Elicited and Emitted Behavior

[From Fred Nickols (980408.1755 EDT)] --

Rick Marken (980407.1100)

Jeff Vancouver (980407.0850 EST) --

A point I think I make is that PCT is a systems theory unlike most
other theories in psychology.

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.

I've got a couple of questions about Rick's response to Jeff.

Behavior caused by input is what I recognize as "elicited" behavior.

Behavior controlling input is what I recognize as "emitted" behavior.

It seems to me that PCT might be able to explain away "elicited"
behavior as disturbances to control systems (e.g., the patella tendon
example that appeared on the list a while back), but, how does PCT
deal with "emitted" behavior?

Later in the same post by Rick:

What you leave out is that in one perceptions control, in
the other perceptions are _controlled_.

Excuse me (as my daughter would say), but in a closed loop, where "cause and
effect are nowhere to be found," the distinction drawn above seems to be a
rather empty one. To accept this distinction, it would seem to me that the
reference conditions would have to be outside the loop. Is this the case?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

[From Rick Marken (980408.2100)]

Fred Nickols (980408.1755 EDT) --

It seems to me that PCT might be able to explain away "elicited"
behavior as disturbances to control systems

It just _explains_ it, Fred. It doesn't explain it _away_.

but, how does PCT deal with "emitted" behavior?

Variations in reference signals.

See my "Blind men..." paper:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/blind.html

particularly the section on "The cognitive view".

Me:

What you leave out is that in one perceptions control, in
the other perceptions are _controlled_.

Fred:

Excuse me (as my daughter would say), but in a closed loop,
where "cause and effect are nowhere to be found," the
distinction drawn above seems to be a rather empty one. To
accept this distinction, it would seem to me that the reference
conditions would have to be outside the loop. Is this the case?

Yes. For perceptions (or the environment that these perceptions
represent) to control behavior they would have to be control
systems with reference signals (goals for the organism's
behavior) that are outside the organism. That's why psychologists
like Skinner were talking nonsense when they said (as they often
did) that the environment controls behavior.

Fred Nickols (980408.1707 EDT) --

Anyway, what I'm doing here on CSG is trying to figure out how
to apply PCT to the kinds of problems I encounter in the
workplace. You and Rick and others can tell me that it doesn't,
but I don't believe that.

Neither Bill nor Mary nor I have said that PCT doesn't apply to
the problems encountered in the workplace. In fact, I'm sure we
would all agree that it it very defintitely apples. I just can't
imagine that most business people would be interested in what PCT
might have to say about those problems. But if they would be
intersted that would be great. Go for it.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.0405 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980408.2100)

Neither Bill nor Mary nor I have said that PCT doesn't apply to
the problems encountered in the workplace. In fact, I'm sure we
would all agree that it it very defintitely apples. I just can't
imagine that most business people would be interested in what PCT
might have to say about those problems.

Yes, I'm sure this is true. But as George Williams notes, "The opposition
arises, as Darwin himself observed, not from what reason dictates but from
the limits of what the imagination can accept."

Bruce the Obscure

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.0846 E?T]

I have a question that has probably been asked, but when considering a
single control unit (i.e., not a hierarchical system) does it matter in the
equations which is labelled system and which is labelled environment? In
other words, would not the math look the same? Below I copied a diagram
from a previous post, than copied it again with some more generic labeling.
Putting aside for a moment that physical constraints might tell us
something about the nature of the functions and signals when we are
specific about the system/environment in which they are housed, would the
_math_ be any different?

                      ^ |
perceptual signal (p)| | reference signal (r)
                      > v
                      >---->------- - ---error signal (e)->-
                      > comparator |
                  (p) ^ output function (G)
                      > >
         perceptual input function V
                      > output signal (o) |
  input quantity (qi) ^ |
                      > >
                 CCEV + --<--output influence (x)---Fe------|
                      >
disturbance influence ^ (d, or, to please Bill, Fd(d)
                      >

                                    >
                                       > disturbance influence (d, [s5])
                                    v
                      >---->------- + ----------signal (s2)->-
                      > CCV(1) |
                 (s1) ^ function (G2)
                      > >
                   function(G1) V
                      > signal (s3) |
        quantity (q1) ^ |
                      > >
               CCV(2) + --<---------------------------------|
                      >
   reference signal ^ (r [s4])
                      >

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Bruce Nevin (980409.0955)]

Butting in ...

Fred Nickols (980408.1755 EDT) --

Behavior controlling input is what I recognize as "emitted" behavior.

It seems to me that PCT might be able to explain away "elicited"
behavior as disturbances to control systems (e.g., the patella tendon
example that appeared on the list a while back), but, how does PCT
deal with "emitted" behavior?

As defined above, PCT deals with it as the actions that add their effects
to those of unpredictable disturbances in the environment, such that the
perceptual input from the environment is controlled. But I think what you
gave above is not the usual definition of "emitted behavior" (which is
grounded in linear causation, no loop) so it has no bearing on what PCT
might say about the more established definition.

PCT does not "explain away" socalled elicited behavior, it explains what is
going on that appears to be elicited behavior.

What is the difference between elicited behavior and emitted behavior? I
suggest that you cannot differentiate them without giving up the closed
loop and reverting to linear causation (stimulus in, some kind of interior
process maybe, behavior out as a consequence).

Rick Marken (980407.1100)

What this "not in your face" description of the difference between
the geo and helio centric models of the solar system leaves out
is [analogous] to what you leave out of your "not in your face"
description of the difference between PCT and non-PCT theories of
behavior. What you leave out is that in one perceptions control, in
the other perceptions are _controlled_.

Excuse me (as my daughter would say), but in a closed loop, where "cause and
effect are nowhere to be found," the distinction drawn above seems to be a
rather empty one. To accept this distinction, it would seem to me that the
reference conditions would have to be outside the loop. Is this the case?

No. (1) cause and effect are everywhere to be found in the close loop, the
point is rather that each effect is in turn a portion of its own ongoing
cause; (2) you're leaving out the influence of disturbances.

You need to look closely at how a closed loop actually works.

  BN

[From Bill Powers (980409.1133 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.0846 E?T]

I have a question that has probably been asked, but when considering a
single control unit (i.e., not a hierarchical system) does it matter in the
equations which is labelled system and which is labelled environment? In
other words, would not the math look the same?

See "The asymmetry of control," in Living Control Systems (I), p. 251-252.
The answer to your question is yes, it matters. The reason is that the
environment generally has a low "output gain" while the active system has a
high output gain. As a result, the active systain maintains its input near
the level set by its reference signal, while the environment does not
maintain its input at a level set by the disturbance. The equations are
perfectly symmetrical; the assymmetry arises from the values of the system
parameters.

Best,

Bill P.

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1723 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980409.1133 MDT)]
See "The asymmetry of control," in Living Control Systems (I), p. 251-252.

Thanks for the reference. It seems to go directly to my question.

You might be equally able to answer this next question then (there is
actually several assumption checking questions before I get to the real
one). I am assuming "a" is action, "p" is perception, "r" is reference
signal, "K" is gain in the system, "d" is disturbance, and "E" is gain in
the environment, correct? Your point in the note is that K or E (but not
both) must be negative, and that "E" will always be less than "K" because
of the nature of the agential systems (organism v. environment). Thus, the
answer to my original question is that the math is the same (as you
describe in the note), but that the level of the numbers must be different
because of the differences between environment and organism. Further, the
note anticipates the point of my question, which is that only one thing,
"p" can be described as controlled; "a" cannot. So you say "r" affects the
environment, not "d" affecting the system (and by environment you mean "a"
and by system you mean "p," correct?).

My question is this: If a = K(r + p), where is the comparator? That is, I
thought it was r - p. Is this because K is really the negative valued
gain? Thus, it is a = -Kr - Kp where K is now positive?

