Evolution of higher levels of perceptual control

CSGnet Archive CSG2000
21

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.18.1829 EST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.18.1510)--

···

At 03:07 PM 12/18/2000 -0800, Richard S. Marken wrote:

I think there is considerably more than "no data" on this. If teachers
consistently act to restore order to a classroom when there is a
disturbance to classroom order then that's pretty strong evidence
that the teachers are controlling a variable that can be called
"order in the classroom".

And all this time I thought that the process of identifying controlled variables was so much more demanding, trying out as many hypotheses as you can imagine, flogging your imagination for more, trying to prove your favored hypothesis is wrong, etc. Maybe I should work with the coin game some more, until I really "get" it.

         Bruce Nevin

22

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.190417 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.18.1510)--

I think there is considerably more than "no data" on this. If teachers
consistently act to restore order to a classroom when there is a
disturbance to classroom order then that's pretty strong evidence
that the teachers are controlling a variable that can be called
"order in the classroom".

I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also control for other
variables, not just that one variable. A teacher who is controlling for
order may control less rigorously if he or she is also controlling for good
relationships with the children. RTP does not _just_ recommend removing
disruptors from the classroom. That can be done in many different ways,
depending on other goals the order-keepers have. The emphasis in RTP is on
obtaining agreement, and on drawing the childrens' attention to their
behavior and asking them, respectfully, to consider how it relates to
getting what they want and to the rights of others, both other children and
the teacher.

In other words, a complex mix of variables is being controlled, among them
being orderliness but with others such as the teachers' respect for the
children also being given strong consideration. Finding a workable balance
among these goals is probably not easy, with conflicts frequently arising
and needing a coherent higher-level conception of human nature -- that is,
PCT -- to help resolve them.

I also suspect that a large component of RTP is the set of behaviors of the
teachers and staff that _ceases_ to be used because a different way of
behaving is taught. If you're asking a child in a neutral or friendly tone,
"What are you doing?", you can't simultaneously be screaming at the class
and threatening the children with bodily harm or expulsion from school. If
you're telling the children that the special classroom is a place where
they can get themselves together and work out solutions for their problem,
you can't, at the same time, be telling them that they're being sent to a
place of punishment to contemplate their sins. If we ask why discipline is
such a problem in many schools, we can only guess that it is because of the
way the children are treated in those schools. RTP offers a different way
of treating them, and the dramatic effects suggest to me that something
very wrong was being done prior to the introduction of RTP. So in a sense,
the specific procedures followed under RTP are no more important than the
_cessation_ of the previously used procedures. These are two sides of the
same coin.

Best,

Bill P.

23

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.19.0730)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1218.1655)--

In the RTP case, we focused on models in which the teacher was
controlling for a single variable -- perceived order in the classroom.
Since we had no data, there was no way to assess how realistic such
a simple model would prove to be.

Me:

I think there is considerably more than "no data" on this. If teachers
consistently act to restore order to a classroom when there is a
disturbance to classroom order then that's pretty strong evidence
that the teachers are controlling a variable that can be called
"order in the classroom".

Bill Powers (2000.12.190417 MST) --

I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also control
for other variables, not just that one variable.

Perhaps you're right. Is that right Bruce G.? Bruce N.? Did you
guys get all upset at me because you thought I was saying that
RTP teachers control for only one single variable: classroom
order? If so, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I think RTP teachers
(like all teachers) control for _many_ variables besides
classroom order. All I was saying was that classroom order is
clearly _one_ of the variables for which RTP teachers control.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

24

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1259)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.0730)

> I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also control
> for other variables, not just that one variable.

Perhaps you're right. Is that right Bruce G.?

Bill has described the situation clearly and accurately.

BG

25

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1110)]

Bill Powers:

I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also control
for other variables, not just that one variable.

Me:

Perhaps you're right. Is that right Bruce G.?

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1259):

Bill has described the situation clearly and accurately.

That's good. But I'm surprised that you would assume that
I was saying that teachers control only _one variable_:
classroom order. I've published a number of papers that
show that I am well aware of the fact that organisms control
a large number of perceptual variables simultaneously. But
I'm glad we've straightened than out now.

There is one aspect of Bill's description of the situation
that puzzles me. Bill Powers (2000.12.190417 MST) said:

In other words, a complex mix of variables is being controlled
[by the RTP teacher], among them being orderliness but with
others such as the teachers' respect for the children also
being given strong consideration.

If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
thing would act as a disturbance to this perception. It may
be that many teachers _do_ treat this as a disturbance and refuse
to say this to students, indicating that they are, indeed, control-
ling for respect for the children. Is asking teachers to say "I
see you have chosen" actually part of a test to see if teachers
are, indeed, controlling for respect for the children; the
teachers who refuse to say this pass the test for control of
respect for children? If so, I think it's a _very_ clever
approach and I approve.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

26

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1110)

If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
thing would act as a disturbance to this perception. It may
be that many teachers _do_ treat this as a disturbance and refuse
to say this to students, indicating that they are, indeed, control-
ling for respect for the children. Is asking teachers to say "I
see you have chosen" actually part of a test to see if teachers
are, indeed, controlling for respect for the children; the
teachers who refuse to say this pass the test for control of
respect for children? If so, I think it's a _very_ clever
approach and I approve.

I see you've chosen to revert to your old style. Or perhaps you've never
gotten beyond it.

BG

27

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.19 14:26 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1259)--

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.0730)

> I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also control
> for other variables, not just that one variable.

Perhaps you're right. Is that right Bruce G.?

Bill has described the situation clearly and accurately.

Yes, I agree with Bruce G, and thank you, Bill, but to say that this oversimplification was the only issue would also be to oversimplify. I can't now elaborate, sorry, but I have articulated it before after all.

Well, I can elaborate in a sideways kind of way. Bill, the reason I was asking about the arm demo a while back is that I hoped to get the code, refresh my 15-20 year old brush with Pascal, and work it up to two arms with a knotted rubber band and mark between them. That would be a minimal start at demonstrating some of the issues. Then a process controlling one hand and trying to determine what the controller of the other hand is doing. For that, the coin game might be a better basis. This begins to touch the issue of communication in the most rudimentary way. But all of this is way beyond my capacities with the directions my life is taking, so I just hold it among aspirations waiting for means and time.

         Be well,

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:59 PM 12/19/2000 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:

28

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1515)]

Bill Powers:

I believe Bruce G's point is that teachers probably also
control for other variables, not just that one variable.

Me:

Perhaps you're right. Is that right Bruce G.?

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1259)--

>Bill has described the situation clearly and accurately.

Bruce Nevin (2000.12.19 14:26 EST) --

Yes, I agree with Bruce G, and thank you, Bill, but to say
that this oversimplification was the only issue would also
be to oversimplify.

When I said that teachers control for order in class I
assumed that people would understand that I meant order in
class is one of _many_ variables that teachers control. To
say that my comments were an "oversimplification" suggests
that I intentionally made things too simple out of error or
some ulterior motive. In fact, we always talk about controlled
variables without having to point out that a particular variable
is not the _only_ variable an organism controls. When I said
that baseball outfielders control for vertical and lateral
optical velocity of the ball I was not criticized for failure
to point out that the fielder is controlling for _many_ other
variables (center of gravity, body temperature, etc etc)
as well.

So I don't understand why my comments about teachers controlling
for order in class constitute a notable "oversimplification" or
an "issue" any more than do my comments (on the net and in a soon
to be published article) about the fact that there is evidence
(data) indicating that fielders control for vertical and lateral
optical velocity.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

29

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1935)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1515)

So I don't understand why my comments about teachers controlling
for order in class constitute a notable "oversimplification" or
an "issue" any more than do my comments (on the net and in a soon
to be published article) about the fact that there is evidence
(data) indicating that fielders control for vertical and lateral
optical velocity.

When the fielder is controlling for catching the ball, all other goals are
presumably subordinate to that one. We have no evidence that this is true
in the case of the classroom teacher controlling for order in the class.

BG

30

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.19 14:26 EST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1515)--

we always talk about controlled
variables without having to point out that a particular variable
is not the _only_ variable an organism controls. When I said
that baseball outfielders control for vertical and lateral
optical velocity of the ball I was not criticized for failure
to point out that the fielder is controlling for _many_ other
variables (center of gravity, body temperature, etc etc)
as well.

Catching a ball is a pretty simple task (albeit requiring practiced skill), with no feedback loops through the environment including other control systems.

Body temperature is not relevant to catching a ball. Nor is center of gravity directly relevant, although it is relevant to postural control which must generally be ongoing for most activities. So unless you are claiming that the other variables that the teacher is controlling in the classroom are not relevant to teaching (in the same way that body temperature is not relevant to catching a ball) this does not seem to be responsive. Or perhaps you are saying that the teacher is only controlling disruption and that is quite distinct from teaching (as maintaining body temperature and posture are background necessities quite distinct from catching a fly ball). On both counts, a period of actual RTP classroom observation would be perhaps a learning experience. Without which, maybe you should drop it and stop digging.

But if you want to keep digging, who am I to say anything. So I won't.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 03:19 PM 12/19/2000 -0800, Richard S. Marken wrote:

31

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0855 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1110)]

If teachers are controlling for respect for the children
then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

Yes, if a teacher ever actually put it that way. Tim Carey reports that he
never uses that construction, nor do others he knows in the Aussie RTP
program. My objections to some things in RTP were addressed, you will
recall, to things I read in Ed Ford's books; I did not assume that those
things were actually put into practice, especially not under Tom Bourbon's
watchful eye. My complaint was that the materials in the books were
misleading; a reader could easily get the impression that students were
subject to punishment (removal of privileges) and reward (restoration of
the privileges when proper behavior was shown). I am quite willing to
accept that such things don't happen in successful RTP classrooms. They
should also be removed from the books, which contain most of what newcomers
learn about RTP before they actually meet Ed or Tom.

It may
be that many teachers _do_ treat this as a disturbance and refuse
to say this to students, indicating that they are, indeed, control-
ling for respect for the children.

I don't know if that is true, since I have observed no more RTP classrooms
than you have, but I have no reason to assume otherwise. No doubt there are
some RTP teachers who use the "I see you have chosen ..." ploy, and some
who have always used it (it is, after all, a very old technique: I see,
Jesus, that you have chosen to let Barabas go free and for yourself to die.
I wash my hands of gthe matter -- it's not my fault). Most, I would assume,
do not do that and are not encouraged to do it.

The most important thing concerning this discussion is to recognize what we
know about RTP and what we are imagining.

Best,

Bill P.

32

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0913 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.12.19 14:26 EST)--

Bill, the reason I was
asking about the arm demo a while back is that I hoped to get the code,
refresh my 15-20 year old brush with Pascal, and work it up to two arms
with a knotted rubber band and mark between them. That would be a minimal
start at demonstrating some of the issues.

The reason I didn't leap at the suggestion was that there's a lot more to
it than just the Pascal programming. There's also the physics of the arm to
model; the arm model is a simulation, not an animation. The physics of two
arms connected by rubber bands is much harder to work out than the physics
of a single arm without a load. Perhaps I do you a gross injustice by
assuming that a linguist might have just as much trouble as I do with the
mechanics of jointed bodies, or in failing to assume that you could find a
consultant or two (as I did -- Greg Williams) to handle that part of the
model.

The code is freely available; I believe it's part of the download package
on my web site. If you can't find it there, I'll be happy to send it to you
privately.

I really think it might be easier to do the experiment with live subjects,
and see what you could deduce from that.

Best,

Bill P.

33

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0927 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1515)]

So I don't understand why my comments about teachers controlling
for order in class constitute a notable "oversimplification" or
an "issue" any more than do my comments (on the net and in a soon
to be published article) about the fact that there is evidence
(data) indicating that fielders control for vertical and lateral
optical velocity.

