FW: controlling people

Rick stop confusing people. You’re making PCT look like “behavioristic” theory. RCT and PCT are in total opposition.

image001199.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 5:01 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

RY: I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

HB : Where ? In your imagination. How many times do I have to compare your RCT with PCT that you’ll understand your wrong understanding of PCT.

This is your Theory RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory):

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

  1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

  2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

  3. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

  4. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

  5. COMPARATOR : ???

  6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

You proved with your writings only that your RCT theory is totatly opposite to PCT

RCT (Ricks Control Theory)

PCT (Perceptual Control Theory)

Behavior is control

Behavior is not control

Controlled variable in outer environment

There is no controlled variable in environment

Controlled Perceptual Variable

Ordinary perceptual signal

This is PCT Theory :

cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0

RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.

HB : Where PCT explains this “fact” ?

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…tthe output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

Boris

Best

Rick

Though, more specifically, although you can’t make someone do what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else’s home). When you are next at a friend’s house, when they are not looking, tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer horizontal. After a while (providing they are a picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required. And you’ve also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Boris,

What is behavior in PCT? Other than not control.

HB : In PCT behavior is “output”. Please see in diagram LCS III. It comes after “error” signal. So it is consequence of control of perception in comparator. Everything is clearly seen from diagram in LCS III. I don’t understand how Rick can’t read American style of English language. And I was accused to be a “language idiot” because I presumably don’t understand American Language or English or whatever.

image001199.jpg

Best,

Boris

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:19 AM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

On Saturday, May 12, 2018, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Rick stop confusing people. You’re making PCT look like “behavioristic” theory. RCT and PCT are in total opposition.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 5:01 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

RY: I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

HB : Where ? In your imagination. How many times do I have to compare your RCT with PCT that you’ll understand your wrong understanding of PCT.

This is your Theory RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory):

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

  1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
  1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
  1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
  1. COMPARATOR : ???
  1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

You proved with your writings only that your RCT theory is totatly opposite to PCT

RCT (Ricks Control Theory)

PCT (Perceptual Control Theory)

Behavior is control

Behavior is not control

Controlled variable in outer environment

There is no controlled variable in environment

Controlled Perceptual Variable

Ordinary perceptual signal

This is PCT Theory :

cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0

RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.

HB : Where PCT explains this “fact” ?

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

Boris

Best

Rick

Though, more specifically, although you can’t make someone do what you want, you can make someone do what they want!

You can try it yourself at home (or rather someone else’s home). When you are next at a friend’s house, when they are not looking, tip up one of their pictures on the wall, so that it is no longer horizontal. After a while (providing they are a picture-straightener) they will re-level the picture. So, you have just controlled their behaviour; physical violence not required. And you’ve also done the test for the controlled variable.

Regards,

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Philip,

PY : According to you, behavior is output caused by the control of perception. Is this how you would like to state your expression?

HB : Yes. It’s according to PCT diagram (LCS III) and definitions of “control loop” (B:CP, 2005).

It’s everything written there. We just have to read it as it is written. But usually happens that people read and hear what they want and make their “thought constructs” like Rick is forming his “behavioristic thought constructs”. He is manipulating and misleading all arroud. People usually do everything what is necessary to achieve their goals. That is what he is doing.

So I always citate Bill. In this way we can be sure what he really wrote and what of course PCT is. But interpretations which people make are always different. They can be more or less similar but never the same. So we have to overcome those obstacles and try to find some agreement what Bill really wrote and what PCT is. That’s why I’m proposing statements and diagram from Bills’s central books (B:CP, 2005 and LCS III). I don’t see any other literature that can be more representative for PCT than those. But if anybody thinks that any other Bills’ literature is more representative please come forward with suggestions. But not with “behavioristic” suggestions like Rick is doing.

For example, how would you interprete this part of control loop in B:CP :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

  2. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

  3. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Best,

Boris

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 4:02 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

Boris,

According to you, behavior is output caused by the control of perception. Is this how you would like to state your expression?

On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 13.10)]

(Rick Marken 2018-05-12_20:00:41]

Rupert Young (2018.05.12 22.50)

RY: I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.

We’re in agreement then?

Rupert

Sorry Rupert to jump in….

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 5:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[Rick Marken 2018-05-13_08:46:02]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 13.10)]

RY: I’d say that PCT shows that you CAN control the behaviour of another person.

RM: Again, I note that the fact you can control the behavior of another person is demonstrated by observation. PCT explains what is going on when this happens.

RM: Control of behavior = fact. PCT = theory that explains the fact.

RY: We’re in agreement then?

RM: I think so. My objection to what you said was only to the phrase “PCT shows”. PCT doesn’t show that you can control the behavior of another person.

HB : Right. PCT control loop does not show that you can control behavior of another person. PCT shows that you can control “perception of behavior” of another person, by causing disturbances via effects of output to her control of perception. That’s it.

RM : It’s an observable fact that you can (demonstrated each time a person passes the salt to you when you ask them to “pass the salt”).

HB : It’s very important that you understand the conditions that are needed in other person as we see in The Test (rubber band) so that your request (not control) can be succesfull. Without S (subject) agreements and cooperation nothing will work. So you are not controlling anything but your perception (effects of actions). The person you are asking what you want, will do the same. Control her perceptions and probably make decission as she reorganize.

So it is a big question whether person will pass the salt to you. If person passes tha salt it’s only her decission to do so on the bases of your disturbances. You don’t control anything. She controls perception because she wants so. Whether you’ll gwt the salt depends on her control not yours. But of course It can happen that you’ll have to do your own “Control of perception” to get the salt. Organisms are in control all the time.

There are no facts. There are just more or less similar perception of people. And if more people perceive something more similar than we can talk about the “fact” conditionally, “Facts” can also change. For a long time it was “fact” that “Earth is plane” and that “Earth” is center of Universe.

RM : PCT explains this fact. If you agree with this then we are indeed in agreement!

HB : PCT explains the “fact” of “Control of perception”.

Boris

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Philip i hope you will not be angry as I jumped in.

Rick is getting to the point of “World Record” in manipulations…

image001209.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 3:10 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_18:09:44]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:57 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

on p 196 of B:CP (2005) Bill said in the section titled PUNISHMENT

BP: all that punishment can do is cause behavior to reorganize; it cannot produce any specific behavior, because reorganization can be terminated by any change that destroys the feature of behavioral organization causing the intrinsic error…one can be sure of eliminating some aspect of behavior, but can have no way of predicting what the resulting new organization will do.

PY: Reading this made me think about whether disturbing a controlled variable has a similar function as punishment. Looking at the examples above, they are all consistent with the hypothesis that disturbing a controlled variable may eliminate some aspect of behavior, but cannot produce any specific behavior. If we deduce a conclusion, it follows that one cannot attain a specific goal by disturbing a controlled variable because all they can do is cause behavior to reorganize.

RM: Reorganization is thought to happen when error is large and/or persistent.

HB : How did you make this conclussion ?

RM : When control is good, disturbances have very little effect on the state of the controlled variable so error is very small and reorganization doesn’t kick in.

HB :I don’t know which “controlled variable” you have in mind but I suspect you have in mind “outer environment” so you don’t use primary internal but external effectors. Reoganization affect both. You have to be in accordance with PCT definition of control.

Bill P (B:CP) :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

RM : This is why it is possible to control behavior very precisely via disturbance to a controlled variable.

HB : Which “controlled variable” and which “controlled behavior”, where ? See definition of control and be in accordance to it. There is no “controlled variable” and no “controlled berhavior”…

Definition of control shows that you are mistaking. Whom in your life you “controlled” very precisely via disturbances to a controled variable" ? Your children ? Do you think that you really precisely controlled them through your life so that they acted as you wanted them to ? From which Planet are you coming Rick ? Do you really think that children grew up precisely into somewho you wanted them to be ? And they act precisely as you want ?

You missed again as many times before. Where did you see" control of behavior" connected with reorganization in PCT ???

RM : If the variable you are controlling is being controlled well – as it will be in the rubber band game after some practice and if the controller’s (E’s) pulls on the rubber band are not too large or abrupt – the a person’s behavior can be controlled rather precisely.

HB : This is pure imagined construct like most of your constructs about PCT are. Bill nowhere in “rubber band game” mentioned that " person’s behavior can be controlled rather precisely". This is behaviorist way of thinking about “rubber band game” which was also described by Bill on the same pages you read about “rubber band game”.

Bill P : The behaviorist E would try to discover how the subject’s responses depend on the stimuli. Almost inevitably, such E’s will begin by applying sudden stimuli, for that is the traditional bias. If E can reach any conclusion, it would most likely be some statement that subject’s response is generally (statistically) opposite to the stimuli in direction. If S prevails on E to slow down, that stimulus-respons law will become quite clear. But unless E happens to notice that the knot stays still, she will miss the crucial feature of the situation – the purpose of S’s every movement

HB : So Rick, by your “behavioristic logic” E pulls and S respond very preciselly so that E is cobtrolling behavior of S. It is typical “perceptual” or " behavioral" ilussion or whatever you want. E can never precisely control the behavior of S because S is more or less tightly controlling his perception. You simply overlooked S’s purposes and his decissions what he will do.

You are behaviorist Rick. That’s what you probably learned in your studies of psychology and you can’t jimp out of your skin.

Your explanation of “rubber band game” is pure behaviorist explanation how “person’s behavior can be controled rather precisley”. Only by “S-R” logic. You stimulate (control) and subject (person) respond in wanted way.

PCT logic is that purpose of the S will decide what S will do not E (experimenter) movements from environment. “Stimuli” from environment do not “control” organisms. It’s PCT mantra.

No precise “control of behavior” in “rubber band” game is mentioned. You made such an evil distortion to Bills’ text, and his PCT that you could ask yourself, why are you doing this. You are not just a lousy reader Rick. You read what you want to read not what is written. And you are making enormous damage to Bill, PCT and Powers ladies. Not mentioning all members here on CSGnet whom you mislead.

There are so many conditions described in “rubber band” game to be succesfull that is more than obvious that “decissions” that person S has to makeare only relevant fort he game success. The S (subject who should be controlled by your oppinion can’t be controlled in any way. So I don’t understand what were you reading Rick. Do you understand Bills’ language or you just turn everything into behavioral thinking. So here it is what is really written about “rubber band” game :

Bill P : The position of the knot, as seen by the subject relative to the mark on the table, is the controlled quantity, qi. The position of the subjects’s finger is the output quantity qo. One rubber band represents the environmental feedback path through which the subject’s output affects his own input, the controlled quantity. The position of the experimenter’s finger represents the disturbing event, and the remaining rubber band represents environmental links through which the disturbances tends to affect the same controlled quantity affected by the organism’s - the subject’s - output. Thus in this demonstration every aspect of the feedback control situation is visible and explicit.

HB : Is this PCT terminology familiar to you ? INPUT = controlled quantity" and OUTPUT = efect to it’s own input. What does “control quantity” means to you ??? I think that you don’t understand PCT or you don’t want to understand it. Here is again the parallel with behaviorism which is explained in detail by Bill.

Bill P : The demonstration is a nice way to introduce feedback theory to behaviorists… From the behavioristic point of view, E’s finger movements constitute the stimulus and S’S consitute the respons….

HB : Do you recognize this ? E pulls on the rubber band (stimulus) and person’s behavior (respons) can be controlled rather preciselly.

RM above : ….controller’s (E’s) pulls on the rubber band are not too large or abrupt – the a person’s behavior can be controlled rather precisely.

HB : Perfect behavioristic “control of behavior” situation where E stimulate (control) the behavior of “S”. So cut the bullshitting with your behavioristic explanation of “rubber band” game. You are behaviorist Rick. Do you understand that ? Read all the text and then talk about “rubber band” game and what is haappening in the game from PCT view.

RM : Try the “control by manipulation” demo using the rubber band game as described in B:CP (2nd edition, p 245) and see for yourself. It’s always best to see the phenomenon that is to be explained (in the case control of behavior) before drawing conclusions about the phenomenon from the theory that is designed to account for it!

PY earlier : Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control my finger position if I am controlling the knot position. Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion. What statement will I admit?

