Gambling and PCT

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.22.1740 EDT)]

Gambling appears to be a purposeful act. The gambler is controlling his perceptions when he places his chips on red or black. Why does he choose red? The choice involves a reference level established by the control hierarchy or is the result of reorganization. I can test this assumption by moving his chips from red to black. If the gambler moves them back to red, I can assume I have identified the controlled variable. Is this correct? If not please let me know. Have I left anything out? Martin might add that this activity is in the service of intrinsic variables. I am unsure whether this is orthodox or heterodox. I hope someone will take the time to try to clarify this.

If everything I said above was correct, I feel I understand gambling.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0225 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.22.1740 EDT) --

Gambling appears to be a purposeful act. The gambler is controlling his perceptions when he places his chips on red or black. Why does he choose red? The choice involves a reference level established by the control hierarchy or is the result of reorganization. I can test this assumption by moving his chips from red to black. If the gambler moves them back to red, I can assume I have identified the controlled variable. Is this correct?

Yes, it's a start. Placing the chips is one control process the gambler employs. The question is where you want to go from here. At this same level there are many other controlled variables -- we could explore them if you like, getting a picture of all the variables of this sort that the gambler controls, and finding out what a likely reference condition for each of them is. It would be better to have an actual gambler here, willing to participate in this, but perhaps you have enough experience with gambling to make some shrewd guesses.

Another direction to go is to ask what is the immediate purpose of setting a reference level for "chips on red" and actually bringing it about. By asking for the immediate purpose, I mean to try to take the smallest step we can that leads up a level. If the gambler puts his chips on red, what outcome does he intend to produce by doing this, if he can? What would you suggest?

If not please let me know. Have I left anything out?

Perhaps not. If the gambler you're thinking of simply likes to put chips on red squares for the sake of doing so, we've gone as far as possible up the levels. We could list other controlled variables at the same level, but I can't help feeling that there is some kind of immediate purpose which would not be achieved if this control process were not carried out. What do you say?

Namaste in return. May the perceptual control system in me recognize the perceptual control system in you, and vice versa.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0225 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.22.1740 EDT) --

Gambling appears to be a purposeful act. The gambler is controlling his perceptions when he places his chips on red or black. Why does he choose red? The choice involves a reference level established by the control hierarchy or is the result of reorganization. I can test this assumption by moving his chips from red to black. If the gambler moves them back to red, I can assume I have identified the controlled variable. Is this correct?

Yes, it's a start. Placing the chips is one control process the gambler employs. The question is where you want to go from here. At this same level there are many other controlled variables -- we could explore them if you like, getting a picture of all the variables of this sort that the gambler controls, and finding out what a likely reference condition for each of them is. It would be better to have an actual gambler here, willing to participate in this, but perhaps you have enough experience with gambling to make some shrewd guesses.

BG: I assume the gambler has many reference levels, but I am not interested in his preference for cross dressing or single malt scotch, so I'll stick with the color red and the wheel.

Another direction to go is to ask what is the immediate purpose of setting a reference level for "chips on red" and actually bringing it about. By asking for the immediate purpose, I mean to try to take the smallest step we can that leads up a level. If the gambler puts his chips on red, what outcome does he intend to produce by doing this, if he can? What would you suggest?

BG: I suspect he would like to see the ball drop into a red pocket. He may take a variety of acts such as calling to the ball, or praying silently, but none of these is likely to improve the likelihood he will see the ball wind up in a red pocket.

If not please let me know. Have I left anything out?

Perhaps not. If the gambler you're thinking of simply likes to put chips on red squares for the sake of doing so, we've gone as far as possible up the levels. We could list other controlled variables at the same level, but I can't help feeling that there is some kind of immediate purpose which would not be achieved if this control process were not carried out. What do you say?

Nothing. Since the gambler comes back to the casino whenever he can, he clearly is controlling strongly for putting chips on red squares. Since I have no evidence to the contrary, I'll assume this reference level was established by reorganization.

Thanks,

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0852 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)

BG: I assume the gambler has
many reference levels, but I am not interested in his preference for
cross dressing or single malt scotch, so I’ll stick with the color red
and the wheel.

BP: I was referring to other controlled variables having to do with
“how to gamble”, one of them being placing chips in a red
square or diamond so they clearly indicate which color is being bet on.
Another would be forming a stack of chips, another would be sliding the
stack toward the red-black squares, and so on. Those are all control
processes having to do with spatial relationships among configurations
and transitions from one configuration to another. Somewhere around those
levels. They’re part of the mechanisms of gambling.

BP earlier: Another direction to
go is to ask what is the immediate purpose of setting a reference level
for “chips on red” and actually bringing it about. By asking
for the immediate purpose, I mean to try to take the smallest step we can
that leads up a level. If the gambler puts his chips on red, what outcome
does he intend to produce by doing this, if he can? What would you
suggest?

BG: I suspect he would like to
see the ball drop into a red pocket. He may take a variety of acts
such as calling to the ball, or praying silently, but none of these is
likely to improve the likelihood he will see the ball wind up in a red
pocket.

BP: If he wants the ball to drop into a red pocket, why doesn’t he reach
out, stop the wheel, intercept the spinning ball, and drop it into a red
pocket? Is there some procedure or rule that he is maintaining or
adhering to? Or that someone else insists on? You indicate that he may
actually be using some methods to “improve the likelihood that he
will see the ball wind up in a red pocket.” Without evaluating the
effectiveness of the method, can we say he is trying to control the fall
of the ball – that he would do so if he could and it were
permitted?
And anyway, I was asking why he has set the goal of the ball dropping
into the red pocket, whether or not he has any way of getting to that
goal. Wanting the ball to fall into a red pocket is at the same level as
wanting the chips to be on the red or black square or wanting the chips
to be in a neat stack, or wanting to the chips to be in place before the
ball drops. The next level up would have to do with what he want to
happen as a result of the ball dropping into the red pocket – why
he wants the ball to drop in that pocket.

