Learn from the "Behavior Is Control " Spreadsheet (was Re: Comman and Control)

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.28.1400)]

···

Martin Taylor (2015.10.28.08.54)–

            BH: So

if you and Rick don’t understand difference between
»Behavior is Control« and »Behavior : The Control of
perception«, you wil have to read B:CP again to
understand PCT.

MT: I'm sorry you didn't understand my attempt to point out one subtlety

of the English language that is the reason for an arcane dispute
between Rick and me.

RM: The dispute is not arcane but fundamental. According to you, “behavior” refers to “…the means by which the controller acts on the environment to influence the perception”. This is not the “behavior” Bill was talking about in the section of LCS I (pp. 171-176) that I was hoping you and others would read. Nor is it the “behavior” that is being referred to by behavioral scientists. As Bill points out in that section of LCS I, the events we call “behavior” are consequences of acts on the environment (the acts you call “behavior”). So “Opening the Car Door” is a description of a consequence of the muscle force “acts” (combined with environmental forces) that influence the angle of the door relative to the car. By your definition the only “behavior” that is occurring when a person opens a car door is the muscle force that influences this result.

RM: Another problem with defining “behavior” as you do is that it treats “behavior” as a description of a component of a theory (PCT) rather than as a description of the phenomenon that the theory is meant to explain. Saying that “behavior” refers to the actions that influence a perception is not an observation because we can’t see that perceptions are being influenced; so your definition of “behavior” is theoretical rather than objective. This is a particular problem when the theory that is the basis of your definition of “behavior” is PCT. This is because, according to PCT it is not only “acts on the environment” that are seen as “behavior”; the reference states of the environmental consequences of those acts – what are called “controlled quantities” in PCT – are also seen as “behavior”. So, as noted above, the varying reference state of the angle of the door (the quantity controlled when opening the door) is seen as the behavior “opening then door” just as much as are the muscle forces (pushing and pulling) that influence this result.

RM: Indeed, that’s the point of the “Behavior as Control” (now re-dubbed the Behavior Is Control") spreadsheet. It shows that the words that describe “behaviors”, like “Opening a door” or “Pulling on the door”, are referring to both controlled variables (and their associated reference states) and the means used to achieve them (the latter being the only aspect of behavior that you want to refer to as “behavior”).

RM: The point of the spreadsheet is to give a theory free description of various activities that are called "behavior’s. The goal is to familiarize people with the phenomenon that PCT was developed to explain – control. Powers brilliant analysis on pp. 171-176 of LCS I shows that the basic subject matter of the behavioral sciences – “behavior” – is not what it has been thought to be. It is not an emitted output; it is not a caused action; it is not a caused consequences of actions; it is not a “show put on for the benefit of an observer”. It is control.

RM: Behavior IS control because it can be seen to involve maintaining variables is reference states by acting appropriately (using the necessary means) to produce this result in the face of disturbances. There is no theory needed to see that behavior is control. The fact that a particular behavior is control can be determined experimentally (using the Test) and objectively defined in terms of observable relationships between variables. But you can also get a good feel for the idea that behavior is control by reading pp. 171-176 in LCS I, carefully studying Table 1 on p 172 and, most important, trying to add your own examples of behavior to my expansion of Table 1, p 172 as the “Behavior Is Control” spreadsheet.

RM: I think it’s very important to understand that behavior is control, in fact, not just in theory, because I think this is where PCT and all other theories of behavior are talking past each other. PCT is the only theory that aims to explain behavior as what it is: a process of control. In order to be a serious student of PCT one has to know that the “behavior” that PCT aims to explain is not the “behavior” that all other theories in the behavioral sciences are trying to explain. PCT explains behavior as control; all other theories explain behavior as caused output.

RM: So I highly recommend adding some behaviors to the “Behavior is Control” spreadsheet and analyzing them into controlled variables, reference states, means and disturbances to get a feeling for the phenomenon that PCT explains.

RM: Remember, phenomena phirst!!

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2015.10.29.00.05]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.28.1400)]

I'm impressed by the way you can redefine what I say so as to be

able to make a long posting to show I am wrong. It’s a well
developed skill, but not, I think, one well used to advance the
science of PCT.

And so, on a redefinition of what I say, you can hang an essay.

Martin

···

            Martin Taylor

(2015.10.28.08.54)–

              BH:

So if you and Rick don’t understand difference between
»Behavior is Control« and »Behavior : The Control of
perception«, you wil have to read B:CP again to
understand PCT.

            MT: I'm sorry you didn't understand my attempt to point

out one subtlety of the English language that is the
reason for an arcane dispute between Rick and me.

          RM: The dispute is not arcane but fundamental.

According to you, “behavior” refers to “…the means by
which the controller acts on the environment to influence
the perception”. This is not the “behavior” Bill was
talking about in the section of LCS I (pp. 171-176) that I
was hoping you and others would read. Nor is it the
“behavior” that is being referred to by behavioral
scientists. As Bill points out in that section of LCS I,
the events we call “behavior” are consequences of
acts on the environment (the acts you call “behavior”). So
“Opening the Car Door” is a description of a consequence
of the muscle force “acts” (combined with environmental
forces) that influence the angle of the door relative to
the car. By your definition the only “behavior” that is
occurring when a person opens a car door is the muscle
force that influences this result.

          RM: Another problem with defining "behavior" as you do

is that it treats “behavior” as a description of a
component of a theory (PCT) rather than as a description
of the phenomenon that the theory is meant to explain.
Saying that “behavior” refers to the actions that
influence a perception is not an observation because we
can’t see that perceptions are being influenced; so your
definition of “behavior” is theoretical rather than
objective. This is a particular problem when the theory
that is the basis of your definition of “behavior” is PCT.
This is because, according to PCT it is not only “acts on
the environment” that are seen as “behavior”; the
reference states of the environmental consequences of
those acts – what are called “controlled quantities” in
PCT – are also seen as “behavior”. So, as noted above,
the varying reference state of the angle of the door (the
quantity controlled when opening the door) is seen as the
behavior “opening then door” just as much as are the
muscle forces (pushing and pulling) that influence this
result.

          RM: Indeed, that's the point of the "Behavior as

Control" (now re-dubbed the Behavior Is Control")
spreadsheet. It shows that the words that describe
“behaviors”, like “Opening a door” or “Pulling on the
door”, are referring to both controlled variables (and
their associated reference states) and the means used to
achieve them (the latter being the only aspect of behavior
that you want to refer to as “behavior”).

RM: The point of the spreadsheet is to give a * theory
free* description of various activities that are
called "behavior’s. The goal is to familiarize people with
the phenomenon that PCT was developed to explain –
control. Powers brilliant analysis on pp. 171-176 of LCS I
shows that the basic subject matter of the behavioral
sciences – “behavior” – is not what it has been thought
to be. It is not an emitted output; it is not a caused
action; it is not a caused consequences of actions; it is
not a “show put on for the benefit of an observer”. It is
control.

          RM: Behavior IS control because it can be seen to

involve maintaining variables is ** reference
states** by acting appropriately (using the necessary
means) to produce this result in the face of disturbances .
There is no theory needed to see that behavior is control.
The fact that a particular behavior is control can be
determined experimentally (using the Test) and objectively
defined in terms of observable relationships between
variables. But you can also get a good feel for the idea
that behavior is control by reading pp. 171-176 in LCS I,
carefully studying Table 1 on p 172 and, most important,
trying to add your own examples of behavior to my
expansion of Table 1, p 172 as the “Behavior Is Control”
spreadsheet.

          RM: I think it's very important to understand that

behavior is control, in fact, not just in theory, because
I think this is where PCT and all other theories of
behavior are talking past each other. PCT is the only
theory that aims to explain behavior as what it is: a
process of control. In order to be a serious student of
PCT one has to know that the “behavior” that PCT aims to
explain is not the “behavior” that all other theories in
the behavioral sciences are trying to explain. PCT
explains behavior as control; all other theories explain
behavior as caused output.

          RM: So I highly recommend adding some behaviors to the

“Behavior is Control” spreadsheet and analyzing them into
controlled variables, reference states, means and
disturbances to get a feeling for the phenomenon that PCT
explains.

RM: Remember, phenomena phirst!!

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com

                    Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=HcmbREU04_H7jT6DK0hRlsYPy-8xedHwbI4YsdekJQg&s=_YfxVwpfeQL4G-tyIekRDWQYqXmjK63jNqtTSG8V2vI&e=). 
                      Now available from Amazon or Barnes &

Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.29.1410)]

···

Martin Taylor (2015.10.29.00.05)

MT: And so, on a redefinition of what I say, you can hang an essay.

