Input Control Theory (ICT)

CSGnet Archive CSG2017
1

[From Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)]

For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception” refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual” and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception” is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

2

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

···

 Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–Â

Â

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory as Perceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).Â

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Â

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the notion of the way she sees things).

Â

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

Â

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Â

Fred NickolsÂ

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

3

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also, whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

···

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

–

 Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–Â

Â

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory as Perceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).Â

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Â

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the notion of the way she sees things).

Â

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

Â

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Â

Fred NickolsÂ

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

4

[from Kent McClelland (2017.11.26 17:30)

I coined the term “perceptual control theory� for a conference paper that I presented at the first CSG Annual Meeting I attended back in 1991, and later, after a good deal of back-and-forth on CSGnet, the people actively involved in the debate
decided to adopt PCT as the “official� label.

Gary Cziko, as I recall, was the most strenuous advocate for the PCT label. Bill Powers favored the label “hierarchical control theory�, which I opposed because I thought would be a complete nonstarter among sociologists and other social scientists.
Clark McPhail, a sociologist who was an proponent of the theory at that time (although he has since renounced it) preferred the name “perception control theory� and used that label in some of the things he published.

My memory of the reason I came up with the “perceptual control theory� label was that most advocates of the theory at the time were just calling it “control theory", and in sociology, the field I wanted to communicate with, there was already another
theory in circulation called control theory.

I would agree that the PCT label has had some disadvantages, even suggesting to some people, perhaps, that we’re just talking about mind control or controlling things by brainwaves, or something like that.

And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible disadvantage
that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in my view, to
understanding how human intelligence works.

Best to all,

Kent

···

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

–

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory as
Perceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have
on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control
theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has
been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even
after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the
notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center
of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m
betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email:
warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai -

Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check
www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

5

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

···

Kent McClelland (2017.11.26 17:30)–

KM: I coined the term “perceptual control theoryâ€? for a conference paper that I presented at the first CSG Annual Meeting I attended back in 1991, and later, after a good deal of back-and-forth on CSGnet, the people actively involved in the debate
decided to adopt PCT as the “officialâ€? label.Â

KM: Gary Cziko, as I recall, was the most strenuous advocate for the PCT label.

RM: I was a strong advocate for it as well, I think. It’s really the best name to distinguish Powers’ Control Theory (also PCT) from all the other applications of control theory in psychology (applications I refer to as “manual control theories”).Â

Â

KM: Bill Powers favored the label “hierarchical control theoryâ€?, which I opposed because I thought would be a complete nonstarter among sociologists and other social scientists.

RM: I also think it doesn’t capture what is most important (and distinctive) about Bill’s theory. There are other hierarchical theories that probably think of themselves as control theories but there is only one theory that makes it clear that behavior (controlling) is organized around the control of perceptual input variables: the theory formerly known as PCT.

KM: Clark McPhail, a sociologist who was an proponent of the theory at that time (although he has since renounced it) preferred the name “perception control theoryâ€? and used that label in some of the things he published. Â

RM:Do you know why?

Â

KM: I would agree that the PCT label has had some disadvantages, even suggesting to some people, perhaps, that we’re just talking about mind control or controlling things by brainwaves, or something like that.Â

RM: Or that it is only perception – and nothing out in the world --Â that is being controlled when we behave.

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theoryâ€? has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible disadvantage
that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in my view, to
understanding how human intelligence works.Â

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT, just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception “control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

Best

Rick

Â

Best to all,

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email:
warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Â

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai -

Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check
www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

 Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–Â

Â

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory as
Perceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have
on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control
theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).Â

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has
been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Â

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perceptionâ€? refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even
after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptualâ€? and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the
notion of the way she sees things).

Â

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center
of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perceptionâ€? is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m
betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

Â

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Â

Fred NickolsÂ

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

6

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-27 11:35]

Thanks Fred for interesting suggestion and Kent of historical background.

For me also perceptual sounded strange and I thought it should be Perception Control Theory. (in Finnish there must be “perception� in basic form, the normal word by word translation
of “perception� would go fully astray.) Perceptual control sounded like “control of something by using perception as a means for that� while I think that the idea of the theory is that we affect something to control our perceptions. But now I am very satisfied
with “perceptual�.

Fred, your wife’s opinion is quite true I think. Our perception at the moment is just what it is and very many factors like our personal history (also our over generational heritage
history) and other crossing causal chains in the situation determine it to be just that and nothing else. No control can change it afterwards (even though we can interpret and remember it in different ways). The control affects only the subsequent future perceptions.
Our future perceptions depend (partly) on our own output - deeds.

