On control

[From Dag Forssell (950124 0930)] >[Hans Blom, 950124] On control

Let us be clear about what a control _system_ is. It always consists of
two parts, an inside and an outside, so to say. Let us call the "inside"
a controller, even though it may not be able to control; and let us call
the "outside" the something to be controlled, even though in reality it
may not be controlled. A well-engineered controller and the plant it
controls. An organism and its environment. A human being and her
physical and social context. And it is only the two together that are
the _system_. It is only the two together that determine whether we can
talk about "control" occurring or not. Of course this is not a new idea.
Yet it, and some of its implications, are readily forgotten.

Examples are easy to construct. Invert the sign of the environment's
transfer function and what was an excellent controller is now an
oscillator. Make the environment unresponsive (massive, sluggish), and
control is control no more. . .

I appreciate your pointers and examples. Your post is thoughtprovoking.
For my part, I relate easily to my argument with Bill P. on how to sell
PCT. Jim Soldani, working inside a massive company, was not able to have
much impact by teaching PCT to a few people. Rick Marken is frustrated
controlling for understanding of PCT in a large, unresponsive (massive,
sluggish) body of conventional psychologists. We acknowledge on this net
that we can best control for the understanding of PCT of one person at
a time, where one person can be far more responsive than a group which
values consensus. (I will consider public seminars, where I address each
person as an individual).

Children with parents who are absent or inconsistent have a hard time
finding social regularities they can control successfully. Children with
parents who are consistent but wrong (in our opinion, i. e. creationists)
learn to control well in the same consistent way.

As controllers (newspaperboys willing to work hard) it behooves us to
choose what aspects and parts of our environments we attempt to control.

Thanks Hans, Dag/

[From Rick Marken (950124.2100)]

Bill Powers (941227.0730 MST) claimed:

All human beings set their own goals;there is no mechanism by
which any external agency can directly determine the goals of
an individual.

Hans Blom (950124), taking apparent umbrage, replies:

This is misleading at best.

What is it at worst?

Goals are relative to the environment,

Actually, this statement is just a weensy bit misleading (at best)
itself, isn't it? After all, goals (reference signals) are [set?]
relative to perceptual signals which are, in turn, [derived?] relative
to the environment. But that last one is for god to know and for you
to assume.

and without the "external agency" goals cannot even be defined.

In PCT a goal is a reference signal and it is defined (set?)
indendently of any external agency. Try it!

Best

Rick