# PCT for Beginners
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403
**Category:** CSG2007
**Created:** [June 15, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403 "2007-06-15T14:36:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2007, 1:24am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/21 "2007-06-18T01:24:55Z")
> > I think that after all
> > these
> >
> > years Ed Ford has attained a reasonable grasp of PCT, though like many of
> > us
> >
> > he does not always achieve perfect communication of this
> > understanding.
>
> I wish you were as generous about my work;-)
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.17.1920 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1420) –
I don’t have to be. Your work is clever, advanced, and original and I
critique it at a different level of complexity. However, if you wish me
to be as generous as I am toward those I still see as beginners, I will
do so. Would that make you feel better?
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2007, 3:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/22 "2007-06-18T03:39:01Z")
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.2040)]
> Bill Powers (2007.06.17.1920 MDT)--
>
> \> Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1420) --
>
> \>I wish you were as generous about my work;-)
>
> I don't have to be. Your work is clever, advanced, and original and I
> critique it at a different level of complexity. However, if you wish me to
> be as generous as I am toward those I still see as beginners, I will do so.
> Would that make you feel better?
Oh, yes, yes!!
Best
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
> Statistical Analyst VHA
> rsmarken@gmail.com
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2007, 12:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/23 "2007-06-18T12:09:05Z")
> > if you wish me to be as generous
> > as I am toward those I still see as beginners, I will do so. Would that
> > make you feel better?
>
> Oh, yes, yes!!
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.18.0555 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.06.17.2040) –
Fine. Then your paper on how to use the Test for the Controlled Variable
showed that you have made much progress in understanding PCT, for which
you should be given full credit. While the meaning of
“straight ahead” is undefined, most of the main points come
across very well. I look forward to seeing this discussion applied to
real data.
Best.
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/24 "2007-06-18T17:30:27Z")
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.1030)]
> Bill Powers (2007.06.18.0555 MDT)--
>
> Rick Marken (2007.06.17.2040) --
>
> > if you wish me to be as generous as I am toward those I still see as
> > beginners, I will do so. Would that make you feel better?
>
> Oh, yes, yes!!
>
> Fine. Then your paper on how to use the Test for the Controlled Variable
> showed that you have made much progress in understanding PCT, for which you
> should be given full credit.
I'd prefer generosity to (apparent) condescension. And the only
generosity I would appreciate would be having you stop protecting your
"beginners" (most of whom are not even close to being beginners) by
artificially "correcting" me using word games. The recent "control of
behavior" discussion is a good example, where you came to the defense
of Ed Ford (who, after over 20 years of involvement with PCT, can
hardly be considered a beginner) by "correcting" my statement about
control of people, implying that Ed correctly says that people cannot
control other people because he understands what I don't : that people
control variables. The same kind of thing has happened in several
other discussions (one on the basis of conflict, another on control of
imagination). I suppose we're just in conflict about this; I'm trying
to make what I think are good points about PCT and you think that I am
attacking your "beginners". We just want the same perception (what is
said about PCT) in somewhat different states;-) Too bad.
> While the meaning of "straight ahead" is
> undefined, most of the main points come across very well. I look forward to
> seeing this discussion applied to real data.
If you think the main points of my papers are good (maybe you don't --
all you said was that they come across well -- but if you do think
they are good) then I think PCT would be better served by your
spending more time talking up those points (while noting any
criticisms of the papers where those points are made, of course) and
less time defending "beginners" against my "misguided" corrections. If
you really don't think the main points of my work are particularly
good then I think you should express your concerns before I try to
publish them. I always run my papers by you before submitting them for
publication.
Regarding this last paper, of which I am apparently unduly fond, if
you think lack of clarity about the meaning of "straight ahead" trumps
the value of having a paper describing the test for the controlled
variable in the main journal of research in psychology (JEP:HPP) then
we just have very different ideas about how to promulgate PCT. And I
think we do. I think your hope for PCT now rides on the development of
MOL. I think MOL is great but I also think that the future for PCT
really depends on its gaining a firm footing in the scientific
(academic) establishment.
As far as the application of the model to real data, it turns out that
I checked my old correspondence and Shaffer did have the raw data I
needed for model fitting but he would not give those data to me at the
time. So all I had were his published graphs of the optical
trajectories of the Frisbee. As I said in the paper, these published
graphs were very similar to the model trajectories observed with
lateral disturbance:
" The optical trajectories of catches made when there was a large
lateral change in the trajectory of the Frisbee (Shaffer et al., 2004,
Figure 4, p. 440) resemble the optical trajectories of laterally
disturbed balls caught by the fielder model, like the one shown by the
triangle plot in Figure 3A."
So while I could not do a precise, quantitative fit of model to data,
the interocular trauma test shows that the trajectories in Figure 4 of
Shaffer et al are very similar to the laterally disturbed trajectory
of the model.
Best
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
> Statistical Analyst VHA
> rsmarken@gmail.com
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2007, 6:32am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/25 "2007-06-19T06:32:09Z")
> the only generosity I would
> appreciate would be having you stop protecting your
>
> “beginners” (most of whom are not even close to being
> beginners) by
>
> artificially “correcting” me using word games. The recent
> "control of
>
> behavior" discussion is a good example, where you came to the
> defense
>
> of Ed Ford (who, after over 20 years of involvement with PCT, can
>
> hardly be considered a beginner) by “correcting” my statement
> about
>
> control of people, implying that Ed correctly says that people
> cannot
>
> control other people because he understands what I don’t : that
> people
>
> control variables. The same kind of thing has happened in several
>
> other discussions (one on the basis of conflict, another on control
> of
>
> imagination). I suppose we’re just in conflict about this; I’m
> trying
>
> to make what I think are good points about PCT and you think that I
> am
>
> attacking your “beginners”. We just want the same perception
> (what is
>
> said about PCT) in somewhat different states;-) Too
> bad.
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.18.1120 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.06.18.1030) –
What am I “protecting my beginners” from? I am finding as much
that is correct in what they say as I can, I’m ignoring accidental
contradictions, and I’m trying to help them understand more. When they
have something completely wrong, I try to find a way to lead them to
discover what is wrong for themselves instead of being told by me. Yes,
Ed still says occasionally that teachers “can’t control
students.” But he also has stopped using the “I see you have
chosen” formula and he explains that the real goal of RTP is to help
students reorganize by examining themselves internally, not just to alter
their behavior. He says we’re not trying to change behavior (pointing to
the output quantity and feedback function) but to help students
reorganize their perceptions and goals (pointing to the perceptual
signal, reference signal, and comparator). His diagram of a control
system is correct, and he devised it himself. He is not very skilled at
explaining it, but he gets the relationships right and – sometimes to my
puzzlement – people seem to understand what he is saying.
Ed is not a technically-trained person. He can’t program a computer or
construct working models of control systems. He is in no way in
competition with you, although you seem to consider that my supporting
him takes something away from you. I certainly would not expect him to
demonstrate the same kind of rigor I would naturally look for in your
work.
> > While the meaning
> > of “straight ahead” is
> >
> > undefined, most of the main points come across very well. I look forward
> > to
> >
> > seeing this discussion applied to real data.
>
> ## If you think the main points of my papers are good (maybe you don’t
>
> all you said was that they come across well – but if you do think
>
> they are good) then I think PCT would be better served by your
>
> spending more time talking up those points (while noting any
>
> criticisms of the papers where those points are made, of course) and
>
> less time defending “beginners” against my
> “misguided” corrections.
