[From Fred Nickols (990101.1545 EST)]--
Key Points from Chapter 5 - The Control-system Unit of Organization
"System models are common in engineering but not in behavioral or social
science. Outside of engineering the term system often appears to mean a
network of disembodied relationships that link behaving entities together,
whereas an engineer would probably translate the term to mean a diagram of
the insides of a behaving entity." (p. 57)
For what it's worth, Bill, a technician would probably take the same view
as an engineer. I recall still, when being trained as an organization
development specialist in the early 1970s, observing that there were no
"schematics" of the organizations we were to develop. And so, in true
technician fashion, I set out to develop them.
"If it appears that the subject's action stabilize a particular
relationship between spot and target, then the cause lies in the subject,
not in the spot or the target." (p.59)
I think the statement above is really profound and I can't for the life of
me figure out how a radical behaviorist would handle it.
"The most important explanatory feature is the reference signal, because
that is what accounts for the reference condition of the controlled
quantity. Without the model and its reference signal, there is no way at
all to account for the reference condition. One can only observe its
apparent existence.
"This reference condition is exactly what is meant by a goal, and the
fact that it is not connected to any observable physical phenomenon is what
has caused behaviorists to reject the notion of goal-directed behavior."
(p.65)
"There is a difference, however, between the customary idea of a goal and
the understanding that comes from the control-system model. It is
customarily [sic] to think of a goal as something one sets and then slowly
works toward, perhaps never coming close to achieving it. A control system
could operate that way--the reference signal could possibly be set at a
magnitude to which no available output could bring the perceptual
signal--but in that case the control system would be operating far outside
the control range, and could not perform very well, if at all. It would
simply produce maximum output all of the time regardless of what the
environment did, like a robot toy "walking" with its face against the wall.
Goals can be defined as unreachable, but to do so negates all the fine
organization of the brain." (pp.65-66)
Leading Questions - Chapter 5
1. Will a control system that is 1,000 times as sensitive as another
control system respond to a given disturbance 1,000 times as strongly?
Assume that the less sensitive system has a loop amplification factor of 10
(see pp.63-64).
No, it won't respond 1,000 times as strongly; it will respond more
precisely or, as you state, control will get tighter. If I understand the
math on pages 63-64, you actually give the quantitative answer to the
problem posed in question one. For the system of lesser sensitivity, a
disturbance of 10 pounds will call forth a countereffort of 9.1 pounds. A
system that is 1,000 times more sensitive would have a loop gain of 10,000
and you give the countereffort for such a system as 9.999 pounds.
2. The word "level" in reference level means amount or degree or state of
some given perception. How would you describe your reference level for the
distance between your eyes and this page?
My initial reaction is to describe it as "printed text on page is in
focus." To an observer, including myself, given the way the optometrist
has ground my bi-focals, that would equate to a distance of 12-15 inches.
3. When you unlock a door, what is the reference level for the relationship
between key and keyhole? Is that relationship capable of smooth variation?
The reference level, as I would describe it, is that the key is fully and
firmly inserted in the keyhole. "Smooth variation" in that relationship
occurs in the act of inserting and extracting the key, so I would answer
the second question, "Yes."
4. When you want to hear some music, is your reference level for that
perception set high (violent, piercing, overhwhelming perception of music)
or low (barely audible perception of music) or somewhere between? Can you
think of instances of this whole range of reference levels for "hearing
music" evidence [sic] by other people's behavior?"
Usually, my reference level is somewhere between. On occasion it is high
and on occasion it is low. Sterotypical answers to your second question
might include teen-agers blasting rock and roll on their stereos and lovers
with soft, romantic music in the background. Muzak is a case in point of
the latter, especially on elevators.
5. Can you cause tea to exceed your reference level for sweetness by adding
sugar to it?
Hmm. This is a tricky one. I can sweeten tea to my liking and thus match
that reference level. I can add considerably more sugar and exceed the
level of sweetness I prefer but, in so doing, have caused it to satisfy a
new reference level, namely, "a lot sweeter than I normally take it." So,
my answer to your question is yes, no and maybe. 
6. What is your reference level for the state of another person's
attentiveness when you are talking? How do you correct errors?
My reference level depends on why I'm talking, about what, and to whom.
When addressing a group, I have one reference level; when issuing task
instructions, I have another; and when chatting at lunch, yet a third.
Generally speaking, I don't really control for attentiveness but for the
appearance of attentiveness, which I infer from obervable phenomena such as
eye contact, other nonverbals, questions, note-taking, etc. I correct
errors (or maintain attentiveness) by way of asking questions, referring
questions asked to others present, by varying my pace of delivery, etc.
I also "correct errors" by making statements such as, "Excuse me, let me
finish what I was saying, please." The possibilities are endless (which is
a figure of speech, of course).
7. Someone says, "You're not listening to me." If that statement is false,
what error is created, and relative to what reference level of perception?
If the statement is true, what error, etc? If you respond at all, does
that not imply an error?
If the statement is false, a couple of quick possibilities. The person has
misread my paying attention cues or the person has detected something
indicating I don't understand what has been said and has jumped to my not
paying attention as the cause or explanation. In either case, for me, the
error that has been created is an error in the quality of communications
and any action on my part will likely be aimed at clearing up what is a
misunderstanding.
If the statement is true, a couple of different possibilities. I've been
"caught" so to speak, that is, feigning attention but not successfully or I
was distracted or drifting off down other thought avenues. If I've been
"caught," I'll likely focus myself (for a while at least). If I've been
drifting off or distracted, I'll make a conscious effort to pay attention.
I think any time you're being active (overtly or covertly), you're
operating on errors. No error, no response, is the way I understand PCT.
However, just as a gun mount oscillates or "hunts" around the point of
correspondence, I don't think perceptions are ever perfectly aligned with
reference levels and then stay that way. We human beings are always
oscillating or hunting around the point of correspondence between our
perceptions and our reference conditions. However, in the case you offer
up, the "error" created for many members of our culture would be one of
being rude or disrespectful and most of us would act to correct that,
perhaps by apologizing and almost certainly by changing our outwardly
observable behavior.
8. Why is a statement like "Egg production was much less in 1920 than it is
today" a conversation stopper? Does it call for any response at all?
Well, the fact that you see it as a conversation stopper and I don't,
probably explains a lot about me. I don't see why it's a conversation
stopper. It would and did in fact arouse my curiosity. Why, I would want
to know, was that comment made? What prompted offering up that tidbit of
information? Is it even true? I don't know if it calls for a response or
not but it sure triggered a number of reactions on my part. You'll have to
explain this one to me.
9. Does the term error in feedback theory imply a value judgment? What
would happen if all error signals were arbitrarily and permanently set to
zero in the brain?
Error, as you note in Chapter 5 doesn't imply a value judgment; however,
the establishment of at least some reference conditions implies some value
judgments or preferences. I assume that if all error signals were set to
zero that we'd be dead in short order. All internal systems would stop.
10. Can your sense of self-esteem be a controlled quantity? What are some
means of controlling it?
I certainly believe it can and, for most people, is a controlled quantity.
The means of controlling it are words and deeds, the things we say and do,
as well as the things we encourage, accept, oppose, tolerate, resist, and
fight. "Self-esteem" as a reference signal, the neural current thing, is
probably a computed signal, the result of many smaller signals having to do
with components of self-esteem (e.g., integrity, honesty, fairness, candor,
courage, etc.). These, too exist as reference conditions and have
corresponding reference signals that are probably in turn made up of still
finer-grained reference conditions and corresponding signals. All this
leads quickly to a gazillion error signals that are impossible to sort out
in anything remotely resembling a rational, analytical fashion and so I,
like countless other human beings, simply go around behaving and trying to
make the best of things.
Gee, you lucky list members, I have five chapters under my belt and only 12
more to go. The end of your agony is at hand. Rejoice.
And have a happy, prosperous and productive New Year...
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095