Is control an illusion?

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.1850 EDT)]

There is an unforgettable scene in _Quo Vadis_ in which Nero (Peter Ustinov)
is riding through the streets of Rome. The Roman people line the route
shouting abuse at him. But their cries blend into a indistinct roar and Nero
smiles benignly, "My people, how they love me!" Nero, of course, is
completely in control of the crowd. What he perceives is exactly what he
wants to perceive.(See Rick's model if you don't understand this.)

Imagine in the moving finger demonstration that the person who is
controlling for distance from Rick's finger notices that Rick is controlling
for moving his finger in circles. She decides to abandon controlling for
distance, but rather to control for a slightly egg-shaped circle. Rick, who
is controlling for controlling her, can maintain the illusion that he is in
control by following her finger, which isn't tracing patterns al that
different from the ones it was tracing before. Who is controlling whom? (See
Ricks spreadsheet model.)

Bruce Gregory

2

[From Rick Marken (980829.1700)]

Bruce Gregory (980829.1850 EDT)--

Imagine in the moving finger demonstration that the person who is
controlling for distance from Rick's finger notices that Rick is
controlling for moving his finger in circles. She decides to
abandon controlling for distance, but rather to control for a
slightly egg-shaped circle.

Once she decides to do that, I am no longer able to control
her finger movements. But that doesn't mean I have stopped trying
to control her finger movements. What has happened is that, when
the victim stopped controlling the distance between her finger and
mine, she broke the feedback connection between my actions (my
finger movements) and the variable I am controlling (the pattern
of victim's finger movements). The situation is exactly the same
as having the brakes go out when you are controlling your downhill
speed; suddenly the actions (pushes on the brake pedal) that used
to have an effect on the controlled variable (speed) no longer
have any effect. This doesn't mean that you have stopped trying
to control your speed -- as evidenced by the futile slamming on
the pedals and the attempts to use other actions to control the
speed, like pulling the emergency brake -- it just means that
you have lost your normal means of controlling speed.

In the finger control situation, when the victim stops controlling
finger-finger distance, I suddently lose my normal means of
controlling the pattern of the victim's finger movements (by moving
my finger). This doesn't mean that I necessarily gave up control
of the victim's finger movements; if I'm serious about getting the
victim's finger to move in a a circular pattern -- as serious as I
would be about slowing the brakeless truck -- I would turn to
alternative means of controlling that variable; I'd grab the finger
and move it or threaten to withold sex or whatever. Most people
will not go very far in their efforts to control the behavior of
other people when the normal means of control fail (especially when
that behavior occurs in a freindly demo) but some people (the mob,
dictators, etc) obviously will.

But just because a person's efforts to control fail (and they
_often_ fail when we are dealing with living control systems)
that doesn't mean that control has stopped or that control of
behavior is impossible in principle.

Rick, who is controlling for controlling her,

More specifically, I'm controlling for the pattern of movement
of her finger.

can maintain the illusion that he is in control by following
her finger

Then I'm no longer controlling her behavior (her pattern of
finger movements; I am controlling a different perception;
a perception of the relationship between my behavior and hers.
Her behavior is now a _disturbance_ to the variable I am
controlling.

Who is controlling whom?

In this situation, I am definitely no longer controlling
her behavior. She can now control mine, if she would like
to. Since I am controlling for mirroring her pattern of
movements, she can use her movements as a disturbance to
make me move as she likes; if she wants to see me make a
circle, all she has to do is make a circle with her finger.
I gave up control of the particular pattern she makes as
soon as I decided to control for mirroring her movements.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

3

[From Bruce Gregory (980829.2130 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980829.1700)

Once she decides to do that, I am no longer able to control
her finger movements. But that doesn't mean I have stopped trying
to control her finger movements. What has happened is that, when
the victim stopped controlling the distance between her finger and
mine, she broke the feedback connection between my actions (my
finger movements) and the variable I am controlling (the pattern
of victim's finger movements). The situation is exactly the same
as having the brakes go out when you are controlling your downhill
speed; suddenly the actions (pushes on the brake pedal) that used
to have an effect on the controlled variable (speed) no longer
have any effect. This doesn't mean that you have stopped trying
to control your speed -- as evidenced by the futile slamming on
the pedals and the attempts to use other actions to control the
speed, like pulling the emergency brake -- it just means that
you have lost your normal means of controlling speed.

So you are saying that you can _try_ to control another person, but you will
only succeed if the other person is controlling perceptions compatible with
your desires or if you are willing to use unlimited force.

Bruce Gregory

4

[From Bruce Abbott (980829.1010 EST)]

Rick Marken (980829.1700) --

I gave up control of the particular pattern she makes as
soon as I decided to control for mirroring her movements.

No, no, no, you can't decide anything. There's no such thing as choice,
remember? Or so I was told . . .

Regards,

Bruce A.

5

[From Rick Marken (980830.0920)]

Me:

I gave up control of the particular pattern she makes as
soon as I decided to control for mirroring her movements.

Bruce Abbott (980829.1010 EST)

No, no, no, you can't decide anything. There's no such thing
as choice, remember?

Actually, I don't remember. Maybe you could point me to the
relevant posts

I seem to recall the discussion of decision and choice being
based on a recognition that people do _appear_ to choose and
decide; choice and decision are real phenomena. I thought the
point of the discussion of decision and choice was that these
phenomena are already explained by control theory. Effortless
decision and choice are simply the actions of higher level
systems specifying the references for the perceptions controlled
by lower level systems; in other words, effortless decison and
choice is hierarchical control. Tough decisions or choices are
symptom's of conflict; there are no "correct" reference settings
available; all "choices" (reference settings) increase error in
some systems while decreasing it in others. Also, we talked about
the fact that you can't really "give a choice" to another person;
"giving a choice" means limiting the perceptions you will allow
that other person to control for.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

6

[From Bruce Gregory (980830.1335)]

Bruce Gregory (980829.2130 EDT)]

So you are saying that you can _try_ to control another person,
but you will
only succeed if the other person is controlling perceptions
compatible with
your desires or if you are willing to use unlimited force.

Since this provoked no response from Rick, I will assume it is not a
disturbance to his efforts to control the meaning of control. Let's apply it
to the example of the state troupers who "control" my speed on turnpike. I
can either drive at a speed lower than 70 mph or risk being given a ticket.
So long as I stay below 70 the state troopers are "in control"--no action on
their part is needed to maintain their perception that everyone is driving
at the appropriate speed. My task is to accomplish _my_ goals without
provoking them to act to achieve theirs. I offer this as a description of
what it means to succeed in any society.

Bruce Gregory

7

[From Bill Powers (980830.1607 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (980829.1010 EST)--

No, no, no, you can't decide anything. There's no such thing as choice,
remember? Or so I was told . . .

It's really too bad, the way you (and others) decide on an interpretation
of certain words, and then simply ignore any clarifications that are issued
afterward. You have decided what I meant, and there is nothing I can do,
apparently, to persuade you that you have misunderstood me.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Bruce Abbott (980830.2220 EST)]

Bill Powers (980830.1607 MDT) --

Bruce Abbott (980829.1010 EST)

No, no, no, you can't decide anything. There's no such thing as choice,
remember? Or so I was told . . .

It's really too bad, the way you (and others) decide on an interpretation
of certain words, and then simply ignore any clarifications that are issued
afterward. You have decided what I meant, and there is nothing I can do,
apparently, to persuade you that you have misunderstood me.

How do you know? So far as I am aware, you haven't tried.

What I remember you saying, by the way, is that "choices and decisions are
dubious phenomena" (your words). So when Rick states "I gave up control of
the particular pattern she makes as soon as I decided to control for
mirroring her movements," his explanation appeals to a dubious phenomenon,
in your view. Indubitably!

Regards,

Bruce

9

[From Bill Powers (980831.0411 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (980830.2220 EST)--

Me:

It's really too bad, the way you (and others) decide on an interpretation
of certain words, and then simply ignore any clarifications that are issued
afterward. You have decided what I meant, and there is nothing I can do,
apparently, to persuade you that you have misunderstood me.

How do you know? So far as I am aware, you haven't tried.

What I remember you saying, by the way, is that "choices and decisions are
dubious phenomena" (your words).

Yes. What is dubious is not that some phenomenon exists, but that it
requires treatment outside the framework of PCT. As Rick explained, what we
call decision-making can be treated as higher-level manipulation of
lower-level reference signals, or as conflicts that require resolution.

So when Rick states "I gave up control of
the particular pattern she makes as soon as I decided to control for
mirroring her movements," his explanation appeals to a dubious phenomenon,
in your view. Indubitably!

Not at all. Rick and I both understand this statement to mean that a
higher-level system (possibly at the program level) turned off the
reference signal for one relationship and turned on a different one. If we
knew what the reasoning process was that lead to this change of output
signals at the program level, we wouldn't need to use the imprecise term,
"decided." "Decide" is a term in the category of "and then a miracle
occurs" (unless, of course, you're prepared to elucidate the mechanism of
decision-making in some way).

Best,

Bill P.