Bruce, I’m asking these questions so you can provide the answers instead
of my doing it. They seem like obvious, dumb questions because there are
obvious answers – I could answer them easily, but that would be my
understanding at work, not yours. Maybe you’re not a gambler and don’t do
any of these things, or haven’t done them in the past (I have, twice). In
that case we could talk about why your reference value for putting chips
you have purchased on colored squares of any kind is zero, and then what
not doing it accomplishes for you, and so on.

BP earlier: If the gambler
you’re thinking of simply likes to put chips on red squares for the sake
of doing so, we’ve gone as far as possible up the levels. We could list
other controlled variables at the same level, but I can’t help feeling
that there is some kind of immediate purpose which would not be achieved
if this control process were not carried out. What do you
say?

BG: Nothing. Since the gambler
comes back to the casino whenever he can, he clearly is controlling
strongly for putting chips on red squares. Since I have no evidence to
the contrary, I’ll assume this reference level was established by
reorganization.

BP: This is why I say this would be better if we could ask questions of a
real gambler, or if you were talking about yourself instead of having to
make guesses about some indefinite other person. If you were gambling at
the wheel, would you be placing chips just for the sake of placing chips?
Some people might be using the placement of chips to teach someone else
how to play roulette, or might be an undercover agent checking to see if
the wheel is honest, and so forth. But as I understand the term
“gambler,” a gambler’s purpose would be something else, which I
don’t want to guess at because you’re working out the answers, not
I.

Am I leading you somewhere you don’t want to go? Just say so and I’ll
quit – I know the answers I would come up with, but you would have no
reason to believe them. You might believe answers you arrive at yourself.
But we don’t have to go on with this if you don’t think it’s getting
anywhere.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.23.12.06]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0852 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)

BG: I assume the gambler has many reference levels, but I am not interested in his preference for cross dressing or single malt scotch, so I'll stick with the color red and the wheel.

BP: I was referring to other controlled variables having to do with "how to gamble",...

Forgive me for intruding, and both Bill and Bruce may well say I've got this wrong, but I interpreted Bruce's question as being "why to gamble" rather than "how to gamble". I interpreted it as something along the lines of: "Why would someone choose to act in a way that only probabilistically would influence a controlled perception in the direction of reducing error (e.g. gaining money), especially when the probabilities are loaded in the other direction and when there are other ways of reliably reducing the error? What perception at a higher level might be being controlled that leads to choosing a high variability environmental feedback path over a low variability path with better expected value (where "value" means reduction in error of a controlled perception)."

Bruce, is that even approximately a fair translation of what you were trying to get at?

If it is a fair statement of the issue, I have no comment to make, but maybe Bill does. I don't think he has addressed that issue yet, and maybe it wasn't what Bruce was getting at. But it is an issue that might be worth pursuing at some point. (not by me, not now, as I am leaving for three weeks on Tuesday evening).

Martin

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1020)]

Martin Taylor 2010.05.23.12.06 --

MMT: Forgive me for intruding, and both Bill and Bruce may well say I've got this wrong, but I interpreted Bruce's question as being "why to gamble" rather than "how to gamble".

BP: I took his question as stated without trying to infer his motives. He said "I can test this assumption by moving his chips from red to black. If the gambler moves them back to red, I can assume I have identified the controlled variable. Is this correct? If not please let me know"

I am taking his question at face value, and am trying to lead the discussion up to higher levels, as I'm sure everyone including Bruce saw immediately. However, I'm trying to do this in realistic small steps, where the connection between one level and the next is simple and obvious, or seems so to me. I'm hoping Bruce will look for his own "simple and obvious" answers, and that onlookers will do the same. We have not yet got to the level where (you say) the goal is gaining money. Bruce might say it is something else -- I won't know until we get there and he tells me. So far he has told me that the reason for placing the chips on the red square comes from the hope that the ball will land in a red pocket on the wheel. I accept that, of course, and now I am asking what goal relating to placing the chips will be accomplished if the ball does land in a red pocket. I'm sure that everyone, including me, has an answer to that question, but the only answer of interest right now is the one Bruce will come up with. I'm not in a hurry; what's important is to find links that are convincing to Bruce, and only he can know what those are.

I interpreted it as something along the lines of: "Why would someone choose to act in a way that only probabilistically would influence a controlled perception in the direction of reducing error (e.g. gaining money), especially when the probabilities are loaded in the other direction and when there are other ways of reliably reducing the error? What perception at a higher level might be being controlled that leads to choosing a high variability environmental feedback path over a low variability path with better expected value (where "value" means reduction in error of a controlled perception)."

Yes, we will get there. But not in one giant leap, and not in some hypothetical way purporting to apply to every individual. And we may get somewhere unexpected; this often happens. Different people's minds are organized differently and perhaps may even have different levels. But we are the same in having levels, whatever they are, and specifically levels of perception and control. Namaste.

I am not very interested in knowing why "someone" would chose to act in a particular way. I am interested in why a specific person does in fact choose to bring about consequences of various types; for one thing, I might spot something wrong with my idea of the levels, or see some new level that was left out. And if the person I'm talking with does the discovering of the levels, I will have no need to be persuasive or convincing. I won't have to convince Bruce, for example, that the gambler is making either of the "choices" you propose (as I would have to do if I proposed them), though of course I would believe you if you told me you would make choices of those kinds, though perhaps choosing differently. Would you?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1420 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0852 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)

BG: I assume the gambler has
many reference levels, but I am not interested in his preference for
cross dressing or single malt scotch, so I’ll stick with the color red
and the wheel.

BP: I was referring to other controlled variables having to do with
“how to gamble”, one of them being placing chips in a red
square or diamond so they clearly indicate which color is being bet on.
Another would be forming a stack of chips, another would be sliding the
stack toward the red-black squares, and so on. Those are all control
processes having to do with spatial relationships among configurations
and transitions from one configuration to another. Somewhere around those
levels. They’re part of the mechanisms of gambling.

BG: Indeed.

BP earlier: Another direction to
go is to ask what is the immediate purpose of setting a reference level
for “chips on red” and actually bringing it about. By asking
for the immediate purpose, I mean to try to take the smallest step we can
that leads up a level. If the gambler puts his chips on red, what outcome
does he intend to produce by doing this, if he can? What would you
suggest?

BG: I suspect he would like to
see the ball drop into a red pocket. He may take a variety of acts
such as calling to the ball, or praying silently, but none of these is
likely to improve the likelihood he will see the ball wind up in a red
pocket.

BP: If he wants the ball to drop into a red pocket, why doesn’t he reach
out, stop the wheel, intercept the spinning ball, and drop it into a red
pocket? Is there some procedure or rule that he is maintaining or
adhering to? Or that someone else insists on? You indicate that he may
actually be using some methods to “improve the likelihood that he
will see the ball wind up in a red pocket.” Without evaluating the
effectiveness of the method, can we say he is trying to control the fall
of the ball – that he would do so if he could and it were
permitted?

BG: He is obeying a large number of rules, both spoken and unspoken. (I doubt there is a formal rule: Don’t spit in the face of the croupier. Or Don’t expose your genitals to the other players. I don’t see that the actions I described require one to explore all these other conventions.

And anyway, I was asking why he has set the goal of the ball dropping
into the red pocket, whether or not he has any way of getting to that
goal. Wanting the ball to fall into a red pocket is at the same level as
wanting the chips to be on the red or black square or wanting the chips
to be in a neat stack, or wanting to the chips to be in place before the
ball drops. The next level up would have to do with what he want to
happen as a result of the ball dropping into the red pocket – why
he wants the ball to drop in that pocket.

Bruce, I’m asking these questions so you can provide the answers instead
of my doing it. They seem like obvious, dumb questions because there are
obvious answers – I could answer them easily, but that would be my
understanding at work, not yours. Maybe you’re not a gambler and don’t do
any of these things, or haven’t done them in the past (I have, twice). In
that case we could talk about why your reference value for putting chips
you have purchased on colored squares of any kind is zero, and then what
not doing it accomplishes for you, and so on.

BG: We could, but what would the point be? We normally do not ask the subjects in an experiment to detail their life histories in order to explain why they are participating in this particular experiment at this particular time, do we?

BP earlier: If the gambler
you’re thinking of simply likes to put chips on red squares for the sake
of doing so, we’ve gone as far as possible up the levels. We could list
other controlled variables at the same level, but I can’t help feeling
that there is some kind of immediate purpose which would not be achieved
if this control process were not carried out. What do you
say?

BG: Nothing. Since the gambler
comes back to the casino whenever he can, he clearly is controlling
strongly for putting chips on red squares. Since I have no evidence to
the contrary, I’ll assume this reference level was established by
reorganization.

BP: This is why I say this would be better if we could ask questions of a
real gambler, or if you were talking about yourself instead of having to
make guesses about some indefinite other person. If you were gambling at
the wheel, would you be placing chips just for the sake of placing chips?
Some people might be using the placement of chips to teach someone else
how to play roulette, or might be an undercover agent checking to see if
the wheel is honest, and so forth. But as I understand the term
“gambler,” a gambler’s purpose would be something else, which I
don’t want to guess at because you’re working out the answers, not
I.

BG: I’m not that interested in the answers. Besides PCT is about the “how” rather than the “why” as far as I can tell. There are only two answers to “why” questions, either because of a perception being controlled at a higher level or because of reorganization. Unless I have missed something. Determining which is operative would require a lot more experimentation, and in most cases the ultimate answer would be reorganization, would it not?

Am I leading you somewhere you don’t want to go? Just say so and I’ll
quit – I know the answers I would come up with, but you would have no
reason to believe them. You might believe answers you arrive at yourself.
But we don’t have to go on with this if you don’t think it’s getting
anywhere.

BG: You are not leading me anywhere. I’m happy with the situation as I described it.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1435 EDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.23.12.06]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0852 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)

BG: I assume the gambler has many reference levels, but I am not interested in his preference for cross dressing or single malt scotch, so I'll stick with the color red and the wheel.

BP: I was referring to other controlled variables having to do with "how to gamble",...

MT: Forgive me for intruding, and both Bill and Bruce may well say I've got this wrong, but I interpreted Bruce's question as being "why to gamble" rather than "how to gamble". I interpreted it as something along the lines of: "Why would someone choose to act in a way that only probabilistically would influence a controlled perception in the direction of reducing error (e.g. gaining money), especially when the probabilities are loaded in the other direction and when there are other ways of reliably reducing the error? What perception at a higher level might be being controlled that leads to choosing a high variability environmental feedback path over a low variability path with better expected value (where "value" means reduction in error of a controlled perception).

Bruce, is that even approximately a fair translation of what you were trying to get at?

BG: As I said to Bill, I find PCT a much more satisfactory way to answer "how" questions than to answer "why" questions. If I want to understand "why" I would look elsewhere than PCT, because I already know the PCT answer (higher order perceptions or reorganization).

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1304 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1420 EDT) --

BP earlier: If he wants the ball to drop into a red pocket, why doesn't he reach out, stop the wheel, intercept the spinning ball, and drop it into a red pocket? Is there some procedure or rule that he is maintaining or adhering to? Or that someone else insists on? You indicate that he may actually be using some methods to "improve the likelihood that he will see the ball wind up in a red pocket." Without evaluating the effectiveness of the method, can we say he is trying to control the fall of the ball -- that he would do so if he could and it were permitted?

BG: He is obeying a large number of rules, both spoken and unspoken. (I doubt there is a formal rule: Don't spit in the face of the croupier. Or Don't expose your genitals to the other players. I don't see that the actions I described require one to explore all these other conventions.

BP: You described something the gambler wanted to happen (ball drops into red pocket), yet the gambler doesn't do what is obvious to make it happen, which he certain could do (once, anyway). That makes me wonder (in my artificially naive mode) why he didn't do it. The answer that comes first to my mind is that he would be cheating, and either he doesn't want to cheat or someone else with authority and the ability to enforce doesn't want him to cheat and won't let him do it twice. Or it would take all the zing out of gambling. Either an internal or an external conflict stops him from carrying out the obvious action that would make the ball drop into a red pocket. That would be my guess; to find the truth we would have to ask the gambler.

You described some ways the gambler might be trying to control where the ball drops, but unless we want to go off on a sidetrack and explore why and how he deludes himself, that isn't very interesting. So I decided to move on and ask why the dropping of the ball into a red pocket mattered to the gambler. I think I know what you would answer, if you chose to answer, but we're not exploring my perceptions. You were the one asking the questions and I'm trying to help you find answers you can accept. If I can.

BP earlier: Maybe you're not a gambler and don't do any of these things, or haven't done them in the past (I have, twice). In that case we could talk about why your reference value for putting chips you have purchased on colored squares of any kind is zero, and then what not doing it accomplishes for you, and so on.

BG: We could, but what would the point be? We normally do not ask the subjects in an experiment to detail their life histories in order to explain why they are participating in this particular experiment at this particular time, do we?

BP:I do, though of course I try to stay somewhere near the main subject. "Life histories" is a bit of a wild exaggeration. Asking why is how we find out what the next level of control is and how it works. If you ask questions with PCT in mind, you can quite easily get to realistic or useful answers, as all the clinicians now using MOL are finding.

BP earlier: This is why I say this would be better if we could ask questions of a real gambler, or if you were talking about yourself instead of having to make guesses about some indefinite other person. If you were gambling at the wheel, would you be placing chips just for the sake of placing chips? Some people might be using the placement of chips to teach someone else how to play roulette, or might be an undercover agent checking to see if the wheel is honest, and so forth. But as I understand the term "gambler," a gambler's purpose would be something else, which I don't want to guess at because you're working out the answers, not I.

BG: I'm not that interested in the answers.

BP: Oh. Well, I certainly feel like a sucker now. I thought you were interested.

BG: Besides PCT is about the "how" rather than the "why" as far as I can tell.

BP: No, it's about both how and why. How takes you down a level, why takes you up a level. But if you don't want to go either way it doesn't tell you anything.

BG: There are only two answers to "why" questions, either because of a perception being controlled at a higher level or because of reorganization. Unless I have missed something. Determining which is operative would require a lot more experimentation, and in most cases the ultimate answer would be reorganization, would it not?

BP: Yes, I've been working toward finding out what perceptions might be controlled at the next higher level in the gambler you're thinking of. I'm going one step at a time, not trying to jump to the ultimate answer (the big bang). And I am doing what I call experimentation, though my subject seems to be resisting the process pretty hard.

BP earlier: Am I leading you somewhere you don't want to go? Just say so and I'll quit -- I know the answers I would come up with, but you would have no reason to believe them. You might believe answers you arrive at yourself. But we don't have to go on with this if you don't think it's getting anywhere.

BG: You are not leading me anywhere. I'm happy with the situation as I described it.

BP: OK, but I have what seems like a reasonable request. Let me know, the next time you ask me a question, whether you're interested in getting an answer. That will save me from wasting quite a lot of time when I could have been sleeping.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1637)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1304 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1420 EDT) --

BP earlier: If he wants the ball to drop into a red pocket, why doesn't he reach out, stop the wheel, intercept the spinning ball, and drop it into a red pocket? Is there some procedure or rule that he is maintaining or adhering to? Or that someone else insists on? You indicate that he may actually be using some methods to "improve the likelihood that he will see the ball wind up in a red pocket." Without evaluating the effectiveness of the method, can we say he is trying to control the fall of the ball -- that he would do so if he could and it were permitted?

BG: He is obeying a large number of rules, both spoken and unspoken. (I doubt there is a formal rule: Don't spit in the face of the croupier. Or Don't expose your genitals to the other players. I don't see that the actions I described require one to explore all these other conventions.

BP: You described something the gambler wanted to happen (ball drops into red pocket), yet the gambler doesn't do what is obvious to make it happen, which he certain could do (once, anyway). That makes me wonder (in my artificially naive mode) why he didn't do it. The answer that comes first to my mind is that he would be cheating, and either he doesn't want to cheat or someone else with authority and the ability to enforce doesn't want him to cheat and won't let him do it twice. Or it would take all the zing out of gambling. Either an internal or an external conflict stops him from carrying out the obvious action that would make the ball drop into a red pocket. That would be my guess; to find the truth we would have to ask the gambler.

BG: My hypothesis is that he was simply following the rules. My inclination would be to make inquiries only on the occasions that he did not follow the rules. I suppose you could conduct a survey of motorists who stop for red lights and inquire why they inconvenienced themselves in this way. Perhaps this has already been done.

You described some ways the gambler might be trying to control where the ball drops, but unless we want to go off on a sidetrack and explore why and how he deludes himself, that isn't very interesting. So I decided to move on and ask why the dropping of the ball into a red pocket mattered to the gambler. I think I know what you would answer, if you chose to answer, but we're not exploring my perceptions. You were the one asking the questions and I'm trying to help you find answers you can accept. If I can.

BP earlier: Maybe you're not a gambler and don't do any of these things, or haven't done them in the past (I have, twice). In that case we could talk about why your reference value for putting chips you have purchased on colored squares of any kind is zero, and then what not doing it accomplishes for you, and so on.

BG: We could, but what would the point be? We normally do not ask the subjects in an experiment to detail their life histories in order to explain why they are participating in this particular experiment at this particular time, do we?

BP:I do, though of course I try to stay somewhere near the main subject. "Life histories" is a bit of a wild exaggeration. Asking why is how we find out what the next level of control is and how it works. If you ask questions with PCT in mind, you can quite easily get to realistic or useful answers, as all the clinicians now using MOL are finding.

BP earlier: This is why I say this would be better if we could ask questions of a real gambler, or if you were talking about yourself instead of having to make guesses about some indefinite other person. If you were gambling at the wheel, would you be placing chips just for the sake of placing chips? Some people might be using the placement of chips to teach someone else how to play roulette, or might be an undercover agent checking to see if the wheel is honest, and so forth. But as I understand the term "gambler," a gambler's purpose would be something else, which I don't want to guess at because you're working out the answers, not I.

BG: I'm not that interested in the answers.

BP: Oh. Well, I certainly feel like a sucker now. I thought you were interested.

BG: No need to feel like a sucker. I find that people are very good when it comes to making up stories to explain their behavior, I suspect that gamblers get more than their share of opportunities to practice this skill. Imagine interviewing a Republican Senator as to why he or she voted to block action on financial reform. Imagine how little a role the stories you heard would have played in the actual vote.

BG: Besides PCT is about the "how" rather than the "why" as far as I can tell.

BP: No, it's about both how and why. How takes you down a level, why takes you up a level. But if you don't want to go either way it doesn't tell you anything.

BG: There are only two answers to "why" questions, either because of a perception being controlled at a higher level or because of reorganization. Unless I have missed something. Determining which is operative would require a lot more experimentation, and in most cases the ultimate answer would be reorganization, would it not?

BP: Yes, I've been working toward finding out what perceptions might be controlled at the next higher level in the gambler you're thinking of. I'm going one step at a time, not trying to jump to the ultimate answer (the big bang). And I am doing what I call experimentation, though my subject seems to be resisting the process pretty hard.

BP earlier: Am I leading you somewhere you don't want to go? Just say so and I'll quit -- I know the answers I would come up with, but you would have no reason to believe them. You might believe answers you arrive at yourself. But we don't have to go on with this if you don't think it's getting anywhere.

BG: You are not leading me anywhere. I'm happy with the situation as I described it.

BP: OK, but I have what seems like a reasonable request. Let me know, the next time you ask me a question, whether you're interested in getting an answer. That will save me from wasting quite a lot of time when I could have been sleeping.

BG: I apologize. In fact, you answered my question. You then decided to ask a series of related questions that I had not raised. A simple, "Yes, that is a correct PCT description" would have satisfied my curiosity and allowed you to get back to your nap.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1526 PDT)]

I’m a gambler of long-standing (although I’m not a
roulette player) so I’ll hazard a guess as to why the roulette player
wants the ball to drop into a red pocket: He (or she) wants to experience
the elation of winning; in particular, winning against the odds.
Why? Because doing so is evidence that you are “lucky.”
Why do you want evidence that you’re “lucky”? So you
can justify continued gambling.

Poker, which I play a lot, is a different matter. There is
some skill involved in how you play your cards, reading other players, reading
the betting patterns, and in betting your own hand. As Kenny Rogers sang,
“Knowing when to hold ‘em and knowing when to fold ‘em.”

That might not be the case with another particular
gambler/roulette player. The gambler in question might want to lose
(which I’ve done when I was in an “Aw f… it” mood).

Why does anyone do anything? Who knows? What I have
come to believe is that our behavior has direct and immediate effects –
what I’m calling “proximate outcomes” – and these
direct and immediate effects also fan out or ripple through the structure of
the situation and make themselves felt elsewhere, later on. These I call “ultimate
outcomes.”

In terms of workplace performance, which is where I focus,
managers, ordinary employees and executives are all to some extent profitably
viewed as interventionists; that is, they change things here and now so as to
realize some other result elsewhere, later on.

PCT does a dandy job of explaining and accounting for “proximate
outcomes” but I’ve struggled in using it to get at “ultimate outcomes.”
To my own way of thinking, there are linkages between the two and, as
interventionists, you need a grasp of those linkages if your immediate actions
are to have any hope of realizing those downstream results.

Now it may be the case that the method of levels will prove
useful in getting at those ultimate outcomes – at least as far as the
performer can be said to hold them as a reference value for some downstream
target variable. But, I’m a little wary of hierarchy in this
context; I prefer instead to think in terms of linkages, often in terms of
means-ends chains.

Anyway, my experience with gambling and with other gamblers is
that it isn’t so much the winning that matters as it is being viewed as a
winner – by yourself and by others.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave - Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

···

From: Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gregory
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:20 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Gambling and PCT

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.1420 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.0852 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.23.0948 EDT)

BG: I assume the gambler has many reference levels, but I am
not interested in his preference for cross dressing or single malt scotch, so
I’ll stick with the color red and the wheel.

BP: I was referring to other controlled variables having to do with “how
to gamble”, one of them being placing chips in a red square or diamond so
they clearly indicate which color is being bet on. Another would be forming a
stack of chips, another would be sliding the stack toward the red-black
squares, and so on. Those are all control processes having to do with spatial
relationships among configurations and transitions from one configuration to
another. Somewhere around those levels. They’re part of the mechanisms of
gambling.

BG: Indeed.

BP earlier: Another direction to go is to ask what is the
immediate purpose of setting a reference level for “chips on red” and
actually bringing it about. By asking for the immediate purpose, I mean to try
to take the smallest step we can that leads up a level. If the gambler puts his
chips on red, what outcome does he intend to produce by doing this, if he can?
What would you suggest?

BG: I suspect he would like to see the ball drop into
a red pocket. He may take a variety of acts such as calling to the ball, or
praying silently, but none of these is likely to improve the likelihood he will
see the ball wind up in a red pocket.

BP: If he wants the ball to drop into a red pocket, why doesn’t he reach out,
stop the wheel, intercept the spinning ball, and drop it into a red pocket? Is
there some procedure or rule that he is maintaining or adhering to? Or that
someone else insists on? You indicate that he may actually be using some
methods to “improve the likelihood that he will see the ball wind up in a
red pocket.” Without evaluating the effectiveness of the method, can we
say he is trying to control the fall of the ball – that he would do so if he
could and it were permitted?

BG: He is obeying a large number of rules, both spoken and
unspoken. (I doubt there is a formal rule: Don’t spit in the face of the
croupier. Or Don’t expose your genitals to the other players. I don’t see that
the actions I described require one to explore all these other conventions.

And anyway, I was asking why he has set the goal of the ball dropping into the
red pocket, whether or not he has any way of getting to that goal. Wanting the
ball to fall into a red pocket is at the same level as wanting the chips to be
on the red or black square or wanting the chips to be in a neat stack, or
wanting to the chips to be in place before the ball drops. The next level up
would have to do with what he want to happen as a result of the ball dropping
into the red pocket – why he wants the ball to drop in that pocket.

Bruce, I’m asking these questions so you can provide the answers instead of my
doing it. They seem like obvious, dumb questions because there are obvious
answers – I could answer them easily, but that would be my understanding at
work, not yours. Maybe you’re not a gambler and don’t do any of these things,
or haven’t done them in the past (I have, twice). In that case we could talk
about why your reference value for putting chips you have purchased on colored
squares of any kind is zero, and then what not doing it accomplishes for you,
and so on.

BG: We could, but what would the point be? We normally do
not ask the subjects in an experiment to detail their life histories in order
to explain why they are participating in this particular experiment at this
particular time, do we?

BP earlier: If the gambler you’re thinking of simply likes
to put chips on red squares for the sake of doing so, we’ve gone as far as
possible up the levels. We could list other controlled variables at the same
level, but I can’t help feeling that there is some kind of immediate purpose
which would not be achieved if this control process were not carried out. What
do you say?

BG: Nothing. Since the gambler comes back to the casino
whenever he can, he clearly is controlling strongly for putting chips on red
squares. Since I have no evidence to the contrary, I’ll assume this reference
level was established by reorganization.

BP: This is why I say this would be better if we could ask questions of a real
gambler, or if you were talking about yourself instead of having to make
guesses about some indefinite other person. If you were gambling at the wheel,
would you be placing chips just for the sake of placing chips? Some people
might be using the placement of chips to teach someone else how to play
roulette, or might be an undercover agent checking to see if the wheel is
honest, and so forth. But as I understand the term “gambler,” a
gambler’s purpose would be something else, which I don’t want to guess at
because you’re working out the answers, not I.

BG: I’m not that interested in the answers. Besides PCT is
about the “how” rather than the “why” as far as I can tell.
There are only two answers to “why” questions, either because of a
perception being controlled at a higher level or because of reorganization.
Unless I have missed something. Determining which is operative would require a
lot more experimentation, and in most cases the ultimate answer would be
reorganization, would it not?

Am I leading you somewhere you don’t want to go? Just say so and I’ll quit – I
know the answers I would come up with, but you would have no reason to believe
them. You might believe answers you arrive at yourself. But we don’t have to go
on with this if you don’t think it’s getting anywhere.

BG: You are not leading me anywhere. I’m happy with the
situation as I described it.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1650 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1526 PDT) --

FN: I�m a gambler of long-standing (although I�m not a roulette player) so I�ll hazard a guess as to why the roulette player wants the ball to drop into a red pocket: He (or she) wants to experience the elation of winning; in particular, winning against the odds. Why? Because doing so is evidence that you are �lucky.� Why do you want evidence that you�re �lucky�? So you can justify continued gambling.

BP: Ah, a live one! Since Bruce G. isn't interested in this approach, I guess I can abandon that project and take up yours.

Yes, I was sort of expecting Bruce to say that what the gambler would achieve by placing his chips on the red square and then (under real or illusory control) having the ball drop into the red pocket would be to win some money or some chips worth money. Winning the money would seem to be the reference condition for the next level up. That system would achieve its goal by setting a variety of reference signals at lower levels, among them being making a bet, which is done by placing chips in the appropriate part of the pattern on the table. Now you have anticipated my next question, which would have been, "What does the gambler achieve by wanting to win some money and succeeding?"

You're saying now that the next level above winning is the desire to feel lucky or to perceive that for the time being luck is with you. And you imply that there is still another level above that, where the desire is to justify gambling, with luck being one necessary ingredient of that justification. I would classify the "elation" you mention as an emotional consequence of having made the bet and being in suspense, then suddenly having the error (somewhat unexpectedly) corrected. Winning is always a bit surprising and relieving, isn't it?

The highest level you have mentioned is the objective of going on gambling. I could ask what is achieved by being able to go on gambling, but that might be pushing ahead of the process a little too fast. This might be a good time to drop back to a lower level and ask if there are any other goals that are achieved by winning money, other than feeling lucky. They, too, might figure into the desired perception that gambling is justified. And the term "justified" also suggests that there is some problem about gambling that calls for finding justifications in order to solve the problem. I don't see quite how all these considerations stack up, so why don't you choose something that sticks out in this assortment and we can explore that. Is it the justification we should look at, other effects of winning, luck, or what?

Anyway, my experience with gambling and with other gamblers is that it isn�t so much the winning that matters as it is being viewed as a winner � by yourself and by others.

The poker players on the World Series of Poker definitely agree with that: getting the bracelets is worth as much to them as the prize money, or so they say. How would you order these goals? Does the player want to feel lucky in order to be seen as a winner by others, to be seen as a winner in order to feel lucky, or both of them with about the same priority, as justifications for gambling? Can you sort this out?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1651 PDT)]

OMG! What have I stepped into? :slight_smile:

Let me skip down to the bottom where you ask about sorting things out...

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1650 MDT)]

FN:>Anyway, my experience with gambling and with

other gamblers is that it isn't so much the
winning that matters as it is being viewed as a
winner - by yourself and by others.

BP: The poker players on the World Series of Poker
definitely agree with that: getting the bracelets
is worth as much to them as the prize money, or
so they say. How would you order these goals?
Does the player want to feel lucky in order to be
seen as a winner by others, to be seen as a
winner in order to feel lucky, or both of them
with about the same priority, as justifications
for gambling? Can you sort this out?

Well, one thing I can sort out - at least for me - is that being seen by
others as a winner doesn't make me feel lucky. I feel lucky when I'm
feeling good; I feel lucky when the cards are running my way; I feel lucky
when I win on a weak hand; I feel lucky when....(I could probably complete
that sentence in yet more ways but I won't). I feel unlucky when I lose on
a strong hand - what we poker players call "a bad beat"; I feel even less
lucky or more unlucky when I have a long losing streak; I don't feel lucky
(by comparison) when someone else is on a really hot winning streak. But
although "feeling lucky" is nice, that's not the goal; as a matter of fact,
there are several goals: One goal is to win, even if only a little; another
goal is to play your cards well - win or lose - because that's the best
anyone can do; and so another goal is to learn more about playing, about
betting, about the other players, and about yourself. On occasion, the goal
is simply to shove it up one of your opponents' rear ends (figuratively
speaking). There are few things I enjoy more than "bushwhacking" one of the
guys I play poker with down in Tucson. "Bushwhacking" is a term that refers
to playing your cards in a way that doesn't suggest a strong hand when in
fact you have a really strong hand or maybe even what is called "a lock on
the board" or can't lose and, at the same time, someone else is betting like
they have the winning hand. So, you let them do the betting until the last
round and then you raise whatever the limit might be. So the goals shift
from hand to hand, from game to game, from night to night, from mood to
mood. Sometimes I'm in a pissy mood and I play stupidly, lose my set amount
very quickly and get up and leave. Why I sat down in the first place I
don't know. But, overall, I play with pretty much the same group of guys
(and now and then a gal) for very modest stakes ($10 buy-in on week nights
and $30 buy-in on Saturday's Omaha Tournament). Winning lots of money isn't
the goal - although winning still is. I don't know anyone who likes to
lose. But I suspect most of us play for the sake of a) playing and b)
spending some time with guys we've come to know and some of whom we've come
to like and respect. Professional gamblers are an entirely different
matter. Even when I was in the Navy, I was focused more on winning some
money than I am now (and I've won thousands of dollars in the course of a
long deployment. I once cut a card for $27,000 and won. Naturally, I
didn't collect it all but I did collect about half of it so that wasn't
chicken feed).

As for justifying gambling, I laid off gambling almost entirely when I left
the Navy and except for a few rounds with the slot machines at a casino or
two (just for the heck of it), I simply didn't gamble. I used to play pool
for money, too; and I liked to brag that I made more money shooting pool
than I did from my Navy pay (which was stretching the truth a bit but it
made my point that I did well and I won a lot. I still am a pretty good
pool player although my eyes and stroke don't seem to be as good as when I
was younger. I mentioned "justifying" gambling because my wife always asks
me if I won when I come home after a game. I wouldn't feel right if I lost
continually and lost big; that's not a good use of funds at my advanced age.
I'm in no danger of pushing a grocery cart around the streets but I'm also
far from wealthy. Maybe "justify" is not the right word.

So I play to win but I don't mind losing now and then. I play to spend some
time with the other guys who play, some of whom I now consider friends (and
some of whom in the Navy I considered "buddies"). And I play to practice
and sharpen my poker-playing skills. And, now and then, I play to punish
myself and to show I don't give a s..t as is the case when I deliberately
bet in ways guaranteed to lose my money very quickly. And, there, oddly
enough, is where luck comes in. I've been in such moods on many an occasion
and, to my surprise, I started winning. That settled me down and quit
betting foolishly and concentrated on playing poker.

Wow! This could go on and on. I think I'll chop it here.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
www.nickols.us
fred@nickols.us

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 4:22 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Gambling and PCT

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1650 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1526 PDT) --

FN: I'm a gambler of long-standing (although I'm
not a roulette player) so I'll hazard a guess as
to why the roulette player wants the ball to
drop into a red pocket: He (or she) wants to
experience the elation of winning; in
particular, winning against the
odds. Why? Because doing so is evidence that
you are "lucky." Why do you want evidence that
you're "lucky"? So you can justify continued gambling.

BP: Ah, a live one! Since Bruce G. isn't
interested in this approach, I guess I can
abandon that project and take up yours.

Yes, I was sort of expecting Bruce to say that
what the gambler would achieve by placing his
chips on the red square and then (under real or
illusory control) having the ball drop into the
red pocket would be to win some money or some
chips worth money. Winning the money would seem
to be the reference condition for the next level
up. That system would achieve its goal by setting
a variety of reference signals at lower levels,
among them being making a bet, which is done by
placing chips in the appropriate part of the
pattern on the table. Now you have anticipated my
next question, which would have been, "What does
the gambler achieve by wanting to win some money and succeeding?"

You're saying now that the next level above
winning is the desire to feel lucky or to
perceive that for the time being luck is with
you. And you imply that there is still another
level above that, where the desire is to justify
gambling, with luck being one necessary
ingredient of that justification. I would
classify the "elation" you mention as an
emotional consequence of having made the bet and
being in suspense, then suddenly having the error
(somewhat unexpectedly) corrected. Winning is
always a bit surprising and relieving, isn't it?

The highest level you have mentioned is the
objective of going on gambling. I could ask what
is achieved by being able to go on gambling, but
that might be pushing ahead of the process a
little too fast. This might be a good time to
drop back to a lower level and ask if there are
any other goals that are achieved by winning
money, other than feeling lucky. They, too, might
figure into the desired perception that gambling
is justified. And the term "justified" also
suggests that there is some problem about
gambling that calls for finding justifications in
order to solve the problem. I don't see quite how
all these considerations stack up, so why don't
you choose something that sticks out in this
assortment and we can explore that. Is it the
justification we should look at, other effects of winning, luck, or what?

Anyway, my experience with gambling and with
other gamblers is that it isn't so much the
winning that matters as it is being viewed as a
winner - by yourself and by others.

The poker players on the World Series of Poker
definitely agree with that: getting the bracelets
is worth as much to them as the prize money, or
so they say. How would you order these goals?
Does the player want to feel lucky in order to be
seen as a winner by others, to be seen as a
winner in order to feel lucky, or both of them
with about the same priority, as justifications
for gambling? Can you sort this out?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1940 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1651 PDT) --

FN: OMG! What have I stepped into? :slight_smile:

BP: Just a little basic MOL. Thanks very much Fred, it was uncommonly kind of you to give us a glimpse of your hierarchy. You very quickly get away from the specific behaviors and subject matter and into the higher-order complexities of human relations. That's what usually happens. The starting point is just that, only a starting point. I won't ask you any more questions, except this:

As you went through all those thoughts, did you find that the exercise made more sense of the whole thing as you kept developing it? I think of MOL as a way of getting a clearer picture of one's whole mental structure, and I think generally that it feels good to do that once in a while. Sort of like getting a tuneup.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.0705 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1940 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2010.05.23.1651 PDT) –

FN: OMG! What have I stepped into? :slight_smile:

BP: Just a little basic MOL. Thanks very much Fred, it was uncommonly kind of you to give us a glimpse of your hierarchy. You very quickly get away from the specific behaviors and subject matter and into the higher-order complexities of human relations. That’s what usually happens. The starting point is just that, only a starting point. I won’t ask you any more questions, except this:

As you went through all those thoughts, did you find that the exercise made more sense of the whole thing as you kept developing it? I think of MOL as a way of getting a clearer picture of one’s whole mental structure, and I think generally that it feels good to do that once in a while. Sort of like getting a tuneup.

BG: This exchange has been extremely helpful. I can see that I harbored a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of CSGnet. That misunderstanding proved to be a source of frustration all around. For this I apologize. Anyone who thinks of joining CSGnet would be well-advised to look closely at this thread.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Fred Nickols (2010.05.24.0720
PDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.0705 EDT)]

BG: This exchange has been extremely helpful. I can see that I harbored a
fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of CSGnet. That misunderstanding
proved to be a source of frustration all around. For this I apologize. Anyone
who thinks of joining CSGnet would be well-advised to look closely at this
thread.

FN: Please say more. I’m clueless as to the
point(s) you’re making.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave - Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

[From Fred Nickols (2010.05.24.0722 PDT)]

Bill Powers (2010.05.23.1940 MDT)]

BP: As you went through all those thoughts, did you find that the
exercise made more sense of the whole thing as you kept developing
it?

FN: Well, one thing became a lot clearer: goals or reference conditions can
be very fluid in nature. I think my comments about what I'm up to in the
course of a poker game illustrate that. It also seems to be the case that I
can be up to several things at roughly the same time and switch back and
forth depending on how I'm doing. I guess I'm saying errors get attention.
That sounds a lot like running up and down the hierarchy.

Hmm.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
1558 Coshocton Ave - Suite 303
Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416
www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.24.1415 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.0705 EDT) --

BG: This exchange has been extremely helpful. I can see that I harbored a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of CSGnet. That misunderstanding proved to be a source of frustration all around. For this I apologize. Anyone who thinks of joining CSGnet would be well-advised to look closely at this thread.

Thank you. I was hoping it would be helpful. But I don't know what understanding of the purpose of CSGnet you started with, or what it is now. Can you expand on that?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.1828 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.24.1415 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.0705 EDT) --

BG: This exchange has been extremely helpful. I can see that I harbored a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of CSGnet. That misunderstanding proved to be a source of frustration all around. For this I apologize. Anyone who thinks of joining CSGnet would be well-advised to look closely at this thread.

Thank you. I was hoping it would be helpful. But I don't know what understanding of the purpose of CSGnet you started with, or what it is now. Can you expand on that?

I would if I thought I could do constructively. I have found this to be impossible, so I will remain silent. I am trying to live by the wisdom of my two inspirations: Benjamin Disraeli and Thumper's father: Never complain and never explain, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Namaste,

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.24.1855 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.24.1828 EDT) --

BP earlier: Thank you. I was hoping it would be helpful. But I don't know what understanding of the purpose of CSGnet you started with, or what it is now. Can you expand on that?

I would if I thought I could do constructively. I have found this to be impossible, so I will remain silent. I am trying to live by the wisdom of my two inspirations: Benjamin Disraeli and Thumper's father: Never complain and never explain, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

I like the part about not complaining, though not explaining sounds a bit overbearing, like "I'm right so shut up." And of course I'd rather hear nice things, as I think most people would. If you never say anything, though, won't people begin to think you just can't think of anything at all constructive to say?

Best,

Bill P.