From David Wolsk
960414 1045 PT
[From Rick Marken (960411.0820)]
David Wolsk (960410)
I suspect that the tickle response bears some resemblance to these
other response systems.
Try to think of them as control systems. You seem to be thinking of tickling
in S-R terms:
tickle-->laughter
The tickle is a stimulus that causes a laughter response.
PCT suggests that this must be an illusion; what we see as stimuli are
disturbances to controlled variables; what we see as responses are related to
the actions that compensate for what would be the effects of disturbances
to the controlled variable. What must really be going on in tickling is:
tickle -->CV--|person|-->laughter
^ |
>----------------|
What perception (CV) might be affected by both tickle and laughter? Actually,
there are probably several levels of perception controlled in this situation,
but I suspect that one controlled perception might be something like
"approval"; when the person doing the tickling is someone you like, you laugh
in order to perceive approval of the result of the tickle. The fact that the
laughter is not a "response" to the tickle is shown be the fact that the
response when the person doing the tickling is someone you hate or fear is no
longer laughter. At least, I don't think it is. Somhow, I can't imagine
laughing too hard if I were being tickled by Rush Limbaugh
My answer (since the >'s seem to be missing from Rick's text)
My reaction to the stimulus of an accusation of thinking in S-R terms was
swift.
I see myself as controlling for slowly deriving some acceptance into the PCT
group. Thus, I read the material every night with interest and engagement
except when the mathematical stuff goes beyond my poor competencies (more on
that in another entry). So, being labelled an SRist got me thinking. Part
of my motivation for exploring this is from recent attempts to discuss the
importance of PCT with others, mostly non-psychologists. I've had some
trouble explaining why such a small group of social scientists are PCTers
when the theory has been around so long. Our whole language and culture
creates such a built-in bias to think in SR terms. I was encouraged to read
of Bill Powers trip to N. Carolina recently. I wonder if good novelists and
playwrights are also our allies. I've become sensitised to the way in which
they structure thier works in a PCT mode: e.g., the characters are often
portrayed in terms of the variables that they are controlling. And, method
acting stresses the purposive nature of inner motivations as the source for
technique. Should we be capitalising more on our creative cousins?
As to tickle, there is much in Rick's analysis that appeals to me, but
uncertainties remain. My memories of childhood tickling sessions include
the use of tickling in power plays. I would be controlling for physical
avoidance and not laughing while my tormentor would persist in demonstrating
my inability to control the laughter.
Other occasions, especially with females, could turn more towards Rick's
laugher for approval mode. Either way though, as an ex-sensory
psychologist, I'm at a loss to explain the origins of the link between a
particular type of touching in a particular area of the body and the shift
in control outcomes that follow. I did a quick search of the Univ Victoria
library holdings catalogue on TICKLE as a key-word and as a subject. There
didn't seem anything worth following up .... lots of literary type titles.
These days, when the relationships between humour and our immune systems is
such a hot topic and hospitals are setting up Laughter Lounges for their
patients, perhaps we should be exploring/researching a nurses-training
course on therapeutic tickling.
David Wolsk
Victoria, BC Canada (where we laugh in two official languages while
controlling for self-definition)