Love in the Time of PCT

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980201.2200)]

Timothy Perper (980201) --

Welcome. And thanks for suggesting a discussion of the
relationship between PCT and love, my too favorite subjects;-)

For courtship, we need to ask, I think, not how the organism stays
on target, but how it CHANGES its own behavior during an observable
temporal sequence of interaction with another organism.

I think we have to ask both. First, of course, we have to find
out what a person's targets (reference states of controlled
perceptions) are during "courtship". In order to keep one's
perceptions "on target' (at the reference level) it is typically
necessary to _change_ one's behavior (actions) to protect those
perceptions from disturbance; lovers must change their actions
in order to keep perceiving whatever it is they want to be
perceiving. One perception a fellow might be controlling for
during courtship, for example, might be the sound of his
beloved's laughter. In order to get this perception the fellow
may have to change what he says (and does) considerably from one
time to the next; the means used to get the target perception
(laughter) may vary (change) from time to time but the target
remains the same.

I will suggest that those changes are themselves regulated.

In PCT there is a hierarchical relationship between targets
(reference perceptions) and the means used to achieve and
maintain them. A target at one level (such as the reference for
the perception of laughter) is the means to achieve a still
higher level target (such as perceiving that a particular
relationship -- an intimate one -- exists between oneself and
the beloved). The lower level changes that are used to keep
higher level perceptions on target are not really "regulated"
(that ism they are not _controlled_ by the higher level systems);
but these changes are caused by the higher level systems that
cause them as the means of keeping their perceptions under control.

I have made extensive observations of sequences of behavior
between men and women (the "courtship sequence"), the outcomes
of which a skilled observer can predict ahead of time.

It sounds like these "outcomes" of the courtship sesuences are
variables (like "marital state") that are being controlled for by
the parties involved in the process. If so, they should be very
predictable if 1) the observer of the courtship knows what these
controlled variables are and 2) if the parties to the courtship
are relatively skilled at controlling these variables.

(One component of the sequence will be familiar to psychotherapists
who remember Scheflen's paper on quasi-courtship behavior -- that's
body movement synchronization.

PCT would ask whether this is a controlled variable or a side effect
of control of some other variable (such as "staying close").

my own version of the observed [courtship] sequence goes look,
approach, talk, turn, touch, synchronize body movements, and,
in greater privacy, caress, kiss, and intercourse.

It tends to go in the opposite direction after you've been
married for a few decades;-)

People who describe these events do NOT usually speak of control

People who describe behavior in general do not usually speak of
control. But, in fact, control must be involved or these events
would rarely (if ever) repeat. Control is involved in each
of the arousal steps you describe; looking involves seeing the
moving "target" that is the loved one; approaching requires
moving across unpredictable terrain to the loved on, etc.
In all cases, the event is made to happen _consistently_ in
the face of unpredictable (and usually undetectable) distubances;
it's all control.

One can describe such things [as making love] in many ways, but
I don't think I've ever heard someone say it's like driving
a car.

Then you've never driven a 5 speed Corvette convertable down
Pacific Coast Highway on a clear, sunny day when there are
hardly any other cars on the road;-)

Being in love is a nice example of how an entire world view is
redefined! But I don't know how to model the sequence with ideas
that depend only on tracking a target

Keeping a cursor on target is not a very important perception to
most people, so doing it well (being in control of the cursor) is
not much of a high. Being in love is like controlling a cursor
that matters _big time_; it's like keeping one's figure skating
routine (the "cursor") _on target_ in the finals of the Olympics
(I think you'll see some ecstasy when thet happens next week). I
think the ecstasy of love comes from the thrill of having a most
important cursor (the loved one) "on target" (smiling, married,
bedded -- that is, at whatever reference level one wants it at).

I have done extensive computer simulations of courtship interactions.

Excellent! Are these models control models?

The exact details are less important than a crucial observation:
upward escalation is achieved only if the entities are
endowed with certain sorts of transfer function.

I'd like to see the models _and_ the data the models are designed
to explain. I think there might be aspects of these courtship
interactions that you might be ignoring if you are not considering
the possibilitiy the the parties to the courtship are control
systems. In particular, you may be ignoring the possibility that
the behavior you see is a side effect of each party's efforts to
control his or her own perceptions. If the parties are control
systems, then you have to test to determine what variables are being
controlled in a "courtship". You can't tell what variables are
being controlled by just looking at courtship behavior.

But in escalation, the state of the organism trends upward
ultimately towards what the participants call "love." That is
the sort of phenomenon I'm asking about. It seems to involve
more than merely tracking a target.

Yes. A lot of behavior seems to involve more than control; but
so far, the behavior we've studied involves nothing more than
the control of perceptions. Sometimes it involves control of
very complex perceptions; and sometimes it involves control
of very simple perceptions using complex means that make it look
like behavior is complex. So far it looks like behavior, simple
and complex, is the control of perception. But it would be nice
to see any evidence that suggests that this is _not_ the case.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Timothy_Perper_Marth]

From Tim Perper:

Rick has made some very intriguing comments, and I've inserted some
thoughts below.

[From Rick Marken (980201.2200)]

Timothy Perper (980201) --

Welcome. And thanks for suggesting a discussion of the
relationship between PCT and love, my too favorite subjects;-)

TP: Thank you!

TP
For courtship, we need to ask, I think, not how the organism stays
on target, but how it CHANGES its own behavior during an observable
temporal sequence of interaction with another organism.

RM
I think we have to ask both. First, of course, we have to find
out what a person's targets (reference states of controlled
perceptions) are during "courtship". In order to keep one's
perceptions "on target' (at the reference level) it is typically
necessary to _change_ one's behavior (actions) to protect those
perceptions from disturbance; lovers must change their actions
in order to keep perceiving whatever it is they want to be
perceiving. One perception a fellow might be controlling for
during courtship, for example, might be the sound of his
beloved's laughter. In order to get this perception the fellow
may have to change what he says (and does) considerably from one
time to the next; the means used to get the target perception
(laughter) may vary (change) from time to time but the target
remains the same.

TP: Yes, I agree that we need to ask both. I was thinking of something
else, which perhaps I should have explained. (Actually, I realized this
after I had sent the posting!)

Let's consider the two people sitting facing each other at a restaurant
table. She has her hand on the table halfway between them. Now, we observe
him reaching out his hand and touching her.

At the level of kinesiology, we could (one assumes) develop a reasonable
description of what he did and how. The reach and touch involves eye-hand
coordination, muscle movements, spinal outflows, and a whole slew of
related activities, kept on target, we may assume through various feedback
mechanisms that keep perceptions at reference levels. For brevity, call
this description #1a.

Now we observe him in a laboratory reaching for a ping-pong ball on a
table. *At the level of kinesiology* I think we can assume that we'd be
able to produce a description #1b that would be very similar to description
#1a. In plain English, reaching is reaching, regardless of what he's
reaching *for*.

One commonality between descriptions #1a and #1b is that each involves
keeping on target, Yet it is obvious that although these descriptions are
similar, if not identical, something about the two situations is very
different. I was taking Martin Taylor's description of the gunnery robot
perhaps more narrowly than he intended, as saying that we have an
"adequate" description of the event by referring to the kinesiological
level of eye-hand coordination, muscle control, and so forth.

So, I was asking -- and I think this is what you are also saying -- if we
don't need to consider *higher* level control systems that embed the
kinesiology and ITS control systems. Here, though, matters become murkier,
and it's very tempting to talk vaguely about motivations and meaning. I'd
like to see more done with those higher level control systems, so that we
can replace hand-waving about "motivation" with some detailed mechanisms,
description #2, if you will.

As you suggest, in the context of reaching for one's beloved's hand, we
have different higher level systems operating than in reaching for a
ping-pong ball on a lab table. One way they differ can be seen if the
ping-pong ball starts to move: various tracking mechanisms are activated
that produce changes in the kinesiology of the reach. Still other control
systems remain quiet (in fact, they're asleep, if I may use the
expression).

But if it is the *woman* who moves her hand, then suddenly those other
control systems wake up. Is she moving her hand toward me or away? The
question is significant not solely for the purpose of controlling the
kinesiology, but because it makes a BIG difference if she is pulling back
or reaching towards ME. The first makes me unhappy and may stop my reach
altogether, and may even convince me that she doesn't like me, doesn't love
me, is angry, and so on. But if she is moving her hand *towards* me, then
it is enormously different. Then I might even activate systems that cause
*other* kinesiological outputs, including laryngeal outputs, whereupon I
say "You are so beautiful."

Thus, I think we can say that context and the system's local past history
has effects -- that is, sets reference levels for -- systems controlling
the kinesiology. And yet, in turn, obviously my reaction to her
withdrawing her hand will depend on yet other control systems, involving
those charming but sometimes maddeningly vague concepts of memory,
self-image, confidence, and the like. Perhaps one man shrugs, perhaps
another feels rejected, perhaps another "doesn't care" -- which may mean
that his higher level systems are shutting down various mechanisms that
otherwise might rise up to "consciousness."

In these comments, I'm aware of two things. One _is_ the maddeningly vague
nature of so much of it, and the second is the idea that no matter how
imprecise these descriptions may be, the mechanisms are piled up on each
other, i.e., form a hierarchy. So my real point, phrased none too well,
was that we need to be aware of the great significance of those higher
level control systems (and, explicitly, the sorts of reference levels they
generate) to understand what is going on in these interactions, even -- or
especially -- when they seem as simple as reaching for someone else's hand.

···

------------

TP
I will suggest that those changes are themselves regulated.

RM
In PCT there is a hierarchical relationship between targets
(reference perceptions) and the means used to achieve and
maintain them. A target at one level (such as the reference for
the perception of laughter) is the means to achieve a still
higher level target (such as perceiving that a particular
relationship -- an intimate one -- exists between oneself and
the beloved). The lower level changes that are used to keep
higher level perceptions on target are not really "regulated"
(that ism they are not _controlled_ by the higher level systems);
but these changes are caused by the higher level systems that
cause them as the means of keeping their perceptions under control.

TP: Yes, absolutely.

-------------

TP
I have made extensive observations of sequences of behavior
between men and women (the "courtship sequence"), the outcomes
of which a skilled observer can predict ahead of time.

RM
It sounds like these "outcomes" of the courtship sesuences are
variables (like "marital state") that are being controlled for by
the parties involved in the process. If so, they should be very
predictable if 1) the observer of the courtship knows what these
controlled variables are and 2) if the parties to the courtship
are relatively skilled at controlling these variables.

TP: Absolutely yes to (1). Number 2 raises some fascinating issues. It
turns out if one asks people what is occurring in these interactions, that
one gets quite a range of knowledge and sophistication. Some people tend
to be quite indistinct and imprecise in how they describe a social
interaction ("Well, she was just sitting there, so I started to talk to
her") while other people can be very precise ("This really attractive woman
came in, with a gorgeous figure, and I wondered if she'd sit down, so she
did, and I smiled at her, and -- ") (Those are paraphrases, but are
typical enough.) Yet BOTH men will interact with her in very similar
kinesiological ways. And, from interviews with men like this, we see that
the first man won't be able to predict what will happen, whereas the second
will.

What is odd is that in a certain sense, both men *are* predicting what she
will do. Each will move his chair slightly, as if to make room for her to
sit (I'm visualizing them in a waiting room, say at a doctor's office). In
this, they are *predicting* that she too will sit down. But only one of
the men will be able to describe what just happened. Women, I might add,
can be extremely precise and accurate in how they describe such
interactions, but I don't want to get off onto gender comparisons (it's
part of a more general phenomenon, noted by many writers, that women tend
to be better attuned to non-verbal signals than men, at least in these
sorts of social circumstances).

So point (2) is accurate at the level of kinesiological responsiveness, if
I may use the phrase, even though different individuals may differ very
greatly in their abilities to decipher these interactions. Now, of course
you said "skilled at controlling these variables" and at the level of
kinesiology, yes, they are probably all relatively equally skilled. (I
have heard descriptions of psychotic patients whose kinesiology can be
wildly variable, suggesting deficits in just these control systems, perhaps
in systems that maintain reference levels. Pure speculation on my part,
though.)

Yet, at a higher level of control and skill, many people try to control
their behavior in ways they hope will elicit desired reactions. The man who
wants his belowed to laugh may think consciously about jokes or other
things that she enjoys. And clearly people will differ in their abilities
to control those variables. A gloomy fellow may not have much success with
this woman (who obviously enjoys humor) -- and we can more or less predict
the outcome. So you are raising some very intriguing issues about skill in
point (2).

---------

TP
(One component of the sequence will be familiar to psychotherapists
who remember Scheflen's paper on quasi-courtship behavior -- that's
body movement synchronization.

RM
PCT would ask whether this is a controlled variable or a side effect
of control of some other variable (such as "staying close").

TP: Good question. From many hours of observing, I am convinced that
synchronization is itself a controlled variable. It's possible to stay in
close proximity *out* of synch, but such interactions don't escalate (an
elevator is a good example). But two lovers on the elevator stay close AND
are in synch. There's a lot here, and lot we don't know about synch.

------------

TP
my own version of the observed [courtship] sequence goes look,
approach, talk, turn, touch, synchronize body movements, and,
in greater privacy, caress, kiss, and intercourse.

RM
It tends to go in the opposite direction after you've been
married for a few decades;-)

TP. Sigh... so true.

--------------

TP
People who describe these events do NOT usually speak of control

RM
People who describe behavior in general do not usually speak of
control. But, in fact, control must be involved or these events
would rarely (if ever) repeat. Control is involved in each
of the arousal steps you describe; looking involves seeing the
moving "target" that is the loved one; approaching requires
moving across unpredictable terrain to the loved on, etc.
In all cases, the event is made to happen _consistently_ in
the face of unpredictable (and usually undetectable) distubances;
it's all control.

TP: You bet. You've given some very good examples. You might be
interested in a paper I did with David Weis, a sociologist colleague, on
women's seductive and rejective scripts -- ah, I mean PROFESSIONALLY
interested, of course -- because our informants were strikingly and
reliably aware at conscious levels of the effects of their own behavior on
men. As I recall, no one actually use the word "control" but they surely
mean something very much like it about both their own behavior and the
man's. In fact, Rick, I'd be quite interested in your PCT reading of those
data. The reference is

Perper, T. and D. Weis 1987 Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S.
and Canadian college women. J. Sex Research, 23:455-480.

-------------

TP
One can describe such things [as making love] in many ways, but
I don't think I've ever heard someone say it's like driving
a car.

RM
Then you've never driven a 5 speed Corvette convertable down
Pacific Coast Highway on a clear, sunny day when there are
hardly any other cars on the road;-)

TP: Neat. I used to have a Fiat 124 sports car -- 5th redlined at
something like 105 mph -- not bad for four cylinders. Quite an experience!

--------------

TP
Being in love is a nice example of how an entire world view is
redefined! But I don't know how to model the sequence with ideas
that depend only on tracking a target

RM
Keeping a cursor on target is not a very important perception to
most people, so doing it well (being in control of the cursor) is
not much of a high. Being in love is like controlling a cursor
that matters _big time_; it's like keeping one's figure skating
routine (the "cursor") _on target_ in the finals of the Olympics
(I think you'll see some ecstasy when thet happens next week). I
think the ecstasy of love comes from the thrill of having a most
important cursor (the loved one) "on target" (smiling, married,
bedded -- that is, at whatever reference level one wants it at).

