# Misc. from Mary

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/misc-from-mary/7019>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [March 22, 1993, 6:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/misc-from-mary/7019 "1993-03-22T18:01:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/William_T_Powers2)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 1993, 6:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/misc-from-mary/7019/1 "1993-03-22T18:01:02Z")

</div>

[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.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mary Powers

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_L\_Hacker\_Ph](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kenneth\_L\_Hacker\_Ph](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_L_Hacker_Ph)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 1993, 8:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/misc-from-mary/7019/2 "1993-03-22T20:44:02Z")

</div>

> 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