Discouraged

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.07)]

As I returned to CSGNet and read the posts of the last couple of weeks, I experienced error that can best be described as discouragement.

I think the error stems from what I see posted on CSGNet compared to my reference for what I want to see posted there. My reference is something akin to a forum where the PCT theory of behavior (that behavior is the control of perception), and its corollary HPCT theory, can be proclaimed, explained, discussed, debated and be expanded and improved.

While that happens often enough to keep me on the list, scanning every post, and occasionally asking questions or proposing alternate theories, what I also observe are many posts talking about people on the Net. While some is praise, more often, it is criticism, sarcasm, accusation and other forms of personal attack. If you understand PCT, it will be no surprise that when you push on someone’ self-concept reference of themselves, they will resist and defend and even push back with their own attack on the attacker.

While these actions and behavior are explained by PCT/HPCT, they are still a disturbance, at least to me. So, I wonder if they are disturbing to other members too?

Again, for me, I would be embarrassed to send a collegue or friend to this Net to read what I have found there recently. Someone who is doubting the adequacy or correctness of other psychology theories and might get excited by PCT/HPCT and its explanations may quickly conclude this is not a place I want to go to gain understanding of behavior. Worse, who would want to post questions or challenges and get attacked, riduculed or ignored? It seems we have some perpetual lurkers. Who knows why? But, you can’t add anything to the theory or the dialogue or the learning by others by lurking.

This is not to say the situation for spreading the knowledge of PCT/HPCT to more people is hopeless. I refer anyone who shows interest in understanding behavior to such resources as books and web sites where the theory is explained. But, I perceive the CSGNet could be so much more powerful with potentially an exponential growth in participants on the Net, where we get to know one another as a side effect, perhaps via private replys.

I think all this explains why I feel discouraged? What can be done if others share a reference more similar to mine?

I suggest self-control. Stay away from personal accusations and character assassination. Keep on the theory and be careful of the way applications are discussed.

I see trying to address personal references for politics, religion, or other beliefs as openings for conflict between participants. I’ve asked repeatedly for those which have high gains on such beliefs to consider taking those personal references to a forum devoted to those topics. There, taking sides on what is best, or right or wrong, what is lovable or hated whether you are pro or con may be what the members seek. The conflict in the Steelers-Raiders game is expected and enjoyable. I will not be watching the game to learn anything of lasting value. I do hope to learn things of lasting value watching (lurking) and participating in CSGNet. But, not to learn to use irony or scarcasim the best, or win an argument or get others to just give up and win by default.

But, when someone lacks the self-control, and puts their personal preferences above the goal of having a valuable forum that edifies PCT/HPCT and those wanting to understand and utilize it, what can you do in an unmoderated forum?

I know of two things. First, do not reply on the forum. If no one replys to a person who can’t control themselves, they will probably eventually give up posting and leave. That would be progress without conflict, rancor and discouragement of current and new posters on the Net.

Second, if you just can’t resist trying to correct, admonish, etc., a poster, do so privately. They may give you a tussle or they may thank you for trying to communicate, understand and find constructive improvement in personal behavior that strengthens the Net as a place where you can learn without being discouraged.

I can hardly believe I am going to hit “Send Now.” Instead of responding to some great posts, I have spent much time trying to share some ideas that could lead to encouragement and learning. Probably will be blasted for trying. So it goes. Stay cheerful anyway.

A Discouraged PCTer.

2

[Bill Williams 7 December 2003 4:10 P.M.]

Kenny,

you say, that what you observe on the net too often consists of

"... criticism, sarcasm, accusation and other forms of personal

     attack."

I would agree. Your solution of directing such communications off
the CSGnet is one solution. Another might be to learn through
control theory to interact inter-personally in an effective manner.

You say,

[I'll] Probably will be blasted for trying." Not by me. We could

try the test for the controlled variable.

Bill Williams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems
Sent: Sun 12/7/2003 12:02 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Discouraged

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.07)]

As I returned to CSGNet and read the posts of the last couple of weeks, I
experienced error that can best be described as discouragement.

I think the error stems from what I see posted on CSGNet compared to my
reference for what I want to see posted there. My reference is something akin to a
forum where the PCT theory of behavior (that behavior is the control of
perception), and its corollary HPCT theory, can be proclaimed, explained,
discussed, debated and be expanded and improved.

While that happens often enough to keep me on the list, scanning every post,
and occasionally asking questions or proposing alternate theories, what I also
observe are many posts talking about _people_ on the Net. While some is
praise, more often, it is criticism, sarcasm, accusation and other forms of
personal attack. If you understand PCT, it will be no surprise that when you push
on someone' self-concept reference of themselves, they will resist and defend
and even push back with their own attack on the attacker.

While these actions and behavior are explained by PCT/HPCT, they are still a
disturbance, at least to me. So, I wonder if they are disturbing to other
members too?

Again, for me, I would be embarrassed to send a collegue or friend to this
Net to read what I have found there recently. Someone who is doubting the
adequacy or correctness of other psychology theories and might get excited by
PCT/HPCT and its explanations may quickly conclude this is not a place I want to go
to gain understanding of behavior. Worse, who would want to post questions
or challenges and get attacked, riduculed or ignored? It seems we have some
perpetual lurkers. Who knows why? But, you can't add anything to the theory or
the dialogue or the learning by others by lurking.

This is not to say the situation for spreading the knowledge of PCT/HPCT to
more people is hopeless. I refer anyone who shows interest in understanding
behavior to such resources as books and web sites where the theory is explained.
But, I perceive the CSGNet could be so much more powerful with potentially
an exponential growth in participants on the Net, where we get to know one
another as a side effect, perhaps via private replys.

I think all this explains why I feel discouraged? What can be done if others
share a reference more similar to mine?

I suggest self-control. Stay away from personal accusations and character
assassination. Keep on the theory and be careful of the way applications are
discussed.

I see trying to address personal references for politics, religion, or other
beliefs as openings for conflict between participants. I've asked repeatedly
for those which have high gains on such beliefs to consider taking those
personal references to a forum devoted to those topics. There, taking sides on
what is best, or right or wrong, what is lovable or hated whether you are pro or
con may be what the members seek. The conflict in the Steelers-Raiders game
is expected and enjoyable. I will not be watching the game to learn anything
of lasting value. I do hope to learn things of lasting value watching
(lurking) and participating in CSGNet. But, not to learn to use irony or scarcasim
the best, or win an argument or get others to just give up and win by default.

But, when someone lacks the self-control, and puts their personal preferences
above the goal of having a valuable forum that edifies PCT/HPCT and those
wanting to understand and utilize it, what can you do in an unmoderated forum?

I know of two things. First, do not reply on the forum. If no one replys to
a person who can't control themselves, they will probably eventually give up
posting and leave. That would be progress without conflict, rancor and
discouragement of current and new posters on the Net.

Second, if you just can't resist trying to correct, admonish, etc., a poster,
do so privately. They may give you a tussle or they may thank you for trying
to communicate, understand and find constructive improvement in personal
behavior that strengthens the Net as a place where you can learn without being
discouraged.

I can hardly believe I am going to hit "Send Now." Instead of responding to
some great posts, I have spent much time trying to share some ideas that could
lead to encouragement and learning. Probably will be blasted for trying. So
it goes. Stay cheerful anyway.

A Discouraged PCTer.

3

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12..07.2007)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.07)]

While that happens often enough to keep me on the list, scanning every

post,

and occasionally asking questions or proposing alternate theories, what I

also

observe are many posts talking about _people_ on the Net. While some is
praise, more often, it is criticism, sarcasm, accusation and other forms

of

personal attack.

The posts that you are probably referring to are a brief exchange between
myself and Bill Williams that was supposed to be private and not intended
for public consumption.

I'm sorry you were exposed to the exchange, but mistakes do happen. The
mistake of course being in the publication not in the content.

Marc

4

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.08)]

<Bill Williams 7 December 2003 4:10 P.M.>

[I’ll] Probably will be blasted for trying."

Thanks for not blasting or bashing me. You have never been a significant disturbance to any of my controlled variables (of self).

It seems to me you have in the past contributed to PCT science on the Net and at the conferences and still could, especially in developing a valid negative feedback loop model of the economy.

Unfortunately, since you seem to have provoked a large disturbance in Bill P., whether you intended to or not, our CSGNet will probably not have the benefit of collaboration of the Super PCT Bees (BP and BW). I know we have some Super Bees with the Bruce handles as well as the Bills.

I wish you Bill Bees could go up a level or two and find a way to reconcile the past and share goals for the future. But, what could facilitate that? I dare not pretend to know.

Best regards,

Kenny

5

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12…08)]

<Marc Abrams (2003.12…07.2007)>

Unfortunately, I think I became discouraged before reading the referenced posts.

<I’m sorry you were exposed to the exchange, but mistakes do happen. The
mistake of course being in the publication not in the content>

That may be your perception. Bill P had another one concerning the content. I had a third. No surprise really for PCTers.

I had stopped responding publicly to any of your posts on CSGNet and told you why privately. But, since your last private reply to me was very gracious, I find myself answering publicly.

There is always a hope that a metanoia is possible for you and for me and all present. That your contributions here would be edifying to eveyone pondering PCT/HPCT. Everyone deserves a chance to “change their spots.” Probably several chances.

6

Phil Runkel replying to Kenny Kitzke's of Sunday 07 Dec.

Kenny: Thanks for your expression of anguish. I too refrain from
telling my friends and colleagues about CSGnet. I do tell them about
books, articles, and Forssell's resources. --Phil R.

7

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.9)]

<Kenny: Thanks for your expression of anguish. I too refrain from
telling my friends and colleagues about CSGnet. I do tell them about
books, articles, and Forssell’s resources. --Phil R.>

Phil, while I do that too, I have found very few (if any) that took the time to read and follow-up with me or anyone on PCT. Perhaps it is because most of my referrals are to managers and executives who seem just too busy to study the resources available. Sometimes I think that they would be more likely to read some CSGNet posts and get interested. Most are on a computer a great deal, at work, at home and when traveling, which for some is quite frequent.

I have to confess, that I started reading your book after the conference, but it has found itself placed in a stack of “want to read” books and articles. If, being semiretired, I can’t find the time/attention to finish it, I guess we might understand why my referees never quite get there either and control for other things in their overloaded lives.

But, hope springs eternal. If I finish it and lend it and someone says “Aha!” and thank you, I will certainly pass on the good news to you. Who knows, I might even invite them to CSGNet if it seems professional and respectful and a good place to learn about HPCT!

Best regards, my friend,

Kenny

8

[From Bill Williams 9 December 2003 4:54 PM CST ]

Kenny,

You say,

  >Thanks for not blasting or bashing me. You have never
  >been a significant disturbance to any of my controlled
  >variables (of self).

You are entirely welcome. And, I hope what I intended as a
entirely comic line-- the Chicago economics professor coming
to Jesus and as a result becoming a socialist didn't
offended you. In my view there are lots worse things that
could happen than the whole Chicago school coming to Jesus
and becoming socialists.

You say,

  >Unfortunately, since you seem to have provoked a large
  >disturbance in Bill P., whether you intended to or not,
  >our CSGNet will probably not have the benefit of [a]
  >collaboration [between the two of you]. "

I think from a control theory standpoint there is a mistake
in contained in your description of the situation. My
clumsiness resulted in a private communication inadvertently
being posted to the CSGnet. People on the CSGnet had a choice.
Now people on the net had a choice. They could choose to read
what was obviously a private communication, or not. I notice
that this sometimes happens here at the University. At least
some of the time people actually choose not to read
communications when they realize that they are not the part
for whom the communication was intended. I would guess that
often they make this choice because they are not interested
in whatever it is that is contained in the private
communication.

However, in the case of my blunder some people, Bill Powers
among them, chose to continue reading what was obviously
intended to be a private communication. Marc's communication
after all was labeled "private." And, after reading the
body of Marc's communication it had to be obvious that the
communication between Marc and myself was intended to be
private. Despite this some people continued reading the
subsequent communications. If someone reads a private
communication then as you say is "disturbed," who is
responsible?

Now you might resort to the ordinary standard of conduct
defense. But this isn't really a valid argument. It just
a way of saying everybody does it. This doesn't make it
right. You after all are not a moral realativist and I would
expect that you might agree. Bill Powers and others made
a choice and he didn't like what he read. So, we could
accurately say, "I see you have chosen.... "

Now, the passage that Powers explicitly objected to was
one in which I said to Marc, ...don't let me forget this...
How what I said is going to be understood depends upon
what sort of purpose, or purposes, one thinks I have in
mind. If you think I have a malicious scheme planned you
will think one thing. If you think what I said was a result
of prudence and that what I meant was that I should keep
in mind that Bill Powers sometimes does things that
other people, including me, find offensive. If you ignore
this possibility then you may encounter Bill Powers saying
things that are unexpected. I would rather avoid this.
So, I don't see anything wrong with remembering this
trait that Bill Powers sometimes displays. Doesn't, at
least, doesn't necessarily mean I have nasty plans in mind.
The conclusion it seems to me, about the meaning of what
was found objectionable depends upon whether, as an
initial premise I am thought to be malicious or not.

Note that in the public disagreement between Marc and myself,
I rejected Marc's attribution to Powers of the characteristic
of "mean spiritedness." Instead, as I argued, often the
things that Bill Powers says would be better understood as
an expression of "exasperation." In a following passage in
that post I acknowledged that Powers sometimes says things
that people find objectionable. Anyone who has been on the
CSGnet for any extended period of time, I would think, would
recognize this. The question, or rather assertion that I
made in my comment spread over a couple of posts to Marc on
the CSGnet is what to make of how Powers sometimes expresses
himself. Calling people children, charging them with bringing
CSGnet discussions down into the gutter.

If you will remember, when Rick and I had our big discussion
following the trade center and Pentagon too (don't forget)
unpleasantness, I argued that words can't hurt. The pain that
words generate I contended was a pain that was generated by
the person experiencing the pain. The same I would argue goes
for a disturbance. The disturbance that words such as the
ones on the CSGnet generate are disturbances that are generated
by the person reading the words. It is the listener who compares
the words with reference levels. It is this comparison rather than
the words that generates the disturbance. Only when the words
are present in the attention of the reader can they do anything.
Just being words "out there" doesn't do anything.

But, on the matter of content.

When I said to Marc, don't let me forget this, I was 1)
telling him that yes I recognize that Powers has sometimes
been nasty, 2) that I sometimes don't keep this in mind
and then I have been surprized when Bill acts in ways that
I do not expect, because sometimes he says things I would
not expect him to say, 3) that I heard what Marc was saying.

Now, I might be subject to criticism for not immediately
continuing an argument with Marc by rejecting his assessment
of Powers' character as being mean spirited. But, Marc and
I have had public (that is on CSGnet) disagreements about Bill's
character. Marc says Bill is "mean spirited." I've
argued that this isn't really accurate. Consider Bill Powers
recent observation that it wasn't really necessary for Rick
to gloat in his post to Bruce Gregory. I wouldn't say that
Bill is necessarily impartial, but my assessment emphasized
"exasperation." I didn't excuse the exasperation, or its
expression, but neither did condemn it. Instead I placed it
in a context in which I thought it might be entirely expected
that Bill Powers could be expected to be exasperated.

I would still maintain that my assessment of who Bill Powers
is, is closer to the truth than either Marc's or Rick's but
it may not be the whole truth. And, I would guess that both
Marc and Rick and all I may continue to have differences
and discussions regarding these differences. But, I don't
feel any necessary obligation to sustain such an argument
with Marc or anyone else continuously.

There are other passages in which I say things that might
be found objectionable. If anyone wishes to take me to
task for them, Ok. It was my blunder that potentially
exposed the communications-- exposed them to people who
choose to read private communications when it was possible
for them to do so. We could even restart the "I see you
have chosen..." thread. However, I would insert a change,
which is to modify the slogan by finishing the sentence
with "... to read what was obviously a private communication."

However, if someone wants to correct me, I don't think I'd
be inclined to bash them. Such an exchange could potentially
be constructive.

However, I think Rick's proposal to change
the CSGnet into a moderated discussion is more deserving of
consideration. I was holding a discussion recently on a
moderated list recently when the discussion was banned. In
the discussion over whether the discussion should be banned
the moderator said, that I was making a mistake in criticizing
behaviorism. And, further that it wasn't a valid defense of
my criticism to claim that what I was saying was true. I wasn't
too shocked by the objection to my criticism of behaviorism.
There were a bunch of people who had adopted behaviorism decades
Ago and didn't which to give it up. But, they didn't known enough
About psychological theory to defend it. So, it was easier to ban
My discussion taking place with people who were interested in such
Criticisms. but I still marvel that in the moderator's judgement
the truth of a statement didn't have anything to do with whether
it ought to be allowed in an academic/scholarly discussion.

Bill Williams

9

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.09)]

<Bill Williams 9 December 2003 4:54 PM CST>

<You are entirely welcome. And, I hope what I intended as a
entirely comic line-- the Chicago economics professor coming
to Jesus and as a result becoming a socialist didn’t
offended you. In my view there are lots worse things that
could happen than the whole Chicago school coming to Jesus
and becoming socialists.>

I was not offended. I hope I can still discern an attempt at humor from an irreverant attack. And, if I perceived it as an irreverant or veiled attack, I probably would “resist” in a private post to you. I did not.

You know, as far as the rest of your well thought out, detailed post about what Bill P. is like, or what you or others think or express about him, or anyone else for that matter, in private is not too much a concern to me. I do tend to believe that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words (per se) can only hurt me if I let them (a PCT construct). But, I would only suggest that such opinion not be part of the CSGNet public discussions and it seems you can agree and conform. I even think you have some case for those who read what is not intended for them take some responsibility for their own discomfort. But, the temptation to learn a “secret” is quite human. Once learned, us thinking humans still have a choice in how to respond. We do not always choose wisely, especially if in a high state of gain.

I must admit I had no comprehension of any private leak. But, for me, I like to put the past behind and move forward openly and constructively. Life is too short for the rancor and “who shot who first” backward analysis. I do enough of that with my wife and know how futile it all is.

I think admission of a need for a moderator should be sufficient enough for a personal metanoia to go up a level and be nice and professional to one another. I have been thrown off forums for expressing ideas unwanted by a closed group. I can understand it and live with it.

But, like Bill P., I would like to keep CSGNet an open and unmoderated group, where diverse and challenging ideas can be expressed without personal recrimination or character assassination.

But, poor etiquette and lack of professionalism in dialogue, should not be part of any self-respecting group of decent human beings, including scientists. Self-moderation is a virtue consistent with PCT and those who are not virtuous need to be informed, helped and even reviled privately if necessary by those who wish to be part of something cooperative and valuable.

I doubt this would be a difficult task for you. Probably a piece of cake.

10

[From Bill Williams 9 December 2003 8:34 PM CST]

Kenny,

I'm pleased you were not offened by my attempt to be funny in the recent, line about the far right wing economist coming to Jesus and becoming a socialist. I did think about you and considered the risk of giving offense. I decided you would understand the spirit in which it was intended.

You know, as far as the rest of your well thought out, detailed post about
what Bill P. is like, or what you or others think or express about him, or
anyone else for that matter, in private is not too much a concern to me.

OK

I do tend to believe that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words >(per se) can only hurt me if I let them (a PCT construct).

I think if we credit control theory this is how a mature adult ought to understand and approach communications. Rick and I, of course, had an extensive discussion following 911 regarding this. And, the issue apparently remains unresolved.

But, I would only suggest that such opinion not be part of the CSGNet public >discussions and it seems you can agree and conform.

I don't think we are in basic disagreement here. I don't see that the use of language that is obviously intended as an attack upon some other persons reputation or self-regard contributes to the aims that CSG is supposed to be advancing. When it appears someone has made a mistake in may need to be pointed out. But this isn't the same as calling them a "dummny." However, if you call someone a dummy, you don't have much of a defense if they unload on you. Bystanders may find this amusing or they may shudder.

I even think you have some case for those who read what
is not intended for them take some responsibility for their own discomfort.
But, the temptation to learn a "secret" is quite human.

But, of course. So then so to is murder, and lots of other sorts of mayhem

Once learned, us thinking humans still have a choice in how to respond. We >do not always choose wisely, especially if in a high state of gain.

Again, what you say is, of course, all too true.

I must admit I had no comprehension of any private leak. But, for me, I like
to put the past behind and move forward openly and constructively. Life is
too short for the rancor and "who shot who first" backward analysis. I do
enough of that with my wife and know how futile it all is.

For the most part I would agree with you. I wouldn't, however, say that it is _all_ futile.

I think admission of a need for a moderator should be sufficient enough for a
personal metanoia to go up a level and be nice and professional to one
another.

Here we differ. I think the problem is cronic. I think the problem has very deep roots. I would have hopes that these roots could be better understood and as a result most of the familar difficulties avoided.

I have been thrown off forums for expressing ideas unwanted by a closed
group. I can understand it and live with it.

You may undestand it, but when a group professes to be a scientific forum and then behaves like a magical society there is something wrong. But, when systems level concepts are involved very strange things can happen.

But, like Bill P., I would like to keep CSGNet an open and unmoderated group,
where diverse and challenging ideas can be expressed without personal
recrimination or character assassination.

I think this goes without saying. However, it doesn't seem to be either simple or easy.

But, poor etiquette and lack of professionalism in dialogue, should not be
part of any self-respecting group of decent human beings, including >scientists.

How about people who hate each other's guts?

Self-moderation is a virtue consistent with PCT and those who are not
virtuous need to be informed, helped and even reviled privately if necessary >by those who wish to be part of something cooperative and valuable.

This may work to some extent. But, if people don't come to see that their disfunctional behavior is disfunctional, will their behavior change? I don't think so. Still if we view speach from a control theory standpoint, then the disruption caused by poor speech is a disruption that takes place in and because of the reference levels on the part of the person who is listenng to the speech.

I doubt this would be a difficult task for you. Probably a piece of cake.

I am not confident what you mean by what you say in the above two sentences. If you intended what you say as an implicit suggestion, I would prefer that you say what you have to say explicitly. Since this is an email communication, I will go on to say explicitly that I do not intend this expression of my preference to communicate anything in the way of hostility or irritation. I'm just not sure what you mean to say. And if you regard what you meant to say as being important, I'm inviting you to express it another way. Then perhaps I'll better under what you intended me to understand.

I think we may make some different assumptions about the nature of communications. I don't for example view the CSG process with a felling of discouragement. But if I understand you there aren't at present any issues between us of any real urgency.

Bill Williams

11

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.09.2247]

[From Bill Williams 9 December 2003 8:34 PM CST]

Kenny,

I do tend to believe that sticks and stones can break my bones, but
words >(per se) can only hurt me if I let them (a PCT construct).

I think if we credit control theory this is how a mature adult ought
to understand and approach communications.

I remember a pop-psych book that was popular a long time ago that had
a profound influence on my reactions to perceived verbal attacks. It
had nothing to do with PCT, but I think its message was appropriate.
It was called "You are not the target". What it meant was that when
people said hurtful things, they probably did it more because of a
hurt inside themselves than because what they said was meaningfully
targeted at you. Since I accepted that insight, I have found it often
reasonably easy to shrug off insults with an internal "Poor guy, I
hope he gets over whatever is biting him."

I know that's a bit off topic, but there's probably a PCT way of
describing what I think is a change in a type of perception, not a
change in my reference values. Somehow or other, words that would
have created a disturbance to a perception of self-worth no longer do
so.

Martin

12

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.2100)]

Martin Taylor (2003.12.09.2247)

I know that's a bit off topic, but there's probably a PCT way of
describing what I think is a change in a type of perception, not a
change in my reference values. Somehow or other, words that would
have created a disturbance to a perception of self-worth no longer do
so.

But couldn't that last sentence also be a description of what would be
expected to happen when the reference for the perception changes? Of
course, it depends on what you mean by "created a disturbance to". If
you mean that the disturbance variable -- what is said-- no longer
influences the controlled perception, then there could have been a
change in the controlled perception. In this case, the disturbance
variable no longer influences the controlled perception because the
controlled perception is no longer a perception that is influenced by
the disturbance variable. This might be what would happen if you
change from controlling self-worth to controlling other-worth.

If, however, you mean that the influence of the disturbance variable is
no longer detected in the behavior of the controlled variable, then
there was either an improvement in control or the reference for the
perception has changed. In the first case, the words no longer push
self-worth from its reference because you have become more skillful at
controlling self-worth. In the second case, the words no longer push
self-worth from it's reference because the reference for self-worth has
changed; disparaging words bring self-worth to the new reference, for
example.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

13

[From Bill Williams 9 December 2003 10:59 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.09.2247]

I would agree completely. And, your example from what I will
call a folk or pragmatic psychology is a good one. Until this
lesson saturates our understanding difficulties can be expected.
And, I'm not sure if this principle has been recognized as a
part of PCT or HPCT lore. If it hasn't I think it would be a
good idea to sort the question out.

And then, there is also the case of "What if you really are the
target?" Not that I feel I'm currently under attack. But, such
things do happen. Is there a definitive, or is it possible to
generate a definitive description of this? Woops, it just
occurred to me that there was once a long contentious discussion
of this or a simliar question. Was there a resolution to that
thread?

Bill Williams

14

[From Bill Wiliams 9 December 2003 11:27 PM CST]

Rick,

I have for years had a hope that when we really learned to think in control theory terms it would be possible for us to communicate in a way that would be at the same time both efficient and appealing. I have also thought that if control theory didn't provide the intellectual resources sufficient to create such a standard of communication, efforts to promote among a wider public amounted to something close to a fraud. While I don't intend to forget about the all too obvious difficulties involved, in all ernestness I will say that your two recent posts on the "Discouraged" thread encourage me to think that we might just make this thing work.

Bill Williams

15

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.10.1227]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.2100)]

Martin Taylor (2003.12.09.2247)

I know that's a bit off topic, but there's probably a PCT way of
describing what I think is a change in a type of perception, not a
change in my reference values. Somehow or other, words that would
have created a disturbance to a perception of self-worth no longer do
so.

But couldn't that last sentence also be a description of what would be
expected to happen when the reference for the perception changes? Of
course, it depends on what you mean by "created a disturbance to". If
you mean that the disturbance variable -- what is said-- no longer
influences the controlled perception, then there could have been a
change in the controlled perception.

That's what I think happened in this case. The "insult" ceased to
become a significant input into my "self-worth" perception, and
became an input into my perception of his perception of his
self-worth.

It is interesting that this element of reorganization appeared to be
under conscious control, and was far from random.

If, however, you mean that the influence of the disturbance variable is
no longer detected in the behavior of the controlled variable, then
there was either an improvement in control or the reference for the
perception has changed.

Yes, either of those can happen, too. But I think not in my
particular case. It is good to keep these possibilities in mind.

Martin

16

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.10.1605)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.10.1227

That's what I think happened in this case. The "insult" ceased to
become a significant input into my "self-worth" perception, and
became an input into my perception of his perception of his
self-worth.

It is interesting that this element of reorganization appeared to be
under conscious control, and was far from random.

What interests me is why this "voluntary reorganization" is possible
for some people yet extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others.
I suspect it has something to do with how closely the perception is
coupled to intrinsic variables. Do you have any thoughts about this?

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

17

[From Bill Williams 10 December 2003 3:45 PM CST]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.10.1605)]

What interests me is why this "voluntary reorganization" is possible for some people yet extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others. I suspect it has something to do with how closely the perception is coupled to intrinsic variables. Do you have any thoughts about this?

May I suggest that the ease or difficulty of this "voluntary reorganization" may, in part, be a matter of the number, the variety, the efficacy of models of behavior that are availible to one. If one has access to many different cultural models by which to cope with a treat to a self-concept, then it may be easy to select and apply one of them. On the other hand, if for some reason there are few or no models of how to cope that can be readily accessed, then it may be very difficult to, on one's own, to come up with a way of coping.

Bill Williams

18

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.10.1734 EST]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.10.1605)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.10.1227

That's what I think happened in this case. The "insult" ceased to
become a significant input into my "self-worth" perception, and
became an input into my perception of his perception of his
self-worth.

It is interesting that this element of reorganization appeared to be
under conscious control, and was far from random.

What interests me is why this "voluntary reorganization" is possible
for some people yet extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others.
I suspect it has something to do with. Do you have any thoughts about this?

I can't even attempt to answer this question directly. But it does
raise an issue discussed years ago. What does it mean to say "how
closely the perception is coupled to intrinsic variables"?

Firstly, let's consider what "intrisic variables" might be. They seem
to have become more of a buzzword than a descriptive label. To me, an
"intrinsic variable" is some internal state of the organism that
affects its (vaguely defined) well-being, and that is not subject to
direct perceptual control.

Consider, for example, blood sugar concentration. Normally, we can't
perceive it directly, but when it changes, we do perceive various
things such as dizziness, hunger, and the like. Some actions that
influence those perceptions do also influence blood sugar, but others
don't--and other variables influence those overt perceptions, too.
For example, too much spinning can increase dizziness, and stomach
contraction may well cause the hunger perception. Either could happen
when blood sugar is at its normal level.

Although either dizziness or hunger could be perceived without having
blood sugar far from its reference value, nevertheless, unless a
different cause is perceived, it is likely that some action such as
eating or having an insulin injection will solve the problem. These
are actions that involve the perceptual control system, not the
intrinsic variable control system, which is colloquially called
"reorganization".

Since the actions that affect the intrinsic variable are NOT
controlling a perception of that variable, why do they work, and how
did it come about that controlling perceptible things serves to
control an imperceptible state?

The answer is that the effects of the actions on the intrinsic
variable are pure side-effects. Side-effects are not random. They are
as stable as the laws and boundary conditions of the environment
within the action vector and the intrinsic variable can be described.
To take a super-trivial example, if I control for a perception of
seeing a heavy object drop out of my hand, a side effect is that I
will perceive the sound of it hitting the floor a short time later,
unless the environment's laws have changed because I am in a shuttle
orbiting the Earth.

