Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.
Boris
···
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 9:08 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Demonstration of control of behavior
Rick,
the main problem in your explanation of sheepdog controlling the behavior of the sheep« is manipulation and »cheating«. So I will not answer all your asnwers as it’s useless beacuse your answers are arranged to suit your purposese, so you are varying your output to »reach your goals – images« with your demo.
In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep« and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior« not dog, because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance. So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references), dog is in your version of »control«.
But dog can not control sheep behavior, because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled. Â
With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.
But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.
So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.
The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.
As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.
-
So the dog's controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and
-
Sheep's controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :
-
»distance to the dog«,
-
»going away from the herd"
-
"defending from the dog"
-
"attacking the dog".
We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. Annd again there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.
In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.
And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.
So :
-
dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and
-
student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.
Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?
And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.
This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.
RM :
What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”).
HB :
Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.
RM :
Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).
HB :
So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.
If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :
RM (once upon a time) : …LCS conttrol and can not be controlled.
HB :
And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.
Best,
Boris
P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.