RM: Did you not define behavior as"…the means by which the controller acts on the environment to influence the perception"? I was quoting what you said in Martin Taylor (2015.10.28.08.54). Perhaps I should have given the citation but thought it would have been clear to you that it was your definition of behavior since you said it. The full quote from that post of yours, by the way, is: “My “behaviour” is not control, but is the means by which the controller acts on the environment to influence the perception.” My essay was “hung” on explaining why that definition of behavior has nothing to do with “behavior” as the term is used in psychology or PCT (particularly in “Behavior: The Control of Perception”).

Best

Rick

RM: The dispute is not arcane but fundamental. According to you, “behavior” refers to “…the means by which the controller acts on the environment to influence the perception”. This is not the “behavior” Bill was talking about in the section of LCS I (pp. 171-176) that I was hoping you and others would read. Nor is it the “behavior” that is being referred to by behavioral scientists. As Bill points out in that section of LCS I, the events we call “behavior” are consequences of acts on the environment (the acts you call “behavior”). So “Opening the Car Door” is a description of a consequence of the muscle force “acts” (combined with environmental forces) that influence the angle of the door relative to the car. By your definition the only “behavior” that is occurring when a person opens a car door is the muscle force that influences this result.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2015.10.29.00.05]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.28.1400)]

I'm impressed by the way you can redefine what I say so as to be

able to make a long posting to show I am wrong. It’s a well
developed skill, but not, I think, one well used to advance the
science of PCT.

And so, on a redefinition of what I say, you can hang an essay.



Martin

–

            Martin Taylor

(2015.10.28.08.54)–

              BH:

So if you and Rick don’t understand difference between
»Behavior is Control« and »Behavior : The Control of
perception«, you wil have to read B:CP again to
understand PCT.

            MT: I'm sorry you didn't understand my attempt to point

out one subtlety of the English language that is the
reason for an arcane dispute between Rick and me.

          RM: The dispute is not arcane but fundamental.

According to you, “behavior” refers to “…the means by
which the controller acts on the environment to influence
the perception”. This is not the “behavior” Bill was
talking about in the section of LCS I (pp. 171-176) that I
was hoping you and others would read. Nor is it the
“behavior” that is being referred to by behavioral
scientists. As Bill points out in that section of LCS I,
the events we call “behavior” are consequences of
acts on the environment (the acts you call “behavior”). So
“Opening the Car Door” is a description of a consequence
of the muscle force “acts” (combined with environmental
forces) that influence the angle of the door relative to
the car. By your definition the only “behavior” that is
occurring when a person opens a car door is the muscle
force that influences this result.

          RM: Another problem with defining "behavior" as you do

is that it treats “behavior” as a description of a
component of a theory (PCT) rather than as a description
of the phenomenon that the theory is meant to explain.
Saying that “behavior” refers to the actions that
influence a perception is not an observation because we
can’t see that perceptions are being influenced; so your
definition of “behavior” is theoretical rather than
objective. This is a particular problem when the theory
that is the basis of your definition of “behavior” is PCT.
This is because, according to PCT it is not only “acts on
the environment” that are seen as “behavior”; the
reference states of the environmental consequences of
those acts – what are called “controlled quantities” in
PCT – are also seen as “behavior”. So, as noted above,
the varying reference state of the angle of the door (the
quantity controlled when opening the door) is seen as the
behavior “opening then door” just as much as are the
muscle forces (pushing and pulling) that influence this
result.

          RM: Indeed, that's the point of the "Behavior as

Control" (now re-dubbed the Behavior Is Control")
spreadsheet. It shows that the words that describe
“behaviors”, like “Opening a door” or “Pulling on the
door”, are referring to both controlled variables (and
their associated reference states) and the means used to
achieve them (the latter being the only aspect of behavior
that you want to refer to as “behavior”).

RM: The point of the spreadsheet is to give a * theory
free* description of various activities that are
called "behavior’s. The goal is to familiarize people with
the phenomenon that PCT was developed to explain –
control. Powers brilliant analysis on pp. 171-176 of LCS I
shows that the basic subject matter of the behavioral
sciences – “behavior” – is not what it has been thought
to be. It is not an emitted output; it is not a caused
action; it is not a caused consequences of actions; it is
not a “show put on for the benefit of an observer”. It is
control.

          RM: Behavior IS control because it can be seen to

involve maintaining variables is ** reference
states** by acting appropriately (using the necessary
means) to produce this result in the face of disturbances .
There is no theory needed to see that behavior is control.
The fact that a particular behavior is control can be
determined experimentally (using the Test) and objectively
defined in terms of observable relationships between
variables. But you can also get a good feel for the idea
that behavior is control by reading pp. 171-176 in LCS I,
carefully studying Table 1 on p 172 and, most important,
trying to add your own examples of behavior to my
expansion of Table 1, p 172 as the “Behavior Is Control”
spreadsheet.

          RM: I think it's very important to understand that

behavior is control, in fact, not just in theory, because
I think this is where PCT and all other theories of
behavior are talking past each other. PCT is the only
theory that aims to explain behavior as what it is: a
process of control. In order to be a serious student of
PCT one has to know that the “behavior” that PCT aims to
explain is not the “behavior” that all other theories in
the behavioral sciences are trying to explain. PCT
explains behavior as control; all other theories explain
behavior as caused output.

          RM: So I highly recommend adding some behaviors to the

“Behavior is Control” spreadsheet and analyzing them into
controlled variables, reference states, means and
disturbances to get a feeling for the phenomenon that PCT
explains.

RM: Remember, phenomena phirst!!

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com

                    Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=HcmbREU04_H7jT6DK0hRlsYPy-8xedHwbI4YsdekJQg&s=_YfxVwpfeQL4G-tyIekRDWQYqXmjK63jNqtTSG8V2vI&e=). 
                      Now available from Amazon or Barnes &

Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2015.10.29.18.30]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.29.1410)]

I plead guilty of using the word "means" differently from the way it

is used in Powers’s table in which he has columns “Behaviour” and
“Means”, and thereby confusing the discussion.

Sorry about that, but I think my intended meaning should have been

clear from my:

"What I'm saying is that in my usage, every controlled perception is

controlled by means of the influence the behaviour has on the
perception. We in Canada just had a Federal Election. My “behaviour”
in that context was to go and vote, to influence my perception of
who is the governing party. My behaviour in respect of controlling
my perception of the governing party was not walking to the polling
station, or manipulating a pencil. It was voting."

Martin

···

            Martin Taylor

(2015.10.29.00.05)

            MT: And so, on a redefinition of what I say, you can

hang an essay.

          RM:  Did you not define behavior as"...the means by

which the controller acts on the environment to influence
the perception"? I was quoting what you said in Martin Taylor
(2015.10.28.08.54). Perhaps I should have given the
citation but thought it would have been clear to you
that it was your definition of behavior since you said
it. The full quote from that post of yours, by the way, is: " My
“behaviour” is not control, but is the means by which
the controller acts on the environment to influence the
perception." My essay was “hung” on explaining why that
definition of behavior has nothing to do with “behavior”
as the term is used in psychology or PCT (particularly
in “Behavior: The Control of Perception”).

                    RM: The dispute is not

arcane but fundamental. According to you,
“behavior” refers to “…the means by which the
controller acts on the environment to influence
the perception”. This is not the “behavior” Bill
was talking about in the section of LCS I (pp.
171-176) that I was hoping you and others would
read. Nor is it the “behavior” that is being
referred to by behavioral scientists. As Bill
points out in that section of LCS I, the events
we call “behavior” are consequences of
acts on the environment (the acts you call
“behavior”). So “Opening the Car Door” is a
description of a consequence of the muscle force
“acts” (combined with environmental forces) that
influence the angle of the door relative to the
car. By your definition the only “behavior” that
is occurring when a person opens a car door is
the muscle force that influences this result.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.29.1610)]

···

Martin Taylor (2015.10.29.18.30)–

MT: I plead guilty of using the word "means" differently from the way it

is used in Powers’s table in which he has columns “Behaviour” and
“Means”, and thereby confusing the discussion.

MT: Sorry about that, but I think my intended meaning should have been

clear from my:

MT: "What I'm saying is that in my usage, every controlled perception is

controlled by means of the influence the behaviour has on the
perception.

RM: You are still identifying “behaviour” (have it your way;-) only with the means for influencing a controlled variable (not a controlled perception; that’s a theoretical concept and we’re trying to be objective here). My “essay” hung on the fact that you description of behaviour leaves out the fundamentally important fact that the events that we call behaviour include not only the means that influence a controlled variable but also the controlled variable itself and, of course, its reference state. All these variables – means, CV and reference state – are implicitly included when we describe tbehaviour as control.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

          RM:  Did you not define behavior as"...the means by

which the controller acts on the environment to influence
the perception"?..