PCT Lament

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

The lament for PCT not gaining wider acceptance in the field of psychology has been going on ever since I discovered PCT/CSG over 15 years ago.

Your post influenced me to think of why I was receptive and have stuck with PCT ever since. So consider this observation of yours:

<There is a lot of protectiveness
about ideas from the past, a lot of reluctance to
reach the conclusion that most of it is
worthless, the greatest reluctance being reserved
for protecting ideas that the objector chose for
a thesis topic or published knowledgeable papers
about, or otherwise swore allegiance to in
earlier years before running into PCT.>

I was a scientist, a nuclear engineer, who transitioned into quality control and improvement in organizations. I had few conceived scientific beliefs about human behavior. And, when it came to understanding the causes of defective manufactured products, I essentially accepted the scientific findings of Dr. Deming (and the results in quality of the Japanese whom he taught) which said that about 95% of the causes were in the work process (system of work) and were beyond the control of the person making the product.

At first, it appeared that understanding the 5% people-related cause was relatively unimportant to my professional vocation and to improving quality. Slowly, with the help of studying Japanese management practices, I began to see that the 95% of the problem was in the overall work system but those processes were in the control of managers…yes, people! How do you change what managers do?

Well, all of a sudden, the role of PCT in my consulting/education vocation and the quality improvement results that my clients could achieve (like the Japanese had done) gave me an understanding about human behavior that was superior to my competitors.

My case was fueled by not having to defend prior embedded psychology beliefs and having begun applying PCT concepts to the management of people, results were so dramatically superior in quality improvement performance, my clients won national quality awards.

But, those in the psychology profession or in the Human Resources vocation are not me. They do have high level reference perceptions to defend to which PCT is probably a disturbance. So, I think PCT does explain why the PCT road has been resisted in psychology science.

<Is this just an illustration of how difficult it
is, even for the willing, to change a system
concept? Or is it simply that we have been too
timid and too eager to avoid confrontations? The
last sounds a lot like me, I confess. I don’t
like fights, I don’t like to give offense, even
though I have not always managed to avoid doing that.>

My perception is this is indicative of how difficult it is to change a system concept. One of the big benefits of PCT in work and in life is realizing that confrontation will not work and may make it impossible to even obtain any interest or respect from those who have different system level reference perceptions.

You also wrote of some advocates of PCT who even overcame some prior system level references for how behavior works. You used some people who were once embedded in Glasser’s theories. How did their reference perceptions change? These are people whom I have met and listened to and have great respect for their accomplishments in applying your superior theory to their vocations. Here is your list from Glasser and I would add a number of others who are died in the wool believers in PCT who were part of the classical understandings of psychology if not Choice Theory:

Ed Ford

Fred and Perry Good

Diane Gossen

Brent Dennis

Tim Carey I think, and others who read Stations including

Bill Williams and – if I remember right

Dag Forssell

Tom Bourbon

David Goldstein

Wang Dong

Glenn Smith

Shelley Roy

Kent McClelland

Mark Lasare

Bruce Nevin

Fred Nickols

Phil Runkel

Autumn Winter

Lloyd Kliendinst

Bruce Abbot

I perceived that many of these fine scientists have accepted and support PCT because they have found it helpful in their own careers, vocations and lives. As you said, how can you go back to theories that seem to work for behavior some of the time when you have found a sensible and highly reliable theory that you can apply in your own life with superior results? By the way, I probably left out many names and some of our most provocative and greatest advocates and some whom I have not met or know very well who reside in Europe.

Yet, there is a somewhat disturbing phenomena to me in all this. Many of these PCT disciples simply don’t participate or contribute to CSG very much or ever. I wish they did. The PCT torch seems to be going out. The lack of a conference this year seems like a step in the wrong direction, Gipper. For various reasons, I have had to back away from coming or even participating in CSG very much but I can assure you this is not what I want to do. Other references have produced internal conflicts. I regret this.

Well, this is just another story I suppose and is already too long. But, I will share one other thought for you Gipper and the rest of the PCT community before I return to oblivion. Expanding on what I have witnessed where unless hearing about the theory and how it has helped people in a personal way (beyond writing articles and books on theory), I don’t think PCT will grow much very soon.

I could puke when I see on TV the analyses of old school psychologists trying to explain human phenomena in the daily news. Why do some people bully others? Why do terrorists proudly expend their own life killing those who disagree with them? Why do Islamists hate America and perceive her as the Great Satan? Worse than explaining why is what they suggest others can do, especially authoritative government, to change what people do that they don’t like.

If PCT can’t provide a better understanding of the why and how change takes place in people, especially at the highest levels of perception, then I doubt PCT will garner much attention. When we look at resolving internal conflict between two internal goals, MOL really provides an answer. But, what levels above System can be used to apply MOL? I know you would probably try to apply Reorganization. But, I don’t think it is well enough explained or demonstrated for those without a prior PCT knowledge to apply.

You are well aware that I do not believe PCT is fully enough developed to solve problems within human nature as there is more to that than control of perceptual variables in observable actions on the environment. Just how system level perceptions are developed or changed within humans may take knowledge not within the science of PCT. But, that is just my perception. I sense that if we can’t convincingly explain what happens in changing the behavior of an individual human being control system, the dreams of changing economic or political system that individuals work within (which are beyond their control) is like chasing the wind.

Anyway, I feel your pain. I had developed a good new friendship with a man in Saskatoon (really). He sensed I thought differently about human behavior and human nature. So, I began to introduce PCT ideas to him. He seemed excited and said I never heard of such ideas before. He claimed he wanted to explore PCT and learn more about it.

I asked if he cared enough to go through 10 one-hour sessions that I would do one-on-one with him. He said yes at first but has since decided he is just too busy to do that with me. Reluctantly I relented to sending him to the excellent PCT web sites instead. He took a peak. One or two ideas struck him. But, not being able to grasp PCT in an hour and apply it properly in his own life, I think he has just moved on doing the best he can based on what he understands regardless how flawed the theories of the psychology gurus publish and teach. I love this guy as a brother and would help him because I see that many of his life problems are intractable and unsolvable with the classic psychology theories. He has time to complain and struggle but no time to learn a better approach. Who wrote that “You can lead a horse to water, but…” It seems to be a fact of horse and human nature. PCT seems to confirm it but seems unable to alter that nature.

Kenny

In a message dated 9/13/2012 1:58:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.13.0944 MDT)]

At 12:43 AM 9/13/2012 +0000, McClelland, Kent wrote:

Hi to CSGNET and PCT modelers,

I was teaching a seminar course with a biologist
last spring, so I’ve been reading a lot of
biology lately, and a new development in
evolutionary theory has caught my
attention—sometthing called “niche construction,”
which seems closely related to PCT.

[REST OF KENT’S POST AT END FOR CC LIST]

Hi, Kent –

I think your analysis of niche construction is on
the mark. But what are we going to do about this?
For decades we have simply tried to publish
papers on subjects of interest to us, hoping,
mostly in vain, that others might see their more
general significance and pick up on PCT. Once
again we see people feeling their way among the
ideas which, pursued further, would lead to PCT,
but not doing a damned thing that will carry them over the threshold.

We’ve even gone through this within our own
group. Every time I have proposed that we “start
over” in some field, the immediate response by
many has been “Don’t throw the baby out with the
bathwater.” There is a lot of protectiveness
about ideas from the past, a lot of reluctance to
reach the conclusion that most of it is
worthless, the greatest reluctance being reserved
for protecting ideas that the objector chose for
a thesis topic or published knowledgeable papers
about, or otherwise swore allegiance to in
earlier years before running into PCT.

Is this just an illustration of how difficult it
is, even for the willing, to change a system
concept? Or is it simply that we have been too
timid and too eager to avoid confrontations? The
last sounds a lot like me, I confess. I don’t
like fights, I don’t like to give offense, even
though I have not always managed to avoid doing that.

Or is it that PCT is just a systematic delusion,
or as that Wiki commentator said, “fringe
science?” Now that’s something to consider, isn’t
it? Are we all a bunch of gullible fools? Am I
just another L. Ron Hubbard, with PCT being just
another brand of Scientology? If you really think
about that question, does it scare you to think the answer could be “yes?”

It really doesn’t scare me. PCT is a solid idea,
on firm ground, seemingly irrefutable. That’s
how living systems work, all the way down to the
bottom. But if you believe that, where is the fringe science?

It’s where those old ideas being protected, the
babies in the bathwater, are. The old science is
the fringe science, and that’s what we’re trying
to change. I think most of us, reading the
literature, can see how non-explanatory the
explanations of behavior are, how magical, how
baseless, just a bunch of words. Once you have
seen a real theory of behavior that works, how
can you even think of going back to the old
ideas? How much is any concept of behavior worth
if it’s still based on the idea that inputs to an organism cause its outputs?

I don’t think that all of us have gone that far
with PCT, far enough to be sure that any theory
that doesn’t include control of input is simply
wrong. Far enough to be sure that there is not
yet any such thing as “behavioral science.”
Sometimes I wonder if any of us have gone that
far, including me. Is that the conflict that has
held us back? Is there still an idea, in the CSG,
that a strong committment is just too risky, that
the whole house of cards could still collapse if
someone pushes on it a little too hard?

That’s what we all have to make up our minds
about, to shape what we will do about all this
for the rest of our lives. If we don’t make up
our minds, PCT will still prevail eventually, but
for me “eventually” isn’t very long if I go by my
ancestors. Maybe another ten years. I truly want
to see how this story comes out, so all you guys
out there had better buckle down and get the job
done. Do this one for the Gipper (I do qualify as a Gipper by now, don’t I?)!

Best,

Bill P.

[REMAINDER OF KENT’S POST]

This new theory is an extension of standard
evolutionary theory, which is all about how
natural selection happens, how factors in the
environment of a population of organisms give a
reproductive advantage to some combinations of
genes over other genes, so that organisms with
those genes have more descendants, and thus the
gene pool of that species will change over time
to include a larger proportion of the
advantageous genes, so that evolution has taken
place. In standard evolutionary theory, the
causal arrow is all one way, from changes in the
environment to changes in the genetic makeup of organisms, or E->O.

The biologists and evolutionary anthropologists
interested in the new theory (the two biggest
names seem to be a couple of Brits: F. John
Odling-Smee from Cambridge University and Kevin
N. Laland from the University of St. Andrews)
have observed that the behavior of organisms can
have a big impact on their own environments,
either by compensating for random changes in
their own environments (which sounds a lot like
control to me!) or moving to a different
environment, when the environment they’re in is
not to their liking (more control). The
theorists then hypothesize that these changes
that organisms make in their own environments,
which they call niche construction, can have an
impact on the course of evolution. In other
words, they’re interested in the causal arrows
from the organism to the environment (O->E), as
well as the feedback effects in this causal loop, E->O->E.

These biological theorists cite work by a group
of ecologists, Jones, Lawton, and Shanuck, who
talk about “organisms as ecosystem engineers”
and focus on such animals as beavers, whose
dam-building activities can transform local
ecosystems. Odling-Smee and Laland give a
variety of other examples, as well, of organisms
whose niche-constructing activities can have big
impacts on their local environments: leaf-cutter
ants that build enormous nests and practice a
kind of agriculture, raising a crop of mold that
they eat; bacteria that produce bacteriocins,
chemicals lethal to other bacteria in the
neighborhood but not to themselves; earthworms
that have a breathing apparatus inherited from
their aquatic worm ancestors but can live in
underground because of their own tunneling,
urine, and dragging of leaf litter below ground,
which changes the soil dramatically enough that
they can survive and thrive in it; and dozens of
other examples. The changes that these organisms
make in their own environments, according to
Odling-Smee and Laland, have to have a big
impact on the evolution of subsequent
generations of their species, as well as on the
evolution of other species in the immediate
ecosystem. Thus, evolutionary theorists should
be paying attention to these feedback effects.

This theory of niche construction really caught
my interest, because it seems to dovetail nicely
with my own recent work on “stabilization of the
environment.” As I’ve been arguing in the essays
I’ve written about stabilization, we in the PCT
community might do well to emphasize that
control of perceptions has some real and
important impacts on the environments in which
humans are doing their controlling, and that for
most people most of the time, the purpose of
their control efforts is to transform their own
environments to match their own reference
conditions and then maintain those preferred conditions as best they can.

Unfortunately, from my point of view,
Odling-Smee and Laland themselves seem unaware
of PCT and its relevance to their work, and I
don’t get the impression that they’ve really
thought through the idea of behavior as control.
They do say that “natural selection has
furnished organisms with onboard guidance
systems that allow them to learn about their
environment and, within some constraints, to
adjust their behavior accordingly during their
lives”, and they compare the behavioral process
to the on-board guidance systems of smart
missiles (Odling-Smee et al. 2003, p. 256). But
then they go on to describe those onboard
guidance systems as working by the “law of
effect”, which “states that actions that are
followed by a positive outcome are likely to be
repeated, while those followed by a negative
outcome will be eliminated” (p. 256) (sounds a lot like behaviorism to me).

In any case, their recognition that organisms
have purposes, that they affect their own
environments, and that the causal arrows aren’t
just one way from environment to organism, all
seem like steps in the right direction to me.
Gary Cziko’s books have already done a nice job
of relating PCT to evolutionary theory, but this
new development seems to tie it even closer.

Here are some relevant citations:

Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland and Marcus
W. Feldman. 2003. Niche Construction: The
Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Odling-Smee, F. John and Kevin N. Laland. 2009.
“Cultural Niche Construction: Evolution’s Cradle
of Language.� Pp. 99-121 in The Prehistory of
Language, edited by Rudolf Botha and Chris
Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Odling-Smee, John. 2009. “Niche Construction in
Evolution, Ecosystems and Developmental
Biology.� Pp. 69-91 in Mapping the Future of
Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, edited
by Anouk Barbarousse, Michel Morange and Thomas Pradeau. New York: Springer.

Jones, Clive. G., Lawton, John. H. and Moshe
Shachak. 1994. “Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers.” Oikos 69:373-386.

Jones, Clive. G., Lawton, John. H. and Moshe
Shachak. 1997. “Positive and Negative Effects of
Organisms as Physical Ecosystem Engineers.” Ecology 78(7):1946­1957.

Kent

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1043 PDT)]

If we accept PCT (including HPCT) as true, then people do what they do because they are acting so as to bring their perceptions into alignment with their reference conditions. In less elegant/technical terms, they are acting to achieve their goals. I think that is just as true of someone headed outside to mow the lawn or struggling to bring a project in on-time and on-budget or engaged in robbing a bank or crashing an airliner into the Trade Towers. We admire some and we are horrified by others but all are behaving in accordance with the theory.

Explaining what is going on is not the same as being able to change it. Goals or reference conditions are often held close to the vest so to speak, and “the test� is far from being an easily used, reliable tool. Perhaps more important, even when goals are out in the open, it is not an easy matter to get people to change them, especially when those goals tie to even more deeply-held goals that are in turn rooted in beliefs that might be so ingrained as to be unarticulable and unexaminable. What makes a thief a thief? What makes a terrorist a terrorist? What makes a saint a saint or a sinner a sinner? It is easy to point to behavior that places someone in this category or that. It is almost as easy to explain that behavior in terms of PCT. What is not so easy is to accurately identify which goals/reference conditions are being pursued. Nor is it easy to identify the perceptions that, if realized, would constitute achievement of the goal or reference condition.

Somewhere in all of this lurks a big problem; namely, how do we get people to examine and change their reference conditions/goals and, similarly, how do we get them to examine and perhaps change the perceptions they rely on as measures or indicators of the achievement of their goals/reference conditions.

In the end, Kenny, I think it all boils down to purposes, to ends sought and ends served. People can be notoriously touchy and difficult on that score.

More to the point, perhaps, my time on this list has led me to conclude that its focal point is on honing and advancing the theory, not developing practical, proven applications (with MOL being an exception). That’s fine; I don’t feel compelled to change that. But, unless some proven, practical applications are developed and promulgated, the theory is liable to disappear with the theorists. Equally important, those applications have to be clearly tied to the theory in such a way that competing theories cannot also lay claim to them.  Their efficacy must be explainable only by PCT.

Suppose, for example, that Rick Marken, who goes on rants from time to time, were instead able to change the goals/reference conditions of those he chastises. It seems clear enough that he can’t. Why is that? Is it because he chooses not to? Is it because doing so is beyond him? Is it because such things can’t be changed? Lord knows the prospect of actually being able to do so is quite scary. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany and goes on in other parts of the world today. Is a suicide bomber’s behavior exempt from PCT? I think not. Can PCT be used to modify and mollify terrorist behavior? I think not; at least not yet.

So where we are, Kenny, or at least where I am, is in a place where I firmly believe Bill P has it right with PCT. But there is as yet no “practice� rooted in PCT (other than MOL). My own modest efforts with the GAP-ACT model are, to be perfectly honest, in a very early stage and precious few people are interested in untried, untested, unproven tools. From time to time, people do ask me, “How do I apply that PCT stuff?� My reply is always the same: Get to know it, come to understand it, and it will lead you to take a very different look at the same old things and it will lead you to ask a very different set of questions and, in some cases, it will lead you to embark on very different courses of action. I wish I had some magic PCT potions or some silver PCT bullets but I don’t. All I have is a deep and abiding belief in the validity of PCT and a willingness to slog along in the trenches trying to find ways to make it work and produce results that catch the attention of others who will then ask, “How the heck did you do that?� At which point I will pull out my PCT Primer and say, “Glad you asked.�

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:43 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: PCT Lament

The lament for PCT not gaining wider acceptance in the field of psychology has been going on ever since I discovered PCT/CSG over 15 years ago.

Your post influenced me to think of why I was receptive and have stuck with PCT ever since. So consider this observation of yours:

<There is a lot of protectiveness
about ideas from the past, a lot of reluctance to
reach the conclusion that most of it is
worthless, the greatest reluctance being reserved
for protecting ideas that the objector chose for
a thesis topic or published knowledgeable papers
about, or otherwise swore allegiance to in
earlier years before running into PCT.>

I was a scientist, a nuclear engineer, who transitioned into quality control and improvement in organizations. I had few conceived scientific beliefs about human behavior. And, when it came to understanding the causes of defective manufactured products, I essentially accepted the scientific findings of Dr. Deming (and the results in quality of the Japanese whom he taught) which said that about 95% of the causes were in the work process (system of work) and were beyond the control of the person making the product.

At first, it appeared that understanding the 5% people-related cause was relatively unimportant to my professional vocation and to improving quality. Slowly, with the help of studying Japanese management practices, I began to see that the 95% of the problem was in the overall work system but those processes were in the control of managers…yes, people! How do you change what managers do?

Well, all of a sudden, the role of PCT in my consulting/education vocation and the quality improvement results that my clients could achieve (like the Japanese had done) gave me an understanding about human behavior that was superior to my competitors.

My case was fueled by not having to defend prior embedded psychology beliefs and having begun applying PCT concepts to the management of people, results were so dramatically superior in quality improvement performance, my clients won national quality awards.

But, those in the psychology profession or in the Human Resources vocation are not me. They do have high level reference perceptions to defend to which PCT is probably a disturbance. So, I think PCT does explain why the PCT road has been resisted in psychology science.

<Is this just an illustration of how difficult it
is, even for the willing, to change a system
concept? Or is it simply that we have been too
timid and too eager to avoid confrontations? The
last sounds a lot like me, I confess. I don’t
like fights, I don’t like to give offense, even
though I have not always managed to avoid doing that.>

My perception is this is indicative of how difficult it is to change a system concept. One of the big benefits of PCT in work and in life is realizing that confrontation will not work and may make it impossible to even obtain any interest or respect from those who have different system level reference perceptions.

You also wrote of some advocates of PCT who even overcame some prior system level references for how behavior works. You used some people who were once embedded in Glasser’s theories. How did their reference perceptions change? These are people whom I have met and listened to and have great respect for their accomplishments in applying your superior theory to their vocations. Here is your list from Glasser and I would add a number of others who are died in the wool believers in PCT who were part of the classical understandings of psychology if not Choice Theory:

Ed Ford

Fred and Perry Good

Diane Gossen

Brent Dennis

Tim Carey I think, and others who read Stations including

Bill Williams and – if I remember right

Dag Forssell

Tom Bourbon

David Goldstein

Wang Dong

Glenn Smith

Shelley Roy

Kent McClelland

Mark Lasare

Bruce Nevin

Fred Nickols

Phil Runkel

Autumn Winter

Lloyd Kliendinst

Bruce Abbot

I perceived that many of these fine scientists have accepted and support PCT because they have found it helpful in their own careers, vocations and lives. As you said, how can you go back to theories that seem to work for behavior some of the time when you have found a sensible and highly reliable theory that you can apply in your own life with superior results? By the way, I probably left out many names and some of our most provocative and greatest advocates and some whom I have not met or know very well who reside in Europe.

Yet, there is a somewhat disturbing phenomena to me in all this. Many of these PCT disciples simply don’t participate or contribute to CSG very much or ever. I wish they did. The PCT torch seems to be going out. The lack of a conference this year seems like a step in the wrong direction, Gipper. For various reasons, I have had to back away from coming or even participating in CSG very much but I can assure you this is not what I want to do. Other references have produced internal conflicts. I regret this.

Well, this is just another story I suppose and is already too long. But, I will share one other thought for you Gipper and the rest of the PCT community before I return to oblivion. Expanding on what I have witnessed where unless hearing about the theory and how it has helped people in a personal way (beyond writing articles and books on theory), I don’t think PCT will grow much very soon.

I could puke when I see on TV the analyses of old school psychologists trying to explain human phenomena in the daily news. Why do some people bully others? Why do terrorists proudly expend their own life killing those who disagree with them? Why do Islamists hate America and perceive her as the Great Satan? Worse than explaining why is what they suggest others can do, especially authoritative government, to change what people do that they don’t like.

If PCT can’t provide a better understanding of the why and how change takes place in people, especially at the highest levels of perception, then I doubt PCT will garner much attention. When we look at resolving internal conflict between two internal goals, MOL really provides an answer. But, what levels above System can be used to apply MOL? I know you would probably try to apply Reorganization. But, I don’t think it is well enough explained or demonstrated for those without a prior PCT knowledge to apply.

You are well aware that I do not believe PCT is fully enough developed to solve problems within human nature as there is more to that than control of perceptual variables in observable actions on the environment. Just how system level perceptions are developed or changed within humans may take knowledge not within the science of PCT. But, that is just my perception. I sense that if we can’t convincingly explain what happens in changing the behavior of an individual human being control system, the dreams of changing economic or political system that individuals work within (which are beyond their control) is like chasing the wind.

Anyway, I feel your pain. I had developed a good new friendship with a man in Saskatoon (really). He sensed I thought differently about human behavior and human nature. So, I began to introduce PCT ideas to him. He seemed excited and said I never heard of such ideas before. He claimed he wanted to explore PCT and learn more about it.

I asked if he cared enough to go through 10 one-hour sessions that I would do one-on-one with him. He said yes at first but has since decided he is just too busy to do that with me. Reluctantly I relented to sending him to the excellent PCT web sites instead. He took a peak. One or two ideas struck him. But, not being able to grasp PCT in an hour and apply it properly in his own life, I think he has just moved on doing the best he can based on what he understands regardless how flawed the theories of the psychology gurus publish and teach. I love this guy as a brother and would help him because I see that many of his life problems are intractable and unsolvable with the classic psychology theories. He has time to complain and struggle but no time to learn a better approach. Who wrote that “You can lead a horse to water, but…” It seems to be a fact of horse and human nature. PCT seems to confirm it but seems unable to alter that nature.

Kenny

In a message dated 9/13/2012 1:58:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.13.0944 MDT)]

At 12:43 AM 9/13/2012 +0000, McClelland, Kent wrote:

Hi to CSGNET and PCT modelers,

I was teaching a seminar course with a biologist
last spring, so I’ve been reading a lot of
biology lately, and a new development in
evolutionary theory has caught my
attention—something called “niche construction,”
which seems closely related to PCT.

[REST OF KENT’S POST AT END FOR CC LIST]

Hi, Kent –

I think your analysis of niche construction is on
the mark. But what are we going to do about this?
For decades we have simply tried to publish
papers on subjects of interest to us, hoping,
mostly in vain, that others might see their more
general significance and pick up on PCT. Once
again we see people feeling their way among the
ideas which, pursued further, would lead to PCT,
but not doing a damned thing that will carry them over the threshold.

We’ve even gone through this within our own
group. Every time I have proposed that we “start
over” in some field, the immediate response by
many has been “Don’t throw the baby out with the
bathwater.” There is a lot of protectiveness
about ideas from the past, a lot of reluctance to
reach the conclusion that most of it is
worthless, the greatest reluctance being reserved
for protecting ideas that the objector chose for
a thesis topic or published knowledgeable papers
about, or otherwise swore allegiance to in
earlier years before running into PCT.

Is this just an illustration of how difficult it
is, even for the willing, to change a system
concept? Or is it simply that we have been too
timid and too eager to avoid confrontations? The
last sounds a lot like me, I confess. I don’t
like fights, I don’t like to give offense, even
though I have not always managed to avoid doing that.

Or is it that PCT is just a systematic delusion,
or as that Wiki commentator said, “fringe
science?” Now that’s something to consider, isn’t
it? Are we all a bunch of gullible fools? Am I
just another L. Ron Hubbard, with PCT being just
another brand of Scientology? If you really think
about that question, does it scare you to think the answer could be “yes?”

It really doesn’t scare me. PCT is a solid idea,
on firm ground, seemingly irrefutable. That’s
how living systems work, all the way down to the
bottom. But if you believe that, where is the fringe science?

It’s where those old ideas being protected, the
babies in the bathwater, are. The old science is
the fringe science, and that’s what we’re trying
to change. I think most of us, reading the
literature, can see how non-explanatory the
explanations of behavior are, how magical, how
baseless, just a bunch of words. Once you have
seen a real theory of behavior that works, how
can you even think of going back to the old
ideas? How much is any concept of behavior worth
if it’s still based on the idea that inputs to an organism cause its outputs?

I don’t think that all of us have gone that far
with PCT, far enough to be sure that any theory
that doesn’t include control of input is simply
wrong. Far enough to be sure that there is not
yet any such thing as “behavioral science.”
Sometimes I wonder if any of us have gone that
far, including me. Is that the conflict that has
held us back? Is there still an idea, in the CSG,
that a strong committment is just too risky, that
the whole house of cards could still collapse if
someone pushes on it a little too hard?

That’s what we all have to make up our minds
about, to shape what we will do about all this
for the rest of our lives. If we don’t make up
our minds, PCT will still prevail eventually, but
for me “eventually” isn’t very long if I go by my
ancestors. Maybe another ten years. I truly want
to see how this story comes out, so all you guys
out there had better buckle down and get the job
done. Do this one for the Gipper (I do qualify as a Gipper by now, don’t I?)!

Best,

Bill P.

[REMAINDER OF KENT’S POST]

This new theory is an extension of standard
evolutionary theory, which is all about how
natural selection happens, how factors in the
environment of a population of organisms give a
reproductive advantage to some combinations of
genes over other genes, so that organisms with
those genes have more descendants, and thus the
gene pool of that species will change over time
to include a larger proportion of the
advantageous genes, so that evolution has taken
place. In standard evolutionary theory, the
causal arrow is all one way, from changes in the
environment to changes in the genetic makeup of organisms, or E->O.

The biologists and evolutionary anthropologists
interested in the new theory (the two biggest
names seem to be a couple of Brits: F. John
Odling-Smee from Cambridge University and Kevin
N. Laland from the University of St. Andrews)
have observed that the behavior of organisms can
have a big impact on their own environments,
either by compensating for random changes in
their own environments (which sounds a lot like
control to me!) or moving to a different
environment, when the environment they’re in is
not to their liking (more control). The
theorists then hypothesize that these changes
that organisms make in their own environments,
which they call niche construction, can have an
impact on the course of evolution. In other
words, they’re interested in the causal arrows
from the organism to the environment (O->E), as
well as the feedback effects in this causal loop, E->O->E.

These biological theorists cite work by a group
of ecologists, Jones, Lawton, and Shanuck, who
talk about “organisms as ecosystem engineers”
and focus on such animals as beavers, whose
dam-building activities can transform local
ecosystems. Odling-Smee and Laland give a
variety of other examples, as well, of organisms
whose niche-constructing activities can have big
impacts on their local environments: leaf-cutter
ants that build enormous nests and practice a
kind of agriculture, raising a crop of mold that
they eat; bacteria that produce bacteriocins,
chemicals lethal to other bacteria in the
neighborhood but not to themselves; earthworms
that have a breathing apparatus inherited from
their aquatic worm ancestors but can live in
underground because of their own tunneling,
urine, and dragging of leaf litter below ground,
which changes the soil dramatically enough that
they can survive and thrive in it; and dozens of
other examples. The changes that these organisms
make in their own environments, according to
Odling-Smee and Laland, have to have a big
impact on the evolution of subsequent
generations of their species, as well as on the
evolution of other species in the immediate
ecosystem. Thus, evolutionary theorists should
be paying attention to these feedback effects.

This theory of niche construction really caught
my interest, because it seems to dovetail nicely
with my own recent work on “stabilization of the
environment.” As I’ve been arguing in the essays
I’ve written about stabilization, we in the PCT
community might do well to emphasize that
control of perceptions has some real and
important impacts on the environments in which
humans are doing their controlling, and that for
most people most of the time, the purpose of
their control efforts is to transform their own
environments to match their own reference
conditions and then maintain those preferred conditions as best they can.

Unfortunately, from my point of view,
Odling-Smee and Laland themselves seem unaware
of PCT and its relevance to their work, and I
don’t get the impression that they’ve really
thought through the idea of behavior as control.
They do say that “natural selection has
furnished organisms with onboard guidance
systems that allow them to learn about their
environment and, within some constraints, to
adjust their behavior accordingly during their
lives”, and they compare the behavioral process
to the on-board guidance systems of smart
missiles (Odling-Smee et al. 2003, p. 256). But
then they go on to describe those onboard
guidance systems as working by the “law of
effect”, which “states that actions that are
followed by a positive outcome are likely to be
repeated, while those followed by a negative
outcome will be eliminated” (p. 256) (sounds a lot like behaviorism to me).

In any case, their recognition that organisms
have purposes, that they affect their own
environments, and that the causal arrows aren’t
just one way from environment to organism, all
seem like steps in the right direction to me.
Gary Cziko’s books have already done a nice job
of relating PCT to evolutionary theory, but this
new development seems to tie it even closer.

Here are some relevant citations:

Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland and Marcus
W. Feldman. 2003. Niche Construction: The
Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Odling-Smee, F. John and Kevin N. Laland. 2009.
“Cultural Niche Construction: Evolution’s Cradle
of Language.� Pp. 99-121 in The Prehistory of
Language, edited by Rudolf Botha and Chris
Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Odling-Smee, John. 2009. “Niche Construction in
Evolution, Ecosystems and Developmental
Biology.� Pp. 69-91 in Mapping the Future of
Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, edited
by Anouk Barbarousse, Michel Morange and Thomas Pradeau. New York: Springer.

Jones, Clive. G., Lawton, John. H. and Moshe
Shachak. 1994. “Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers.” Oikos 69:373-386.

Jones, Clive. G., Lawton, John. H. and Moshe
Shachak. 1997. “Positive and Negative Effects of
Organisms as Physical Ecosystem Engineers.” Ecology 78(7):1946­1957.

Kent

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.016.0755 MDT)]

If PCT can’t provide a better
understanding of the why and how change takes place in people, especially
at the highest levels of perception, then I doubt PCT will garner much
attention. When we look at resolving internal conflict between two
internal goals, MOL really provides an answer. But, what levels
above System can be used to apply MOL? I know you would probably
try to apply Reorganization. But, I don’t think it is well enough
explained or demonstrated for those without a prior PCT knowledge to
apply.

As usual, you ask great questions, Kenny (glad to hear from
you again, by the way).

Fred Nickols is asking similar questions:

FN: … there is as yet
no “practice” rooted in PCT (other than MOL). My own modest efforts
with the GAP-ACT model are, to be perfectly honest, in a very early stage
and precious few people are interested in untried, untested, unproven
tools. From time to time, people do ask me, “How do I apply that
PCT stuff?” My reply is always the same: Get to know it, come to
understand it, and it will lead you to take a very different look at the
same old things and it will lead you to ask a very different set of
questions and, in some cases, it will lead you to embark on very
different courses of action.

BP: It took me a while to realise that both of you were giving me the
answer to “How do I apply that stuff?”

What is MOL? It’s a way of interacting with a person so as to draw
attention to problem areas, mostly conflicts, which are impeding the
person’s understanding and ability to act. The basic principle is simply
that if a person needs to change, the only way to bring that about is to
lead the person to a place from which that person can do the
reorqanizing. Nobody else can do it for him. This will, indeed,
“lead you to ask a very different set of questions and, in some
cases, … to embark on very different courses of action.” So far
everyone who has tried to apply the MOL approach in pure form, without
mixing it with anything else, has found it to work very effectively. And
the more you accept the other person’s ability to reorganize and resolve
problems, the better it works.

From the standpoint of the practitioner, MOL is an attitude, a point of
view. It focuses not on the therapist’s abilities, but on the abilities
of every human being to resolve problems. It’s an attitude of curiousity
and exploration. The therapist simply tries to get enough information
about the client to understand what the client means and wants. In
getting that information, the therapist also leads the client to discover
it and look at it. That discovery and examination process is what leads
to perceiving core conflicts, to understanding why certain goals have
been chosen, and what the purpose of choosing them was. And focusing
attention on those subjects, especially when they are troublesome to the
person, is apparently all that is needed to drive
reorganization.

Now let’s apply this to a typical sort of argument we run into in the
political area. A right-wing religious person says “America is a
Christian nation,” and uses that premise as a basis for attitudes
toward other religions and other countries. Since a lot of PCTers are of
more liberal persuasion, their natural reaction is to start arguing or
criticizing, to look down on the religious nut, to assume instantly that
there is nothing more to be discovered there but this knee-jerk
reaction.

But what if we PCTers were more used to taking the MOL attitude? Clearly,
if the religious winger has no problem with this premise, there is no way
to apply MOL – it would be we who are having a problem, and who have to
reorganize to get over it. But we can at least check to see if the other
person really has no problems, no conflicts about thinking that America
is a Christian nation. We can ask a few questions that would probably not
be the first ones to occur to someone unfamiliar with MOL.

For example, we might ask, “Do you mean that America is a nation
that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of Jesus
Christ?”

All right, that’s probably a good place to pause and ask what you think
the answer would be, and also what other questions you might ask that
could uncover some existing conflicts about the basic premise – for
example, “What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward
those who follow other religions?”

In just about any area I can think of, this kind of questioning would
immediately uncover a whole tangle of conflicts. Simply exploring the
tangle would start reorganization going and changes would begin to
happen.

Where they might lead is unpredictable, but the general assumption about
MOL is that it’s better to resolve conflicts than just to suffer them or
try to avoid the situations where they become active – better for
everybody involved.

So is that true? What do you-all think?

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 12:42 PM 9/15/2012 -0400, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2012.09.016.15:15 EDT)]

Bill, I was trying to explain that I perceive MOL as a very effective way of getting people to change their reference perceptions to eliminate internal conflicts. However, I totally agree that you have to go up probably two levels in perception to accomplish this. Like PCT, HPCT and MOL, this is also profound knowledge about how humans behave that you have discovered. It is amazing to me.

My point was to suggest that one reason it is difficult for a human to change a reference at their systems level to resolve a conflict at their systems level is that under your HPCT theory there are no higher levels to go up to. So while MOL may work for resolving conflicts at lower levels, it can’t work at the systems level.

As you know, I have posited that there are either higher levels or another human system that acts upon the systems level of your proposed hierarchy. In simple terms, humans have a built-in system (call it the “right or wrong for me” system, conscience, observer, etc.) that can act on ones control of perception behavior action system that no other living things have. If true, I don’t need to quarrel with you or anyone as to how that “conscience” system came into being…creation or evolution…for all or any particular human being.

So, I am questioning your fertile scientific mind and even your possible non-scientific conscience to see if there is more to the nature of human beings that might help us better understand how they develop their own unique, and difficult to determine by another human, top level of behavioral perception. And, I listed a number of people whom I respect who might have something to speculate on concerning the possibility I have raised. I did not include some people whom I would appreciate hearing from like Gary, Dick or Richard (and, of course, Rick) who I know have an in-depth understanding of PCT along with a lot of experience with the behavior of themselves and others who seem very unusual, even insane.

<Now let’s apply this to a typical sort of argument we run into in the political area. A right-wing religious person says “America is a Christian nation,” and uses that premise as a basis for attitudes toward other religions and other countries. Since a lot of PCTers are of more liberal persuasion, their natural reaction is to start arguing or criticizing, to look down on the religious nut, to assume instantly that there is nothing more to be discovered there but this knee-jerk reaction.>

I have “Christian” friends who say this and believe this. I think they are uninformed and wrong. For me, all it takes is a little study of history of what the founders wrote and both government leaders and the American people on the whole will express today to know this is simply a false belief. I also know that if every time I heard a friend say this I blurted out that they are ignorant and wrong, most would be convinced that not only am I wrong, I am crazy and not a “Christian.” I see this as their conscience nature telling them to have a different reference for Kenny than they had before. They changed their own internal reference at one or more levels which may be “don’t speak to Kenny ever again.” This is an experienced/perceived reality not mere speculation of what other people may do to people like Kenny.

<But what if we PCTers were more used to taking the MOL attitude? Clearly, if the religious winger has no problem with this premise, there is no way to apply MOL – it would be we who are having a problem, and who have to reorganize to get over it. But we can at least check to see if the other person really has no problems, no conflicts about thinking that America is a Christian nation. We can ask a few questions that would probably not be the first ones to occur to someone unfamiliar with MOL.

For example, we might ask, “Do you mean that America is a nation that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ?”>

That may work. But both parties must want to pursue this as a goal. The difference seems to be that with an MOL type approach as a facilitator, you are asking the religious person a question so they can explore their own reference. That is not as likely to be as much a disturbance as saying, “You must be stupid to say something like that!” However, there are numerous questions that could be asked. There are numerous ways the question can be asked and accompanying body language. And, I think you would agree that each person being questioned about the very same expressed statement may well respond in very different ways to the exact same MOL-type input. There is no one way so every interaction is unique. It makes human life interesting and exciting. Oh, it has to be better than being a monkey.

My personal experience with “Christians” is that no two have the same references for what JC taught or even who He was. This is frustrating but I think PCT explains that humans decide for themselves what is right and wrong for them. It is part of inherent human nature that coexists with their perceptual control system. It used to disturb me but thanks to PCT, I see why forgiveness is taught and demonstrated by JC as the best way to behave.

Many “Christians” will stop talking to one another in disgust when their doctrinal understandings conflict. Yet the teaching of JC is that you’ll know His disciples by their love for one another. Almost incredibly, JC taught His disciples to love even their professed and demonstrated enemies trying to kill them. How many human beings of any group do that? Well, consider David and his attitude toward King Saul.

<All right, that’s probably a good place to pause and ask what you think the answer would be, and also what other questions you might ask that could uncover some existing conflicts about the basic premise – for example, “What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those who follow other religions?”>

My answer: Preach His Truth to them if they ask and if they reject it and you, dust off your feet and move on without remorse. Autonomous human beings as posited by PCT make actionable choices and if they are wrong in some overreaching way, they will have no one else to blame for any consequences they encounter. That includes me. That seems just for everyone.

Well, the Steelers are playing and disturbing my line of thought, especially after losing to those Broncos in the opening game. Ever heard of them?

Kenny

In a message dated 9/16/2012 10:03:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

If PCT can't provide a better understanding of the why and how change takes place in people, especially at the highest levels of perception, then I doubt PCT will garner much attention.  When we look at resolving internal conflict between two internal goals, MOL really provides an answer.  But, what levels above System can be used to apply MOL?  I know you would probably try to apply Reorganization.  But, I don't think it is well enough explained or demonstrated for those without a prior PCT knowledge to apply.
FN: ... there is as yet no “practice� rooted in PCT (other than MOL).  My own modest efforts with the GAP-ACT model are, to be perfectly honest, in a very early stage and precious few people are interested in untried, untested, unproven tools.  From time to time, people do ask me, “How do I apply that PCT stuff?�  My reply is always the same: Get to know it, come to understand it, and it will lead you to take a very different look at the same old things and it will lead you to ask a very different set of questions and, in some cases, it will lead you to embark on very different courses of action.

