···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 6:37 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Examples of everyday control (was Re: Somebody should take this on)
[From Rick Marken (2015.10.24.0940)]
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
BH: Rick you will never learn. I think that you can’t be helped.
RM: Never give up hope Boris.
HB :
If somebody needs 25x times the same explanation, than you can imagine how the explainer feels. What do you really want ?
BH: You are psychologist in your soul and you’ll always be. So I doubt that you will ever understand PCT.
RM: Well, I think I once did understand it. At least Bill Powers thought so. While looking through LCS I yesterday I was surprised to find that I had written the Foreword to it! I had completely forgotten. In that Foreword, on p. ix, I said this: “Control theory is the wrong model of behavior if behavior is evoked motor output. But it is the right model of behavior if behavior is control”. I thought I was smarter back then but I guess I was just as dumb then as I am now. Too bad Bill didn’t have you around back then to set him straight about me.
HB : Go read a little posts back and you’ll see how many times I warned Bill about your wrong approach. But he was »backing« you up as far as it goes. But not always. And he also »backed« you up in the conversation with Martin. I really don’t know what Bill saw in you.
RM: But sarcasm aside, I think understanding that behavior is control, in fact, not just in theory, is the crucial first step to understanding PCT. Indeed, PCT would be irrelevant to understanding behavior if behavior were not control.
HB : You can’t find in the Bill’s work that »Behavior is control« Behavior is just supporting tool and you can’t control it. All wrote about this problem. Kent, Martin, Rupert, Bruce N., etc. So you are just waisting your and our time. Â
Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the obervation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.
I wrote it so many times. Do you understand it, or you need subtitiles ??? Behavior is of secondary importance. It’s just supporting internal control and it is consequence of internal control. You need more knowledge to understand it. Bill had it.
»Perception is contolled« and the consequence of that is behavior. Behavior is means of control.  It’s support to control. You should be a better reader of Bill’s text than I am. But you are obviously not. And what do you want me to do ? That I  explain what Bill wrote ??? Although on second thought … J
AND ONCE FOR ALL, you take it as an AXIOM and start every article or post here on CSGnet : »Behavior is not control, Perception is«. That is what PCT is about. It’s about perception and that’s why it is unique. Because you don’t understand this simple fact, it doesn’t mean that you have to drag also others into your  »mis-match« in your head. I’m speccialy sorry for Powers ladies.
HB : It must be that Bill overlooke it.  In your forward you also written  if I continue your thoughs :
RM (LCS I):
Powers built a model of behavior based on control theory. The basic tenet of the model is that organisms control perception, not morot output. This a fact of control system operation. Control systems act to keep their perceptoons matching reference images of what of what those perceptions should be. They do this by acting on environment, producing effects which, when combined with prevailing environmental disturbances, produce the desired perceptions… When we watch the behavior of organisms, we are watching livig control systems »from the outside« - systems that are controlling their own perceptual experience. Behavior is, as powers put it in the title of his classic book on the subject, »the control of perception«.
HB :
The theory PCT is about perception not behavior. Behavior is supporting feature to system control. The main is control in organism. But as I siad before. In 2007 we were talking only about perception. I still am. But you are talking about behavior. »Behavior is control« is perceptual illusion. You don’t do enything by controling your limbs although it’s so obvious. That was the genious Bill’s discovery . Not that »Behavior is control«. But anyway. Did you find in his whole literature where he once wrote that »Behavior is control« ??? No because he is talking about »Control of perception«.
I don’t know how many times must some people be told, but I thought that once or twice is enough.
Behavior is not control because you can’t prove it with physiological means. You can’t control directly your muscles, so to eat with your hands, walk with your legs and so on. This is self-regulation. »Behavior is control« and »controlled variables« are all over their work. Why don’t you join them if you think that behavior is a central feature.
Behavior is central feature in Carver’s work and he was acquanted with Bill’s work and PCT diagram shortly after you in 1980. So he used Bill’s diagram and made »Behavior« as central feature. You can find it in Carvers text anywhere. With putting behavior into first raw you are doing the same as Carver and he is more famous then you are. Go read all those »self-regulation« psychologist who »copied« Carver and you will see that you are not telling nothing new. The Title of Carver’s  book tells you everything : »On selfregulation of behavior«. Behavior is control.
But PCT is special. It’s original. And if you don’t understand it, stop misleading everybody here on CSGnet.
But I think I understand why you are trying so desperately to make seen PCT as »behaviroal« theory. You wrote quite some articles in which your leading point is »Behabior is control«. And now it’s easier to turn PCT into RCT (selfregulation theory) then to »repair« your articles, where your leading point is »Behavior is control«.
Maybe it would be good to start thinking about how to upgrade PCT as »Control of perception«. There’s a lot of work.
Best,
Boris
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.
Show me in the whole text from pages 171-181 (LCS I) where Bill mentioned that »behavior is control« 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 :
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 find out how this result is brought about – how the phenoomenom 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 »whole picture« 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.
HB :
If you want to prove that »behavior is control! Make your own theory RCT and write and prove as you want. But atop selling self-regulation theory under PCT cover.
Best,
Boris
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
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.
HB : 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.
Best
Rick
Rupert
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
) which I guess is