Letter - Wednesday revision

[Dag_Forssell]

[From Dag Forssell (931208 1400)]

Osmo Eerola (931208)

But I have to admit that either I am stupid or have not realized the
unique idea of PCT from the discussion (maybe I have to read the PCT
bible at first).

I think it is a splendid idea to acquaint yourself with BCP so you
will know what you are listening to on this net. Look in the intro
document for additional references. Then you can judge.

Any undergraduate control engineer can generalize the classical
control theory to that level as applied to human behaviour: i.e. one
has a reference value (target, goal experience), towards which the
system (human being) aims by correcting the behavioural acts as far
as the difference of the reference and result is small enough.

Yes! My letter is about a new science of psychology, not of control.

Anyway, I am interested in learning more how to apply the control
theory in management.

My offer in the letter applies. I have sent the article and booklet
to several netters and will be happy to send it to you. Need address.
If you ask for it, you OWE me a commentary (on the net).

Osmo, while I disagree with your comment, I benefit from it. I am
concerned with how people will react to the letter. I deleted the
science claim in two places as unnecessary to make the point. Since
we read and consider the letter ourselves too, we come up with our own
critique and changes. Rick has helped with a couple of suggestions
in addition to yours. Below is a cut and rearranged version. I'll
dedicate it to Tom this time. Better? By that I mean: Do you think
a secretary would pass it on to the adressee or Human Resource person,
and that s/he would inquire with more that .005 probability?

···

-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bourbon, Research Instructor December 8, 1993
Department of Neurosurgery
University of Texas Houston Medical School
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.148
Houston, TX 77030

Dear Mr. Bourbon:

Isn't it strange that in our scientific age we are unable to find
consistent, lasting answers for chronic problems in leadership,
management, education and relationships, yet continue to find such
answers in the physical sciences? Perhaps we are not as scientific in
as many areas as we like to think. This letter introduces a new
answer.

To develop a scientifically valid psychology of the future, which will
be able to show us how to find solutions to our chronic problems, we
must first identify what the central phenomenon of psychology is.
_Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)_ suggests that the phenomenon most
basic to our existence is this: _We act in order to affect what we
experience._ We learn to affect experience to make it come closer to
what we want it to be and keep it that way. We _control_ what happens
to us. Consider why and how you eat, drive your car, argue with your
colleagues, scratch an itch, build your confidence, earn money. To
study this basic phenomenon is to study everything you do, every
moment of every day.

Contemporary psychologies are based on a scientific method that
presumes that each person is _reacting to causes._ The version of the
scientific method used in psychology can easily be shown to be
inadequate to explain the central phenomenon of our existence.

If you agree that _you act in order to affect what you experience,_
100% of the time, you have already grasped the foundation of PCT. As
you learn more, you will quickly see that when you study how people
get along together, it makes a great deal of difference whether you
believe that each person is actively directing his own experiences (or
trying to) or whether each person is responding to stimuli, whether
from the outside or inside.

As a manager, I have tried to understand how and why people behave and
interact, in order to be a better leader. I became aware of PCT
several years ago and have studied it with support from the originator
and a group of researchers who develop and apply it. I have found
that it is clear, provides good direction and leads to mutual respect
and understanding, both at work and at home. I have developed a
training program to teach the theory and show how it can be applied
to improve management practices.

On the back side of this letter, you will find a copy of page 1 and
part of page 2 of an introductory article. We will be pleased to send
you a reprint of the complete article along with a booklet that
describes our training program and suggests ways for you to evaluate
these ideas further, without obligation. Just call or return a copy
of this letter with a note on it.

We would like an opportunity to show you the scientific principles of
perceptual control and how to apply them to improve your
organization's productivity, quality and morale.

   Signed Dag Forssell
------------------------------------------------------

Best, Dag

[Osmo_Eerola]

From Osmo Eerola (931214)

···

-----------------------------------------
to Dag Forssell (931208 1400) et al

My offer in the letter applies. I have sent the article and booklet
to several netters and will be happy to send it to you. Need address.

My address:
Osmo Eerola
Cognitive Neuroscience
Univ. of Turku
Electro-City
SF-20520 Turku
Finland

I deleted the
science claim in two places as unnecessary to make the point. Since

Good!

Do you think
a secretary would pass it on to the adressee or Human Resource person,
and that s/he would inquire with more that .005 probability?

No, I don't. Make it short (2-3 paragraphs). Promise more potential!
It cannot be an introduction to a 'human scientific' journal, but
a sales letter. Hire a good copy writer!
-------------------------------------------------------------
To: Bill Powers (931209.0600 MST)

I agree; you would think that any undergraduate control engineer
would find that PCT makes perfect sense. It should be possible to
explain PCT to such an engineer in about 10 minutes. That is what
I used to think, too, and what I hoped would happen.

Either engineers or PCTers are wrong - or both

has been so completely absorbed that any deviation from it causes
great distress.

Normal situation with new things and new thinking.

As others have pointed out, there is nothing new in PCT with
regard to control theory.

Eureka! That has been my thought, that there is something new.

PCT can live
without the approval and acceptance of the control engineering
community

Yes, it maybe can. But it cannot survive without scientific acceptance -
after that the control eng. soc. will accept it, too.

We are not just rocking the boat;
we are overturning it.

So, that means that you will come up with a 'new science' anyway!

Since you are basically a life scientist, your participation on
this net is at least as important as that of control engineers.

Thanks, I just try to find working solutions to soluble works.
--------------------------------------
To: Rick Marken (931209.1900)

Well, let's see what you think after reading some of the PCT literature.
Try Powers' "Behavior: The control of perception" and "Living control
systems" and my "Mind readings".

Let's see! I have no problem in correcting my behavioral acts if I am wrong!

Your replies to my other statements suggest that you
didn't understand what I said. I suspect that this has more to do
with your lack of familiarity with PCT than with your mastery of
english (which puts a functional monolingual like myself to shame).

Sometimes you PCTers are quite difficult to follow, I have to admit.
Some of the old hats in communicating from Finland is that
you have to manage with 3-4 languages, less than 6 million copes with
my language.
-------------------------------------
to: Mary Powers (9312.10)

We can't give you 5 Science and Nature level publications on PCT
because editors and reviewers don't like, understand, or agree
with it. Various people on the net have files full of weird
rejections.

Never thought that the problem is in the PCT not in Science & Nature?

This mistake has been around for 50 years. Norbert Wiener said
the same thing.

He is in my good company!

A command from outside is not a reference signal.
It is a perception.

Well, lets imagine two families in cold Finland - my and my neighbour's.
Both of them want to adjust the central heating to 20 degree Celcius.
We can say, that the temperature control system (insider) of my family
'perceives' a new reference temperature value, once set by some
outsider (chilly me) to the adjustment knob.
My neighbours' temperature control system (of another manufacturer)
'perceives' similar command via different knobs.
The control systems can 'think' what they want, provided that
they make their jobs.

No two soldiers may
have the same reason for obeying - one may want to please the
sergeant because he hopes to be a sergeant himself some day;
another may simply want to avoid punishment for disobedience,
etc.

Never been in army, Mary? As a second leutnant I know well enough, that
I can put the reference damn well into the heads of the 30 recruits
in a platoon and they can accomplish my reference.
It's their problem how and why they do it. On that general level the
old good control schema works fine - at least as I see it as a proud
trainer.

Living control systems differ from artifical ones in that
their reference signals are inborn, or developed, and are not
accessible from outside the system.

As I said earlier, very few of the behavioral references are really innate.
They are developed and put there by education (seen films on jungle children?)
through very complex psycho-social-economical interactions. The
more complex, generally, the higher ideals we are dealing with.

You can't impose
reference signals - but you can design the environment so that
people can maintain and achieve their reference states by doing
the things you want them to do.

So, I just gave my reference signal at a 'higher' level by creating
a good reference environment for the 'sub-processes' to act.

There is still purposeful action (behavior) to achieve the
reference, and there is still feedback from the current status of
the desired action.

The feedback is from the current state of the desired perception,
not action. Actions vary in order to produce desired perceived
outcomes.

To me this is just the same thing being put other way around. It
does not make any difference on the general level.

If the particular actions being used to achieve a desired
perception meet with disapproval, then those actions, as
perceived, can be changed (if the disapproval matters).

Changing actions, controlling them, what is the difference?
And the final result is exactly the same.

But what is firmly
fixed in the minds of control engineers, biologists, and
psychologists, is the idea that what is being controlled is
output.

If you admit, let's say that the perceptions are the ouputs
of a control system and we are happy all again. In a closed loop,
on the general level, it does not matter how you call the
branches!

Kind regards

Osmo Eerola

[Tom_BOURBON3]

From Tom Bourbon [931214.1358]

From Osmo Eerola (931214)

Osmo, I'm hurt that you did not include my post to you (Tom Bourbon
[931210.1243]; Re: Promoting PCT, Revision at 3) along with your
replies to Mary, Bill and Rick. I wanted to see your answers to my
questions, and your replies to some of my comments.

Osmo:

to: Mary Powers (9312.10)

Mary:

We can't give you 5 Science and Nature level publications on PCT
because editors and reviewers don't like, understand, or agree
with it. Various people on the net have files full of weird
rejections.

Osmo:

Never thought that the problem is in the PCT not in Science & Nature?

Me:
I can't answer for Mary, but my reply would be, "Nope," for reasons I
elaborated in my earlier (as yet unanswered) post.

Mary:

This mistake has been around for 50 years. Norbert Wiener said
the same thing.

Osmo:

He is in my good company!

Me:
Do you mean you believe the two of you have made a mistake (the same one)?
Or do you mean that the two of you said the same thing and you do not
consider it a mistake?

Mary:

A command from outside is not a reference signal.
It is a perception.

Osmo:

Well, lets imagine two families in cold Finland - my and my neighbour's.
Both of them want to adjust the central heating to 20 degree Celcius.
We can say, that the temperature control system (insider) of my family
'perceives' a new reference temperature value, once set by some
outsider (chilly me) to the adjustment knob.
My neighbours' temperature control system (of another manufacturer)
'perceives' similar command via different knobs.
The control systems can 'think' what they want, provided that
they make their jobs.

Me:
I don't follow your discussion. Can you clarify how you think this is an
example of a refeence signal being set from outside?

Mary:

No two soldiers may
have the same reason for obeying - one may want to please the
sergeant because he hopes to be a sergeant himself some day;
another may simply want to avoid punishment for disobedience,
etc.

Osmo:

Never been in army, Mary? As a second leutnant I know well enough, that
I can put the reference damn well into the heads of the 30 recruits
in a platoon and they can accomplish my reference.
It's their problem how and why they do it. On that general level the
old good control schema works fine - at least as I see it as a proud
trainer.

Me:
Like Rick, I would like to know the secret of how you achieve your implants.
Try as I might, I have never succeeded in putting a refeence signal into
someone's head. Maybe that is why I gravitated from a department of
psychology to one of neurosurgery -- an attempt to satisfy my deep seated,
but frustrated, desire to discover a way to implant reference signals. :-))

Mary:

Living control systems differ from artifical ones in that
their reference signals are inborn, or developed, and are not
accessible from outside the system.

Osmo:

As I said earlier, very few of the behavioral references are really innate.
They are developed and put there by education (seen films on jungle children?)
through very complex psycho-social-economical interactions. The
more complex, generally, the higher ideals we are dealing with.

Me:
To me, this is a surprising collection of facts. For one thing, I do not
recall seeing Mary say that there are references for behavior; that would be
a rather strange reading of PCT. Could you clarify what Mary said that
lead you to think that? Also, could you elaborate a little on how
education puts reference signals into people -- a topic related to your
remarks above concerning you, the trainer, putting them into the heads of
your soldiers. And what do you think of what PCTers often call the
"intrinsic (biologically-given) reference signals" we all seem to share?

Mary:

You can't impose
reference signals - but you can design the environment so that
people can maintain and achieve their reference states by doing
the things you want them to do.

Osmo:

So, I just gave my reference signal at a 'higher' level by creating
a good reference environment for the 'sub-processes' to act.

Me:
Fine. And when you have done that, Mary's comments will still apply. We
can no more insert high-level reference signals than we can low-level ones
-- not "directly," as you are saying we can. Or can we? Can you explain
how that is done?

Mary:

If the particular actions being used to achieve a desired
perception meet with disapproval, then those actions, as
perceived, can be changed (if the disapproval matters).

Osmo:

Changing actions, controlling them, what is the difference?
And the final result is exactly the same.

Me:
What's the difference? Oh, just the one between fire and ice, or hard and
soft. And the result is nowhere near the same -- not if you keep in
mind the several posts in which people have carefully and patiently
explained to you what PCT says about the difference. Of course, if you
forget about those posts, then I am sure you might think there is no
difference.

Mary:

But what is firmly
fixed in the minds of control engineers, biologists, and
psychologists, is the idea that what is being controlled is
output.

Osmo:

If you admit, let's say that the perceptions are the ouputs
of a control system and we are happy all again. In a closed loop,
on the general level, it does not matter how you call the
branches!

Me:
See all of the earlier posts, with the careful accounts of why in PCT we
draw the distinctions where we do, then let us know if it doesn't matter.

As you said in one of your earlier posts, "Being a little aggressive you get
more action." You are true to your code!

Until later,

Tom