Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)]

BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.” It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Managing Partner

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal
preferred or desired “reference levelsâ€?.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to
bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on
the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action,
from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over
time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each
other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive
reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control
systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in
their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

BestÂ

Rick

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)]

Rick:Â It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possible� that bothers you about 5?

I don’t even know what he means by 8.

I agree with you about 10.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.� It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)]

Â

      Rick:Â  It would help me if you could say

more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Â

      I took 4 to mean that if there is no error

there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no
error.

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Â

                  Fred

Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

                  FN:

BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on
Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.� It’s by
Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can
find it at this site:Â https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

                  FN:

I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Â

              RM: This was worth a look.  Kaufman

reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big
ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

              1: Perception is how our minds

experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal
preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do
nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in
ways to bring it back under control as quickly as
possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control
depend on the environment in which they’re taking
place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human
action, from our cells all the way up to our highest
values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions
over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with
each other by trying to control the same perception
with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control
systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions
or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

Â

              RM: I agree with some of these

(2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either
because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are
partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think
that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty
seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas”
that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the
big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of
perception? What is it important for a person to know
that?

Â

              RM: So I Â thought it might be a

nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who
presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are
important, to say what you think these big ideas are
and why you think they are important. I’ll show you
mine if you show me yours;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

                                  Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                    "Perfection

is achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when
you

                                    have nothing left to take away.�

                                    Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

Â

FN: Rick:Â It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Â

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possible� that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

 RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s  “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.Â

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.Â

Â

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:Â

10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

 RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Â

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

Â

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1040)]

RM: Â I still would like to know what those of you on CSGNet (if there are still any of you;-) think are the “big ideas” of PCT and why you think they are important. Â

BestÂ

Rick

···

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

Â

FN: Rick:Â It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Â

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possible� that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

 RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s  “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.Â

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.Â

Â

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:Â

10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

 RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Â

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

Â

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

David Goldstein (2017.05.20.0900)

Here is my comment about the “big ideas” in PCT.

“Big Ideasâ€? in Perceptual Control
Theory (PCT)

  1. The concept of a negative feedback
    control system applies to experiences , not just to the biological level of
    anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (homeostasis).

  2. An experience is controlled when the experience is what a person wants it to be.
    Good feelings are associated with controlled experiences which are significant
    for a person. Bad feelings happen when controlled experiences which are
    significant for the person are not adequately controlled.

  3. An experience can be analyzed into
    different levels (PCT hypothesizes 11 levels) going from concrete (closest to
    the the sense receptors) to abstract (inside the brain). The traditional
    categories of sensation, image, perception, conception span the 11 experience
    levels.

  4. The concept of behavior is redefined
    to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which
    provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a
    prescription of “what needs to be doneâ€? for the higher-level control system to
    control its experience. It is not just muscle and gland activity which is
    visible to an outside observer.

  5. To adequately understand a person, or
    oneself, one must discover what are the
    most significant experiences which are controlled. An application of PCT,
    called Method of Levels Therapy, helps one do this.

  6. There is a system within each person
    that is responsible for its biological/physical development from fertilized egg
    to adult and for its learning during life. The function of this system is to
    keep the biological state of the person matching the genetically prescribed
    state.

Thanks for any comments.

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Fri, May 19, 2017 1:02 pm

Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

FN: Rick: It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under controlâ€? to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possibleâ€? that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.

2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levelsâ€?.

3: Behavior is the control of perception.

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.

7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.20.1115)]

···

David Goldstein (2017.05.20.0900)

DG: Here is my comment about the “big ideas” in PCT.

RM: These are fantastic David. Very nicely done. The only edit I would make is in # 4, where I would change just one word (the one bolded) as follows:  "The concept of behavior is redefined to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a prescription of what needs to be **perceived **for the higher-level control system to control its experience.â€? Other than that this is a super description of what behavior is and how it works from the point of view of PCT.Â

RM: Now how about a quick description of why you think these big ideas are important.Â

BestÂ

Rick

“Big Ideasâ€? in Perceptual Control
Theory (PCT)

Â

1.   The concept of a negative feedback
control system applies to experiences , not just to the biological level of
anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (homeostasis).

Â

2.   An experience is controlled when the experience is what a person wants it to be.
Good feelings are associated with controlled experiences which are significant
for a person. Bad feelings happen when controlled experiences which are
significant for the person are not adequately controlled.

3.   An experience can be analyzed into
different levels (PCT hypothesizes 11 levels) going from concrete (closest to
the the sense receptors) to abstract (inside the brain). The traditional
categories of sensation, image, perception, conception span the 11 experience
levels.

Â

4.   The concept of behavior is redefined
to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which
provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a
prescription of “what needs to be doneâ€? for the higher-level control system to
control its experience. It is not just muscle and gland activity which is
visible to an outside observer.

Â

5.   To adequately understand a person, or
oneself, one must discover what are the
most significant experiences which are controlled. An application of PCT,
called Method of Levels Therapy, helps one do this.

Â

6.   There is a system within each person
that is responsible for its biological/physical development from fertilized egg
to adult and for its learning during life. The function of this system is to
keep the biological state of the person matching the genetically prescribed
state.

Thanks for any comments.

Â

Â

Â

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Fri, May 19, 2017 1:02 pm

Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

Â

FN: Rick:Â It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Â

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under controlâ€? to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possibleâ€? that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

 RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s  “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.Â

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.Â

Â

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:Â

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

 RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Â

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.

2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levelsâ€?.

3: Behavior is the control of perception.

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.

7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

Â

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.05.20.15:37 ET)]

Hm. I don’t have anything to add to the list of “big ideas” of PCT. Rather, this is about two ‘leading ideas’ around which conventional psychology is organized, and which PCT contradicts. They are the promise of prediction and control of behavior, and the computational metaphor.

Prediction and control of behavior

Behaviorism promised the prediction and control of behavior. Cognitive psychologists have not abjured that promise. PCT explains why this promise can never be fully met and delineates the costs of attempting it.

Historically, promising prediction and control of behavior has been a good career move. It appears to me that this is because people perceive such prediction and control as good means for controlling all sorts of other perceptions–so long as it is other people’s behavior that is predicted and controlled. If we assume that those who provide funding for research and for teaching expect, as a return on the investment, to be better able to control perceptions that matter to them as a consequence of providing the funding, then it follows pretty directly that the promise of prediction and control of behavior is going to get better institutional support, and is going to be better for one’s career, than espousal of views that call that promise into question.

PCT also points to alternative means for achieving some of the possible goals for which one might want to predict and control behavior. Rick and Tim pointed out in their book (which I reviewed on CSG-net in December of 2015), controlling another person’s behavior often results in conflict, which reduces one’s ability to control. Can we apply principles of MoL to such conflict, and ask what higher-level purposes are originating the reference values that are in conflict? Immediately above, we would find all kinds of purposes relevant to the immediate situation. For examples, just look at any time you are frustrated by someone, regardless of whether or not you have the means to try to control them. I want you to move your car out of the way so I can get to work faster. At this immediate level, or perhaps one above, we can even find people who use this as means of controlling a perception of pleasure. Henry Kissinger said power was the greatest aphrodisiac.Â

But if we go above the immediacies, I suspect that we find a desideratum that appears to be operative in evolution as well: the benefit of a more stable environment. Alternative means are available for controlling a perception that the environment is stable and predictable. These means are perceptions that are collectively controlled. It is in this direction of research which Kent has been pioneering that I think PCT will get more of the attention that it deserves.Â

The computational metaphor

PCT provides the antidote to the prevalent computational metaphor of cognition, which likens the brain to a digital computer. In this metaphor, sensory data are transformed to symbolic representations which are subject to information-processing routines, on the one hand building and modifying a symbolic ‘cognitive map’ of the environment and on the other hand issuing commands for behavior in that environment.

The computational metaphor lends itself to the promise of prediction and control insofar as it suggests that the brain can be programmed to ‘produce behavior’ in a predictable way.

However, PCT says little or nothing about how the setting of reference values within one individual can be purposefully influenced, that is, more successfully or less successfully controlled. We have little to say about how associative memory works.Â

I think that this lapse is partly due historically to antipathy to behaviorism and experimental ‘conditioning’. Behaviorist and kindred theories do not provide an explanation of behavior, but they do concern the influencing of reference-setting processes within an organism. I think it’s long past time to go up a level from that conflict, again on the analogy of MoL.

A year or so ago I finished reading the collected writings of Milton Erickson (in four volumes). There are some amazing case histories there. To my knowledge, no thought has been given to theÂ

phenomena of hypnotism, which certainly have been interpreted as being consistent with notions of ‘programming’ the brain. This is a rich field for research, not only into what is controlled, but also into means of control and manners of control.

···

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1040)]

RM: Â I still would like to know what those of you on CSGNet (if there are still any of you;-) think are the “big ideas” of PCT and why you think they are important. Â

BestÂ

Rick

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

Â

FN: Rick:Â It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Â

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possible� that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

 RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s  “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.Â

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.Â

Â

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:Â

10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

 RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

Â

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/Â

Â

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

Â

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

Â

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.21.0602)]

Rick asked us to provide what we see as the “big� ideas of PCT. Here’s my contribution:

People are “living control systems.�

Behavior is part of a control loop.

A lot of our controlling is done automatically, without requiring a lot of conscious thought.

What we control (or try to) is the correspondence between what we want and what we perceive to be the case.

That correspondence can be “disturbed� by other actors and factors but, for the most part, unless they overwhelm us, we manage to negate or offset them and keep things the way we want them to be.

Our emotions, positive or negative, tie to that correspondence.

Trying to control other people, especially their behavior, is likely to result in conflict, often accompanied by intense negative emotions.

Getting other people to do what you want is best accomplished through a process involving communication and negotiation.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.� It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.21.0636 ET)]

Hmm. After dashing off the items below, it occurred to me that – for me – THE biggest single idea of of PCT is this:Â

“We vary our output (behavior) to control our input (perceptions).�

As it happens, I believe that is the case with all open systems.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 6:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.21.0602)]

Rick asked us to provide what we see as the “big� ideas of PCT. Here’s my contribution:

People are “living control systems.�

Behavior is part of a control loop.

A lot of our controlling is done automatically, without requiring a lot of conscious thought.

What we control (or try to) is the correspondence between what we want and what we perceive to be the case.

That correspondence can be “disturbed� by other actors and factors but, for the most part, unless they overwhelm us, we manage to negate or offset them and keep things the way we want them to be.

Our emotions, positive or negative, tie to that correspondence.

Trying to control other people, especially their behavior, is likely to result in conflict, often accompanied by intense negative emotions.

Getting other people to do what you want is best accomplished through a process involving communication and negotiation.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.� It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From Rick Marken (2017.05.20.1115)]

David Goldstein (2017.05.21.0740)

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 2:15 pm

Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.20.1115)]

David Goldstein (2017.05.20.0900)

DG: Here is my comment about the “big ideas” in PCT.

RM: These are fantastic David. Very nicely done. The only edit I would make is in # 4, where I would change just one word (the one bolded) as follows: "The concept of behavior is redefined to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a prescription of what needs to be **perceived **for the higher-level control system to control its experience.� Other than that this is a super description of what behavior is and how it works from the point of view of PCT.

RM: Now how about a quick description of why you think these big ideas are important.

Best

Rick

“Big Ideasâ€? in Perceptual Control
Theory (PCT)

  1. The concept of a negative feedback
    control system applies to experiences , not just to the biological level of
    anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (homeostasis).

**Importance: The concept of negative feedback control system unifies mind, and body. **

  1. An experience is controlled when the experience is what a person wants it to be.
    Good feelings are associated with controlled experiences which are significant
    for a person. Bad feelings happen when controlled experiences which are
    significant for the person are not adequately controlled.

**Importance: This unifies the areas of motivation and emotion. **

  1. An experience can be analyzed into
    different levels (PCT hypothesizes 11 levels) going from concrete (closest to
    the the sense receptors) to abstract (inside the brain). The traditional
    categories of sensation, image, perception, conception span the 11 experience
    levels.

**Importance: The perceptual levels show the connection between the traditional categories. Otherwise, they seem disconnected. **

  1. The concept of behavior is redefined
    to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which
    provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a
    prescription of what needs to be perceived for the higher-level control system to
    control its experience. It is not just muscle and gland activity which is
    visible to an outside observer.

**Importance: The concept of behavior/response is redefined. The concept of stimulus is also redefined–A stimulus is not completely independent of what a person contributes. **

  1. To adequately understand a person, or
    oneself, one must discover what are the
    most significant experiences which are controlled. An application of PCT,
    called Method of Levels Therapy, helps one do this.

**Importance: This provides a key for understanding oneself and others. **

  1. There is a system within each person
    that is responsible for its biological/physical development from fertilized egg
    to adult and for its learning during life. The function of this system is to
    keep the biological state of the person matching the genetically prescribed
    state.

**Importance: The concept of reorganization provides a unification of development and learning. **

Thanks for any comments.

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com

To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Fri, May 19, 2017 1:02 pm

Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

FN: Rick: It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under controlâ€? to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possibleâ€? that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.â€? It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.

2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levelsâ€?.

3: Behavior is the control of perception.

4: When a perception is “under control,â€? we do nothing.

5: When a perception is “out of control,â€? we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.

7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.

10: You can never control another person in a “control systemsâ€? sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.21.0810 ET)]

Very helpful, David. Thanks.

Fred Nickols

···

From: David Goldstein [mailto:davidmg@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 7:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

From Rick Marken (2017.05.20.1115)]
David Goldstein (2017.05.21.0740)

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.20.1115)]

David Goldstein (2017.05.20.0900)

DG: Here is my comment about the “big ideas” in PCT.

RM: These are fantastic David. Very nicely done. The only edit I would make is in # 4, where I would change just one word (the one bolded) as follows: "The concept of behavior is redefined to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a prescription of what needs to be **perceived **for the higher-level control system to control its experience.� Other than that this is a super description of what behavior is and how it works from the point of view of PCT.

RM: Now how about a quick description of why you think these big ideas are important.

Best

Rick

“Big Ideas� in Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)

  1. The concept of a negative feedback control system applies to experiences , not just to the biological level of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (homeostasis).

**Importance: The concept of negative feedback control system unifies mind, and body. **

  1. An experience is controlled when the experience is what a person wants it to be. Good feelings are associated with controlled experiences which are significant for a person. Bad feelings happen when controlled experiences which are significant for the person are not adequately controlled.

**Importance: This unifies the areas of motivation and emotion. **

  1. An experience can be analyzed into different levels (PCT hypothesizes 11 levels) going from concrete (closest to the the sense receptors) to abstract (inside the brain). The traditional categories of sensation, image, perception, conception span the 11 experience levels.

**Importance: The perceptual levels show the connection between the traditional categories. Otherwise, they seem disconnected. **

  1. The concept of behavior is redefined to mean the output of a higher-level control system (more abstract) which provides the next lower level control systems (less abstract) with a prescription of what needs to be perceived for the higher-level control system to control its experience. It is not just muscle and gland activity which is visible to an outside observer.

**Importance: The concept of behavior/response is redefined. The concept of stimulus is also redefined–A stimulus is not completely independent of what a person contributes. **

  1. To adequately understand a person, or oneself, one must discover what are the most significant experiences which are controlled. An application of PCT, called Method of Levels Therapy, helps one do this.

**Importance: This provides a key for understanding oneself and others. **

  1. There is a system within each person that is responsible for its biological/physical development from fertilized egg to adult and for its learning during life. The function of this system is to keep the biological state of the person matching the genetically prescribed state.

**Importance: The concept of reorganization provides a unification of development and learning. **

Thanks for any comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Fri, May 19, 2017 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.19.1000)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.19.0617 ET)

FN: Rick: It would help me if you could say more about why you disagree with 4, 5, 8 and 10.

FN: I took 4 to mean that if there is no error there is no action. I understood “under control� to mean no error.

Is it the “as quickly as possible� that bothers you about 5?

RM: Here are 4 and 5:

4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.

RM: I agree that he is using “under control” to mean “no error” and “out of control” to mean “error”. There are two problems with this: 1) a variable can be under control when there is “error”; indeed, there is almost always some error when controlling, even when a variable is being controlled quite well and 2) ta control system is not necessarily doing nothing when there is no error; for example, when you recite the first lines of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” in perfect Middle English (as my English major wife does every year on the morning of April 1) there is no error in the system controlling for that perception (which begins “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote…”) but you are certainly not doing nothing to keep that perception matching the reference; you are pushing air through your vocal cords and moving your articulators (tongue, hard palate, teeth, lips), among other things.

FN: I don’t even know what he means by 8.

RM: Here’s 8.

8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.

RM: My guess is that he means that higher level perceptions occur over time. For example, the perception of a sentence (like “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote”) doesn’t exist until the sound has occurred over time. It’s a very good point but it would have been clearer if he had said that higher level perceptions are integrated (rather than averaged) over time.

FN: I agree with you about 10.

RM: Here’s 10:

10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: My main problem with this is that it misses what I think is the most important PCT point about controlling other people, which really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot actually do it successfully (of course, you can but, also, you can’t). What PCT shows is that having a “controlling” orientation to dealing with other people can lead to conflict – which involves the loss of control. As noted in my book with Tim Carey, “Controlling People”, it is difficult to overcome this orientation to dealing with other people because we are controlling people and, thus, have references for the way people should behave; so we are inclined to act in order to try to get people to act as we want. So our controlling nature can lead us to lose control by trying to control other people. That’s the paradox of being a “controlling person”. PCT shows that we exist within that paradox because of our nature as “controlling people” and it suggests ways to deal with that nature so as to minimize interpersonal conflict (the main way being to respect the controlling nature of all people, including oneself).

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.16.1553)–

FN: BTW, just came across a nice little exposition on Bill’s book “Making Sense of Behavior.� It’s by Josh Kaufman (a fellow I don’t know) and you can find it at this site: https://joshkaufman.net/making-sense-of-behavior/

FN: I think it’s worth a look by list members.

RM: This was worth a look. Kaufman reviews MSoB in terms of what he sees as the “10 big ideas” of PCT. Here they are:

1: Perception is how our minds experience the outside world.
2: Our brains compare what we perceive vs. internal preferred or desired “reference levels�.
3: Behavior is the control of perception.
4: When a perception is “under control,� we do nothing.
5: When a perception is “out of control,� we act in ways to bring it back under control as quickly as possible.
6: Our actions to bring a perception under control depend on the environment in which they’re taking place.
7: There are control systems at every level of human action, from our cells all the way up to our highest values and ideals.
8: Higher-level control systems average perceptions over time.
9: It’s possible for control systems to conflict with each other by trying to control the same perception with mutually exclusive reference levels.
10: You can never control another person in a “control systems� sense - you can only act on their perceptions or negotiate a change in their reference levels.

RM: I agree with some of these (2,3,6,7,9) and disagree with the others, either because they are not unique to PCT (1) or are partially or totally incorrect (4,5,8,10). But I think that someone unfamiliar with PCT would have difficulty seeing what the big deal is even with the “big ideas” that are stated correctly. What, for example, is the big deal with the idea that behavior is the control of perception? What is it important for a person to know that?

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1220)]

···

Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)

RM: I’ve gotten some really nice answers to this exercise. But  I think it’s interesting that no one mentioned what I think is the biggest and most important idea of PCT. It is the idea from which flow all the other “big ideas” that have been mentioned so far. It is the idea that “behaving IS controlling”.Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

RM: I think this is the most important idea of PCT because it is the foundation on which PCT is built, which is why it is the topic of the very first chapter of “Making Sense of Behavior” and it is also why my Tim Carey’s and my book on PCT Is called “Controlling People”. It is a “big idea” because the fact that behaving is controlling invalidates much of the theorizing about the behavior of living systems that has been done in the biological, behavioral and social sciences.Â

RM: I would be interested in knowing who out there agrees (or disagrees) with me that the biggest idea of PCT is that “behaving is controlling” and why you do (or don’t) agree.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.22.1551 ET)]

I think many, many people would agree with you that behavior is controlling; moreover, many of them don’t know a thing about PCT. I agree with that behaving is controlling but I don’t think it’s the biggest idea of PCT.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1220)]

Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

RM: I’ve gotten some really nice answers to this exercise. But I think it’s interesting that no one mentioned what I think is the biggest and most important idea of PCT. It is the idea from which flow all the other “big ideas” that have been mentioned so far. It is the idea that “behaving IS controlling”.

RM: I think this is the most important idea of PCT because it is the foundation on which PCT is built, which is why it is the topic of the very first chapter of “Making Sense of Behavior” and it is also why my Tim Carey’s and my book on PCT Is called “Controlling People”. It is a “big idea” because the fact that behaving is controlling invalidates much of the theorizing about the behavior of living systems that has been done in the biological, behavioral and social sciences.

RM: I would be interested in knowing who out there agrees (or disagrees) with me that the biggest idea of PCT is that “behaving is controlling” and why you do (or don’t) agree.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1300)]

···

 Fred Nickols (2017.05.22.1551 ET)]

Â

FN: I think many, many people would agree with you that behavior is controlling; moreover, many of them don’t know a thing about PCT. I agree with that behaving is controlling but I don’t think it’s the biggest idea of PCT.

RM: How do you know that these people who don’t know a thing about PCT know that behaving is controlling? Why do you agree with me that behaving is controlling? Why don’t you think it is the biggest idea of PCT?Â

Best

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1220)]

Â

Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)

Â

RM: So I Â thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

RM: I’ve gotten some really nice answers to this exercise. But  I think it’s interesting that no one mentioned what I think is the biggest and most important idea of PCT. It is the idea from which flow all the other “big ideas” that have been mentioned so far. It is the idea that “behaving IS controlling”.Â

Â

RM: I think this is the most important idea of PCT because it is the foundation on which PCT is built, which is why it is the topic of the very first chapter of “Making Sense of Behavior” and it is also why my Tim Carey’s and my book on PCT Is called “Controlling People”. It is a “big idea” because the fact that behaving is controlling invalidates much of the theorizing about the behavior of living systems that has been done in the biological, behavioral and social sciences.Â

Â

RM: I would be interested in knowing who out there agrees (or disagrees) with me that the biggest idea of PCT is that “behaving is controlling” and why you do (or don’t) agree.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.22.1620 ET)]

I think the notion that behaving is controlling is common sense and few would argue with the idea that we try to control various aspects of the world about us, including other people. As already stated, I don’t think you need to know a thing about PCT to appreciate that.

I agree with you that behavior is controlling because I am a controlling S.O.B. (or so my wife tells me) and I happily work to make things line up with the way I want them to be. (And, I might add, I am easily pissed off when they don’t and even more so when I am not successful at doing that.) Where we might have further disagreement, although I am not yet certain, is in relation to what is being controlled. According to PCT, what is being controlled is perception, more specifically, as I understand it, perceptions of that which we are trying to control. What I am beginning to think is that what we are trying to control isn’t the perception of what we’re trying to control but the perception of its alignment or correspondence with the way we want it to be.  In more PCT-like terms, we are trying to control the alignment or correspondence of our perception of the “controlled variable� with our “reference condition� for it. (Yes, I know, all three are perceptions.)

I think the biggest idea of PCT is what I said earlier: we vary our output to control our input – or someething like that.

I’ve probably had one too many drinks by now so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Fred

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1300)]

Fred Nickols (2017.05.22.1551 ET)]

FN: I think many, many people would agree with you that behavior is controlling; moreover, many of them don’t know a thing about PCT. I agree with that behaving is controlling but I don’t think it’s the biggest idea of PCT.

RM: How do you know that these people who don’t know a thing about PCT know that behaving is controlling? Why do you agree with me that behaving is controlling? Why don’t you think it is the biggest idea of PCT?

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior - Josh Kaufman site

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1220)]

Rick Marken (2017.05.18.1325)

RM: So I thought it might be a nice exercise for those of you on CSGNet, who presumably do think the “big ideas” of PCT are important, to say what you think these big ideas are and why you think they are important. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours;-)

RM: I’ve gotten some really nice answers to this exercise. But I think it’s interesting that no one mentioned what I think is the biggest and most important idea of PCT. It is the idea from which flow all the other “big ideas” that have been mentioned so far. It is the idea that “behaving IS controlling”.

RM: I think this is the most important idea of PCT because it is the foundation on which PCT is built, which is why it is the topic of the very first chapter of “Making Sense of Behavior” and it is also why my Tim Carey’s and my book on PCT Is called “Controlling People”. It is a “big idea” because the fact that behaving is controlling invalidates much of the theorizing about the behavior of living systems that has been done in the biological, behavioral and social sciences.

RM: I would be interested in knowing who out there agrees (or disagrees) with me that the biggest idea of PCT is that “behaving is controlling” and why you do (or don’t) agree.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.22.1620 ET)]

Â

      I think the notion that behaving is

controlling is common sense and few would argue with the idea
that we try to control various aspects of the world about us,
including other people. As already stated, I don’t think you
need to know a thing about PCT to appreciate that.

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1300)]

Â

                  Â Fred

Nickols (2017.05.22.1551 ET)]

Â

                  FN:

I think many, many people would agree with you
that behavior is controlling; moreover, many of
them don’t know a thing about PCT. I agree with
that behaving is controlling but I don’t think
it’s the biggest idea of PCT.

Â

              RM: How do you know that these

people who don’t know a thing about PCT know that
behaving is controlling? Why do you agree with me that
behaving is controlling? Why don’t you think it is the
biggest idea of PCT?Â

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Â

Â

                  Fred

Nickols

Â

From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Making Sense of Behavior -
Josh Kaufman site

Â

                    [From

Rick Marken (2017.05.22.1220)]

Â

                                Rick

Marken (2017.05.18.1325)

Â

                                      RM:

So I Â thought it might be a
nice exercise for those of you
on CSGNet, who presumably do
think the “big ideas” of PCT
are important, to say what you
think these big ideas are and
why you think they are
important. I’ll show you mine
if you show me yours;-)

                          RM: I've gotten some really nice answers

to this exercise. But  I think it’s
interesting that no one mentioned what I
think is the biggest and most important
idea of PCT. It is the idea from which
flow all the other “big ideas” that have
been mentioned so far. It is the idea that
“behaving IS controlling”.Â

Â

                          RM:

I think this is the most important idea of
PCT because it is the foundation on which
PCT is built, which is why it is the topic
of the very first chapter of “Making Sense
of Behavior” and it is also why my Tim
Carey’s and my book on PCT Is called
“Controlling People”. It is a “big idea”
because the fact that behaving is
controlling invalidates much of the
theorizing about the behavior of living
systems that has been done in the
biological, behavioral and social
sciences.Â

Â

                          RM:

I would be interested in knowing who out
there agrees (or disagrees) with me that
the biggest idea of PCT is that “behaving
is controlling” and why you do (or don’t)
agree.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

                                                  Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                                    "Perfection

is achieved not
when you have
nothing more to
add, but when
you

                                                    have nothing

left to take
away.�

                                                    Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 

       Â
–Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

Â

                                  Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                    "Perfection

is achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when
you

                                    have nothing left to take away.�

                                    Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Dag Forssell (2017.09.23.15:30 PDT)]
An interesting thread, with many thought-provoking contributions. Here is my take on it. Please set me straight :slight_smile:
As I plan a talk, it occurs to me to acknowledge that people have observed stimulus-response since time began, and also that people are purposeful.
The holy grail of psychology for at least the last century and a half has been the prediction and control of behavior.
In this contry, behaviorism, defined and promoted by Skinner, denied the existence of purpose and claimed that speculation about the inner workings of the brain was off limits, being that it was unscientific.
Skinner is known for the Skinner box, which is designed to study stimulus (the Independent Variable) and response (the Dependent Variable). While denying the existence of purpose, claiming that the environment, and only the environment, makes us do what we do, Skinner nevertheless made very sure that his expurimental animals had a very clear purpose. The wiki article on the Skinner box does not mention it, but standard practice requires that the experimental animal, whether rat or chicken, be prepared. That means starving it to 80 or 85 percent of normal body weight. This means that the animal is HUNGRY. Its purpose is to find a way to fill its belly.
So while denying the existence of purpose, Skinner saw to it that his animals had an overriding one. Surely this is intellectual fraud of the highest order. Skinner’s Behaviorism dominated contemporary psychology for decades, is still studied as Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB) and is deeply embedded in our culture. Also management training and literature, such as the still popular One Minute Manager.

(As Nevin points out) Cognitive psychology of today has the same holy grail and the same mistaken application of the “scientific method” (that does not account for purpose). The main difference is that Cog Sci acknowledeges purpose, goals, but unfortunately, it makes a number of fatally flawed assumptions about how the brain functions, seduced by digital technology and engineering applications to robots.

Behaviorism and Cog Sci both lack proven fundamentals, as is typical of the natural sciences. What they have are basic ideas which are proven false the moment they are tested. But that is not done in psychological “science”.

The upshot of this is that most psych research findings must be taken with a heap of salt.

The beauty of PCT is that it explains how purpose works in living organisms, complete with compelling interactive demonstrations with people as well as with computer models. Nothing equivalent exists in contemporary psychology of the Behaviorism or Cog Sci flavors.

PCT explains how conflict works and much more.

PCT shows that the intuitively obvious focus on behavior/action is mistaken. Behavior/action is automatic given the organisms purpose and the moment and the circumstances.

What is of interest is a person’s purpose, not the person’s actions.

Dealing with other people, it behoves us to ask and take an interest in each person’s purposes. It is folly to focus on the other person’s actions.

Focusing an actions leads to all kinds of ills in society.

Just yesterday, the SF Chronicle featured a major report on how focus on behavior damages children (my interpretation) http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2017/fostering-failure/

All for now,

Best, Dag

[From Dag Forssell (2017.09.23.15:30 PDT)]
An interesting thread, with many thought-provoking contributions. Here is
my take on it. Please set me straight :slight_smile:
As I plan a talk, it occurs to me to acknowledge that people have
observed stimulus-response since time began, and also that people are
purposeful.
The holy grail of psychology for at least the last century and a half has
been the prediction and control of behavior.
In this contry, behaviorism, defined and promoted by Skinner, denied the
existence of purpose and claimed that speculation about the inner
workings of the brain was off limits, being that it was
unscientific.
Skinner is known for the Skinner box, which is designed to study stimulus
(the Independent Variable) and response (the Dependent Variable). While
denying the existence of purpose, claiming that the environment, and only
the environment, makes us do what we do, Skinner nevertheless made very
sure that his expurimental animals had a very clear purpose. The wiki
article on the Skinner box does not mention it, but standard practice
requires that the experimental animal, whether rat or chicken, be
prepared. That means starving it to 80 or 85 percent of normal body
weight. This means that the animal is HUNGRY. Its purpose is to find a
way to fill its belly.
So while denying the existence of purpose, Skinner saw to it that his
animals had an overriding one. Surely this is intellectual fraud of
the highest order. Skinner’s Behaviorism dominated contemporary
psychology for decades, is still studied as Experimental Analysis of
Behavior (EAB) and is deeply embedded in our culture. Also management
training and literature, such as the still popular One Minute
Manager
.

(As Nevin points out) Cognitive psychology of today has the same holy
grail and the same mistaken application of the “scientific
method” (that does not account for purpose). The main difference is
that Cog Sci acknowledeges purpose, goals, but unfortunately, it makes a
number of fatally flawed assumptions about how the brain functions,
seduced by digital technology and engineering applications to robots.

Behaviorism and Cog Sci both lack proven fundamentals, as is typical of
the natural sciences. What they have are basic ideas which are proven
false the moment they are tested. But that is not done in psychological
“science”.

The upshot of this is that most psych research findings must be taken
with a heap of salt.

The beauty of PCT is that it explains how purpose works in living
organisms, complete with compelling interactive demonstrations with
people as well as with computer models. Nothing equivalent exists in
contemporary psychology of the Behaviorism or Cog Sci flavors.

PCT explains how conflict works and much more.

PCT shows that the intuitively obvious focus on behavior/action is
mistaken. Behavior/action is automatic given the organisms purpose and
the moment and the circumstances.

What is of interest is a person’s purpose, not the person’s actions.

Dealing with other people, it behoves us to ask and take an interest in
each person’s purposes. It is folly to focus on the other person’s
actions.

Focusing an actions leads to all kinds of ills in society.

Just yesterday, the SF Chronicle featured a major report on how focus on
behavior damages children (my interpretation)

http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2017/fostering-failure/

All for now,

Best, Dag