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.016.0755 MDT)]

At 12:42 PM 9/15/2012 -0400, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

As usual, you ask great questions, Kenny (glad to hear from you again, by the way).

Fred Nickols is asking similar questions:

BP: It took me a while to realise that both of you were giving me the answer to “How do I apply that stuff?”

What is MOL? It’s a way of interacting with a person so as to draw attention to problem areas, mostly conflicts, which are impeding the person’s understanding and ability to act. The basic principle is simply that if a person needs to change, the only way to bring that about is to lead the person to a place from which that person can do the reorqanizing. Nobody else can do it for him. This will, indeed, “lead you to ask a very different set of questions and, in some cases, … to embark on very different courses of action.” So far everyone who has tried to apply the MOL approach in pure form, without mixing it with anything else, has found it to work very effectively. And the more you accept the other person’s ability to reorganize and resolve problems, the better it works.

From the standpoint of the practitioner, MOL is an attitude, a point of view. It focuses not on the therapist’s abilities, but on the abilities of every human being to resolve problems. It’s an attitude of curiousity and exploration. The therapist simply tries to get enough information about the client to understand what the client means and wants. In getting that information, the therapist also leads the client to discover it and look at it. That discovery and examination process is what leads to perceiving core conflicts, to understanding why certain goals have been chosen, and what the purpose of choosing them was. And focusing attention on those subjects, especially when they are troublesome to the person, is apparently all that is needed to drive reorganization.

Now let’s apply this to a typical sort of argument we run into in the political area. A right-wing religious person says “America is a Christian nation,” and uses that premise as a basis for attitudes toward other religions and other countries. Since a lot of PCTers are of more liberal persuasion, their natural reaction is to start arguing or criticizing, to look down on the religious nut, to assume instantly that there is nothing more to be discovered there but this knee-jerk reaction.

But what if we PCTers were more used to taking the MOL attitude? Clearly, if the religious winger has no problem with this premise, there is no way to apply MOL – it would be we who are having a problem, and who have to reorganize to get over it. But we can at least check to see if the other person really has no problems, no conflicts about thinking that America is a Christian nation. We can ask a few questions that would probably not be the first ones to occur to someone unfamiliar with MOL.

For example, we might ask, “Do you mean that America is a nation that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ?”

All right, that’s probably a good place to pause and ask what you think the answer would be, and also what other questions you might ask that could uncover some existing conflicts about the basic premise – for example, “What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those who follow other religions?”

In just about any area I can think of, this kind of questioning would immediately uncover a whole tangle of conflicts. Simply exploring the tangle would start reorganization going and changes would begin to happen.
Where they might lead is unpredictable, but the general assumption about MOL is that it’s better to resolve conflicts than just to suffer them or try to avoid the situations where they become active – better for everybody involved.

So is that true? What do you-all think?

Best,

Bill P.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.09.16.17.14]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.016.0755 MDT)]

What is MOL? It's a way of interacting with a person so as to draw attention to problem areas, mostly conflicts, which are impeding the person's understanding and ability to act. ...
Now let's apply this to a typical sort of argument we run into in the political area. A right-wing religious person says "America is a Christian nation," and uses that premise as a basis for attitudes toward other religions and other countries....

But what if we PCTers were more used to taking the MOL attitude?... We can ask a few questions that would probably not be the first ones to occur to someone unfamiliar with MOL.

For example, we might ask, "Do you mean that America is a nation that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ?"

I preface this by pointing out I have only third-hand knowledge of MOL, through CSGnet.

Not asking about this particular political issue, but using it to ask a more general question: Why would an understanding of MOL lead to a question such as this? Would the MOL attitude require the questioner to ask separately "Do you perceive this to be the case" and "Do you want this to be the case?"

If the answers are "Yes", "Yes" or "No", "No" the person isn't in conflict, at least not with respect to this issue.
If the answers are "No", "Yes" or "Yes", "No", then either the person is acting to reduce the error, or there is a reason they are not (perhaps conflict, perhaps lack of a suitable envronmental affordance).

Your example has the MOL practitioner asking only the first question. Is it part of the technique of going up a level that the practitioner should lead the respondent to see that the second question is implicit in the first -- recognizing that there is a reference condition and asking herself where that reference condition comes from?

You follow this specific question with questions about going down a level rather than up:

All right, that's probably a good place to pause and ask what you think the answer would be, and also what other questions you might ask that could uncover some existing conflicts about the basic premise -- for example, "What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those who follow other religions?"

Do you go down in order to discover (or help the respondent to discover) conflicts that depend on perceptions controlled at the same level as the "America is a Christian nation" controlled perception? Or how do MOL practitioners use "going down a level" questions? What if the respondent's original answers were "Yes", "Yes", indicating no conflict. Why would the practitioner ask questions of the "going down a level" kind, rather than looking for other areas of possible conflict that might have been the reason the respondent entered into MOL therapy?

Martin T

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1535 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2012.09.16.17.14 --

MT: Not asking about this particular political issue, but using it to ask a more general question: Why would an understanding of MOL lead to a question such as this? Would the MOL attitude require the questioner to ask separately "Do you perceive this to be the case" and "Do you want this to be the case?"

BP: My approach to MOL, which may reflect my style more than anything basic about the method, is to be indirect. For example, instead of asking "Do you want this to be the case?" I would probably ask "Is this good?" I try not to point the finger directly at the person, but to leave room for the person to express a viewpoint without having to defend taking it -- that is, I try to imply that I will accept the answer without theorizing about its author, or asking for a theory from the author.

Perhaps the underlying principle is to take as little for granted as possible. This is where the idea of "dumb questions" comes from. The client says, "When I go to a party I never seem to have much to say to people." The first dumb question I would ask is the one that would be taken for granted in an ordinary conversation or a typical therapy session: "Does that bother you?"

If the person says "No, that's the way I prefer it until I get to know the people a little," we can follow the lead about not knowing people rather than trying to uncover stereotyped psychological motives like shyness and childhood trauma. If the person says "Yes" we can start looking into what is bothersome about it. Quite likely a conflict will show up. That's a good reason not to make assumptions, because in this case it could well be that the person wants to talk more at parties, and also wants not to say anything for fear of seeming foolish, so whatever you assume will be half wrong.

MT: If the answers are "Yes", "Yes" or "No", "No" the person isn't in conflict, at least not with respect to this issue.
If the answers are "No", "Yes" or "Yes", "No", then either the person is acting to reduce the error, or there is a reason they are not (perhaps conflict, perhaps lack of a suitable envronmental affordance).

Your example has the MOL practitioner asking only the first question. Is it part of the technique of going up a level that the practitioner should lead the respondent to see that the second question is implicit in the first -- recognizing that there is a reference condition and asking herself where that reference condition comes from?

BP: I try to avoid much theorizing in MOL, for the reason just noted. Guessing wrong simply slows down the process.

MT: You follow this specific question with questions about going down a level rather than up:

BP earlier: All right, that's probably a good place to pause and ask what you think the answer would be, and also what other questions you might ask that could uncover some existing conflicts about the basic premise -- for example, "What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those who follow other religions?"

MT: Do you go down in order to discover (or help the respondent to discover) conflicts that depend on perceptions controlled at the same level as the "America is a Christian nation" controlled perception? Or how do MOL practitioners use "going down a level" questions?

BP: You're assuming I went up a level in my questioning, which I didn't intend to do. I just wanted to explore the level where we are a while longer. If American is a Christian nation, then one might assume that this means Americans behave like Christians, and that is what I was asking about. I would actually expect a "No" answer, because none of the religious people I have talked to about this think America acts nearly enough like a Christian nation. We're not violent enough. But basically I would just be checking to see if the answer was what I expected or something else (which would be even more useful).

I try to keep the hierarchy and any specific levels out of my thinking. I don't even try to analyze why the person says what he or she says -- the point is to find out, not to make guesses. I do try to recognize when the person gives a hint about some higher-level topic or attitude, and ask about it. But I'm not trying to beat the client to a clever insight. Ideally, the client will have all the important insights.

MT: What if the respondent's original answers were "Yes", "Yes", indicating no conflict. Why would the practitioner ask questions of the "going down a level" kind, rather than looking for other areas of possible conflict that might have been the reason the respondent entered into MOL therapy?

BP: The process is much more incremental than you imply. I don't gather data until I have enough evidence from which to draw a conclusion. I just move one small step at a time and try to be ready to follow in unexpected directions. I'm not really trying to draw any conclusions.

Ethology comes to mind. The client is my informant, and by interviewing the client I am trying to discover how the client's world is constructed. My own deductions and conclusions are irrelevant; I want to learn to deduce and conclude the way the client does. Then I will understand well enough to ask the next question. The kind of questions one asks in this situation make the client look at things that ordinarily don't arise, and that, I think, is where the therapy comes in. Conflicts are quickly revealed, because instead of answering "Yes" or "No," clients answer "Yes, but" and "No, but." Once you tune into conflicts this way you find them everywhere. Yes, one hand giveth, but on the other hand it also taketh away.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (09.17.2012.2030 ADT)]

Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1043 PDT)–

…

FN: More to the point, perhaps, my time on this list has led me to conclude that its focal point is on honing and advancing the theory, not developing practical, proven applications (with MOL being an exception). That’s fine; I don’t feel compelled to change that. But, unless some proven, practical applications are developed and promulgated, the theory is liable to disappear with the theorists.

RM: I don’t want to interfere with Bill’s MOL session with Kenny but I did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear without proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so will everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think that PCT does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.

The other proven practical applications have to do with the main implication of PCT: societies work best when everyone in that society is able to control their own perceptions. Both you and Kenny imply that a practical application of PCT would be one that gets people to behave better – which, of course, means, getting people to behave the way you want them to behave. So Kenny wants (and believes he has used PCT) to get managers to behave better (that is, the way he wants them to). You imply that you want people to stop behaving as terrorists, thieves, or ranters on CSGNet.

All of this suggests that your (and Kenny’s) idea of a practical application of PCT is one that is aimed at controlling behavior – that, after all, is what you are doing when you try to get the manager, the terrorist, the thief or the ranter to behave as you want them to behave. That’s all fine and dandy but PCT shows that you are going to run into problems trying to control behavior if you try to do this arbitrarily; that is, without enlisting the cooperation of the controllee. That means that if, for example, the manager or the ranter doesn’t agree to behave in the way you want, you have to give up on trying to get that to happen; if you don’t give up then you are trying to control arbitrarily – without taking the wants of the controllee into account.

What I would suggest is that the main practical application of PCT is in pointing practical applications away from controlling other people’s behavior and pointing them towards ways to help people do their own controlling without interfering with each other. And the first step in doing that is to have the goal, not of having people behave in a better way (the goal of controlling behavior) but of having people be able to control what they want to control without interfering with each other (or with themselves – that’s what MOL is for). This application will not be easy but, then, neither is any sophisticated application of science to practice.

Of course, even if you have the goal of improving everyone’s ability to control you may end up seeing people controlling for things that you don’t care for. But if, in controlling these things, people do not interfere with others’ ability to control what they care about then you just have to lower the gain and not worry to much about it.

Anyway, I think this is a huge practical implication of PCT. The main impediment to people developing this practical application of PCT is an outmoded, behaviorist notion of what a “practical application” of a psychological theory is. The outmoded notion, again, is that a practical application will result in better behavior; the PCT notion is that a practical application will result in better control – not of other people but of the variables each individual wants to (and needs to) control.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

KK: My point was to suggest that one reason it is difficult for a human
to change a reference at their systems level to resolve a conflict at
their systems level is that under your HPCT theory there are no higher
levels to go up to. So while MOL may work for resolving conflicts
at lower levels, it can’t work at the systems
level.
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1645 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2012.09.016.15:15 EDT)

···

–

BP: I agree. But remember that MOL involves awareness, and awareness (it
seems to me) is of the same nature at any level. So there is an
underlying organization, the one that I crudely describe as a
“reorganizing system.” It may have something to do with what
you would call a “spiritual” level, but since it can be in
contact with any level of the hierarchy, it’s not really a part of the
hierarchy. It’s the place we stand when looking at anything else in our
minds.

KK
: As you know, I have posited
that there are either higher levels or another human system that acts
upon the systems level of your proposed hierarchy. In simple terms,
humans have a built-in system (call it the “right or wrong for
me” system, conscience, observer, etc.) that can act on ones control
of perception behavior action system that no other living things
have. If true, I don’t need to quarrel with you or anyone as to how
that “conscience” system came into being…creation or
evolution…for all or any particular human
being.
KK: So, I am questioning your
fertile scientific mind and even your possible non-scientific conscience
to see if there is more to the nature of human beings that might help us
better understand how they develop their own unique, and difficult to
determine by another human, top level of behavioral perception.
And, I listed a number of people whom I respect who might have something
to speculate on concerning the possibility I have raised. I did not
include some people whom I would appreciate hearing from like Gary, Dick
or Richard (and, of course, Rick) who I know have an in-depth
understanding of PCT along with a lot of experience with the behavior of
themselves and others who seem very unusual, even
insane.

BP: Yes, that’s the approach I prefer, too. I don’t know if this system
is missing from other animals, but suspect that at least some other
species have it, too. Why is it important that we be the only ones?

BP: Since this thing I call awareness is apparently behind all
reorganization, and since I am totally ignorant of what awareness
actually is, I can’t be any more specific than you can. I’m not even sure
that system concepts are the highest level there can be. Since there must
be some highest level, however, we have to ask where the highest
reference signals come from, since by definition they don’t come from the
output function of a higher-level control system.

One way to get at this might be to look at the development of an
individual from childhood on. I assume that a newborn baby doesn’t have
any system concept level, and maybe not even a logic level or a sequence
level. Plooij seems to think they don’t. So potentially any of the levels
we now name might at one time have been the highest working level. Where
did the reference levels come from then?

One fairly obvious answer is “from memory.” I assume that the
first thing to develop at any new level of control is a perceptual input
function. That’s where we get something to control. Then for some reason
we decide “I’d like to have that experience again.” That picks
a remembered perception out to serve as a reference signal. Then we learn
to compare actual with remembered perception, and finally through trial
and error reorganizations we learn how to adjust existing reference
signals at lower levels so the result is to make the new perception
repeat the remembered state.

Does that leave out anything essential?

BP earlier: For example, we might ask, “Do you mean that America is
a nation that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of
Jesus Christ?”>

KK: That may work. But both parties must want to pursue this as a
goal. The difference seems to be that with an MOL type approach as
a facilitator, you are asking the religious person a question so they can
explore their own reference. That is not as likely to be as much a
disturbance as saying, “You must be stupid to say something like
that!”

Yes.

However, there are
numerous questions that could be asked. There are numerous ways the
question can be asked and accompanying body language. And, I think
you would agree that each person being questioned about the very same
expressed statement may well respond in very different ways to the exact
same MOL-type input. There is no one way so every interaction is
unique. It makes human life interesting and exciting. Oh, it
has to be better than being a
monkey.
BP earlier: for example,
“What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those
who follow other religions?”>

KK: My answer: Preach His Truth to them if they ask and if they reject it
and you, dust off your feet and move on without remorse. Autonomous
human beings as posited by PCT make actionable choices and if they are
wrong in some overreaching way, they will have no one else to blame for
any consequences they encounter. That includes me. That
seems just for everyone.

Eeek eeek. You’re right, I remember it well.

BP: You have to convinced them that it IS the truth, of course. Some
people will believe (accept as true without proof) anything you tell
them, but getting them to agree is essentially meaningless, since they
can just as easily be persuaded to believe the opposite. It’s the
skeptics, scientists, and bull-headed like me who are not ready to grasp
at the first straw that looks helpful. Good luck.

KK: Well, the Steelers are playing
and disturbing my line of thought, especially after losing to those
Broncos in the opening game. Ever heard of
them?

BP: That was no easy win. Rothlisberger is a very tough quarterback and
the team is just as good. I’m signing off now to watch the Broncos in
Atlanta. No idea if they will win, but it’s fun to identify with a team
and pretend you have something to do with the outcome.

Best,

Bill P.

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.17.1559 PDT)]

Well, actually, I don’t want to control other people’s behavior nor do I want to claim that managers can or should or that I can show them how. Instead, I want managers to realize that people are controlling their perceptions and that if you want to enlist their cooperation in making things happen in an organizational setting, you’d better (a) stop trying to control their behavior, (b) work with them to get them to adopt the outcomes you’re seeking as their own, (c) find out what’s getting in their way and otherwise disturbing their control over relevant workplace variables and help them with that, (d) make sure that they receive timely, accurate information about the current state of any results you want that they are charged with realizing, etc., etc., etc. I think an eminently practical application of PCT is a structured, organized way for managers to apply the insights from PCT to helping themselves and their employees improve their own performance. On the other hand, if there is no practical application of PCT in that arena, then I’ve certainly been wasting my time for several years now. Still sniffin’ and still huntin’…

Fred (An Old Dog) Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:36 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT Lament

[From Rick Marken (09.17.2012.2030 ADT)]

Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1043 PDT)–

…

FN: More to the point, perhaps, my time on this list has led me to conclude that its focal point is on honing and advancing the theory, not developing practical, proven applications (with MOL being an exception). That’s fine; I don’t feel compelled to change that. But, unless some proven, practical applications are developed and promulgated, the theory is liable to disappear with the theorists.

RM: I don’t want to interfere with Bill’s MOL session with Kenny but I did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear without proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so will everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think that PCT does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.

The other proven practical applications have to do with the main implication of PCT: societies work best when everyone in that society is able to control their own perceptions. Both you and Kenny imply that a practical application of PCT would be one that gets people to behave better – which, of course, means, getting people to behave the way you want them to behave. So Kenny wants (and believes he has used PCT) to get managers to behave better (that is, the way he wants them to). You imply that you want people to stop behaving as terrorists, thieves, or ranters on CSGNet.

All of this suggests that your (and Kenny’s) idea of a practical application of PCT is one that is aimed at controlling behavior – that, after all, is what you are doing when you try to get the manager, the terrorist, the thief or the ranter to behave as you want them to behave. That’s all fine and dandy but PCT shows that you are going to run into problems trying to control behavior if you try to do this arbitrarily; that is, without enlisting the cooperation of the controllee. That means that if, for example, the manager or the ranter doesn’t agree to behave in the way you want, you have to give up on trying to get that to happen; if you don’t give up then you are trying to control arbitrarily – without taking the wants of the controllee into account.

What I would suggest is that the main practical application of PCT is in pointing practical applications away from controlling other people’s behavior and pointing them towards ways to help people do their own controlling without interfering with each other. And the first step in doing that is to have the goal, not of having people behave in a better way (the goal of controlling behavior) but of having people be able to control what they want to control without interfering with each other (or with themselves – that’s what MOL is for). This application will not be easy but, then, neither is any sophisticated application of science to practice.

Of course, even if you have the goal of improving everyone’s ability to control you may end up seeing people controlling for things that you don’t care for. But if, in controlling these things, people do not interfere with others’ ability to control what they care about then you just have to lower the gain and not worry to much about it.

Anyway, I think this is a huge practical implication of PCT. The main impediment to people developing this practical application of PCT is an outmoded, behaviorist notion of what a “practical application” of a psychological theory is. The outmoded notion, again, is that a practical application will result in better behavior; the PCT notion is that a practical application will result in better control – not of other people but of the variables each individual wants to (and needs to) control.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1945 MDT)]

Rick Marken (09.17.2012.2030 ADT) --

RM: I don't want to interfere with Bill's MOL session with Kenny but I did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear without proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so will everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think that PCT does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.

All of this suggests that your (and Kenny's) idea of a practical application of PCT is one that is aimed at controlling behavior -- that, after all, is what you are doing when you try to get the manager, the terrorist, the thief or the ranter to behave as you want them to behave. That's all fine and dandy but PCT shows that you are going to run into problems trying to control behavior if you try to do this arbitrarily; that is, without enlisting the cooperation of the controllee.

BP: Nice post, Rick, very nice. Yes, the PCT-oriented objective is NOT the control of behavior, but the enabling of conflict-free control. Naturally, each of us wants some other people to behave differently, but if they don't do that upon request, the only practical solution is to work on the conflicts -- try to figure out how everyone can get as close as possible to satisfaction, even Mick Jagger. This doesn't mean allowing others to mistreat you, but does define what a solution to the problems would look like. It doesn't look like coming out on top in conflicts.

There's obviously a big educational project implied here along with a lot of persistent work to set up the mechanisms for resolving conflict in a way that is recognized as fair, practical, and effective. PCT doesn't have any Papa John Pizza solutions ready to take home and bake, but I think it shows us what to do and, eventually, how to do it. Can we all start out by agreeing that control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions? We may have to do it now and then, but such cases are defeats, not successes.

Best,

Bill P.

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi everybody,

It’s quite productive debate going on

KK:

My point was to suggest that one reason it is difficult for a human to change a reference at their systems level to resolve a conflict at their systems level is that under your HPCT theory there are no higher levels to go up to. So while MOL may work for resolving conflicts at lower levels, it can’t work at the systems level.

BP:

I agree. But remember that MOL involves awareness, and awareness (it seems to me) is of the same nature at any level. So there is an underlying organization, the one that I crudely describe as a “reorganizing system.” It may have something to do with what you would call a “spiritual” level, but since it can be in contact with any level of the hierarchy, it’s not really a part of the hierarchy. It’s the place we stand when looking at anything else in our minds.

BH :

I keep asking myself, where the hell “awareness” is comig from, if not from the (re)organization of control units in organism ? Where “uncontrolled” perceptions are “controlled” if not in comparator ? Maybe the organization of control units in PCT is not right or deficient and is giving some parts of wrong “picture”?

BP:

Since this thing I call awareness is apparently behind all reorganization, and since I am totally ignorant of what awareness actually is, I can’t be any more specific than you can. I’m not even sure that system concepts are the highest level there can be. Since there must be some highest level, however, we have to ask where the highest reference signals come from, since by definition they don’t come from the output function of a higher-level control system.
One way to get at this might be to look at the development of an individual from childhood on. I assume that a newborn baby doesn’t have any system concept level, and maybe not even a logic level or a sequence level. Plooij seems to think they don’t. So potentially any of the levels we now name might at one time have been the highest working level. Where did the reference levels come from then?

BH :

We started once a conversation about this topic, but you stopped it. I still don’t understand your “motives” to reject me as an equal interlocutor. It was no problem when you teached me PCT, but when we have to share our findings, it was out of the question. So I hope you’ll find the answer for yourself one day J. As I see it, you are “walking in circle”.

RM:

I don’t want to interfere with Bill’s MOL session with Kenny but I did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear without proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so will everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think that PCT does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.

BH :

I too didn’t want to interfere with all of your sessions, but I did want to say that you are on the right trail J
as far as I’m concerned.

As far is MOL concerned, if I understand right is just a psychotherapy. It’s one of the methods, which in the “ocean” of other psychoterapy methods (see Carey) seek it’s place “under the sun”.

I respect Tim Carey and the work he had done, but he said for himself :

TC : "There is clearly something very right happening in psychotherapy. Many people

engage the services of psychotherapists and experience benefi ts from the services they receive. Psychotherapy is certainly a useful activity for a great number of people. There are also many people, however, for whom psychotherapy is useless. In fact, for some people it is worst than useless. Some people actually experience more problems…".

To conclude Tim’s findings about psychoterapy :

TC : "There are, in fact, eight possible different scenarios. Same problem, same psychotherapy, same result; same problem, same psychotherapy, different results; same problem, different psychotherapy, same result; same problem, different psychotherapy, different results; different problems, same psychotherapy, same result; different problems, same psychotherapy, different results; different problems, different psychotherapy, same result; and different problems, different psychotherapy, different results. All of these occur. If this sounds confusing, then I have probably done a good job of describing the current state of psychotherapy.

When psychotherapy occurs, regardless of its type, some people get better, some

people stay the same, and some people get worse. A great deal of information suggeststhat most bona fi de programs of psychotherapy, when compared with each other, are about equally effective. In fact, the result of equal effectiveness amongst different psychotherapies has been called the “Dodo Bird effect” in reference to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland: “At last the Dodo said ‘Everybody has won and all must have prizes.’”

And so on…. You can see it for yourself, it’s in the first chapter of Tim’s book.

BH :

I find some investigations about psychoterapy methods in America (it was a very wide investigation and I think Tim is mentioning it) which showed that any psychoterapy on any theoretic groumd has aproximatly the same effect. About 50%, as also Tim Carey wrote.

If I understood right the findings, the success of psychotherapy depend about 5% on theory, 45% on unique relation between psychoterapist and client, and 50 % on social environment in which client live. So my conclusion was that the success of solving “psychological problem” is in interaction beetwen people and in it’s unique realtion, of course if there isn’t any organic damage in LCS.

So my interpretation was that it’ better to look for the person (psychoterapist) who suits the most to someone’s unique control characteristics, than to seek for a certain “theoretical background” of psychoterapy.

Optimal solution is probably in the hand of people and the kind of life they choose. If they “look for” a solution of human kind problems in individuals social netwoork, than people simply don’t go to psychoterapist, but they mostly have a “nice” time, drinking, singing, dancing, whatever… what seems to be found through history of human kind the best cure for their “psychological troubles” and the most people on the world do that. Te question is of course hoq succesfull they are in solving the “psychological pproblems”. Developed social life is in my interpretation probably the best “psychotherapy”.

Or as Tim Carey noticed : “As I said in the last chapter, people get themselves better. Getting better happens within individual heads”.

So I wouldn’t bet on MOL to be the “parade” horse of PCT as it seems much like “gambling”. Yo have always 50% chance.

There are many other fields where I see PCT much stronger. One of it is with no doubt PCT-school. But of course not Ed Fords. We noticed in one of our first conversations that is not PCT based school. It’s just ordinary classical method of scholling.

But there are also fields that are very promising. Of course these are all my interpretations of PCT possibilities, and they need not to be right.

ML :

It is not that big a mystery. Genes can specify things outside an organism, by specifying the behaviors that result in them. The selective advantage of the genes for those behaviors is that they result in a nest.

BP :

But if there’s anything we PCTers can be sure of, it’s that no result can be made to repeat unless something can sense the result and adjust its action to repeat the result despite disturbances and other changes in environmental characteristics, which are always present in the real world. In order for a gene to cause behaviors that result in building a nest (like the bower bird’s fancy love-nest), it would have to cause exactly the right variations in behavior that are needed to keep the same nest pattern occurring (not repeat the same behaviors). We know that genes can’t do that – they have no eyes, ears, noses, tactile organs, or other senses. The required variations must be an effect of the kind of organization that genes do generate: control systems with exteroceptive senses, comparators, and so on. There can be no direct connection between a gene and a controlled result of action.

BH :

Mostly I agree with you. It’s quite close to what I think could be the “influence” of genes in organism and evolution of LCS. A little difference come out in a little difference between your and mine interpretaiton of organization of control units.

From your point of view and your organization of control units in organism (PCT), genes have no effect on behavior although your diagram on p. 191 in B:CP (2005) shows that it might have some effect through the “reorganization”. I’m not sure. It’s only mine interpretation.

Anyway I think, that there can be other possible organizations of control units in organism which can show that genes could have some effect on actual behavior. Why would birds make nests not something else ? What was the reference “to guide” them through evolution, to “guide” their every behavior ? It’s the problem of interpretation J.

Best,

Boris

From:
Bill Powers

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:32 AM

Subject: Re: PCT Lament

KK: My point was to suggest that one reason it is difficult for a human to change a reference at their systems level to resolve a conflict at their systems level is that under your HPCT theory there are no higher levels to go up to.  So while MOL may work for resolving conflicts at lower levels, it can't work at the systems level.

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1645 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2012.09.016.15:15 EDT) –

BP: I agree. But remember that MOL involves awareness, and awareness (it seems to me) is of the same nature at any level. So there is an underlying organization, the one that I crudely describe as a “reorganizing system.” It may have something to do with what you would call a “spiritual” level, but since it can be in contact with any level of the hierarchy, it’s not really a part of the hierarchy. It’s the place we stand when looking at anything else in our minds.

KK
: As you know, I have posited that there are either higher levels or another human system that acts upon the systems level of your proposed hierarchy. In simple terms, humans have a built-in system (call it the “right or wrong for me” system, conscience, observer, etc.) that can act on ones control of perception behavior action system that no other living things have. If true, I don’t need to quarrel with you or anyone as to how that “conscience” system came into being…creation or evolution…for all or any particular human being.
KK: So, I am questioning your fertile scientific mind and even your possible non-scientific conscience to see if there is more to the nature of human beings that might help us better understand how they develop their own unique, and difficult to determine by another human, top level of behavioral perception. And, I listed a number of people whom I respect who might have something to speculate on concerning the possibility I have raised. I did not include some people whom I would appreciate hearing from like Gary, Dick or Richard (and, of course, Rick) who I know have an in-depth understanding of PCT along with a lot of experience with the behavior of themselves and others who seem very unusual, even insane.

BP: Yes, that’s the approach I prefer, too. I don’t know if this system is missing from other animals, but suspect that at least some other species have it, too. Why is it important that we be the only ones?

BP: Since this thing I call awareness is apparently behind all reorganization, and since I am totally ignorant of what awareness actually is, I can’t be any more specific than you can. I’m not even sure that system concepts are the highest level there can be. Since there must be some highest level, however, we have to ask where the highest reference signals come from, since by definition they don’t come from the output function of a higher-level control system.

One way to get at this might be to look at the development of an individual from childhood on. I assume that a newborn baby doesn’t have any system concept level, and maybe not even a logic level or a sequence level. Plooij seems to think they don’t. So potentially any of the levels we now name might at one time have been the highest working level. Where did the reference levels come from then?

One fairly obvious answer is “from memory.” I assume that the first thing to develop at any new level of control is a perceptual input function. That’s where we get something to control. Then for some reason we decide “I’d like to have that experience again.” That picks a remembered perception out to serve as a reference signal. Then we learn to compare actual with remembered perception, and finally through trial and error reorganizations we learn how to adjust existing reference signals at lower levels so the result is to make the new perception repeat the remembered state.

Does that leave out anything essential?

BP earlier: For example, we might ask, "Do you mean that America is a nation that believes in and is actually guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ?">

KK: That may work.  But both parties must want to pursue this as a goal.  The difference seems to be that with an MOL type approach as a facilitator, you are asking the religious person a question so they can explore their own reference.  That is not as likely to be as much a disturbance as saying, "You must be stupid to say something like that!"

Yes.

   However, there are numerous questions that could be asked.  There are numerous ways the question can be asked and accompanying body language.  And, I think you would agree that each person being questioned about the very same expressed statement may well respond in very different ways to the exact same MOL-type input.  There is no one way so every interaction is unique.  It makes human life interesting and exciting.  Oh, it has to be better than being a monkey.<img alt="[]" src="http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d2266c/01" width="19" height="19">
BP earlier: for example, "What attitude should a person guided by Christ take toward those who follow other religions?">

KK: My answer: Preach His Truth to them if they ask and if they reject it and you, dust off your feet and move on without remorse.  Autonomous human beings as posited by PCT make actionable choices and if they are wrong in some overreaching way, they will have no one else to blame for any consequences they encounter.   That includes me.  That seems just for everyone.

Eeek eeek. You’re right, I remember it well.

BP: You have to convinced them that it IS the truth, of course. Some people will believe (accept as true without proof) anything you tell them, but getting them to agree is essentially meaningless, since they can just as easily be persuaded to believe the opposite. It’s the skeptics, scientists, and bull-headed like me who are not ready to grasp at the first straw that looks helpful. Good luck.

KK: Well, the Steelers are playing and disturbing my line of thought, especially after losing to those Broncos in the opening game.  Ever heard of them?

BP: That was no easy win. Rothlisberger is a very tough quarterback and the team is just as good. I’m signing off now to watch the Broncos in Atlanta. No idea if they will win, but it’s fun to identify with a team and pretend you have something to do with the outcome.

Best,

Bill P.

···

----- Original Message -----

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.09.18.0840)]

Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1945 MDT)

BP: Can we all start out by agreeing that control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions? We may have to do it now and then, but such cases are defeats, not successes.

I would certainly agree that arbitrary control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions. I don’t like saying “control of behavior” is the problem because it leads to the idea that by just not wanting to control behavior you have “applied PCT”. There are, as you know, many people who come to PCT because they think (almost correctly, in my view) it suggests that control of behavior is impossible, wrong or ineffective. So they think that by just not wanting to control behavior they are well on the way to correctly applying PCT. The problem is that people often don’t understand that they are trying to control behavior when they are. They just try to frame this controlling as non-controlling because they really don’t want to control. This can be seen in Fred’s post where he says:

Well,
actually, I don’t want to control other people’s behavior nor do I want
to claim that managers can or should or that I can show them how. Instead, I want managers to realize that people are controlling their perceptions and that if you want to enlist their cooperation in making things happen in an organizational setting
Now Fred is a great guy with a good heart so I don’t mean to criticize him. I am just using Fred’s words to illustrate the fact that people who understand the theory of control really well (and Fred certainly qualifies on that dimension) sometimes don’t recognize the phenomenon that the theory describes – especially in their own controlling.

I submit that when one acts (by writing papers, giving seminars, etc) in order to get managers to realize that people are controlling their perceptions one is controlling (or attempting to control) the behavior of the managers. So Fred says he doesn’t want to control behavior and then goes on to say that he wants to control behavior.

That’s why I like to distinguish arbitrary control from just control of behavior. There is really nothing wrong with control of behavior – indeed, it is essential to a society that functions for the benefit of everyone – as long as all (or most) people involved agree to the terms of control. Problems (conflict) results mainly when the control is exerted arbitrarily – by one or several control systems acting to control other control systems without taking into account the needs and wants of those other control systems. That’s the kind of control of behavior that is arbitrary and that leads to problems.

We all want to control other people because we are all controllers and what other people do often does not match our references for what they should be doing. What PCT shows, I think, is that we have to exert this control non-arbitrarily when we are dealing with the observed behavior of other control systems.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[FredNickols]

[Fred Nickols (2012.09.18.0546 PDT)]

Hmm. Nice distinction, Rick. I think I’ll place the “arbitrary control of behavior” right up there with the “arbitrary exercise of authority.” I do indeed often want to see other people change their behavior. For example, when I was training classroom instructors in the Navy, I wanted them to become reasonably good classroom instructors, about which they knew very little when they came for training. When I was training programmed instruction writers, I also wanted them to become reasonably good developers of programmed instructional materials. I have seen people engage in futile, damaging, counter-productive and pointless behaviors in the workplace and I’ve wanted some of them to change their ways (i.e., their behavior). However, I did not want to try and exercise direct control over their behavior; instead, I wanted to work with them, to see if I could understand why they did what they did and if they might come to see that it might not be working as well as they would like. So, yes, I often would like to see other people change their behavior but I don’t want to control their behavior per se. I do not demand compliance or obedience or arrange a system of rewards and punishments to get what I want. (As a matter of fact, I don’t attach much credence to the typical reward-punishment schemes.) Suicide bombings, murders, rapes, robberies, wife-beatings, child-beatings, cooking the books and rigging elections are some of the things people do that I would like to see them stop doing. And, if I could control their behavior, I probably would, but I can’t and I don’t try. But I often do try to influence the thinking and behavior of other people. I think that’s part of being a human being and it is also part of my own efforts to control my perceptions of certain aspects of the world about me.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:42 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT Lament

[From Rick Marken (2012.09.18.0840)]

Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1945 MDT)

BP: Can we all start out by agreeing that control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions? We may have to do it now and then, but such cases are defeats, not successes.

I would certainly agree that arbitrary control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions. I don’t like saying “control of behavior” is the problem because it leads to the idea that by just not wanting to control behavior you have “applied PCT”. There are, as you know, many people who come to PCT because they think (almost correctly, in my view) it suggests that control of behavior is impossible, wrong or ineffective. So they think that by just not wanting to control behavior they are well on the way to correctly applying PCT. The problem is that people often don’t understand that they are trying to control behavior when they are. They just try to frame this controlling as non-controlling because they really don’t want to control. This can be seen in Fred’s post where he says:

Well, actually, I don’t want to control other people’s behavior nor do I want to claim that managers can or should or that I can show them how. Instead, I want managers to realize that people are controlling their perceptions and that if you want to enlist their cooperation in making things happen in an organizational setting

Now Fred is a great guy with a good heart so I don’t mean to criticize him. I am just using Fred’s words to illustrate the fact that people who understand the theory of control really well (and Fred certainly qualifies on that dimension) sometimes don’t recognize the phenomenon that the theory describes – especially in their own controlling.

I submit that when one acts (by writing papers, giving seminars, etc) in order to get managers to realize that people are controlling their perceptions one is controlling (or attempting to control) the behavior of the managers. So Fred says he doesn’t want to control behavior and then goes on to say that he wants to control behavior.

That’s why I like to distinguish arbitrary control from just control of behavior. There is really nothing wrong with control of behavior – indeed, it is essential to a society that functions for the benefit of everyone – as long as all (or most) people involved agree to the terms of control. Problems (conflict) results mainly when the control is exerted arbitrarily – by one or several control systems acting to control other control systems without taking into account the needs and wants of those other control systems. That’s the kind of control of behavior that is arbitrary and that leads to problems.

We all want to control other people because we are all controllers and what other people do often does not match our references for what they should be doing. What PCT shows, I think, is that we have to exert this control non-arbitrarily when we are dealing with the observed behavior of other control systems.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.18.0601 PDT)]

Eureka! Bill's post points directly to an entry point in the world of work:
Conflict Management. Conflict management is a long-standing area of
professional practice in the field of Organization Development (OD). But,
existing approaches are typically rooted in negotiation and the like,
between units and departments, only rarely between individuals and never, so
far as I know, within an individual. MOL, or something like it, should have
a great deal of appeal to those members of the OD community who still do
conflict management work. I guess I'll have to bone up on MOL. Darn! Just
when I thought I could concentrate on fiction and history.

Fred Nickols

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 7:07 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT Lament

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1945 MDT)]

Rick Marken (09.17.2012.2030 ADT) --
>RM: I don't want to interfere with Bill's MOL session with Kenny but I
>did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear without
>proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so will
>everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think that PCT
>does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.
>
> All of this suggests that your (and Kenny's) idea of a practical
> application of PCT is one that is aimed at controlling behavior --
> that, after all, is what you are doing when you try to get the
> manager, the terrorist, the thief or the ranter to behave as you want
> them to behave. That's all fine and dandy but PCT shows that you are
> going to run into problems trying to control behavior if you try to do
> this arbitrarily; that is, without enlisting the cooperation of the
> controllee.

BP: Nice post, Rick, very nice. Yes, the PCT-oriented objective is NOT the
control of behavior, but the enabling of conflict-free control. Naturally,

each

of us wants some other people to behave differently, but if they don't do
that upon request, the only practical solution is to work on the conflicts

-- try

to figure out how everyone can get as close as possible to satisfaction,

even

Mick Jagger. This doesn't mean allowing others to mistreat you, but does
define what a solution to the problems would look like. It doesn't look

like

coming out on top in conflicts.

There's obviously a big educational project implied here along with a lot

of

persistent work to set up the mechanisms for resolving conflict in a way

that

is recognized as fair, practical, and effective. PCT doesn't have any Papa

John

Pizza solutions ready to take home and bake, but I think it shows us what

to

do and, eventually, how to do it. Can we all start out by agreeing that

control

of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of solutions? We may

have

···

-----Original Message-----
to do it now and then, but such cases are defeats, not successes.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.18.0810 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2012.09.18.0546 PDT) –

Rick Marken (2012.09.18.0840)]

FN: Hmm. Nice distinction,
Rick. I think I’ll place the “arbitrary control of behavior” right
up there with the “arbitrary exercise of authority.” I do
indeed often want to see other people change their
behavior.

BP: I’m so glad we have reached this point. In B:CP I spent a lot of time
pointing out that control of other people’s behavior was very likely to
result in resistance and conflict, and so was counterproductive. Somehow
this got turned into the idea that control of other people’s behavior was
impossible. Perhaps it did sound that way, because I didn’t come
right out and say “arbitrary control of other people’s behavior
without causing resistance or conflict.” I guess I thought that was
self-evident, which is a mistake when writing to more than one
thoroughly-known person. Also, it has taken me a long time to understand
that even when you do tack qualifiers onto sentences, people often just
don’t read them or heed them, or maybe don’t even recognize what they
are.

I think we can now say what we mean: arbitrary control is called
arbitrary because it does not take into account the other person’s
structure of control systems. If it succeeds, it is very likely to cause
errors in the other person which that person will try to correct. That
will lead to conflict between you and the other person if you persist in
trying to control in the same way, or internal conflict in the other
person if that person tries to go along with your attempt to control.
Conflict between or within persons interferes with control and unless
quickly resolved, prevents control by one party or both of the variable
at the heart of the conflict.

So arbitrary control strongly implies subsequent conflict and is
counter-productive among equals.

“Among equals” is a qualifier to which you should pay
attention.

Since conflict is such a universal phenomenon, we need to take the
possibility of conflict into account any time we are involved in changing
anyone’s behavior including our own. “A foolish consistency”
(qG)* may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but true self-contradiction
is simply a logical and practical mistake: it is actually impossible to
want and not want the same thing at the same time. A peaceable change of
behavior requires first finding out what the other side wants at a higher
level, and arranging for such requirements to be satisfied in some other
way if affected by the change in behavior. This is why MOL includes
getting the client to look for those higher-level
considerations.

One thing still needs to be discussed: who or what directs the
reorganizing and its outcome. The difference between changing a behavior
and reorganizing behavior.

Best,

Bill P.

*qG: Which Google

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2012.09.18.1215 EDT)]

I am seeing convergence among the theories of Spinoza, Powers, and Jung.

For example, Spinoza's Ethics describes three levels of knowledge which align with my recent efforts to become more metacognitively aware: sensory perception (first kind), geometry and physics (second kind), and intuitive knowledge (third kind).

With respect to HPCT, for example, I converted the hierarchy into a triangle (achiral shape) in order to deepen my understanding of it (superimpose) in accordance with all the other theories and models that I had previously converted to this shape. In doing so, I realized the importance of the first level of HPCT (intensity), which Carl Jung also defined as a characteristic of people in whom intuition is dominant (the "intuitive types").

Lately I've become consumed with superimposing frameworks of expertise onto quadrants ("circling the square"), which Jung theorized as the process of individuation toward the archetype of wholeness (quaternity).

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET> 9/17/2012 10:07 PM >>>

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.17.1945 MDT)]

Rick Marken (09.17.2012.2030 ADT) --

RM: I don't want to interfere with Bill's MOL session with Kenny but
I did want to quickly address this idea that PCT will disappear
without proven, practical solutions. PCT will disappear, but then so
will everything else in a few billion years. But for now I think
that PCT does have proven, practical applications, MOL being just one.

All of this suggests that your (and Kenny's) idea of a practical
application of PCT is one that is aimed at controlling behavior --
that, after all, is what you are doing when you try to get the
manager, the terrorist, the thief or the ranter to behave as you
want them to behave. That's all fine and dandy but PCT shows that
you are going to run into problems trying to control behavior if
you try to do this arbitrarily; that is, without enlisting the
cooperation of the controllee.

BP: Nice post, Rick, very nice. Yes, the PCT-oriented objective is
NOT the control of behavior, but the enabling of conflict-free
control. Naturally, each of us wants some other people to behave
differently, but if they don't do that upon request, the only
practical solution is to work on the conflicts -- try to figure out
how everyone can get as close as possible to satisfaction, even Mick
Jagger. This doesn't mean allowing others to mistreat you, but does
define what a solution to the problems would look like. It doesn't
look like coming out on top in conflicts.

There's obviously a big educational project implied here along with a
lot of persistent work to set up the mechanisms for resolving
conflict in a way that is recognized as fair, practical, and
effective. PCT doesn't have any Papa John Pizza solutions ready to
take home and bake, but I think it shows us what to do and,
eventually, how to do it. Can we all start out by agreeing that
control of behavior is down near the last entries in a list of
solutions? We may have to do it now and then, but such cases are
defeats, not successes.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.18.1027 MDT)]

I keep asking myself, where the hell "awareness" is comig from, if not from the (re)organization of control units in organism ? Where "uncontrolled" perceptions are "controlled" if not in comparator ? Maybe the organization of control units in PCT is not right or deficient and is giving some parts of wrong "picture"?

I think it helps if you simply examine your own experiences involving awareness. Somehow you are observing what goes on in your mind, and you're observing from a particular viewpoint. You can even "step back" and see what that viewpoint is, though you will then find yourself using a different viewpoint.

That's a phenomenon, not a theory. I haven't yet met anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Awareness is something we can experience, and we don't need a theory to experience it. We don't have to explain it to experience it.

BP: One way to get at this might be to look at the development of an individual from childhood on. I assume that a newborn baby doesn't have any system concept level, and maybe not even a logic level or a sequence level. Plooij seems to think they don't. So potentially any of the levels we now name might at one time have been the highest working level. Where did the reference levels come from then?

BH :
We started once a conversation about this topic, but you stopped it. I still don't understand your "motives" to reject me as an equal interlocutor. It was no problem when you teached me PCT, but when we have to share our findings, it was out of the question. So I hope you'll find the answer for yourself one day J. As I see it, you are "walking in circle".

Well, that kind of comment is probably one reason that I hestitate to talk to you. I don't have any motives to reject you as an equal interlocutor, except perhaps those you give me yourself by going all paranoid on me and accusing me of persecuting you. When I don't know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don't say anything. When you tell me I'm walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don't expect me to ask you to do it even more.

Here's another example:

BH: As far is MOL concerned, if I understand right is just a psychotherapy. It's one of the methods, which in the "ocean" of other psychoterapy methods (see Carey) seek it's place "under the sun".

OK, that's your opinion, and if that's what you think you're disagreeing with Tim and me. But normally I would just let that statement stand by itself and not reply to it at all. You seem to have missed Tim Carey's point that MOL involves procedures that seem common to all those other different psychotherapies and that quite possibly explain why other therapies succeed or fail when they do. Yes, as Tim says "there is clearly something very right happening in psychotherapy." He and I agree that this "something" consists of doing the things that are part of MOL and not doing any of the other things which are irrelevant or which work against a good outcome. But if you've made up your mind about psychotherapy, why should I waste my time arguing with you? I can't change your opinion.

...

BH :

Mostly I agree with you. It's quite close to what I think could be the "influence" of genes in organism and evolution of LCS. A little difference come out in a little difference between your and mine interpretaiton of organization of control units.

From your point of view and your organization of control units in organism (PCT), genes have no effect on behavior although your diagram on p. 191 in B:CP (2005) shows that it might have some effect through the "reorganization". I'm not sure. It's only mine interpretation.

BP: I have never said that genes have no effect on behavior. What I have said is that genes operate not directly to produce behaviors, but by altering the systems that do produce behavior -- the control systems we speak of. Control systems control outcomes, however, not the behaviors that generate the outcomes, because those behaviors have to be free to change as the environment changes. There is no way to deduce what behavior a control system will generate unless you know what result (not what behavior) the system is designed to produce, and what variations in the environment are happening.

BH: Anyway I think, that there can be other possible organizations of control units in organism which can show that genes could have some effect on actual behavior. Why would birds make nests not something else ? What was the reference "to guide" them through evolution, to "guide" their every behavior? It's the problem of interpretation.

BP: Birds that make nests produce a particular kind of nest, but they don't do that by producing particular inherited behavioral movements. A bower bird, for example, has been described by an ethologist as decorating its nest with "any bright object" it finds, like pieces of a broken tail-light from a car. Nothing is said about whether it uses a left leg or a right leg or a wing or a beak in doing this, or where on the nest it places the bright object -- in other words, nothing is said about the actual behaviors with which the bird accomplishes the result of "decorating" its nest. That is probably because it is only the decorating that is repeated; the movements that accomplish this end and the items used for decoration are probably never the same twice, so they can't be inherited.

What the bower bird probably inherits might be reference images. It has to figure out for itself how to make perceptions match those images in the current environment. Genes can certainly affect behavior, but they can't specify any particular behavior to be inherited because any given result can be produced only by changing behavior as required in the current environment. A gene can't know what environment the next generation will encounter, so it can't know what behavior will be required to produce a given result.

I have said all this dozens of times.

Bill P.

···

At 10:27 AM 9/18/2012 +0200, Boris Hartman wrote:

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Bill,

I'll try to devide conversation into parts.

AWARNESS (CONSCIOUSNESS)

BP :
I think it helps if you simply examine your own experiences involving
awareness. Somehow you are observing what goes on in your mind, and
you're observing from a particular viewpoint.

HB :
So if I understand right awarness and "observing" are not PCT phenomenon ?
Everyone has to "examine his own exeprience" ? Could be that what are you
suggesting is a standard psychological method, called "introspection" ? Is
this what are you talking about, some kind of "abstract generalization" with
observing ? Is observing somehow connected with to a Can we osberve "un
judgementally" ?

Can we say that people with "behavioristic view" will probably "observe"
behavioristically ? PCTers could probably "observe" in controlling manner.

BP :
That's a phenomenon, not a theory. I haven't yet met anyone who doesn't
know what I'm talking about. Awareness is something we can experience, and
we don't need a theory to experience it. We don't have to explain it to
experience it.

HB :
So, if it's phenomenon (something what we don't know what it is),
that means that we don't need explanation ? But still you try to explain
to me what it is, and you even tried to definre it.
Are your definitions right (B:CP, 2005) :

BP : AWARENESS - a subjective phenomenon associated with reception of
perceptual signals by the reorganizing system.
CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION - the combination of awarness with one or more
perceptual signals.

HB : Do I undertsand right, that content of awarness (consciousness) are
just recepted, "uncontrolled" perceptual signals, or just signals that come
through sensors and are signalling here and there. And we don't know how
this signalling is organized in awarness ?

So can I conclude that awarness (consciousness) consist of unknown way of
gathering perceptual signals in our minds in phenomenon called "observing".
Perceptual signals , are somehow going beside the comparator and organize
some "phenomenon", which we don't have the slitest idea what it is. How can
one phenomenon which is by my oppinion the most important feature of LCS,
and which is making possible the experiencing of our living, somehow "avoid"
your general model of Living Control Systems ?

BP : You can even "step back" and see what that viewpoint is, though you
will then find yourself using a different viewpoint.

HB :
I've seen in different literature the appearance of term
"meta-cognition". You observe your own thinking or learning process. Is this
related to your "step back" ?

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND CONFLICT

BP :
When I don't know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you
as an equal, I usually don't say anything. When you tell me I'm walking in
circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another
argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right
ahead, but don't expect me to ask you to do it even more.

HB :
Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that
we did it many times with no desireble effect. But I'm asking myself how we
can't solve the "conflict" with so much knowledge about conflicts ?

I was wondering maybe we could aplly last PCT conversation about "conflict"
(Kent, Martin, Rick, Fred.) to our case and find a solution. Practical case
is usually the best way to understanding one matter. Or we could do in
private conversation ? But how can we trust each other ?

GENES AND INHERITANCE OF BEHAVIOR

BP :
Genes can certainly affect behavior, but they can't specify any particular
behavior to be inherited because any given result can be produced only
by changing behavior as required in the current environment.
A gene can't know what environment the next generation will encounter,
so it can't know what behavior will be required to produce a given result.

HB : Maybe I don't understand you right. Are you saying that there is no
inherited particular behavior ? There is no inborn behaviors ?

Best,

Boris

···

---- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Powers" <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: PCT Lament

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.18.1027 MDT)]

At 10:27 AM 9/18/2012 +0200, Boris Hartman wrote:

I keep asking myself, where the hell "awareness" is comig from, if not
from the (re)organization of control units in organism ? Where
"uncontrolled" perceptions are "controlled" if not in comparator ? Maybe
the organization of control units in PCT is not right or deficient and is
giving some parts of wrong "picture"?

I think it helps if you simply examine your own experiences involving
awareness. Somehow you are observing what goes on in your mind, and you're
observing from a particular viewpoint. You can even "step back" and see
what that viewpoint is, though you will then find yourself using a
different viewpoint.

That's a phenomenon, not a theory. I haven't yet met anyone who doesn't
know what I'm talking about. Awareness is something we can experience, and
we don't need a theory to experience it. We don't have to explain it to
experience it.

BP: One way to get at this might be to look at the development of an
individual from childhood on. I assume that a newborn baby doesn't have
any system concept level, and maybe not even a logic level or a sequence
level. Plooij seems to think they don't. So potentially any of the levels
we now name might at one time have been the highest working level. Where
did the reference levels come from then?

BH :
We started once a conversation about this topic, but you stopped it. I
still don't understand your "motives" to reject me as an equal
interlocutor. It was no problem when you teached me PCT, but when we have
to share our findings, it was out of the question. So I hope you'll find
the answer for yourself one day J. As I see it, you are "walking in
circle".

Well, that kind of comment is probably one reason that I hestitate to talk
to you. I don't have any motives to reject you as an equal interlocutor,
except perhaps those you give me yourself by going all paranoid on me and
accusing me of persecuting you. When I don't know how to reply to comments
like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don't say
anything. When you tell me I'm walking in circles, what should I do?
Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to
confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don't expect
me to ask you to do it even more.

Here's another example:

BH: As far is MOL concerned, if I understand right is just a
psychotherapy. It's one of the methods, which in the "ocean" of other
psychoterapy methods (see Carey) seek it's place "under the sun".

OK, that's your opinion, and if that's what you think you're disagreeing
with Tim and me. But normally I would just let that statement stand by
itself and not reply to it at all. You seem to have missed Tim Carey's
point that MOL involves procedures that seem common to all those other
different psychotherapies and that quite possibly explain why other
therapies succeed or fail when they do. Yes, as Tim says "there is clearly
something very right happening in psychotherapy." He and I agree that this
"something" consists of doing the things that are part of MOL and not
doing any of the other things which are irrelevant or which work against a
good outcome. But if you've made up your mind about psychotherapy, why
should I waste my time arguing with you? I can't change your opinion.

...

BH :

Mostly I agree with you. It's quite close to what I think could be the
"influence" of genes in organism and evolution of LCS. A little difference
come out in a little difference between your and mine interpretaiton of
organization of control units.

From your point of view and your organization of control units in
organism (PCT), genes have no effect on behavior although your diagram on
p. 191 in B:CP (2005) shows that it might have some effect through the
"reorganization". I'm not sure. It's only mine interpretation.

BP: I have never said that genes have no effect on behavior. What I have
said is that genes operate not directly to produce behaviors, but by
altering the systems that do produce behavior -- the control systems we
speak of. Control systems control outcomes, however, not the behaviors
that generate the outcomes, because those behaviors have to be free to
change as the environment changes. There is no way to deduce what behavior
a control system will generate unless you know what result (not what
behavior) the system is designed to produce, and what variations in the
environment are happening.

BH: Anyway I think, that there can be other possible organizations of
control units in organism which can show that genes could have some effect
on actual behavior. Why would birds make nests not something else ? What
was the reference "to guide" them through evolution, to "guide" their
every behavior? It's the problem of interpretation.

BP: Birds that make nests produce a particular kind of nest, but they
don't do that by producing particular inherited behavioral movements. A
bower bird, for example, has been described by an ethologist as decorating
its nest with "any bright object" it finds, like pieces of a broken
tail-light from a car. Nothing is said about whether it uses a left leg or
a right leg or a wing or a beak in doing this, or where on the nest it
places the bright object -- in other words, nothing is said about the
actual behaviors with which the bird accomplishes the result of
"decorating" its nest. That is probably because it is only the decorating
that is repeated; the movements that accomplish this end and the items
used for decoration are probably never the same twice, so they can't be
inherited.

What the bower bird probably inherits might be reference images. It has to
figure out for itself how to make perceptions match those images in the
current environment. Genes can certainly affect behavior, but they can't
specify any particular behavior to be inherited because any given result
can be produced only by changing behavior as required in the current
environment. A gene can't know what environment the next generation will
encounter, so it can't know what behavior will be required to produce a
given result.

I have said all this dozens of times.

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]

BH: So if I understand right
awarness and “observing” are not PCT phenomenon ?

BH: Let’s just say they are unexplained. For example, you are probably
sitting in front of a computer screen looking at this message. Behind the
screen is the wall of a room and probably other objects. Your hands may
be visible near the keyboard below the screen, and sometimes you can see
them moving. When I mention it, you may be aware of your breathing,
though attending to it tends to make it change.

I’m sure you could add to this list. The point here is that what you are
doing is called “observing.” It’s fairly easy to show that what
you are observing is not the reality itself, directly, but some sensory
representation of it. All you have to do is close your eyes, and all
those visual experiences are replaced by darkness or emptiness with some
suggestions of brighter places and perhaps some colors – a background of
stray visual signals near the lower threshold of detection. You can still
feel your hands but their visual representation is gone. Your breathing
continues, as does pressure from the seat you are in.

BH: Everyone has to
“examine his own experience” ? Could be that what are you

suggesting is a standard psychological method, called
“introspection” ?

BP: Yes and no, but “no” especially while your eyes are open.
Looking at your surroundings does not seem like “looking inside
yourself” or introspection, but it is. All our sciences tell us that
there is nothing you can experience from inside a brain that is not a
sensory signal or a signal derived from other sensory signals. So if
experiences happen inside brains, all experiences are really
introspection. However, that is not the standard idea of
introspection.
If you are following me, you can also observe what you are thinking about
this experience (for example, an image, feeling, or statement like
“Oh, but all those things are really there”). Those
neural signals are being manufactured inside your brain, or so our
theories of neurology and physiology tell us. You can imagine things that
your senses are not detecting, such as a small orange tiger sitting on
the desk beside the keyboard. That experience, too, is a set of neural
signals being generated by your brain.

Now the critical question: while you observe these things, where are YOU?
You can examine different kinds of experiences with your eyes open or
closed, and move your attention to bring each one to the center. But
those are the experiences. They appear, and then disappear again when you
focus on something else. The display you’re looking at changes, but you
are alway there looking at the displays, choosing different places to
focus. The experiences are the object of your attention, but who or what
is doing the attending? It’s always you at the center, but what or who is
that?

Whatever or whoever it is, it is not visible in the field of experience.
It is like looking at a video of the scene, a picture generated by some
camera, a picture in which many things are visible – but not the
camera.

BH; Is this what are you talking
about, some kind of “abstract generalization” with observing ?
Is observing somehow connected with to a Can we osberve
“un-judgementally” ?

BP: Something was left out of the last sentence just before
“Can.”

Yes, we can observe abstract generalizations. They can occur as printing
or vocalizing or simply a sense of relationships, sequences, categories,
logic, and so on. They are perceptual signals in various parts of the
hierarchy (and that, too, is a thought manufactured inside a
brain).

BH: Can we say that people with
“behavioristic view” will probably “observe”

behavioristically ? PCTers could probably “observe” in
controlling manner.

BP: I would say behaviorists experience trains of thought describing or
commenting on the sorts of things behaviorists imagine to exist, such as
stimuli, responses, priming, reinforcement, and so forth. PCTers observe
other kinds of thoughts generated from a different theory of behavior.
Either way these are perceptual signals in higher levels of the
hierarchy, according to the PCT way of thinking.

Whatever the thoughts, whatever the experiences may be, there can be no
doubt that they are being observed. There they are, and you know they are
there. There are also other thoughts about those experience: “I
believe that is true,” or “I don’t believe that is true,”
or “I believe that is false.” There is also no doubt about
whether those thoughts are occurring. And there can be no doubt that they
are being observed, because there they are, and here you are observing
them.

BP earlier :

That’s a phenomenon, not a theory. I haven’t yet met anyone who
doesn’t

know what I’m talking about. Awareness is something we can experience,
and

we don’t need a theory to experience it. We don’t have to explain it
to

experience it.

HB :

So, if it’s phenomenon (something what we don’t know what it is),

that means that we don’t need explanation ?

BP: Maybe we do need an explanation, but the fact is that we don’t have
one. I certainly don’t, and I’ve been looking for one for over 50 years.
Nobody else has suggested one that I can believe, either.

BH: But still you try to
explain to me what it is, and you even tried to definre it. Are your
definitions right (B:CP, 2005) :

BP : AWARENESS - a subjective phenomenon associated with reception
of

perceptual signals by the reorganizing system.

CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION - the combination of awarness with one or more

perceptual signals.

BP: Those are proposed descriptions, not explanations. I have no idea
what kind of material organization could generate such phenomena (such as
“subjective experience”). I have never heard anyone else who
has an idea, either.

HB : Do I undertsand right, that
content of awarness (consciousness) are

just recepted, “uncontrolled” perceptual signals, or just
signals that come

through sensors and are signalling here and there. And we don’t know
how

this signalling is organized in awarness?

BP: They may be controlled or uncontrolled. I have mentioned the theories
I use in explaining the signaling and the generation of the signals. In
the context of neurology and physiology I can imagine acceptable
organizations of matter that could probably work. What I can’t
explain is the fact that we can observe them.

BH: So can I conclude that
awarness (consciousness) consist of unknown way of

gathering perceptual signals in our minds in phenomenon called
“observing”.

Perceptual signals , are somehow going beside the comparator and
organize

some “phenomenon”, which we don’t have the slitest idea what it
is.

BP: That’s not the picture I propose. I can offer ideas about what
perceptual signals are (trains of neural impulses), and about how they
are gathered together and organized into new signals that are higher
levels of perception (perceptual input functions). That is all in PCT,
together with ideas about how circuits that do such things can be
organized to produce control behavior and various levels of perceptual
signals. What I can’t find a way to model is the entity that is aware of
the result: aware of the neural signals from which we obtain experiences.

Maybe there is no entity – maybe the signals and circuits just exist,
the way the signals and circuits exist inside a television set or a
radio, with no other entity that observes them. But then how do I know
about them? Well, as many have proposed, maybe that, too, is an illusion.
But if so, who or what is observing the illusion? If you can’t observe
it, how can you tell me there is an illusion? What are you talking about,
and who or what is talking? Whom is the illusion fooling?

BH: How can one phenomenon
which is by my oppinion the most important feature of LCS, and which is
making possible the experiencing of our living, somehow “avoid”
your general model of Living Control Systems ?

BP earlier : You can even “step back” and see what that
viewpoint is, though you will then find yourself using a different
viewpoint.

HB :

I’ve seen in different literature the appearance of term

“meta-cognition”. You observe your own thinking or learning
process. Is this

related to your “step back” ?

The levels of perception in the PCT model are, it is proposed, generated
by physical neural networks which transform one set of signals into
others in specific ways, so there are simultaneously (I have proposed) 11
levels of perceptual representations existing continuously, each related
to the exteral world in ways typical of one level. Some perceptual
signals are functions of other perceptual signals. That is like
metacognition, which would then consist of observing perceptual signals
at different levels in the hierarchy, theoretically.

And something ELSE observes them. I observe mine, you observe yours. It’s
the observer, not the signals, that are missing from the PCT
model.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND
CONFLICT

BP earlier :

When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting
you

as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking
in

circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start
another

argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go
right

ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.

HB :

Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as
that

we did it many times with no desireble effect.

BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then
understand that you approve of my going in circles?

BH: But I’m asking myself how we
can’t solve the “conflict” with so much knowledge about
conflicts ?

BP: What we have is a model that can explain how one control system can
come into conflict with other control systems. That model is still under
ongoing revision, as recently as yesterday.

BH: I was wondering maybe we
could aplly last PCT conversation about “conflict” (Kent,
Martin, Rick, Fred.) to our case and find a solution. Practical case is
usually the best way to understanding one matter. Or we could do in
private conversation ? But how can we trust each other
?

BP: I have been trying here to describe my views on consciousness,
awareness, and experience as a first step toward resolving any conflicts
that exist. This should make it easier to see if there are any actual
conflicts with other points of view, and if there are some, exactly what
they are about. There’s nothing I’m trying to conceal so there is no need
on my side for privacy.

Most objections to what I say turn out, fortunately, to be aimed at
misunderstandings of what I mean. When the misunderstandings are
corrected, the objections, too, seem to be withdrawn in most cases. I
blame the misunderstandings on my imperfect ability to explain clearly,
as much as on the recipient’s jumping to conclusions. That’s all right –
it’s the best we can do with language.

GENES AND INHERITANCE OF
BEHAVIOR

BP :

Genes can certainly affect behavior, but they can’t specify any
particular

behavior to be inherited because any given result can be produced
only

by changing behavior as required in the current environment.

A gene can’t know what environment the next generation will
encounter,

so it can’t know what behavior will be required to produce a given
result.

HB : Maybe I don’t understand you right. Are you saying that there is
no

inherited particular behavior ? There is no inborn behaviors
?

BP: Yes, that is what I’m saying. What we commonly speak of as a
behavior, however, is not a physical action by the brain on its
environment at all, but only a sensory consequence of a physical action.
Sensory consequences can be inherited if we inherit perceptual input
functions and reference signals in inherited control systems.

When I say that the driver of a car turns left, I do not mean that
somehow the phenomenon of turning left comes out of the driver and
appears in the environment. I am saying that the driver operates the
steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes so that the result is an
experience of turning left. Those operations are the immediate effects of
the actual behavior, the outputs of the brain.

Since the direction of movement of the car is affected by many different
variables beside the angle of the steering wheel (a tilt of the road, a
pothole or a bump in the surface of the road, a crosswind of some
variable velocity coming from some variable direction), there is no way
to create the same result of turning left just by repeating the timing,
direction, and amount of the positions of the steering wheel that
produced a left turn the last time it happened. Only the way the hands
and arms are placed and move count as directly related to actions caused
by the nervous system – that is, by behavior. The particular patterns of
muscle tension that result in turning left can’t be inherited because the
patterns required to achieve the result of turning left (while
remaining in the proper lane and on the road) are different every time we
turn a car left. So it is not possible to inherit the behavior of
turning left – there is no one pattern of outputs from the brain that
will cause a particular left turn to repeat.

I know I’m repeating the same idea over and over, but that is in the
hope, however vain, that the reader will remember that repeating the same
consequence of behavior requires, in most cases, a different behavior
each time. That is why inheriting any particular behavior cannot be
counted on to repeat any given consequence of that behavior (one last
repetition).

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 08:22 AM 9/24/2012 +0200, boris_upc wrote:

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.24.0936 PDT)]

I absolutely love Bill’s comment about the camera missing from the picture - but, are we the camera or are we the photographer?

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:27 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT Lament

[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]

Whatever or whoever it is, it is not visible in the field of experience. It is like looking at a video of the scene, a picture generated by some camera, a picture in which many things are visible – but not the camera.