···
[From Rick Marken (2015.06.13.0915)]
Richard Pfau (2015.06.12 23:47 EST)
Ref: ““lloydk@klinedinst.com”” Fri, Jun 12, 2015 4:27 pm
A habit is simply the observable behavior of a control system that has been organized such that its actions, which seem to be similar during different occurrences, are effective in producing a desired perception in similar situations.
RM: I can’t tell who is saying what in this post – Lloyd or Richard – so I don’t know who I’m replying to. Maybe that’s not important. Anyway, this definition of a habit is strange since it defines the phenomenon in terms of an explanation. If a “habit” is just the operation of a control system then a habit is a word that refers to the behavior of a control system; that is, “habit” is just another word for “control”.
Originally the actions taken to reach the desired perception and associated reference were carried out, either consciously or unconsciously, in a way that led to the elimination or reduction of an error signal, such that the desired reference perception was achieved. Over time, the system was organized or reorganized in a way that the behavior involved was repeated when similar situations, perceptions, error signals, and their reduction occurred – and what is called “a habit” or “habitual behavior” was established.
RM: In control what is repeated is the state of the controlled controlled variable. This consistency can only be achieved by varying the actions that affect this varuable appropriately, so as to protect it from the effects of disturbances. So if “habit” refers to a “behavior” that is repeated then “behavior” can only refer to the controlled variable, not to the actions that control this variable.
Duhigg describes “The Habit Loop”, where a Cue leads to a Routine which leads to a Reward which leads to the Cue and so on around the loop. In short, using his loop with PCT in mind, a Cue (which results in perceptual signals that, when compared to a reference, produces error signals) leads to a Routine (such as similar physical behavior that has occurred over several cycles) that leads to a Reward (a decrease or elimination of the error signal) that over several cycles establishes a control system which is activated when similar Cues/Situations and related error signals occur.
RM: What is being described here is a sequential S-R “loop”. This is not a control loop. A control loop, as you may recall, is organized around the control of perceptual variables. Based on the above description of the loop I take “Cue” to correspond to “disturbance”. There is no description of the perceptual variable (PV) to which this Cue is a disturbance. But if this is a control loop then there must be a controlled PV that is affected by both the Cue and the output, which is apparently the “Routine”.
RM: The term reward simply refers to the result of the negative feedback relationship between output (Routine) and the error that drives the output (the difference between PV and reference). This system will vary its output Routine as necessary to keep the PV at the reference. Assuming that the PV is the perceived relationship between Routine and Cue and that the reference is for the Routine to occur only when the Cue is present then this loop will produce a Routine when the Cue is present and no Routine when it’s not. This will look like the Cue is causing the system to “habitually” produce the Routine but, of course, this is just the behavioral illusion, an illusion that would be revealed if the reference for the PV were changed from “do the routine on Cue” to “do the routine only when there is no Cue”.
Duhigg seems to have part of the control loop idea in mind, but leaves out important aspects such as references and error signals.
RM: Yes, and he leaves out what is even more important: the perceptual variable that is being controlled by the control system. Also, note that there are no “cycles” in a control loop; a control system is not a sequential state process; all variables in the loop are varying simultaneously (we have to imitate this fact when we make models of control on sequential state machines like digital computers).
At least, that’s the way it seems to me.
RM: I think the problem here is that PCT shows that many of the presumed phenomena that conventional psychology takes very seriously – things like reinforcement, habit, reflex, etc – are really just aspects of control (see my “Blind Men and the Elephant” paper in “More Mind Readings”, another book I recommend in lieu of the Duhigg book;-) This, of course, makes it tough to talk with people who take conventional psychology seriously since they are mainly talking about illusions. And, of course, that doesn’t help them fall in love with PCT either. This is why you really have to be prepared to “get no respect” from conventional psychologists when you start talking to them about PCT.
Best regards
Rick
With Regards,
Richard Pfau
-----Original Message-----
From: ““lloydk@klinedinst.com”” (lloydk@klinedinst.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
To: CSG LISTSERV csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Fri, Jun 12, 2015 4:27 pm
Subject: Habit - Help Wanted!
I am in a discussion group reading
The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg.
I would appreciate any views and references you wish to share with me about this aspect of behavior in our
own PCT terms as control of perception.
At first search through my PCT works, I only find a reference in Behavior: The Control of Perception in the section on Model Building, p 15 ff in paperback edition.
Many thanks in advance for any help you offer in response to my request.
Lloyd
Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst
10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232
Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com
website: http://www.klinedinst.com
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble