On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.07.16.56]

It rather depends on what you mean by "social power". In its usual

sense, the atenfel construct isn’t very important. In that sense
what is important is getting other people to see things your way so
that collective control serves your purposes. And that gets into the
whole area of team play, party politics, religious sects, and the
like. I don’t want to go there at the kind of length available in
e-mail messages. But the relative power of two individuals,
especially when they are in conflict, that is where atenfels first
come into play.
Let’s start from the idea of one simple control loop.
If this is all you are interested in, there’s no reason to think of
splitting any of the segments represented by arrows into components.
All that matters is the influence that the variation of the value at
the tail of the arrow on the value at the head of the arrow. In most
loop analyses, the arrow represents a simple connector, so there is
even less that matters. Loop gain and transport lag is often enough.
Things get more interesting when the output of one control system
influences the ability of another to control well. That influence
might be through input “D”. That is the standard conflict situation,
in which two controller try to set their perceptions of the same
environmental variable to different reference values. The
environmental variable in question is symbolized by the small green
circle. I usually call it the Complex Environmental Variable (CEV)
of the control loop, which is converted by each competitor into
their controlled variable – their perception of the CEV.
There are, however, three other ways the output of one control loop
can affect the operation of another, either by side-effect or
deliberately. Referring to the loop diagram, it might amplify or
partially block the effect of the disturbance on the other’s CEV
(affecting the properties of the arrow at D), or it might affect
something about the link from O to the CEV or from the CEV to S.
Examples of these latter might be the insertion of a microscope so
that S can represent tiny visual objects, or the insertion of a
lever between O and the CEV so that the output can apply more force.
And here we begin to touch on the concept of an atenfel.
The microscope and the lever do not constitute the entire
environmental feedback path. As objects, they don’t even form part
of the path. What forms part of the path in the case of the
microscope is its magnifying property, while for the lever it is the
force ratio between the ends (the “mechanical advantage”) of the
lever. Those properties, not the objects, are atenfels for
controlling whatever perception the loop controls. When talking
casually, however, we often use a shorthand form that mentions the
object rather than the property, as in “the lever is an atenfel for
moving a rock”, which should be read as “the mechanical advantage
property of the lever is an atenfel for controlling a perception of
the location of the rock”.
In the shorthand form one can often substitute “tool” for atenfel,
but this should not be misunderstood as taking the physical object
“tool” to be the atenfel. The atenfel is some property of the
object, and the object has many properties of different kinds.
Moreover, the particular property is an atenfel in the environmental
feedback path of some control loop. If it isn’t part of a loop, it
is only potentially an atenfel, and that potential applies to a wide
variety of perceptions that could be controlled.
The concept of “atenfel” applies not only to properties of physical
objects we call “tools”, but also to more abstract constructs. For
example, the stability of someone’s liking for a particular food can
be an atenfel for controlling a perception of that person’s pleasure
as a guest at your table.
To go into verbal detail every time one wants to talk about an
atenfel would be very tedious, and is often pointless. Consider a
hammer. You can “use a hammer to hammer a nail into a piece of
wood”. To say that is much simpler than to say that the hardness and
weight of the hammer head are atenfels for control of a perception
of the relative location of the nail-head and the piece of wood. You
can also “use the handle of the hammer to point at something”, which
is simpler than saying that the hammer handle’s disproportionate
length width ratio is an atenfel for controlling a perception of the
angle to look in order to see the thing. But the common use of the
shorthand should not lead one to forget that the atenfel is not the
object, but is a link in the feedback path of a controlled
perception.
When I tried to use the word “effordance” to describe a very similar
concept, Bill Powers thought it was a useless concept because one
can imagine any object being used for a wide variety of purposes;
the hammer might provide effordances for driving a nail, pointing a
direction, making a hole in a sheet of drywall, being a
counterweight on a balance, murdering someone, being used as a
mirror, and so forth, so what was the point of trying to say that
the hammer had any particular effordance? Kent made a similar
objection to my use of “effordance” in an early draft of my LCS IV
chapter, and it was this discussion that led to the more refined
concept of “atenfel”, which starts with the control loop rather than
with the object. The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link allows
the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the loop.
From the viewpoint of the control loop, whether the link is a
property of an object is irrelevant. From the viewpoint of a
toolmaker, the provision of an object with the necessary property is
essential. The tool builder controls perceptions of the perceptions
for which a property of the tool should be a potential atenfel. That
property may be called a “designed atenfel”. A tool like a Swiss
Army knife is designed to have many different properties that could
become atenfels for control of frequently controlled perceptions. We
call such a convergence of potential atenfels an “atenex” (a nexus
of atenfels). The convergence may be but need not be in a physical
object. If it is a physical object, we often use a shorthand
wording, saying that the object is the atenex, as we do when talking
about individual atenfels.
Atenfels and power. I described an atenfel as a link in a chain, and a chain is as
strong as its weakest link. However, the metaphor is a bit
misleading, because the “chain” is quite likely to be a network in
which different objects have properties that could serve as a
particular atenfel. If someone takes your hammer, you might use a
hard, heavy rock to drive the nail. However, if the area is devoid
of objects with sufficient hardness and weight, and someone makes
off with the hammer, you can no longer control your perception of
the relation between the nailhead and the surface of the wood. In
the common metaphoric sense of “power”, you no longer have the power
to control that perception. You retain the skill, long since
reorganized in your hierarchy, to use the “hard-heavy” property of
an object to drive nails, but your environment does not contain that
potential atenfel, so you have no possibility of completing the
feedback loop. The thief has diminished your set of controllable
perceptions, your overall “power” to control.
This example trivially illustrates the idea of “power”. If there are
no rocks, the presence or absence of the hammer determines your
ability to control the nailhead-wood relationship perception. You
lost power when the hammer vanished. But if there is a suitable
rock, you are still able to control that perception, though less
well than before. Your power is degraded, not eliminated.
Look at it now from the viewpoint of the thief who is controlling a
perception of your ability to set the nail flush with the wood with
a reference that you should be unable to do it. Maybe he is
controlling a perception of your ability, maybe a perception of the
nailhead-wood relationship. The latter would be the usual conflict
situation, but the conflict is manifest differently, since you act
on the nailhead while the opponent does not. If there is no rock,
the capable thief can remove the hammer and thereby prevent you from
controlling that perception. He has the power to control his
perception. But if there is a suitable rock handy, he cannot control
his perception, at least not to the same extent. All he can do is
make it more difficult for you to control your perception. You lose
power to the extent that the thief is able to deploy his power.
For the thief, his environmental feedback loop is made up of a chain
or network of atenfels, of which the controlled perception
“stealing” is one. If you can use the rock, this atenfel becomes a
weak link in the chain, and his control of his perception of your
ability to set the nailhead level with the wood is rather poor. If
good control of a perception corresponds to the metaphoric “power”,
the thief’s “stealing” provides him with little power. On the other
hand, if you have no rock at hand, the thief’s control is good, and
“stealing” is powerful. There is a power see-saw. If you retain the
power to control your perception, the thief’s “stealing” is an
atenfel that contributes very little to his power, because his
control of his perception is poor, and vice-versa.
If the thief is experiencing persistent error in a higher-level
perception – he REALLY doesn’t want that nail pounded flush – he
will reorganize to find means to inhibit your control other than
stealing the hammer. He may tie you up or break your arm so that you
cannot use any of the potential atenfels involving heavy hard
objects. But if you REALLY want that nail to be flush, you also have
other possible atenfels in your network. For example, you could ask
a friend to find a hammer and use it to pound the nail. The friend
becomes an “object” with properties that include the possibility of
being used as an atenfel for pounding nails. However it works out,
if the thief has more power, you have less, and vice-versa.
The situation is actually a non-classical conflict over the
perceived relation of the nailhead and the wood. It is non-classical
because the opponents do not compete by increasing their influence
on the CEV, but by affecting each other’s power to influence the
CEV, doing so by altering the effectiveness of the atenfels being
used by the opponent.
Influencing another’s atenfels need not decrease the other’s power.
Instead of a thief stealing the hammer, if you didn’t have one
initially a friend might lend you one, thereby giving you power to
control your perception of the relation between the nailhead and the
wood surface. In one of Kent’s examples, a whole community of people
combine to build and maintain a road, giving you the power to use a
car as an atenfel for controlling a perception of your movement
between two places on the road, whereas before the road, you might
have had to cut your way through a jungle. The road adds to your power, but it adds also to the power of anyone
else who might be controlling perceptions of movement along its
path. You and these other people were unknown to the road builders.
An object that provides power to many people unknown to the creator
of the object (if it is a created object) is part of what is
ordinarily called “infrastructure”. An infrastructure object is not
primarily an atenex, because only one property (or a related set of
properties) is used for control of similar perceptions in different
controllers. (Although, as with any object, the road has many
properties, any of which might be used as an atenfel for control of
some perception, it isn’t designed for those different purposes,
which is why we would not ordinarily treat it as an atenex.)
The idea of infrastructure is not limited to physical objects. In
his LCS IV chapter, Kent points out how stability of social
structures can also be used as an atenfel or an atenex. For example,
within an organization, the social structure includes the concept of
“role”, such as “manager”, “accountant”, “salesperson”, “secretary”.
These are fairly stable roles, and each has a designed set of
properties that can be used as atenfels for control of different
perceptions. The stability of these roles, independent of the person
playing the role, enhances the power of anyone with the ability to
use those atenfels for controlling perceptions. That ability depends
on the stable network of relationships among roles. A “janitor” does
not have the ability to control a perception of the financial status
of the organization by asking an “accountant” to provide it, but a
“manager” does. Money is a social structure that is an atenex par excellence, since
it is by design useful in control of an indefinite number of
perceptions through the activities of other people. The more money
one has, the more such perceptions one can control, including the
perception of the amount of money one has available. As the sayings
go, “money is power” and “money begets money”. In a conflict between
a person (or a role) that can use a lot of money and one who has
little, the one with more will usually win, having the ability to
use atenfels that remove or reduce the effectiveness of the other’s
atenfels in the same way that the hammer-stealing thief reduced the
power of the nail-setter.
Obviously we are getting into questions of “ownership”, which I
think is beyond the scope of this introduction to the concept of the
atenfel. After all the adage “possession is nine tenths of the law”
would seem silly if ownership were not complicated.
I hope this sketchy introduction gives you an idea of why and when
the concept of an atenfel is useful, and how it relates to the
metaphoric concept of “power” as a combination of skill and
strength.
Martin

···

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.07.1250)]

Martin Taylor (2016.06.05.20.30)–

                        RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in

my judgement) name? What was wrong with
plain old “feedback function”.

            MT: An atenfel is a component link in an

environmental feedback path.

          RM: OK. It's hard for me to see what this might have to

do with understanding social power from a PCT perspective.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.12.1200)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.06.07.16.56)–

MT: It rather depends on what you mean by "social power". In its usual

sense, the atenfel construct isn’t very important. In that sense
what is important is getting other people to see things your way so
that collective control serves your purposes.

RM: That was the sense I meant.

MT: But the relative power of two individuals,

especially when they are in conflict, that is where atenfels first
come into play.

RM: After reading this I’m afraid I still don’t see the value of introducing this new term. It seems to be unnecessary at best and misleading at worst, like the term Complex Environmental Variable (CEV), which you mention at the beginning of your discussion:

MT: Things get more interesting when the output of one control system

influences the ability of another to control well. That influence
might be through input “D”. That is the standard conflict situation,
in which two controller try to set their perceptions of the same
environmental variable to different reference values. The
environmental variable in question is symbolized by the small green
circle. I usually call it the Complex Environmental Variable (CEV)
of the control loop, which is converted by each competitor into
their controlled variable – their perception of the CEV.

RM: There is no such thing as a CEV in the PCT model. What are controlled are perceptual variables that are functions of environmental variables. The environmental correlates of these perceptual variables are called controlled quantities, which are the same functions of environmental variables as the corresponding perceptual variables. Controlled quantities are controlled perceptual variables seen from the perspective of an observer of the control system. Examples of controlled perceptual variables that have no corresponding CEV are the taste of lemonade, the correctness of a mathematical proof or the meaning of this sentence.

RM: People get into conflict when they control the same (or similar) functions of environmental variables (the same perceptual variables), not the same environmental variables. This is very important to understand because, as I said earlier, people can control different functions of the same environmental variables without any conflict. Conflict results when two (or more) control systems try to bring the the same (or similar) functions of environmental variables (perceptions) to different reference states.

