[From Rick Marken (980407.2120)]
Me:
I see no PC in your discussion of PCT; only T.
Jeff Vancouver (980407.1536 EST) --
That is not a fact, it is your opinion.
Well, then could you please point out where, in any of the papers
you sent me, you discuss control, controlled variables and/or
testing for controlled variables, using whatever language you
used to describe them.
See below.
From the Self-regulation chapter:
The thermostat and temperature control system is regulating the room
temperature by controlling its perception of the current temperature of the
room. (p. 23)
The environmental variable that the role sender is attempting to control is
the behavior of the focal individual, and the input function translates the
stimuli about that behavior into a perception of its current state. (p. 34)
Eventually, an organization for the output unit is found that effectively
controls the perceptions of the action unit, or the action unit's
higher-order unit changes the goal for the focal unit. (p. 37)
Representations of actions which can reduce discrepancies (i.e., control
perceptions) can be stored in memory for later use. (p. 41)
from the Psych Bull Goal paper:
A more precise method for identifying goals, the test, is discussed by
Powers (1973a) and by Runkel (1990b). The test involves a) hypothesizing
at a variable for which the individual has a desired state (i.e., a goal),
b) disturbing the variable, c) looking for actions to restore the variable
(this assumes the disturbance moves the perceived current state of the
variable away from the desired state), d) looking for a way for the
individual to sense the current state, e) blocking the sensing mechanism,
f) disturbing the current state again, and g) looking for no action to
restore the variable. It is through this method that we learned that
Cannon's original guesses regarding the regulation of thirst and hunger
were wrong, but that a much more complicated homeostatic set of goals were
involved (Mook, 1996). The crux of the method is that well-functioning
self-regulating systems squelch variance. What is interesting, and what
one looks for during the test is that something related to the system is
stable despite changes in the environment that one might think would cause
change (Powers, 1973a). This is the basic observation of self-regulating
systems. Meanwhile, the behavior of a system can be highly variable. Not
only must the system detect or anticipate a disturbance to a variable that
it is monitoring in relation to a goal, it must also choose a means (i.e.,
set of subgoals) that it thinks is capable of reducing the disturbance that
will not disturb other monitored variables, and continue to use
opportunities afforded by the environment. All of these issues are of
concern when applying the test (Runkel, 1990b).
from the Behavioral Science paper:
The basic control process is the negative feedback loop, which controls
input.
Further, the cybernetic model describes the control of input, not output
(e.g., behavior). A system can only monitor the results of its actions as
interpreted through its input function(s). Thus, descriptions of
self-regulating systems as controlling behavior or action (e.g., Ajzen,
1991; Locke, 1994; Wood & Bandura, 1989a) assume a direct line from the
output of a system to the comparator function.
A more precise method for identifying goals, "the Test," is discussed
elsewhere (Austin & Vancouver, in press; Powers, 1973; Runkel, 1990b).
But while we are on the topic of opinions. Your post seems
clearly "in my face."Then what I said was a disturbance to some perception you were
controlling; what you experienced is what is to be expected in
a normally functioning perceptual control system.
Like a tech-support: absolutely correct and completely useless.
Sincerely,
Jeff
ยทยทยท
At 09:27 PM 4/7/1998 -0800, you wrote: