# discussion, sui generis, games

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [April 8, 1998, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611 "1998-04-08T22:24:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 1998, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611/1 "1998-04-08T22:24:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (980408.1420)]

Jeff Vancouver (980408) --

OK. You have, indeed, talked about control of input and the  
The Test in you publications. Much of what you say is wrong.  
But I have to admit that you do talk (albeit briefly) about  
these things so \_bravo\_ for that.

Me:

> But you don't clearly state the essential difference between PCT  
> and other theories of psychology; other theories of psychology  
> represent behavior as \_caused by\_ input; PCT represents behavior  
> as the \_control of\_ input. Other theories of psychology are tested  
> by determining whether particular inputs cause behavior; PCT is  
> tested by determining whether particular inputs are controlled  
> by behavior.

Jeff Vancouver (9804081500 est) --

> That is a distinction that you think exists, not me.

Many people besides me (Tom B., Bill and Mary P, Phil R. for  
sure but I believe there are several others) think that this  
distinction not only exists but that it is, indeed, essential.  
I think it would really be great if you could help us -- especially  
Bill P., the developer of PCT, who labors under the illusion  
that this distinction most certainly \_does\_ exist -- understand  
why you think this distinction does not exist. Most of the  
demos at my site show that this distinction \_does\_ exist and  
that it \_matters\_. Could you please provide some evidence to  
support your convinction that the distinction I draw between  
PCT and all other theories of psychology does \_not\_ exist. Thanks  
bunches.

> I have convinced her to use "the test" and the algorithm in your  
> demos to test some of her ideas (that is why I asked for the  
> algorithms). It will likely be awhile before I have anything  
> to report

Great. I'll look forward to hearing about it.

Bruce Gregory (980408.1600 EST) --  
�

> In his heyday, Werner Erhard used to say that people only play  
> one game -- win-lose, right-wrong, dominate-avoid being  
> dominated.

People who are in conflict seem to be playing this game. But people  
are not always in conflict. The only game people are playing is  
control of perception. They can play it independently (as when they  
tie their shoes, type a post, write a program, etc) or inter-  
dependently (as when they make love, play tennis, make a cathedral  
or make conversation). Interdependent control can be cooperative  
(which it seems to be almost all the time) or conflictive (which  
it is occasionally). Conflictive interdependent control is surely  
the most noticeable kind since it produces chronic error in the  
parties involved. This is probably why Erhard concluded that conflict  
(the win- lose games) is the only game in town. It's not. The only  
game in town is control of perception.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 1998, 4:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611/2 "1998-04-09T16:39:19Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 980408.1013 EST}

> [From Rick Marken (980408.1420)]
> 
> OK. You have, indeed, talked about control of input and the  
> The Test in you publications. Much of what you say is wrong.  
> But I have to admit that you do talk (albeit briefly) about  
> these things so \_bravo\_ for that.

Am I to assume that the things you think I say that are wrong are not the  
quotes I posted? For when you say I say something wrong, I want to be sure  
that I am not mis-representing PCT. If by wrong you mean that because I  
talk about models other than PCT, and those models are wrong in your mind,  
that is not "wrong" unless I am misrepresenting those models. Forgive me,  
but I am not interested in whether you think I am misrepresenting the other  
models unless you can provide evidence that you can adequately represent  
them. If by wrong you mean that my opinions about the connections between  
the models I discuss and PCT do not match your opinions, well then we are  
in the land of opinions (unless I am misrepresenting YOUR opinion, then let  
me know). If by wrong you think that what I have said about the  
reorganization process is wrong, well we are talking about the edge of  
investigation. Counter opinions about the interpretation of results are  
welcome (provided they are constructive).

If by wrong you are refering to my use of the term "cause," I put that in  
the opinion category. Below I reproduce much of what I said about cause.

> Rick:
> 
> > But you don't clearly state the essential difference between PCT  
> > and other theories of psychology; other theories of psychology  
> > represent behavior as \_caused by\_ input; PCT represents behavior  
> > as the \_control of\_ input. Other theories of psychology are tested  
> > by determining whether particular inputs cause behavior; PCT is  
> > tested by determining whether particular inputs are controlled  
> > by behavior.
> 
> Jeff Vancouver (9804081500 est) --
> 
> > That is a distinction that you think exists, not me.
> 
> Many people besides me (Tom B., Bill and Mary P, Phil R. for  
> sure but I believe there are several others) think that this  
> distinction not only exists but that it is, indeed, essential.  
> I think it would really be great if you could help us -- especially  
> Bill P., the developer of PCT, who labors under the illusion  
> that this distinction most certainly \_does\_ exist -- understand  
> why you think this distinction does not exist. Most of the  
> demos at my site show that this distinction \_does\_ exist and  
> that it \_matters\_. Could you please provide some evidence to  
> support your convinction that the distinction I draw between  
> PCT and all other theories of psychology does \_not\_ exist. Thanks  
> bunches.

I have been down that route and have reorganized my gain (I think) such  
that I will not engage. After all, it involves changing another's (several  
others) perceptions in order to get my perception controlled (you rejected  
even that description). The difficulty of doing that prompted (caused?)  
reorganization of my systems.

Nonetheless, this is what I have written about cause as it relates to the  
negative feedback model.

" Primary among these other grand theories was cybernetics (Rosenblueth,  
Wiener, Bigelow, 1943; Rosenblueth, Wiener, 1950; Wiener, 1948).  
Cybernetics drew upon an idea that was proving useful in engineering, the  
negative feedback loop (see Figure 1). In Wiener's (1948) model, the input  
to the system is some reference signal determined by an engineer or user  
from which is subtracted any feedback of the output of the system.  
Depending on the difference of the feedback from the reference signal, an  
error is magnified (or not) in a compensator, which engages an effector,  
which causes the output, which is fed back, etc. Thus, by monitoring the  
results of its own output, the system can regulate that output."

As I have said before, it seems consistent with the causal loop idea that  
one can speak of the direction of causality in arcs of the loop. The  
direction of the loop is one way, correct?

I also talk about causality in terms of reorganization. Again, from my  
chapter:

"It is important to understand that not just any error will cause the  
internal unit to engage (i.e., to cause the action unit's output function  
to reorganize). A well-functioning control system might experience a great  
deal of error during normal operation (e.g., the thermostat in your home).

"The mode that I have been describing up to this point is the behaving  
mode. Information about the current state of the environmental variable  
comes from the environment. Information about subgoals needed to determine  
muscle tensions that cause action on the environment are sent down the  
hierarchy to the muscles and, thus, to the environment (barring the  
introduction of neurochemical blocking agents).

"Actually, the students in the regular cup condition were trying to get the  
liquid into their mouths, but the subgoals (i.e., output functions)  
required to do that were well practiced and nothing in the environment  
caused the discrepancies in any of the subsystems to go out-of-tolerance. "

and from the Behavioral Science paper:

"Changes to the observed speed, caused by a hill for instance, or changes  
to the desired speed, caused by a change in the speed limit or spotting a  
highway patrol car, will cause a change in foot behavior in terms of the  
amount of gas applied to the engine. Depending on the efficiency of the  
human system, one should expect to see little variance in the speed of the  
car provided the desired speed does not change.

Disturbances to its perceptions of the current level or changes to the  
desired level will cause changes in outputs by the organization."

These are consistent with my opinion of the term cause. It may be true  
that it is inconsistent with yours, Bill's, Phil's and others, but it is  
not inconsistent with a great deal of the audience of my chapter (I  
believe). I have read much of the work of the people on this net. Phil's  
on this topic is probably the most thorough in his book. I like the book.  
Think it makes a lot of good points. And I think it carries the argument  
too far. That is my opinion.

Now here is what I have said about, at least Bill's possible opinion on my  
conjectures regarding the reorganization system (he has yet to respond one  
way or another):

from self-regulation:

" Thus, reorganization of a higher-level output function involves two  
processes. It randomly changes the output function and it puts lower-level  
units in thinking mode, so that the reorganized function can be tested.  
This description goes beyond Powers and, if my mental model of him is  
correct, would evoke much wrath from him. First, I am going well beyond  
the working models of the theory and data created to date. Second, I am  
articulating the use of mental models in creating perceptions and  
suggesting that this process runs in serial. Powers (1991) points out that  
because these mental models are so likely flawed, and that parallel  
processing is much more efficient, the system can much more effectively  
interact on-line in parallel with real-time data.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My response is that his second point results from the first. That is, in  
the lower levels, which are the only ones modeled and tested to the rigor  
Powers and his group require, it is very difficult to see much merit in  
using models to predict environmental states, or in operating in serial.  
The system can receive information and act very rapidly, simply, and  
simultaneously to disturbances to the variables (Marken, 1992). There is  
no need for models of those disturbances, or models of the likely effects  
on the environmental variables of setting subgoals at certain levels.  
However, my guess is that at higher levels this is not true and that until  
we develop, and test working models of those levels it seems that the kind  
of thinking that I am talking about nicely conforms to a great deal of  
research in psychology (Austin & Vancouver, 1996), especially on decision  
making (Beach, 1990; Newell, 1990)."

Thus, I am absolving PCT (as represented by you and Bill) of my opinions.  
Now I do not talk about cause directly in this absolution. That is mostly  
because I have not figured out how your understanding of cause conflicts  
with mine, such that describing the difference is beyond me.

P.S. It would be nice if I did not have to refer to my mental model of  
Bill. It would be easier if Bill just trashed it here on the net, then I  
could cite him directly instead of the virtual Bill in my mind.

Sincerely,

Jeff

> **···**
>
> from My self-regulation chapter:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 1998, 8:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611/3 "1998-04-09T20:31:51Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (980409.1230)]

Jeff Vancouver (980408.1013 EST} --

> Am I to assume that the things you think I say that are wrong  
> are not the quotes I posted? For when you say I say something  
> wrong, I want to be sure that I am not mis-representing PCT.

Jeff, you have been on the net for some time and you know that  
Bill, Mary, myself and others have not hesitated to point out  
flaws in your understanding of PCT. I can't really remember a  
time when you delt with these corrections and suggestions as  
anything other than a disturbance. If you want to learn PCT then  
just start learning it and stop defending against it.

Jeff Vancouver (980409.1510 EST) --

> The statements that open this post...are behaviors that might  
> come about because the person does not want to learn PCT (or  
> whatever), or because the desire (level/gain) is so strong that  
> when the student considers ideas beyond the instructor, the  
> instructor's response creates a perception in the student that  
> produces the statement in question.

OK, Jeff. You're way beyond us. I guess you'll just have to  
wait until we catch up. As it sits, your ideas are so far  
beyond me that they just look like elementary mistakes.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 1998, 8:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611/4 "1998-04-09T20:50:50Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1621 EST]

> [From Rick Marken (980409.1230)]
> 
> Jeff Vancouver (980408.1013 EST} --
> 
> > Am I to assume that the things you think I say that are wrong  
> > are not the quotes I posted? For when you say I say something  
> > wrong, I want to be sure that I am not mis-representing PCT.
> 
> Jeff, you have been on the net for some time and you know that  
> Bill, Mary, myself and others have not hesitated to point out  
> flaws in your understanding of PCT. I can't really remember a  
> time when you delt with these corrections and suggestions as  
> anything other than a disturbance. If you want to learn PCT then  
> just start learning it and stop defending against it.

I can understand if you are tiring of my inquiries, but I am not seeking to  
find my misunderstandings with regards to the posts on the self-regulation  
chapter. I am seeking to find my misrepresentations. Presumably a writer  
could be completely ignorant of the topic to which he or she writes will  
still writing correctly on that topic (Searle's chinese room?). I am  
seeking to be like a reporter. I am trying to report the story, not make  
it (well, okay, I am given a lot of commentary, but the parts that are  
suppose to represent so-and-so ought to represent so-and-so).

> Jeff Vancouver (980409.1510 EST) --
> 
> > The statements that open this post...are behaviors that might  
> > come about because the person does not want to learn PCT (or  
> > whatever), or because the desire (level/gain) is so strong that  
> > when the student considers ideas beyond the instructor, the  
> > instructor's response creates a perception in the student that  
> > produces the statement in question.
> 
> OK, Jeff. You're way beyond us. I guess you'll just have to  
> wait until we catch up. As it sits, your ideas are so far  
> beyond me that they just look like elementary mistakes.

Boy did you miss the point. None of us have the "truth-ball." One does  
not know whether the instructor or the student is the "correct" one.  
Indeed, it is probably reasonable that the instructor will be more correct  
than the student most of the time. Further, the student owes it to the  
instructor, I believe, to hear the instructor out, try to work through the  
problems, etc. I am at this very moment working on the asymmetry issue  
that I asked about and Bill P. answered. He gave me a cite in one of his  
writings. I pulled it off the shelf, for I have read and have on my  
shelves most of the writings by the master and much from his key students,  
read the pages, and am now puzzling over them (and playing with what they  
mean in a simulation).

By the way, when we say we have genuflected before the alter of PCT we are  
not trying to impress you with our faith. We are trying to indicate that  
we have read all your readings, tried your demos, and listened to your  
lectures, yet we are still confused. Some of us trust our intelligence  
enough to suspect that the confusion \_might\_ be a sign of a gap in  
understanding or a misunderstanding in the implications of the PCT. Bill  
P. notes there are many gaps (admitting to misunderstandings of  
implications is another matter). Yet, when we try to explore them, we get  
chastised by the school master (you, although sometimes Bill, Mary and Tom  
when he was around).

Ah but there I go again. I am trying to keep my gain low on this system.  
Can we stick to the issue of my chapter?

Sincerely,

Jeff

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 1998, 9:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/discussion-sui-generis-games/13611/5 "1998-04-09T21:16:50Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.1715 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.1621 EST

> I can understand if you are tiring of my inquiries, but I am not  
> seeking to  
> find my misunderstandings with regards to the posts on the self-regulation  
> chapter. I am seeking to find my misrepresentations. Presumably a writer  
> could be completely ignorant of the topic to which he or she writes will  
> still writing correctly on that topic (Searle's Chinese room?).

Sorry Jeff, but you just pushed one of buttons. Whoops wrong place to say  
that. You just disturbed one of the perceptions I am controlling. In my  
humble opinion, Searle's Chinese room is ABSOLUTELY BOGUS! I have never  
understood how anyone could take it seriously (and many people do,  
apparently). It has always been obvious to me that all Searle has done is  
"hidden" all the knowledge of Chinese in the tables which tell the person in  
the room how to respond to the messages sent into the room. Knowing what we  
know about the nature of language, these translation tables would have to  
contain an infinite number of entries. (And you know how long it can take to  
look through an infinite list!) I stopped taking philosophers seriously when  
I realized how many of them take Searle seriously. So I have to conclude  
that a writer who is completely ignorant of a topic \_cannot\_ write correctly  
on that topic except by accident. (I don't think you fall into this  
category, however.)

Bruce the Obscure

> **···**
>
> >