# FW: FW: Open access version **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG2018\ **Created:** [May 24, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fw-fw-open-access-version/4189 "2018-05-24T18:11:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fw-fw-open-access-version/4189/1 "2018-05-24T18:11:51Z")
Warren, All I wish is that you stop promoting RCT (Ricks Control Theory) and his mantra “Behavior is control”. > **···** > > **From:** Warren Mansell [[mailto:wmansell@gmail.com](mailto:wmansell@gmail.com)] > **Subject:** Re: Open access version > > Hi Boris, I just read Bill’s work and do my best to articulate it and replicate it as best I can, just like you. > > HB : There is a big difference between us Warren how we’ll read Bills’ work, since I understand how organisms function and you don’t. So it’s most probable that you’ll read Bills’ work much differently than I do. If you understand PCT then you’ll not use any more “Behavior is control” or anything else from Ricks behavioristic repertoar like : > > 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 : Rick is pure behaviorist. He pulls (stimulus) and people respond precisley as he wanted. He all the time control people. > > WM : I ask for advice and keeping making adjustments to my understanding of PCT when I understand that the advice helps me in this regard. > > HB : This a very good news Warren. So from now on we can expect that you’ll not use any more “Behavior is control” or any other Ricks’ behavioristic idea. > > WM : Rick’s work has been very helpful in this regard, > > HB : Ricks’ work can’t be helpfull in regard of PCT because he doesn’t understand PCT. But it can be helpfull in regard of RCT and “Behavior is control”. In PCT we talk about “Control of perception”. > > WM : as has Martin Taylor’s, Tim Carey’s, > > HB : Well I must admitt I admire both of them because of their huge intelectual potential. But they both change their mind. > > WM : …and Kent’s, in particular, > > HB : I admire Kent Too. He is very realible and stable source of PCT. How many times did ask him for advise ? I doubt that he would agree with Ricks’ mantra (Behavior is control). > > WM : …and there are others. > > HB : Others, who ? > > WM : I just don’t understand how yours can help me in this regard. > > HB : I’m trying to help you understand that there is no “Behavor is control”, no “controlled aspect of environment”, and no “Controlled Perceptual Variable” od CPV. > > All the best also to you, > > Boris > > All the best, > > Warren > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Boris Hartman [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) wrote: > > Warren, > > It’s not about whether you admitt something or not. It’s matter of selfimage. How long can you lie to yourself ? > > Boris > > **From:** Warren Mansell [wmansell@gmail.com](mailto:wmansell@gmail.com) > **Sent:** Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:03 AM > > **To:** [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) > **Subject:** Re: Open access version > > Hi Boris, I won’t admit anything you quote on my behalf! > > All the best > > Warren > > On 22 May 2018, at 19:01, Boris Hartman ([boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote: > > > Warren. I understand that all your work is worthless if you admitt that “Behavior is not control”. But playing a clown is not on the level of University profesor. As I noticed before. CSGnet is becoming oure behavioristic forum where “Behavior is control” there is “Controlled aspect of environment” and there is some misterious “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or PCV. Does anybody beleive in PCT on this forum ? > > > Boris > > > **From:** Warren Mansell [wmansell@gmail.com](mailto:wmansell@gmail.com) > > **Sent:** Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:02 AM > > **To:** [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) > > **Subject:** Re: Open access version > > > I still can’t tell the difference, sorry. > > > On 21 May 2018, at 20:44, Boris Hartman ([boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote: > > > > Hi Warren > > > > **From:** Warren Mansell ([wmansell@gmail.com](mailto:wmansell@gmail.com) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) > > > **Sent:** Friday, May 18, 2018 6:01 PM > > > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU > > > **Subject:** Open access version > > > > WM : Hi, here is the open access version of our replication paper: > > > > [https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-assessment-and-modeling-of-perceptual-control(9a95a0bf-e3ae-4b42-90f6-b579496c5c4e).html](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.research.manchester.ac.uk_portal_en_publications_the-2Dassessment-2Dand-2Dmodeling-2Dof-2Dperceptual-2Dcontrol-289a95a0bf-2De3ae-2D4b42-2D90f6-2Db579496c5c4e-29.html&d=DwMFAg&c=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag&r=G2rjwc9SjlT6Blyc8su_Md8P_xOsOTRMJ5teQVBC2qU&m=O15YMQj4KJHryCAnYUjpQZEpla0v_NB7YXYdeiC0jn8&s=OBCUP5hMuUWJsa9Qdu-qTNCGI1j5X2Mg3hfurvFZeRE&e=) > > > > HB : I’m sorry Warren to notice that you presented “behavioristic” paper if I may conclude what you and Huddy wrote in abstract : > > > > WM, IH : We explain how this shift can be made within a single framework – perceptual control theory - that regards behavior as the control of perceptual input. > > > > HB : Can you show me some evidence that people can “Control behavior” ? If they can (if you’ll show evidences) than I’ll beleive that “percepttion” (input) can be controlled through behavior. > > > > > > > > The Title of Bills’ Book is “Behavior : The control of perception”. I don’t understand how you concluded that “behavior can control input” ? From the diagram (LCS III) and definitions of control (B:CP) we can conclude that “behavior is coming after control of perception” in comparator. And it’s affecting immediate enviroment. There is no controlled effects. How can you concluded that behavior controls input, if you don’t know what you are doing to reality through “feedback function” ? It’s just effects to input. > > > > > > > > Bill P : > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > HB : Why did you use your own explanation of “feedback function” instead of his. Behavior (output) affects it’s own input. It’s not : Behavior “controls” input. Where di you get that ? Maybe Rick is “source” or “hidden joker” ? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Boris > > – > > Dr Warren Mansell > Reader in Clinical Psychology > > School of Health Sciences > 2nd Floor Zochonis Building > University of Manchester > Oxford Road > Manchester M13 9PL > Email: [warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk](mailto:warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk) > > Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589 > > Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psych-2Dsci.manchester.ac.uk_staff_131406&d=DwMFAg&c=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag&r=G2rjwc9SjlT6Blyc8su_Md8P_xOsOTRMJ5teQVBC2qU&m=ACXPR8Vbt6Nvb8DNbEm9niydQ1JDf7mzo0Tx3UStCiE&s=U9nblS7f8vNrFQ1OxNhbMf45FKzXIEI8YZZEN3Kb2c4&e=) > > Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - [Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.routledge.com_books_details_9780415738781_&d=DwMFAg&c=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag&r=G2rjwc9SjlT6Blyc8su_Md8P_xOsOTRMJ5teQVBC2qU&m=ACXPR8Vbt6Nvb8DNbEm9niydQ1JDf7mzo0Tx3UStCiE&s=GKYMoTlsgXMz_NJWWsJ4MPmJTmZRXSeYs8YgNsdl3Z0&e=) > > Available Now > > Check [www.pctweb.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pctweb.org&d=DwMFAg&c=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag&r=G2rjwc9SjlT6Blyc8su_Md8P_xOsOTRMJ5teQVBC2qU&m=ACXPR8Vbt6Nvb8DNbEm9niydQ1JDf7mzo0Tx3UStCiE&s=3Upxl6oRsZdG8AlUza1E6XgLOhRjUc6hZ5Fwop9jFSs&e=) for further information on Perceptual Control Theory > **Napaka! Ime datoteke ni navedeno.** ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fw-fw-open-access-version/4189/2 "2018-05-24T20:46:17Z")
[Rick Marken 2018-05-24\_13:40:16] > **···** > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:11 AM, “Boris Hartman” [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote: > > >  > > > HB: All I wish is that you stop promoting RCT (Ricks Control Theory) and his mantra “Behavior is control”. > >  > > > HB : There is a big difference between us Warren how we’ll read Bills’ work, since I understand how organisms function and you don’t. So it’s most probable that you’ll read Bills’ work much differently than I do. If you understand PCT then you’ll not use any more “Behavior is control” or anything else from Ricks behavioristic repertoar like : > > > HB : This a very good news Warren. So from now on we can expect that you’ll not use any more “Behavior is control” or any other Ricks’ behavioristic idea. > > > HB : Ricks’ work can’t be helpfull in regard of PCT because he doesn’t understand PCT. But it can be helpfull in regard of RCT and “Behavior is control”. In PCT we talk about “Control of perception”. > >  > > RM: Then I presume you will similarly chastise Bill Powers for using that forbidden phrase (“Behavior is control”), which he did use many, many times since that is the basic fact that requires an explanation in terms of PCT. Here’s one example, as usual in a reply to Martin (who up until recently also rejected the idea that behavior is control until Tim Carey straightened him out): > > > [From Bill Powers 950630.2130 MDT)] > > > Martin Taylor (950630.1730) – > > >    MT: Most behavioural scientists, of whatever stripe, are interested in > > >     finding out how organisms work. If you explicitly say that you are > > >     interested only in the environmental part of the control loop, and > > >     that what goes on inside the organism is "Any Old Control System > > >     That Works," then you have asserted that what you do will be of no > > >     interest. > > > BP: Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I > > > presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop > > > works. They would say “What control loop?” If they don’t understand that > > > **behavior is control** , why would they be interested in a model of how > > > control works? > > Best regards > > RM: I am under no illusion that this will stop you lies any more than I think that any facts will stop Trump’s lies. But it is fascinating to see how you manage to not let these facts get in the way of your misguided campaign against me. > > Rick > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fw-fw-open-access-version/4189/3 "2018-05-24T21:35:44Z")
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.24.17.20] > [Rick Marken 2018-05-24\_13:40:16] ``` I haven't gone back to look at the context of this quote, but for ``` what it is worth, I would now agree with what both of us said then, and I suspect I would have done so at the time. But I can’t be sure without looking at the context of the exchange, and I can’t be bothered with that. ``` I know that my presence on CSGnet disturbs some perception Rick ``` controls, and his way of reducing the error is to prove that whatever I say is wrong, even if _–_ _especially_ if, I think – I say I agree with him. I likewise find that his insistence on my failure to understand anything at all about PCT disturbs a perception I control. To correct that error is why I so often respond to his weird messages. ``` It does create a conflict in me, because I also want not to respond ``` to them, in favour of exploring what PCT has to offer (and yes, taking advantage of what Rick could and sometimes does offer). Sometimes I resolve my conflict by a period of not reading Rick’s messages at all, but that also is counterproductive. All it does is reduce my emotional feeling of frustrated annoyance, which is nice, but controlling in imagination doesn’t do much for improving the relationship of the “aspects of the environment” to my many reference values for controlled perceptions. So then I go back to reading them again. > **···** > > … > RM: Then I presume you will similarly chastise Bill > Powers for using that forbidden phrase (“Behavior is > control”), which he did use many, many times since that is > the basic fact that requires an explanation in terms of > PCT. Here’s one example, as usual in a reply to Martin > (who up until recently also rejected the idea that > behavior is control until Tim Carey straightened him > out): > > > [From Bill Powers 950630.2130 MDT)] > > > Martin Taylor (950630.1730) – > > > ``` > > MT: Most behavioural scientists, of > > > > ``` > > > > whatever stripe, are interested in > > > ``` > > finding out how organisms work. If you > > > > ``` > > > > explicitly say that you are > > > ``` > > interested only in the environmental part > > > > ``` > > > > of the control loop, and > > > ``` > > that what goes on inside the organism is > > > > ``` > > > > "Any Old Control System > > > ``` > > That Works," then you have asserted that > > > > ``` > > > > what you do will be of no > > > interest. > > > ``` > > BP: Most behavioral scientists would lose > > > > ``` > > > > interest even faster if I > > > ``` > > presented a paper showing how the internal part > > > > ``` > > > > of the control loop > > > ``` > > works. They would say "What control loop?" If > > > > ``` > > > > they don’t understand that > > > **behavior is control** , why would they be > > interested in a model of how > > > control works?