Having Control

[From Bruce Abbott (950607.1355 EST)]

Bill Powers (950606.1440 MDT) --
    Bruce Abbott (950606.1155 EST)

You seem to use "having control" as meaning "being put in a position
where you could control if you knew how", rather than the way I use it,
meaning "being able to keep perceptions acceptably close to their
desired states by means of actions." The means of control is necessary
for having control, but so is the skill, the ability to take advantage
of the available means.

    Try the compensatory tracking task using a high-frequency
    disturbance and see how unrelaxed it makes you feel.

This is an example of lack of control, not of control. You don't have
the ability to keep error acceptably small in that situation, so you
don't have control even though you're operating the handle. We're just
using "having control" in different ways. If a flying instructor turns
to the student on his first trip up and says "Ok, you have control now."
he's lying. The student may have his hand on the control stick, but he
doesn't have control.

I agree that we are using this phrase differently. What we need is a better
vocabulary! But I disagree with your definition, or at least in your
application of it to this example, wherein you conclude that control was
lacking. Your definition of "having control" suggests that one either has
or does not have control, even though, as we are both well aware, there are
all degrees in between. My performance may be such that I am reducing the
effect of the disturbance on the controlled perception, but not really doing
a good job of it (overshoots, undershoots, etc.) Do I have control or not?
A given performance lies along a continuum of control, from total
out-of-control to extremely well controlled.

My example was intended to convey the point that having control can be
stressful if maintaining control is difficult. You may be doing a good job,
but you are working at the edge of your abilities, or you may be working
under conditions in which control is beginning to suffer (e.g., keeping up
with the lower-frequency components but not the high-frequency ones).

As you noted, the way I used the phrase "having control" was to convey
having the MEANS of control (access to the required variables), which is
only a prerequisite to "having control" as you define it. For clarity it
would be nice to have a separate descriptor for this prerequisite condition.
Both meanings of "have control" seem to be in common use. Would "have the
means to control" provide the needed distinction?

Also, this difference in meaning suggests that distinctions can be drawn
among three situations in which a perception is not in control: (a) you do
not have the means of control and therefore are not attempting to control
it, (b) you have the means of control but are not attempting to control, and
(c) you have the means of control and are attempting to establish control,
but have not yet succeeded. In cases (a) and (b) the variable is "not in
control," in case (c) it is "out of control." In cases (a) and (b) the
individual is doing nothing, in case (c) he or she is engaged in a frantic
effort to achieve control.

Regards,

Bruce