Best regards

Rick

There are, however, three other ways the output of one control loop

can affect the operation of another, either by side-effect or
deliberately. Referring to the loop diagram, it might amplify or
partially block the effect of the disturbance on the other’s CEV
(affecting the properties of the arrow at D), or it might affect
something about the link from O to the CEV or from the CEV to S.
Examples of these latter might be the insertion of a microscope so
that S can represent tiny visual objects, or the insertion of a
lever between O and the CEV so that the output can apply more force.
And here we begin to touch on the concept of an atenfel.

The microscope and the lever do not constitute the entire

environmental feedback path. As objects, they don’t even form part
of the path. What forms part of the path in the case of the
microscope is its magnifying property, while for the lever it is the
force ratio between the ends (the “mechanical advantage”) of the
lever. Those properties, not the objects, are atenfels for
controlling whatever perception the loop controls. When talking
casually, however, we often use a shorthand form that mentions the
object rather than the property, as in “the lever is an atenfel for
moving a rock”, which should be read as “the mechanical advantage
property of the lever is an atenfel for controlling a perception of
the location of the rock”.

In the shorthand form one can often substitute "tool" for atenfel,

but this should not be misunderstood as taking the physical object
“tool” to be the atenfel. The atenfel is some property of the
object, and the object has many properties of different kinds.
Moreover, the particular property is an atenfel in the environmental
feedback path of some control loop. If it isn’t part of a loop, it
is only potentially an atenfel, and that potential applies to a wide
variety of perceptions that could be controlled.

The concept of "atenfel" applies not only to properties of physical

objects we call “tools”, but also to more abstract constructs. For
example, the stability of someone’s liking for a particular food can
be an atenfel for controlling a perception of that person’s pleasure
as a guest at your table.

To go into verbal detail every time one wants to talk about an

atenfel would be very tedious, and is often pointless. Consider a
hammer. You can “use a hammer to hammer a nail into a piece of
wood”. To say that is much simpler than to say that the hardness and
weight of the hammer head are atenfels for control of a perception
of the relative location of the nail-head and the piece of wood. You
can also “use the handle of the hammer to point at something”, which
is simpler than saying that the hammer handle’s disproportionate
length width ratio is an atenfel for controlling a perception of the
angle to look in order to see the thing. But the common use of the
shorthand should not lead one to forget that the atenfel is not the
object, but is a link in the feedback path of a controlled
perception.

When I tried to use the word "effordance" to describe a very similar

concept, Bill Powers thought it was a useless concept because one
can imagine any object being used for a wide variety of purposes;
the hammer might provide effordances for driving a nail, pointing a
direction, making a hole in a sheet of drywall, being a
counterweight on a balance, murdering someone, being used as a
mirror, and so forth, so what was the point of trying to say that
the hammer had any particular effordance? Kent made a similar
objection to my use of “effordance” in an early draft of my LCS IV
chapter, and it was this discussion that led to the more refined
concept of “atenfel”, which starts with the control loop rather than
with the object. The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link allows
the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the loop.

From the viewpoint of the control loop, whether the link is a

property of an object is irrelevant. From the viewpoint of a
toolmaker, the provision of an object with the necessary property is
essential. The tool builder controls perceptions of the perceptions
for which a property of the tool should be a potential atenfel. That
property may be called a “designed atenfel”. A tool like a Swiss
Army knife is designed to have many different properties that could
become atenfels for control of frequently controlled perceptions. We
call such a convergence of potential atenfels an “atenex” (a nexus
of atenfels). The convergence may be but need not be in a physical
object. If it is a physical object, we often use a shorthand
wording, saying that the object is the atenex, as we do when talking
about individual atenfels.

Atenfels and power.



I described an atenfel as a link in a chain, and a chain is as

strong as its weakest link. However, the metaphor is a bit
misleading, because the “chain” is quite likely to be a network in
which different objects have properties that could serve as a
particular atenfel. If someone takes your hammer, you might use a
hard, heavy rock to drive the nail. However, if the area is devoid
of objects with sufficient hardness and weight, and someone makes
off with the hammer, you can no longer control your perception of
the relation between the nailhead and the surface of the wood. In
the common metaphoric sense of “power”, you no longer have the power
to control that perception. You retain the skill, long since
reorganized in your hierarchy, to use the “hard-heavy” property of
an object to drive nails, but your environment does not contain that
potential atenfel, so you have no possibility of completing the
feedback loop. The thief has diminished your set of controllable
perceptions, your overall “power” to control.

This example trivially illustrates the idea of "power". If there are

no rocks, the presence or absence of the hammer determines your
ability to control the nailhead-wood relationship perception. You
lost power when the hammer vanished. But if there is a suitable
rock, you are still able to control that perception, though less
well than before. Your power is degraded, not eliminated.

Look at it now from the viewpoint of the thief who is controlling a

perception of your ability to set the nail flush with the wood with
a reference that you should be unable to do it. Maybe he is
controlling a perception of your ability, maybe a perception of the
nailhead-wood relationship. The latter would be the usual conflict
situation, but the conflict is manifest differently, since you act
on the nailhead while the opponent does not. If there is no rock,
the capable thief can remove the hammer and thereby prevent you from
controlling that perception. He has the power to control his
perception. But if there is a suitable rock handy, he cannot control
his perception, at least not to the same extent. All he can do is
make it more difficult for you to control your perception. You lose
power to the extent that the thief is able to deploy his power.

For the thief, his environmental feedback loop is made up of a chain

or network of atenfels, of which the controlled perception
“stealing” is one. If you can use the rock, this atenfel becomes a
weak link in the chain, and his control of his perception of your
ability to set the nailhead level with the wood is rather poor. If
good control of a perception corresponds to the metaphoric “power”,
the thief’s “stealing” provides him with little power. On the other
hand, if you have no rock at hand, the thief’s control is good, and
“stealing” is powerful. There is a power see-saw. If you retain the
power to control your perception, the thief’s “stealing” is an
atenfel that contributes very little to his power, because his
control of his perception is poor, and vice-versa.

If the thief is experiencing persistent error in a higher-level

perception – he REALLY doesn’t want that nail pounded flush – he
will reorganize to find means to inhibit your control other than
stealing the hammer. He may tie you up or break your arm so that you
cannot use any of the potential atenfels involving heavy hard
objects. But if you REALLY want that nail to be flush, you also have
other possible atenfels in your network. For example, you could ask
a friend to find a hammer and use it to pound the nail. The friend
becomes an “object” with properties that include the possibility of
being used as an atenfel for pounding nails. However it works out,
if the thief has more power, you have less, and vice-versa.

The situation is actually a non-classical conflict over the

perceived relation of the nailhead and the wood. It is non-classical
because the opponents do not compete by increasing their influence
on the CEV, but by affecting each other’s power to influence the
CEV, doing so by altering the effectiveness of the atenfels being
used by the opponent.

Influencing another's atenfels need not decrease the other's power.

Instead of a thief stealing the hammer, if you didn’t have one
initially a friend might lend you one, thereby giving you power to
control your perception of the relation between the nailhead and the
wood surface. In one of Kent’s examples, a whole community of people
combine to build and maintain a road, giving you the power to use a
car as an atenfel for controlling a perception of your movement
between two places on the road, whereas before the road, you might
have had to cut your way through a jungle.

The road adds to your power, but it adds also to the power of anyone

else who might be controlling perceptions of movement along its
path. You and these other people were unknown to the road builders.
An object that provides power to many people unknown to the creator
of the object (if it is a created object) is part of what is
ordinarily called “infrastructure”. An infrastructure object is not
primarily an atenex, because only one property (or a related set of
properties) is used for control of similar perceptions in different
controllers. (Although, as with any object, the road has many
properties, any of which might be used as an atenfel for control of
some perception, it isn’t designed for those different purposes,
which is why we would not ordinarily treat it as an atenex.)

The idea of infrastructure is not limited to physical objects. In

his LCS IV chapter, Kent points out how stability of social
structures can also be used as an atenfel or an atenex. For example,
within an organization, the social structure includes the concept of
“role”, such as “manager”, “accountant”, “salesperson”, “secretary”.
These are fairly stable roles, and each has a designed set of
properties that can be used as atenfels for control of different
perceptions. The stability of these roles, independent of the person
playing the role, enhances the power of anyone with the ability to
use those atenfels for controlling perceptions. That ability depends
on the stable network of relationships among roles. A “janitor” does
not have the ability to control a perception of the financial status
of the organization by asking an “accountant” to provide it, but a
“manager” does.

Money is a social structure that is an atenex par excellence, since

it is by design useful in control of an indefinite number of
perceptions through the activities of other people. The more money
one has, the more such perceptions one can control, including the
perception of the amount of money one has available. As the sayings
go, “money is power” and “money begets money”. In a conflict between
a person (or a role) that can use a lot of money and one who has
little, the one with more will usually win, having the ability to
use atenfels that remove or reduce the effectiveness of the other’s
atenfels in the same way that the hammer-stealing thief reduced the
power of the nail-setter.

Obviously we are getting into questions of "ownership", which I

think is beyond the scope of this introduction to the concept of the
atenfel. After all the adage “possession is nine tenths of the law”
would seem silly if ownership were not complicated.

I hope this sketchy introduction gives you an idea of why and when

the concept of an atenfel is useful, and how it relates to the
metaphoric concept of “power” as a combination of skill and
strength.

Martin

–

            MT: An atenfel is a component link in an

environmental feedback path.

          RM: OK. It's hard for me to see what this might have to

do with understanding social power from a PCT perspective.

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.15.25]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.12.1200)]

Are you sure you actually read it, rather than simply assuming that

whatever it said, it must be wrong? If you did, try reading it again
to the point where you begin to understand it.

In YOUR personal PCT Model.

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Call them what you want, but it is misleading to call them

"controlled ", because of time-lags, contributions from imagination,
and all the other stuff we have debated over the years. “Complex
Environmental Variable” (CEV) is a completely neutral term, which
does translate into an apparently controlled quantity under suitable
conditions. But nothing in the environment is ever actually
controlled, as well you know. Only perceptual variables are
controlled. Sometimes an observer can perceive some function of the
environment that correlates with a controlled perception, and
therefore gives the impression of being controlled, but according to
PCT, that impression is false. It’s what Bruce Nevin has called a
“spandrel”, something that appears to be functional but is not.

Now you are taking my side! Weird.

That's one form of conflict. If you had actually read the message to

which you claim to respond, you would have seen that there are
others, which may sometimes be more important. And having seen that,
you might have begun to understand why “atenfel” is a useful
construct.

Try again.

Martin

···

            Martin Taylor

(2016.06.07.16.56)–

            MT: It rather depends on what you mean by "social

power". In its usual sense, the atenfel construct isn’t
very important. In that sense what is important is
getting other people to see things your way so that
collective control serves your purposes.

RM: That was the sense I meant.

            MT: But the relative

power of two individuals, especially when they are in
conflict, that is where atenfels first come into play.

          RM: After reading this I'm afraid I still don't see the

value of introducing this new term.

                        MT: An atenfel is a component link in

an environmental feedback path.

                      RM: OK. It's hard for me to see what this

might have to do with understanding social
power from a PCT perspective.

          It seems to be unnecessary at best and misleading at

worst, like the term Complex Environmental Variable (CEV),
which you mention at the beginning of your discussion:

            MT: Things get more interesting when the output of one

control system influences the ability of another to
control well. That influence might be through input “D”.
That is the standard conflict situation, in which two
controller try to set their perceptions of the same
environmental variable to different reference values.
The environmental variable in question is symbolized by
the small green circle. I usually call it the Complex
Environmental Variable (CEV) of the control loop, which
is converted by each competitor into their controlled
variable – their perception of the CEV.

RM: There is no such thing as a CEV in the PCT model.

What are controlled are perceptual variables that are functions of
environmental variables.

          The environmental correlates of these perceptual

variables are called controlled quantities , which
are the same functions of environmental variables as the
corresponding perceptual variables.

          Controlled quantities are controlled perceptual

variables seen from the perspective of an observer of the
control system. Examples of controlled perceptual
variables that have no corresponding CEV are the taste of
lemonade, the correctness of a mathematical proof or the
meaning of this sentence.

          RM: People get into conflict when they control the same

(or similar) functions of environmental variables (the
same perceptual variables), not the same environmental
variables. This is very important to understand because,
as I said earlier, people can control different functions
of the same environmental variables without any
conflict. Conflict results when two (or more) control
systems try to bring the the same (or similar)functions of environmental variables
(perceptions) to different reference states.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.12.1605)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.06.12.15.25)–

MT: Are you sure you actually read it, rather than simply assuming that

whatever it said, it must be wrong? If you did, try reading it again
to the point where you begin to understand it.

RM: I did read it. I didn’t see anything in the write up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”. Maybe if you put it in the form of a model - a funcitonal flow diagram – I would understand it better. I think one of your examples was of a person hammering a nail using either a hammer or a rock. Maybe you could show me how your concept of atenfel helps us model that situation.

MT: In YOUR personal PCT Model.

RM: True. But there is no such thing as a CEV in Bill Powers’ PCT model either. So I do have some company;-)

MT: Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

RM: I have no idea what you mean by that but, anyway, I’m afraid it’s way too late to teach either of my grandmothers anything.

MT: Call them what you want, but it is misleading to call them

"controlled ", because of time-lags, contributions from imagination,
and all the other stuff we have debated over the years.

RM: When you do the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) it is a controlled quantity – the controlled perception from the point of view of the tester – that is being tested to determine whether or not it is under control. If the TCV shows that the hypothetical controlled quantity is under control then it is not misleading at all to say that the controlled quantity is under control. When we find that a particular function of environmental variables – a controlled quantity – is under control we infer (based on PCT) that this is happening because the controller is controlling a perceptual variable that corresponds to the same function of environmental variables.

MT: "Complex

Environmental Variable" (CEV) is a completely neutral term, which
does translate into an apparently controlled quantity under suitable
conditions. But nothing in the environment is ever actually
controlled, as well you know.

RM: Right. It’s not “things in the environment” that are controlled; it is functions of environmental variables that are controlled. That fact is already captured in PCT by calling the function of environmental variables that is under control the controlled quantity (from the observer’s perspective) and the controlled perception ( from the controller’s perspective).

MT: Only perceptual variables are

controlled.

RM: Right! Perceptual variables a functions of environmental variables. The job of the PCT research is to determine what those functions are!!

MT: Sometimes an observer can perceive some function of the

environment that correlates with a controlled perception, and
therefore gives the impression of being controlled, but according to
PCT, that impression is false.

RM: PCT says nothing of the kind. If this were true, PCT research would be impossible. What PCT says is that an observer is able to determine, using the TCV, that various functions of the environment are under control. For example, in the “What is Size” demo an observer can determine whether the perimeter (2*(height+width) or area (height * width) of a rectangle is being controlled (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html). That is, an observer can tell which of two functions of environmental variables (height and width) is being controlled. If it’s area that is being controlled then the controlled quantity is (height * width) and we infer that this variable is controlled because the controller is controlling a perception equivalent to (height * width). If it’s perimeter that is being controlled then the controlled quantity is 2* (height + width) and we infer that this variable is controlled because the controller is controlling a perception equivalent to 2* (height + width). Note that the controlled quantity can also exist as a perception in the observer; you can perceive area directly. So the controlled quantity – area or perimeter in this case – is a perception in the observer that is presumed (based on PCT) to correspond to the perception controlled by the controller.

RM: If what you you say above were actually the case – that the observer’s impression of the controlled quantity as being under control is false – then there would be no way to determine what the controller is controlling and PCT research would be impossible. For example, the impression that area is the perception controlled in the “What is Size” demo – an impression based on the results of the TCV that showed that (height * width) is protected from disturbance – would have to be considered false. And if it’s false then we don’t have any idea what perception is actually under control. So the whole PCT research project is just a waste of time; there is no way to determine what perceptions people are controlling.

RM: But, fortunately, science doesn’t work that way. We don’t take theory as truth and observation as possible illusion. It goes the other way; we observe controlled quantities (using the TCV) and infer that there correspond to controlled perceptions in the controller.

MT: It's what Bruce Nevin has called a

“spandrel”, something that appears to be functional but is not.

RM: I’m afraid the “spadrel” is the belief that a variable that is observed to be controlled (a variable that passes the TTCV) doesn’t necessarily correspond to the perceptual variable that is controlled by the controlling system.

MT: That's one form of conflict. If you had actually read the message to

which you claim to respond, you would have seen that there are
others, which may sometimes be more important. And having seen that,
you might have begun to understand why “atenfel” is a useful
construct.

RM: Again, I think I could understand the usefulness of atenfels better if you showed me how they fit into a a model of conflict, where the model is in the form of a functional diagram, equations or a computer program.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

          RM: After reading this I'm afraid I still don't see the

value of introducing this new term.

RM: There is no such thing as a CEV in the PCT model.

RM: What are controlled are perceptual variables that are functions of
environmental variables.

          RM: The environmental correlates of these perceptual

variables are called controlled quantities , which
are the same functions of environmental variables as the
corresponding perceptual variables.

          RM: People get into conflict when they control the same

(or similar) functions of environmental variables (the
same perceptual variables), not the same environmental
variables. This is very important to understand because,
as I said earlier, people can control different functions
of the same environmental variables without any
conflict. Conflict results when two (or more) control
systems try to bring the the same (or similar)functions of environmental variables
(perceptions) to different reference states.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.12.1605)]

If you can't tell the difference between the road surface of a city

block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback
function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s
any point in making any further comment.

I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points

made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and
conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted
at, by Rick.

Martin

···

Martin Taylor (2016.06.12.15.25)–

            MT: Are you sure you actually read it, rather

than simply assuming that whatever it said, it must be
wrong? If you did, try reading it again to the point
where you begin to understand it.

          RM: I did read it. I didn't see anything in the write

up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an
unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

                        RM: After reading this I'm afraid I still

don’t see the value of introducing this new
term.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

···

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

MT: If you can't tell the difference between the road surface of a city

block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback
function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s
any point in making any further comment.

RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a road and the time it takes to get across town. But your comment made me realize what my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But the “road surface” is just a property of the real world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling. And even then what you call it can be ambiguous.

RM: For example, the surface of the road is the basis of a controlled variable for the people building the road; these people are controlling perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the perception of the direction of the car, controlled by a person driving a car on the road; changes in the slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how much change of direction is produced by turning the steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road could be considered a component of the feedback function connecting the angular forces exerted by the driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car turns.

RM: So dividing up the world into controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always straightforward. When we study control, what matters is correctly modeling the situation. The most important aspect of this modeling is identifying controlled variables (the aspects of the environment that are under control) and the variables that affect the state of those variables – these are the environmental variables, starting with the forces exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output signals to the controlled variables. So in the example of controlling the direction of the car, one controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the angle of the car relative to the road; the output variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct physical model would connect o to p using something like this set of physical relationships:

          RM: I did read it. I didn't see anything in the write

up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an
unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

steering wheel angle = f(o)

car wheel angle = g(steering wheel angle)

car direction = h(wheel angle, road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind direction,…)

p = k(car direction, road direction)

RM: You might be able to see that some of the variables in the above equations are functionally disturbances; and you might be able to see that some of the functions are functionally feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all. For example, is road surface friction a disturbance variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(), that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you call variables disturbances or part of the feedback function once you have the model right; and it doesn’t matter to the control system itself either. The control system, if properly designed, will vary o so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in the variables and functions that influence the state of the controlled variable.

MT: I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points

made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and
conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted
at, by Rick.

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.15.10.39]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

I requote, to illustrate why it is so weird trying to conduct a

rational discussion with you.

MT (previously): If you can't tell the difference between the road

surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get
across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you.

RM (now): "... you say that the "road surface" is a feedback

function".

MT (now): Now you say that I call the road surface a feedback

function, and chastise me because it is just a property of the real
world, and its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling.

Also

MT(in the tutorial): "The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link

allows the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the
loop."

RM (now): "You seem to be saying that there are things out there in

the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels."

If, and I emphasise "if", you had actually read the tutorial you

have twice claimed to have read, you would have seen that an atenfel
is a property whose role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling, AND that in the post on which you now comment, I cited
the road surface as being such a property related to controlling
one’s perception of being on the other side of town, the feedback
function of which includes a (literal) transport lag that might
depend on the road surface property.

It's good to challenge new ideas and concepts. An effective

challenge will either show them to be useless or false, or it will
show their strength. But challenges that are based on reversing what
is actually written do nothing but destroy the reputation of the
challenger.

As Kent said a few days ago [From Kent McClelland (2016.06.06.0935)]

, “* I’m also aware that your style of engaging with new ideas is
to respond immediately and vigorously to any disturbance, so by
all means control your own perceptions about the word!*”

Kent's observation, with which I concur, has been based on long

experience, and is so consistent as almost to amount to an S-R
phenomenon: “New idea presented” → “Rick strong disagreement
before trying to understand what the idea might be”. Even if in
order to disagree, you have to assert that the idea is the opposite
of what was presented. The disagreement seems to be what is
important, not the idea, whatever the idea might be. That is very
sad.

Try actually _reading_ the tutorial, thinking about what it actually

says, and considering whether it contains errors, places where there
are ambiguities that need clarification, self-contradictions,
scientific implausibilities, and so forth. Then post a comment that
relates to it.

I hadn't intended responding to this latest non-comment of yours,

but then I realized that some naive readers might think it had some
relevance to what I had written, and so a reply did seem to be
warranted. I will welcome, and reply to, any challenges to ideas in
the tutorial that are to the point, but probably not to others like
this that are based on the opposite of what was written.

Martin

···

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

            MT: If you can't tell the difference between the

road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it
takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I
write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point
in making any further comment.

          RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a

road and the time it takes to get across town. But your
comment made me realize what my problem was with your
ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to
be saying that there are things out there in the world
that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels.
But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you
say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But
the “road surface” is just a property of the real world.
Its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling.

                        RM: I did read it. I didn't see anything

in the write up that suggested that atenfel
was anything other than an unattractive and
unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

[wmansell]

Come on Rick time for you to open up that massive cranium of yours for the wealth of important new concepts that PCT unveils!

I think Martin’s contribution here is pivotal to fully rendered modelling (and therefore understanding) of interacting agents in the real world using PCT.

Warren

···

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

            MT: If you can't tell the difference between the

road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it
takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I
write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point
in making any further comment.

          RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a

road and the time it takes to get across town. But your
comment made me realize what my problem was with your
ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to
be saying that there are things out there in the world
that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels.
But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you
say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But
the “road surface” is just a property of the real world.
Its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling.

                        RM: I did read it. I didn't see anything

in the write up that suggested that atenfel
was anything other than an unattractive and
unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.15.1200)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.06.15.10.39)–

MT(in the tutorial): "The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link

allows the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the
loop."

RM: That’s what I thought; it’s a component of the feedback function.

RM (now): "You seem to be saying that there are things out there in

the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels."

MT: If, and I emphasise "if", you had actually read the tutorial you

have twice claimed to have read, you would have seen that an atenfel
is a property whose role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling,

RM: Sorry, I didn’t notice that.

MT: AND that in the post on which you now comment, I cited

the road surface as being such a property related to controlling
one’s perception of being on the other side of town, the feedback
function of which includes a (literal) transport lag that might
depend on the road surface property.

RM: I don’t see the road surface (or anything else about the road, for that matter) as necessarily being part of the feedback function connecting a driver’s output (I presume it’s a driver going to the other side of town) to the controlled perception (being at a location on the other side of town). The road surface could be disturbance – an independent effect on the controlled variable unrelated to the effect of the driver’s output on the controlled variable.

RM: But, as I said in my post, whether the road surface is a part of the feedback function or a disturbance depends on how you actually model the situation. And I mean “model” in the sense of a control system that could actually drive a car from one place to another. When you build the model you may find that certain physical characteristics of the road seem to function as part of the feedback function (atenfels) and others as disturbances. But what’s important, it seems to me, is whether the model behaves like the real driver; and it will only do that if it is controlling the same perceptual variables as the real driver. Of course, the control system also has to do this controlling in a correct model of the physical world in which the driver is driving, but that can be handled best by implementing the model as a robot controlling in the real world rather than as a program operating in a software model of the real world. I don’t see how the concept of atenfels contributes to our understanding of controlling in terms of helping us develop more accurate models of the controlling that people do. Maybe you can help me out with that, now that I know what an atenfel is.

Best

Rick

It's good to challenge new ideas and concepts. An effective

challenge will either show them to be useless or false, or it will
show their strength. But challenges that are based on reversing what
is actually written do nothing but destroy the reputation of the
challenger.

As Kent said a few days ago [From Kent McClelland (2016.06.06.0935)]

, “* I’m also aware that your style of engaging with new ideas is
to respond immediately and vigorously to any disturbance, so by
all means control your own perceptions about the word!*”

Kent's observation, with which I concur, has been based on long

experience, and is so consistent as almost to amount to an S-R
phenomenon: “New idea presented” → “Rick strong disagreement
before trying to understand what the idea might be”. Even if in
order to disagree, you have to assert that the idea is the opposite
of what was presented. The disagreement seems to be what is
important, not the idea, whatever the idea might be. That is very
sad.

Try actually _reading_ the tutorial, thinking about what it actually

says, and considering whether it contains errors, places where there
are ambiguities that need clarification, self-contradictions,
scientific implausibilities, and so forth. Then post a comment that
relates to it.

I hadn't intended responding to this latest non-comment of yours,

but then I realized that some naive readers might think it had some
relevance to what I had written, and so a reply did seem to be
warranted. I will welcome, and reply to, any challenges to ideas in
the tutorial that are to the point, but probably not to others like
this that are based on the opposite of what was written.

Martin

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.15.1230)]

···

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Come on Rick time for you to open up that massive cranium of yours for the wealth of important new concepts that PCT unveils!

RM: It’s not all that big, I’'m afraid. My cranium, that is;-) Maybe that’s why I can’t see “atenfel” as an important new concept, let along a concept that PCT “unveils”

WM: I think Martin’s contribution here is pivotal to fully rendered modelling (and therefore understanding) of interacting agents in the real world using PCT.

RM: I think it would be great if Martin’s contribution were what you say it is. But I have seen no evidence of it, which doesn’t mean that there isn’t evidence of it or that I wouldn’t like to see evidence of it. I just haven’t seen it.

RM: Evidence that Martin’s concept is “pivotal to fully rendered modelling…of interacting agents in the real world using PCT” would be a fully rendered model of interacting agents in the real world that behaves just like the real interacting agents in the real world. Not diagrams or words. A working model that behaves just like the real agents and that wouldn’t have done so without Martin’s “pivotal” concepts.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[wmansell]

Sounds like a good challenge!

···

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Come on Rick time for you to open up that massive cranium of yours for the wealth of important new concepts that PCT unveils!

RM: It’s not all that big, I’'m afra
id. My cranium, that is;-) Maybe that’s why I can’t see “atenfel” as an important new concept, let along a concept that PCT “unveils”

WM: I think Martin’s contribution here is pivotal to fully rendered modelling (and therefore understanding) of interacting agents in the real world using PCT.

RM: I think it would be great if Martin’s contribution were what you say it is. But I have seen no evidence of it, which doesn’t mean that there isn’t evidence of it or that I wouldn’t like to see evidence of it. I just haven’t seen it.

RM: Evidence that Martin’s concept is “pivotal to fully rendered modelling…of interacting agents in the real world using PCT” would be a fully rendered model of interacting
agents in the real world that behaves just like the real interacting agents in the real world. Not diagrams or words. A working model that behaves just like the real agents and that wouldn’t have done so without Martin’s “pivotal” concepts.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[MartinT]

Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.09.00]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.15.1200)]

Once again, I suggest you try reading the tutorial [Martin Taylor

2016.06.07.16.56]. Here’s a short guide to make it easier for you.
If you do ever decide to read it, you may learn what an atenfel is,
which may not be what you now claim to know it is.

The second paragraph of the message is the first paragraph of the

tutorial. It starts by pointing out that the concept of
atenfels does not contribute to more accurate models of the
controlling people do. The fact that you ask the question suggests
that you have not read even the beginning of the tutorial, despite
your repeated claims to have read the whole thing.

The second paragraph starts "*      Things get more interesting when the

output of one control system influences the ability of another to
control well* ." The third paragraph describes possible modes of
conflict other than the two opponents increasing their output until
one overwhelms the other. It also illustrates how one control system
can improve the operation of another. Both conflict and cooperation
may involve action on atenfels, rather than directly on what you
call “controlled quantities”, a concept I refer to using the more
neutral name “Complex Environmental Variables”.

The fourth paragraph of the tutorial points out that objects are not

themselves atenfels, but properties of objects can be, while the
fifth says that verbal shorthand is often simpler than the correct
long-winded form. The verbal shorthand substitutes “X can be an
atenfel for control of perception Y” for “the property P of object X
can serve as an atenfel in the environmental feedback path of the
control loop controlling perception P”. It also distinguishes
potential from actual atenfels.

The short sixth paragraph points out that atenfels need not be

properties of physical objects, but can be more abstract stabilities
in the environment. The seventh returns to an even shorter verbal
shorthand such as “A hammer can be used to drive a nail”, and
emphasises that the use of the verbal shorthand should not obscure
what it is shorthand for. The eighth paragraph distinguishes between
the concepts of “atenfel” and my old “effordance” idea, while the
ninth introduces the idea of an atenex, a nexus of atenfels.

The rest of the tutorial is concerned with how atenfels relate to

social power, and why power inequality in the form of money tends to
increase over time.

You won't want to read the tutorial if your objective is to continue

to make irrelevant criticisms, but you will if you want to help
clarify and advance the science of PCT.

Martin

···

I don’t see how the concept of
atenfels contributes to our understanding of controlling in
terms of helping us develop more accurate models of the
controlling that people do. Maybe you can help me out with
that, now that I know what an atenfel is.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.16.1130)]

···

Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.09.00]

MT: The second paragraph of the message is the first paragraph of the

tutorial. It starts by pointing out that the concept of
atenfels does not contribute to more accurate models of the
controlling people do.

RM: OK, now I understand why it didn’t seem to be a worthwhile extension of PCT.

MT: The second paragraph starts “* Things get more interesting when the
output of one control system influences the ability of another to
control well* .” The third paragraph describes possible modes of
conflict other than the two opponents increasing their output until
one overwhelms the other. It also illustrates how one control system
can improve the operation of another. Both conflict and cooperation
may involve action on atenfels, rather than directly on what you
call “controlled quantities”, a concept I refer to using the more
neutral name “Complex Environmental Variables”.

RM: So atenfel is something that increases our understanding of a control phenomenon: conflict. An atenfel is a component of a control system’s feedback function that can be acted on by another control system, depriving the first control system of it’s ability to control. This is very much like what I was talking about in my post to Facebook on gun control (https://www.facebook.com/ControllingPeople/). Maybe you can only read it if you’re on Facebook. Anyway, I was suggesting that one way to reduce gun carnage is to remove assault weapons from the feedback loop connecting mass murderers to the perception they want to control (mass murder).

RM: An assault weapon seems to qualify as atenfel. So a person who prevents the mass murderer from getting the assault weapon is in a conflict with the mass murderer without directly pushing back against the variable the mass murderer is trying to control – mass murder. That person is in a conflict with the murderer over access to the gun. Possession of the gun is a variable controlled by both the mass murderer and the person in conflict with the mass murderer.

RM: So the conflict over the gun – the atenfel – is the same as any conflict. So an atenfel is just a variable that is being controlled by two different controllers relative to two different references. The fact that it is part of the feedback function for controlling another variable is certainly interesting but the fact that this kind of control happens – control of a variable that is part of the feedback connection of a controller to a controlled variable – is already handled by PCT. I don’t think the introduction of the term atenfel makes this phenomenon clearer; I was able to describe it in the Facebook post without using the term. Indeed, I think the term could be confusing because it could lead you to think that the conflict involved something other than different references for the state of the same controlled variable. An atenfel is a controlled variable that also happens to be a component of the feedback function of another control system – and like any controlled variable in conflict, two (or more) control systems have different references for the state of that variable.

The fourth paragraph of the tutorial points out that objects are not

themselves atenfels, but properties of objects can be,

RM: Yes, it’s a variable property of the atenfel that is controlled. The property of the gun that matters is how many rounds can be fired/sec. The mass murderer wants a weapon that fires many rounds/sec; the rational public want the mass murderer to have a weapon that fires 0 rounds/sec.

RM: I still think atenfel is not a particularly useful concept but you guys seem to like it and have a lot invested in it so there’s not much chance that I can change your minds about it. Maybe some good research and modeling will come out of it.

Best

Rick

MT: while the

fifth says that verbal shorthand is often simpler than the correct
long-winded form. The verbal shorthand substitutes “X can be an
atenfel for control of perception Y” for “the property P of object X
can serve as an atenfel in the environmental feedback path of the
control loop controlling perception P”. It also distinguishes
potential from actual atenfels

The short sixth paragraph points out that atenfels need not be

properties of physical objects, but can be more abstract stabilities
in the environment. The seventh returns to an even shorter verbal
shorthand such as “A hammer can be used to drive a nail”, and
emphasises that the use of the verbal shorthand should not obscure
what it is shorthand for. The eighth paragraph distinguishes between
the concepts of “atenfel” and my old “effordance” idea, while the
ninth introduces the idea of an atenex, a nexus of atenfels.

The rest of the tutorial is concerned with how atenfels relate to

social power, and why power inequality in the form of money tends to
increase over time.

You won't want to read the tutorial if your objective is to continue

to make irrelevant criticisms, but you will if you want to help
clarify and advance the science of PCT.

Martin

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

        RM:  I don't see how the concept of

atenfels contributes to our understanding of controlling in
terms of helping us develop more accurate models of the
controlling that people do. Maybe you can help me out with
that, now that I know what an atenfel is.

[bleach]

Gads! I told myself that I wasn’t going to put in my ‘2 cents’
worth on this discussion. However, after having read the attached
exchange I changed my mind.

First I absolutely agree with Rick (and thus undoubtedly with Bill

Powers) that adding new terms to PCT is not something that we really
want to be doing unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Now the rest of this is based upon what I think that 'atenfel' means

(gleaned primarily from the attached discussion). I also expect
that Kent or Martin will be quite happy to correct me if I am in
error here.

An 'atenfel' is something in the environment that is affected by a

person controlling a perception. The ‘atenfel’ may not necessarily
have to affected by that person, that is there could be another way
to achieve control of the desired perception that would not
necessarily affect that particular ‘atenfel.’ So specifically an
‘atenfel’ is NOT itself the controlled perception for the person.
For this purpose, the term provides nothing for the basic PCT model.

However, and this is where I think that Martin and Kent are coming

from, in a situation where two or more people controlling their
perceptions AND in doing so are affecting an ‘atenfel’ that disturbs
the ability of others to achieve control then this term might be a
useful construct when attempting to understand and resolve conflict
between two or more persons.

If I am even close on all of this then I invite Martin and/or Kent

to provide a some useful real world examples. I believe that a
generative model could be produced but the environment part of the
model would likely be highly complex. The ‘atenfel’ for the model
would be something that is affected by the control efforts of two
(or more) people attempting to control their perceptions where the
perceptions that they are controlling are not the same. The
controlled perceptions would indeed have to be different for the two
person case. Thus the effect on the common ‘atenfel’ would be an
incidental effect to both (or maybe all) of the controlled
perceptions.

From the standpoint of a person trying to resolve a conflict between

two or more persons, identifying such an ‘atenfel’ could be very
useful in an attempt to find different control methods for each of
the parties to achieve their own control without preventing control
or a different perception by another (or others).

In trying to come up with my own example I could not seem to help

myself from falling back on the simplest control example that I have
ever seen… the knotted rubber bands.

We know that one party (Per1) is controlling to keep the knot over

the dot on the paper. The other (Per2) could be controlling
for making a figure 8 pattern with his/her finger. An ‘atenfel’ for
this situation then could be the speed at which Per2 makes
figure 8 pattern. This speed may not be of any particular concern
to the Per2 (and thus is completely incidental) whereas it can be of
major concern to Per1 (especially if their reaction speeds are as
slow as my own).

Identifying that the 'speed of motion' in this hypothetical case is

the ‘atenfel’ and it is not something that either party is trying to
control would allow for a simple conflict resolution where both are
able to achieve control of their desired perception, by merely
asking Per2 to slow down.

Again, if my example is correct, then in this case the need for a

special term would not exist. However, I don’t have any problem
seeing where more complex examples (especially with more than two
people) could quickly become difficult to handle.

The one problem that I do still have though is that there are

probably situations where some change to a common ‘atenfel’ would
have to occur for one or more of the perceptions to be controlled.

I don't know if I can make myself clear on what I'm talking about

but here is the attempt (and this could well reveal what I don’t
understand about ‘atenfels’):

Per1 is controlling a perception that requires a common 'atenfel' to

change. The amount of change does not necessarily have to be as
great as it is currently changing though. The current change to
this ‘atenfel’ prevents Per2 from controlling their perception. A
different method of control for both parties can not be found that
sufficently decouples this ‘atenfel’ from the control for either or
both perceptions. Would this then still be called an ‘atenfel’?

So, for me, unless a particular state or range of value for an

‘atenfel’ is essential for at least two perceptions to be
controlled, AND changing one or more control methods can provide a
way for all parties to achieve control, I don’t see any usefulness
to have the term.

Best,
Bill

···

On 06/16/2016 09:22 AM, Martin Taylor
wrote:

Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.09.00]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.15.1200)]
I don’t see how the concept of
atenfels contributes to our understanding of controlling
in terms of helping us develop more accurate models of the
controlling that people do. Maybe you can help me out with
that, now that I know what an atenfel is.

  Once again, I suggest you try reading the tutorial [Martin Taylor

2016.06.07.16.56]. Here’s a short guide to make it easier for you.
If you do ever decide to read it, you may learn what an atenfel
is, which may not be what you now claim to know it is.

  The second paragraph of the message is the first paragraph of the

tutorial. It starts by pointing out that the concept of
atenfels does not contribute to more accurate models of the
controlling people do. The fact that you ask the question suggests
that you have not read even the beginning of the tutorial, despite
your repeated claims to have read the whole thing.

  The second paragraph starts "*        Things get more interesting when

the output of one control system influences the ability of
another to control well* ." The third paragraph describes
possible modes of conflict other than the two opponents increasing
their output until one overwhelms the other. It also illustrates
how one control system can improve the operation of another. Both
conflict and cooperation may involve action on atenfels, rather
than directly on what you call “controlled quantities”, a concept
I refer to using the more neutral name “Complex Environmental
Variables”.

  The fourth paragraph of the tutorial points out that objects are

not themselves atenfels, but properties of objects can be, while
the fifth says that verbal shorthand is often simpler than the
correct long-winded form. The verbal shorthand substitutes “X can
be an atenfel for control of perception Y” for “the property P of
object X can serve as an atenfel in the environmental feedback
path of the control loop controlling perception P”. It also
distinguishes potential from actual atenfels.

  The short sixth paragraph points out that atenfels need not be

properties of physical objects, but can be more abstract
stabilities in the environment. The seventh returns to an even
shorter verbal shorthand such as “A hammer can be used to drive a
nail”, and emphasises that the use of the verbal shorthand should
not obscure what it is shorthand for. The eighth paragraph
distinguishes between the concepts of “atenfel” and my old
“effordance” idea, while the ninth introduces the idea of an
atenex, a nexus of atenfels.

  The rest of the tutorial is concerned with how atenfels relate to

social power, and why power inequality in the form of money tends
to increase over time.

  You won't want to read the tutorial if your objective is to

continue to make irrelevant criticisms, but you will if you want
to help clarify and advance the science of PCT.

  Martin

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.22.59]

I also agree with this. I believe the compelling reason is that the

concept that an environmental feedback path is usually composed of
several distinct sections is normally ignored. The output is
connected to the CEV by a wire (a unity-gain path) and the CEV is
connected to the perceptual input by a wire. That the output might
be a finger movement that moves a mouse that sends motion-related
values through a wire to a complicated electronic processor that
send values to a screen processor that produces a cursor pattern at
a place on a screen is totally ignored, so no word is needed. Once
you break up that pathway into components that can be influenced
independently, you need a word to talk about the concept of an
environmental path component. Having a word also means that the
issue of interactions between different control systems (in the same
person or in different people) becomes easier to think about.
Is a wire affected by the variations in the current flowing through
it? Such a wire, or rather, the conductivity of such a wire, could
be an atenfel for controlling some perception, say the position of a
cursor on a screen in a tracking task. The mouse position is
signalled to the computer by signals through its connecting wire
(unless you have a wireless mouse). Without that wire, you can’t
control the cursor.
True. If the mouse wire is cut, you can go and get a new mouse, a
wired joystick, a trackpad or a wireless mouse. Either a new wire or
a wireless transmitter-receiver pair has the property of
transmitting your control movements to the computer. None of your
movements affect the atenfel in question, which is the property of
being able to communicate your movements to the computer.
True, that’s almost the first fact mentioned in the tutorial. (Quoting the start of the tutorial): “Let’s start from the idea of one simple control loop.
If this is all you are interested in, there’s no reason to think of
splitting any of the segments represented by arrows into components.
All that matters is the influence that the variation of the value at
the tail of the arrow on the value at the head of the arrow. In most
loop analyses, the arrow represents a simple connector, so there is
even less that matters. Loop gain and transport lag is often
enough.”
I hope so. But I would not use the word “disturb” in this context,
because “disturb” has a specific meaning in PCT. “Affect” or
“influence” would be appropriate. You also seem to be taking the
cross-influence to be a side-effect, which indeed it might be. But
things get more interesting when it is an intended effect, either
enhancing or reducing the ability of the other person to control.
If someone really doesn’t want you to be able to control the
cursor-target relationship perception, cutting the wire to remove
the “conductivity” atenfel would be quite effective. As for
resolving conflict, I think the issues are much the same as for the
“standard” or “classical” conflict in which the opponents both try
to set a single environmental variable to two different values.
Imagine a conflict (a rather artificial one) in which only one mouse
is available that could be paired to either of two computers, and
both computers are running a tracking task. Only one of the tracking
tasks can be performed at any given time, just as would be the case
if the two opponents were trying to do the tracking task on one
computer, but wanted to set the cursor at a different distance from
the target. The resolution to the two-computer-one-mouse conflict is
to provide a new atenfel, the transmissible mobility of a second
mouse that could be paired to the other computer.
If you want to go a bit deeper into the nature of atenfels, we have
a small taxonomy of them. The mouse-wire case is in the class
“Catalytic-Limited”. “Catalytic” means it is unaffected by being
used and “Limited” means it can be used in the environmental
feedback path of only a limited number of perceptions at any one
time. A different kind is “Resource” which is affected by being
used, as is a candle whose “shedding light” property is used up ever
second the candle is lit.
From here on, I think your understanding of the nature of an atenfel
differs sufficiently from mine that it is hard for me to make a
specific comment, but I will try. Probably my comments will not seem
germane, but who knows?
In this case, you refer to a conflict over a “Limited” type of
atenfel. One kind of atenfel limit is embodied in an object that has
different properties that could be used as atenfels for control of
different perceptions, but if one person is using one of those
properties, another person can’t use any of its properties. If I am
cutting something with a Swiss Army knife, you can’t use it to get a
stone out of a horse’s hoof, or anything else. On the other hand Limits can be very broad. A road is an atenfel for
control of a perception of being in some distant place if you use
the mobility property of a bike or car as another atenfel in the
same environmental feedback path. A highway is very little affected
by the passage of a car or bike, and until there are so many cars as
to slow traffic its use by one car doesn’t affect its simultaneous
use by another so it is a “Catalytic (effectively) Unlimited”
atenfel for controlling a perception of being rapidly at another
place.
Yes, that’s the example of providing a second mouse so tracking
tasks can be done on two different computers at the same time.
I’m trying to see a way in which the speed could be an atenfel for
controlling a perception of the finger to be moving in a figure 8
pattern. It seems to me to be an independently controlled
perception. I grant that you can’t physically move without the move
having some speed, so in that sense the speed is indeed a property
of the environmental feedback path, but it is a variable, and
changing it doesn’t affect the control of the pattern shape. Speed
isn’t a component of the environmental feedback path for controlling
the perception of the pattern shape. It is a property of the signal
waveform that propagates around the loop.

I would call it a property of the disturbance that is Per2’s
influence on the position of the knot whose position Per1 is trying
to control.

Yes, disturbance bandwidth is critical in the ability of someone to
control. You could, however, use the rubber-band example in a different way
to illustrate an “atenfel” conflict. The atenfel in question is the
elastic modulus of the rubber band, which varies with temperature.
If there were a Per3 who could instantaneously vary the temperature
of Per1’s loop of the band, and did it very fast, Per1 would have
great difficulty in control, just as would be the case if Per2 moved
erratically fast. That would be an example of Per3’s interference
with an atenfel in Per1’s environmental feedback path to impair
Per1’s control.
But it isn’t correct, as I hope I have demonstrated. Think of
“atenfel” as the strength of a link in a chain that represents the
whole environmental feedback path, or as the electrical properties
of a component in an electronic circuit that is in the environmental
feedback path.
I hope this helps.
Martin

···

On 2016/06/16 8:11 PM, Bill Leach
wrote:

  Gads!  I told myself that I wasn't going to put in my '2 cents'

worth on this discussion. However, after having read the attached
exchange I changed my mind.

  First I absolutely agree with Rick (and thus undoubtedly with Bill

Powers) that adding new terms to PCT is not something that we
really want to be doing unless there is a compelling reason to do
so.

  Now the rest of this is based upon what I think that 'atenfel'

means (gleaned primarily from the attached discussion). I also
expect that Kent or Martin will be quite happy to correct me if I
am in error here.

  An 'atenfel' is something in the environment that is affected by a

person controlling a perception.

  The 'atenfel' may not necessarily have to affected by that person,

that is there could be another way to achieve control of the
desired perception that would not necessarily affect that
particular ‘atenfel.’

  So specifically an 'atenfel' is NOT itself the controlled

perception for the person. For this purpose, the term provides
nothing for the basic PCT model.

  However, and this is where I think that Martin and Kent are coming

from, in a situation where two or more people controlling their
perceptions AND in doing so are affecting an ‘atenfel’ that
disturbs the ability of others to achieve control then this term
might be a useful construct when attempting to understand and
resolve conflict between two or more persons.

  If I am even close on all of this then I invite Martin and/or Kent

to provide a some useful real world examples.

  I

believe that a generative model could be produced but the
environment part of the model would likely be highly complex. The
‘atenfel’ for the model would be something that is affected by the
control efforts of two (or more) people attempting to control
their perceptions where the perceptions that they are controlling
are not the same.

  The controlled perceptions would indeed have to be different for

the two person case. Thus the effect on the common ‘atenfel’
would be an incidental effect to both (or maybe all) of the
controlled perceptions.

  From the standpoint of a person trying to resolve a conflict

between two or more persons, identifying such an ‘atenfel’ could
be very useful in an attempt to find different control methods for
each of the parties to achieve their own control without
preventing control or a different perception by another (or
others).

  In trying to come up with my own example I could not seem to help

myself from falling back on the simplest control example that I
have ever seen… the knotted rubber bands.

  We know that one party (Per1) is controlling to keep the knot over

the dot on the paper. The other (Per2) could be
controlling for making a figure 8 pattern with his/her finger. An
‘atenfel’ for this situation then could be the speed at
which Per2 makes figure 8 pattern.

  This speed may not be of any particular concern to the Per2 (and

thus is completely incidental) whereas it can be of major concern
to Per1 (especially if their reaction speeds are as slow as my
own).

  Identifying that the 'speed of motion' in this hypothetical case

is the ‘atenfel’

  and it is not something that either party is trying to control

would allow for a simple conflict resolution where both are able
to achieve control of their desired perception, by merely asking
Per2 to slow down.

  Again, if my example is correct, then in this case the need for a

special term would not exist.

[bleach]

Martin, thank you. I will have to reread this and think about it
more I’m sure but I really do appreciate your effort to understand
what you are driving at with the ideas surrounding the ‘atenfel.’

