David,
I perfectly agree with you. And I see you are a good tennis player. J. That’s probably the same in any sport. If we could »control behavior« of others we could probably always win. Or vica verse.
In tennis you can apply disturbances to your opponent’s control. And he com pensate for disturbances worse or better. Very good and instructing example.
Best,
Boris
···
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of David Goldstein (davidmg@verizon.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:52 AM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Understanding control of behavior: Why it matters
David Goldstein (2014.11.19.2045)
I can control the behavior of the other tennis player so that they stay on the baseline on my right side. No matter where they hit the ball, I hit it on the right baseline.
Of course, if they are not interested, or can’t return my shot, I win the point. But then I lose the argument that I can control their behavior.
David
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2014.11.19.1500)]
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:16 AM, “bara0361@gmail.com” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu (Barb Powers) wrote:
BP: Forgive me, but I’m struggling to see what is truly at issue.
Hi Barb
RM: I’m so glad you jumped in! I’ll try to explain what I think is at issue and also why understanding control of behavior is important. So I’ve changed the title of this thread because the discussion is no longer about just my demo.
BP: Some of the argument here sounds as if the theory itself is in question.
RM: No, I don’t think anyone is questioning the theory.
BP: Some of it sounds as if the specific words being used are in question.
RM: Actually I think the heart of the argument is about whether "control of behavior "is a fact or not. I am arguing that it is a fact; everyone but Martin is arguing that it is not. Those arguing that it is not a fact are basing their argument on the idea the PCT shows that “control of behavior” is impossible (this may be why you thought some of the argument questioned PCT itself; since I was saying that “control of behavior” is a fact and others were saying that PCT shows that it is impossible it could have looked like I was questioning PCT itself; don’t worry, I’m not. PCT certainly does show that “control of behavior” is possible; indeed, it explains how it works). They have made this argument mainly by questioning the words that are used to describe control of behavior (and this may be why you think that some of the argument sounded as if specific words being used were in question).
RM: I thought the argument would be finally settled by my “control of behavior” demo but, alas, like all things PCT, it wasn’t. I think this is because, at its root, this is a political issue. I think Erling described one aspect of it: just saying that “control of behavior” is possible, according to PCT, could give people the impression that PCT is like other theories in psychology which say that behavior is controlled by the environment. Another aspect of it is that many people are attracted to PCT because it seems to justify their belief that people are uncontrollable (free) and that the only thing that screws things up in the world is people trying to control other people. And they are close to being right; PCT shows that efforts to control the behavior of others – especially when this is done arbitrarily – is, indeed, the source of many (perhaps most) social problems.
RM: While I appreciate these political concerns, I think it’s more important to get the facts right than to be politically correct, especially if one wants to use PCT as a basis for improving human interaction. Which gets me to why it matters that we understand and not deny the existence of “control of behavior”. First, it matters because understanding control of behavior lets you see when you are doing it yourself. If one is convinced that PCT says there is no such thing as control of behavior then one will be unaware of when they are doing it. And since control of behavior can lead to rather ugly conflict, a person who doesn’t know when he or she is controlling behavior may have no idea why things are going so badly. Second, it matters because understanding control of behavior lets you see that you can be controlled and explains why and how. One who is convinced that PCT says there is no such thing as control of behavior will often be unable or unwilling to see when they are being controlled or how it’s beng done (or attempted). Finally, it matters because understanding control of behavior shows how it’s possible to control other people’s behavior (and allow them to control yours) with minimal or no conflict. This is particularly important when we want to produce results – such as a smart phone-- that require the coordinated efforts of many people working together who require certain behaviors from each other. Those who are convinced that PCT says there is no such thing as control of behavior will will end up controlling people arbitrarily thinking that they are not controlling anyone at all.
BP: Outside disturbances may influence behavior in another control system, but not actually control the behavior of that system.
RM: This is a crucial observation!! It’s important to know what control is in order to understand when control of behavior is happening. Controlling behavior is not the same as influencing or causing behavior. Controlling involves bringing a variable, such as the distance between the sheep and the herd in my demo, to a predetermined state, such as “sheep close to herd”, and keeping it there, protected from disturbances, which include the movements of the herd and of the sheep itself. Given this definition of control, the distance of the sheep from the herd can clearly be controlled in my demo. Since the distance between sheep and herd depends at least in part on the movements of the sheep this variable is a behavior of the sheep.
