[From Bruce Gregory (980402.0535 EST)]
Rick Marken (980402.2200)]
Bruce Gregory (980402.2120 EST)
I realized that I cannot adjust my reference levels, nor should I
expect to be able to do so in an HPCT model.
But we can easily adjust our reference levels voluntarily. That's
what we are doing when we change from keeping the cursor aligned
with the target to keeping it 2 cm to the left of the target; or
when we change the clench of our hand from fist to open, etc, etc.
Yes, I know. I've wrestled with this too. How do we manage to apparently
change some reference levels easily and "voluntarily", while others remain
so hard to affect? My guess is that we are controlling at a higher level and
this higher level adjusts our reference for cursor position in its effort to
maintain control. Make sense?
Reorganization, as far as I could see, is no help.
Reorganization does help; you can see it improving the initially
poor controlling done by Bill's "Little Man".
This seemed to me to be the way I learned to do anything new. I
had to find a perceptual distinction that allowed me to create
a new domain of control.
I agree that learning new perceptual variables to control is an
important aspect of reorganization. I believe that what rankled me
about your earlier post was the suggestion that the way to solve
control problems is to perceive things in a new way -- like
perceiving the Jack Daniels in such a way that you don't want
to drink it. I reacted to this because it sounded to me like a
recommendation to hallucinate: "you can solve your drinking
problem by learning to perceive the Jack Daniels as swill
instead of the delicious, intoxicating brown liquor that it is".
Yes, I suspected as much. No, I wasn't recommending hallucination. (Although
it does have its charms 
)
Rather than saying that the way to deal with troublesome
perceptions (a nagging wife, a seductive bottle of booze,
a boring job) is by learning to perceive things differently,
how about saying that the way to deal with control problems
is by learning to control different perceptual variables?
Perfect. Not only does that help me to see what I wanted to say, but it
helps me to say it differently in the future. That's what I meant about the
principle of charity. I know a few (very few!) people who are brilliant at
it. They can take the stupidest statement and respond to it as though it was
brilliantly thoughtful. This approach has many virtues. First it makes the
question feel good about him/her self. Second it leaves them open to
accepting something they might otherwise reject as threatening. I wish I
could do it more often...
I bet this is what you meant anyway and I just misinterpreted
your earlier statement in my constant rush to be contrary;-)
Fortunately I _never_ get defensive ;-).
Bruce the Repentant
)