# Mistress PCT, axiom

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/mistress-pct-axiom/7056>\
**Category:** CSG1994\
**Created:** [February 14, 1994, 4:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/mistress-pct-axiom/7056 "1994-02-14T04:12:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Human\_Factors\_Lab](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/b3f665/32.png) [@Human\_Factors\_Lab](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Human_Factors_Lab)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 1994, 4:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/mistress-pct-axiom/7056/1 "1994-02-14T04:12:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (940213.2010)]

Mary Powers (940213) to Jim Dundon (940206)

Questions on information.

> You arrived on the net in the midst of a (to me) exceptionally  
> tedious and prolonged argument about information theory and  
> control theory.... I think Bill has tried to move  
> the discussion up a level to look \_at\_ the mind sets rather than  
> operating \_from\_ them, but so far it hasn't worked.

I have tried before to describe the mind set from which I'm operating.  
I think it's basically the same one from which Martin is operating:  
the mind set of gaining acceptance for and contibuting to the  
development of PCT. Most of the people contributing to CSGNet  
probably come from the same mind set ; the same reference for a  
system level perception. I think my conflict with Martin about  
information theory has to do with subgoals that we see as necessary  
for controlling that perception. The conflict between information  
theory and PCT is a result of a difference over whether it is important,  
in principle, to seek "continuity with the past" as a way of "gaining  
acceptance for and contibuting ot the development of PCT".

I have come to believe that the principle of maintaining continuity  
with past developments in psychology (for example) is not only  
unimportant to the goal of developing and promulgating PCT, it can  
actively interfere with that goal. My experience has been that well-  
intentioned efforts to find a place for PCT in some existing theory of  
behavior, or to find a place for some existing theory of behavior in  
PCT, always requires contradicting some basic tenet of PCT. The  
result is a compete mangling of PCT. This is what happened to Carver  
and Scheier, Locke, Hyland and many others who found (or still find)  
PCT attractive; these people were unwilling to give up their marriages  
to other theories. The result was that PCT became a mistress (and a rather  
abused one) rather than a wife. I guess I believe that it is as impossible to  
have an honest relationship with two theories at the same time as it is to  
have an honest, intimate relationship with two women at the same time --  
even if you THINK that they can get along. Eventually, you are forced to  
choose.

One of PCT's most faithless suitors has been William Glasser, who has a  
new book out called "The Control Theory Manager". It is very short and  
I plan to post a review of it shortly. I recommend this book as an excellent  
example of what happens to people who want to keep PCT as a mistress  
while maintaining their marriage to another theory (in Glasser's case,  
"reality therapy"). I think we all know who gets the shaft when the day  
of reckoning arrives.

> "List all axioms". Living systems control.

Excellent.

Best

Rick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/a9adbd/32.png) [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 1994, 2:01am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/mistress-pct-axiom/7056/2 "1994-02-16T02:01:59Z")

</div>

\<Martin Taylor 940215 20:45\>

> Rick Marken (940213.2010)

> I have tried before to describe the mind set from which I'm operating.  
> I think it's basically the same one from which Martin is operating:  
> the mind set of gaining acceptance for and contibuting to the  
> development of PCT.

Agreed.

> The conflict between information  
> theory and PCT is a result of a difference over whether it is important,  
> in principle, to seek "continuity with the past" as a way of "gaining  
> acceptance for and contibuting ot the development of PCT".

Not agreed. Not agreed that there is ANY conflict between information  
theory and PCT. Not agreed that "continuity with the past" has any  
bearing on the case. I don't give a hoot about continuity with the past,  
in regard to scientific theories. What works is what works, whether it  
was thought of yesterday or 2000 years ago (like the works of our finest  
economist, J. H. Christ).

I keep coming back with discussions of information theory, and with  
arguments, predictions, and whatever, because I have found that IT helps  
me greatly in understanding the nature of hierarchic control--what the  
hierarchy does, what happens in learning (whether by reorganization or  
Hebbian), and a host of other stuff you haven't let me get to because you  
are stuck on this notion that information = reconstruction of the  
disturbance. There's very little point in trying to discuss the more  
advanced ideas before the most simple are understood, so I don't try.

But the main motivation for keeping on with it is that I continue to  
believe what once annoyed you and Bill, that one cannot really understand  
hierarchic control at any deep level without coming to terms with its  
informational implications. Understand at a deep level does NOT mean  
the ability to program models that mimic behaviour. That ability is a  
proof of concept, that one's ideas are plausible, and very valuable as  
such. But it does not represent a deep understanding, in my view.

I think we have about exhausted the current cycle of discussion. If not,  
please just recycle the postings from the end of March and beginning of  
April 1993, as my contributions there say almost all that I had intended  
to say now. I realized that when I went back to look at the history of  
claims and counterclaims. So now, when the sleep-loss study eases up, I  
intend to address the issue from a quite different direction, which might  
not raise your hackles quite so badly. That could be in May or June. But  
it might be earlier, if things go well.

Mary says Bill keeps trying to go up a level to address the mind-set. I  
don't see this. I see a lack of understanding of what information theory  
is based on and how it can be usefully applied. I try to address this  
lack sometimes, by writing little tutorials on this and that aspect. I  
think this helps. I hope it does. (At least you can see that I'm not  
using terms like "negentropy" in the quasi-fantastical way Hal does).

Back to the sleep study.

Martin