TP: Yes. I was again talking only about boring old cursors, and not their
higher level parallels.

-------

TP
I have done extensive computer simulations of courtship interactions.

RM
Excellent! Are these models control models?

TP: Depends on what you mean. If you mean PCT models, no. See below.

------------

TP
The exact details are less important than a crucial observation:
upward escalation is achieved only if the entities are
endowed with certain sorts of transfer function.

RM
I'd like to see the models _and_ the data the models are designed
to explain. I think there might be aspects of these courtship
interactions that you might be ignoring if you are not considering
the possibilitiy the the parties to the courtship are control
systems. In particular, you may be ignoring the possibility that
the behavior you see is a side effect of each party's efforts to
control his or her own perceptions. If the parties are control
systems, then you have to test to determine what variables are being
controlled in a "courtship". You can't tell what variables are
being controlled by just looking at courtship behavior.

TP: The models I was talking about in fact did not explicitly build in
"controlled variables." That was deliberate, since the question was to
explore signal exchange between the interacting entities. Thus, the
purpose was to build a model based on premises X, Y, Z and see what comes
out, where X, Y and Z are inferences drawn about courtship from my
observations. Specifically but briefly, the premises are two
intercommunicating entities that exchange analog signals that represent
emotional intensity ("desire" if you like) and respond to each other
according to "arousal" functions that represent their abilities to be
turned on or off by each other. (Yes, it's simplified, but models are
allowed to be simplified.) Then, when the model produces results that are
askew, we know we need to change the premises. So I use models
heuristically, as exploratory tools, rather than as confirmatory
demonstrations of the correctness of an a priori theoretical vision.

But rather than go into details here, let me offer instead to discuss it
with you privately via email. Suffice it to say that the models suggest
strongly that these exchanges are usefully but incompletely described by
the premises above. Indeed, the models imply that the ability to *shift*
among different arousal functions is crucial. It seems to follow that the
preceding models PLUS "each party's efforts to control his or her own
perceptions" gives a far better description than merely premising a signal
exchange system without such controls. In other words, the models strongly
suggest that something we in fact do not observe directly -- that is, the
arousal function -- is is under control from higher levels. (Obviously,
here I'm adopting Bill Powers' view that strictly speaking a system does
not control *itself*.) I think that corresponds more or less exactly to
what you've said, although the language may be different.

-----------

TP
But in escalation, the state of the organism trends upward
ultimately towards what the participants call "love." That is
the sort of phenomenon I'm asking about. It seems to involve
more than merely tracking a target.

RM
Yes. A lot of behavior seems to involve more than control; but
so far, the behavior we've studied involves nothing more than
the control of perceptions. Sometimes it involves control of
very complex perceptions; and sometimes it involves control
of very simple perceptions using complex means that make it look
like behavior is complex. So far it looks like behavior, simple
and complex, is the control of perception. But it would be nice
to see any evidence that suggests that this is _not_ the case.

TP: I agree, and the apparent difference in what we said reflects the
levels we're discussing. I was talking about control over tracking a
target, meant quite literally, as that man tracks her hand does when he
reaches for her. I can rephrase it by saying there is more to courtship
than kinesiology. Unfortunately, there is a literature -- much of it
written for popular markets -- that DOES suggest that courtship ("Finding
Mr. Right" or "How to Meet Your Ideal Girlfriend") is little more than
control over kinesiology -- sometimes known as "making the right moves."
(Pop neurolinguistic programming can veer in that direction.) So I'm a bit
sensitive -- oversensitive, in the present context -- about avoiding such
oversimplifications. Indeed, my whole point is the same as yours, that
control processes occur throughout the ENTIRE hierarchy of mechanisms
involved in courtship.

I guess it comes from doing too many talks at singles groups, and having
some character come up to me and say "You mentioned that women sometimes
touch a man. Does that mean she's sexually hot for me?" A paraphrase, but
not that inaccurate. What I actually try to convey to such groups is that
"Body language takes its meanings from context," a statement that often
manages to get through. So forgive me if I seem touchy about saying that
tracking a target is not all there is to it. In PCT terms, yes, the
statement is true, because the idea holds for all levels up and down, but
in popular discourse, something else is meant that is quite wrong-headed --
some of these characters will take it rather too literally. I hope that
helps clarify *that* glitch!

Tim Perper

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980202.1400)]

Tim Perper (980202) --

Let's consider the two people sitting facing each other at a
restaurant table....At the level of kinesiology, we could
(one assumes) develop a reasonable description of what he
did and how.

PCT assumes that people control many levels of perception
_simultaeously_; the lovers at the table are controlling
muscle tensions, sensations and configurations (what you
call "kinesiology") as well as transitions, relationships,
events, programs, principles and system concepts. People
control higher level perceptions by controlling lower level
perceptions; the lovers control principles (like "do unto
others") by controlling certain programs ("dating") that are
carried out by testing for certain relationships ("resistance
to advances"), tests which are controlled by creating
certain transitions (moving the hand toward hers), etc.
All these perceptions are being controlled at the same time;
what we see (when we look over at the table where the lovers
sit) are side effects of this control process.

In your discussion of courtship you talk about developing
accurate or reasonable _descriptions_ of what people do but
you don't explain how to determine how one description can
be considered better than another. From a PCT perspective,
what you are describing are "side effects" of control;
a "side effect" of control is your (the observer's) view of
what the control system is doing. Descibing a side effect of
control is like describing what the thermostat does as
"turning the heater off and on periodically".

The problem with this kind of description of courting behavior
(from a PCT perspective) is that it is given from the point of
view of the observer rather than from the point of view of the
system itself. From a PCT perspective, a correct description of
control system behavior is a description of the perceptions
the system is controlling. A correct PCT description of what
the thermostat does is "it controls a perception of temperature".

In PCT there is a formal procedure, called The Test for
the Controlled Variable, for determining the correctness of
any description of behavior (a description of a variable
the system is controlling). Basically, this Test involves
monitoring a hypothetical controlled variable (such as the
relationship between the lover's hands) while it is being
disturbed and looking for _lack_ of effect of the disturbance.
If one lover, for example, is controlling for "holding hands"
(one state of a variable that could be called "relationship
between hands") then disturbances to this variable (like the
other lover moving her hand) will have little effect; the lover
moves his hand to keep "holding hands". If the disturbance
is effective -- if the hands are no longer held -- then the
lover is not controlling for "holding hands".

In fact, Rick, I'd be quite interested in your PCT reading of
those data. The reference is

Perper, T. and D. Weis 1987 Proceptive and rejective strategies
of U.S. and Canadian college women. J. Sex Research, 23:455-480.

Could you send me a copy. I'm not near a library and I'm planning
to run for President so being seen in a library carefully looking
through the sex journals is obviously out;-)

But rather than go into details here, let me offer instead to
discuss it with you privately via email.

I barely have time for CSGNet. If we ever get a chance to discuss
your models I think it's best to keep it on the Net. I think it
would be worthwhile for everyone.

Indeed, my whole point is the same as yours, that control processes
occur throughout the ENTIRE hierarchy of mechanisms involved in
courtship.

Great! Now what would be nice to see is some research aimed at
testing to determine what kinds of perceptual variables are
being controlled when we see people "courting".

So forgive me if I seem touchy about saying that tracking a
target is not all there is to it. In PCT terms, yes, the
statement is true, because the idea holds for all levels up
and down, but in popular discourse, something else is meant
that is quite wrong-headed -- some of these characters will
take it rather too literally. I hope that helps clarify
*that* glitch!

Yes. Thanks.

We (PCTers) are a bit touchy, too, because we are always hearing
about how PCT may be able to explain behavior in a tracking task
but how it can't explain the stuff people really care about -- like
writing piano concertos and making love. In fact, the tracking
task is just a nice way of looking at all the variables and
relationships between variables involved in _any_ control
process -- whether it is control of the position of a cursor, the
style of a cadenza or the principles exemplified by one's love life.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980202.1715 EST)]

Rick Marken (980202.1400)

In your discussion of courtship you talk about developing
accurate or reasonable _descriptions_ of what people do but
you don't explain how to determine how one description can
be considered better than another. From a PCT perspective,
what you are describing are "side effects" of control;
a "side effect" of control is your (the observer's) view of
what the control system is doing. Descibing a side effect of
control is like describing what the thermostat does as
"turning the heater off and on periodically".

Probably "from time to time" is more accurate than
"periodically". But this is not the nit I really want to pick.
Where a thermostat is concerned, it would seem that we can, as
observers, infer its intention _without_ performing the Test.
All we would need to do is to note the times it turns the
furnace off and compare these times with a plot of the
temperature of the thermostat. Where have I erred Oh Great
Marken? Let me answer this one myself. In this case it is Nature
that is performing the Test, and we are "looking over her
shoulder". Hmmm?

Bruce

[Timothy_Perper_Marth]

Tim Perper here

[From Rick Marken (980202.1400)]

Tim Perper (980202) --

Let's consider the two people sitting facing each other at a
restaurant table....At the level of kinesiology, we could
(one assumes) develop a reasonable description of what he
did and how.

RM
PCT assumes that people control many levels of perception
_simultaeously_; the lovers at the table are controlling
muscle tensions, sensations and configurations (what you
call "kinesiology") as well as transitions, relationships,
events, programs, principles and system concepts. People
control higher level perceptions by controlling lower level
perceptions; the lovers control principles (like "do unto
others") by controlling certain programs ("dating") that are
carried out by testing for certain relationships ("resistance
to advances"), tests which are controlled by creating
certain transitions (moving the hand toward hers), etc.
All these perceptions are being controlled at the same time;
what we see (when we look over at the table where the lovers
sit) are side effects of this control process.

TP: I certainly agree with the general principle here, that MANY levels
are being controlled simultaneously. The phrase "side effect" has several
meanings, which might fruitfully be distinguished. From the viewpoint of
the higher level control system, yes, the outputs are side effects (you
give some good examples below). However, from the viewpoint of
reproductive biology, the outputs are very much main effects because they
can lead to pregnancy. But that distinction does not change the point you
are making.

···

--------

RM
In your discussion of courtship you talk about developing
accurate or reasonable _descriptions_ of what people do but
you don't explain how to determine how one description can
be considered better than another. From a PCT perspective,
what you are describing are "side effects" of control;
a "side effect" of control is your (the observer's) view of
what the control system is doing. Descibing a side effect of
control is like describing what the thermostat does as
"turning the heater off and on periodically".

Indeed so. When I was talking about more or less accurate

descriptions, I meant something really rather simple. A desciption of hand
movement that relates it to controlled variables, feedback loops, muscles
and nerves (and their like) is, for my purposes, a "better" description
than one that says that invisible little men push the arm. However, I am
on very controversial ground here, and I'm going to back off, because I
don't want to bring up vexed issues of homunculi in the mind. Maybe the
real answer is that better and worse are defined by what one is trying to
do -- and for a social interaction like courtship, at least my purpose is
to understand the actual physical and biological processes that occur when
people meet and become intimate. For that, there are better and worse
descriptions, although perhaps the value-neutral terms "more useful" and
"less useful" might be more exact.

----------

RM
The problem with this kind of description of courting behavior
(from a PCT perspective) is that it is given from the point of
view of the observer rather than from the point of view of the
system itself. From a PCT perspective, a correct description of
control system behavior is a description of the perceptions
the system is controlling. A correct PCT description of what
the thermostat does is "it controls a perception of temperature".

In PCT there is a formal procedure, called The Test for
the Controlled Variable, for determining the correctness of
any description of behavior (a description of a variable
the system is controlling). Basically, this Test involves
monitoring a hypothetical controlled variable (such as the
relationship between the lover's hands) while it is being
disturbed and looking for _lack_ of effect of the disturbance.
If one lover, for example, is controlling for "holding hands"
(one state of a variable that could be called "relationship
between hands") then disturbances to this variable (like the
other lover moving her hand) will have little effect; the lover
moves his hand to keep "holding hands". If the disturbance
is effective -- if the hands are no longer held -- then the
lover is not controlling for "holding hands".

TP: You got it! Absolutely on target My favorite examples of this
process, which is extremely powerful, occur between people in movement
synchronization. A disturbance occurs, e.g., some drunk is lurching about
(I'm visualizing them in a bar). The two people look up simultaneously in
mirror image synchrony, turn to each other looking aghast (again in perfect
synchrony), shake their heads (ditto), and go back to moving in synchrony
ignoring the drunk. You see this over and over again. In fact, such
imperturbability itself grows during the sequence. An interesting thing
happens when one person gets up to go the bathroom. Then the partner at
the table changes behavior completely -- looking around, fiddling with
things (like a glass), adjusting clothing -- but ceases all such activities
when the partner returns. And suddenly they're back in synch.

It was observations like this that convinced me that these behavior
patterns are under powerful control, although I tend to use the biological
term "regulated."

snip<

TP

Indeed, my whole point is the same as yours, that control processes
occur throughout the ENTIRE hierarchy of mechanisms involved in
courtship.

RM
Great! Now what would be nice to see is some research aimed at
testing to determine what kinds of perceptual variables are
being controlled when we see people "courting".

TP: That would be marvelous to know.

---------------

TP
So forgive me if I seem touchy about saying that tracking a
target is not all there is to it. In PCT terms, yes, the
statement is true, because the idea holds for all levels up
and down, but in popular discourse, something else is meant
that is quite wrong-headed -- some of these characters will
take it rather too literally. I hope that helps clarify
*that* glitch!

RM
Yes. Thanks.

We (PCTers) are a bit touchy, too, because we are always hearing
about how PCT may be able to explain behavior in a tracking task
but how it can't explain the stuff people really care about -- like
writing piano concertos and making love. In fact, the tracking
task is just a nice way of looking at all the variables and
relationships between variables involved in _any_ control
process -- whether it is control of the position of a cursor, the
style of a cadenza or the principles exemplified by one's love life.

TP: I appreciate the comment, because the culture of PCT is new to me,
although I know some of principles of PCT. Sigh... I sometimes believe that
people actively prefer mysterious non-answers to actual knowledge. I don't
know how many times I've been told that my approach to courtship and love
"takes the magic out of it." And I suppose that for some people it does.
I find it therefore all the more fascinating!

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980202.2130)]

Me:

Descibing a side effect of control is like describing what
the thermostat does as "turning the heater off and on periodically".

Bruce Gregory (980202.1715 EST)

Probably "from time to time" is more accurate than "periodically".

OK. But my point (for Tim Perper's sake) is still that even this
_quasi-periodicity_ is just a side-effect of the controlling done
by the thermostat. It's exactly equivalent to the sine wave mouse
movements you trace out when you do the "Nature of Control" tracking
task (http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).
These sine wave movements are a side effect because this pattern
of movement is not intended; it is just what has to happen to
maintain control of the cursor. If the disturbance were some other
temporal pattern, mouse movements would make (the inverse of)
this pattern.

There are great examples of side effects in Bill's CROWD demo.
In this demo the individuals are controlling only their proximity
to other individuals but, in the process, we see all kinds of
interesting patterns -- circling a guru, deferring to others, etc--
that are just side effects of this process; the individuals are
not controlling for being in a circle, for example; the circle
is just something interesting that _we can see_ in the behavior
patterns of these interacting proximity control systems.

The same kind of side effects occur with the thermostat; if a
disturbance keeps sensed temperature at the reference level, the
heater stays off; there is no periodicity or quasi-periodicity. If
the disturbance varied in some temporal pattern then temporal
pattern of thermostat on/off behavior would be different than
what it is when the disturbance is constant. But all this interesting
periodic on/off behavior of the heater tells us zip about what the
heater is doing -- controlling its perception of temperature.

My point is that side effects is all we see as "behavior" if we
don't know that people are controlling perceptions. What we see are
patterns of activity -- like synchronous movement, patterns of
conversation, etc -- all kinds of fascinating patterns of activity
that provide almost no clue as to what these people are actually
doing -- that is, what perceptual variables they are controlling.

Where a thermostat is concerned, it would seem that we can, as
observers, infer its intention _without_ performing the Test.

I think _you_ are performing the Test; Nature is just providing
the disturbances to the variable that you think is under control.

All we would need to do is to note the times it turns the
furnace off and compare these times with a plot of the
temperature of the thermostat. Where have I erred Oh Great
Marken?

I assume by "temperature of the thermostat" you mean the temperature
at the sensor; if this measure remains constant despite the fact
that the heater is going on and off then I think that you do have
reason to believe that temperature is controlled. But note that
the side effect -- the "quasi-periodicity" of the on/off behavior
of the heater -- is irrelevant to this conclusion; you are able to
conclude that temperature is controlled because your measure of
temperature remains constant despite variations (of whatever
periodicity) in influences (in this case the influence of the
thermostat's own output -- you haven't measured disturbances) that
should produce variations in sensed temperature.

Where have I erred Oh Great Marken?

No error. Though it might be a good idea to Test some other
possible controlled variables (like humidity) before concluding
that temperature is the controlled variable. This may actually
be a humidity control system and your measure of temperature
remmains constant simply because there have been no disturbances
to the amount of moisture in the air.

Let me answer this one myself. In this case it is Nature that
is performing the Test, and we are "looking over her shoulder"

I don't think Nature ever actually _performs_ the Test; Nature
may, however, provide the disturbances to the variables that
are under Test. There is a lot more to the Test than just applying
disturbances. A human must be present to determine whether
the effect of these disturbances is what would be expected if
the variable were _not_ under control. And a human must be there
to look for other possible controlled variables (and possibly
other naturally occuring disturbances to these variables) if the
variable currently under Test turns out not to be controlled.

The Great Marken has spoken!! (I hope I have not disturbed the
Powers that be;-))

Tim Perper (980202) --

The phrase "side effect" has several meanings, which might
fruitfully be distinguished.

I hope my discussion above helped to clarify what we mean
by "side effect" in PCT. A side effect is any noticeable
effect of control actions that is not related to control of
the perceptual variable that the system is controlling.

From the viewpoint of the higher level control system, yes, the
outputs are side effects

It's not the outputs that are side effects; it is effects of these
outputs on anything other than the controlled variable. When you
make love in a cheap motel, thrusting is an intended (controlled)
effect of your outputs (forces exerted by the muscles); waking up
the couple downstairs is a _side-effect_ of these outputs;-)

My favorite examples of this process [the Test]...occur between
people in movement synchronization. A disturbance occurs, e.g.,
some drunk is lurching about... The two people look up
simultaneously in mirror image synchrony, turn to each other
looking aghast (again in perfect synchrony), shake their heads
(ditto), and go back to moving in synchrony ignoring the drunk.

I'm not sure that this is a good Test. The disturbance must
be something which would change the state of the variable if it
were _not_ under control. A drunk walking in wouldn't change
the degree of synchronous movement if both people want to see
the drunk; the synchrony could still be a side effect of their
independent interest in seeing the drunk. I would Test for
synchronicity by having one party make a predetermined sequence
of movements; if the other party mirrored those moveents I'd start
thinking that the perception of synchronous movement was, indeed,
under control. But I have the very stong suspicion that whatever
synchronous movement is seen in courtship is a side effect of
people controlling for other, much simpler perceptions.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980203.0540 EST)]

Rick Marken (980202.2130)

My point is that side effects is all we see as "behavior" if we
don't know that people are controlling perceptions. What we see are
patterns of activity -- like synchronous movement, patterns of
conversation, etc -- all kinds of fascinating patterns of activity
that provide almost no clue as to what these people are actually
doing -- that is, what perceptual variables they are controlling.

Clearly spoken, oh Great One.

The Great Marken has spoken!! (I hope I have not disturbed the
Powers that be;-))

I too. The Powers That Be has been silent for some time. I pray we have not
offended him.

Bruce

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980204.1032 EST)]

Tim Perper here.

It would help if you were to adopt the posting convention.

And so I am suggesting that the controlled variables are (a) the difference
between posture of self and other, controlled so as to *minimize* such
differences (this will give postural synch), and (b) proximity, controlled
so as to stabilize their distance (which will give movement synch). Then
comes an escalation, and their intimacy increases as they shift to mirror
synchrony, where proximity is controlled so as to enhance or increase their
(intimate) proximity. Are more things involved? They surely are, but
these patterns lend themselves to a fairly simple feedback analysis.

Notice, however, that a HIGHER level system has to intervene at the
escalation point, because otherwise the system will remain forever in the
preceding state (not really forever, but until the bar closes!).

3. Is this PCT? Well, you're the experts, so you tell me. If it isn't,
then I'll be disappointed, because it seems that it should be the kind of
thing that PCT is *very* good at explaining!

What you have is a description of the actions of two people and
a conjecture about the variable(s) they might be controlling.
The next step is to test your conjectures by introducing a
disturbance. If the people involved counter these disturbances
and continue to minimize differences you identify, you will have
evidence that they are indeed controlling these variables. This
would be a very interesting application of PCT. But the test is
essential.

Bruce

[Timothy_Perper_Marth]

Tim Perper here.

Some points to add to Rick Marken's discussion of thermostats and of
synchronization (labelled "From Rick Marken (980202.2130)"). I go into some
detail below, and apologize if the length is troublesome to anyone. If it
is, please let me know.

1. Let me give a few more details about synchronization in the context of
Rick's comment

RM
I would Test for synchronicity by having one party make a predetermined

sequence of movements; if the other party mirrored those moveents I'd start
thinking that the perception of synchronous movement was, indeed, under
control. But I have the very stong suspicion that whateversynchronous

movement >is seen in courtship is a side effect of people controlling for
other, much >simpler perceptions.

What you're describing in sentence #1 can be called "imitation" or
"mimicry," allowing us to speak of the "model" -- the person who is making
the predetermined sequence of movements -- and the "mimic," the person who
does or does not mirror them. However, there seems to be more to movement
and postural synchronization than mimicry of a model. Let me explain.

1a. I'm visualizing a man and a woman in a bar, in complete synchrony.
Their behavior may sound outlandish and remarkable, but it is very common
-- and occurs in many settings other than bars! However, anyone can visit
a bar and look for synch, so let's talk about bars. (I've done extensive
observations in a variety of settings, not merely bars.) The following
descriptions will be very detailed, because the details are absolutely
crucial.

Thus, he and she are sitting at the bar, facing each other, he on the left,
she on the right, turned fully to face each other, gazing at each other and
talking. He is has his left forearm and hand on the bar, and she has her
right forearm and hand on the bar (so-called "postural" mirror synch).
Now, he glances at his drink on the bar between their facing hands, reaches
for it with his RIGHT hand, picks it up, moves it toward his mouth, sips,
and puts it down. However, she too has been moving throughout the
interaction.

Broadly, there are two rough-and-ready sorts of synchrony that can be
conveniently distinguished as the ends of a spectrum. One I have called
"counter-synchronization" (in my 1985 book Sex Signals). It goes like
this. As he reaches for his drink, she looks at hers; as he picks it up,
she reaches for hers; as he moves the glass towards his mouth, she is
picking up her drink; as he sips, she is moving the glass; as he puts it
down, she sips; and then she puts it down. IF the behavior occurs EXACTLY
as I described, then there is a discernable *lag* between his every
movement and hers.

When I first saw synch in such settings -- some 20 years ago -- the first
thing I thought of was mimicry, as Rick also did, and therefore thought of
modelling and mimicry. But continued observation disabuses one of the
idea that lagged synchronization is the whole story. Thus, we will also
see something ever so slightly different: he reaches for his drink, and
picks it up, and she glances at hers and reaches while he is picking it up.
(This is the *identical* beginning.) But, then, as he starts to sip, and
her arm is lifting her drink, her movement *accelerates* so that she starts
to drink while he is still drinking. They drink in synchrony for a moment,
and then put their glasses down simultaneously. Counter-synchronization
has become mirror synchronization.

As we continue to watch, we will see them sip their drinks again -- and
next time, she reaches, and so does he, but with a *shortened* lag between
her movement and his. They again end up in mirrored movement synchrony,
but you'll see that the duration of their *mirrored* synchronization is
longer. Eventually, as we watch, we will see them enacting the entire
sequence without any lag discernable to the naked eye of the trained
observer. (I have not done films of these interactions, so I have not done
frame-by-frame movement analyses. Even so, I suspect that in mirror
synchrony, there is still a lag, but it is very short.)

Now it is much harder to use a simple, time-lagged "model and mimic"
explanation for what has happened. In fact, I have seen people try to
mimic the other's behavior, but the results are only very partial. Thus,
if he is trying to mimic her, he will mimic only what he perceives
*consciously* and feels is salient to his mimicry. He may reach for his
glass a moment after she has done so (she is the model, he the mimic), but
he will not mimic her other movements, e.g., how she moves her other hand
(her right -- it's resting on the bar). She may touch her glass with her
right hand while she is reaching with her left. That movement he does NOT
imitate, but merely leaves his facing hand (his left) unmoved, or perhaps
even takes it off the bar as he reaches with his right hand for the drink.
Now, we, the observers do NOT see full synchronization at all, but only
very partial and incomplete synchrony. Yet he may believe that he has
imitated her -- mirrored her behavior, if you like.

1b. Rick suggested in his second sentence that synchronization is a side
effect of controlling for something else. That of course is possible, but
I suggest that synchronization is the controlled variable itself (or
something very closely related to it). What I mean is this.

Although I am dubious about gunnery robots exhausting the full range of
PCT, my doubts were not directed to kinesiological episodes like this one.
It is now very easy to discuss synchronization as a controlled variable.

Thus, the variable probably being controlled is the DIFFERENCE between
one's own bodily positions and those of the partner. If one again wades
through the description above of how counter-synch becomes mirror synch,
you'll see how each person is continuously **minimizing** the differences
between their postures. What is crucial is that A minimizes the difference
with B, while simultaneously, B is minimizing the difference with A.

So far as movement synchrony is concerned -- for example, her speeding up
to drink at the same time he does -- the controlled variable appears to be
rate of movement (velocity, meaning both speed and direction). Again the
principle appears to be to MINIMIZE differences in velocity. If so, then
synchronization occurs because posture and movement veolcity are in fact
the controlled variables.

However, perhaps someone will now object -- it is a reasonable objection --
that my description and my observations are contaminated by my (honest by
misled) effort to maximize the goodness of fit between description and what
a servomechanism might easily produce. Well, whoa there! Remember, *I'm*
supposed to be the one who knows no PCT (vide several postings asking if I
know anything at all about it.) But the answer is that I did NOT create
this description to fit PCT, because when I was doing the work first, I had
never even heard of PCT. So let's set *that* aside -- no, I'm not trying
to make the observations fit theory.

Instead, these observations are very easily performed by a servomechanism
whose perceptions involve the other's bodily postures, such that it
controls its OWN bodily postures to minimize the difference between self
and other. So it is not a matter of deliberate mimicry, but of
minimization of a difference between signals. Likewise, velocity (speed and
direction) seems to be the controlled variable during movement synch.

Now, I'm perfectly prepared to say that the other's body postures and
velocities provide "reference" signals, and the controlled variables are
one's own postures and velocities of movement. However, because the two
are interacting, the matter becomes trickier. Thus, the reference signal
for me is YOUR bodily posture, whereas the reference for you is MY bodily
posture. But your bodily posture has been controlled to reduce the
deiviation between it and my posture, so when I use your body posture as my
reference signal, I am actually using my OWN posture, as reflected through
you with a slight lag, as my own reference signal. Likewise, you are doing
the same. We can call such things reciprocal or mutual interaction,
because control is now SHARED between the two interacting units.

By shared, I mean that although we each have independently existing control
mechanisms (our physiologies belong to different bodies), it is no longer
easy to determine unambiguously what the reference and controlled signals
are. One can do so if one looks ONLY at one individual, but when one looks
at both together, one sees that each reference signal contains information
about -- has been previously influenced by -- self's controlled variable.
And vice versa. And for each person.

The result is that we have a system in which control is reciprocal.
Actually, as a biologist, I tend to use the word "regulation" rather than
"control," but, allowing for a difference in terminology, the system has
interconnected components that regulate each other's actions. Such systems
can be extremely stable.

2. A propos of the discussion of periodicity and quasi-periodicity. It is
theoretically possible for a system such as the above to initiate
oscillations. It depends on various time constants in the system.
Thermostats will do this, and hence an amusing story.

When I was working in the pharmaceutical industry, we built a small
temperature controlled box (not important why). It had to hold 37 degrees
Celsius, and so we used a light bulb as a heater. The box had a
temperature sensor -- a simple bimetallic strip used as a switch -- that
activated a small electric fan in a vent and turned off the light bulb.
Since room temperature is much lower than 37 degrees, the contraption
started with the light bulb on. The inside of the box would warm up
slowly, and eventually reach the upper set point of the switch. The bulb
went off and the fan started to hum, blowing warm air out of the box. This
cooled the box, and eventually the temperature dropped to the lower set
point, and the switch would open. The fan would turn off and the bulb
would turn on. One of these devices had a fairly noisy fan. And so the
blasted thing would be silent for a while, and then start to buzz as the
fan went on. Then it would be silent, and just as one became comfortable
with the quiet, it would start to buzz again. We finally put the thing in
the basement. The period was about 10 minutes. Enfuriating.

Note that regular oscillations could occur because ROOM temperature was
itself thermostatted, and remained quite constant during the operation of
the box. That meant that the box cycled quite regularly. (Periodicity is
determined by various time constants, like how long it takes to cool the
box or heat it up.)

However, people in synch can also start to oscillate, if the time constants
are right. Counter-synchronization itself provides some examples. Thus,
he's on the left, and they have put down their drinks, and he leans forward
slightly toward her. She has three choices: to lean towards him, to stay
put, or to lean away. In mirror synch, she leans forward, but in
counter-synch, she leans back. (Like this: //) One's first impression is
that she is leaning back to convey her avoidance of him, but continued
observation dispells the idea. Thus, perhaps embarassed by having come to
close to her and having elicited an what seems to be her avoidance
reaction, he leans back, away from her (\/). And now she leans *forward*
towards him (\\). So he leans towards HER, and SHE leans back (The angles
are about 10-20 degrees or so.) This can continue for a while. If you
visualize their movements, you'll see that they are oscillating.

How come? The preceding can occur if each person is trying to stabilize
their proximity to the other but one of them has, for whatever reason,
moved closer. You may ask why they both don't end up permanently like this
// with both leaning. One answer is that the position is uncomfortable,
unless one of them is leaning against a wall. So one of them moves
forward: /\ followed by re-stabilization of proximity \\. And so it
repeats.

But then they shift,and start this: /\, \/, /\. \/, and so on, now in
mirror synchrony.

What just happened?

"Oho," we observers cry out (silently, though). We have just seen an
*escalation.* Notice that in this position /\, their faces are very close,
and when they're like this \/, their hips are close together. Their
behavior has become more intimate.

Do people actually do this in public? Yes. Is it common? Yes.

And so I am suggesting that the controlled variables are (a) the difference
between posture of self and other, controlled so as to *minimize* such
differences (this will give postural synch), and (b) proximity, controlled
so as to stabilize their distance (which will give movement synch). Then
comes an escalation, and their intimacy increases as they shift to mirror
synchrony, where proximity is controlled so as to enhance or increase their
(intimate) proximity. Are more things involved? They surely are, but
these patterns lend themselves to a fairly simple feedback analysis.

Notice, however, that a HIGHER level system has to intervene at the
escalation point, because otherwise the system will remain forever in the
preceding state (not really forever, but until the bar closes!).

3. Is this PCT? Well, you're the experts, so you tell me. If it isn't,
then I'll be disappointed, because it seems that it should be the kind of
thing that PCT is *very* good at explaining!

Tim Perper

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980204.1126 EST)]

TP: I posted some material on how such people counter disturbances, which
they appear to do. However, in field settings, it is unethical -- and can
be dangerous -- deliberately to interfere with people. So I'm afraid that
the best we can do is to observe what happens during "experiments of
nature," such as the appearance of a waiter at the couple's table, a drunk
wandering around, and so on. And then, as I said, the two people react to
the disturbance -- e.g., by looking at the drunk -- but remain in synch
while they do so. But *deliberate* interference -- well, no, that's not
possible.

Too bad. I'm afraid that what you are left with is a "just so"
story.

Bruce

[Timothy_Perper_Marth]

What you have is a description of the actions of two people and
a conjecture about the variable(s) they might be controlling.
The next step is to test your conjectures by introducing a
disturbance. If the people involved counter these disturbances
and continue to minimize differences you identify, you will have
evidence that they are indeed controlling these variables. This
would be a very interesting application of PCT. But the test is
essential.

Bruce

TP: I posted some material on how such people counter disturbances, which
they appear to do. However, in field settings, it is unethical -- and can
be dangerous -- deliberately to interfere with people. So I'm afraid that
the best we can do is to observe what happens during "experiments of
nature," such as the appearance of a waiter at the couple's table, a drunk
wandering around, and so on. And then, as I said, the two people react to
the disturbance -- e.g., by looking at the drunk -- but remain in synch
while they do so. But *deliberate* interference -- well, no, that's not
possible.

Tim Perper

[Dan_Miller]

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:22:14 -0500

[Dan Miller (980204)]

Tim Perper (980204:12.22)

>What you have is a description of the actions of two people and
>a conjecture about the variable(s) they might be controlling.
>The next step is to test your conjectures by introducing a
>disturbance. If the people involved counter these disturbances
>and continue to minimize differences you identify, you will have
>evidence that they are indeed controlling these variables. This
>would be a very interesting application of PCT. But the test is
>essential.
>
>Bruce

Tim replies:

I posted some material on how such people counter disturbances, which
they appear to do. However, in field settings, it is unethical -- and can
be dangerous -- deliberately to interfere with people. So I'm afraid that
the best we can do is to observe what happens during "experiments of
nature," such as the appearance of a waiter at the couple's table, a drunk
wandering around, and so on. And then, as I said, the two people react to
the disturbance -- e.g., by looking at the drunk -- but remain in synch
while they do so. But *deliberate* interference -- well, no, that's not
possible.

Tim, don't let these guys get you down. What you are doing sounds
just right. Remember, it is all control of perception. So the
purity police are acting to control their perceptual input. When
they do their pure and unsullied research they are, still, acting to
control their perceptual input. They face grave challenges when they
insist that they are getting at the "real" reality. The unstated but
omnipresent claim that the test will lead to a form of immaculate
perception has serious limitations when one realizes that it is an
act that is intended to alter their own perceptual input. I would
argue that the significance of this scientific perspective rests
solely on pragmatic consequences. That is, on our own increased
ability to control perceptual input.

Always,
Dan

"You're only coming through in waves." - Pink Floyd
Dan Miller
miller@riker.stjoe.udayton.edu

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980204.1317 EST)]

Dan Miller (980204)

Tim, don't let these guys get you down. What you are doing sounds
just right. Remember, it is all control of perception. So the
purity police are acting to control their perceptual input. When
they do their pure and unsullied research they are, still, acting to
control their perceptual input. They face grave challenges when they
insist that they are getting at the "real" reality.

Exactly when did we make this claim?

The unstated but
omnipresent claim that the test will lead to a form of immaculate
perception has serious limitations when one realizes that it is an
act that is intended to alter their own perceptual input.

You'll have to remind me when we made claims to immaculate
perception.

I would
argue that the significance of this scientific perspective rests
solely on pragmatic consequences. That is, on our own increased
ability to control perceptual input.

And?

The Purity Police

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980203.1310)]

Dan Miller (980204) --

Remember, it is all control of perception.

How do you know?

So the purity police are acting to control their perceptual input.

How do you know?

When they do their pure and unsullied research they are, still,
acting to control their perceptual input. They face grave
challenges when they insist that they are getting at the "real"
reality.

Right you are! But those of us who are doing pure, unsullied PCT
research do _not_ insist that we are getting at the "real" reality.
Let me quote a passage written by one of the strongest advocates
of the pure, unsullied approach to PCT research in order to make my
point:

people, like the organisms that are studied, have no privelidged
access to what is really out there. So the problem of determining
an organism's map of the environment is really a matter of
determining which of one's own perceptions corresponds to the
perception the organism is controlling. This mapping can be
determined through the use of a formal procedure called the
Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV). (Marken (1998),
Psychological Methods, p. 440).

This doesn't sound to me like insistance that pure, unsullied PCT
research is trying to get at the "real" reality. Indeed, it sounds
to me like this wise, tactful fellow is well aware of the fact
that no one has access to "real" reality. Pure, unsullied PCT
research (the TCV) is being touted as a way of determining whether
any of one's _own_ perceptions corresponds to a variable that is
being controlled by another organism.

The unstated but omnipresent claim that the test will lead to a
form of immaculate perception has serious limitations when one
realizes that it is an act that is intended to alter their own
perceptual input.

Do you really think that the argument about PCT vs non-PCT research
is based on the unstated claim that the Test will lead to "immaculate
perception" (which I presume refers to perception of the "real"
reality")? If so, you've managed to do what no man has done since
Cat Ballou; you missed the barn!

"You're only coming through in waves." - Pink Floyd

Or particles -- or TBD;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980204.1403)]

Bruce Gregory (980204.1032 EST) --

What you have is a description of the actions of two people and
a conjecture about the variable(s) they might be controlling.
The next step is to test your conjectures by introducing a
disturbance. If the people involved counter these disturbances
and continue to minimize differences you identify, you will have
evidence that they are indeed controlling these variables. This
would be a very interesting application of PCT. But the test is
essential.

You can also observe disturbances coming from elsewhere in the environment.
This is what Rick's baseball demo does. It is also what the crowd demos do,
when individuals interfere with one another.

I appreciated being reminded of this recently. I've been stewing for a long
time trying to figure out ways to disturb speech production. The problem is
that when control is good the disturbance is invisible from the point of
view of the controlled perception. In the baseball demo, the disturbance is
visible when you can observe the trajectory of the ball from the side, for
example. The obviously observable aspects of speech are just those
public-domain perceptions that the speaker is controlling. So one must note
things that should be disturbing speech production but aren't, such as
hanging upside down.

Tim Perper, the intrusion of other bar patrons seems to be an instance in
your description. The controlled perception might be "sharing the same
sensation at the same time," e.g. drinking, touching. Or it might be
touching one another, and doing other things such as drinking
simultaneously is somewhat "as though" touching the other. Or it might be
synchronization, whatever the actions. Have you watched breathing rates?
Lovers' "hearts beat in time" as the songs say.

  Bruce Nevin

[Dan_Miller]

[From Dan Miller (980204.1645)]

Rick Marken (980203.1310)

Do you really think that the argument about PCT vs non-PCT research
is based on the unstated claim that the Test will lead to "immaculate
perception" (which I presume refers to perception of the "real"
reality")? If so, you've managed to do what no man has done since
Cat Ballou; you missed the barn!

I think that there is some benefit to non-PCT research (as in IV-DV
research). Such research can tell us something about the world,
though certainly nothing immaculate. One could think of such
research as sensitizing devices (to stretch an idea of Herbert
Blumer's). For example, there exists a statistical relationship
between amount of reading (IV) and political progressivism (DV)
(r = 0.62 and it has been replicated). To me, this is very
interesting. I wouldn't want to argue from this statistical
relationship to a full-fledged theory, but how do we explain it. As
a subscriber to this list I do not fall into a behavioralist pit (not
being a psychologist I was not taught to think of behavior in
behaviorist terms, but rather in terms very close to PCT through
symbolic interactionism).

So,how do we make sense of this intriguing finding?
What is it about the act of reading (and reading a lot) that creates
a context within which progressive political ideas can generate and
thrive? Reading a lot is certainly a different perceptual
environment than watching TV a lot. I know, I know, the environment
doesn't cause behavior, and I didn't even suggest that it did. Maybe
it is a heightened awareness of, say, reference signals which when
operative we find a large error between what we would like to
perceive and what, in fact, we are perceiving (whether or not it is
real or imagined). This must be frustrating. Thus, the desire to
change the world (Pol. Prog.). There is really very little we can do
as individuals to create an equitable distribution of goods and
services (or opportunities) and thus achieve social justice (as we
so desire, as described in our readings). This may be a plausible
argument - a nice discussion section in our research. I would argue
that this nice discussion section could advance PCT (or at least
Perceptual Control Perspective - which I think is all that exists).
My question is, why do we tend to deflate people who may be
interested in doing this?

By definition nonPCT research does not extend Perceptual Control
Theory, and to the extent that such approaches remain dominant in
psychology they will tend to inhibit any growth or acceptance of PCT.
I understand the frustration, but I get tired of the cant.

Some of the discussion on this list is about control systems and not
living control systems. A little engineering can go a long way, but
it is ONLY a metaphor, right? I would think some disturbances from
contemporary biology, social psychology, and, perhaps, ethology might
be welcomed - in order to advance PCT. Many who are drawn to this
list are interested in understanding human behavior. A few of us are
interested in social interaction. It's not always easy to do the
test in such circumstances. It's not always clear how it is done in
your controlled situations. For example, can your experiments and
demonstrations be done without prior instruction (that damned social
stuff, again)? Is there a need to inform people what they are going
to be perceiving, and what they want to perceive? This is a very
troubling question is it not? Maybe with e-coli the instructions are
genetic. Maybe with humans the instructions are done with hands and
language. Is this information in the system? I've been curious.

So, I ask the experts. Explain your theory and the research that
supports it - all of it - including the instructions and the test.
Are there areas that need work? Are there gaping holes? I've read
your work. (Have you read mine?) I'm not convinced. Perhaps all
the bluster I read in this forum is anxiety in anticipation of being
found lacking. There is that word "anticipations" again - another
problem area, I think.

I mean no disrespect. I only want PCT to succeed, and it is not
succeeding. Too bad, too.

> "You're only coming through in waves." - Pink Floyd

Or particles -- or TBD

Only in particles if we measure it that way. I'm a wave guy.

Always,
Dan

Dan Miller
miller@riker.stjoe.udayton.edu

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980204.1745 EST)]

Dan Miller (980204.1645)]

So,how do we make sense of this intriguing finding?
What is it about the act of reading (and reading a lot) that creates
a context within which progressive political ideas can generate and
thrive?

How do you know that progressive political ideas don't "cause"
reading?

Bruce

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (980204.1750 EST)]

Bruce Nevin (980204.1403)]

Bruce Gregory (980204.1032 EST) --

>What you have is a description of the actions of two people and
>a conjecture about the variable(s) they might be controlling.
>The next step is to test your conjectures by introducing a
>disturbance. If the people involved counter these disturbances
>and continue to minimize differences you identify, you will have
>evidence that they are indeed controlling these variables. This
>would be a very interesting application of PCT. But the test is
>essential.

You can also observe disturbances coming from elsewhere in the environment.
This is what Rick's baseball demo does. It is also what the crowd demos do,
when individuals interfere with one another.

Tim Perper, the intrusion of other bar patrons seems to be an instance in
your description. The controlled perception might be "sharing the same
sensation at the same time," e.g. drinking, touching. Or it might be
touching one another, and doing other things such as drinking
simultaneously is somewhat "as though" touching the other. Or it might be
synchronization, whatever the actions. Have you watched breathing rates?
Lovers' "hearts beat in time" as the songs say.

The problem is that I don't have a clue what these lovers are
perceiving. I only have Tim's description of their behavior.
Without application of the Test that is all we are likely to
have. I like "just-so" stories as much as the next person, but
they are no substitute for real tests. I find it very
difficult to believe that the people involved are perceiving and
controlling a perception of "synchronization".

Bruce

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980204.1403)]

Bruce Gregory (980204.1750 EST) --

The problem is that I don't have a clue what these lovers are
perceiving. I only have Tim's description of their behavior.
Without application of the Test that is all we are likely to
have. I like "just-so" stories as much as the next person, but
they are no substitute for real tests. I find it very
difficult to believe that the people involved are perceiving and
controlling a perception of "synchronization".

I agree this is problematic, and the issue is close to my linguistic home.
How does Rick know that the baseball catcher is "controlling the vertical
and lateral velocity of the image of the ball on the retina"? (Quoted from
the demo page http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/CatchXY.html
which does keep changing.) Because those are the perceptions controlled by
a model that with very simple means achieves the same results with pretty
good fidelity (still some work to get up above 99%).

In the case of the lovers, how do we specify the results and how do we
model the achievement of those results?

This is a problem with any higher-level control. Can we summarize the
contributions of lower-level control systems, much the same way as we now
summarize the physical attributes of the environment? In other words, put
e.g. a relationship control system in a simulated universe of
configurations, etc. rather than directly in a simulated physical universe?

  Bruce Nevin

[Dan_Miller]

[Dan Miller (980205)]

Bruce Gregory (980204.1745 EST)

Dan Miller

> So,how do we make sense of this intriguing finding?
> What is it about the act of reading (and reading a lot) that creates
> a context within which progressive political ideas can generate and
> thrive?

How do you know that progressive political ideas don't "cause"
reading?

You wouldn't. You use the concept "cause." I try to avoid this
word (though often unsuccessfully). If you could establish a
temporal priority, then you could accurately note which would be the
independent and which the dependent variable. Even so, it's only a
statistical association, but then again, what else do we have?

Always,
Dan

Dan Miller
miller@riker.stjoe.udayton.edu