Education and interpersonal control

CSGnet Archive CSG2011
1

hi, Boris

I think this discussion should be moved to a new topic area. I do not at
this time know how to do that. If you know how, please pick a title and I
will respond to your message there.

bob

Boris :
Is this better ?

Bob :
Education as an institution is very

different from education as an interpersonal interaction. Kent's article is
excellent and I have read it before and will look at it again. As long as
kids are required to attend school, teachers are at a disadvantage if they
want to facilitate learning.

Boris :
If you don't mind I will answer you on your short massage above. I think you
make a very good extract of our previous discussions.

By my opinion main principle in education (relations between teachers and
students) is the same as in any other inter-action of living control systems.
If alignment in controlled variable and references is high it can mean
cooperation and other positive effects of education (process of learning).
If "non-alignment" or difference in controlled variables and different
references is high it could lead to severe conflict.

Bellow is my previous massage to you.

Hi Bob,

Nice you introduced.

Bob :
I am a social psychologist by training and left the academic environment in
1983. I am now retired and have time to think about things.

Boris :
As I'm concerned, I'm employed as teacher and social pedagogue. And I have
quite some years to retirement, specially considering the "mish-mash" in
reforms that EU is trying to enforce (coerce) momentarily.

Bob :
In the discussion with Rick I was trying to learn what he meant by
coercion.
I now know that he believes that whenever a person (control system) is
controlling for the behavior of another person (control system) coercion is
occurring.

Boris :
I'm worried a little about terms "whenever" and "controlling for the
behavior of another person". That's a little too much for term coercion.
It's also possible that I don't understand American enough, so in my
opinion
I will use some definitions from Kent McClelland.

My opinion is that here is not being introduced the whole story about
possibilities (strategies) of interpersonal control as you mentioned at
least one more : physical force. By my opinion "control" between people
(purposeful beings) should look more complex not just as coercion, which is
supposed to be the only form (with subforms) of whenever interpersonal
control happens.

But first I would advice you if you are retired and you have time, that you
read something more about PCT an sociology on url :

http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/articles/1993_McClelland_PerceptualControlAndSocialPower/index.html

···

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:52:12 +0800, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

.

This is probably my attempt of manipulation with your reference, what will
not be so "cruel", if you are interested in such a material :)) So you see
that coercion (negative) is not the only strategy of controlling other
people.

Bob :
The example of physically stopping a kid from running into the street is an
instance of positive coercion in that I have stopped a behavior from
occurring.

Boris :
Here you definitely used term "physical force" as another possibility of
interpersonal control. I imagine coercion as attempt of Person A to
threaten
another shall we say Person B or kid to do what Person A want him to do or
not to do in some future time and person B or kid has a chance (freedom) to
choose.

Kent (1994) defined COERCION :
A coerces B by acting to produce a disturbance which A intends B to
perceive
as initiating a sequence in which A's actions will force B to lose
perceptual control of one or more of B's currently operative goals.

PHYSICAL FORCE in PCT is defined (Kent McClelland, 1994) as :
"A uses force on B when A acts with the intent of creating a disturbance
for
B which is serious enough to cause B to lose control of one or more of the
perceptual variables B is currently controlling."

And difference Kent exposed between coercion and physical force as
strategies of interpersonal control was :
"While force can interfere with perceptual control, thus preventing action,
and force taken to the extreme can kill a person. All of the other
strategies we have examined--coercion, incentives, and influence--rely on
the compliance of the person supposedly under control and are ineffective
if
target person so chooses".

So I understand it as that "coercion inter-action" seems as Person B has
freedom to decide what he will do when Person A tries to control him in
this
way. But when physical force is properly executed person B has a little
freedom or no freedom to choose, what he will do. He is "under control".

Bob :
I can attempt to threaten him, attempt to bribe him, or attempt to educate
him.

Boris :
If you see real situation in the relationship between teachers and kids in
education process, you will understand that there's no big difference
between these strategies of interpersonal control you mentioned.

Teachers try to achieve goals as any other living control system and they
use various means to do that. And kids as another living control systems do
everything to avoid interpersonal control of teachers if not aligned with
their goals.

Education is by my opinion term that is describing the same attempt of
"one-way" controlling of children development in the manner "as adult want
children to be or to think". Avoidance and acceptance of "education" by
kids
can be explained from case to case, as you have to account for many genetic
and other personality differences between teachers and kids and so their
different references if you want education to be more or less effective.

I've got an impression that you try to simplify education and to remove it
from the "menu" of possible forms of interpersonal control.

Bob :
Education takes the form - if you do X right now, you will have more
control
over Z (which is some reference condition you are or could be controlling).

Boris :
Education takes also many other forms. I understand your example as attempt
of "rewarding" or "promise" of better control if control is accepted. But
in
this case I don't see how educator can see what children "controls". It
seems to me that educator thinks that what he is offering to a child was
good for him, and he suppose it will be good for children. Well educators
who do education in this way are mostly wrong and most of the time in
conflict with children.

