[From Bill Powers (2008.09.15.0653 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2008.09.15.0641 MDT) –
So my answer to the question of which determines our behavior,
nature or nurture, is neither.
Hmm. I would have expected
an answer of “some of both.” Must be my outdated thinking
and mental models at work.
Yes. As you know (once you stop to think about it), BEHAVIOR, the set of
all outputs we generate, is not determined in advance; it is varied as
required by disturbances and the current settings of reference
signals.
In PCT terms, I suppose that
“which determines our behavior” is the control loop, involving
a comparison of perception with reference signal and output if there’s a
difference.
Yes, and also disturbances, which largely determine how much and what
kind of behavior is needed to keep perceptions near their reference
levels. If your car is exactly where you want it to be in its lane, you
don’t produce any steering actions at all. If there’s a crosswind, you
turn the steering wheel to a new position, moving it until the car is
where you want it to be again. And when you get to the corner where you
need to turn, you change where you want the car to be in its lane, and
drive it out of its lane. Your steering-wheel-angle reference
signals have to be freely variable if you want to be able to steer a car.
Your where-the-car-is-in-its-lane reference signals have to be freely
variable if you want to get where you want to go even if roads are closed
or parades are going by or you need to detour to pick up some doughnuts
and coffee, and you don’t stop for doughnuts if your weight has been
going up a bit, so on up all the levels to the top level.
One question for me is how
those reference signals get established. It seems to me that some
of those come from nature and some are nurtured.
Again, think about that a little more. You know that reference signals
are not set once and for all time. They are set and adjusted by
higher-order systems as their means of making their perceptions match the
reference signals they are being given by still-higher-order systems, and
then keeping them that way despite disturbances, fatigue, and
mistakes.
The idea that behavior can be genetically determined comes from the old
model in which properties, “traits”, of an organism determine
the responses that organisms will generate when stimulated in particular
ways. You and I and all of us were educated to believe in that model, to
absorb it into our very pores, and to perceive the world that way. We all
have the hard job of revising EVERY SINGLE THING WE WERE TAUGHT ABOUT
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN NATURE in the light of what PCT says about how
we work. We all will probably go on discovering and weeding out old ideas
in our heads for the rest of our lives.
What changes only slowly is the organization of our perceptions, which in
turn determine what reference signals mean. We may diet or indulge, but
we still perceive how we look. What looks slim and trim to me looks like
gross overweight to an anorexic, so naturally we produce different
behaviors to control how we eat, when we are eating rather than swimming.
While we’re swimming, the reference signal for eating is set to zero in
both of us. Otherwise our sandwiches would get too soggy. The
organization of perception determines the dimensions in which we see the
world, and therefore the dimensions along which we control it. If we
inherit anything concerning behavior, a tendency to perceive in certain
ways is the only plausible candidate (other than the hands, arms, legs,
eyes, and muscles we use to control various perceptions of our
environments). That’s why men look at certain physical configurations of
female bodies and think instantly of sex, while women (most women)
looking at the same configurations think only of competition.
You can’t simply translate the old terminology into the new, like
substituting “reference signal” for “motivation.” The
models are different; the meanings are different. You have to start from
scratch and re-think everything. *Everything.*I quit saying that some years ago because people got upset and
started talking about babies and bathwater, but I was mistaken. I should
never have stopped. If I hadn’t stopped, we wouldn’t be having this
conversation – either you would have made the necessary changes, or you
would have decided that the price was too high, and left.
So, please say some more about
“neither.”
Just did. Your turn.
You know, it’s funny, but I really never say anything about PCT that
others couldn’t have said, at least the others on CSGnet. I think the
reason that many questions keep recurring is simple: the others know what
the answers will be, but they can’t bring themselves to admit it. Do I
REALLY HAVE TO give up that idea? Of course the answer is yes, but as
long as I take on the chore of saying what the answer is, the others can
still resist it and put off the remorseful day.
Best,
Bill P.