And the only reasonable cause for our voluntary action is that we want to perceive just something (either similar or different from our current perception).

Perhaps the “perfect� name could be Perceptual Input Control Theory (PICT)?

···

Eetu

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:55 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

[from Kent McClelland (2017.11.26 17:30)

I coined the term “perceptual control theory� for a conference paper that I presented at the first CSG Annual Meeting I attended back in 1991, and later, after a good deal of back-and-forth on CSGnet, the people actively involved in the
debate decided to adopt PCT as the “official� label.

Gary Cziko, as I recall, was the most strenuous advocate for the PCT label. Bill Powers favored the label “hierarchical control theory�, which I opposed because I thought would be a complete nonstarter among sociologists and other social
scientists. Clark McPhail, a sociologist who was an proponent of the theory at that time (although he has since renounced it) preferred the name “perception control theory� and used that label in some of the things he published.

My memory of the reason I came up with the “perceptual control theory� label was that most advocates of the theory at the time were just calling it “control theory", and in sociology, the field I wanted to communicate with, there was already
another theory in circulation called control theory.

I would agree that the PCT label has had some disadvantages, even suggesting to some people, perhaps, that we’re just talking about mind control or controlling things by brainwaves, or something like that.

And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

Best to all,

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also, whether
we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…

Warren

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed
about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory as
Perceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet
are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory
as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children
to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of
this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions.
She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what
she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting
people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily
agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai -

Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check
www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

7

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general public,
as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

···

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s
theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it
from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has
been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even
after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the
notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center
of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m
betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

8

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. The

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system is

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily have

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.

···

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theoryâ€? has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general public,
as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling Bill’s
theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish it
from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end result has
been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perceptionâ€? refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history. Even
after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptualâ€? and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back to the
notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament and the center
of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perceptionâ€? is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception. However, I’m
betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
9

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1350)

Good point, David. The bigger lesson to draw from this discussion of names may be that no name or slogan—” even “behavior is the control of perceptionâ€?—is enough by itself to give a newcomerr a clear idea of what the theory is about. If you want
to really understand PCT, it seems to me that there’s no substitute for spending some time playing around with control models or demos or simulations so that you can get a feel for how control systems actually work.

Kent

···

On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:46 AM, David Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. The

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system is

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily have

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general
public, as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling
Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish
it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end
result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history.
Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back
to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament
and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception.
However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
10

[From: Richard Pfau (2017.11.27 17:15 EST)]

Fred’s point is a good one, but PCT is still the way to go. As Rick indicates, there are too many “sunk costs” in the PCT label to change it to ICT or some other variant. Changing the label will only lead to confusion and unintended consequences for years to come (in my opinion at least).

So what to do? As an educator, the answer seems to be to more frequently use the terms and concepts of “input” and “control of input” (rather than “perception” and “control of perception”) when first introducing PCT to persons unfamiliar with the theory. In other words, when teaching “beginners” let’s start where they are, with concepts that they can more easily understand, rather than changing the PCT name and the unforeseen consequences and confusion that may occur.

···

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1350)

Good point, David. The bigger lesson to draw from this discussion of names may be that no name or slogan— even “behavior is the ccontrol of perceptionâ€?—is enough by itself to give a newcomeer a clear idea of what the theory is about. If you want
to really understand PCT, it seems to me that there’s no substitute for spending some time playing around with control models or demos or simulations so that you can get a feel for how control systems actually work.Â

Kent

On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:46 AM, David Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. TheÂ

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system isÂ

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.Â

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily haveÂ

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.Â

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

 Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.Â

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perceptionÂ
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general
public, as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

 Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–Â

Â

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling
Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish
it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).Â

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end
result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Â

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perceptionâ€? refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history.Â
Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back
to the notion of the way she sees things).

Â

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament
and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perceptionâ€? is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception.Â
However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

Â

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Â

Fred Nickols Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–Â

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

–Â
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email:Â warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Â

Tel:Â +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â

Website:Â http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–Â
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

11

From Fred Nickols 2017.11.27

At last, someone got my point!

Fred Nickols

···

On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:

[From: Richard Pfau (2017.11.27 17:15 EST)]

Fred’s point is a good one, but PCT is still the way to go. As Rick indicates, there are too many “sunk costs” in the PCT label to change it to ICT or some other variant. Changing the label will only lead to confusion and unintended consequences for years to come (in my opinion at least).

So what to do? As an educator, the answer seems to be to more frequently use the terms and concepts of “input” and “control of input” (rather than “perception” and “control of perception”) when first introducing PCT to persons unfamiliar with the theory. In other words, when teaching “beginners” let’s start where they are, with concepts that they can more easily understand, rather than changing the PCT name and the unforeseen consequences and confusion that may occur.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1350)

Good point, David. The bigger lesson to draw from this discussion of names may be that no name or slogan— even “behavior is the ccontrol of perceptionâ€?—is enough by itself to give a newcomeer a clear idea of what the theory is about. If you want
to really understand PCT, it seems to me that there’s no substitute for spending some time playing around with control models or demos or simulations so that you can get a feel for how control systems actually work.

Kent

On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:46 AM, David Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. The

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system is

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily have

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

from Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theory� has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general
public, as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…
Warren

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling
Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish
it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end
result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perception� refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history.
Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptual� and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back
to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament
and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perception� is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception.
However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
12

I think if we were really serious about changing the name to garner more public attention, for example, then we would have to consult an outsider like a marketing expert(s), explain what PCT is all about, describe the “sunken costs”, see what he/she/they would advise, and then go from there.

BR,

Joh

···

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

Local Time: November 28, 2017 12:26 AM

UTC Time: November 27, 2017 10:26 PM

From: fred@nickols.us

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

From Fred Nickols 2017.11.27

At last, someone got my point!

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:

[From: Richard Pfau (2017.11.27 17:15 EST)]

Fred’s point is a good one, but PCT is still the way to go. As Rick indicates, there are too many “sunk costs” in the PCT label to change it to ICT or some other variant. Changing the label will only lead to confusion and unintended consequences for years to come (in my opinion at least).

So what to do? As an educator, the answer seems to be to more frequently use the terms and concepts of “input” and “control of input” (rather than “perception” and “control of perception”) when first introducing PCT to persons unfamiliar with the theory. In other words, when teaching “beginners” let’s start where they are, with concepts that they can more easily understand, rather than changing the PCT name and the unforeseen consequences and confusion that may occur.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

From Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1350)

Good point, David. The bigger lesson to draw from this discussion of names may be that no name or slogan— even “behavior is the control oof perceptionâ€?—is enough by itself to givee a newcomer a clear idea of what the theory is about. If you want
to really understand PCT, it seems to me that there’s no substitute for spending some time playing around with control models or demos or simulations so that you can get a feel for how control systems actually work.

Kent

On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:46 AM, David Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. The

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system is

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily have

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

From Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theoryâ€? has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general
public, as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…

Warren

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling
Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish
it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end
result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perceptionâ€? refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history.
Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptualâ€? and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back
to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament
and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perceptionâ€? is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception.
However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
13

Of course, another route is to find someone with marketing/branding expertise who can figure out how to use what is already there and give PCT the push it deserves. I’ve never heard of anyone marketing a scientific theory before, but it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. In the few years since I’ve discovered PCT I’ve come to find that it is so powerful that it brings insights into whatever it touches. I think it can be used to empower strategic thinking (a personal project of mine), design organizations like companies (something I’d actually like to try but need help thinking through/working out), design video games (another thing I’d like to try), and even redesign computers. The problem is that a ‘perceptual computer’ doesn’t resonate the way a ‘quantum computer’ does, but it can.

Joh

···

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

Local Time: November 29, 2017 3:45 PM

UTC Time: November 29, 2017 1:45 PM

From: joh.orengo@protonmail.com

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

I think if we were really serious about changing the name to garner more public attention, for example, then we would have to consult an outsider like a marketing expert(s), explain what PCT is all about, describe the “sunken costs”, see what he/she/they would advise, and then go from there.

BR,

Joh

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

Local Time: November 28, 2017 12:26 AM

UTC Time: November 27, 2017 10:26 PM

From: fred@nickols.us

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

From Fred Nickols 2017.11.27

At last, someone got my point!

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:

[From: Richard Pfau (2017.11.27 17:15 EST)]

Fred’s point is a good one, but PCT is still the way to go. As Rick indicates, there are too many “sunk costs” in the PCT label to change it to ICT or some other variant. Changing the label will only lead to confusion and unintended consequences for years to come (in my opinion at least).

So what to do? As an educator, the answer seems to be to more frequently use the terms and concepts of “input” and “control of input” (rather than “perception” and “control of perception”) when first introducing PCT to persons unfamiliar with the theory. In other words, when teaching “beginners” let’s start where they are, with concepts that they can more easily understand, rather than changing the PCT name and the unforeseen consequences and confusion that may occur.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

From Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1350)

Good point, David. The bigger lesson to draw from this discussion of names may be that no name or slogan— even “behavior is the control off perceptionâ€?—is enough by itself to give a newcomer a clear idea of what the theory is about. If you want
to really understand PCT, it seems to me that there’s no substitute for spending some time playing around with control models or demos or simulations so that you can get a feel for how control systems actually work.

