# Having Control

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/having-control/5160>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [June 7, 1995, 7:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/having-control/5160 "1995-06-07T19:00:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Abbott)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 1995, 7:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/having-control/5160/1 "1995-06-07T19:00:22Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (950607.1355 EST)]

> Bill Powers (950606.1440 MDT) --  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Try the compensatory tracking task using a high-frequency  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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