PCT research

[HRLOT1_THURMAN]

[From Richard Thurman (930318.1630)]

Rick Marken (930317.1400)

And I think the training emphasis would be great. The idea
would be to show that training is largely a matter of learning
which perceptions to control, not which "outputs" to generate.

Keep in touch on this. If we do it over CSG-L (instead of
in private) maybe we can benefit from the advice of others.

I just got off the phone with Dr. Hancock (Grand Canyon Univ) and
told him about the idea. He is amenable to it and may have grad
students who may also wish to participate. In addition he said
that if you want to start running subjects he has some available
for the next few weeks (from some of his classes). He's got two
Mac labs where he can run subjects.

So far we have been able to run a number of studies dealing with
training and education. For example we set up a HyperCard based
drill and practice program for teaching "radar signature recognition."
(I had to make it look like a task that would have an Air Force
application but the bottom line is that the program can be set up
to drill just about anything.) Some of the interesting preliminary
findings are that we could fairly easily separate out three distinct
groups of subjects. Some students were controlling for understanding
the information. Some students were controlling for getting a correct
answer (that is they didn't care much about why they were correct,
they simply wanted to see the word correct on the screen). And
some students were controlling for getting out of the experiment.
Its interesting data (in a group-means statistics sort of way).

We will be presenting our findings at AERA (American Educational
Research Association) in April ("Instructional Feedback in a Servo-
control Theory Framework") and at APA in August ("Student Modeling
and Perceptual Control for Intelligent Tutoring Systems"). If any
body is interested I will send out drafts of the papers.

Gary Cziko 930318.1648

I've been thinking about the proposed control of sequence experiment. But
instead of flashing letters on a computer screen, I think it might be a
better test to use a sequence of tones like "do-re-mi-fa-sol-fa-me-re-do."

Rick can probably set up the HyperCard stack so that it will be a simple
adjustment to go from visual to auditory presentation. (I'm assuming
he is going to use HyperCard.) It would be interesting to see if different
patterns emerge with different perceptual modalities.

I think this would be a better test for none other than the intuitive
feeling that it would be easier to perceive disturbances to this auditory
sequence tan to the visual one using letters.

I'm not sure about that. Some of us (I guess meaning me) are not very
good at listening to music. I'm not sure that an auditory modality is
easier to perceive sequence or not.

Now that I've started to think about this, I can see music perception as a
way of getting to quite high levels of perception--Key modulations as
transitions, perhaps musical phrases as events, musical style (e.g.,
baroque, classical, romantic, modern) as category, etc.

But I nonetheless have the intuition that once the melody (sequence) is
well known), a person could react to a wrong note as quickly as he or she
could to a wrong loudness or wrong timbre. But I hope I'm wrong.

Doesn't PCT explain that intuition. Once a melody (or at least a certain
phrase) is known it hovers around the Event level of perception. If a
wrong note is sounded then its perceived "not the event." So it should
be reacted to faster than a sequence. Is that right?

Rich

···

--------------------------------------------------
Richard Thurman
Air Force Armstrong Lab
Aircrew Training Research Division
BLDG. 558
Williams AFB AZ. 85240-6457

(602) 988-6561
Internet: Thurman%HRLOT1.Decnet@EIS.Brooks.AF.Mil
or
Thurman@192.207.189.65
---------------------------------------------------

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (970421.0711 MST)

Bruce Abbott was teasing Rick about the lack of PCT research, today. How
come, after all these years, we have so little to show? I've been turning
that question over, because I wonder, too.

I have always hoped that if only a few behavioral scientists were to learn
about PCT, or feedback theory, or whatever I was calling it at any time
during the last 44 years, they would start to contribute to research using
the concept of organisms as control systems. First a few would become
interested, and then as they started getting results more would join in,
until eventually, in a few decades, control theory and the methods that go
with it would simply become a natural part of the life sciences. I thought
there might be graduate students building up the data base and the lore, and
becoming the next generation of researchers in this field. But I got surprised.

The surprise was finding that life scientists would come into PCT looking on
it as simply another tool they could use in the research they were already
doing, to support the careers they had already started or had been pursuing
for decades. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, in principle; nobody
can be a specialist in everything. But in practice it has not worked out
well for PCT. The people who should have been doing the research in PCT have
spent most of their time trying to do other people's research for them.

The effect of this has been that the PCT researchers have continually been
called upon to offer explanations of phenomena that are defined in terms of
other theories, to develop cookbook methods for handling non-PCT problems,
and in general to lend a hand in making sure that researchers in other
fields could continue their work without being distracted by having to do
any basic research in PCT themselves.

The result is that PCTers are repeatedly asked questions like "What does PCT
have to say about [fill in blank]," or "How does PCT explain [a problem that
is mainly a problem under a different theory]." These are seductive
questions, because who doesn't like being consulted as an expert? But in
order to answer such questions, the PCTer has to find out what they mean,
which entails learning the assumptions and theories under which the
questions make sense, which in turn usually means accepting, for the sake of
the argument, premises irrelevant to or contrary to PCT. The result is, in
effect, signing on to someone else's research project instead of doing PCT
research -- and often, doing it in the very terms we had hoped would be
replaced by the PCT approach.

The worst consequence of this is that we have few answers of our own -- all
we can do is keep recycling the results of the few PCT research projects
that have actually been done over the years. Why have we got ourselves into
this situation? Because we have hoped that once a researcher in another
field sees how PCT works in one application, that researcher will want to
learn how to do those things himself or herself.

But that is not how it works out in most cases. Instead, the researcher
wants more answers from the PCTer. What is wanted is not a whole new
approach that raises new questions and demands new answers, but only new
answers to old problems. And PCT becomes a kludge, a wrench being used to
hammer nails, a book being used to prop a door open.

I can think of only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to get back to
PCT research, instead of doing PCT-and-sociology, or
PCT-and-operant-conditioning, or PCT-and-linguistics, or
PCT-and-personality-research, or PCT-and-counselling, or
PCT-and-biochemistry, or PCT-and-neurology, or PCT-and-anything-else. It
makes no sense to try to meld PCT into other approaches toward living
systems that don't even agree with each other! Instead of PCT serving to
bring all these disparate and often rival fields together, the demands from
each of these fields pull PCT apart. Instead of PCT giving a common
direction to work in these fields, PCT itself loses its direction by being
pulled toward all points of the compass.

So that's where I ended up in trying to answer Bruce's question. I ended up
thinking that I don't want to work on other people's projects any more,
answering the questions that they have defined, trying to solve problems
that their approaches have got them into. I want to work on PCT.

This is a little scarey. What will happen? Will we end up where we were 25
years ago, with a little handful of people committed to the PCT approach to
living systems, and everyone else going on to other things now that we
aren't going to do their work for them any more? Or, in the best of all
possible worlds, will this shift finally show others what we're trying to
do, giving them the needed reasons to shift their loyalties away from what
they've been doing to something that might work better?

The only way to find out is to try it.

Best,

Bill P.

[David]

I need some clarification Bill.

I am interested in the Method of Levels. Because of my interest in
Neurotherapy and Open Focus, I am thinking that during the Method Of
Levels, a person's brain is "in phase" alpha synchrony when a person "
goes up a level. " If true, a person who is trained in alpha phase
synchrony should be much better at " going up a level " and not get
stuck the way people sometimes do.

Because of my interest in EMDR, I am thinking that asking a person to
simultaneously keep in mind different parts of the hierarchy at the same
time fosters the "going up a level" in the Method of Levels. EMDR is
used to help people process traumatic experiences. A person keeps in
mind: the visual image of the worst part of the traumatic experience,
the negative thought a person has about him/her-self now based on the
incident, the feelings/emotions related to the incident plus the body
location. This seems to help the traumatic information become "
unstuck " when a person also keeps awareness in the present situation.
In other words, the dual awareness of the past and present situation
seems to help the traumatic information to become unisolated. The video
tapes of people going through this experience are incredible, good
examples of people " going up a level. "

My thought is that people who know nothing about PCT are doing very
interesting stuff which supports, and dovetails with PCT.

Why should a PCT person not take what is of interest from this other
stuff and use it in PCT research?

Warmest regards,
David

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: [From Bill Powers (970421.0711 MST)
Date: 04/21/97

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (970421.1335 MST)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: [From Bill Powers (970421.0711 MST)
Date: 04/21/97

I need some clarification Bill.

I am interested in the Method of Levels. Because of my interest in
Neurotherapy and Open Focus, I am thinking that during the Method Of
Levels, a person's brain is "in phase" alpha synchrony when a person "
goes up a level. " If true, a person who is trained in alpha phase
synchrony should be much better at " going up a level " and not get
stuck the way people sometimes do.

I suppose you're wondering whether I will stick with my decision.

If you can show me any theoretical or practical reason to believe that alpha
waves have something to do with control systems in the brain, I will be
interested. Otherwise not.

Your interest in Neurotherapy is not an interest in PCT.

Your interest in Open Focus is not an interest in PCT.

Therefore, neither of these subjects can further PCT research, and I have
nothing to say about them.

My thought is that people who know nothing about PCT are doing very
interesting stuff which supports, and dovetails with PCT.

Discovery of unconnected and unexplained phenomena will not further PCT
research.

Why should a PCT person not take what is of interest from this other
stuff and use it in PCT research?

But what does it tell us about PCT? If it tells us something specific about
what people control and how they control it, fine. I'm interested. But if
it's just another random empirical set of observations, with no rationale
that connects with PCT, it will not further research into PCT.

I am taking a completely selfish point of view here. If it doesn't help us
do PCT research, I'm not interested in it. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? But
it's no different from another person saying, "If it furthers our
understanding of Neurotherapy or Open Focus, I'll use PCT; if not, I won't."

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bill Powers (970421.0711 MST)
So that's where I ended up in trying to answer Bruce's question. I ended up
thinking that I don't want to work on other people's projects any more,
answering the questions that they have defined, trying to solve problems
that their approaches have got them into. I want to work on PCT.

This is a little scarey. What will happen? Will we end up where we were 25
years ago, with a little handful of people committed to the PCT approach to
living systems, and everyone else going on to other things now that we
aren't going to do their work for them any more? Or, in the best of all
possible worlds, will this shift finally show others what we're trying to
do, giving them the needed reasons to shift their loyalties away from what
they've been doing to something that might work better?

The only way to find out is to try it.

Hosanna! Hear! Hear! Praise the Lord!

Bruce

[HRLOT1_THURMAN]

[From Richard Thurman (930407.1220)]

I would like to jump out of my lurker status for a minute and say how
much I have appreciated the "information in perception" discussion.

From recent posts it seems some are growing tired of the discussion.

It also seems obvious that the principal participants in the
discussion are now so polarized that no amount of discourse nor any
amount of data will budge them from the perceptions they choose to
keep.

I for one have found these discussions very informative and hope that
such discussions continue. Many of the novice PCTers (such as myself)
need to see the kind of rhetoric ploys that will be put in our path as
we try to expand the concept into our own particular subject areas. We
also need to be keenly aware of, and learn to recognize, when our own
thinking is being muddied by old (but often very comfortable) paradigms.
Sooo.... as this particular discussion winds down (or is everyone simply
catching their breath in preparation for round two ?) let me just say
thanks to all the principal participants for being so bold in stating
their positions, for attempting to be clear and concise, and for being
willing to suffer to potential of seeing their favorite view of the
world fall to pieces.

Rick Marken (930407.0900)

I think what is needed now is a nice, concrete discussion of how to
DO PCT research -- both in the field and in the lab. A good field
research example of "The Test" was given by Bill Powers in his analysis
of Greg William's net behavior. I admit that I have spent a lot more
time kvetching about the uselessness of IV-DV research than describing
ways to go about doing PCT research.

.
.
.

what I think we (PCTers) should
be doing now is explaining how to DO PCT.

This is a great idea! I for one would really like to see how PCT can
be used in research. Many times I will catch myself thinking of a PCT
explanation for some observations found in a journal article. However,
it seems to be hard to conceptualize just what kinds of studies need
to be devised in order to show that a PCT explanation will provide a
more concrete explanation of what is happening. If I had just a few
examples of an approach for doing this it would be very helpful.

An aside--
Rick..... I was curious about the 'control of sequence' study you
outlined last month (Marken 930316.20000) so I put together a Hyper-
Card stack that would do roughly the same thing that your QuickBasic
program was doing. Basically the stack shows letters showing up
in a sequence. Then at random intervals a new sequence is started.
The subject is to keep the original sequence going by 'clicking on'
the mouse. The letters used in the sequences are either from the same
set or (ABCD) vs (BCAD) or from a different set (ABCD) vs (STUV).

I ran several subjects and found that in every instance the subjects
were faster at restoring the original sequence when the letters were
from the 'different' set (STUV). Presumably this is because subjects
are now controlling a perception at the configuration level rather than
at the sequence level.

For example, my own data show that I cannot click the mouse faster than
500 milliseconds after onset of the new sequence when controlling at the
sequence level. (And believe me I tried!) However, when controlling
a configuration, I had no problem clicking the mouse 333 milliseconds
after onset of a different sequence of letters. (Resolution of the
computer was +or- 16.66 milliseconds.)

I was also curious about Gary's questions concerning doing the same
study in an auditory modality. So I programmed the stack to play
sequences of sounds instead of showing letters. In this case I could
control sequences no faster than 300 milliseconds but could control
configurations as fast as 250 milliseconds.

Rick do these reaction times jive with what you found? I'm curious to
know if I programmed things correctly and that I'm studying the same
phenomenon that you are trying to study. I guess similar reaction time
data would show that to some extent.

IUm also curious to find why perceptual modality may have to do with this.
If 'a sequence is a sequence' then why do different (auditory vs visual)
modalities seem to play a part?

Rich

···

--------------------------------------------------
Richard Thurman
Air Force Armstrong Lab
BLDG. 558
Williams AFB AZ. 85240-6457

(602) 988-6561
Internet: Thurman%HRLOT1.Decnet@EIS.Brooks.AF.Mil
or
Thurman@192.207.189.65
---------------------------------------------------

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.05.31.1240)]

Here’s an article that might be of interest to PCTers:

http://nyti.ms/1eE9Za2

It’s about research aimed at determining the variables burglars control for. It reminds me of some PCT based research on bank robbery done by a human factors engineer named Jim Wise. This was back in the early 1980s. I’ll try to track him down on the net. I don’t think he is still interested in PCT particularly but I would like to get a hold of his book on the variables robbers control for when robbing a bank. I know he used the results of this research to help architects design banks that were more difficult to rob.

Anyway, I think it is interesting to find research that is specifically aimed at determining the variables people control, even is the researchers don’t say that’s what they are doing.

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[William_T_Powers4]

[From Bill Powers (950602.0600 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (950601.1635 EST)--

     here's a bit of PCT research from the 1970s: you know, the kind
     that focused on identifying the controlled perceptual variable.
....
     The experiment showed that the rat would defend against this
     disturbance by pressing the lever to cancel it. Variables
     (dependability of stimuli as predictors of shock and safety) were
     manipulated across blocks of sessions in an effort to identify
     which specific variables distinguishing the signaled and unsignaled
     schedules were being controlled.

How did this experiment determine that the rat didn't just prefer the
house light to be on? In order to show that the rat preferred the
signalled condition, you would have to do the same test with "house
light off" indicating the signaled shock condition, and preferably
repeat the experiment with other kinds of indicators, too. If the rat
always turned on the signalled condition regardless of the kind of
behavior required to do that, we might suspect that the rat was
perceiving and controlling something related to the signaled condition
that was different in the unsignaled condition.

Even after proving that the manipulandum was not itself the primary
controlled variable, you would still have a job ahead in proving that
the controlled variable was "signaled condition present." That is the
human way of perceiving the situation, but my prejudice is that it is a
rather abstract perception for a rat to have. I would ask myself, "From
the rat's point of view, what is different between what I see as the
signaled and the unsignaled conditions, in terms of the experiences the
rat is having?" One difference, I would guess, is that in the signaled
condition the rat might be able to reduce the experience of shock, or
prepare itself in some way to receive the shock, whereas in the
unsignaled condition the shock might arrive at any instant and catch the
rat unprepared. Whatever it is that the rat is controlling, it has to be
something that a rat can perceive. What the human observer can see about
the situation is irrelevant.

Probably the best way to gain insight into the rat's experience is to
undergo the experiment yourself. While you would be able to characterize
the situation as "signaled" and "unsignaled", you could also look for
lower-level perceptions that are different even without this
characterization. You could ask, "What is better about having a signal
indicating that a shock is about to occur?" You might, for example, find
that at least some of the time you would be less surprised by the shock
if a signal immediately preceded it, so preferring not to be surprised,
you would try to find ways to make that signal appear. The ultimate
controlled variable would be to keep the experience of the shock as
untraumatic as possible, and to do this, the immediate variable that
needs to be controlled is the presence or absence of the signal. That is
less abstract than a perception of "signaled condition," and I would
consider it a more likely prospect for a perceptual variable that the
rat could control.

     I maintain that this experiment performed the Test for the
     controlled variable.

I agree that it did, but it didn't carry it very far. I believe the
experimenters could have got a lot closer to what the rat was actually
controlling.

     The controlled perception was the schedule in effect (as indicated
     by the state of the houselight), the reference was "signaled
     schedule in effect," and being automatically switched from the
     signaled to the unsignaled schedule constituted the disturbance.

I doubt that what the rat perceived was "the schedule in effect." That
is what the _experimenters_ perceived. The experimenters stopped the
test when they found a variable that _they_ could perceive as being
under control, but that apparent control might merely have been a side-
effect of the rat's controlling another, and much simpler, variable. I
think that experimenters doing the test should try to distinguish
between their own perceptions and those of the test subject, and realize
that there can be a considerable difference. Whenever possible they
should test perceptual variables of the lowest level they can, to
minimize overinterpretation.

For example, in varying "dependability" of a signal, could this not also
be interpreted simply as varying the number of times the signal occurred
during a session? If the rats controlled for perceiving the signal,
would this not make it appear that they are controlling for an abstract
condition called "dependability" or "probability?"

···

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Leach (950601.14:34 U.S. Eastern Time Zone)--

Great! Thanks for the many horrible examples of defining control and the
few good ones. I'd particularly like to see what engineers are being
taught, and have been taught in the last 20 years or so. All you have to
do is look at the first few pages of textbooks. In my experience, after
an extremely brief introduction textbooks plunge right into transform
methods or other mathematical treatments that give essentially no feel
for how control systems actually work.

The McGraw-Hill "Electronic Engineer's Handbook" entries were great.

     [The next one however is in serious error unless the author meant
     "results" when he said "output"] This is negative feedback: The
     control action is a function of the difference between the desired
     output and the actual output.

In engineering parlance, the "output" is the controlled variable. The
link between the physical effector and the measure of the output is
often lumped into the effector unless there is something, like a long
shaft subject to torsion, between the effector and the "output" that is
desired to be controlled. Engineers, for obvious reasons, like to keep
the link between the primary effector and the controlled variable as
short and simple as possible, which may be why some of them have trouble
understanding the idea of control of _input_. For them, the controlled
variable is most closely associated with the effector output, and the
sensors are just the means of getting a feedback signal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Abbott (950601.1805 EST) --

More good (horrible) stuff from the literature!

   "To control" is defined as "to manipulate an object (motor) so as to
   serve a certain purpose" (so as to make it work as required).

This is a very popular one: Francisco Varela uses it. It fails to
mention WHOSE purpose is involved, and how using something for a purpose
works. Basically, it's the output blunder: confusing the means of
control with control itself.

Neat idea for a bump-suppressor. The lead of the sensor would indeed
make the control problem simpler -- but you'd have to be able to move
the bump sensor ahead and back as a function of speed. Also, you'd have
to limit the frequency response, to avoid hitting the stops when going
over a long bump or dip. If you could design the system to use minimum
energy (storing most of the energy in springs), this might be very
feasible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Leach (subsequenct posts)--
BILL! GO TO BED!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,

Bill P.

[Bill_Leach1]

<[Bill Leach 950602.22:41 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[From Bill Powers (950602.0600 MDT)]

In engineering parlance, the "output" is the controlled variable. ...

Yes, I know but for whatever reasons, I have personally always tried to
distinguished between the two.

To me when thinking of a power supply with voltage regulator in terms of
control theory calling the actual supply voltage the "output" is "OK".
That is, doing so doesn't generally get you into any trouble.

The same attitude exists for the "output" of a communications radio
transmitter.

When the output causes an action in the environment that involves what to
my mind is a significant transform then I view the output as a really
seperate and distinct "thing" from what is being controlled. I suppose
that my choice of distinctions is probably based upon personal experience
with the various control systems that I have worked with and the fact
that most of the time there were no "experts" available to call upon.

As an example, when I was called upon to assist with a rudder control
problem on a submarine that I served aboard (while at sea), the idea that
what is controlled is supposed to be actual physical position of the
rudder is absolutely essential to any troubleshooting effort. If one
fails to appreciate that the control system will be trying only to
control ITS' OWN perception of the controlled variable then one will
immediately be in trouble and success in "fixing" the problem will be
mostly a matter of luck (or using a term you may also be familiar with -
easter-egging).

I would guess that in all the control system troubleshooting work that I
have done that the actual problems were almost even split between
"effector" problems and "perception not tracking CEV". Of course I would
not have worded it at all that way in the past though I did often use
something like "Your controller 'thought' everything was fine; input was
messed up."

I'm disappointed -- sniff

You did not comment upon my "Bill will like this one" remark.

I did go to bed... finally and will try again tonight

-bill

[Bruce_Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (950730.2115 EST)]

Rick Marken (950730.1715) --

I'm not interested in the "variables at work" in control tasks;

I haven't felt the slightest inclination to think about "allocation of
behavior". I'm not sure I even know what it is.

Rick, _I'm_ interested in these things, and I don't see them as a waste of
time. Until I find the time to get the lab set up again and running, it
sure beats sitting on my hands.

the more time we waste
trying to make sense of extant data the less time we spend doing studies
of control.

I don't see that my pursuing these interests is stopping anyone else from
getting a PCT research project started. Go ahead, name one person I'm
keeping from dong PCT research. Meanwhile, if you're not interested, fine,
do something else. To my knowledge, no one is forcing you to participate in
this project. You're welcome to join in, but if you really don't want to,
the least you can do is get out of the way.

Regards,

Bruce