, rather than
immerse yourself in it and reconsider everything you thought you
knew. There is a nice post on epiphanies that deals with this in
the archives on BPR-L mentioned in my cover letter. Nothing
personal, just some explanations from a PCT perspective as to why
PCT has met resistance in the "scientific" journals during its 30+
years of development, just like Galileo met resistance in his time,
and most other scientific breakthroughs have been resisted by those
with a committment to previous paradigms, as Thomas S. Kuhn tells
us in _The Structure of Scientifif Revolutions_.

Best, Dag

  ######################################## INSIDE CONTROLLING BRAIN #######
  # # #
  # # reference-want #
  # Dag C. Forssell MSME, MBA # perception signal difference #
  # Purposeful Leadership(R) # signal |+ signal #
  # 23903 Via Flamenco # \ - v = / #
  # Valencia CA, 91355-2808 USA # input ----> comparator ---> output #
  # # function function #
  # Phone (805) 254-1195 # ^ inside brain | #
  # Fax (805) 254-7956 # == | ======================== | == #
  # to: dforssell@mcimail.com # | outside brain v #
  # fr: dforssell@aol.com # controlled <------------- action #
  # # variable | | #
  # Teaching and applying: # ^ ---- (influences) ---- v #
  # Perceptual Control Theory # | other #
  # # disturbances effects #
  # # #
  ########################################### WORLD AROUND BRAIN ##########