I don’t think that defending beginners against misguided corrections has
to be stopped in order to judge other presentations. Your corrections are
misguided in that they are out of date by more than a few years. There is
still a lot of room for improvement, but that is true of every learner.
The RTP people have changed their views a lot and there is much less
distance between them and PCT than you seem to think there is.
It’s good that you have introduced the Test for the Controlled Variable
to the psychological literature, but your paper is only a foot in the
door and will remain so until you can show more clearly, with data, what
you mean. You show the behavior of a model you designed, and allude to
some Frisbee-catching data that you say looks similar, but you don’t show
the data so the reader can see for himself that what you say is true.
When all you can present are your opinions and interpretations that the
reader has to accept your word for, your argument is bound to be weak. I
understand that there are reasons why you can’t show an analysis of the
raw data, but that does not mean the paper is just as good as it would be
if the data were there. It isn’t. I’m sure you realize that just as well
as I do.
> Regarding this last
> paper, of which I am apparently unduly fond, if
>
> you think lack of clarity about the meaning of “straight ahead”
> trumps
>
> the value of having a paper describing the test for the controlled
>
> variable in the main journal of research in psychology (JEP:HPP)
> then
>
> we just have very different ideas about how to promulgate PCT. And
> I
>
> think we do. I think your hope for PCT now rides on the development
> of
>
> MOL. I think MOL is great but I also think that the future for PCT
>
> really depends on its gaining a firm footing in the scientific
>
> (academic) establishment.
I agree with you. A firm footing would be very good to have. Go for it.
Your points will be made much more firmly when ambiguities are eliminated
and proof of assertions is shown. Deficiencies in one aspect of a paper
are not compensated for by excellence in other aspects, however. What
happens is that bad parts in a paper drag down the impression made by
even the good parts.
> As I said in the
> paper, these published graphs were very similar to the model trajectories
> observed with lateral disturbance:
>
> " The optical trajectories of catches made when there was a
> large
>
> lateral change in the trajectory of the Frisbee (Shaffer et al.,
> 2004,
>
> Figure 4, p. 440) resemble the optical trajectories of laterally
>
> disturbed balls caught by the fielder model, like the one shown by
> the
>
> triangle plot in Figure 3A."
I can’t verify that assertion for myself because I don’t have access to
that paper. You say there is a resemblance but I want to see it for
myself, as most readers will. So why not get permission and put that
figure into your paper along with the model? How many readers of this
journal will take the trouble to look up the issue with that figure in
it, and do the comparison for themselves? Good papers make it easy, not
inconvenient, for readers to draw their own conclusions.
> So while I could
> not do a precise, quantitative fit of model to data,
>
> the interocular trauma test shows that the trajectories in Figure 4
> of
>
> Shaffer et al are very similar to the laterally disturbed trajectory
>
> of the model.
So you say. In a scientific paper, however, saying is not enough. You
must demonstrate. The lack of demonstration doesn’t destroy your point,
but it makes the presentation weak and will do little to convince a
skeptic. In science we’re expected to be skeptical, and to be the most
skeptical of our own work.
I’m not asking anything of you that I don’t try to live up to myself.
That includes not getting too fond of anything you write, because that is
a warning sign of incipient blindness.
Best.
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/26 "2007-06-19T17:20:10Z")
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.19.1020)]
> Bill Powers (2007.06.18.1120 MDT)--
> What am I "protecting my beginners" from?
Criticism.
> Ed is not a technically-trained person. He can't program a computer or
> construct working models of control systems. He is in no way in competition
> with you, although you seem to consider that my supporting him takes
> something away from you.
Not at all. What I mind (what an appropriate term; I "mind" things
because I have a reference for things being in a different state; the
reference is the "mind";-)) is when you do what I said: use word
games to contradict me when I make a technically correct criticism of
ideas expressed by Ed or any of the others whose behavior you are
trying to shape using reinforcement of their successive approximations
to "getting PCT right". I have no problem with you doing behavior
modification using positive reinforcement but when I do things that
seem to you to interfere with that program I would appreciate it if
you would use the same strategy on me and ignore the things I say that
you would prefer I didn't say and just reward the things I do that you
like.
> The RTP people have changed their views a lot and there is much less distance
> between them and PCT than you seem to think there is.
All I know about RTP is what you said in your post. Here's what you
said and my reply:
> Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)--
> Ed Ford, for whom this was written, explains later in the seminar that
> teachers "can't control students" and don't have to try to do that. As Rick
> Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP program do try to
> control the behavior of students, that is, their actions, but in Ford's
> seminar they are taught to do this while showing respect for the variables
> that the students are controlling, so as to avoid direct conflict.
> Rick Marken
> So they are taught that they can't control students but that when they
> do control students they should control only their actions, not their
> controlled variables.
This was not a comment on RTP but on your description of it. If you
considered this an inappropriate criticism of Ed and RTP then I would
have appreciated it if you would have dealt with it the way you deal
with the inappropriate things Ed says about PCT: ignore it and wait
until I say something you like so that you can reward me.
> It's good that you have introduced the Test for the Controlled Variable to
> the psychological literature, but your paper is only a foot in the door and
> will remain so until you can show more clearly, with data, what you mean.
Of course. All my papers are just feet in the door (and, believe me,
sometimes it smarts when the door is slammed shut;-) My next planned
paper was -- is -- going to be a modeling paper using data I have from
McLeod et al. I just have several other things I want to do as well.
> I agree with you. A firm footing would be very good to have. Go for it.
> Your points will be made much more firmly when ambiguities are eliminated
> and proof of assertions is shown. Deficiencies in one aspect of a paper are
> not compensated for by excellence in other aspects, however. What happens is
> that bad parts in a paper drag down the impression made by even the good
> parts.
That sounds good but my experience is that this is not necessarily the
case. It's certainly nice to have a deficiency free paper but the fact
is that one person's deficiencies are another person's "I didn't
notice" and one person's "boy, that's one hell of an important point"
is another's "so what". I think one of my most perfect papers is one
called "Degrees of freedom in behavior" (which was published in
\_Psychological Science\_ and is reprinted in \_Mind Readings\_). That
paper used data and modeling very cleanly to show that the
"coordinative structures" or "complexity" approach to understanding
coordinated movement has serious problems that were neatly solved by a
control model. That paper (like all my papers) has received virtually
no attention from the conventional psychology community. I don't
believe it's what you see as "deficiencies" that make a bad impression
on readers; it's the basic idea of perceptual control that turns
people off. There are no more "deficiencies" in my papers than in any
others that make it through the review process. Sure they could be
better and I am always willing to try to make them better. But I don't
believe that making the papers perfect -- whatever that means to you
-- is going to improve their impressiveness. Proof of this is the
impression made by your own papers. I consider the 1978 Psych Review
paper a perfect classic, yet how much of an impression has it made? I
would have to say "almost none" based on the amount of PCT based
research that has been done since it's publication.
> I can't verify that assertion for myself because I don't have access to
> that paper. You say there is a resemblance but I want to see it for myself,
> as most readers will. So why not get permission and put that figure into
> your paper along with the model?
Yes, I should have done that.
> I'm not asking anything of you that I don't try to live up to myself. That
> includes not getting too fond of anything you write, because that is a
> warning sign of incipient blindness.
Believe me, I have been throwing out draft after draft of stuff I'm
trying to write now. I'm very critical of my own work -- maybe not
critical enough but I'm not in love with it either. I think it's
pretty good but not nearly as good as other more capable people could
do, if they would only do PCT research. I do think that my latest
JEP:HPP paper is pretty darn good. But I'm always trying to do better.
And I appreciate your (and everyone's) comments, criticisms and
suggestions.
All I'm asking is that you handle the behavior modification of your
"beginners" on your own. If anything I say is wrong, then feel free to
correct me. But if something I say is correct but doesn't fit into
your reinforcement by successive approximations program then why not
just let it go.
Best
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
> Statistical Analyst VHA
> rsmarken@gmail.com
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2007, 1:33am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/27 "2007-06-20T01:33:13Z")
> All I know about RTP is what you
> said in your post. Here’s what you
>
> said and my reply:
>
> > Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330
> > MDT)–
>
> > Ed Ford, for whom this was
> > written, explains later in the seminar that
> >
> > teachers “can’t control students” and don’t have to try to do
> > that. As Rick
> >
> > Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP program do try
> > to
> >
> > control the behavior of students, that is, their actions, but in
> > Ford’s
> >
> > seminar they are taught to do this while showing respect for the
> > variables
> >
> > that the students are controlling, so as to avoid direct
> > conflict.
>
> > Rick Marken
>
> > So they are taught that they
> > can’t control students but that when they
> >
> > do control students they should control only their actions, not
> > their
> >
> > controlled variables.
> > [From Bill Powers (2007.06.19.1847 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.06.19.1020) –
Yes, I think you understood me correctly, but I don’t see what your
problem is. I pointed out that Ed says that teachers can’t control
students, and I also pointed out the contradiction, which is that
teachers can and do control the behavior of students. All you’re doing is
pointing out the same contradiction that I pointed out. What do you want
to do, punish him for contradicting himself? Should I yell at him that
he’s contradicting himself?
Ed also teaches that to avoid conflict the variables students are
controlling must be respected, so he is teaching the right thing, too.
This is because he has made only part of the change from his old view to
the new one. Generally, the bulk of what he teaches is now on the side of
recognizing that teachers do control the behavior of students, but not
the controlled variables of students. He does understand the difference.
His way of speaking just hasn’t quite caught up with his understanding.
As I said, I generally ignore inconsistencies like this because they
always show up when people are changing their ideas, and take time to
work out. They will eventually disappear.
> This was not a
> comment on RTP but on your description of it. If you
>
> considered this an inappropriate criticism of Ed and RTP then I
> would
>
> have appreciated it if you would have dealt with it the way you deal
>
> with the inappropriate things Ed says about PCT: ignore it and wait
>
> until I say something you like so that you can reward
> me.
I don’t see any point in criticizing Ed when he is moving in the right
direction. Why do you want to criticize him? Isn’t he doing the best he
can?
On the other hand, why do you want me NOT to criticize your work? I
certainly expect you to criticize mine when you see things wrong with it.
We both know that we can do better, and criticism helps with that. We
don’t take it personally, do we? In working on the PCT for Beginners
paper, I have already taken a lot of advice about changes, and am about
to take a lot more advice, including your advice about a major rewrite,
Dundon’s advice about moving the “not straight-line causation”
idea up to the front, and someone else’s advice about getting rid of the
discussion of the three wrong models. Right now the paper is a little
over two pages long, down to about half of what it was before. I think it
is a lot better, though of course I liked the first version, too, until I
re-read it enough times.
> All I’m asking is
> that you handle the behavior modification of your
>
> “beginners” on your own. If anything I say is wrong, then feel
> free to
>
> correct me. But if something I say is correct but doesn’t fit into
>
> your reinforcement by successive approximations program then why not
>
> just let it go.
I _am_ handling the behavior modification of “my”
beginners on my own. I am trying to control their behavior toward
teaching PCT correctly, without pouncing on their every mistake. I have
faith in their ability to reorganize, and see that they are moving toward
a better understanding as fast as I could expect, maybe faster than I
expected. How do you teach your students about PCT? Do you nag at them
and criticize when they don’t quite get it, and make them feel stupid and
incompetent? Do you reward them with an “A” for getting it
right, and an “F” for not understanding?
Of course we both know that what is called “behavior mod” is
just bargaining with people so they can get what they want by producing
the behavior we want. It’s tricky to do this without disturbing other
variables important to students, but if that is done well, there’s no
conflict. So far Ed and I have no conflicts; he knows I am a heathen and
makes no attempt whatsoever to get me to be otherwise, or to change what
I say to fit his beliefs. He is a lot more tolerant than some
non-religious people I know. I play by the same rules with him. Certainly
I disagree with him about some things, but they are not the most
important things, and I would rather get the important things taken care
of first – in fact I think there’s a good chance the rest will follow.
But I am not trying to control Ed’s controlled variables.
If you just want praise for your papers, then you want something that is
of very little value.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2007, 6:14am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/28 "2007-06-20T06:14:15Z")
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.19.2315)]
> Bill Powers (2007.06.19.1847 MDT)
> All you're doing is pointing out the same
> contradiction that I pointed out. What do you want to do, punish him for
> contradicting himself? Should I yell at him that he's contradicting himself?
Of course not. I think that you are dealing with Ed wonderfully. What
I said was not for Ed's sake or yours for that matter. I was just
interested in discussing some PCT related issues on CSGNet. The issue
was what PCT implies about control of other people: when we are doing
it, what we are doing when we are doing it, and what are the
consequences of doing it. I agree that it came up in the context of my
suggestions about what you might include in your "PCT for Beginners"
paper for Ed. But I was just suggesting what I would include in a
paper about PCT that was aimed at teachers. It was what I think are
the important aspect of PCT in that context; they were not a criticism
(explicit or implied) of Ed or his program.
> I don't see any point in criticizing Ed when he is moving in the right
> direction. Why do you want to criticize him? Isn't he doing the best he can?
I have no interest in criticizing Ed no matter what direction he's
moving in. The issue of controlling people came up on the net and I
was interested in discussing it. Actually, Boris seemed to have some
strong feelings about it so the only person I might have been arguing
with was him. I guess the thing that struck me as weird was that you
were defending Ed from comments that were not even directed at him; at
worst they were directed at some ideas that he may or may not hold. So
all the defensiveness was kind of odd. All I said was that PCT doesn't
rule out the ability to control other people's behavior but that the
likely consequence of trying to arbitrarily control behavior is
conflict. It seems like we should be able to discuss such ideas on
CSGNet regardless of what Ed Ford or anyone else might think about
them.
> On the other hand, why do you want me NOT to criticize your work?
I love to have you criticize my work; I deeply appreciate the time and
care you put into it. I said that I wished you were as generous with
me as you are with Ed because I was puzzled by your harsh response to
what seemed to me to be my rather non-controversial comments about
controlling behavior. Instead of dealing with the substance of those
comments, possibly adding clarifications (as you did, when you pointed
out that controlling people per se is impossible; what we really
control are variable perceived aspects of their behavior) you launched
into a defense of Ed Ford's concept of control of behavior. What was
that about? Perhaps its based on my past dealings with people who were
defending some of the (now defunct, apparently) questionable aspects
of the RTP program on the net. But this discussion wasn't about that.
It was about control of behavior.
> I am handling the behavior modification of "my" beginners on my own. I am
> trying to control their behavior toward teaching PCT correctly, without
> pouncing on their every mistake.