Another example of FORM OF EDUCATION CONTROL which is most often, follows
"pattern" : If you don't do X right now, I will disturb some of your
important controlled variables (X,Y,Z) to such an extent that you will
experience pain or horror, or you'll be afraid till you do, what I want you
to do.
That's why I think children don't want to go to class or they escape from
the class whenever there's a chance. That's the most frequently used
pattern
in classical schooling. There are also schools that use different more
successful methods or strategies of interpersonal control. They don't use
coercion or any other violent strategy of interpersonal control.

Education as any other form of relation is inter-action between two living
control systems. EVERYTHING IS USED AND IS ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE GOALS, as in
normal inter-action between people (specially in economy): from influence,
manipulation of all kinds, coercion, punishment, reward, and even physical
force, murdors.

Teachers try to achieve their goals and usually they don't spare on means
to
achieve them. And society usually allows them do that with Laws. Teacher
strategies of interpersonal control depend also from what kind of
curriculum
is being officially used or what kind of "constrain" to teachers action
(coercion them) i offering.
So problem of inter-action or relationship between people (living control
systems) definitely can't be simplified.

Bob :
Education when successful helps you become more competent.

Boris :
I think you properly used term "when successful". Being "successful"
depends on many controlled variables as human are complex living control
system with thousands of variables trying to have "under" control at the
time. It's not so easy to make such a complex control system more
competent.

If proper means of achieving goals are used, people could achieve positive
effect of education or they could be successful as you said and become more
competent. But as I pointed out before most I think depends from accounting
differences between PCT actors and their way of controlling or how they
will
"accept" different strategies of interpersonal control. Some could respond
successfully on lecturing, coercion, punishment or rewards, but I think
most
of them would respond only on kind words, "good example" and act of
cooperation.

I think that "trails and errors" and proper reorganization in closed
feed-back loop have to be used very smartly in education inter-actions.

Bob :
These distinctions become much more complicated when the variable you want
to control is my behavior. When I threaten or bribe, I am simultaneously
educating you in how to manipulate me. This is not typically what I hope
to
accomplish, but is part of what makes on-going interpersonal relationships
so difficult. If we are doing things together we need to coordinate our
behaviors to control shared reference conditions (we cannot share reference
signals, but can share information about them).

Boris :
Well Bob, I think this is the way to treat problems of education. As
complex
and difficult "on-going relationship" in which controlling of important
variables of both actors can continuously vary and so is inter-action,
which
is dynamical in stability of both actors. Sometimes is incredible how much
"atmosphere" in classroom depends on mood of PCT actors or how they feel in
some life or education situations.

Bob :
Let me know what you think about this so far and what you might like to
focus on next.

Boris :
I must admit it's nice talking to you. So I would appreciate if you could
anyway answer my question about your description of "transmitting cultural
contingencies" to kids as you describe them in conversation with Gavin
Ritz.
Or if you think that we can take them as irrelevant in the light of our new
discussion, we can forget about that.

And I'm also interested what you think about complexity of the brain and
possible ways in behavior (variations) which people use to solve the same
problem. Can we consider the number 7 milliard people and 100 billion cells
in nervous system ?

And we could talk also about traffic.

Bob :
The example of physically stopping a kid from running into the street is an
instance of positive coercion in that I have stopped a behavior from
occurring.

Boris :
Well sorry Bob, but I don't see anything positive in standing beside street
and "catching" possible kids "running" on the street.

I think your concerns about child ignorance are too high. Children have
also
inborn capacities for self-preserving behaviors and they are fast learners
when something is useful for their control. You can believe me on word. So
I'd advice you to turn your efforts of counseling about safety in traffic
to
adults. They are who cause most accidents (drunk, driving to fast and with
no respect to other participants in traffic). Children are minor problem.
Ratio is far on adults side. And usually kids are killed when adults cause
accidents.

Best,

Boris

2

( Gavin
Ritz 2011.04.30.15.54NZT)

Boris

How open minded are you?

Do you want to read a
paper (it’s a bit long it’s over 300 pages with research and theory)
that I have.

It’s one of the big
breakthroughs in education in years?

A colleague of mine has shown
that education is creation; he has shown that the mind and learning is analogous
to a chromatographic spectrum.

That is the “Control
of Energies”. The goal is to create new energies and concentrate them.

The controlled variable
in PCT is the unit of “Objective” in Education.

Education is the control of
knowledge the only problem is, in learners it’s non-existent or very sketchy.

So PCT requires just that
something more, just like in Mathematical Category Theory the bookkeeping laws
must work, so too between learner and teacher, learner and learner.

I’m no educationist
and I did not realise until some years ago this problem had not been solved.

Throwing fragmented scattered
information at learners is doomed to failure.

Regards

Gavin

hi, Boris

I think this discussion should be moved to a new
topic area. I do not at

this time know how to do that. If you know
how, please pick a title and I

will respond to your message there.

bob

Boris :

Is this better ?

Bob :

Education as an institution is very

different from education as an interpersonal
interaction. Kent’s
article is

excellent and I have read it before and will look
at it again. As long as

kids are required to attend school, teachers are
at a disadvantage if they

want to facilitate learning.