RM: So one thing that is clear from my demo is that the behavior of the sheep (just like the behavior of the cursor in a tracking task) is controlled. The data printed at the end of the demo shows how good this control was in terms of the average distance of sheep from herd (RMS error) and stability (ratio of expected to actual variance of the sheep’s position). So there is unquestionably control of behavior going on in this demo and we know why it’s happening: it’s because you (in the role of the dog) are a control system using movements of the mouse (and hence the dog) to keep the sheep near the herd. Only a control system (like you) can control. It turns out that you are exerting this control by disturbing a variable that is controlled by the sheep. But you know nothing of that (just as the dog knows nothing of that in real life). All you know is that when you move the mouse left the sheep moves right and vice versa. And when you move the mouse appropriately that you control the behavior of the sheep.
RM: But it turns out that in this demo the sheep is not an inanimate object (as is the cursor in your typical tracking task). The sheep is itself a control system, controlling for the distance between the visual location of the grass shoot and you (the dog). So when you (the dog) move you are disturbing a perception controlled by the sheep and the sheep acts (by moving left or right, as necessary) to compensate for that disturbance. So without your knowing it (and the dog certainly wouldn’t know it) you are controlling the position of the sheep by taking advantage of the fact that the sheep is controlling a perception to which your location is a disturbance that is corrected by varying the aspect of its behavior (it’s position) that you want to control. The data at the end also shows how well the sheep is controlling its perception (of the desired distance between you and the grass shoot); and it’s doing quite well at controlling by successfully moving to compensate for the disturbance created by *your *movements. You turn out to be using disturbances that influence a controlled variable as the means of controlling the variable (the behavior of the sheep that compensates for those disturbances) that you are controlling.
RM: All this is done with a PCT model of the sheep, of course. So to the extent that you are able to control the behavior of the sheep, the PCT model shows very clearly (and simply) how the behavior of a control system (the sheep) can be controlled by another control system (you, the dog).
RM: I think that’s enough for now. I’m imagine those who don’t like the idea of “control of behavior” will still not be convinced by the demo or my discussion. But there are some very interesting implications of this simple demo (and the model that shows how it works-- that is, PCT) that I’d like to talk about in this thread. But I’ll do that in another post. I got blisters on my fingers!!
Best
Rick
Goals and priorities constantly shift in order to maintain a certain level of accomplishment, satisfaction, etc., conscious or unconscious. When a conflict becomes apparent, something on one side or another of that conflict must change in order to move on. We can either reach our goal despite the disturbance or change our goal to accommodate that disturbance.
I liked Rick’s sheep demo, and admittedly played with it for awhile during a lull at work. The dog has been trained that the sheep should be kept together so it has learned on some level that it can bark and nip from certain angles and the sheep will move away from it. Sheep are wild animals, and generally will move away from what looks like a threat. If the dog is not in the way, it will try to get back to the herd. It looks as if the dog is “controlling” the sheep, and the farmer (me) and the dog appear satisfied that this is what is happening. The sheep didn’t return to the herd because the dog controlled it. To the sheep, the dog was behaving in a threatening manner, and the goal of the sheep was to return to the safety of the herd.
The sheep could have turned rogue and decided it wasn’t afraid of the dog, and kept running away, contrary to what the dog was trying to accomplish. Had the dog remained between the sheep and the herd, the sheep likely would have moved further off.
The dog perceives that it is causing the sheep to move. The sheep perceives a threat, and moves itself away from the threat and back to the herd. The farmer perceives his well-trained dog (whom he influences with food) keeping his herd together. Goals have been met in each of their minds, tiny though some of those may be, but in no case here are any of them controlling one another.
*barb
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
In B:CP where Bill explains arbitrary control, he states explicitly that other people’s behaviour can be controlled, and that this is a major source of conflict:
'… the attempt to make behaviour conform to one set of goals without regard to other goals…that may already be controlling that behaviour–that must already exist, since the bbehaviour exists…’
Warren
On 19 Nov 2014, at 09:39, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
What a construct.
Where Bill divided environment into physical and social environment with different effects of disturbances and different perceptual signals for living and non-living environment. Show me in any of his diagrams ?
There are just physical variables (distal stimuli) outside which are turned into perceptual signals and which are than all compared in comparator (neurons) inside LCS. What LCS experience is just perception (disturbances), no mater what is causing disturbances in environment and later perception. I also didn’t see in any of his defintions or books divission on physical and social environment. The question is whether environment »controls behavior of LCS or not« ? As I see your writings you say once yes and once no. It’s total confussion.
If you are phylosophing in your name under Bill’s »flag« than you should find a citation that could support your statement in the name of PCT. If you don’t give that proof, I can just conclude that it’s your imagination.
LCS perceive disturbances (turned into perception), no matter who is producing them. And there is no protection against them. There is just conter-action.
Here are some Bill’s defitions just not to forget about which theroy we are talking about. And as far as I can see he is also not talking about »observable facts«. It’s subjective impression, so not something that is »definitelly or objectivelly outside« but something that is subject to human feelings and so on. See how we differently see the same »theme«. So what is here »obervable fact«.
Bill P (BC:P,2005):
DISTURBANCE : Any variable in the environment of a control system that (a) contributes to changes in the controlled quantty (b) is not controlled by the same control system.
ENVIRONMENT (of a control sytem) : All that directly affects the input function of a system and is affected by the output function of the system. See REALITY…
REALITY [Directly perceived] : The world as subjectively experienced, including mental activities, feelings, concepts, as wel as the subjective impression of three-dimensional outside universe. [External] : A directly-perceived set of hypotheses, beleifs, deducations, and organized models purporting to explain directly perceived reality in terms of underlying phenomena and laws. See PHYSICAL QUANTITY.
PHYSICAL QUANTTITY, PHENOMENON : A perception identifyed as part of a physical model of external reality.
I think it’s time that we see some real PCT wording, not just RCT wording. If you will talk what is PCT or what is not you should use PCT wording not self-regulation or behavioristic. As you can see Bill is not mentioning any different meaning for different »stimuli« or »observable facts« that is as it is because you said so…<
At least I see it this way. But I don’t see everything as »observable fact«
Best,
Boris
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Demonstration of control of behavior
[From Rick Marken (2014.11.17.1840)]
RM: One more thought regarding control of behavior. Perhaps part of the difficulty here comes from the fact hat PCT does show that the environment – the physical, non-living environment – does not control behavior. This is where PCT contradicts those, like Skinner, who believe that the environment does control behavior. Based on his experiments, for example. Skinner concluded that the behavior of organisms is controlled by “contingencies of reinforcement”. That is, behavior is controlled by the rewards and punishments (out there in the environment) that follow particular behaviors.
RM: PCT shows that this is not the case at all; the environment – in the form of stimuli, rewards and punishments – doesn’t control behavior.
HB :
According to upper Bill’s definitions this is all what we need to know.
How could rats knew what is »reward and punishment from Skinner«. Rats just perceive stimuli and control these perceived stimuli as any other stimuli from environment. There is no difference between stimuli from social and physical environment. They are all turned into perception which doesn’t distinguish between stimuli from social or physical environment. Perceptual signal is the same for all stimuli that affect input function. They just distinguish in intensity (frequency) and space code (.
But Skinner was able to control behavior with rewards and punishments – mainly rewards – so what’s going on here? Why would PCT deny that rewards and punishments control behavior? The answer is that PCT let’s us see the wizard that, in this case, isn’t even behind the curtain; the wizard who is doing the actual controlling is in full view but, somehow, never noticed . It’s Skinner who is controlling the behavior using rewards and punishments, not the rewards and punishments themselves.
Rewards and punishments are not control systems; they have no goals for what an organism should do. But Skinner did. Skinner wanted to see a rat press a lever to get food, for example, and he found that he could get the rat to do that using a process called “shaping”, which involves rewarding the animal for making successive approximations to the desired behavior (bar pressing). Skinner was clearly controlling the behavior of the rat, and he did it by varying his actions (giving or withholding rewards) with the aim of getting his perception of the rat’s behavior to be what he wanted it to be.
He could also build machines that could stand in for his controlling; so once the rat had been “shaped” into pressing the bar the machine could take over and give a reward only after a press (or several presses) were made. Of course, the machine is not really controlling the rat either since it would deliver a reward even if the bar were pressed by someone other than the rat. And if the pellet delivery system were jammed the rat would eventually stop pressing the bar and the machine would do nothing to get it back to the bar. The machine can’t perceive the rat’s behavior and act appropriately if it’s not doing what is “wanted”, becuase the machine also has no wants (references).
The point is that PCT shows that the only thing that can control the behavior of a control system is another control system. It’s not “the environment” consisting of stimuli ,rewards, or punishments that controls behavior; it is the other control systems in that environment – generally other people – that use stimuli, rewards or punishments to control behavior. And if the controlling is not consensual or if it requires the controllee to do things that conflict with other goals (including the goal of not being controlled) then the controllee might decide to resist the controlling; and then things get ugly.
HB : I never saw in PCT (Bill’s theory) to be pointing to anything you say and I didn’t see anything you wrote. Where did you see him saying »the only thing that can control the behavior of a control system is another control system«. It looks like your construct of PCT, which can be called RCT. If you are talking in the name of PCT I think you should prove it wilh some Bill’s defintion or Bill’s writings, as that is now only reference for what is true about PCT or not. You are using PCT as cover for your behavioristic and self-regulation theory. You are almost duplicate of Carver & Scheier. Why don’t you join them ?
Best,
Boris
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble