Philip i hope you will not be angry as I jumped in.
From: Richard Marken (email@example.com via csgnet Mailing List) firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: controlling people
[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_18:09:44]
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:57 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN email@example.com 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.
“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 ?
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:42 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.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” firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com 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.
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Richard Marken firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
[Rick Marken 2018-05-09_16:53:40]
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN email@example.com 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
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.
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