[From Bill Powers 92007.06.15.1840 MDT)]
Attached [Really, this time] is the edit by Fred Nickols, with some
slight changes by me.
Bill P.
PCTForTheBeginner - FWN.doc (55.5 KB)
[Jim Dundon 06.17.07.1121edt]
"controlling is not influencing ..............................or 'causing' something."
···
___________________________________________________________
"disturbances start to produce deviations and the first tiny deviations 'cause' actions that tend strongly to restore..................." Is this not a counter cause?
"the drivers hands 'cause' the steering wheel to turn"
" the movement of the drivers hands 'causes' the movement of the drivers hands."
"Prior to..............................only one way to handle this circle of 'causation'."
__________________________________________________________
Is controlling not about 'causing' the perceived signal to more closely approximate the reference signal?
If there are influences which are being countered how is it that control is not a counter influence? Wouldn't that be equal and opposite?
You are presenting this to educated educators. Do you want to leave it like this?
_____________________________________________________________
"controlling is not influencing ..............................or 'causing' something."
Maybe it is about 'counter' causing, 'counte'r influencing, etc
Maybe control is about counter influencing, counter causing, countering any unwanted change with like but opposite resistance. Maybe it's about opposing disturbances of any kind with equal kind of opposite value.
Isn't that simultaneous differential equating?
Isn't control equal to countering, opposing, resisting, changing, etc?
"Negative feedback simply means reacting to deviations in the direction that is opposed to the deviation......." BP. Countering with equal and like action?
I like it. PCT Perceptual Countering Theory JD 07/2007. ;-}
best
Jim D
(Jim Dundon 06.18.07.1245edt)
from "PCT for beginners"
"controlling is not influencing,............................................or causing something"
"Your actions cause whatever you're controlling ...........................
You are giving this to educated educators, do you want to leave it like this?
best,
Jim D
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.1210)]
Jim Dundon (06.18.07.1245edt)
From "PCT for beginners"
"controlling is not
influencing,............................................or causing
something""Your actions cause whatever you're controlling ...........................
You are giving this to educated educators, do you want to leave it like
this?
Why not? I'm a (fairly) educated educator and it sounds good to me.
Controlling is not the same as causing something. Control occurs in a
closed loop of causation: variations in what you are controlling cause
(via comparison with a reference) variations in your actions while,
at the same time, variations in your actions (as well as variations in
independent, disturbing variables) cause variations in what you are
controlling. Control looks like causation inasmuch as variations in
the reference act like they are causing variations in the controlled
perceptual variable. But there is no direct causal path from reference
to controlled perceptual variable -- there is a closed loop of
causation between reference and controlled variable. So it's really
not appropriate to think of control -- the process of keeping the
controlled perception at the reference -- as being the same as
straight line causation. It's a whole different thing. It's what
psychologists had seen as "purposefulness" and were frightened by it
because of it's apparent (and actual) violation of the "laws" of cause
and effect, that is, the laws of one way, straight line causality.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.1210)]
Jim Dundon (06.18.07.1245edt)
From "PCT for beginners"
"controlling is not
influencing,............................................or causing
something""Your actions cause whatever you're controlling ...........................
You are giving this to educated educators, do you want to leave it like
this?Why not? I'm a (fairly) educated educator and it sounds good to me.
But you have lived with this issue for decades. They probably never heard of this before. If they had, there would be no need for a "PCT For Beginners" paper. PCT hasn't yet been recognized by the acedemic world at large so why should we expect that they understand the distinction being made up front. If they did, would they need the paper?
Controlling is not the same as causing something. Control occurs in a
closed loop of causation: variations in what you are controlling cause
(via comparison with a reference) variations in your actions while,
at the same time, variations in your actions (as well as variations in
independent, disturbing variables) cause variations in what you are
controlling. Control looks like causation inasmuch as variations in
the reference act like they are causing variations in the controlled
perceptual variable. But there is no direct causal path from reference
to controlled perceptual variable -- there is a closed loop of
causation between reference and controlled variable. So it's really
not appropriate to think of control -- the process of keeping the
controlled perception at the reference -- as being the same as
straight line causation.
So we are hoping and faithing or just knowing (not allowed) that the reader will understand or at least take time to figure that out that the words are used differently in different places. It was not too long ago that Martin suggested that I was talking like a philosopher and using the same words differently in different places and that I should do better. When in fact, it was I, who was at that time calling for more consistancy. He failed to see that then.
I am calling for it now as well. Let's be more scientific.
So in keeping with the "let's not look lke philosophers" theme Why not say in "PCT for beginners" "Controlling is not straight line influencing...........or straight line causing of something. Why keep it a secret till the end. The words straight line don't even appear in "PCT for beginners", except to refer to the path of a car.
[Bill powers 2007.06.18.1120 mdt]
[Rick Marken 2007.06.18.1030]
"Good papers make it easy, not inconvenient, for readers to draw their own conclusions."
What's good for Marken is good for Powers.
It's good for each of us.
It's a whole different thing. It's what
psychologists had seen as "purposefulness" and were frightened by it
because of it's apparent (and actual) violation of the "laws" of cause
and effect, that is, the laws of one way, straight line causality.Best
Rick
--
Best
Jim D
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.0810)]
But you have lived with this issue for decades. They probably never heard
of this before. If they had, there would be no need for a "PCT For
Beginners" paper. PCT hasn't yet been recognized by the acedemic world at
large so why should we expect that they understand the distinction being
made up front. If they did, would they need the paper?
Good point!
So we are hoping and faithing or just knowing (not allowed) that the reader
will understand or at least take time to figure that out that the words are
used differently in different places.
Good point!
So in keeping with the "let's not look lke philosophers" theme Why not say
in "PCT for beginners" "Controlling is not straight line
influencing...........or straight line causing of something. Why keep it a
secret till the end. The words straight line don't even appear in "PCT for
beginners", except to refer to the path of a car.
Excellent point!! I think such a revision would be most helpful.
Best
Rick
···
On 6/19/07, Jim Dundon <jannim@comcast.net> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[Jim Dundon 07.19.07.1130edt]
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.0810)]
But you have lived with this issue for decades. They probably never heard
of this before. If they had, there would be no need for a "PCT For
Beginners" paper. PCT hasn't yet been recognized by the acedemic world at
large so why should we expect that they understand the distinction being
made up front. If they did, would they need the paper?Good point!
So we are hoping and faithing or just knowing (not allowed) that the reader
will understand or at least take time to figure that out that the words are
used differently in different places.Good point!
So in keeping with the "let's not look lke philosophers" theme Why not say
in "PCT for beginners" "Controlling is not straight line
influencing...........or straight line causing of something. Why keep it a
secret till the end. The words straight line don't even appear in "PCT for
beginners", except to refer to the path of a car.Excellent point!! I think such a revision would be most helpful.
Thank you,
You've made my day
best
Jim D
···
On 6/19/07, Jim Dundon <jannim@comcast.net> wrote:
[David Goldstein 07.19.07.0631 pm edt]
Dear Listmates,
I conducted an MOL Therapy Class for youth workers at the residential
center
where I am Clinical Director.
Here is an example of how I explained PCT. I put on the board,
three words
OBJECTIVE SITUATION--------EXPERIENCES----------ACTIONS
I gave an example.
Scene1: Action--A woman starts to run away from a man in a room who says
'Take off your clothes'.
Scene2: Action--The same woman takes off her clothes in the same room
after a different man says 'Take off your clothes'.
The objective statement of the man is the same. The room is the same.
The action of the woman is very different.
Traditional psychology focuses on OBJECTIVE SITUATION and ACTIONS.
PCT focuses on EXPERIENCES and WANTED EXPERIENCES.
To understand the woman's ACTIONS in these two scenes, doesn't it help
to know what she
is experiencing and what she is wanting to experience?
Let me now tell you that in Scene 1, the man is a stranger.
In scene 2, the man is familiar to her, it is her doctor.
In scene 1, the action of running away is is helping the woman
experience a sense of safety which she wants.
In scene 2, the action of taking her clothes off is helping the woman
experience a sense of health which she wants.
The verbal statement and room is the same in both scenes. The context in
which the verbal statements happen,
results in the woman experiencing different things in the two scenes.
Moral of the Story: PCT says that an action can by understood by asking
the question: What is the goal of the
action in terms of what does a person want to experience as a result of
the action?
David
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim Dundon
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:33 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT for beginners
[Jim Dundon 07.19.07.1130edt]
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.18.0810)]
On 6/19/07, Jim Dundon <jannim@comcast.net> wrote:
But you have lived with this issue for decades. They probably never
heard
of this before. If they had, there would be no need for a "PCT For
Beginners" paper. PCT hasn't yet been recognized by the acedemic
world at
large so why should we expect that they understand the distinction
being
made up front. If they did, would they need the paper?
Good point!
So we are hoping and faithing or just knowing (not allowed) that the
reader
will understand or at least take time to figure that out that the
words
are
used differently in different places.Good point!
So in keeping with the "let's not look lke philosophers" theme Why
not
say
in "PCT for beginners" "Controlling is not straight line
influencing...........or straight line causing of something. Why
keep it
a
secret till the end. The words straight line don't even appear in
"PCT
for
beginners", except to refer to the path of a car.Excellent point!! I think such a revision would be most helpful.
Thank you,
You've made my day
best
Jim D
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007
3:02 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007
3:02 PM
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.19.1650)]
David Goldstein (07.19.07.0631 pm edt) --
Here is an example of how I explained PCT. I put on the board,
three wordsOBJECTIVE SITUATION--------EXPERIENCES----------ACTIONS
Excellent example, David. It will help people understand the PCT
perspective and it certainly helps me understand why all those women
keep running away when I ask them to take off their clothes. Even my
wife;-)
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com