Boris :

If you don’t mind I will answer you on your short
massage above. I think you

make a very good extract of our previous discussions.

By my opinion main principle in education (relations
between teachers and

students) is the same as in any other inter-action of
living control systems.

If alignment in controlled variable and references is
high it can mean

cooperation and other positive effects of education
(process of learning).

If “non-alignment” or difference in
controlled variables and different

references is high it could lead to severe conflict.

Bellow is my previous
massage to you.

Hi Bob,

Nice you introduced.

Bob :

I am a social psychologist by training and
left the academic environment in

  1. I am now retired and have time to
    think about things.

Boris :

As I’m concerned, I’m employed as teacher and
social pedagogue. And I have

quite some years to retirement, specially
considering the “mish-mash” in

reforms that EU is trying to enforce (coerce)
momentarily.

Bob :

In the discussion with Rick I was trying to learn what he meant by

coercion.

I now know that he believes that
whenever a person (control system) is

controlling for the behavior of another
person (control system) coercion is

occurring.

Boris :

I’m worried a little about terms
“whenever” and "controlling for the

behavior of another person". That’s a
little too much for term coercion.

It’s also possible that I don’t understand
American enough, so in my

opinion

I will use some definitions from Kent McClelland.

My opinion is that here is not being introduced
the whole story about

possibilities (strategies) of interpersonal
control as you mentioned at

least one more : physical force. By my
opinion “control” between people

(purposeful beings) should look more complex
not just as coercion, which is

supposed to be the only form (with subforms)
of whenever interpersonal

control happens.

But first I would advice you if you are
retired and you have time, that you

read something more about PCT an sociology on
url :

http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/articles/1993_McClelland_PerceptualControlAndSocialPower/index.html

.

This is probably my attempt of manipulation
with your reference, what will

not be so “cruel”, if you are
interested in such a material :)) So you see

that coercion (negative) is not the only
strategy of controlling other

people.

Bob :

The example of physically stopping a kid from
running into the street is an

instance of positive coercion in that I have
stopped a behavior from

occurring.

Boris :

Here you definitely used term “physical
force” as another possibility of

interpersonal control. I imagine coercion as
attempt of Person A to

threaten

another shall we say Person B or kid to do
what Person A want him to do or

not to do in some future time and person B or
kid has a chance (freedom) to

choose.

Kent (1994) defined COERCION :

A coerces B by acting to produce a
disturbance which A intends B to

perceive

as initiating a sequence in which A’s actions
will force B to lose

perceptual control of one or more of B’s
currently operative goals.

PHYSICAL FORCE in PCT is defined (Kent
McClelland, 1994) as :

"A uses force on B when A acts with the
intent of creating a disturbance

for

B which is serious enough to cause B to lose
control of one or more of the

perceptual variables B is currently
controlling."

And difference Kent exposed between coercion and physical
force as

strategies of interpersonal control was :

"While force can interfere with
perceptual control, thus preventing action,

and force taken to the extreme can kill a
person. All of the other

strategies we have examined–coercion, incentives,
and influence–rely on

the compliance of the person supposedly under
control and are ineffective

if

target person so chooses".

So I understand it as that “coercion
inter-action” seems as Person B has

freedom to decide what he will do when Person
A tries to control him in

this

way. But when physical force is properly
executed person B has a little

freedom or no freedom to choose, what he will
do. He is “under control”.

Bob :

I can attempt to threaten him, attempt to
bribe him, or attempt to educate

him.

Boris :

If you see real situation in the relationship
between teachers and kids in

education process, you will understand that
there’s no big difference

between these strategies of interpersonal
control you mentioned.

Teachers try to achieve goals as any other
living control system and they

use various means to do that. And kids as
another living control systems do

everything to avoid interpersonal control of
teachers if not aligned with

their goals.

Education is by my opinion term that is
describing the same attempt of

“one-way” controlling of children
development in the manner "as adult want

children to be or to think". Avoidance
and acceptance of “education” by

kids

can be explained from case to case, as you
have to account for many genetic

and other personality differences between
teachers and kids and so their

different references if you want education to
be more or less effective.

I’ve got an impression that you try to
simplify education and to remove it

from the “menu” of possible forms
of interpersonal control.

Bob :

Education takes the form - if you do X right
now, you will have more

control

over Z (which is some reference condition you
are or could be controlling).

Boris :

Education takes also many other forms. I
understand your example as attempt

of “rewarding” or
“promise” of better control if control is accepted. But

in

this case I don’t see how educator can see
what children “controls”. It

seems to me that educator thinks that what he
is offering to a child was

good for him, and he suppose it will be good
for children. Well educators

who do education in this way are mostly wrong
and most of the time in

conflict with children.

Another example of FORM OF EDUCATION CONTROL
which is most often, follows

“pattern” : If you don’t do X right
now, I will disturb some of your

important controlled variables (X,Y,Z) to
such an extent that you will

experience pain or horror, or you’ll be
afraid till you do, what I want you

to do.

That’s why I think children don’t want to go
to class or they escape from

the class whenever there’s a chance. That’s
the most frequently used

pattern

in classical schooling. There are also
schools that use different more

successful methods or strategies of
interpersonal control. They don’t use

coercion or any other violent strategy of
interpersonal control.

Education as any other form of relation is
inter-action between two living

control systems. EVERYTHING IS USED AND IS
ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE GOALS, as in

normal inter-action between people (specially
in economy): from influence,

manipulation of all kinds, coercion,
punishment, reward, and even physical

force, murdors.

Teachers try to achieve their goals and
usually they don’t spare on means

to

achieve them. And society usually allows them
do that with Laws. Teacher

strategies of interpersonal control depend
also from what kind of

curriculum

is being officially used or what kind of
“constrain” to teachers action

(coercion them) i offering.

So problem of inter-action or relationship
between people (living control

systems) definitely can’t be simplified.

Bob :

Education when successful helps you become
more competent.

Boris :

I think you properly used term “when
successful”. Being “successful”

depends on many controlled variables as human
are complex living control

system with thousands of variables trying to
have “under” control at the

time. It’s not so easy to make such a complex
control system more

competent.

If proper means of achieving goals are used,
people could achieve positive

effect of education or they could be
successful as you said and become more

competent. But as I pointed out before most I
think depends from accounting

differences between PCT actors and their way
of controlling or how they

will

“accept” different strategies of
interpersonal control. Some could respond

successfully on lecturing, coercion,
punishment or rewards, but I think

most

of them would respond only on kind words,
“good example” and act of

cooperation.

I think that “trails and errors”
and proper reorganization in closed

feed-back loop have to be used very smartly
in education inter-actions.

Bob :

These distinctions become much more
complicated when the variable you want

to control is my behavior. When I threaten
or bribe, I am simultaneously

educating you in how to manipulate me.
This is not typically what I hope

to

accomplish, but is part of what makes
on-going interpersonal relationships

so difficult. If we are doing things
together we need to coordinate our

behaviors to control shared reference
conditions (we cannot share reference

signals, but can share information about
them).

Boris :

Well Bob, I think this is the way to treat problems of education. As

complex

and difficult “on-going
relationship” in which controlling of important

variables of both actors can continuously
vary and so is inter-action,

which

is dynamical in stability of both actors.
Sometimes is incredible how much

“atmosphere” in classroom depends
on mood of PCT actors or how they feel in

some life or education situations.

Bob :

Let me know what you think about this so far
and what you might like to

focus on next.

Boris :

I must admit it’s nice talking to you. So I
would appreciate if you could

anyway answer my question about your
description of "transmitting cultural

contingencies" to kids as you describe
them in conversation with Gavin

Ritz.

Or if you think that we can take them as
irrelevant in the light of our new

discussion, we can forget about that.

And I’m also interested what you think about
complexity of the brain and

possible ways in behavior (variations) which
people use to solve the same

problem. Can we consider the number 7
milliard people and 100 billion cells

in nervous system ?

And we could talk also about traffic.

Bob :

The example of physically stopping a kid from
running into the street is an

instance of positive coercion in that I have
stopped a behavior from

occurring.

Boris :

Well sorry Bob, but I don’t see anything positive in standing beside street

and “catching” possible kids
“running” on the street.

I think your concerns about child ignorance
are too high. Children have

also

inborn capacities for self-preserving
behaviors and they are fast learners

when something is useful for their control.
You can believe me on word. So

I’d advice you to turn your efforts of
counseling about safety in traffic

to

adults. They are who cause most accidents
(drunk, driving to fast and with

no respect to other participants in traffic).
Children are minor problem.

Ratio is far on adults side. And usually kids
are killed when adults cause

···

accidents.

Best,

Boris

3

Could you elaborate how this "Control of Energies" and "creation of new
energies would look like ?

Best,

Boris

···

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:08:01 +1200, Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.30.15.54NZT)

A colleague of mine has shown that education is creation; he has shown that
the mind and learning is analogous to a chromatographic spectrum.

That is the "Control of Energies". The goal is to create new energies and
concentrate them.

4

bob hintz 2011.04.30

Gavin, if you can email it, I will look at it. I don’t guarantee to read all of it unless it really grabs me but I will certainly learn enough to know what you want to talk about.

bob

···

2011/4/30 Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:08:01 +1200, Gavin Ritz garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.30.15.54NZT)

A colleague of mine has shown that education is creation; he has shown that

the mind and learning is analogous to a chromatographic spectrum.

That is the “Control of Energies”. The goal is to create new energies and

concentrate them.

Could you elaborate how this “Control of Energies” and "creation of new

energies would look like ?

Best,

Boris

5

bob hintz 2011.04.30

This is a test to find out if I have actually posted a subject to listserv.

I look forward to a response from Boris Hartman in particular but anyone is certainly welcome.

Gregory Bateson proposed many years ago that learning is a hierarchical phenomena. Perceiving a world of familiar things that make sense allows us to control routine reference conditions. We know what to do when we experience error. This is a state of Zero Learning. We are not born knowing any of this. We get to Zero learning by level 1 learning which would be comparable to trial and error resulting in reorganization. Once we learn language we can engage in level 2 learning which is learning how to learn what we need to know in order to operate at zero learning level. This would include observing someone else control a variable and imitating their method for ourselves. Perhaps this would include asking questions or receiving instructions.

learning always involves change but at different levels. If no change is occurring learning is not observable.

This is just to start the conversation again.

bob

6

Boris :
I see you managed Bob. Good.

Bob :
Gregory Bateson proposed many years ago that learning is a hierarchical
phenomena.

Boris :
I don't see here what kind of hierarchy you have in mind ? I hope you meant
some hierarchy inside nervous system. So I could think of hierarchical
learning in physiological sense. There are hierarchies in nervous system.

I could think of hierarchical learning in PCT sense. But I think this is
more question for Bill. I don't know much about Bateson and his connection
to PCT. Bateson sounds to me as constructivist.

Bob :
Perceiving a world of familiar things that make sense allows us to control
routine reference conditions.

Boris :
As I understand your terms "Perceiving a world of familiar things", it could
probably mean a level of consciousness (aware) of the world around us in
some "present time control", for example : what we are observing now, while
walking, talking, driving a car, eating, sitting, watching TV, listeningďż˝ Is
that it ?
Or maybe I don't understand what could mean "Perceiving a world".

Maybe perceiving "a World that makes sense" is meant as complex perceptual
control constructed from controlled perception of lower level control
systems ? But than I hardly imagine "Perceiving a world of familiar things"
as "State of Zero learning".

Bob :
We know what to do when we experience error.

Boris :
Experience which "error" ? Know to do what ? Is "knowing" something coming
from inside of organism or something coming from "anywhere" ?

Bob :
This is a state of Zero Learning. We are not born knowing any of this. We
get to Zero learning by level 1 learning which would be comparable to trial
and error resulting in reorganization. Once we learn language we can engage
in level 2 learning which is learning how to learn what we need to know in
order to operate at zero learning level. This would include observing
someone else control a variable and imitating their method for ourselves.
Perhaps this would include asking questions or receiving instructions.

Boris :
I'm sorry Bob, but from here on I don't understand what you are talking
about. Could you be more specific ? Is State of Zero Learning maybe 11th
level of hierarchy in PCT or is something else ? If it is 11th level, what
are than level 1 and 2 ?

Bob :
learning always involves change but at different levels. If no change is
occurring learning is not observable.

Boris :
I could conditionally agree with you. But I think that first learning has to
be defined more precisely. Can we agree for example that "basic kind of
learning" proposed by Bill could be "State of Zero learning".

Or maybe can we compare "State of Zero learning" to Ashby's "definition" of
learning as "changes going to better, to more adaptable behavior".

Maybe the main questions could be : How learning makes behavior more
"adaptable" ? What changes occur in hierarchical levels of nervous system
during the learning process, and why does behavior usually change for the
better ? What kind of hierarchical neural processes could show that
self-advancement ?

Best,

Boris

···

On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:10:45 +0800, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

bob hintz 2011.04.30

This is a test to find out if I have actually posted a subject to listserv.

I look forward to a response from Boris Hartman in particular but anyone is
certainly welcome.

7

bob.hintz 2011.05.01

At any moment an organism is an HPCT system and is perceiving whatever objects and events are available in its world outside the boundaries of itself (skin). It has references (or preferences) regarding these objects and events and if one of more of the perceptions do not match the references, an error signal is generated. In routine situations, error signals generate output processes that affect change in something that is being perceived outside which affects change in the perception compared to reference and reduces error. The system knows what to do in these circumstance and does it with no need to reorganize any aspect of itself. Zero learning occurs when a control system is functioning normally and is adequate to control both internal (hunger, thirst, temperature, etc.) and external perceptions (food, liquid, clothing, etc.) that are changing as a result of independent processes.

Bill posited intrinsic reference signals and a process of “random?” reorganization to think about how a system gets constructed in the first place and/or changes as a result of experience. Reorganization is a level one learning process. Human infants are born with a few closed loops already in place, generally called reflexes. They know how to suck if something touches their lips and swallow if liquid enters their mouth. They have to learn how to discriminate differences in visual perceptions to recognize faces as different from shadows on the wall, human sounds as different from motor sounds from outside the room, hunger pangs as different cold skin, and host of other differences that might become important to their well being. Human infants cannot successfully control anything necessary to continue staying alive. Left alone after birth 100% will die. They are part of a social system and survive as a result of the outputs of a complex, independent control system that not only feeds them, and takes care of other bodily needs, but also helps them learn how to grab fingers, recognize faces, seek cuddling, etc. Caregivers facilitate an infant learning about themselves and their world as much as possible by learning to together how to send and receive messages from each other. A first time mother has no better idea how to communicate with her child than the infant. This is part of what makes a second born infant’s life different from a first born’s life. The second born interacts with a mother who has already learned about babies from her first.

Jump-Shift-change of topic- The level one learning control system reorganizes the basic control system. It may well be constructed by trial and error, but level two learning reorganizes the learning one control system making it easier to alter the basic control system. Level one may be limited to imitating the observable output of others, but level two may allow imitating the control of others. I have not reread Bateson’s - Steps to an Ecology of Mind - in many years and will be putting it back on list of things to do.

He was an anthropologist of sorts and an information theorist 50 or more years ago.

I have reread parts of Kent’s paper on coercion. My only clarification would involve the importance of messages in the process. I would suggest that we are almost always paying attention to the people around us and at least guessing what they are controlling so that we can help them control or avoid disturbing their control. We are also sometimes looking for people who might be available to help us control variables that are too difficult for us to control alone. We seldom notice how few of the actual products that we use in our everyday lives was produced by an individual somewhere or even could be produced by one person alone.

bob

···

2011/5/1 Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net

On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:10:45 +0800, Bob Hintz bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM wrote:

bob hintz 2011.04.30

This is a test to find out if I have actually posted a subject to listserv.

I look forward to a response from Boris Hartman in particular but anyone is

certainly welcome.

Boris :

I see you managed Bob. Good.

Bob :

Gregory Bateson proposed many years ago that learning is a hierarchical

phenomena.

Boris :

I don’t see here what kind of hierarchy you have in mind ? I hope you meant

some hierarchy inside nervous system. So I could think of hierarchical

learning in physiological sense. There are hierarchies in nervous system.

I could think of hierarchical learning in PCT sense. But I think this is

more question for Bill. I don’t know much about Bateson and his connection

to PCT. Bateson sounds to me as constructivist.

Bob :

Perceiving a world of familiar things that make sense allows us to control

routine reference conditions.

Boris :

As I understand your terms “Perceiving a world of familiar things”, it could

probably mean a level of consciousness (aware) of the world around us in

some “present time control”, for example : what we are observing now, while

walking, talking, driving a car, eating, sitting, watching TV, listening… Is

that it ?

Or maybe I don’t understand what could mean “Perceiving a world”.

Maybe perceiving “a World that makes sense” is meant as complex perceptual

control constructed from controlled perception of lower level control

systems ? But than I hardly imagine “Perceiving a world of familiar things”

as “State of Zero learning”.

Bob :

We know what to do when we experience error.

Boris :

Experience which “error” ? Know to do what ? Is “knowing” something coming

from inside of organism or something coming from “anywhere” ?

Bob :

This is a state of Zero Learning. We are not born knowing any of this. We

get to Zero learning by level 1 learning which would be comparable to trial

and error resulting in reorganization. Once we learn language we can engage

in level 2 learning which is learning how to learn what we need to know in

order to operate at zero learning level. This would include observing

someone else control a variable and imitating their method for ourselves.

Perhaps this would include asking questions or receiving instructions.

Boris :

I’m sorry Bob, but from here on I don’t understand what you are talking

about. Could you be more specific ? Is State of Zero Learning maybe 11th

level of hierarchy in PCT or is something else ? If it is 11th level, what

are than level 1 and 2 ?

Bob :

learning always involves change but at different levels. If no change is

occurring learning is not observable.

Boris :

I could conditionally agree with you. But I think that first learning has to

be defined more precisely. Can we agree for example that "basic kind of

learning" proposed by Bill could be “State of Zero learning”.

Or maybe can we compare “State of Zero learning” to Ashby’s “definition” of

learning as “changes going to better, to more adaptable behavior”.

Maybe the main questions could be : How learning makes behavior more

“adaptable” ? What changes occur in hierarchical levels of nervous system

during the learning process, and why does behavior usually change for the

better ? What kind of hierarchical neural processes could show that

self-advancement ?

Best,

Boris

8

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.02.11.44NZT)

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.30.15.54NZT)

Could you elaborate how this “Control of
Energies” and "creation of new

energies would look like ?

Like chromatography, a shift in
the peaks. (new peak).

Regards

Gavin

9

Hi Bob,

what an interesting discourse you offered. But I think it has a little to do
with our topics "Education and interpersonal control". You are changing
themes of our conversation all the time. You are not communicating with me.
You are talking what you want "beside my text". I could understand, if you
were only psychologist, but being social beside ??? So I'm sorry, I can't
help you much any more. I was really trying to be nice with you. But I got
impression that you are like an "elephant in the shop with porcelain". Only
you.

Bob :
At any moment an organism is an HPCT system and is perceiving whatever
objects and events are available in its world outside the boundaries of
itself (skin). It has references (or preferences) regarding these objects
and events and if one of more of the perceptions do not match the
references, an error signal is generated.

Boris :
Are you sure that's all about HPCT ?

Bob :
In routine situations, error signals generate output processes that affect
change in something that is being perceived outside which affects change in
the perception compared to reference and reduces error.

Boris :
Are you sure this is all about "closed loops" ?

Boris :
The system knows what to do in these circumstance and does it with no need
to reorganize any aspect of itself.

Boris :
Is there some kind of the program in "the system" that knows exactly what to
doďż˝.? Some "super system" ?