HB : Although Philip answered you very good, I add some notes.

HB : Bill noted that “Control by manipulation” is amusing to try. It’s not some serious event that could prove some “Control of behavior of other person” but it depends from what S wants. You can’t control person which wants something,

Bill P :

Therefore if S wants to control the knot, E controls S’s finger, as long as the result does not incovenience S.

HB : So all is in “S’s will” whether he will cooperate or not. So you can’t talk about any “control of behavior” of other person but about S’s agreement in all phases of “rubber-band game”.

Bill P :

In order to use The Test succesfully as described so far, one must either pick quantites likely to involve fixed reference levels… or arrange to have the subject hold his higher-order references levels constant for a while.

HB : If you want that the “rubber band game” to succed, everything is up to S how he will control in hierarchy. He can leave the game whenever he wants, and he can let you “control him” if he wants. t’s pure “Control of perception”. S (subject) is in control in the game and of his life about decissions that he make.

In all the “rubber band” game S (subject) is deciding whether he will play the game or not by “manipulating” his references in the hierarchy. So even if something can be described as “control” it’s done by S consensus or because he allowed it.

There are to many conditions and limitations to the “rubber band” game that “S” has to fulfill so that you can’t talk about any “control of behavior of other person” in any moment. But we can talk about “Control of perception” of S and effects that he produce into immediate environment. See figure 16.4. bellow.

You forgot to tell that “rubber band game” is in the context of the control loop. You manipulated and cheated with Bills’ book Rick to achieve your behavioristic goals.

Bill P:

“Figure 16.4. shows how this situation relates to the basic feedback diagram used near the beggining of the book”.

HB : Where do you see any "controlled effects"any "controlled bahavior"and so on in figure 16.4. There are just effects on qi (input quantity). You are imagining things that do not exist.

Everything what is happening in “rubber band game” has to be in accordance with PCT diagram. And PCT diagram shows how people “control perception” and affect environment. They don’t control behavior and produce controled effects to some “controlled variables” in environment and surely they don’t produce “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or PCV. You are ugly manipulator Rick.

So I have to ask you once more. Do you agree with Bills’ PCT diagram ?

Boris

Best

Rick

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

From Barb Powers, 20180510, 06:30

At the conference I think it would be beneficial to go back to basics and ry the rubber band demonstration. Also, I hope it will be possible for you to play a few rounds of the TTTriples board game. Both are excellent demonstrations of attempting to influence the behavior of others. while still attaining your own goal.

My recollection of conversations with Dad about this is that ultimately one does not actually have control over what somebody else chooses to do. One may, of course, attempt to try to influence them. It still is their decision whether or not to be influenced.

This is why conflict resolution is not very effective when attempted through physical means (whether violent or not), or threats or coercion. I think we all are familiar with the way people have a natural tendency to resist being told what to do, or feel forced to do something. This may create a further internal conflict for them because it may not necessarily be helping them to achieve their own internal goal.

If one attempts to influence another and the other concedes, it gives the appearance of having influenced or controlled the other. That is only the perception of the one (and gives him a great deal of satisfaction at the same time!).

The fact remains that the other still has made their own independent decision. They may or may not have made that decision because of this apparent influence. Ultimately it isx still because they have shifted their perception of the situation and either seen a new path toward their goal or set a new goal.

On May 10, 2018 02:13, “PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Richard Pfau csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50 EDT)]

For what it’s worth, I’m in the process of proposing to present a paper at our Annual IAPCT Meeting this October (2018) with the title Can We Control the Behavior of Others or Only Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal Perspectives.

The description at present reads: “This paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory perspectives concerning whether we can control the behavior of others or only influence that behavior. Related issues are also discussed concerning how to effectively affect the behavior of others and interpersonal aspects of doing so.”

I hope that you-all will be coming to the conference so we can have an informed discussion of this important topic.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say “It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence.” PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another without physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating “control by manipulation” where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Hi Philip

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 1:58 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

on p 196 of B:CP (2005) Bill said in the section titled PUNISHMENT

PY : all that punishment can do is cause behavior to reorganize; it cannot produce any specific behavior, because reorganization can be terminated by any change that destroys the feature of behavioral organization causing the intrinsic error…one can be sure of eliminating some aspect of behavior, but can have no way of predicting what the resulting new organization will do.

HB : I agree.

PY : Reading this made me think about whether disturbing a controlled variable has a similar function as punishment.

HB : Disturbances to which “controlled variable” ? In environment of organism ? Your good logic about reorganization on the bases of “intrinsic error” showed in direction of internal “controlled variables” as the consequence of disturbances. The logic is good only if you apply all you wrote above to “internal variables” because control in PCT is defined inside organisms not outside. Maybe I didn’t understand well what you meant by “controlled variable”.

Bill P (B:CP) :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

PY : Looking at the examples above, they are all consistent with the hypothesis that disturbing a controlled variable may eliminate some aspect of behavior, but cannot produce any specific behavior. If we deduce a conclusion, it follows that one cannot attain a specific goal by disturbing a controlled variable because all they can do is cause behavior to reorganize.

HB : I can hardly se which “controlled variable” you have in mind ?

Best,

Boris

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

From Barb Powers, 20180510, 06:30

At the conference I think it would be beneficial to go back to basics and ry the rubber band demonstration. Also, I hope it will be possible for you to play a few rounds of the TTTriples board game. Both are excellent demonstrations of attempting to influence the behavior of others. while still attaining your own goal.

My recollection of conversations with Dad about this is that ultimately one does not actually have control over what somebody else chooses to do. One may, of course, attempt to try to influence them. It still is their decision whether or not to be influenced.

This is why conflict resolution is not very effective when attempted through physical means (whether violent or not), or threats or coercion. I think we all are familiar with the way people have a natural tendency to resist being told what to do, or feel forced to do something. This may create a further internal conflict for them because it may not necessarily be helping them to achieve their own internal goal.

If one attempts to influence another and the other concedes, it gives the appearance of having influenced or controlled the other. That is only the perception of the one (and gives him a great deal of satisfaction at the same time!).

The fact remains that the other still has made their own independent decision. They may or may not have made that decision because of this apparent influence. Ultimately it isx still because they have shifted their perception of the situation and either seen a new path toward their goal or set a new goal.

On May 10, 2018 02:13, “PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Why would you say that non-arbitrary control of behavior is the basis of civilized society? Rick

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Richard Pfau csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From: RichardPfau (2018.05.09 20:50 EDT)]

For what it’s worth, I’m in the process of proposing to present a paper at our Annual IAPCT Meeting this October (2018) with the title Can We Control the Behavior of Others or Only Influence It? PCT and Interpersonal Perspectives.

The description at present reads: “This paper focuses on Perceptual Control Theory perspectives concerning whether we can control the behavior of others or only influence that behavior. Related issues are also discussed concerning how to effectively affect the behavior of others and interpersonal aspects of doing so.”

I hope that you-all will be coming to the conference so we can have an informed discussion of this important topic.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: PCT shows that you can’t control the behavior of another person.

RM: If PCT showed that then it would be showing something that is demonstrably false. It’s easy to show that you can control the behavior of another person – and that another person can control yours.

PY: In 10 minutes, Bill writes:

PY: 2. Control theory explains how organisms can control

what happens to them. This means all organisms from

the amoeba to Humankind. It explains

why one organism can’t control another without

physical violence.

RM: I’m pretty sure Bill meant to say “It explains why one organism can’t arbitrarily control another without physical violence.” PCT shows that a person can indeed control another without physical violence; a person just can’t control another person “arbitrarily” without physical violence in the sense that a person can’t, without physical violence, make another person do what that other person doesn’t want to do.

PY: Are we proposing there is a way of controlling people that doesn’t involve physical violence?

RM: There are many ways to control people that don’t involve physical violence. The most common way is described in B:CP (2nd edition, p.245). It involves having the controller disturb a variable controlled by the controllee in a way that requires that the controllee make a compensating action that is precisely the aspect of the controllee’s behavior that the controller wants controlled. Powers demonstrates this kind of control using the rubber band game. If one player (S) controls the position of the knot, the other player (E) can control the position of S’s finger. Or, as Bill says “if S wants to control the knot, E can control S’s finger…”. So contrary to what Bill said in the quote above – that “one organism can’t control another without physical violence” – what we have here is Bill demonstrating “control by manipulation” where one person (E) controls another (S) without any physical violence at all.

RM: Control will lead to violence only if the controller persists in trying to get the controllee to do something the controllee doesn’t want to do. For example, if E in the rubber band game tries to get S to run S’s finger into a hot soldering iron, S will resist. If E is committed to getting S to run his finger into the soldering iron and starts using physical force to get that to happen, S is likely to fight back. If E is much stronger than S then E might succeed in controlling S’s finger – getting it to run into the soldering iron. And this would be an example of controlling behavior using physical violence. It is also an example of arbitrary control of behavior because E is forcing S to do something without regard to how S feels about doing it. Using the concepts of PCT, we can define arbitrary control of behavior as a situation where a controller is trying to get the controllee to control a variable (like the distance of the controllee’s finger from the soldering iron) without regard to the controllee’s references for the state of that variable. So what the controller wants the controllee to do is arbitrary with respect to the desires of the controllee.

RM: Arbitrary control of behavior almost always involves physical violence. Non-arbitrary control of behavior never involves physical violence and, I would argue, is the basis of civilized society. Non-arbitrary control of behavior is controlling that is done with awareness that you want another control system to do something that it might not want to do; it is controlling that is only done contingent on the agreement of the controllee.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Hi all,

Rick again demonstrated “false” arguments about PCT.

Maybe it was my fault because I didn’t explain why I think Ruperts statement is “top PCT statement”.

RY: To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : I understood Rupert that someone (person A) who is applying disturbance (what someone wants) to perceptual control of others, can make the other (person B) counteract the disturbance in the way Person B wants. He can aslo ignore disturbances. Only person B can treat disturbance in her own way in acordance to her internal control. So it is the only one who can produce wanted behavior.

My conclussion was that the person B is the one who will decide how disturbance will be counteracted. Or whether they will be counteracted at all. The main question seems to be, how she will want to counteract disturbances. Not person A.

It’s easy to demonstrate that the same disturbances will not be counteracted the same by all people. It will not be the same because different people will differently deicde what will they do when they are disturbed on the bases of “deviations in intrinsic variables”. We mustn’t forget that definition of control is about internal not external control.

Bill P:

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : So the only relevant disturbances are those which are made to “internal life support variables”, survival. Counteracting (or cancelling) disturbances will be directed into stabilizing internal variables (achieving and maintanance of preselected state).

If we look at the improved diagram (after p.191, B:CP 2005) will see “double feedback”. Disturbances and actions of organism influence “sensory apparatus” of organism and “intrinsic variables” which are “driven” by genetic source. Organism will want to eliminate “errors” in intrinsic variables and behavior will support that events by also cancelling the effects of disturbances.

image001179.png

HB : By my oppinion Rupert described in a very deep way main PCT principle about people applying disturbances and the way they will be counteracted.

Boris

···

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 1:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.18 23.59)]

(Rick Marken 2018-05-18_09:03:49]

Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

FN: You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

RY: That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

RY: To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

RM: This is demonstrably false. A “want” in PCT is a reference for a particular state of a perception. For example, if you agree to track my finger – controlling the perception of the alignment of your finger with mine – I can control the position of your finger by moving my finger. So I can make your finger trace out a pattern, such as a figure 8, which you did not want to make but that I wanted you to make. All you wanted was to keep your finger aligned with mine. All I wanted was for you to make a figure 8 pattern with your finger. I got you to do what I wanted you to do even though you didn’t want to do it; indeed, you didn’t even know you were doing it.

Sure. Though you are stating something as false that I wasn’t implying in my point.

Regards,
Rupert

When you’ll understand Rick that it’s not what you observe in “rubber band” game also what people want to do. When you’ll understand that people “manipulate references in hierarchy” so that it appears that they do what you think they ought to do. It’s illusion that you can control them with “stimulus” :

Bill P : The demonstration is a nice way to introduce feedback theory to behaviorists… From the behavioristic point of view, E’s finger movements constitute the stimulus and S’S consitute the respons….

RM earlier : …as it will be in the rubber band game after some practice and if the controller’s (E’s) pulls on the rubber band are not too large or abrupt – the a person’s behavior can be controlled rather precisely.

HB : You are pure behaviorist Rick, That’s what your study was about.

RM: I thought your statement implied that you could only make someone do what they want to do.

HB : I thought too. It’s purpose that is important. People all the time produce their goals.

RM : But I pointed out that when you make someone draw some pattern with their finger, such as a figure 8, in the rubber band demo you are, indeed, making them do something that they don’t want to do.

HB : Whether you make people do or do not do something they want or they don’t want to do, you have to take into account their purposes.

HB : Your problem is that you are thinking in “behavioristic way”. If they agreed in the beggining that they will cooperate in experiment, something will happen in their hierachies where they will "manipulate refererences so that they can control perception in the way they do : experiment to succed. They can “arrange” references in the way that they just leave experiment. If somebody let you making him “pattern eight” it was his decission to alove you doing it. He arranged hierarchy in the way to make that possible.

Bill P :

In order to use The Test succesfully as described so far, one must either pick quantites likely to involve fixed reference levels… or arrange to have the subject hold his higher-order references levels constant for a while

HB : So when somebody agreed to your experiment he also agreed what he wants to do and he will arrange or “hold” references at wanted level. And he will manipulate references in hierarchy in the way he wants so that experiment will succed. If he will not want that, he will “arrange” heirarchy of references so that he will the experiment.

You are trying to make interpretation only of visual part of control loop what you see in outer environment. You don’t see the hierarchy so your are making behavioristic attempt exactly as Bill predicted that behavorist will do :

Bill P : The behaviorist E would try to discover how the subject’s responses depend on the stimuli. Almost inevitably, such E’s will begin by applying sudden stimuli, for that is the traditional bias. If E can reach any conclusion, it would most likely be some statement that subject’s response is generally (statistically) opposite to the stimuli in direction. If S prevails on E to slow down, that stimulus-respons law will become quite clear. But unless E happens to notice that the knot stays still, she will miss the crucial feature of the situation – the purpose of S’s every movement

HB : People “manipulate” references in the way they want to do, so that experiment could be succesful if they agreed they will cooperate. They could also let the “rubber band” and leave the game. They are in “control”. They do what they want to do. The “rubber band” game is not “controlling” them, because “stimulus” from environment can’t control behavior. It’s PCT mantra. It’s “illusion” that you can control them by stimuluses from environment. It’s was cleary explained by Bill. See above.

RM : But perhaps it would have been better to have said that you are making them do something that they don’t care whether they do or not.

HB : They agreed to experiment, so they probably care about doing what they agreed about so that experiment will be succesful. If they wouldn’t care they could easily leave the experiment whenever they would decide to do so.

RM : I can see that when you say you can’t make someone do what they don’t want to do you mean you can’t make them produce a result that deviates from their reference for that result; you can’t make someone produce an error for themselves.

HB : It can probably be PCT explanation. Positive “feedback” is very rare in orgsnism. But it’s always “caught” in negative feedback loop if organism is to survive.

RM : And if that’s what you mean then I agree that you can’t make a person do what they don’t want to do.

HB : Cheers Rick. You got it. I think that Rupert made it quite clear.

RM: Maybe instead of my saying that you can make someone do what they don’t want to do I should have said that you can make them do what they neither want (have a reference for) nor don’t want (have a reference against) to do;

HB : In either way it’s their deccision in accordance to their references.

RM : … that is, you can make them produce results that are irrelevant to them –

HB : How can somebody produce results that are irrelevant to her or him ??? “Error” is generally (see diagram) causing effects to environment that are relevant for control in organism. No matter how it seems irrelevant to you. Behacior always has internal purpose as it’s meant to eliminate internal “errors”.

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

RM : …results that are irrelevant side effects of their controlling.

HB : What you meant by this one ? What are side effects of controlling in the light of definition of control ?

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 1:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

[Rick Marken 2018-05-19_16:22:37]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.18 23.59)]

RY: To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

RM: This is demonstrably false…I got you to do what I wanted you to do even though you didn’t want to do it; indeed, you didn’t even know you were doing it.

RY: Sure. Though you are stating something as false that I wasn’t implying in my point.

RM: I thought your statement implied that you could only make someone do what they want to do. But I pointed out that when you make someone draw some pattern with their finger, such as a figure 8, in the rubber band demo you are, indeed, making them do something that they don’t want to do. But perhaps it would have been better to have said that you are making them do something that they don’t care whether they do or not. I can see that when you say you can’t make someone do what they don’t want to do you mean you can’t make them produce a result that deviates from their reference for that result; you can’t make someone produce an error for themselves. And if that’s what you mean then I agree that you can’t make a person do what they don’t want to do. Maybe instead of my saying that you can make someone do what they don’t want to do I should have said that you can make them do what they neither want (have a reference for) nor don’t want (have a reference against) to do; that is, you can make them produce results that are irrelevant to them – results that are irrelevant side effects of their controlling.

RM: I see you went to the wedding today. If you see the Queen ask her if she remembers meeting me;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0917 ET)]

I meant this to go to the list, too. Darn those recent changes!

Fred Nickols

···

From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:17 AM
To: ‘eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi’ eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
Subject: RE: controlling people

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0912 ET)]

Eetu:

I will happily agree that it was my taste or sense of the warmth of the food that served to inform me that the food I zapped was warm enough. Had it not been, I probably would have zapped it for a little bit longer. That said, I also maintain that I controlled the warmth of the food using the microwave. The warmth of the food, in this case, is what I believe in PCT parlance would be called the controlled quantity (q.i.). So, what I was “controlling for� (again in PCT parlance) was the warmth of the food, as informed by my perception of its warmth.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: controlling people

(Eetu 2018-05-22 2)

Thx Fred

“Willing� thus means same as “must�. I think we do what we must only when we want to do that instead of some still worse alternative. I want rather save my life than my money and I want rather obey the boss than lose my job.

As for your last example I agree warmly that by common sense you controlled the warmth of the food. But note that it tasted warm. In the last resort you controlled your perceptions. With out that you could not have controlled the temperature in any sense. The temperature became controlled - in the common sense - because you controlled your perception - in the PCT sense. You could have warmed the food according to manual of the microwave but that would have been only influence without the control on perception.

Eetu

(Lähetetty kännykästä / Sent from mobile)

Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu kirjoitti 22.5.2018 kello 14.40:

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0732 ET)]

Interesting question, Eetu. I think the difference ties to purpose. When you “want� to do something, that something serves a purpose of yours. When you are merely “willing� to do something someone else wants, the purpose originates with them, not you. Think about how many people are doing things at work not because they really want to but because they are willing to do what others ask of them. Or suppose a robber points a gun at you and demands your money. You don’t “want� to give him your money but I’ll wager you would be quite “willing� to surrender your money.

Frankly, I suspect that if PCT professionals proclaimed that we can’t make someone else do what we want, they would be greeted with hoots of derision. Ditto for the claim that we can’t/don’t control anything except our perceptions. It flies in the face of common sense. I just now zapped some leftovers in the microwave. They tasted plenty warm to me. Did I “control� the temperature of those zapped leftovers? I suppose someone can provide me with a seemingly elegant PCT-based explanation of why I didn’t’ and can’t and I would nod and say silently to myself, “Suit yourself� and continue believe I controlled the temperature of those leftovers, even if I had to use a microwave to do it.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:15 AM
To: ‘csgnet@lists.illinois.edu’ csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Re: controlling people

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-05-22_11:13:44 UTC]

Fred, What is the difference between �wanting� and “willing�? Especially fro PCT poit of view)

Eetu

From: “Fred Nickols” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: 22. toukokuuta 2018 14:08
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0704 ET)]

If someone were to ask me, “Can you make other people do what you want?� I would say, “Yes.� If the other person were to ask, “Even if they don’t want to do it?� I would again reply, “Yes.� And I would add, “They don’t have to want to do it, they just have to be willing to do it.�

Fred Nickols

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:38 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,
Rupert