* * * * * * *

Upon further reflection, I wonder if this can explain a problem I have on
the net. I have suggested that one of the main perceptions I am trying to
control is the respect of others. Rick (and I think you) suggest that I
should look for an internal variable that I am trying to control. That I
am trying to control my own "self-respect" for instance. As I read your
note in the LCSI, I think I see why you reject the idea that another person
be the EV that my actions affect and feedback to my perception. For if
that were the case then the environment would be another organism. If the
environment were another organism, then K and E are likely to be very large
numbers. This would give me the symmetry I suspected. However, only one
can be negative for stability. So if Rick really were trying to control
the perception of something about me while I was trying to control the
perception of something about him we will be highly unstable. That
certainly does explain a lot.

In the meantime I have tried to implement symmetry in a model. I think I
have, but I must be doing something wrong. Unfortunately, I do not know
how to show you what I have done very well. Below is a posting of the
Visual Basic program I wrote, but I am not sure how clear it will be.
Perhaps you can find the flaw (it is a simple program).

The basic idea is that a line (Line1) moves horizontally across the screen.
If cmdChange.Tag is 1 then the line is "watching" another line (Line2) and
maintaining itself on the same vertical plane with the other line. The
reference signal is constant.

If cmdChange.Tag is 2 (pressing a Windows "button" changes the tag), then
the reference signal is what is changing. It determines the place of the
line on the screen. The disturbance is constant.

Both versions have the exact same effect on the line. That is
Timer1.Interval + 40 has the same effect regardless of whether it is d or r
(i.e., d = a and r = p). What am I missing?

[The Line2.Tag is simply to keep the line on the screen (it switches the
direction of the disturbance/reference signal change) and referent is
originally set to original x-position of line1]

If cmdChange.Tag = 1 Then 'disturbance of EV

  If Line2.Tag = 1 Then
    Line2.X1 = Line2.X1 + (Timer1.Interval + 40)
    Line2.X2 = Line2.X2 + (Timer1.Interval + 40)
    If Line2.X1 > 6000 Then
      Line2.Tag = 2
    End If
  Else
    Line2.X1 = Line2.X1 - (Timer1.Interval + 40)
    Line2.X2 = Line2.X2 - (Timer1.Interval + 40)
    If Line2.X1 < 2000 Then
      Line2.Tag = 1
    End If
  End If

  'control system
  Line1.X1 = Line1.X1 + 0.3 * (Line2.X1 - Line1.X1)
  Line1.X2 = Line1.X2 + 0.3 * (Line2.X1 - Line1.X2)

Else 'disturbance of reference signal

  If Line2.Tag = 1 Then

    referent = referent + Timer1.Interval + 40

    Line1.X1 = Line1.X1 + 0.3 * (referent - Line1.X1)
    Line1.X2 = Line1.X2 + 0.3 * (referent - Line1.X2)
    If Line1.X1 > 6000 Then
      Line2.Tag = 2
    End If
  Else
    referent = referent - (Timer1.Interval + 40)

    Line1.X1 = Line1.X1 + 0.3 * (referent - Line1.X1)
    Line1.X2 = Line1.X2 + 0.3 * (referent - Line1.X2)
    If Line1.X1 < 2000 Then
      Line2.Tag = 1
    End If
  End If

End If

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Bill Powers (980410.1107 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.1723 EST--

You might be equally able to answer this next question then (there is
actually several assumption checking questions before I get to the real
one). I am assuming "a" is action, "p" is perception, "r" is reference
signal, "K" is gain in the system, "d" is disturbance, and "E" is gain in
the environment, correct? Your point in the note is that K or E (but not
both) must be negative, and that "E" will always be less than "K" because
of the nature of the agential systems (organism v. environment). Thus, the
answer to my original question is that the math is the same (as you
describe in the note), but that the level of the numbers must be different
because of the differences between environment and organism.

That's all correct as I see it.

Further, the
note anticipates the point of my question, which is that only one thing,
"p" can be described as controlled; "a" cannot. So you say "r" affects the
environment, not "d" affecting the system (and by environment you mean "a"
and by system you mean "p," correct?).

I would say r determines the state of p while the disturbance has hardly
any effect on p. That's because p is controlled by variations in the
action. Because the environmental feedback function normally has a much
lower gain, I would say that d _influences_ the output a, but that a is
also influenced by r, so we wouldn't say that the environment _controls_ a.

Maybe a brief glossary might help here.

Control: A is said to control B if for every disturbance tending to change
B, A changes so as to keep B very near a specific state called the
reference level of B. This implies that A has some influence or effect on
B. Usually we say that the control system as a whole does the controlling,
but we can also say that the action fits the definition: the action varies
so as to keep the perception very near a specific state or level, so the
action controls the perception. The rest of the control system explains how
this happens.

Influence or affect: A is said to influence or affect B if there is a
nonzero correlation between changes in A and changes in B, with A being the
independent variable (i.e., arbitrarily changing B need not change A). Note
that other variables, C, D... X, might also affect B at the same time. It
is not possible to reason backward from B to A, because the state of A
might be caused by something other than A.

Determine: A is said to determine B if we can calculate B on the basis of
knowing A alone. To say that A determines B is a much stronger statement
than saying A affects or influences B. If A determines B, it doesn't matter
what the values of any other variables are. If we specify the state of A,
the state of B is automatically specified as well. Furthermore, if we know
the state of B we also know the state of A, because B is not influenced by
anything but A.

Apply this to the discussion above. The reference signal _determines_ p,
because knowing r is sufficient to allow us to predict p (d has essentially
no effect on p). The disturbance _influences_ or _affects_ the action a; it
doesn't _determine_ a, because r also influences or affects a, by
approximately the same amount that d affects it. A change in a might be
caused by a change in the disturbance, but it can also be caused by a
change in the reference signal. We can't tell just from seeing a change in
the action whether the cause was a change in r or in d or in both. [All
this assumes a reasonably tight control system in a normal environment]

And finally, the action _controls_ p by varying to oppose the effects of d
on p while maintaining p near a specific state or value which we call the
reference level.

I hope that will make things clearer instead of less clear.

My question is this: If a = K(r + p), where is the comparator? That is, I
thought it was r - p. Is this because K is really the negative valued
gain? Thus, it is a = -Kr - Kp where K is now positive?

The comparator is a place where p has one effect on the error signal and r
has the opposite effect, so it is possible to these two influences to
cancel, leaving an error signal of zero.

In the environment, the input quantity is a place where the disturbance has
one effect and the action has the opposite effect, so it is possible for
these two influences to cancel, leaving a net effect of zero. We don't draw
a box to represent the joining of effects, but we could.

Upon further reflection, I wonder if this can explain a problem I have on
the net. I have suggested that one of the main perceptions I am trying to
control is the respect of others. Rick (and I think you) suggest that I
should look for an internal variable that I am trying to control. That I

am >trying to control my own "self-respect" for instance.

That isn't quite it. We are suggesting that "the respect of others" is
perception of yours. You perceive a variable you call "respect," which is
based on more detailed perceptions of what others say and do relative to
you. What you perceive has no necessary objective relation to what they
actually feel toward you. If you were to change the way you perceive
respect, others could go on behaving as they do while your perception of
their respect for you changed.

As I read your
note in the LCSI, I think I see why you reject the idea that another person
be the EV that my actions affect and feedback to my perception. For if
that were the case then the environment would be another organism. If the
environment were another organism, then K and E are likely to be very large
numbers. This would give me the symmetry I suspected. However, only one
can be negative for stability. So if Rick really were trying to control
the perception of something about me while I was trying to control the
perception of something about him we will be highly unstable. That
certainly does explain a lot.

Very nice inference, and quite correct. One additional note that might be
useful: this is a problem only if the variables each person is trying to
control are the same, so you can't have them in two different states at once.

In the meantime I have tried to implement symmetry in a model. I think I
have, but I must be doing something wrong. Unfortunately, I do not know
how to show you what I have done very well. Below is a posting of the
Visual Basic program I wrote, but I am not sure how clear it will be.
Perhaps you can find the flaw (it is a simple program).

I find your model very hard to understand, much less find any flaws in. I
think I'll leave that to you.

Best,

Bill P.