Hi Bill,
I was interested to read your conversation with Stefan about doing the
test. I had a similar experience a couple of days ago ....
I have been working with a 14 year old boy for about 18 months. I work in
the boarding house where he lives and I give him academic help on a regular
basis. He doesn't have any problem with the work when someone is going
through it with him asking him questions but he often says that he is dumb
and has never achieved more than a pass on an exam. He's a really
personable little guy who has always been able to charm his way into and
out of most situations. I'm interested in what he might be controlling for
and the other day I said to him "You really are just a dumby aren't you?";
to which he just shrugged and then he said "At least I've got friends
though"; I responded with "You haven't got any friends" and he instantly
replied (with volume louder than we had been using) "I have so"
Could all this mean that he is not controlling for academic success, but he
is controlling for friendship?
Regards,
Tim
[From Bill Powers (970527.2036 MDT)]
Tim Carey (970527) --
I'm interested in what he might be controlling for
and the other day I said to him "You really are just a dumby aren't
you?"; to which he just shrugged and then he said "At least I've got
friends though"; I responded with "You haven't got any friends" and >he
instantly replied (with volume louder than we had been using) "I >have so"
Could all this mean that he is not controlling for academic >success, but
he is controlling for friendship?
Sure seems like it, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from a single
disturbance and a single counter-action. Also, it's probably important in
using the Test this way in a continuing situation to remove the disturbance
right away -- for example, by saying, "Well, I guess I'm wrong about that,
you do have friends," and talk about it for a while so he can prove it to
you. The object of applying disturbances is not to destroy control! And in
a situation like this, what's wrong with just asking questions? "Are
friends pretty important to you? Do you have as many friends as you want?
Are all your friends your age? What's the difference between a person who
is a friend and one who isn't?" And so on. You can learn a lot about
controlled variables just by asking.
When you said he was a dumby, he didn't correct you. Why not? Is that what
he wants to be? What would happen if you said, "Are you really totally
stupid, the dumbest person there ever was?" Or what if you said, "I didn't
mean you were really dumb, it's just an expression I use. I didn't mean to
hurt your feelings. Actually, you might be smarter than I give you credit
for. Do you think so?"
I don't mean that you flood the kid with questions -- these are just things
you can drop into a conversation from time to time, when the subject comes
up. The main thing you have to do is be interested in the answers you get,
which shouldn't be hard if you're really curious about what the kid is
perceiving and controlling. Most of the time I should think you could pick
up on possible controlled variables without having to inject arbitrary
disturbances. There are plenty of natural ones!
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (970527.2100 PDT)]
Tim Carey (970528 ) --
Hi Tim --
You addressed this to Bill but I'd like to take a shot at it too.
I'm interested in what he might be controlling for and the other
day I said to him "You really are just a dumby aren't you?";
to which he just shrugged and then he said "At least I've got
friends though"; I responded with "You haven't got any friends"
and he instantly replied (with volume louder than we had been
using) "I have so" Could all this mean that he is not
controlling for academic success, but he is controlling for
friendship?
It could mean that, but not necessarily. It seems like your first
hypothesis about the kid's controlled perceptions was that the
kid was controlling for being perceived as smart. If that were true,
saying to the kid that he is dumb would be a disturbance. The kid
did not treat this statement as a disturbance to being thought of
as smart (in which case we would have expected the kid to say something
that would protect this perception from the disturbance
-- like "I am too smart for this school; that's why I do so poorly;
no challenge."
But the kid didn't completely ignore this disturbance either; he
shrugged and said that he has friends. This suggests that your statement
was a disturbance to _some_ controlled perception --
perhaps the kid's perception of his value as a person. I don't
think the kid's response necessarily means that he is controlling
for friendship (or, better, the his perception of himself as a
success at friendship). You have to Test for control of this perception
explicitly by applying disturbances (several different
ones would be best -- when it is convenient to do so) to see if the
kid protects the hypothetical controlled perception from all these
disturbances.
I know this is hard to do in real life. I think you have to
determine just how accurate you want to be about determining what
variables are actually under control in such "real world"
situations. But based on the Testing you describe above I still
think it is possible that the kid _may_ be controlling for being
seen as smart -- he may just be controlling this perception with
very low gain (it's not an important perception to him) pr he may be
controlling a slightly different version of the perception you
think of as "being smart".
It is also possible that the kid is really not controlling for being
perceived as smart. But I'm not sure I would conclude that the kid is
controlling for being seen as a success at friendship based on his
response to your "disturbance"; I think it's likely that he would
have replied as he did if he were actually controlling for perceiving
himself as a worthwhile person; saying something that he perceives to be
worthwhile _and_ true of himself (that he has friends) could be the
counter to your disturbance to his perception of self worth.
The kid may also be controlling for friendship with others (it sure
looks like he is becuase he makes friends with lots of kids). But
he may be controlling for something else (like "getting kids to do
things for him") that _looks_ like friendhip to you but is not
actually what he is controlling for.
To determine whether or not a person is controlling a particular
perception you first have to have a very clear idea of what that
perception might be. If you think the kid is controlling for
"being smart" you have to have a good idea of what perception
"being smart" corresponds to _for the kid_. Does the perception include
hearing other people saying "you're smart"? Does the perception include
getting good grades on tests? Does the
perception involve seeing other people get worse grades on tests?
When you can _experience for yourself_ the perception(s) that you
imagine the kid to be controlling,you can then very easily think
of things you could do that would be a disturbances to those
perceptions.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@leonardo.net
http://www.leonardo.net/Marken
[From Bruce Gregory (970528.1130 EDT)]
Rick Marken (970527.2100 PDT)
Thanks for a very thought provoking post.
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (970528.0840 PDT)]
Bill Powers (970527.2036 MDT)
The object of applying disturbances is not to destroy control!
I think this is a VERY important point. Applying a disturbance
does not have to be like applying a swift kick to the ribs. In
fact, the Test works best when disturbances are applied _gently_,
so that the person being Tested _can_ resist those disturbances if
he or she is actually controlling the variable being disturbed.
It's not only a lot more _humane_ to apply disturbances this way;
it is also a lot more _practical_ (in terms of discovering
controlled variables).
The practical benefits of applying disturbances _gently_ can be seen in
my "Detection of Purpose" java demo
(http://www.leonardo.net/Marken/ControlDemo/FindMind.html). In this
demo, the goal is to determine which one of the three squares is
controlling it's 2-D position (which one has a purpose). The initial
hypothesis of The Test is that a particular square IS controlling its
2-D position. You Test
this hypothesis by applying disturbances (using the mouse) to the
2-D position of that square. If these disturbances are effective --
if your mouse movements have the expected effect on the 2-D position of
the square -- then the square is not controlling its 2-D position.
If mouse movements have little or no effect on the 2-D position of the
square, then the square is controlling its 2-D position.
If you apply a continuous, strong disturbance you will see that all
three squares are affected by the disturbance; it looks like no
square is controlling its 2-D position. In fact, the square that is
controlling its 2-D position simply cannot resist this continuous, large
disturbance; it cannot control under these circumstances.
This is analogous to Testing to see if a kid is controlling for being
smart by constantly saying he's stupid. The kid might appear to be doing
nothing about these disturbances simply because he _can't_ -- even
though he is _trying_ to control for being seen as smart.
Another approach is to apply a large, abrupt disturbance; move the mouse
quickly to a new position and stop, for example. Again you will
see all squares affected by the initial disturbance but when the
disturbance stops one square will be seen to "bounce" back to its
pre-disturbance position -- this is the controlled square. This
confirms Bill's (970527.2036 MDT) suggestion that "it's probably
important in using the Test this way in a continuing situation to remove
the disturbance right away". The disturbance may seem
effective when first applied (suggesting that the hypothetical
controlled variable is _not_ controlled) but the system may only be able
to produce actions that effectivly counter the disturbance once the
disturbance is no longer overwhelming. If this is the case, the
controlled variable will appear to "bounce" back to its original state
(as in the "Detection of Purpose" demo). Of course, the "bounce" will
be much slower if the controlled variable is "perception of self as
smart" rather than "2 D position". So the "abrupt disturbance" approach
to Testing is not necessarily the best one to use when Testing for
control of high level (slow loop) variables like "self-esteem" or
"having friends".
But the best way to Test for control is by applying _gentle_
disturbances continuously. If you do this in the "Detection of
Purpose" demo you will see that two of the squares move right along with
your disturbances; these squares are clearly _not_ controlling their 2-D
position. But one square marches "to its own drummer"; your slow, gentle
mouse movements have no effect at all on the secular movements of this
square. This square is clearly controlling its
two dimensional position (relative to a varying reference for that
position).
So Testing with _gentle_ disturbances is not just a matter of
being nice to the Testee; it is also the most effective way to
Test for Controlled Variables.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@leonardo.net
http://www.leonardo.net/Marken