[From Fred Nickols (2010.09.21.1005 EDT)]
Please note I changed the subject line so as to not divert the revolutionary
discussion.
My focus has always been on applying PCT to workplace performance. With
that in mind, here are a few of my PCT-based axioms or statements regarding
performance.
The performer must:
- target the right variable
- be committed to achieving the specified value (goal state) for that
variable
- possess current, accurate information about the actual state of the
targeted variable
- be able to evaluate his/her own performance (actions and their effects);
that is, compare actual with intended and detect/identify any discrepancies
- possess any behavioral capabilities/competencies required to bring the
targeted variable to its goal state and keep it there
Fred Nickols
fred@nickols.us
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of John Kirkland
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:37 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Revolutionary PCT
Let's see Fred,
Since others can do this so much better than I can, I've cribbed the
following as adaptations from parsing a few of BP's remarks of chapter
I, LCS3 :
- control is the act of bringing something to a specified condition
- control systems continuously adjust actions on the basis of ongoing
consequences
- negative feedback simultaneously incorporates current perceptions,
ongoing comparisons and continuous actions
- A PCT controller senses and acts on the consequences of
disturbances, not causes
- simulations imitate all behavioral variables concurrently
And, please, I will certainly stand to be corrected by those who have
a more extensive knowledge base. But that's not the primary point.
Instead, it is to try and get a few dozen landscape markers where
distances between these is irrelevant, so long as they are PCT related
(and thus occupy a common territory).
No doubt some of the resident experts could rattle off an extended
list in a few minutes.
I hope these examples indicate what I'm getting at as I'm a tyro here.
If this idea does generate some interest then perhaps somebody who's
more acquainted with web-space could initiate a 'list' facility for
people to visit and add/edit items (but not drop/delete as we don't
want to have it erased), much like a PCTpedia.
Over to the team...
JohnK
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us> wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2010.09.21.0730 EDT)]
John:
Could you provide an example? �Thanks.
Fred Nickols
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of John Kirkland
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:07 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Revolutionary PCTHi Rick
In reply to your query, I'm a seasoned teacher who's trying to gain an
understanding of the PCT landscape and it's dimensions.
Putting some of my experience of instructional design techniques into
practice I've thought about assembling a list of what could be called
'essential PCT item statements', as gleaned from the literature. From
my perspective an item-statement is a relatively short single notion
in English language textual format.
An initial task is to assemble about 50 - 70 of these basic jig-saw
like units without regard to their possible inter-relationships. By
way of analogy, these statements would be akin to having available a
lexicon of phrases. Any 'grammar' which glues these phrases together
into a meaningful frame will come subsequently. �Trust me, I've done
this before.
There's gotta be a lot of expertise out there in the CSNet commnity
that can chip in with suggestions about possible statements.
Please, I don't want to 'own' this item statement listing. �So far as
I'm concerned it'll be in the common pool.
Thus, with collegial respectfulness, I'm confident suggestions about
items could be submitted and edited on line. And when there's rough
agreement, accepted. Fine-tuning is not necessary.As Jean-luc would say, 'Make it so'
Laters...
JohnK
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
________________________________
(gavin Ritz 2010.09.21.19..30)[From Rick Marken (2010.09.20.1500)]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.21.9.36NZT)
Build it and they will come....I've been building it for over 30 years but "they" haven't come. Some
have, but not nearly enough to fill a stadium. I think it's because PCTis
truly revolutionary.
You need to dig deep to look at your own abstracted controlled variables
to answer this one.That's the only reason I bring it up; to try to understand why, if I
build
it, they don't come.
Self-honesty.
Hey, who am I gonna believe? Me or my lyin' eyes.
Hey at least u can joke about it.
Regards
GavinBest
RIck
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com