[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