Bob :
Zero learning occurs when a control system is functioning normally and is
adequate to control both internal (hunger, thirst, temperature, etc.) and
external perceptions (food, liquid, clothing, etc.) that are changing as a
result of independent processes.

Boris :
How is this related to what you told in above sections ? Here I can't see
any HPCT terms except "perceptions".

Bob :
Bill posited intrinsic reference signals and a process of "random?"
reorganization to think about how a system gets constructed in the first
place and/or changes as a result of experience. Reorganization is a level
one learning process.

Boris :
As PCT is concerned and "random?" reorganization as "level one learning
process" you'll have to communicate with Bill, as you noticed for yourself.
It's his Theory.

Bob :
Human infants are born with a few closed loops already in place, generally
called reflexes.

Boris :
I'm not sure I understand this clearly ? What are reflexes ?

Bob :
They know how to suck if something touches their lips and swallow if liquid
enters their mouth. They have to learn how to discriminate differences in
visual perceptions to recognize faces as different from shadows on the wall,
human sounds as different from motor sounds from outside the room, hunger
pangs as different cold skin, and host of other differences that might
become important to their well being. Human infants cannot successfully
control anything necessary to continue staying alive. Left alone after
birth 100% will die. They are part of a social system and survive as a
result of the outputs of a complex, independent control system that not only
feeds themďż˝..

Boris :
With some limitations I could agree with youďż˝

Bob :
....ďż˝ and takes care of other bodily needs, but also helps them learn how to
grab fingers, recognize faces, seek cuddling, etc. Caregivers facilitate an
infant learning about themselves and their world as much as possible by
learning to together how to send and receive messages from each other. A
first time mother has no better idea how to communicate with her child than
the infant. This is part of what makes a second born infant's life
different from a first born's life. The second born interacts with a mother
who has already learned about babies from her first.

Boris :
Interesting Bob. But are you really sure that caregivers facilitate all this
"stuff" in infants ? If I understand you right you can "regulate" learning
of infant with "sending and receiving" messages. You are probably joking or
you forget how is to deal with infant and little children. Maybe you could
try once again and find out who is learning from who, or who is teaching who.
Again. You are simplifying too much. And as I'm concerned you are "jumping"
from behaviorism to HPCT and back. It's quite a "Mix" :)) By the way, can
you explain what are needs ?
Maybe you could also read "PCT development theory" in Bill's book "Making
sense of behavior ďż˝ The meaning of control". Maybe you get some hints.

Bob :
Jump-Shift-change of topic- The level one learning control system
reorganizes the basic control system. It may well be constructed by trial
and error, but level two learning reorganizes the learning one control
system making it easier to alter the basic control system. Level one may be
limited to imitating the observable output of others, but level two may
allow imitating the control of others. I have not reread Bateson's - Steps
to an Ecology of Mind - in many years and will be putting it back on list of
things to do.
He was an anthropologist of sorts and an information theorist 50 or more
years ago.

Boris :
I'm sorry Bob, again I don't understand clearly what you are talking about ?
But maybe Bill can help you. You are not only "jumping", you are "flying"
from theme to theme".

Bob :
I have reread parts of Kent's paper on coercion. My only clarification
would involve the importance of messages in the process. I would suggest
that we are almost always paying attention to the people around us and at
least guessing what they are controlling so that we can help them control or
avoid disturbing their control. We are also sometimes looking for people
who might be available to help us control variables that are too difficult
for us to control alone. We seldom notice how few of the actual products
that we use in our everyday lives was produced by an individual somewhere or
even could be produced by one person alone.

Boris :
All in all Bob, I've got an impression that you try to talk to Bill and
Kent, as you are explaining their writings in your words and making your
suggestions. So I'm sorry I'm not the right person for communication about
these topics.
Maybe it will help, if you read or re-read beside Kent's articles (there are
many of them) also some Bill's book.

Best,

Boris

···

On Mon, 2 May 2011 03:25:37 +0800, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

bob.hintz 2011.05.01

10

bob hintz 2011.05.2

I think I understand your message and will restrain my rambling.

How would describe how one person helps another person learn something?

bob

···

On May 2, 2011 5:14pm, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

On Mon, 2 May 2011 03:25:37 +0800, Bob Hintz bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

bob.hintz 2011.05.01

Hi Bob,

what an interesting discourse you offered. But I think it has a little to do

with our topics “Education and interpersonal control”. You are changing

themes of our conversation all the time. You are not communicating with me.

You are talking what you want “beside my text”. I could understand, if you

were only psychologist, but being social beside ??? So I’m sorry, I can’t

help you much any more. I was really trying to be nice with you. But I got

impression that you are like an “elephant in the shop with porcelain”. Only

you.

Bob :

At any moment an organism is an HPCT system and is perceiving whatever

objects and events are available in its world outside the boundaries of

itself (skin). It has references (or preferences) regarding these objects

and events and if one of more of the perceptions do not match the

references, an error signal is generated.

Boris :

Are you sure that’s all about HPCT ?

