Misc. from Mary

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

[from Mary Powers]

Gary: re Closed Loop as a journal, and the idea that progress
reports, etc. can be read on the net - you may not realize that
HALF of our paid-up membership is NOT on the net - CL is their
only way of knowing what's going on.

Lars: I sent you the PCT bibliography. Didn't you get it?

Dick R.: You can get lodging info and tourist brochures from
Durango by calling 1-800-525-8855.

Dag: Can you send me Toto's current address?

···

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

Ken Hacker: I think you've expressed the
Carver/Scheier/Karoly/etc/etc version of control theory pretty
clearly. This is how to talk about control theory without having
to change your mind about traditional psychology.

any signal, sign, symbol or message varies in its ability to
evoke...
there is no good reason to think that any human cannot stimulate
feedback...

Ascribing "ability" to a message and "stimulating" feedback are
precisely the brick walls PCT is up against. All the evoking is
in the control system, not the message, which is why the
message's ability seems to vary. Feedback is a property of the
system, it does not get stimulated or turned on (or off) by an
outside agency.

However, I agree that feedback is the result of a feedforward
process initiated by the receiver signals from others.

Agree with who? Feedforward, as far as I can tell, is a buzzword
that vaguely resembles the reference signal. It is by comparing
received signals to the reference signal that action is
initiated. This gives the appearance that the action is a
response to the "initiating" signals. The reason the input
signals seem to vary in their ability to evoke a response is
because they may or may not produce a perceptual signal that
matters (differs from the reference signal).

It is not splitting hairs to define feedback as Bill Powers does.
It is fundamental to PCT. The difference between feedback and
input is fudged over in the self-regulation literature. It is a
consequence of using control theory metaphorically rather than
rigorously. I'm afraid most psychologists do not know the
difference, having never before encountered a real model.

                              Mary Powers

2

From Ken Hacker [932203]

In response to Mary Powers:

Your response to my message (note how my messages GENERATED your
GENERATION of messages; they did not arise from thin air) is an
interesting illustration of why PCT is up against so many
barriers. There is more semantic tussling going on than real
explanation in terms of processes we can all appreciate from various
non-One Way perspectives.

Ken Hacker: I think you've expressed the
Carver/Scheier/Karoly/etc/etc version of control theory pretty
clearly. This is how to talk about control theory without having
to change your mind about traditional psychology.

I am not interested in defending traditional psychology and any
suggestion that I am, is patently false.

Ascribing "ability" to a message and "stimulating" feedback are
precisely the brick walls PCT is up against. All the evoking is
in the control system, not the message, which is why the
message's ability seems to vary. Feedback is a property of the
system, it does not get stimulated or turned on (or off) by an
outside agency.

Of course the evoking is in the control system, but that is not the
issue. In communication, one control system is providing disturbances
to another. Those disturbances, in the form of messages, vary greatly
in responses or reguation by receivers. The messages mean different things
to different control systems. Certainly. But for any single control
system, the variability of messages and message responses is important.
For example, I would respond much more kindly to PCT if the messages here
were less of what I PERCEIVE as arrogance. I would think and respond
differently to something as simply as tone. Is tone information; I think
it is. Is tone made up by me? No, it is perceived by me and I will
have different perceptions for different messages.
The problem with PCT as you describe it is that it denies the social aspects
of what is social: human INTERaction.

The reason the input
signals seem to vary in their ability to evoke a response is
because they may or may not produce a perceptual signal that
matters (differs from the reference signal).

I agree. Remember, now, from your argument, if you are taken back by
any of my comments, it has nothing to do with what I am saying; it is
all inside of you!! From my argument, we both have reference signals,
comparators, etc. etc.,
and will compare and adjust what we are reading and writing and
negotiate messages
and interpretations to help us understand more about ourselves and each
other. Ken Hacker