My point, which I did not state explicitly enough, was that some of the
other goals of the teachers such as respecting the students would
_conflict_ with the goal of keeping order at all costs, thus reducing the
teacher's committment to maintaining order. This alone might lead to less
rigorous efforts to keep order. Of course it would be best to eliminate the
conflict in such a way that reasonable order is maintained and respect for
the students is also maintained. I would not expect the good results we
hear about from RTP schools if this conflict were not satisfactorily resolved.

Thmge fielders' control of vertical velocity does not conflict with control
of horizontal velocity, maintaining balance, and so on.

Best,

Bill P.

34

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.20.1030)]

Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0855 MST)--

My objections to some things in RTP were addressed, you will
recall, to things I read in Ed Ford's books; I did not assume
that those things were actually put into practice, especially
not under Tom Bourbon's watchful eye.

Yes. But it's too bad we have to _assume_. It seems like it
would be so easy for anyone involved with the program to tell
us that "those things" (like telling kids "I see you have
chosen") are not actually put into practice (if they're not).

No doubt there are some RTP teachers who use the "I see you
have chosen ..." ploy, and some who have always used it (it is,
after all, a very old technique: I see, Jesus, that you have
chosen to let Barabas go free and for yourself to die. I wash
my hands of gthe matter -- it's not my fault). Most, I would
assume, do not do that and are not encouraged to do it.

Yes. It would be nice if some RTP person would just _say_ whether
or not teachers do that or are encouraged to do that.

The most important thing concerning this discussion is to
recognize what we know about RTP and what we are imagining.

Yes. Again, it's too bad no one will tell us anything about
RTP. Perhaps RTP practices transcend verbal description.

Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0927 MST) --

My point...was that some of the other goals of the teachers
such as respecting the students would _conflict_ with the goal
of keeping order at all costs, thus reducing the teacher's
committment to maintaining order. This alone might lead to less
rigorous efforts to keep order.

But that would not change the fact that order in the classroom
is a (perhaps poorly) controlled variable. Do you really think
it is an "oversimplification" to say that teachers are
controlling for order in the class when they _are_? The
fact that there may be a conflict (if there is) is certainly
something worth noting. But the existence of a conflict (such
as a conflict between respecting students and maintaining
order in the class) doesn't mean that these variables are not
controlled, does it? If it does, then I suppose you'd have
to say that the teachers in the respect/order conflict are not
controlling for order in the class _or_ for respecting the kids.

Thmge fielders' control of vertical velocity does not conflict
with control of horizontal velocity, maintaining balance, and
so on.

Control of vertical velocity _can_ conflict with control of
horizontal velocity, maintaining balance, and so on. For example,
control of vertical velocity may take you to a point in the
field where there is an obstacle to horizontal movement; so
by controlling vertical velocity you are interfering with
your ability to control vertical velocity.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

35

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1220.1345)]

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.20.1030)]

Yes. Again, it's too bad no one will tell us anything about
RTP. Perhaps RTP practices transcend verbal description.

That's not it. I _could_ tell you. But then I'd have to kill you. Come to
think it, maybe I could do that _without_ telling you...

BG

36

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1220.1600)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.20.1030)

But that would not change the fact that order in the classroom
is a (perhaps poorly) controlled variable. Do you really think
it is an "oversimplification" to say that teachers are
controlling for order in the class when they _are_? The
fact that there may be a conflict (if there is) is certainly
something worth noting. But the existence of a conflict (such
as a conflict between respecting students and maintaining
order in the class) doesn't mean that these variables are not
controlled, does it? If it does, then I suppose you'd have
to say that the teachers in the respect/order conflict are not
controlling for order in the class _or_ for respecting the kids.

You seem to have overlooked the possibility that order is a controlled
variable whose reference level can be altered by the system controlling for
respecting the student. Perhaps your model does not allow for this level of
complexity.

BG

37

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.21 10:54 EST)]

Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0913 MST)--

···

At 09:23 AM 12/20/2000 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

[...] Perhaps I do you a gross injustice by
assuming that a linguist might have just as much trouble as I do [...]

You do not.

         Bruce Nevin