I know and I think you are doing a great job. Believe me, when I deal
with my students I am very forgiving of mistakes and I very much
emphasize the stuff they get right. I applaud the fact that Ed will
let you get involved in teaching PCT to his people. But I'm not
involved in teaching Ed anything (and Lord knows, he certainly isn't
interested in hearing anything from me). All I want is to be able to
discuss stuff on the net. I would hope that we don't have to be as
forgiving on the net as we would be when teaching beginners --
especially reluctant beginners. I want to be able to have nice,
candid, honest discussions on the net -- discussions that might offend
people like Ed or my students if they were used as a means of teaching
PCT. I think of the net as something more like a graduate seminar;
beginners need more careful, kind, face to face treatment.
> Of course we both know that what is called "behavior mod" is just
> bargaining with people so they can get what they want by producing the
> behavior we want. It's tricky to do this without disturbing other variables
> important to students, but if that is done well, there's no conflict. So far
> Ed and I have no conflicts; he knows I am a heathen and makes no attempt
> whatsoever to get me to be otherwise, or to change what I say to fit his
> beliefs. He is a lot more tolerant than some non-religious people I know. I
> play by the same rules with him. Certainly I disagree with him about some
> things, but they are not the most important things, and I would rather get
> the important things taken care of first -- in fact I think there's a good
> chance the rest will follow. But I am not trying to control Ed's controlled
> variables.
And I think what you are doing is great. All I ask is that you do it
off of CSGNet. I have no interest in criticizing or helping Ed or RTP.
I just want to be able to deal with substantive issues on CSGNet and
not worry about whether what I say will look like criticism of RTP.
> If you just want praise for your papers, then you want something that is of
> very little value.
Well, I'm willing to work cheap. But I appreciate all that valuable
criticism too. I guess I should consider myself quite a wealthy fellow
given all the criticism I get.
Best regards
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
> Statistical Analyst VHA
> rsmarken@gmail.com
---
### Author:  [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2007, 8:46am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/29 "2007-06-21T08:46:50Z")
Hello Bill, glad you still find time for me :))
Bill wrote
> > > > > > > When I wrote that, I was wrong. Controlling other people's behavior
is quite possible, and the means of doing it is not always violent or even
unpleasant. Remember that controlling another person means only doing what
is necessary to result in the other person's behavior being what you want to
experience.\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
Well Bill, thank you for your explanation, it's a real masterpiece. I have
to reorganize some aspects of "controling" again :), since master is
learning too. Although I think that we are still talking about an attempt to
control another person. I don't know why it's ocuring to me, that signals
that are coming to comparator from one person always produce a conflict on
some level, by "trying" to set a new goal, which can be "accepted" by
another person or not. But still I think that conflict is there, because it
seems to me that another person must have controlled something else before,
and it's somehow strange to me, that she would just stop controlling
whatever she was controlling and start to control a new perception that was
attempted to "force" on him. I think that previous controled perception is
stil running and thus disturbing "forced" perception from one person all the
time.
For example , if teacher says : "Tom, please stop doing that with your
pencil" or "stop talking to your neighbour", Tom would probably stop doing
it, but still desire to do that is "running", although he accepted new
reference signal. But in the moment when teacher doesn' pay attention to
him, he will do it again. It seems to me that internal conflict is "running"
all the time, giving once's priority to one reference signal and in another
moment to another.
I think teacher just thinks that he's controling Tom all the time, but in
fact I could say that he doesn't. Teacher is just controlling his perception.
> > > > > > Whether you can control another person's behavior this way depends on
the other person's structure of goals. \>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
Is it right to say that when teacher is trying to control students, his more
or less succesfull attempt depends on used means of control and students
control hierarchical system (characteristics) and goals ?
> > > > > > > > > As long as producing the behavior you want the other person to
carry out does not conflict with any of the other person's goals, you can
probably control that other person's behavior as you perceive it. Violence
arises when the other person refuses to generate the behavior you desire,
and you try even harder to get the other person to behave that way. That is
what leads to using more and more extreme forms of action to get the other
person to behave as you wish, with the other person's resistance also
getting more extreme as necessary to keep you from succeeding. The violence
arises as a consequence of not taking the other person's goals into account,
and from the other person's refusal to produce the behavior you want.\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
So if I understand right, teacher who does care about students goals (not
conflicting with their goals) would exhibit non conflicting behaviour.
And probably if some goals between teacher and students are "identical", can
we say that teacher and students are cooperating ?
Can we say also when teacher and student are cooperating also in case when
goals of teacher are "in line" with goals of sutdent, so helping student to
easier reach the goal.
And any teacher who doesn't care about students goals (their goals are
conflicting), will produce more and more violent atmosphere, if students
refuse to generate desired behaviour. Students will disrupt (probaly talk
or do something else) and teacher will try harder to control students
behaviour reducing talk and unvanted movings of students to zero. More
teacher is "pushing" with his perceptual control, more conflicting atmoshere
in classroom, more possible violence ?
> > > > > > > > > > > When a teacher tells a student that a behavior is not acceptable
in the classroom, and sends the student to the RTC to work out a solution,
the teacher is controlling a perception of the student's behavior.\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
When teacher doesn't take student goals into account, and there is no
identical goals, and teacher is pushing more and more with his perceptual
control conflicting with student goals, and students do not accept his
control, can we say that students probably exhibit behaviour that is not
acceptable by teacher and he kindly send student to RTC ?
But in my experiances I booked also cases when teacher did behave kindly and
nicely, but student didn't want to leave the classroom. What can we do then
? Use brutal force to get him to RTC. I'm sure that Ed Fords program has too
encounter a case, when student didn't want to leave the classroom ? What
program predicts in this case ?
But if teacher is trying to consider students goal, he inded "want to avoid
conflict and violence" with interpreting the resistance as a signal to cease
trying to control, and mybe find some identical goals or student goals that
are supported by teachers attempt of control, so to enable students
perceptual control, would we need RTC ?
I'm aware that two situations described here are ideal extremes. But
progresive pedagogics and international documents about children rights are
surely not going in the direction of "total" controling children system,
where talking is reduced to zero. You surely clearly explained why "total"
controlling system is not good, leading into conflict, violence and
disruption in the classrooms.
And Bill thank you again, that you are "spending" your precious time for me.
My oppinion about your oppinion about helping begginers is quite suitable
for me and I think it's most convenient for promoting PCT, although maybe
sometimes seems like something "it's not in the line with PCT". But I think
that sooner or later it will show up that it was good for PCT.
Best,
Boris
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/30 "2007-06-21T14:57:29Z")
> I don’t know why it’s ocuring to
> me, that signals
>
> that are coming to comparator from one person always produce a conflict
> on
>
> some level, by “trying” to set a new goal, which can be
> “accepted” by
>
> another person or not.
> But still I think that conflict
> is there, because it seems to me that another person must have controlled
> something else before, and it’s somehow strange to me, that she would
> just stop controlling whatever she was controlling and start to control a
> new perception that was attempted to “force” on him. I think
> that previous controled perception is stil running and thus disturbing
> “forced” perception from one person all the
> time.
> For example , if teacher says :
> "Tom, please stop doing that with your
>
> pencil" or “stop talking to your neighbour”, Tom would
> probably stop doing
>
> it, but still desire to do that is “running”, although he
> accepted new
>
> reference signal. But in the moment when teacher doesn’ pay attention
> to
>
> him, he will do it again. It seems to me that internal conflict is
> “running”
>
> all the time, giving once’s priority to one reference signal and in
> another
>
> moment to another.
>
> I think teacher just thinks that he’s controling Tom all the time, but
> in
>
> fact I could say that he doesn’t. Teacher is just controlling his
> perception.
>
> > > > > > > Whether
> > > > > > > you can control another person’s behavior this way depends on
>
> the other person’s structure of goals.
>
> > > > > > > > >
>
> Is it right to say that when teacher is trying to control students, his
> more
>
> or less succesfull attempt depends on used means of control and
> students
>
> control hierarchical system (characteristics) and goals ?
> So if I understand right,
> teacher who does care about students goals (not
>
> conflicting with their goals) would exhibit non conflicting behaviour.
> And probably if some goals
> between teacher and students are “identical”, can
>
> we say that teacher and students are cooperating ? Can we say also when
> teacher and student are cooperating also in case when goals of teacher
> are “in line” with goals of sutdent, so helping student to
> easier reach the goal.
> And any teacher who doesn’t care
> about students goals (their goals are
>
> conflicting), will produce more and more violent atmosphere, if
> students
>
> refuse to generate desired behaviour.
> Students will disrupt
> (probaly talk
>
> or do something else) and teacher will try harder to control
> students
>
> behaviour reducing talk and unvanted movings of students to zero.
> More
>
> teacher is “pushing” with his perceptual control, more
> conflicting atmoshere
>
> in classroom, more possible violence ?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a teacher tells a
> > > > > > > > > > > > student that a behavior is not acceptable
>
> in the classroom, and sends the student to the RTC to work out a
> solution,
>
> the teacher is controlling a perception of the student’s
> behavior.\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
>
> When teacher doesn’t take student goals into account, and there is
> no
>
> identical goals, and teacher is pushing more and more with his
> perceptual
>
> control conflicting with student goals, and students do not accept
> his
>
> control, can we say that students probably exhibit behaviour that is
> not
>
> acceptable by teacher and he kindly send student to RTC
> ?
> But in my experiances I booked
> also cases when teacher did behave kindly and
>
> nicely, but student didn’t want to leave the classroom. What can we do
> then
>
> ? Use brutal force to get him to RTC. I’m sure that Ed Fords program has
> too
>
> encounter a case, when student didn’t want to leave the classroom ?
> What
>
> program predicts in this case?
> But if teacher is trying to
> consider students goal, he inded "want to avoid
>
> conflict and violence" with interpreting the resistance as a signal
> to cease
>
> trying to control, and mybe find some identical goals or student goals
> that
>
> are supported by teachers attempt of control, so to enable students
>
> perceptual control, would we need RTC ?
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.21.0630 MDT)]
Boris Hartman (2007.06.21) –
You can ask a person to do something for you, and if that person is not
disturbed by doing it, it will be done. “Please pass the
potatoes” is an attempt to control the behavior of another person by
getting that person to pick up the dish of potatoes and hand it to you.
This does not conflict with anything that person wants, or if it does the
conflict is quickly resolved (the person stops eating for a moment,
passes the dish, then starts eating again – simple sequence control,
which resolves many conflicts).
You seem to be assuming that a person controls only one variable at a
time, and that there is only one action that can be used to control a
variable. Neither is true. We control dozens of variables at once, maybe
hundreds, and if one action is interfered with we simply switch to a
different action that will accomplish the same thing. Every person
contains the means of reorganizing to resolve any conflicts that do
occur. If all these statements were not true it would be impossible for
people to live together. I mean more impossible than it is now.
Fred Nickols gave me an example of a teacher who understands the problem:
this teacher tells the student to stop running, and then walks with him
to the classroom and explains to the teacher there that the student is
late because of being stopped in the hallway. That resolves the conflict.
A longer-term solution might arise if the student realized that the cause
of the conflict can be removed by allowing more time to get to class and
not allowing himself to be diverted.
To say that the teacher is “just controlling his perception”
implies that the perception is not a reasonably correct representation of
what is really happening. While that may sometimes be true, it’s not true
enough to make a difference. Most of the time the perceptions we control
correspond to something outside us that affects other people, too, so
when we control the perception, we also are controlling something of
importance to other people.
Controlling perception does not mean taking one kind of perception and
turning it into a different kind of perception. It means acting to change
the amount or state of a given kind of perception, which still remains
the same kind of perception. When we change from controlling one
perception to controlling a different one, we’re turning one control
system off and another one on, not altering the kind of perception that a
single system is controlling.
Yes. It’s better not to say “trying to control students”
because a “student” is an object, not a variable. The teacher
is trying to control something about the student that can vary. So the
teacher might try to control the goals that the student is trying to
achieve, which will cause a conflict, or the teacher might try to control
the behavior of the student (the visible actions), which will not cause a
conflict if the student has some other equally easy means of achieving
the same goals (or if there is no disturbance, of course). If, however,
the behavior that the teacher wants the student to perform or stop is
important for something else the student is also controlling at the same
time, and there is no alternate way of controlling it, conflict will
occur and the student will not be able to comply with the teacher’s
request. The student will be in conflict, just like the student running
in the hall.
So that was a very long way to say “yes.”
Yes. The teacher would at least be alert to the possibility of conflict,
and when it appeared, would back away and try some other approach. It’s
not easy to know what a student’s goals are even if you care about them,
so conflicts often happen accidentally. But usually they are resolved so
quickly that they don’t cause a problem.
It’s extremely unlikely that different people will have identical goals.
Cooperation requires reducing the loop gain so that small disagreements
over the goal do not lead to large opposing efforts. This is why fanatics
who try to join forces often end up fighting each other, like the Shiites
in Iraq, or the Sunis. Or sometimes, PCT fanatics.
Reducing individual loop gains is compensated for by the fact that
multiple people are responding to errors, so the net amount of
cooperative control may not change much. It might even increase. However,
a better way of achieving cooperation is by specialization: The group
task is divided into subtasks that are independent of each other, so that
one task is carried out by a smaller group, or just one individual. That
reduces the potential for conflict.
For similar reasons, it’s not easy to “help” a control system
achieve a goal. One system by itself is in equilibrium, the error being
just large enough to cause enough action to keep the error as small as it
is. Anything that changes the amount of error will also change the amount
of action in the same direction. If a disturbance causes the error to
increase, the action will increase. If the disturbance causes the error
to decrease, the action will decrease. In both cases the result will be
that the change in the action opposes the effect of the disturbance –
and note that this applies even if the disturbance is making the error
smaller. If you help a control system control something, you are likely
to end up controlling it all by yourself, with the other control system
relaxing completely (Tom Sawyer figured that one out for himself).
It’s not changing the behavior that bothers the students, but changing
the variable they are controlling by using that behavior. They will
change their behavior to satisfy the teacher if they can do so without
giving up control of what matters to them. The smart teacher will figure
out how to allow the students to go on controlling what matters to them,
while still behaving in a way that satisfies the teacher. I suggested to
one teacher, for example, that when students talk to each other in class,
the teacher should ask them to quietly write a note and pass it to the
other person, instead of talking out loud. The teacher looked shocked,
and then realized that this would disrupt the class much less than
talking would.
That is true.
Yes. But don’t forget “the questions.” The first question, to
be asked in a neutral, interested way, is “What are you doing?”
As the student tries to answer this question, the student must
necessarily to step back and observe what he or she is doing. That puts
the student’s awareness in a different point of view, instead of being
identified with the control systems that are acting. There are other
questions that follow this one, but I think this one is the most
important because it redirects reorganization to a place where it might
do some good. Very often, asking this question is enough to put an end to
the disruptive behavior, and the student is not sent to the RTC because
the disruption is not repeated. Sometimes, when the teacher just yells at
the student to stop doing something, the student will say “You’re
supposed to ask the questions.” I heard quite a few teachers tell
that story about their own classrooms. Asking the question, particularly
the first one, works. And the students like it a lot more than being
yelled at.
Yes, this was discussed at the meeting I just observed. What happens is
that the school administration is called in. The RTP program specifies
that students who refuse to go to the RTC, or who continue disrupting
while in the RTC, are sent home and their parents must come with them to
the school to negotiate re-entry. In extreme cases the police are called.
This procedure requires administrative approval, which is why the teacher
can’t simply send the student home.
One objective of the RTP is to allow teachers to teach instead of
handling discipline problems, and of course to allow the other students
to learn. When this program reaches its limits, the normal procedures of
the community are then followed. What other choice is there?
Yes, because while the teacher is working on one student’s problems, the
other 20 or 30 students are sitting there enjoying the show and not being
taught anything (else). Problems that are not quickly resolved by asking
the questions are turned over to the teacher in the RTC, and the
classroom teacher goes back immediately to teaching. Teachers often say,
sometimes with tears in their eyes, that at last they are free to do what
they love to do, which is teaching. Many schools with other discipline
programs, or none, are a total mess with teachers doing hardly anything
but dealing with disruptions. The halls outside the principal’s office in
an ordinary school are, by the end of day, lined with students waiting to
be handled by the principle or vice-principal, which consists mostly of
being sent to a detention room where they must sit without talking until
the end of the day. In other words, jail. In an RTP school the halls are
empty and the principal typically sees no students about behavior
problems.
I don’t want to represent RTP as perfect; it isn’t. But it’s come a long
way from its beginnings, and is still changing and open to change. It
does calm schools down a lot, even very bad schools in tough
neighborhoods.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2007, 5:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/31 "2007-06-21T17:29:53Z")
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1030)]
> Bill Powers (2007.06.21.0630 MDT) to Boris Hartman (2007.06.21) --
Boy, this was great, Bill.
> "Please pass the potatoes" is an
> attempt to control the behavior of another person by getting that person to
> pick up the dish of potatoes and hand it to you.
As is handing a cashier $10 for a $7.70 purchase, where you are
implicitly controlling for the cashier handing you back $2.30.
Controlling other people (sans conflict) happens regularly throughout
the day.
> To say that the teacher is "just controlling his perception" implies that
> the perception is not a reasonably correct representation of what is really
> happening. While that may sometimes be true, it's not true enough to make a
> difference.
Exactly. I've been trying to say for years that this is the case and
you've been slapping my down on it (or so I thought). I am now happy
to agree enthusiastically with your conclusion here.
> Controlling perception does not mean taking one kind of perception and
> turning it into a different kind of perception.
Yes!! I think failure to understand this point is one of the main
reasons why we have had people come to CSGNet with some rather goofy
ideas about what PCT is about.
> The teacher would at least be alert to the possibility of conflict,
> and when it appeared, would back away and try some other approach.
I agree that this is one of the basic lessons teachers should learn in
a course about "how to teach". I have been arguing that teaching about
the nature of conflict should be a major component of any teacher
education program, to the extent that we want to teach teachers
anything other than how to teach the subject matter they are supposed
to teach (like math).
> It's extremely unlikely that different people will have identical goals.
> Cooperation requires reducing the loop gain so that small disagreements over
> the goal do not lead to large opposing efforts.
Exactly, I've said many times that learning to know when to reduce the
loop gain should be major component of any teacher training program.
> This is why fanatics who try
> to join forces often end up fighting each other, like the Shiites in Iraq,
> or the Sunis. Or sometimes, PCT fanatics.
Point taken;-)
> One objective of the RTP is to allow teachers to teach instead of handling
> discipline problems, and of course to allow the other students to learn.
This is the main objective of the teacher program I described some
time ago. When a recalcitrant disruptive student is removed from class
it is for the sake of the other students.
> Teachers often say, sometimes
> with tears in their eyes, that at last they are free to do what they love to
> do, which is teaching.
In the high school where my son teaches (and in all the grade schools
I attended) the main goal is teaching. Kid's who persist in disrupting
a class are removed to study hall (that's what we called in my high
school) or the principle's office. I can't believe there are schools
that would require a teacher to waste class time on disciplining
individual students. Ari (my son) tells me that disruptions are very
rare in his classes (he's a very popular teacher) and in the school in
general. I think most reasonably intelligent, decent teachers will
treat students in the respectful way that makes the chaos you describe
as occurring in schools before RTP is implemented quite rare. But I
think it's good for teachers to be continuously reminded that a
reactive approach to dealing with discipline problems (which is the
"natural" way control systems deal with disturbances to controlled
variables) usually creates more problems (conflicts) than it solves.
Again, wonderful points, nicely made.
Best
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
> Statistical Analyst VHA
> rsmarken@gmail.com
---
### Author:  [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 6:02am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/32 "2007-06-23T06:02:56Z")
Hello Bill, it's really nice talking to you. I see you are very patient men.
As I think that there is too much opened problems, I'll try to go "piece by
piece"...
Hope don't mind
CAUSING CONFLICT ?
Boris wrote :
> > > I don't know why it's ocuring to me, that signals that are coming to
comparator from one person always produce a conflict on some level, by
"trying" to set a new goal, which can be "accepted" by another person or not.\>\>\>
I think that person who is controlling one or more variabels that's
important to her is more unlikely to accept control then person who is
controlling some less important variabels.
Bill wrote :
> > > > > > > > > You can ask a person to do something for you, and if that person is
not disturbed by doing it, it will be done. "Please pass the potatoes" is an
attempt to control the behavior of another person by getting that person to
pick up the dish of potatoes and hand it to you. This does not conflict with
anything that person wants, or if it does the conflict is quickly resolved
(the person stops eating for a moment, passes the dish, then starts eating
again -- simple sequence control, which resolves many conflicts).\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
As I'm watching children when they are eating (meals at school) when it's
turn on my duty, I see children who ask for something, for ex. more bread
that's near other student, or bring me fork or knife, as you are already
there and so on...., and they got very different answers. Some students do
it, some show them finger, some tell them "that even dogs have peace when
they are eating" and so on. So it's not likley that students will except
control even with easiest task. What I noticed was that mostly friends among
themself let to be controlled (but it's not necessary), then the students
that don't belong to "a gang". These will ussually not accept the control,
even less chances if he is "in the war" with one.
Well and by the way Bill, I will take the advantage to ask, why dogs
counteraction when he is eating and you try to pull his food is so
agressive. Is that some inherited protecting mechanism ? Is agression one of
natural defence mechanisms in living organisms, when somebody is disturbing
some very important variabel that is controled ?
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 10:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/33 "2007-06-23T10:03:41Z")
> As I’m watching children when
> they are eating (meals at school) when it’s
>
> turn on my duty, I see children who ask for something, for ex. more
> bread
>
> that’s near other student, or bring me fork or knife, as you are
> already
>
> there and so on…, and they got very different answers. Some students
> do
>
> it, some show them finger, some tell them "that even dogs have peace
> when
>
> they are eating" and so on.
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.23.0310 MDT)]
Boris Hartman (2007.06.22\_ –
Children have not yet learned very much at the higher levels of
organization. Adults know that if they want others to do something for
them, they must be prepared to do things for others. Those who do not do
this end up having to do everything for themselves, like getting up from
the table and going to get the salt for themselves (so they have to stop
eating for a while anyway).
> So it’s not likley
> that students will except [accept] control even with easiest task. What I
> noticed was that mostly friends among themself let to be controlled (but
> it’s not necessary), then the students that don’t belong to “a
> gang”. These will ussually not accept the control,even less chances
> if he is “in the war” with one.
Here’s what I think. If the social system is set up so one person has to
control the behavior of another with force or threats to get any help,
there is something wrong with the system. Children and immature adults
see everything in terms of control because they do not want their
behavior controlled by anyone else. They are afraid of losing their
freedom.
Often this fear is well justified. In many cultures, children are
expected to obey adults immediately without argument, no matter what the
child is already doing. What children are already doing is not considered
important or even worth noticing. I would expect children in such
cultures to have trouble learning how to negotiate with each
other.
I would teach children to negotiate with each other and with adults. If
you will do this for me, I will do something for you, this time or next
time – what do you want? But even simpler than that is to ask for
something instead starting right out by saying “Give me the salt
right now.” The important thing is to acknowledge the other’s
freedom to do as you ask or not do it. The word “please” is an
abbreviation of “If it pleases you.” You say “If it
pleases you to do so, will you pass me the salt?” Saying “Will
you” means “If you will to do it” meaning “if you
freely choose to do it.” When you need to control someone else’s
behavior, you must ask permission first – perhaps not every time, but
often enough to show that you respect the other person’s independence.
Children should be taught to hear deeper meanings in these
words.
One way you can show respect is to allow the other person to say
“no” without any argument. The proper answer to “no”
is “Ok, I’ll find another way” and do it immediately, without
any pressure or resentment. But of course you then expect the same
treatment if you say no.
If we don’t teach these strategies to children and explain how they work,
some children will discover them anyway, but many won’t. Reorganization
is random.
> Well and by the way
> Bill, I will take the advantage to ask, why dogs
>
> counteraction when he is eating and you try to pull his food is so
>
> agressive. Is that some inherited protecting
> mechanism?
No, it’s lack of social intelligence. If a dog has a reference condition
of eating food, one lower-level reference condition that is used to do
this is to position the body near the food. If you disturb the dog’s
position (or the food’s position), the position control system will exert
enough force to keep the body from being moved away from the food. As you
increase the force, the resistance will also increase. A large enough
disturbance will overcome the position control system and interfere with
eating. Eating is important to a dog, and more extreme ways of resisting
may then appear, like biting (unless the dog is in conflict about biting
the master – then the dog just gets upset and whines).
It is very hard to communicate with a dog and explain “I have to
leave now or I’ll be late to work.” Dog’s can’t understand anything
very complicated or abstract.
> Is agression one of
> natural defence mechanisms in living organisms, when somebody is
> disturbing some very important variabel that is controled
> ?
No, I don’t think there is any separate thing called
“aggression.” It’s just a label we apply when some organism is
trying very hard to correct an error. Aggression is just the extreme end
of a scale of normal behavior. If an organism shows very strong actions
in response to small errors, that shows that the loop gain is high, which
we can take as a sign that the variable being controlled is important to
the organism, perhaps more important than it is to other organisms of the
same kind. But a very strong action can also indicate that a large error
is being experienced. I can remember vigorously trying to escape being
picked up and carried by a certain adult because that adult had no
awareness that the way I was carried quickly became very painful – or
didn’t care that I was in pain.
PCT gives us much simpler and less mysterious ways of understanding
behavior.
Common-language terms like “aggression” are, in comparison,
useless.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Dundon](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Dundon)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/34 "2007-06-23T14:02:04Z")
[Jim Dundon 06.23.07.0944edt]
Hello Bill, it's really nice talking to you. I see you are very patient men.
As I think that there is too much opened problems, I'll try to go "piece by
piece"...
Hope don't mind
CAUSING CONFLICT ?
Boris wrote :
> > > I don't know why it's ocuring to me, that signals that are coming to
comparator from one person always produce a conflict on some level, by
"trying" to set a new goal, which can be "accepted" by another person or not.\>\>\>
I think that person who is controlling one or more variabels that's
important to her is more unlikely to accept control then person who is
controlling some less important variabels.
Bill wrote :
> > > > > > > > > You can ask a person to do something for you, and if that person is
not disturbed by doing it, it will be done.\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
Not disturbed???
Let's not be philosophical here. As a tribute to Martin, let's use the words the same way all the time. Let's stay scientific.
Are not the following more in keeping with PCT concepts?
If that person is disturbed by not doing it, it will be done.
He must be disturbed into doing it.
He must incorporate the disturbance.
No loose wording. please.
> > > > > > "Please pass the potatoes" is an
attempt to control the behavior of another person by getting that person to
pick up the dish of potatoes and hand it to you. This does not conflict with
anything that person wants, or if it does the conflict is quickly resolved
(the person stops eating for a moment, passes the dish, then starts eating
again -- simple sequence control, which resolves many conflicts).\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>
As I'm watching children when they are eating (meals at school) when it's
turn on my duty, I see children who ask for something, for ex. more bread
that's near other student, or bring me fork or knife, as you are already
there and so on...., and they got very different answers. Some students do
it, some show them finger, some tell them "that even dogs have peace when
they are eating" and so on. So it's not likley that students will except
control even with easiest task. What I noticed was that mostly friends among
themself let to be controlled (but it's not necessary), then the students
that don't belong to "a gang". These will ussually not accept the control,
even less chances if he is "in the war" with one.
Well and by the way Bill, I will take the advantage to ask, why dogs
counteraction when he is eating and you try to pull his food is so
agressive. Is that some inherited protecting mechanism ? Is agression one of
natural defence mechanisms in living organisms, when somebody is disturbing
best
Jim D
some very important variabel that is controled ?
> **···**
>
> From: "[Boris Hartman" Saturday, June 23, 2007 2:02 AM]
> Subject: Re: PCT for Beginners
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Dundon](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Dundon)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/35 "2007-06-23T14:32:32Z")
[Jim Dundon 06.23.07
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.23.0310 MDT)]
>
> Boris Hartman (2007.06.22\_ --
\>
> > So it's not likley that students will except [accept] control even
> > with easiest task. What I noticed was that mostly friends among
> > themself let to be controlled (but it's not necessary), then the
> > students that don't belong to "a gang". These will ussually not
> > accept the control,even less chances if he is "in the war" with one.
>
> Here's what I think. ..................................... Children and immature
> adults see everything in terms of control
???Does not PCT see everything in terms of control???
"people don't control the meanings of words, they control perceptions" BP
No question about control, only what is controlled!
> because they do not want
> their behavior controlled by anyone else. They are afraid of losing
> their freedom.
best,
Jim D
> **···**
>
> >
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 3:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/36 "2007-06-23T15:37:07Z")
> > Here’s what I think.
> > … Children and immature
> >
> > adults see everything in terms of control
>
> ???Does not PCT see everything in terms of
> control???
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.23.0930 MDT)]
Jim Dundon 06.23.07–
Many people imagine that when others ask them to do something simple,
complying would open the door to complete control by others. That’s
what I meant, whether I said it clearly or not.
> “people don’t
> control the meanings of words, they control perceptions” BP
>
> No question about control, only what is
> controlled!
But this says nothing about perceptions that are not controlled, of which
there are many. It says only that control concerns perceptions (when it
happens) instead of the words used to refer to perceptions (unless the
words themselves are the object of control, as when proofreading a
manuscript).
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Dundon](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Dundon)
#### Post date: [June 23, 2007, 4:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/37 "2007-06-23T16:09:36Z")
[Jim Dundon06.23.07.1148edt]
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.23.0930 MDT)]
>
> Jim Dundon 06.23.07--
>
> > > Here's what I think. ..................................... Children
> > > and immature
> > > adults see everything in terms of control
> >
> > ???Does not PCT see everything in terms of control???
>
> Many people imagine that when others ask them to do something simple,
> complying would open the door to complete control by others.
> That's what I meant, whether I said it clearly or not.
I like that. But does that not indicate something of the nature of PPCT for mature people "Partial Perceptual Control Theory. So it looks like we might have a problem.
> > "people don't control the meanings of words, they control perceptions" BP
> >
> > No question about control, only what is controlled!
>
> But this says nothing about perceptions that are not controlled, of
> which there are many. It says only that control concerns perceptions
> (when it happens) instead of the words used to refer to perceptions
> (unless the words themselves are the object of control, as when
> proofreading a manuscript).
This is still causing me some difficulty. "control perceptions 'instead' of words used to refer to them.
If I am using a word to refer to a perception I am surely controlling for a connection between the chosen word and the perception it represents. The word may be something I aquire from my culture and therefore not under my complete and original control, whereras my perception is always my own and always of my own origination. 'Always' does not sound right either.
Maybe " if I am using words while controlling I can full credit for the perception, only partial credit for the phonetics.
Is this close to what you are saying?
(although I would argue that my incorporation of use of the word is in fact also my controlling and so I do share in its creation of its use for me.
best
Jim D
> **···**
>
> >
---
### Author:  [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2007, 7:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/38 "2007-06-24T07:57:11Z")
Hello Bill,
stil writing piece by piece...🙂
Bill wrote :
> > > > > > > If, however, the behavior that the teacher wants the student to
perform or stop is important for something else the student is also
controlling at the same time, and there is no alternate way of controlling
it, conflict will occur and the student will not be able to comply with the
teacher's request. The student will be in conflict, just like the student
running in the hall.\>\>\>\>\>\>
For example I already introduced, if teacher says : "Tom, please stop doing
that with your pencil" or "stop talking to your neighbor", Tom would
probably stop doing it, but that means that conflict has occur in student.
He wants to do something else.
That's the most common situation in classrooms. Teachers are disturbing
students control with their talking whatever they think they have to talk
about, student's are disturbing teacher's control all the time with whatever
they want to do, and teacher of course disturb students control again and so
on in circle of causation.
But I think that students don't stop doing whatever they want to do, when
seemingly accepting the control of teacher : be quite, don't move. They
mostly in fact control whatever they want to, because only outside with
visible actions, they show teacher that they comply, but in fact they
ussually "search" for other means how to control their perception.
For example Tom could start to turn his pencil not on the table, but under
the table. In the fact he is looking at the teacher but he is not present
with his thoughts. He is somewhere else, and turning his pencil is maybe
just the result of some internal conflict.
He could start to write messages on paper and send it over and thus
communicating on this way, still looking at the teacher, but of course not
thinking what teacher thinks that he think.
So I could say that disrupting students are only ice-berg above the water.
Students are mostly trying to control what they want, so disturbing teacher
all the time. And even when disrupting students are removed from classroom,
that doesn't mean that others are learning. Maybe few of them who are
interested in subject in that moment. The others are usually thinking on
something else. Because if they would really "learn", listen to teacher
(perceive) and compare and act and reduce the discrepancy between what are
they experiencing and what the teacher want them to experience, then they
would all have best marks, wouldn't they. But that's not the case.
Best,
Boris
---
### Author:  [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2007, 8:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/39 "2007-06-24T08:12:09Z")
Boris wrote:
Hello Bill, it's really nice talking to you. I see you are very patient men.
As I think that there is too much opened problems, I'll try to go "piece by
piece"...
Hope don't mind
Jim wrote :
> > > > > > CAUSING CONFLICT ?\>\>\>
No, trying to "listen", learn and cooperate. Isn't it that obvious ? :))
Best,
Boris
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2007, 2:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403/40 "2007-06-24T14:14:21Z")
> > Many people imagine that when
> > others ask them to do something simple,
> >
> > complying would open the door to complete control by others.
> >
> > That’s what I meant, whether I said it clearly or
> > not.
>
> I like that. But does that not indicate something of the nature of
> PPCT for mature people "Partial Perceptual Control Theory. So
> it looks like we might have a problem.
> [From Bill Powers (2007.06.24.0740 MDT)]
Jim Dundon06.23.07.1148 edt –
I don’t see the problem – can you elaborate on that? People can, of
course, imagine anything they please, but that doesn’t make it true. The
idea of 'partial control" is meaningless in PCT in relation to any
given control process. Control systems control to a degree determined by
their parameters: loop gain and dynamic stability, primarily. There’s a
spectrum running from almost no control of a variable to almost perfect
control of it.
> > > “people don’t
> > > control the meanings of words, they control perceptions” BP
> > >
> > > No question about control, only what is controlled!
> >
> > But this says nothing about perceptions that are not controlled, of
> >
> > which there are many. It says only that control concerns perceptions
> >
> > (when it happens) instead of the words used to refer to perceptions
> >
> > (unless the words themselves are the object of control, as when
> >
> > proofreading a manuscript).
>
> This is still causing me some difficulty. "control perceptions
> ‘instead’ of words used to refer to them.
Apparently you do not distinguish between the name of a perception (for
example, “red”) and the perception itself (the experience of a
color of a certain sort:
). Would you rather eat
the word “apple” or the thing to which that word refers? The
levels of perception that I have proposed were all found by trying to see
what words refer to, without the words.
> If I am using a
> word to refer to a perception I am surely controlling for a connection
> between the chosen word and the perception it represents. The word
> may be something I aquire from my culture and therefore not under my
> complete and original control, whereras my perception is always my own
> and always of my own origination. ‘Always’ does not sound right
> either.
>
> Maybe " if I am using words while controlling I can full credit for
> the perception, only partial credit for the phonetics.
>
> Is this close to what you are saying?
No. If you use words you are controlling words (as when writing a post).
But in order to know what to write about, you must first look at the
perceptions you want to talk about, then pick words that indicate those
perceptions (since you can’t easily put nonverbal perceptions into an
email as I did above for viewers showing HTML).
Here is a word that does not indicate any perception other than
itself:
QWERFL
Here is a word that indicates a certain shape, followed by the shape it
indicates:
> **···**
>
> * * *
>
> > ```
> > >
> >
> > ```
>
> RECTANGLE
>
> > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|
>
> The small red graphic above happens to be referred to both by
> “red” and by “rectangle”. The line drawing just above
> is referred to by “rectangle” but not by
> “red”.
>
> > (although I would
> > argue that my incorporation of use of the word is in fact also my
> > controlling and so I do share in its creation of its use for
> > me.
>
> Of course. A word, taken by itself, is just another perception. When
> written in an email, it is a collection of lines and curves. What the
> word refers to is usually a different kind of perception. Both kinds of
> perceptions can be controlled.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill P.
[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403.md?page=1)
[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-for-beginners/8403.md?page=3)