Kent

On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:46 AM, David Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

David Goldstein (2017.11.27.12:39)

In introductory psychology textbooks, the topics of sensation, perception, conception are separate topics. The

relationship between these terms and the levels of perception are pretty clear.

I don’t think it is a good idea to change the name. Once the idea of negative feedback control system is

explained, it is understood that inputs, at all of the perceptual levels, are controlled.

Powers emphasizes experiences, at all levels, over behaviors. Experiences Control Theory could easily have

been a description. However, calling it ECT would be shocking to people.

-----Original Message-----

From: McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (ICT)

From Kent McClelland (2017.11.27.1045)

Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1745)]

KM: And I would agree that the name “input control theoryâ€? has some attractive features. But I would caution against any attempt to quickly relabel the theory without thinking through the possible disadvantages of this new coinage. One possible
disadvantage that occurs to me is that IPT may make the theory sound even more mechanical than PCT, by suggesting that we’re talking about something like the control of computer input. The computer metaphor for the brain has been a great stumbling block, in
my view, to understanding how human intelligence works.

RM: Of course. There is no going back now. Powers’ theory is known internationally now as PCT and I do think PCT is the best name for Bill’s theory. And, as you note, ICT has it’s own problems (not the least being that I always type it as IPT,
just as you did;-) So I’ll live with PCT. But I did want to acknowledge Fred’s great idea. For a psychologist like me, trained in perception, “control of perception” and “control of input” mean pretty much the same thing. But for people not trained in perception
“control of perception” can mean many things other than what it actually means in the theory.

KM: Yes, Fred’s idea is a good one, if we could just role history back 25 years. But there are a lot of sunk costs now in the PCT label, and changing a trademark is an expensive and time-consuming process that can lead to confusion among the general
public, as companies have often found when they try to change their names.

Kent

On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rick, I agree with both of you that Input Control Theory would be more accurate and lead to less misunderstandings too! Although some others on CSGNet may be able to remind us of the advantages of the word ‘perceptual’ maybe? Also,
whether we can reverse the behemoth of a name now is questionable! I will try to get this angle into my next papers anyway…

Warren

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.11.26.1350)]

Fred Nickols (2017.11.26.1430 ET)–

FN: For reasons I will explain shortly, I have decided to use Input Control Theory instead of Perceptual Control Theory in conversations with those not yet informed about PCT. Now the explanation.

RM: I completely agree with this Fred! I think referring to Bill’s theory asPerceptual Control Theory has created no end of problems. While it is certainly an accurate term, calling
Bill’s theory PCT gives the wrong impression to many people of what Powers’ theory is about. Indeed, many of the disagreements we have on CSGNet are based on a misunderstanding of what Powers’ theory is about based on the name that has been used to distinguish
it from other applications of control theory to understanding behavior. So from now on I will refer to Powers’ application of control theory as Input Control Theory (IPT).

RM: So long live IPT, the theory formerly known as PCT.

Best

Rick

One of the famous figures in the field of human performance is Robert F. Mager. Mager is noted for giving draft versions of his papers and books to his children to read and then discussing with them their reactions. The end
result has been an unparalleled streak of easily read materials that successful communicated some very complex concepts.

Today, my wife read Rupert’s one-page on PCT. She struggled with “perceptual.’ To her, “perceptionâ€? refers to the way she sees things and her perceptions of this or that are unique to her, a product of her life and its history.
Even after working through some examples (e.g., driving, relocating an afghan, turning up or down the heat), she struggled with “perceptualâ€? and the notion of controlling her perceptions. She said simply that her perceptions are what they are (going back
to the notion of the way she sees things).

However, as we dug deeper into the driving example and the issue of keeping the car in its lane, she understood that she was able to do so on the basis of what she could see, mentioning the alignment between the hood ornament
and the center of the lane. My wife’s definition of “perceptionâ€? is quite consistent with what I know to be the definition of many others. I think its use poses a stumbling block to getting people to understand that behavior is the control of perception.
However, I’m betting that those same people, including my wife, will have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that their behavior controls their inputs. In my wife’s case, she readily agreed that her steering behavior affected what she sees while driving.

I recall reading in PCT materials on more than one occasion, that the basic premise of PCT is that we act to control inputs, not outputs.

Fred Nickols

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences

2nd Floor Zochonis Building

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling
and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery