# HF "control" = what?

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hf-control-what/4944>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [October 19, 1993, 11:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hf-control-what/4944 "1993-10-19T11:36:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hortideas\_Publishin1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@Hortideas\_Publishin1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Hortideas_Publishin1)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 1993, 11:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hf-control-what/4944/1 "1993-10-19T11:36:00Z")

</div>

> From Greg Williams (931019)

> Rick Marken (931017.2000)

> I attended the Human Factors Society meeting in Seattle last week.  
> I can report with considerable confidence that our secret is  
> still safe. There was no talk of people controlling their own  
> perceptions but plenty of talk about the cues, information, stimuli  
> and other "factors" that control people.

I think I understand what you (as a PCTer) mean by "controlling their  
own perceptions." Do you think you understand what the nonPCTers meant  
by "control [of] people"? Did you avail yourself of this splendid  
opportunity for bridge building to attempt to find out what they mean?  
Might their "control" translate to your "influence"? Do you think what  
they mean by "control" is completely incompatible with what you (as a  
PCTer) mean by "control"? To quote you (more or less) on this topic:  
what do the their models say, as opposed to what do they say about the  
models?

As ever,

Greg

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85e7bf/32.png) [@Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tom_BOURBON3)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 1993, 2:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hf-control-what/4944/2 "1993-10-17T14:27:24Z")

</div>

> From Tom Bourbon [931019.0829]

> > From Greg Williams (931019)
> 
> > Rick Marken (931017.2000)
> 
> > I attended the Human Factors Society meeting in Seattle last week.  
> > I can report with considerable confidence that our secret is  
> > still safe. There was no talk of people controlling their own  
> > perceptions but plenty of talk about the cues, information, stimuli  
> > and other "factors" that control people.

Greg, I can't speak for Rick, but it is before the commuting hour in  
California and he is not on the net. I have had a few recent experiences  
talking to people about human factors. (As part of the early song and dance  
before we decide whether to submit proposals to a federal agency.) I'll bet  
his answers to your questions will be nearly the same as the ones I would  
give.

> I think I understand what you (as a PCTer) mean by "controlling their  
> own perceptions." Do you think you understand what the nonPCTers meant  
> by "control [of] people"?

Had you asked me that question, I would answer, "Yes, I do. They mean  
exactly what they (people in the HF community) say: information, stimuli,  
cues, error and the like in the environment control our actions." The  
HFers even play along with the test, as Rick indicated. All you need to do  
is say, or suggest, that people control their own perceptions and you  
encounter the corrective actions -- raised eyebrows, restatements of what  
you said that "correct" your mistake, indifference, changes of subject, and  
so on.

Now that I think of it, there have been some pretty good examples of the  
orthodox HF view on this net recently. Rick understood.

> Did you avail yourself of this splendid  
> opportunity for bridge building to attempt to find out what they mean?

Bridges can't be built from the beach into the ocean. There must be another  
side. And when people build bridges, isn't it a common practice for the  
construction to come from both sides toward the middle, rather thanm from  
just one side? Besides, on the issue of the causes of nehavior, most of the  
HFers I have met and worked with or those whose work I have read make their  
ideas pretty clear -- no need to labor long and hard to decipher what they  
mean. (See the answer to your previous question.)

> Might their "control" translate to your "influence"?

It is not for us to tell people their words mean something other that what  
they insist they mean. Many of them are certain that our phrase, "behavior  
controls perception," translates to their "behavior is a response to, or is  
controlled by, perception." It is the idea behind the words that counts:  
lineal causal systems rather than perceptual control systems.

> Do you think what  
> they mean by "control" is completely incompatible with what you (as a  
> PCTer) mean by "control"?

Yes. When "they" (the majority of HF people I know of) speak of the  
causes of behavior.

> To quote you (more or less) on this topic:  
> what do the their models say, as opposed to what do they say about the  
> models?

For many of them, the models "say" things like, "environmental information  
guides/directs/causes actions," or "error (in the environment)  
guides/controls/directs behavior," or "people (as control systems) control  
their actions/outputs/behavior." From what I saw in Rick's posts, those  
must have been the kinds of things the models said to him.

Greg, have you talked to any "real" human factors people recently who  
understood and accepted the idea that people control many of their own  
perceptions? Have you read many recent articles and chapters where HF people  
state that idea clearly and unambiguously, so the reader does not need to  
read the meaning in, or wonder if that might be what the writer intended to  
say? If so, pass them along. I haven't come across them during our  
discussions with the Feds, and it looks like Rick didn't find them at the  
professional meeting he attended.

Until later,

Tom