Bob :

In routine situations, error signals generate output processes that affect

change in something that is being perceived outside which affects change in

the perception compared to reference and reduces error.

Boris :

Are you sure this is all about “closed loops” ?

Boris :

The system knows what to do in these circumstance and does it with no need

to reorganize any aspect of itself.

Boris :

Is there some kind of the program in “the system” that knows exactly what to

do….? Some “super system” ?

Bob :

Zero learning occurs when a control system is functioning normally and is

adequate to control both internal (hunger, thirst, temperature, etc.) and

external perceptions (food, liquid, clothing, etc.) that are changing as a

result of independent processes.

Boris :

How is this related to what you told in above sections ? Here I can’t see

any HPCT terms except “perceptions”.

Bob :

Bill posited intrinsic reference signals and a process of “random?”

reorganization to think about how a system gets constructed in the first

place and/or changes as a result of experience. Reorganization is a level

one learning process.

Boris :

As PCT is concerned and “random?” reorganization as "level one learning

process" you’ll have to communicate with Bill, as you noticed for yourself.

It’s his Theory.

Bob :

Human infants are born with a few closed loops already in place, generally

called reflexes.

Boris :

I’m not sure I understand this clearly ? What are reflexes ?

Bob :

They know how to suck if something touches their lips and swallow if liquid

enters their mouth. They have to learn how to discriminate differences in

visual perceptions to recognize faces as different from shadows on the wall,

human sounds as different from motor sounds from outside the room, hunger

pangs as different cold skin, and host of other differences that might

become important to their well being. Human infants cannot successfully

control anything necessary to continue staying alive. Left alone after

birth 100% will die. They are part of a social system and survive as a

result of the outputs of a complex, independent control system that not only

feeds them……

Boris :

With some limitations I could agree with you…

Bob :

…… and takes care of other bodily needs, but also helps them learn how to

grab fingers, recognize faces, seek cuddling, etc. Caregivers facilitate an

infant learning about themselves and their world as much as possible by

learning to together how to send and receive messages from each other. A

first time mother has no better idea how to communicate with her child than

the infant. This is part of what makes a second born infant’s life

different from a first born’s life. The second born interacts with a mother

who has already learned about babies from her first.

Boris :

Interesting Bob. But are you really sure that caregivers facilitate all this

“stuff” in infants ? If I understand you right you can “regulate” learning

of infant with “sending and receiving” messages. You are probably joking or

you forget how is to deal with infant and little children. Maybe you could

try once again and find out who is learning from who, or who is teaching who.

Again. You are simplifying too much. And as I’m concerned you are “jumping”

from behaviorism to HPCT and back. It’s quite a “Mix” :)) By the way, can

you explain what are needs ?

Maybe you could also read “PCT development theory” in Bill’s book "Making

sense of behavior – The meaning of control". Maybe you get some hints.

Bob :

Jump-Shift-change of topic- The level one learning control system

reorganizes the basic control system. It may well be constructed by trial

and error, but level two learning reorganizes the learning one control

system making it easier to alter the basic control system. Level one may be

limited to imitating the observable output of others, but level two may

allow imitating the control of others. I have not reread Bateson’s - Steps

to an Ecology of Mind - in many years and will be putting it back on list of

things to do.

He was an anthropologist of sorts and an information theorist 50 or more

years ago.

Boris :

I’m sorry Bob, again I don’t understand clearly what you are talking about ?

But maybe Bill can help you. You are not only “jumping”, you are “flying”

from theme to theme".

Bob :

I have reread parts of Kent’s paper on coercion. My only clarification

would involve the importance of messages in the process. I would suggest

that we are almost always paying attention to the people around us and at

least guessing what they are controlling so that we can help them control or

avoid disturbing their control. We are also sometimes looking for people

who might be available to help us control variables that are too difficult

for us to control alone. We seldom notice how few of the actual products

that we use in our everyday lives was produced by an individual somewhere or

even could be produced by one person alone.

Boris :

All in all Bob, I’ve got an impression that you try to talk to Bill and

Kent, as you are explaining their writings in your words and making your

suggestions. So I’m sorry I’m not the right person for communication about

these topics.

Maybe it will help, if you read or re-read beside Kent’s articles (there are

many of them) also some Bill’s book.

Best,

Boris

11

I think I understand your message and will restrain my rambling.

Boris :
Nice.

Bob:
How would describe how one person helps another person learn something?

Boris :
I think that first and fundamentally you have to make right interpretation
of PCT diagram.

Than imagine how my help to you was going on. If you remember I "helped" you
controlling some of your important variables in the time you need it. I
would say this is "help in learning to another person", as you "improved"
your control in certain variables (i.e. stabilize your perception of some
controlled variables closer to your wanted value-reference). You became more
competent in some of your controlled activity.

That's it. Now you have to remember if you helped me control something. You
didn't. So you see this is absence of help to another person.

Now all you have to do is imagine the difference between my help to you and
you not helping me, and you will understand what is "help in learning to
another person". No big deal.

Best,

Boris

···

On Mon, 2 May 2011 16:56:58 +0000, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote: