PCT applied to research on the Physical Environment

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

from [Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0012)

Nice to see you back on the net Rick.

Theoretically Rick I think you are absolutely correct. I think it brings
some questions to mind though about how "practically" knowing what a CV is
at a specific point in time in an interpersonal interaction.

I have some questions and comments about CV's in general.

We control hundreds maybe thousands of CV's at any one specific point in
time.
We control some consciously and some unconsciously.
At any one point in time we control certain variables at higher gain then
others, yes? I would call this phenomenon "prioritizing". An example of this
might be driving and then diverting my attention for a couple of seconds to
find a radio station.
So far:
1) At any specific point in time each of us are controlling hundreds maybe
thousands of CV's
2) At any specific point of time there will be conflicts and cv's being
controlled at various gains .

from a "practical" view some questions.

1)How long does our controlling of a specific variable last? My guess is it
may last anywhere from a few seconds to any number of years.
2)Does a C.V. change over time, both in content and gain? How would we know
this? Does the TEST provide for this?

So although I think the CV is an important theoreticl concept. I have some
questions about the practical applications of CV's and the TEST at this
current state of our knowledge.

Nice exchange between Rick and Bruce.

Marc

···

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1545)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1737)--

> If all you think in terms of is "potentially controllable perceptual
> variables" you might have trouble telling a computer from an automobile
> (or a baseball bat).

Controlled variables are perceptual variables. Some of the perceptual
variables you control when you drive a car are the same as those you
control when you use a computer but many are different so it's usually
very easy to tell the difference between using a computer and driving an
automobile. It's easy for me, anyway.

2

from Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0105)

Sorry folks I left off the last part of my comment about the practicality of
trying to find CV's

So given the fact that we control many CV's at once and they change over
time how do you know that the variable you tested for and found to be
controlled had anything to do with the behavior you were watching at a
particular point in time.

Marc

>From [Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0012)

Nice to see you back on the net Rick.

Theoretically Rick I think you are absolutely correct. I think it brings
some questions to mind though about how "practically" knowing what a CV is
at a specific point in time in an interpersonal interaction.

I have some questions and comments about CV's in general.

We control hundreds maybe thousands of CV's at any one specific point in
time.
We control some consciously and some unconsciously.
At any one point in time we control certain variables at higher gain then
others, yes? I would call this phenomenon "prioritizing". An example of

this

might be driving and then diverting my attention for a couple of seconds

to

find a radio station.
So far:
1) At any specific point in time each of us are controlling hundreds maybe
thousands of CV's
2) At any specific point of time there will be conflicts and cv's being
controlled at various gains .

>From a "practical" view some questions.

1)How long does our controlling of a specific variable last? My guess is

it

may last anywhere from a few seconds to any number of years.
2)Does a C.V. change over time, both in content and gain? How would we

know

this? Does the TEST provide for this?

So although I think the CV is an important theoreticl concept. I have some
questions about the practical applications of CV's and the TEST at this
current state of our knowledge.

Nice exchange between Rick and Bruce.

Marc

> [From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1545)]
>
> Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1737)--
>
> > If all you think in terms of is "potentially controllable perceptual
> > variables" you might have trouble telling a computer from an

automobile

···

> > (or a baseball bat).
>
> Controlled variables are perceptual variables. Some of the perceptual
> variables you control when you drive a car are the same as those you
> control when you use a computer but many are different so it's usually
> very easy to tell the difference between using a computer and driving an
> automobile. It's easy for me, anyway.
>

3

Good-ay,

I'm a PhD student attempting to develop the PCT approach to the research and
understanding of people's interactions with the physical environment in
places( specifically Juvenile Justice facilities).

Are any members aware of any applications of PCT to the study of the
physical environment??? Also do any methodological approaches come to mind
that would be relevant to the study of the physical environment in places
from a PCT approach?

A member of your group Jim Wise has been of great help to me, and I was
wondering if there were any other ideas around on this topic.

Look forward to some discussion, keen to learn..

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student
Faculty of Architecture
University of Sydney
Australia

···

--

4

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0903.1015 CDT)]

Hi Rohan,

I guess you are taking the physical environment to mean the perception of
the infrastructure, artifacts of the social environment, and everything
else _as perceived by each and every individual_? That is, PCT cannot
apply to the physical environment itself, but its main concern is how
individuals control variable aspects of that environment.

So, as your post seems to indicate, such facilities are by design not able
to be controlled by the individuals they hold. What should be interesting
in research is how individuals attempt to control aspects of their
surroundings with varying success. Since the physical environment is so
controlled by the institution, it does not surprise me that individuals
find the only controllable "objects" in their environments are other
people! According to PCT, if the outputs of a control system reduce the
error between perceptual signals and a preferred state, then those outputs
may continue, but as continued outputs fail to reduce the error, they may
diminish. Thus, people probably give up trying to change the dimensions of
their lodgings. However, PCT might explain the phenomena of coercive
control of other people and creating an imagined change in some fantasy
perceptions not part of the actual physical environment. Conventional
explanations suggest that these behaviors are aberrant, but in the control
one's environment, living control systems control what they can, not
necessarily in the same mode as people whose physical environments are not
controlled. (But then, consider Mandela and his colleagues on Robben
Island, and the controlled variables they had!)

Another perspective I have found interesting and somewhat similar in theme
to PCT is the idea that people very clearly orchestrate their social
environment in the presence of others, sometimes to a fault! Here, the
controlled variable is a collection of social and interpersonal
perceptions, such as the words people use together, the gestures they
employ, and any other communication strategies such as "costume," where
possible, that they use. When the environment is perceived as one wishes,
then one acts in context, but when it is not, a person may act to offset
those differences. This idea is suggested in: Goffman, Erving (1959). The
presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books Edition of
Doubleday. Quotes: "...it will be in his interests to control the conduct
of the others, especially their responsive treatment of him." (p. 3) "When
an individual appears before others his actions will influence the
definition of the situation which they come to have." (p. 6) This work is
not PCT, but it offers a compelling description of people in social
situations.

Cheers,

Bryan Thalhammer
Champaign Illinois
USA

[Rohan Lulham (2001.0903.2237)]

···

Good-ay,

I'm a PhD student attempting to develop the PCT approach to the research and
understanding of people's interactions with the physical environment in
places( specifically Juvenile Justice facilities).

Are any members aware of any applications of PCT to the study of the
physical environment??? Also do any methodological approaches come to mind
that would be relevant to the study of the physical environment in places
from a PCT approach?

A member of your group Jim Wise has been of great help to me, and I was
wondering if there were any other ideas around on this topic.

Look forward to some discussion, keen to learn..

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student
Faculty of Architecture
University of Sydney
Australia

--

5

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.03.1040)]

Rohan Lulham wrote:

I'm a PhD student attempting to develop the PCT approach to the
research and understanding of people's interactions with the
physical environment in places ( specifically Juvenile Justice
facilities).

What are you trying to find out?

Are any members aware of any applications of PCT to the study
of the physical environment?

I was going to mention Jim Wise (who is not a member of CSGNet, as
far as I know, but I met him and discussed his work on designing
robbery discouraging bank layouts; that was years ago). But
apparently you're in touch with Jim so that's good. I don't know
of anyone else who is using PCT the way Jim is.

Also do any methodological approaches come to mind that would
be relevant to the study of the physical environment in places
from a PCT approach?

The only methodological approach that comes to mind is the test for
the controlled variable. But there are probably many nice, informal
ways to do this test. I'd have to know exactly what you're trying
to do in order to be able to make specific methodological suyggestions.

A member of your group Jim Wise has been of great help to me,
and I was wondering if there were any other ideas around on
this topic.

I see that you refer to a PhD thesis on the application of PCT to
interface design. I'll try to get a hold of it and see what she did.
There is a whole issue of the International J. of Human-Computer
Studies (1999, v. 50) dedicated to PCT and HCI. The shortest article
in that issue is called PERCOLATe by yours truly. I think it gives
a pretty good description of one approach to applying PCT to inter-
face design.

Anyway, let me know what, exactly, you want to know about the design
of Juvenile Justice facilities.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

6

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.03.1320)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0903.1015 CDT)

I'm sorry. I couldn't help noticing this comment in your reply
to Rohan Lulham (2001.0903.2237).

According to PCT, if the outputs of a control system reduce the
error between perceptual signals and a preferred state, then those
outputs may continue, but as continued outputs fail to reduce the
error, they may diminish.

I'm sure you know how this works but you just stated it incorrectly.
Since Rohan is a newcommer I think we should try to be fairly
rigorous in our discussion of the PCT model so Rohan won't get
confused about how it actually works. Since error drives output
(in a proportinal or integral control system; in a proportional
control system output is proportional to error; in an integral
control system output is proportional to the time integral of error)
outputs that reduce error are reduced themselves and they may even
_stop_ once the error is zero. Outputs that fail to reduce error
will continue or even increase.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

7

Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0903.1625 CDT)

Hi,

Yup, I probably didn't get it exactly right. OK, let me see here, "outputs
that reduce error are reduced themselves, and they may even _stop_ once the
error is zero." Yes, I understand that outputs of a control system may
continue or increase as the error persists. I think I must have had
reorganization of the hierarchy in mind, rather than the operation of a
specific control system, considering what the hierarchy does rather than
just a single control system. Like the driving example, where control of
staying in the lane begins to fail, the driver might increase his/her
attempts at first, but then stop doing so as attempts no longer have an
effect. I think this is hierarchical reorganization rather than the failure
of operation of that control system?

What I was trying to suggest was that a living control system (e.g., human
being) controls its environment, physical or social, as a part of error
reduction. When sufficient system image error cannot be reduced because of
intractable CVs, then a reorganization might occur where the control system
varies its behavior to reduce that higher level error by doing something
else than push the walls or noise away, and might resort to coercive
control or control within the imagination. And that such phenomenons might
be pretty interesting to study.

Thanks!

Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2001.09.03.1320)]

I'm sorry. I couldn't help noticing this comment in your reply
to Rohan Lulham (2001.0903.2237).

According to PCT, if the outputs of a control system reduce the
error between perceptual signals and a preferred state, then those
outputs may continue, but as continued outputs fail to reduce the
error, they may diminish.

I'm sure you know how this works but you just stated it incorrectly.
Since Rohan is a newcommer I think we should try to be fairly
rigorous in our discussion of the PCT model so Rohan won't get
confused about how it actually works. Since error drives output
(in a proportinal or integral control system; in a proportional
control system output is proportional to error; in an integral
control system output is proportional to the time integral of error)
outputs that reduce error are reduced themselves and they may even
_stop_ once the error is zero. Outputs that fail to reduce error
will continue or even increase.

Best

Rick

8

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.03.1530)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0903.1625 CDT)

I think I must have had reorganization of the hierarchy in mind,
rather than the operation of a specific control system

Yes! I should have known that. Your statement makes much more sense
in the context of reorganization. The wording still needs some
cleaning up, but I understand your point now. And it's a good one.

Best regards

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

9

Bryan,
Thanks for the ideas. I've thought about some of what you suggested but it
was also a development of some of my thinking. What you say about 'because
they can not control the physical environment they control people!!' is
really relevant. One result of this I think, which is seen in the research,
is that a lot of new designs of Juvenile and adult correction facilities
have little influence of improving the functioning of these facilities
although there are supposed to be state of art and have all these impacts.
Because detainees are not controlling aspects of the physical environment,
but people, design no matter how pretty or special has little effect. The
changes in a lot of new designs do not relate at all to what detainees and
staff are controlling.... they are what architects think they are
controlling, or more likely from their perspective what has impacts.

Saying this I do think you can develop design if you are more aware of what
detainees and staff are controlling; their perceptions of the controlled
variable, the outputs they use to control them and some of the disturbances
that impact of their controlled variables. Design may, if not increase there
control of the physical environment, may faciliate their control of other
things(interpersonal) they are controlling. I suppose this is what I am
hoping anyway!!!

Thanks greatly for your comments and I'll e-mail after I read Goffman.

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of Bryan Thalhammer
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:31 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT applied to research on the Physical Environment

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0903.1015 CDT)]

Hi Rohan,

I guess you are taking the physical environment to mean the perception of
the infrastructure, artifacts of the social environment, and everything
else _as perceived by each and every individual_? That is, PCT cannot
apply to the physical environment itself, but its main concern is how
individuals control variable aspects of that environment.

So, as your post seems to indicate, such facilities are by design not able
to be controlled by the individuals they hold. What should be interesting
in research is how individuals attempt to control aspects of their
surroundings with varying success. Since the physical environment is so
controlled by the institution, it does not surprise me that individuals
find the only controllable "objects" in their environments are other
people! According to PCT, if the outputs of a control system reduce the
error between perceptual signals and a preferred state, then those outputs
may continue, but as continued outputs fail to reduce the error, they may
diminish. Thus, people probably give up trying to change the dimensions of
their lodgings. However, PCT might explain the phenomena of coercive
control of other people and creating an imagined change in some fantasy
perceptions not part of the actual physical environment. Conventional
explanations suggest that these behaviors are aberrant, but in the control
one's environment, living control systems control what they can, not
necessarily in the same mode as people whose physical environments are not
controlled. (But then, consider Mandela and his colleagues on Robben
Island, and the controlled variables they had!)

Another perspective I have found interesting and somewhat similar in theme
to PCT is the idea that people very clearly orchestrate their social
environment in the presence of others, sometimes to a fault! Here, the
controlled variable is a collection of social and interpersonal
perceptions, such as the words people use together, the gestures they
employ, and any other communication strategies such as "costume," where
possible, that they use. When the environment is perceived as one wishes,
then one acts in context, but when it is not, a person may act to offset
those differences. This idea is suggested in: Goffman, Erving (1959). The
presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books Edition of
Doubleday. Quotes: "...it will be in his interests to control the conduct
of the others, especially their responsive treatment of him." (p. 3) "When
an individual appears before others his actions will influence the
definition of the situation which they come to have." (p. 6) This work is
not PCT, but it offers a compelling description of people in social
situations.

Cheers,

Bryan Thalhammer
Champaign Illinois
USA

[Rohan Lulham (2001.0903.2237)]

Good-ay,

I'm a PhD student attempting to develop the PCT approach to the research

and

understanding of people's interactions with the physical environment in
places( specifically Juvenile Justice facilities).

Are any members aware of any applications of PCT to the study of the
physical environment??? Also do any methodological approaches come to

mind

that would be relevant to the study of the physical environment in places
from a PCT approach?

A member of your group Jim Wise has been of great help to me, and I was
wondering if there were any other ideas around on this topic.

Look forward to some discussion, keen to learn..

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student
Faculty of Architecture
University of Sydney
Australia

--

10

Rick,

Thanks greatly for the questions.

What are you trying to find out?
Initially am trying to find out what staff and detainees are controlling in
physically defined places in Juvenile Justice facilities( primarily the
living units). I think they are primarily controlling for interpersonal
variables and the literature has a wealth of them; privacy, security,
safety, relationships with staff, relationships with
etainees( acceptance/dominance), etc. , and some individuals would control
some and not others. I would also need to identify how they represent
security, privacy etc as reference variables. I THEN want to investigate how
the physical environment interrelates to the control of theses variables. I
would be proposing the physical environment can influence the control of
reference variables in a number of ways?

i. Physical Environment can influence the Perception of the Variable being
controlled( e.g.if staff are controlling a variable related to security,
being able to have an open view of the living unit may assist this
perception. Conversely it is evident detainees are often at the same time
controlling variables related to privacy and this open view may have
negative effects on the control of privacy. It is also evident that
influencing perceptions will turn influence the needed OUTPUT signal as
error will have changed.

ii. Physical Environment can influence the selection of an Output Signal
used to control perception. Different physical environments may influence
selection of output signals, so detainees or staff use particular
behaviour(Ouput) while not other behaviors to control variables.( Some link
here to affordances).

iii. Physical Environment can influence the amount of disturbance to a
controlled variable. Different designs may limit, or increase the
disturbance. There is some evidence that some new designs increase the
disturbance of what staff are controlling.

iv. Physical Environment can be related to the adoption of a reference
variable as a function of re-organization process as Bryan identified.

In addition I would be proposing that people's experiences of the physical
environment will be related to their control of reference variables. As such
their affective responses, evaluations, and meanings attributed to the
physical environment of a place( what Environment Behaviour field is often
interested in) will be a function of their control of reference variables
in the place.

A last question, I hope I'm not taking up too much time. I have seen a
couple of thesis that have recently applied notions of
affordances'( Gibson) in the social environment with approaches similar to
PCT. I find this an interesting parallel, and while I locate the reference
variable internal to the individual(not in the environment like affordances)
I think it may have some use in categorizing looking at perception processes
from a PCT view. I'm not sure but trying to nut it out? Have you come across
any of these ideas? The notion of affordance is prominent in ecological
views of the physical environment in the EB field, and while on its own I
think it has a lot of shortcoming( doesn't look at what individual is
controlling) it is interesting.

Thanks for your time and I'll be sure to make my responses in the future
not so long. I'll now to be off to read the PERCOLATe article.

Thanks

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student
Uni of Sydney

mindreadings.com

11

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.0810)]

Rohan Lulham wrote:

Initially am trying to find out what staff and detainees are controlling in
physically defined places in Juvenile Justice facilities( primarily the
living units). I think they are primarily controlling for interpersonal
variables

My guess would be that most detainees are controlling for getting out
and that most staff are controlling for keeping the detainees in. Of
course, all are also controlling of other things as well. But I believe
those are the two main variables in a jail situation. Of course, you
could test this by just opening the gates and seeing if anyone leaves.
My guess if that most of the detainees would leave for the nearest beach
town and most of the staff would stay to get paid.

I would be proposing the physical environment can influence the control
of reference variables in a number of ways?

I agree with your proposals. There are pretty obvious ways that this
principle is currently used in architecture, even though architects
don't explicitly understand PCT. For example, under the assumption that
people are generally controlling for not running into walls and other
obstacles, architects can "guide" crowds of people through spaces by
building obstacle free paths through those spaces.

I have seen a couple of thesis that have recently applied notions of
affordances'( Gibson) in the social environment with approaches similar
to PCT. I find this an interesting parallel, and while I locate the
reference variable internal to the individual(not in the environment
like affordances) I think it may have some use in categorizing looking
at perception processes from a PCT view. I'm not sure but trying to nut
it out?

It's not just the mis-location of the reference that makes affordance a
useless concept. Affordance implies that functional characteristics of
an object "inhere" in the object itself. So a chair, by its very nature,
affords sitting. PCT would say that the chair and every aspect of it
(including its function) is a _perception_ created by the perceptual
function of the observer. Objects only "afford" what individuals can
perceive about them. Chairs don't afford "sitting" to infants who can't
yet perceive this aspect of chairs. And chairs can "afford" other things
besides sitting -- things like "decoration", "weapon" and "prop" -- to
people who can perceive these aspects of chairs.

Any apparent similarity of Gibson's theories to PCT are purely embarrassing;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

12

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1147)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.04.0810)

It's not just the mis-location of the reference that makes affordance a
useless concept. Affordance implies that functional characteristics of
an object "inhere" in the object itself. So a chair, by its very nature,
affords sitting. PCT would say that the chair and every aspect of it
(including its function) is a _perception_ created by the perceptual
function of the observer. Objects only "afford" what individuals can
perceive about them. Chairs don't afford "sitting" to infants who can't
yet perceive this aspect of chairs. And chairs can "afford" other things
besides sitting -- things like "decoration", "weapon" and "prop" -- to
people who can perceive these aspects of chairs.

http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~masanao/affordance/chair.html

13

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1202)]

Donald Norman:

PERCEIVED AFFORDANCE

I introduced the term affordance to design in my book, "The Psychology of
Everyday Things" (POET: also published as "The Design of ..."). The concept
has caught on, but not always with true understanding. Part of the blame
lies with me: I should have used the term "perceived affordance," for in
design, we care much more about what the user perceives than what is
actually true. What the designer cares about is whether the user perceives
that some action is possible (or in the case of perceived non-affordances,
not possible).

14

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1202)--

Donald Norman:

PERCEIVED AFFORDANCE

I should have used the term "perceived affordance," for in design, we
care much more about what the user perceives than what is actually true.
What the designer cares about is whether the user perceives that some
action is possible

Several cognitive psychologists (like Norman and Neisser) have found
some merit in Gibson's perceptual theories and tried to recast them in
cognitive terms. Here we see that Norman wants to keep the basic idea of
affordance, as an aspect of an object that indicates its function (what
action is possible), while avoiding Gibson's claim that these
affordances "inhere in the object itself". So for Norman, an affordance,
such as the sitting afforded by the chair, is a perceived aspect of the
chair. But by throwing out the notion that affordances "inhere" in an
object, Norman has also thrown out any value the notion of affordance
might have had for the person trying to design for usability. If
affordance is no longer an objective (inherent) property of objects then
the designer has no way of knowing what will afford what to the user of
the system being designed. What affords what depends on how it's
perceived. And every user will perceive things in their own way.
Affordance, in other words, goes with the user, not with the system to
be used. What affords "sitting" for the designer of a chair may afford
"blockading" to the user.

What Norman needs is a theory of how human behavior works. Since he
doesn't have it, his theoretical musings, like the one above, can be
politely ignored.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

15

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1503)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1100)

For an interesting take on affordances an their role in the actions of
living control systems see:

16

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1330)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1503)

For an interesting take on affordances an their role in the actions of
living control systems see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1502000/1502820.stm

Interesting article. But it had to do with kids learning to use
computers. It didn't have anything to so with "affordances". Did you
mean to post a different URL?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

17

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1637)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1330)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1503)

> For an interesting take on affordances an their role in the actions of
> living control systems see:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1502000/1502820.stm

Interesting article. But it had to do with kids learning to use
computers. It didn't have anything to so with "affordances". Did you
mean to post a different URL?

No, I just think of computers as affordances. (And kids as living control
systems.)

18

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1410)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1637) --

I just think of computers as affordances.

Ah. That's the problem. I think of computers as collections of
potentially controllable perceptual variables.

"Affordance" sounds to me like a "dormative principle"; it explains
without really explaining. For example, the fact that the kids learned
to surf the net is explained by saying that the computer affords surfing
the net. Nifty. These dormative principles can be quite handy,
especially if you don't demand explanations of phenomena in terms of
mechanisms that could actually produce the phenomena. For example,
rather than go to all the trouble of building a model (mechanism), I
could have explained fly ball catching by simply pointing out that fly
balls afford catching. This would have saved me a lot of time but it
wouldn't have been as much fun and, truth be told, I prefer explanations
in terms of models. I think modeling produces the most valuable,
interesting and satisfying explanations of phenomena.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

19

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1737)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1410)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1637) --

> I just think of computers as affordances.

Ah. That's the problem. I think of computers as collections of
potentially controllable perceptual variables.

If all you think in terms of is "potentially controllable perceptual
variables" you might have trouble telling a computer from an automobile (or
a baseball bat).

"Affordance" sounds to me like a "dormative principle"; it explains
without really explaining.

Ah, that's the problem. If you ever want to facilitate learning, you might
think of how to design an apparatus that encourages successful exploration.
For example, by providing the kind of rapid feedback that facilitates
control. The feedback the kids got from the computer screen allowed them to
make rapid progress even though they did not understand the language.

I think modeling produces the most valuable,
interesting and satisfying explanations of phenomena.

Don't we all.

20

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1545)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1737)--

If all you think in terms of is "potentially controllable perceptual
variables" you might have trouble telling a computer from an automobile
(or a baseball bat).

Controlled variables are perceptual variables. Some of the perceptual
variables you control when you drive a car are the same as those you
control when you use a computer but many are different so it's usually
very easy to tell the difference between using a computer and driving an
automobile. It's easy for me, anyway.

If you ever want to facilitate learning, you might think of how to
design an apparatus that encourages successful exploration. For example,
by providing the kind of rapid feedback that facilitates control...

I don't believe that inanimate systems can _encourage_ because
encouraging is a purposeful behavior. Teachers can encourage but
computers can't. The rapidity of feedback (either as loop slowing or
transport lag, two independent measures of the rapidity of feedback in a
control loop) doesn't encourage (or afford) or discourage anything; it
just _is_.

Me:

I think modeling produces the most valuable, interesting and satisfying
explanations of phenomena.

Ye:

Don't we all.

Well, you keep _saying_ you do. If that counts, then I suppose we do.

Best regards

Rick

···

-----
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com