Rick you will never learn. I think that you can’t be helped. You are psychologist in your soul and you’ll always be. So I doubt that you will ever understand PCT. But you will drag it to selfrgulation form. Whatever you are saying bellow you can meet in Carvers’ text. There is no difference between you and other So what you can explain to them that they already don’t know.
Whatever you done to spreadshit it is your interpretation and of course it reflectes your psychological view upon PCT.
Bill P :
Instead of automatically assuming that mental and physical phenomena have nothing to do with each other, we can assume that there is no contraditction and try to findÂ out how this result is brought about â€“ how the phenomenom of inner purpose or intention works….All we have to do is to find an organization that can do what we observe being done.
HB : So the problem stays even after so many years. The Â»whole pictureÂ« of PCT on 191, B:CP, 2005 internal organization of organisms is not done yet. It’s ambigous and you are just misleading all the forum in wrong way to prove your psychological stand point. If you’ll read also text from p.176-181. And then you will see that thew conclusion is the same as in all other Bill’s books.
Bill P :
The organism acts to bring under control, in relation to some reference state, the sensed perceptions.
HB : Although you took 36 year old text, it’s obviously that whatever you read from Bill you can always come to the same conclusion. It is not behavior that it is controlled, but perception. Read carefully what you read so you will have no problems with reading what you want tor read and not what it is.
Even Bruce Nevin is clear about it
BN : The key insight is that we do not control our behavior. Rather, behavior is variable in just the manner and extent necessary to make our experience be the way we want it to be. The title of the locus classicus of this science of psychology is Behavior: The control of perception, published in 1973 by William T. Powers.
If you want to prove that Â»behavior is control! Make your own theory RCT and write and prove as you want. But atop selling self-regulation theory under PCT cover.
Show me in the whole text from pages 171-181 (LCS I) where Bill mentioned that Â»behavior is controlÂ« or something near to this. Maybe you could first explain what did he wrote on this pages. I think that the main purpose of what is written on this pages is :
From: Richard Marken [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Examples of everyday control (was Re: Somebody should take this on)
[From Rick Marken (2015.10.23.1550)]
Rupert Young (2015.10.22 21.00)
RY: May I make a few other structural suggestions [re: the Behavior as Control spreadsheet–RM], before I start adding records? “Sub-goal” and “Action” seem different, so maybe both would be appropriate, in different columns.
RM: I’m using Table 1 p. 172 of LCS I as the model for this exercise. Bill used the term “Means” to describe what is called “Action” and “Sub-goal” in the spreadsheet. I think I will return to his terminology, which is more inclusive and non-theoretical.
RY: With the “Behavior” column being at the beginning (left) it seems that behavior is given prominence whereas perhaps prominence should be given to the controlled variable.
RM: I want the “Behavior” column to have precedence because this exercise is all about doing what Bill was doing in Table 1, which was showing that what psychologists (and lay people) call “behavior” is actually a process of control. By the way, in order to get a clearer idea of what I’m trying to do (which is what Bill was trying to do with his Table 1, p. 172) I suggest that everyone read the section of LCS I in which Table 1 appears. It’s the section titled “The Phenomenon of Control” and it runs from p. 171-176.
RY: I can see that the spreadsheet could get quite unwieldy as it grows and see a use for a grouping column in addition to “Type” and “Behavior”, to help users find if their suggestion already exists and to see the different goals/behaviours involved in a higher goal.
RM: I think we can use the sorting and filtering capabilities of Excel to do all this once we have a lot of entries. I would just like people to think of all kinds of behaviors and put in their ideas about what variable(s) are controlled, their reference state, how they are controlled (the Means), and what disturbances make these Means necessary. In other words, I want to get people involved in thinking about behavior as control.
RY: A particular behaviour is likely to involve controlled variables at a number of different levels and this would useful for grouping different entries together. E.g. driving involves Opening a car door, Fastening seat belt, Depressing clutch etc. So an additional column with an entry of “Driving” might be useful for this. It could be called something like “Group” or “Domain” or “Purpose”.
RM: Again, I think all of this kind of thing can be done using the capabilities of Excel once we get a lot of behaviors into the spreadsheet. And, again, I think anyone who is willing to do this exercise should read pp.171-176 of LCS I to see what it is about. It is about showing that what we see (and name) as behavior – “opening a door”, “typing an email”, “giving a speech”,“kibbitzing”, “going to college”, “loitering”, “running for president”,“running a scam”, etc.; anything that is something a person (or other living organism) does – is control, in fact, not in theory.
HBÂ : Hiow many times I had to tell you that BEHAVIOR IS NOT CONTROL. Do you want to tell people that whatever you are descibing you are doing with controlling your limbs.
RM: That['s why I want to avoid theoretical language. I think the first step for anyone who wants to understand PCT is to understand what it explains. It explains the phenomenon of control. In living systems control is seen as purposeful behavior. PCT explains how control (purposeful behavior) works.But right now I’m just interested in convincing people – psychologists in particular – that behavior IS control. I believe that psychologists of all stripes have not seen the significance of PCT because PCT explains a phenomenon that psychologists don’t even know exists. Psychologists look at behavior as though it is the output of a causal process – a show put on for the benefit of the observer (as Bill once put it). So they see PCT as as just another explanation of this “show” when, in fact, PCT is based on understanding that the behavioral “show” is actually a process of control; and that’s the “show” that PCT explains.
RM: So how about adding some more examples of behavior (or, if you must, behaviour) to the spreadsheet!
RY: Have been compiling some which I was going to send with this, but they are taking some time so will send later when done.
RM: Great. Try to enter it in terms of the categories that currently exist in the spreadsheet. Read L:CS I pp 171-176 if you are having a hard time. And just do the best you can; I would like to discuss all the entries in the spreadsheet in this forum once we get a good collection together.
Richard S. Marken
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble