Good Disturbance

[Dag Forssell (930821 1210)] Rick Marken (930820.2000 PST)

"Good disturbance" still is PCT nonsense.

Used in the sense you defined it above, yes. But it makes some sense the
way I actually used it (and the way Tom implied in his post -- a
disturbance that pushes a controlled perception toward its reference).

I grant you that a disturbance that pushes the variable some control
system controls towards that system's reference condition saves that
system the effort of controlling for itself. This is precisely what
happened to you and Tom with Martin's intervention. That this is "good"
is not a PCT judgement. A disturbance it is.

Martin mentioned the sun rising. We all hold a very large number of
reference perceptions we don't usually think of as control references.
Bill pointed out to me not long ago that if the sun failed to rise, I
would register a large error signal between my reference and my
perception. Suppose you and I gather before dawn tomorrow to pray for the
Sun-God to rise again, offering appropriate sacrifices to please the Sun-
God. Fortunately for us, a "good disturbance" is highly likely to
intervene and push the sun up over the horizon - and just at the right
time. In our daily language, we call all these good disturbances "the
real world." They sure help us control our perceptions. We verify over
and over again that we understand the way the world is.

Look back over the posts. I first used the term "good disturbance" to
describe what I would be doing if I found a scientist with an error (as
you suggested) and taught him/her PCT, thus removing the error
(presumably because the "disturbance" of PCT moved his/her perception
of "understanding behavior" to its reference level).

Without looking back, I'll concede and bite the dust this time. But be
careful. This "good disturbance" of yours is a mighty complex, extended
and high level one, since you will teach him/her PCT within the scope of
this one disturbance. :slight_smile:

Best, Dag