Best,
Bill

···

On 06/16/2016 10:16 PM, Martin Taylor
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.22.59]

  I also agree with this. I believe the compelling reason is that

the concept that an environmental feedback path is usually
composed of several distinct sections is normally ignored. The
output is connected to the CEV by a wire (a unity-gain path) and
the CEV is connected to the perceptual input by a wire. That the
output might be a finger movement that moves a mouse that sends
motion-related values through a wire to a complicated electronic
processor that send values to a screen processor that produces a
cursor pattern at a place on a screen is totally ignored, so no
word is needed. Once you break up that pathway into components
that can be influenced independently, you need a word to talk
about the concept of an environmental path component. Having a
word also means that the issue of interactions between different
control systems (in the same person or in different people)
becomes easier to think about.
Is a wire affected by the variations in the current flowing
through it? Such a wire, or rather, the conductivity of such a
wire, could be an atenfel for controlling some perception, say the
position of a cursor on a screen in a tracking task. The mouse
position is signalled to the computer by signals through its
connecting wire (unless you have a wireless mouse). Without that
wire, you can’t control the cursor.
True. If the mouse wire is cut, you can go and get a new mouse, a
wired joystick, a trackpad or a wireless mouse. Either a new wire
or a wireless transmitter-receiver pair has the property of
transmitting your control movements to the computer. None of your
movements affect the atenfel in question, which is the property of
being able to communicate your movements to the computer.
True, that’s almost the first fact mentioned in the tutorial. (Quoting the start of the tutorial): “Let’s start from the idea of one simple control loop.
If this is all you are interested in, there’s no reason to think
of splitting any of the segments represented by arrows into
components. All that matters is the influence that the variation
of the value at the tail of the arrow on the value at the head of
the arrow. In most loop analyses, the arrow represents a simple
connector, so there is even less that matters. Loop gain and
transport lag is often enough.”
I hope so. But I would not use the word “disturb” in this context,
because “disturb” has a specific meaning in PCT. “Affect” or
“influence” would be appropriate. You also seem to be taking the
cross-influence to be a side-effect, which indeed it might be. But
things get more interesting when it is an intended effect, either
enhancing or reducing the ability of the other person to control.
If someone really doesn’t want you to be able to control the
cursor-target relationship perception, cutting the wire to remove
the “conductivity” atenfel would be quite effective. As for
resolving conflict, I think the issues are much the same as for
the “standard” or “classical” conflict in which the opponents both
try to set a single environmental variable to two different
values. Imagine a conflict (a rather artificial one) in which only
one mouse is available that could be paired to either of two
computers, and both computers are running a tracking task. Only
one of the tracking tasks can be performed at any given time, just
as would be the case if the two opponents were trying to do the
tracking task on one computer, but wanted to set the cursor at a
different distance from the target. The resolution to the
two-computer-one-mouse conflict is to provide a new atenfel, the
transmissible mobility of a second mouse that could be paired to
the other computer.
If you want to go a bit deeper into the nature of atenfels, we
have a small taxonomy of them. The mouse-wire case is in the class
“Catalytic-Limited”. “Catalytic” means it is unaffected by being
used and “Limited” means it can be used in the environmental
feedback path of only a limited number of perceptions at any one
time. A different kind is “Resource” which is affected by being
used, as is a candle whose “shedding light” property is used up
ever second the candle is lit.
From here on, I think your understanding of the nature of an
atenfel differs sufficiently from mine that it is hard for me to
make a specific comment, but I will try. Probably my comments will
not seem germane, but who knows?
In this case, you refer to a conflict over a “Limited” type of
atenfel. One kind of atenfel limit is embodied in an object that
has different properties that could be used as atenfels for
control of different perceptions, but if one person is using one
of those properties, another person can’t use any of its
properties. If I am cutting something with a Swiss Army knife, you
can’t use it to get a stone out of a horse’s hoof, or anything
else. On the other hand Limits can be very broad. A road is an atenfel
for control of a perception of being in some distant place if you
use the mobility property of a bike or car as another atenfel in
the same environmental feedback path. A highway is very little
affected by the passage of a car or bike, and until there are so
many cars as to slow traffic its use by one car doesn’t affect its
simultaneous use by another so it is a “Catalytic (effectively)
Unlimited” atenfel for controlling a perception of being rapidly
at another place.
Yes, that’s the example of providing a second mouse so tracking
tasks can be done on two different computers at the same time.
I’m trying to see a way in which the speed could be an atenfel for
controlling a perception of the finger to be moving in a figure 8
pattern. It seems to me to be an independently controlled
perception. I grant that you can’t physically move without the
move having some speed, so in that sense the speed is indeed a
property of the environmental feedback path, but it is a variable,
and changing it doesn’t affect the control of the pattern shape.
Speed isn’t a component of the environmental feedback path for
controlling the perception of the pattern shape. It is a property
of the signal waveform that propagates around the loop.

I would call it a property of the disturbance that is Per2’s
influence on the position of the knot whose position Per1 is
trying to control.

Yes, disturbance bandwidth is critical in the ability of someone
to control. You could, however, use the rubber-band example in a different way
to illustrate an “atenfel” conflict. The atenfel in question is
the elastic modulus of the rubber band, which varies with
temperature. If there were a Per3 who could instantaneously vary
the temperature of Per1’s loop of the band, and did it very fast,
Per1 would have great difficulty in control, just as would be the
case if Per2 moved erratically fast. That would be an example of
Per3’s interference with an atenfel in Per1’s environmental
feedback path to impair Per1’s control.
But it isn’t correct, as I hope I have demonstrated. Think of
“atenfel” as the strength of a link in a chain that represents the
whole environmental feedback path, or as the electrical properties
of a component in an electronic circuit that is in the
environmental feedback path.
I hope this helps.
Martin

    On 2016/06/16 8:11 PM, Bill Leach

wrote:

    Gads!  I told myself that I wasn't going to put in my '2 cents'

worth on this discussion. However, after having read the
attached exchange I changed my mind.

    First I absolutely agree with Rick (and thus undoubtedly with

Bill Powers) that adding new terms to PCT is not something that
we really want to be doing unless there is a compelling reason
to do so.

    Now the rest of this is based upon what I think that 'atenfel'

means (gleaned primarily from the attached discussion). I also
expect that Kent or Martin will be quite happy to correct me if
I am in error here.

    An 'atenfel' is something in the environment that is affected by

a person controlling a perception.

    The 'atenfel' may not necessarily have to affected by that

person, that is there could be another way to achieve control of
the desired perception that would not necessarily affect that
particular ‘atenfel.’

    So specifically an 'atenfel' is NOT itself the controlled

perception for the person. For this purpose, the term provides
nothing for the basic PCT model.

    However, and this is where I think that Martin and Kent are

coming from, in a situation where two or more people controlling
their perceptions AND in doing so are affecting an ‘atenfel’
that disturbs the ability of others to achieve control then this
term might be a useful construct when attempting to understand
and resolve conflict between two or more persons.

    If I am even close on all of this then I invite Martin and/or

Kent to provide a some useful real world examples.

    I believe that a generative model could be produced but the

environment part of the model would likely be highly complex.
The ‘atenfel’ for the model would be something that is affected
by the control efforts of two (or more) people attempting to
control their perceptions where the perceptions that they are
controlling are not the same.

    The controlled perceptions would indeed have to be different for

the two person case. Thus the effect on the common ‘atenfel’
would be an incidental effect to both (or maybe all) of the
controlled perceptions.

    From the standpoint of a person trying to resolve a conflict

between two or more persons, identifying such an ‘atenfel’ could
be very useful in an attempt to find different control methods
for each of the parties to achieve their own control without
preventing control or a different perception by another (or
others).

    In trying to come up with my own example I could not seem to

help myself from falling back on the simplest control example
that I have ever seen… the knotted rubber bands.

    We know that one party (Per1) is controlling to keep the knot

over the dot on the paper. The other (Per2) could be
controlling for making a figure 8 pattern with his/her finger.
An ‘atenfel’ for this situation then could be the speed
at which Per2 makes figure 8 pattern.

    This speed may not be of any particular concern to the Per2 (and

thus is completely incidental) whereas it can be of major
concern to Per1 (especially if their reaction speeds are as slow
as my own).

    Identifying that the 'speed of motion' in this hypothetical case

is the ‘atenfel’

    and it is not something that either party is trying to control

would allow for a simple conflict resolution where both are able
to achieve control of their desired perception, by merely asking
Per2 to slow down.

    Again, if my example is correct, then in this case the need for

a special term would not exist.

[Kent]

from Kent McClelland (2016.06.17.10.15)

Hello to Bill, Rick, and Martin.

KM: Martin’s latest post (2016.06.16.22.59) provides a good answer to Bill’s question about the utility of the word ‘atenfels’, but since I was involved in coining the term, I wanted to say something from my own point of view about why the word
may be a useful addition to our tools for the PCT analysis of human behavior.

KM: I think, Rick, that your problems with the term (see his post on
2016.06.16.1130) originate in your highly restrictive view of the “right� way to use PCT in understanding human behavior. Here’s a quote from
an earlier post (Rick Marken 2016.06.13.1905).

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel.
I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables
. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly
what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output
and the controlled variable itself.

KM: I’m afraid I don’t agree with your assertion that “the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables
�,
and my disagreement is
based on PCT as I understand it. If we as PCT analysts are trying to gain a better understanding of human behavior, there can’t just be one right way for us to accomplish that lofty goal. The
goal of understanding human behavior is high-level perception, and any well-functioning neural hierarchy will provide many different means to reach high-level goals. Sometimes it
might be a good strategy
for us to focus first on controlled variables in seeking to understand human behavior,
but sometimes going at the analysis from another direction might give
better results.

KM: I’ll grant you, Rick, that it
makes
a lot of sense for psychologists like you
to focus on identifying the variables that individuals are
trying to control, IF your only
goal is to understand the behavior of individual persons (although I’m not sure it’s
the only good way to do PCT analysis, even at that level). But for sociologists like me, when the goal is to study topics like social power,
restricting one’s
focus to the variables controlled by individual persons is just a nonstarter. For one thing, in large groups of people the individuals are controlling lots and lots of different and conflicting perceptions. Not only that, but
at
any given moment
every individual in the group is simultaneously controlling lots of different perceptions at different levels of the hierarchy. We’re talking
here about a whole humongous lot of different perceptions.

KM: To catalog all the perceptions simultaneously controlled by a large group of people would be a big-data problem of truly mind-boggling proportions. Imagine trying to use The Test to sort out
all these different perceptions individually! And even then it wouldn’t necessarily tell us much about a topic like social power, which emerges at the social level from the collective control of similar perceptions by individual persons sharing a common environment.
For that, one needs instead an analysis that focuses on social-level phenomena.

KM: In my chapter for LCS IV, I’ve argued that since it’s
obviously
impractical, if not entirely impossible,
to perform a one-by-one, individual-level analysis of what large groups of people are controlling, a more practical alternative for the PCT analyst may be to
begin by turning one’s attention to something that can be observed: the collective effects of all these control loops on
the
physical environment that the group of people share.

KM: Whenever people try to control their own perceptions (assuming they aren’t just imagining things), they have to do it by making some kind of perceptible modification to their physical
environment,
which will then have some observable physical effects. (It is this fact, of course, that makes it possible for an analyst to do The Test of what another person is controlling by observing the environmental effects of their control efforts under different conditions
of disturbances.) If lots of people are trying to control similar things in a shared environment, these effects upon the environment will be cumulative. My argument is that careful PCT-informed observations of these physical effects on socially shared environments
can give us clues about the emergence of social power. When a physical environment is shaped by collective control, it takes the form that it does, I would argue, because powerful groups of people want to keep it that way to make it easier to control the perceptions
they want to control. And at this point in the analysis, the concept of atenfels comes in handy.

KM: Let me go back to an example that Rick (2016.06.13.1905) and Martin (2016.06.15.10.39)
discussed
earlier: road
surfaces as atenfels. Suppose we observe that a particular road is extremely wide, extends for many miles, and has a smooth hard surface, carefully
maintained. That kind of road surface is great if the perception you want to control is driving a car or a truck at a high rate of speed from point A to point B, but if the perception you want to control is walking
along
the path of this road from point C to point D, or bicycling, or riding a horse, or going by rail, it might suit your purposes much better if the
road
had an entirely different kind of surface, one not specially optimized for high-speed automobile traffic.

KM: The road thus provides an atenfel for traveling across the city, which people can freely use to control their own perceptions. The fact, however, that a significant part of the shared social space in this
city has been devoted to building a stabilized atenfel that takes this particular form tells us something important about relationships of social power between the groups of people living there. The road as an atenfel is open to all comers for controlling
whatever perceptions they want to control, but its physical form serves the interests of some relatively powerful
groups of people (those who own cars, trucks,
gas stations, car dealerships, oil companies, fancy homes in the suburbs, etc.) much better than it serves the interests of others (those who own none of the above).

KM: My argument, then, is that we can regard the stabilized forms of physical features in a shared social environment as evidence of effects of the ways that competing groups of people within that environment
try to control their perceptions, and the predominant forms of these stabilized physical features can inform us about the perceptions that the most powerful members of the community want to control. You’ll note, here, that I’ve come back around to identifying
the perceptions that people attempt to control, but my social-level analysis had to begin by observing the forms taken by the stabilized features of the socially constructed physical environment. The atenfel language gives me a way of performing this sociological
analysis more precisely than if the only analytical tool I had was to talk about individual feedback functions. (As Martin noted in his tutorial on atenfels (
2016.06.07.16.56),
the term atenfel can also apply not only to physical objects but to other more abstract kinds of stabilities, such as patterns of human behavior. He makes these points quite brilliantly, to my mind, in his forthcoming chapter on “language and culture as malleable
artifacts� for LCS IV.)

KM: You actually made a conceptual move in this direction yourself
, Rick, in your
blog post on the Orlando mass killing in the Facebook page for Controlling People (see Rick Marken 2016.06.15.1100 and https://www.facebook.com/ControllingPeople/
).
You say,

The gain of a controller depends on its physical strength as well as what is called the “feedback function” – the characteristics of the environment that link the controller’s actions to the state of the perception being controlled. The feedback function can
magnify or attenuate the physical strength of a controller, thus increasing or decreasing gain, respectively. The feedback function for a person who is controlling for killing people (which is the ultimate way to control them) is the weapon in their hand.
The gain of a controller holding a semi-automatic rifle is considerably greater than that of the same controller holding a knife (or, better, nothing at all).

. . .

The only way we can prevent such people from creating catastrophes like the one in Orlando is to make sure that the GAIN of their controlling is kept low. And the only way to do that "from outside the controller� is to make sure that the feedback function doesn’t
magnify the gain of the controlling. Since we can’t identify such controllers in advance, the most effective way to do this is to keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of all citizens except those who have a legitimate reason to have them (police and
military).

KM: Here you’ve described the rifle used by the killer as a “feedback function� that increases his gain in controlling the perception of killing people. But calling this object a feedback function seems much
less precise to me than calling it an atenfel. First of all, the word ‘function’, as I understand it, refers to a mathematical equation describing transformations of physical energy in the control loop, and a rifle is obviously an object, not an equation.
Second, to actually set up the equation for this feedback function for the
killer’s control of his perception, we would need to consider a complex set of physical
feedback paths from the movement of his finger on the trigger and manipulation of the direction of the rifle in space, through the physical transformations involved in the internal mechanisms of the rifle, to the effects of gravity and air friction on speeding
bullets (where air is either a disturbance because it slows the bullet or an atenfel because the slowing is minimal), to the friction and other physical effects of the passage of bullets through human bodies, to the transference of light rays and sound waves
and odors (presumably) from the effects of the bullets on the bodies back through the air to the killer’s sensory organs. All that sounds to me like it would make for a pretty complicated mathematical equation to set up, but please go to it if you think you
can. (Which I view as a fair request, since you’ve been pestering Martin to come up with the mathematical formulas that would demonstrate the role of atenfels in individual control loops.)

KM: The way your example could relate to an analysis of social power, as I see it, is this: Why is it that atenfels like semi-automatic rifles, which provide mass killers with convenient tools for quickly and
easily controlling their diabolical perceptions, are so widely available in the social environment of the USA? Exactly whose perceptions are being controlled here? This issue sounds
pretty similar to the one you’ve
raised in your blog, and you make a good point in the blog that the rifle increases the gain of the individual’s feedback function enormously. But to call the rifle a feedback function instead of an atenfel just muddies the waters from my point of view, and
your focus on the individual feedback functions instead of on the socially controlled forms of the physical environment misses a very important point to be made about social power.

Best to all,

Kent

···

On 06/16/2016 10:16 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.16.22.59]

I also agree with this. I believe the compelling reason is that the concept that an environmental feedback path is usually composed of several distinct sections is normally ignored. The output is connected to the CEV by a wire (a unity-gain path) and the CEV
is connected to the perceptual input by a wire. That the output might be a finger movement that moves a mouse that sends motion-related values through a wire to a complicated electronic processor that send values to a screen processor that produces a cursor
pattern at a place on a screen is totally ignored, so no word is needed. Once you break up that pathway into components that can be influenced independently, you need a word to talk about the concept of an environmental path component. Having a word also means
that the issue of interactions between different control systems (in the same person or in different people) becomes easier to think about.
Is a wire affected by the variations in the current flowing through it? Such a wire, or rather, the conductivity of such a wire, could be an atenfel for controlling some perception, say the position of a cursor on a screen in a tracking task. The mouse position
is signalled to the computer by signals through its connecting wire (unless you have a wireless mouse). Without that wire, you can’t control the cursor.
True. If the mouse wire is cut, you can go and get a new mouse, a wired joystick, a trackpad or a wireless mouse. Either a new wire or a wireless transmitter-receiver pair has the property of transmitting your control movements to the computer. None of your
movements affect the atenfel in question, which is the property of being able to communicate your movements to the computer.
True, that’s almost the first fact mentioned in the tutorial. (Quoting the start of the tutorial): “Let’s start from the idea of one simple control loop.
If this is all you are interested in, there’s no reason to think of splitting any of the segments represented by arrows into components. All that matters is the influence that the variation of the value at the tail of the arrow on the value at the head of the
arrow. In most loop analyses, the arrow represents a simple connector, so there is even less that matters. Loop gain and transport lag is often enough.”
I hope so. But I would not use the word “disturb” in this context, because “disturb” has a specific meaning in PCT. “Affect” or “influence” would be appropriate. You also seem to be taking the cross-influence to be a side-effect, which indeed it might be. But
things get more interesting when it is an intended effect, either enhancing or reducing the ability of the other person to control.
If someone really doesn’t want you to be able to control the cursor-target relationship perception, cutting the wire to remove the “conductivity” atenfel would be quite effective. As for resolving conflict, I think the issues are much the same as for the “standard”
or “classical” conflict in which the opponents both try to set a single environmental variable to two different values. Imagine a conflict (a rather artificial one) in which only one mouse is available that could be paired to either of two computers, and both
computers are running a tracking task. Only one of the tracking tasks can be performed at any given time, just as would be the case if the two opponents were trying to do the tracking task on one computer, but wanted to set the cursor at a different distance
from the target. The resolution to the two-computer-one-mouse conflict is to provide a new atenfel, the transmissible mobility of a second mouse that could be paired to the other computer.
If you want to go a bit deeper into the nature of atenfels, we have a small taxonomy of them. The mouse-wire case is in the class “Catalytic-Limited”. “Catalytic” means it is unaffected by being used and “Limited” means it can be used in the environmental feedback
path of only a limited number of perceptions at any one time. A different kind is “Resource” which is affected by being used, as is a candle whose “shedding light” property is used up ever second the candle is lit.
from here on, I think your understanding of the nature of an atenfel differs sufficiently from mine that it is hard for me to make a specific comment, but I will try. Probably my comments will not seem germane, but who knows?
In this case, you refer to a conflict over a “Limited” type of atenfel. One kind of atenfel limit is embodied in an object that has different properties that could be used as atenfels for control of different perceptions, but if one person is using one of those
properties, another person can’t use any of its properties. If I am cutting something with a Swiss Army knife, you can’t use it to get a stone out of a horse’s hoof, or anything else.
On the other hand Limits can be very broad. A road is an atenfel for control of a perception of being in some distant place if you use the mobility property of a bike or car as another atenfel in the same environmental feedback path. A highway is very little
affected by the passage of a car or bike, and until there are so many cars as to slow traffic its use by one car doesn’t affect its simultaneous use by another so it is a “Catalytic (effectively) Unlimited” atenfel for controlling a perception of being rapidly
at another place.
Yes, that’s the example of providing a second mouse so tracking tasks can be done on two different computers at the same time.
I’m trying to see a way in which the speed could be an atenfel for controlling a perception of the finger to be moving in a figure 8 pattern. It seems to me to be an independently controlled perception. I grant that you can’t physically move without the move
having some speed, so in that sense the speed is indeed a property of the environmental feedback path, but it is a variable, and changing it doesn’t affect the control of the pattern shape. Speed isn’t a component of the environmental feedback path for controlling
the perception of the pattern shape. It is a property of the signal waveform that propagates around the loop.

I would call it a property of the disturbance that is Per2’s influence on the position of the knot whose position Per1 is trying to control.

Yes, disturbance bandwidth is critical in the ability of someone to control. You could, however, use the rubber-band example in a different way to illustrate an “atenfel” conflict. The atenfel in question is the elastic modulus of the rubber band, which varies with temperature. If there were a Per3 who could instantaneously vary the
temperature of Per1’s loop of the band, and did it very fast, Per1 would have great difficulty in control, just as would be the case if Per2 moved erratically fast. That would be an example of Per3’s interference with an atenfel in Per1’s environmental feedback
path to impair Per1’s control.
But it isn’t correct, as I hope I have demonstrated. Think of “atenfel” as the strength of a link in a chain that represents the whole environmental feedback path, or as the electrical properties of a component in an electronic circuit that is in the environmental
feedback path.
I hope this helps.
Martin
On 2016/06/16 8:11 PM, Bill Leach wrote:

Gads! I told myself that I wasn’t going to put in my ‘2 cents’ worth on this discussion. However, after having read the attached exchange I changed my mind.

First I absolutely agree with Rick (and thus undoubtedly with Bill Powers) that adding new terms to PCT is not something that we really want to be doing unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Now the rest of this is based upon what I think that ‘atenfel’ means (gleaned primarily from the attached discussion). I also expect that Kent or Martin will be quite happy to correct me if I am in error here.

An ‘atenfel’ is something in the environment that is affected by a person controlling a perception.

The ‘atenfel’ may not necessarily have to affected by that person, that is there could be another way to achieve control of the desired perception that would not necessarily affect that
particular ‘atenfel.’

So specifically an ‘atenfel’ is NOT itself the controlled perception for the person. For this purpose, the term provides nothing for the basic PCT model.

However, and this is where I think that Martin and Kent are coming from, in a situation where two or more people controlling their perceptions AND in doing so are affecting an ‘atenfel’ that disturbs the ability of others to achieve control then this term might
be a useful construct when attempting to understand and resolve conflict between two or more persons.

If I am even close on all of this then I invite Martin and/or Kent to provide a some useful real world examples.

I believe that a generative model could be produced but the environment part of the model would likely be highly complex. The ‘atenfel’ for the model would be something that is affected
by the control efforts of two (or more) people attempting to control their perceptions where the perceptions that they are controlling are not the same.

The controlled perceptions would indeed have to be different for the two person case. Thus the effect on the common ‘atenfel’ would be an incidental effect to both (or maybe all) of
the controlled perceptions.

from the standpoint of a person trying to resolve a conflict between two or more persons, identifying such an ‘atenfel’ could be very useful in an attempt to find different control methods for each of the parties to achieve their own control without preventing
control or a different perception by another (or others).

In trying to come up with my own example I could not seem to help myself from falling back on the simplest control example that I have ever seen… the knotted rubber bands.
We know that one party (Per1) is controlling to keep the knot over the dot on the paper. The other (Per2)
could be controlling for making a figure 8 pattern with his/her finger. An ‘atenfel’ for this situation then
could be the speed at which Per2 makes figure 8 pattern.

This speed may not be of any particular concern to the Per2 (and thus is completely incidental) whereas it can be of major concern to Per1 (especially if their reaction speeds are as
slow as my own).

Identifying that the ‘speed of motion’ in this hypothetical case is the ‘atenfel’

and it is not something that either party is trying to control would allow for a simple conflict resolution where both are able to achieve control of their desired perception, by merely
asking Per2 to slow down.

Again, if my example is correct, then in this case the need for a special term would not exist.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.18.1120)]

···

Kent McClelland (2016.06.17.10.15)Â

 RM: Thanks for this. It helps me understand where you and Martin are coming from.Â

KM: In my chapter for LCS IV, I’ve argued that since it’sÂ
obviously
impractical, if not entirely impossible,Â
to perform a one-by-one, individual-level analysis of what large groups of people are controlling, a more practical alternative for the PCT analyst may be to
begin by turning one’s attention to something that can be observed:Â the collective effects of all these control loops onÂ
the
physical environment that the group of people share.Â

RM: I hope you give a real world example, and not just an abstract model, of the “collective effects of all these control loops on the physical environment”. The examples I can think of that seem to fit this general description – several people acting together to lift a heavy object, for example – seem pretty rare. Far more common, I think, are interactions between many people like those modeled in Powers’ “CROWD” demo. Here many interesting social behaviors – behaviors that mimic what has actually been observed in crowds – are produced by having all agents in the crowd controlling the same three perceptual variables: collision avoidance, proximity to other agents and their destination (see pp. 152-163 in LCS: The Fact of Control). I think Bill built the CROWD model to show how one can approach understanding the sociology of control systems.Â

Â

KM:…The atenfel language gives me a way of performing this sociological
analysis more precisely than if the only analytical tool I had was to talk about individual feedback functions…

KM: You actually made a conceptual move in this direction yourself
, Rick, in your
blog post on the Orlando mass killing in the Facebook page for Controlling People (see Rick Marken 2016.06.15.1100 and https://www.facebook.com/ControllingPeople/
).
You say,Â

…The feedback function for a person who is controlling for killing people (which is the ultimate way to control them) is the weapon in their hand.Â

KM: Here you’ve described the rifle used by the killer as a “feedback function� that increases his gain in controlling the perception of killing people. But calling this object a feedback function seems much
less precise to me than calling it an atenfel.

RM: Yes, I actually said it that way intentionally because I wanted to make the discussion as simple as possible for a lay audience. The more correct (but, I think, pedantic) way of saying it would have been “the feedback function is mediated by the weapon”.Â

Â

KM: First of all, the word ‘function’, as I understand it, refers to a mathematical equation describing transformations of physical energy in the control loop, and a rifle is obviously an object, not an equation.
Second, to actually set up the equation for this feedback function for the
 killer’s control of his perception, we would need to consider a complex set of physical
feedback paths from the movement of his finger on the trigger and manipulation of the direction of the rifle in space…All that sounds to me like it would make for a pretty complicated mathematical equation to set up, but please go to it if you think you
can. (Which I view as a fair request, since you’ve been pestering Martin to come up with the mathematical formulas that would demonstrate the role of atenfels in individual control loops.)

RM: I think this is a very good idea. There are certainly a lot of complex links in almost any feedback function but what’s important is not the links but the functional relationship between system output and controlled input that is implemented by those links. For example, there are many complex links between a driver’s output – turning the steering wheel – Â and the controlled variable – her perception of the direction of the car. But all you need to know to properly analyze the control loop is the functional relationship between steering wheel angle and the direction of the car. So the feedback function could be as simple as:Â

dc/dt = k * ds/dt

where c is the direction of the car and s is the angle of the steering wheel. So this feedback function describes the relationship between a change in steering wheel position, ds/dt, on the direction of the car,  dc/dt. The effect of all the links in the feedback function – the steering column, power steering gearbox, pump, fluid reservoir, etc –  are absorbed into k, which tells how much change in the car’s direction is produced by a change in steering wheel angle. That’s all you need to know to build a good model of the driver controlling the direction of the car.

RM: A good example of the calculation of feedback functions to model the behavior of a living control system can be found in the “Feedback Model of a Rat Experiment” in LCS I (pp. 47- 59). The graph in Fig 2 shows the derivation of a feedback function relating an output variable (rate of pressing, r.p) to a hypothetical controlled variable (probability of a shock, p.s) in a shock avoidance experiment. The mathematical form of this feedback function is given on p. 52. For present purposes the important thing to note is that the derivation of this function required no knowledge of all the physical links between a bar press and the electrical circuit that determines whether of not current will flow through the floor of the cage. All that was needed was knowledge of the minimum number of presses/ time interval required to avoid a shock. Also, what was needed was an assumption about the variable controlled by the rat. In Fig. 2 that variable is the probability of a shock, p.s. A slightly different feedback function exists if the controlled variable is assumed to be the rate of shock, r.p, rather than the probability of shock. It turns of that the fit of model to data is better when the controlled variable is assumed to be r.s rather than p.s (see Table 1, p. 50).Â

RM: So what’s the feedback function for a gun? Again, deriving it requires assumptions about what variable is being controlled by the user of the gun. Let’s say it’s the number of people killed/unit time, n.k. The system output is trigger pulls/unit time, n.t. So one possible feedback function for a gun being used to kill people is:

n.k = k * n.t

where k is the gain of the feedback function. The value of k for an assault rifle is clearly much higher than that for a shot gun and that for a shot gun is much higher than that for no gun at all. Clearly this simple linear feedback function is just an approximation to the true feedback function. But it’s probably pretty close. And knowing the detailed mechanism that links a trigger pull to a bullet coming out of the barrel, while certainly interesting, is not relevant to getting the feedback function more exactly right.Â

Â

KM: …
 you make a good point in the blog that the rifle increases the gain of the individual’s feedback function enormously. But to call the rifle a feedback function instead of an atenfel just muddies the waters from my point of view, and
your focus on the individual feedback functions instead of on the socially controlled forms of the physical environment misses a very important point to be made about social power.Â

RM: A hope that I have un-muddied the waters a bit by showning that I do know the difference between a rifle and its function – Yeats notwithstanding, I can know the dancer from the dance;-)

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

[_Boris_Hartman]

I think it’s enough Rick.

Sooner or later you’ll have to decide whether you are behavioral selfregulation theorist or you’ll promote PCT as it’s presented in Bill’s theory.

In LCS III you have clear statement that »feed-back« are effects of output on input. There is nothing about output affecting some »controlled variable« in outer environment. It’s not general model although in some cases there can be some variables in outer environment that are affected by output. But they are not controlled.

RM :

I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

HB : As I said your RCT model which incorporate »controlled variables« in outer environment suggest that there is always some »controlled aspect« of outer environment, which must be »seen« by an observer so that he can perform TCV.

In our previous discussions we established that this is not what is generally happening. That’s what even you admitt it in your posts here on CSGnet and in your article. Go and read them again (our discussions and your article). So your RCT model with »controlled variable« outside is wrong. But you can make your own theory (RCT) and becaome independent »Control theory« theorist or you can join Carver and othe r self-regulation theorist. Because you are suggesting everything what they do. You have »controlled variable« in outer environment which should be brought into some reference (goal) state like for example you are hammering a nail until you put it into wanted position (reference, goal state).

As we seen that you don’t understand how PCT »organism« on p. 191 in B:CP works (what is not only your »fault«), you are mixing your dreams with reallity what people usually do. If they don’t have enough perceived material or knowledge they suplement the »whole« with imaginaton and so you see what usually people can make from innocent »facts«. I thjink that extreme examples are those who see »UFO« J.

Decide once for all Rick. Whether you stay with PCT diagram or you make your own diagram with »controlled variable« in outside environment if you »think that the focus of all analysis of behavior …should be on controlled variables which are measured with TCV. We’ve discussed this so many times that I’m tired of repeating it. To human it’s usually enough to tell it once or twice… So what’s gone be…

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

RM: I did read it. I didn’t see anything in the write up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

MT: If you can’t tell the difference between the road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point in making any further comment.

RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a road and the time it takes to get across town. But your comment made me realize what my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But the “road surface” is just a property of the real world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling. And even then what you call it can be ambiguous.

RM: For example, the surface of the road is the basis of a controlled variable for the people building the road; these people are controlling perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the perception of the direction of the car, controlled by a person driving a car on the road; changes in the slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how much change of direction is produced by turning the steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road could be considered a component of the feedback function connecting the angular forces exerted by the driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car turns.

RM: So dividing up the world into controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always straightforward. When we study control, what matters is correctly modeling the situation. The most important aspect of this modeling is identifying controlled variables (the aspects of the environment that are under control) and the variables that affect the state of those variables – these are the environmental variables, starting with the forces exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output signals to the controlled variables. So in the example of controlling the direction of the car, one controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the angle of the car relative to the road; the output variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct physical model would connect o to p using something like this set of physical relationships:

steering wheel angle = f(o)

car wheel angle = g(steering wheel angle)

car direction = h(wheel angle, road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind direction,…)

p = k(car direction, road direction)

RM: You might be able to see that some of the variables in the above equations are functionally disturbances; and you might be able to see that some of the functions are functionally feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all. For example, is road surface friction a disturbance variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(), that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you call variables disturbances or part of the feedback function once you have the model right; and it doesn’t matter to the control system itself either. The control system, if properly designed, will vary o so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in the variables and functions that influence the state of the controlled variable.

MT: I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted at, by Rick.

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.24.0930 ET)]

What is “RCT�?

Fred Nickols

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 8:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

I think it’s enough Rick.

Sooner or later you’ll have to decide whether you are behavioral selfregulation theorist or you’ll promote PCT as it’s presented in Bill’s theory.

In LCS III you have clear statement that »feed-back« are effects of output on input. There is nothing about output affecting some »controlled variable« in outer environment. It’s not general model although in some cases there can be some variables in outer environment that are affected by output. But they are not controlled.

RM :

I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

HB : As I said your RCT model which incorporate »controlled variables« in outer environment suggest that there is always some »controlled aspect« of outer environment, which must be »seen« by an observer so that he can perform TCV.

In our previous discussions we established that this is not what is generally happening. That’s what even you admitt it in your posts here on CSGnet and in your article. Go and read them again (our discussions and your article). So your RCT model with »controlled variable« outside is wrong. But you can make your own theory (RCT) and becaome independent »Control theory« theorist or you can join Carver and othe r self-regulation theorist. Because you are suggesting everything what they do. You have »controlled variable« in outer environment which should be brought into some reference (goal) state like for example you are hammering a nail until you put it into wanted position (reference, goal state).

As we seen that you don’t understand how PCT »organism« on p. 191 in B:CP works (what is not only your »fault«), you are mixing your dreams with reallity what people usually do. If they don’t have enough perceived material or knowledge they suplement the »whole« with imaginaton and so you see what usually people can make from innocent »facts«. I thjink that extreme examples are those who see »UFO« J.

Decide once for all Rick. Whether you stay with PCT diagram or you make your own diagram with »controlled variable« in outside environment if you »think that the focus of all analysis of behavior …should be oon controlled variables which are measured with TCV. We’ve discussed this so many times that I’m tired of repeating it. To human it’s usually enough to tell it once or twice… SSo what’s gone be…

Best,

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

RM: I did read it. I didn’t see anything in the write up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

MT: If you can’t tell the difference between the road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point in making any further comment.

RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a road and the time it takes to get across town. But your comment made me realize what my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But the “road surface” is just a property of the real world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling. And even then what you call it can be ambiguous.

RM: For example, the surface of the road is the basis of a controlled variable for the people building the road; these people are controlling perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the perception of the direction of the car, controlled by a person driving a car on the road; changes in the slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how much change of direction is produced by turning the steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road could be considered a component of the feedback function connecting the angular forces exerted by the driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car turns.

RM: So dividing up the world into controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always straightforward. When we study control, what matters is correctly modeling the situation. The most important aspect of this modeling is identifying controlled variables (the aspects of the environment that are under control) and the variables that affect the state of those variables – these are the environmental variables, starting with the forces exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output signals to the controlled variables. So in the example of controlling the direction of the car, one controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the angle of the car relative to the road; the output variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct physical model would connect o to p using something like this set of physical relationships:

steering wheel angle = f(o)

car wheel angle = g(steering wheel angle)

car direction = h(wheel angle, road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind direction,…)

p = k(car direction, road direction)

RM: You might be able to see that some of the variables in the above equations are functionally disturbances; and you might be able to see that some of the functions are functionally feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all. For example, is road surface friction a disturbance variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(), that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you call variables disturbances or part of the feedback function once you have the model right; and it doesn’t matter to the control system itself either. The control system, if properly designed, will vary o so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in the variables and functions that influence the state of the controlled variable.

MT: I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted at, by Rick.

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.