Reoriganization will not work to allow perceptual control to keep
intrinsic variables near their references unless the environment is
sufficiently stable. There is a feedback system, for sure. But it
works because a controlled perception correlates with an intrinsic
variable, and because the actions involved with controlling that
perception also have side effects that often affect the intrinisic
variable in a consistent way. Only random reorganization can find the
appropriate side-effects (which I imagine in large part has happened
over evolutionary time-scales rather than within the individual).

The big perceptual control hierarchy, according to this view of
reorganization, developed because successive refinements of the
criteria for perceptual control improved the precision with which
perceptual control side-effects had the appropriate influence on the
intrinsic variables. One lives longer if one stops when confronted
with a patch of red, if one can identify that patch as belonging to a
traffic light rather than to an autumnal maple tree.

So, if there are many intrinsic variables, presumably survival (or
rather, preferential propagation of the genes) involves many
interactions and interaction loops among them. The complexity of
these interactions requires corresponding complexity in the
perceptual control hierarchy that acts on the environment so as to
maintain the intrinsic variables near their (genetically determined)
reference values.

What, then, does it mean to say "how closely the perception is
coupled to intrinsic variables"? And how would the answer relate to
the case under discussion?

Martin

19

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.10.1545 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.10.1734 EST --

Yes, yes, yes! This is a magnificent post, Martin. I could say that this is
what I meant all the time, except that you put it more clearly than I ever
put it to myself. What a beautiful picture. We learn to control perceptions
because, as a pure side-effect quite probably unknown to our conscious
selves, the result is to correct an intrinsic error. The logic of this
arrangement is plain and inevitable. You have laid it out with perfect clarity.

The term "reorganization" is the most encompassing. It covers all changes
of organization that occur for any reason or by any mechanism. I usually
insert "E. coli" before "reorganization" when I specifically mean the
guided random walk sort of process that is the method of last and first
resort: when nothing else we know will work, or when we simply know nothing
at all. Other methods are more systematic and are probably learned, such as
learning to turn off control of one perception and turn on control of a
different one in the same situation. The learned systematic methods make
the random method unnecessary, when they work, because they correct the
intrinsic errors so quickly.

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.11.1725)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.11.0703 MST)

I believe that my view of the hierarchy is essentially the same as
yours. The reference level for the highest levels of the hierarchy are
determined by reorganization.

This is a bit tricky. What you say agrees withpart of my proposal, in that one of the possible sources of highest-order reference levels is reorganization. But I also allow for the possibility of genetic sources (not for things like religion, of course), experience and experiment, and "zero": don't forget that zero is a point on a scale of perception and is not the same thing as absence of a perception. The exterior angle at the elbow may range from zero (as sensed) to some maximum, with a zero reference signal meaning fully extended.

What mechanism is involved when experience and experiment establish the highest order reference levels?

Also, since reorganization can change physical circuitry, it can change the amount of contribution of a higher-level system's output to a lower-level system's net reference signal. Thus with a constant higher-level output, reorganization can change the lower reference signal.

But the main trickiness is that reorganization can work anywhere in the hierarchy, so it's not like a higher-level system setting reference levels for the next lower one. That would imply a systematic relationship between intrinsic error and the highest-order reference signals, but as Martin's post made clear, there is no such systematic relationship in this theory.

I was going to say that I can see how experience and experiment are involved in setting the reference levels for lower level perceptions, but I realized that this is not true. It seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but the mechanism escapes me.

Each 'fundamental belief' is a local maximum on a fitness
landscape. Small changes tend to reduce fitness, and so are very
difficult to make.

I don't think that "fitness" is the best term for something that pertains to a single lifetime, since the only test of fitness (in evolutionary theory) is survival and reproduction. A local minimum of intrinsic error would seem a better term for the same phenomenon, especially since intrinsic error is suppose to be an indication of how well the life-support systems are functioning, or something like that. The relationship to evolutionary fitness would come through the settings of intrinsic reference levels, which must change slowly over evolutionary time, and must be partly determined by natural selection.

I agree. I used "fitness landscape" as a generic term. A local minimum of intrinsic error is much more descriptive.

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

I noticed that in one of yesterday's posts, this epigram was attached twice. Was that a recursive illustration of the truth of the statement?

Yes, but an inadvertent one.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide