PCT - Too much of a good thing?

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
1

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.”

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating values” but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.”

“Be sure you want what you measure.”

2

[From Rick Marken (2015.01.01.1720)]

FN: The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

BP: “Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is
controlled.�?

FN: It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand,
accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

RM: Well, it couldn't get any worse;-)

FN: If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and
everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as
true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other
people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing?

RM: I' pretty sure they are already doing it. Or trying to do it. But,
as you say, they can only _influence_ other people's references, they
can't directly set those references.

RM: I think Bill's statement was made to emphasize the fact that what
actually controls a control system is the setting of the reference
signal. And what sets the reference signals in living organisms is the
output of other control systems inside those organisms. So it's really
only the organism itself that controls what it does (what perceptions
it controls). So Bill's statement is really a statement that living
organisms are autonomous in the sense that only the organism itself
can control what it does because only the organism itself can set its
own references.

RM: This gets us back to the discussion of control of behavior. Bill's
statement says that you can't really control the behavior of a control
system except by setting its reference signal. This implies that
"control by disturbance", where you control a control system's
behavior by influencing the setting of a low level reference by
disturbing a higher level perception, would not count as actual
control of behavior. So I think Bill would have come down on the side
of those arguing that you cannot really control the behavior of a
living control system (and against my argument that you can) based on
what he says above: that the only way to really control a control
system is by setting its reference signal (as we do when we control
the behavior of a thermostat by setting it's reference for
temperature).

RM: But I would still argue that, while we can't _really_ control the
behavior of a living control system, in the sense of _determining_
what perception it will act to produce for itself, we can control its
behavior, from the perspective of the person doing the controlling, in
the sense that we can act to get the system to produce a particular
output (like a particular position of the finger in the rubber band
demo) in the face of disturbances (such as variations in where S
wants to keep the knot).

FN: As it is, they
don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think
we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating
values�? but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

RM: I think they know very well that people have what we call
reference signals. They call them "wants", "desires", "motivations",
"incentives" and "purposes". Reference signals are just the
theoretical explanation of these observed phenomena.

Best regards and Happy New Year

Rick

···

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:45 AM, "Fred Nickols" <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.�?

“Be sure you want what you measure.�?

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

3

[From: Richard Pfau (2015.01.03 00:03)]

[Ref: Fred Nickols (2015.01.01 0906)]

It seems that politicians, dictators, managers, teachers, parents and others are trying to influence references (and reference signals) all the time. Some examples: military training, Boy Scouts (and the Scout Law), propaganda, formal education (ranging from North Korea to the US School system), job training and orientation, managers setting goals for workers (including job tasks and production goals), religious leaders pointing out important values and commandments, some forms of psychotherapy, and so on.

Some common ways used to change reference signals are indicated on the attached.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Changing Reference Signals.docx (21 KB)

···

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

From: ““Fred Nickols”” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

To: csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu

Sent: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 9:06 am

Subject: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.â€?

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating valuesâ€? but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.â€?

“Be sure you want what you measure.â€?

4

[From Fred Nickols (2015.01.03.0915 EST)]

Richard:

Thanks for the list. I pretty much agree with it. That said, I understand that many efforts to manage/control other people might result in reference signals being established or modified. However, I believe few such efforts proceed from an informed grasp of PCT. In a very real sense, then, those folks know not what they do (or at least they don’t understand it in PCT terms).

I was wondering what might happen if they did know what they were doing in light of PCT. Would we see more such efforts? Fewer? Different? Better? Worse?Â

I guess my curiosity boils down to this: Is someone with a solid grasp of PCT likely to be more effective at influencing other people’s reference signals? An even deeper issue is whether or not PCT has any practical applications for managing and improving human performance in the workplace. I think it does. Consider the following.

Goals as variables. I have come to view a workplace or performance goal as specifying the desired value of a workplace variable. I don’t believe you will find such a view anywhere in the management literature yet I consider it extremely important with respect to clarity of the goal and ways and means of pursuing it.

For one thing, viewing a goal as a statement of the desired value of some workplace variable draws attention to the fact that such variables are embedded in or part of some larger structure or network of variables. It provides context. It also draws attention to the fact that the variables we wish to affect are often far removed in space and time from out immediate actions. We find ourselves dealing with proximate, intermediate and ultimate variables. We also recognize the requirement to identify what was long ago termed “the solution path� (i.e., the path leading from those variables we can directly and immediately affect to those variables further on downstream).

PCT also alerts us to the importance of managing “disturbances� or what many would recognize as barriers, obstacles, impediments, interferences, etc.

PCT points directly to the fact that feedback must be timely and directly routed to the performer instead of laundered by other recipients.

PCT also points to the importance of being able to vary one’s behavior and thus cautions against overly restrictive restraints and constraints, particularly those associated with micro-management.

In all honesty, most good managers would recognize these things and marks of effective management (with the exception of the goal as variable notion); however, they don’t have a theory that ties it all together for them. PCT does that. It is a very good explanation of why what works works.

Thanks again for the list. Hope you have a happy, prosperous New Year.

Fred Nickols

···

From: richardpfau4153@aol.com (via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 12:03 AM
To: csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From: Richard Pfau (2015.01.03 00:03)]

[Ref: Fred Nickols (2015.01.01 0906)]

It seems that politicians, dictators, managers, teachers, parents and others are trying to influence references (and reference signals) all the time. Some examples: military training, Boy Scouts (and the Scout Law), propaganda, formal education (ranging from North Korea to the US School system), job training and orientation, managers setting goals for workers (including job tasks and production goals), religious leaders pointing out important values and commandments, some forms of psychotherapy, and so on.

Some common ways used to change reference signals are indicated on the attached.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

-----Original Message-----
From: ““Fred Nickols”” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
To: csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu
Sent: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 9:06 am
Subject: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.�

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating values� but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.�

“Be sure you want what you measure.�

5

[From (Richard Pfau: 2015.01.03 10:59)]

Fred,

Well said! I agree.

With Regards and Compliments of the New Year,

Richard Pfau

···

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

From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us

To: richardpfau4153 richardpfau4153@aol.com; csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu

Sent: Sat, Jan 3, 2015 9:47 am

Subject: RE: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From Fred Nickols (2015.01.03.0915 EST)]

Richard:

Thanks for the list. I pretty much agree with it. That said, I understand that many efforts to manage/control other people might result in reference signals being established or modified. However, I believe few such efforts proceed from an informed grasp of PCT. In a very real sense, then, those folks know not what they do (or at least they don’t understand it in PCT terms).

I was wondering what might happen if they did know what they were doing in light of PCT. Would we see more such efforts? Fewer? Different? Better? Worse?

I guess my curiosity boils down to this: Is someone with a solid grasp of PCT likely to be more effective at influencing other people’s reference signals? An even deeper issue is whether or not PCT has any practical applications for managing and improving human performance in the workplace. I think it does. Consider the following.

Goals as variables. I have come to view a workplace or performance goal as specifying the desired value of a workplace variable. I don’t believe you will find such a view anywhere in the management literature yet I consider it extremely important with respect to clarity of the goal and ways and means of pursuing it.

For one thing, viewing a goal as a statement of the desired value of some workplace variable draws attention to the fact that such variables are embedded in or part of some larger structure or network of variables. It provides context. It also draws attention to the fact that the variables we wish to affect are often far removed in space and time from out immediate actions. We find ourselves dealing with proximate, intermediate and ultimate variables. We also recognize the requirement to identify what was long ago termed “the solution pathâ€? (i.e., the path leading from those variables we can directly and immediately affect to those variables further on downstream).

PCT also alerts us to the importance of managing “disturbancesâ€? or what many would recognize as barriers, obstacles, impediments, interferences, etc.

PCT points directly to the fact that feedback must be timely and directly routed to the performer instead of laundered by other recipients.

PCT also points to the importance of being able to vary one’s behavior and thus cautions against overly restrictive restraints and constraints, particularly those associated with micro-management.

In all honesty, most good managers would recognize these things and marks of effective management (with the exception of the goal as variable notion); however, they don’t have a theory that ties it all together for them. PCT does that. It is a very good explanation of why what works works.

Thanks again for the list. Hope you have a happy, prosperous New Year.

Fred Nickols

From: richardpfau4153@aol.com (via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 12:03 AM
To: csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From: Richard Pfau (2015.01.03 00:03)]

[Ref: Fred Nickols (2015.01.01 0906)]

It seems that politicians, dictators, managers, teachers, parents and others are trying to influence references (and reference signals) all the time. Some examples: military training, Boy Scouts (and the Scout Law), propaganda, formal education (ranging from North Korea to the US School system), job training and orientation, managers setting goals for workers (including job tasks and production goals), religious leaders pointing out important values and commandments, some forms of psychotherapy, and so on.

Some common ways used to change reference signals are indicated on the attached.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

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

From: ““Fred Nickols”” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

To: csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu

Sent: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 9:06 am

Subject: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.â€?

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating valuesâ€? but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.â€?

“Be sure you want what you measure.â€?

6

[From Frank Lenk (2015.01.03.10:48 CST)]

Richard – I see that the attachment is an excerpt from a larger paper presented at the 2012 CSG conference that I was unable to attend. Would it be possible to send me the whole paper?

Thanks,

Frank

···

From: “csgnet@lists.illinois.edu” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Reply-To: richardpfau4153@aol.com
Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 at 11:03 PM
To: Control Network CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From: Richard Pfau (2015.01.03 00:03)]

[Ref: Fred Nickols (2015.01.01 0906)]

It seems that politicians, dictators, managers, teachers, parents and others are trying to influence references (and reference signals) all the time. Some examples: military training, Boy Scouts (and the Scout Law), propaganda, formal education (ranging from North Korea to the US School system), job training and orientation, managers setting goals for workers (including job tasks and production goals), religious leaders pointing out important values and commandments, some forms of psychotherapy, and so on.

Some common ways used to change reference signals are indicated on the attached.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

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

From: ““Fred Nickols”” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

To: csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu

Sent: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 9:06 am

Subject: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.”

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating values” but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.”

“Be sure you want what you measure.”

7

[From Rupert Young (2015.01.04 14.30)]

···

On 01/01/2015 14:45, "Fred Nickols" (<mailto:fred@nickols.us>fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
FN: If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing?
I think they've been doing it forever, by disturbing higher level perceptions, most obviously with religion, e.g. accept Jesus as your saviour (new reference) or suffer the eternal torments of hellfire. Though they didn't see it in PCT terms they were able to perceive the outcome of someone doing what they want.

On 03/01/2015 15:26, "Fred Nickols" (<mailto:fred@nickols.us>fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
FN: I guess my curiosity boils down to this: Is someone with a solid grasp of PCT likely to be more effective at influencing other people’s reference signals?

Probably so, in that they could do the TCV to more effectively determine people's goals, and so avoid wasting time trying to exert influence misguidedly, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door.

On the other hand, a benefit of knowing about PCT would enable "victims" to realise when they are being manipulated.

Regards,
Rupert

8

who read my last post?

…

9

[Martin Taylor 2015.01.04.13.02]

What is the post ID? We can't know whether we have read your "last"

post unless we know which post you mean. It might have got lost so
that nobody read it.
Oops. I realized that for some reason you never put IDs on your
postings, so I guess we probably will never know whether we read the
one you mean. I don’t see any previous ones from you with this
subject line, so I think it must have got lost.
Martin

···

On 2015/01/4 12:32 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

who read my last post?

…

10

relax. it’s in the qi is a fiction posting

···

On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2015.01.04.13.02]

  On 2015/01/4 12:32 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

who read my last post?

…

What is the post ID? We can't know whether we have read your "last"

post unless we know which post you mean. It might have got lost so
that nobody read it.

Oops. I realized that for some reason you never put IDs on your

postings, so I guess we probably will never know whether we read the
one you mean. I don’t see any previous ones from you with this
subject line, so I think it must have got lost.

Martin
11

[Martin Taylor 2015.01.04.14.07]

So how could anybody have known that from your initial question as

to whether anyone had read it? If you would put an ID on your
message in the way almost everyone else does, you could have easily
made quite clear which message you meant. Anyway, to answer your initial question, yes, I read your posting,
the one apparently of 2014/12/24 10:49 PM, when it arrived. It
contains a quote from somewhere I don’t remember having seen, and a
comment on that quote. Am I right? Or is there another message by
you in that thread that has been lost?
Martin

···

On 2015/01/4 1:12 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

relax. it’s in the qi is a fiction posting

  On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu      >

wrote:

      [Martin Taylor

2015.01.04.13.02]

On 2015/01/4 12:32 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing
List) wrote:

            who read my last

post?

…

      What is the post ID? We can't know whether we have read your

“last” post unless we know which post you mean. It might have
got lost so that nobody read it.

      Oops. I realized that for some reason you never put IDs on

your postings, so I guess we probably will never know whether
we read the one you mean. I don’t see any previous ones from
you with this subject line, so I think it must have got lost.

      Martin
12

I was just mentioning the existence of electrostatic perceptual variables inside electromagnetic fields as a notion. I don’t remember if you’re right about the quote. I mentioned the H-C interface is like a magnetically writable disk and Analog2DigitalCs and Digital2AnalogCs would regulate the communication and control scheme. I said I would explain it to you.

···

On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2015.01.04.14.07]
On 2015/01/4 1:12 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > YERANOSIAN wrote:

relax. it’s in the qi is a fiction posting

So how could anybody have known that from your initial question as

to whether anyone had read it? If you would put an ID on your
message in the way almost everyone else does, you could have easily
made quite clear which message you meant.

Anyway, to answer your initial question, yes, I read your posting,

the one apparently of 2014/12/24 10:49 PM, when it arrived. It
contains a quote from somewhere I don’t remember having seen, and a
comment on that quote. Am I right? Or is there another message by
you in that thread that has been lost?

Martin

  On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu      > > > wrote:

      [Martin Taylor

2015.01.04.13.02]

On 2015/01/4 12:32 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing > > > List) wrote:

            who read my last

post?

…

      What is the post ID? We can't know whether we have read your

“last” post unless we know which post you mean. It might have
got lost so that nobody read it.

      Oops. I realized that for some reason you never put IDs on

your postings, so I guess we probably will never know whether
we read the one you mean. I don’t see any previous ones from
you with this subject line, so I think it must have got lost.

      Martin
13

[From Rick Marken (2015.01.04.1840)]

Rupert Young (2015.01.04 14.30)---

FN: If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone
and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this
as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other
people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing?

RY: I think they've been doing it forever, by disturbing higher level
perceptions, most obviously with religion, e.g. accept Jesus as your saviour
(new reference) or suffer the eternal torments of hellfire. Though they
didn't see it in PCT terms they were able to perceive the outcome of someone
doing what they want.

RM: Exactly!

FN: I guess my curiosity boils down to this: Is someone with a solid grasp
of PCT likely to be more effective at influencing other people’s reference
signals?

RY: Probably so, in that they could do the TCV to more effectively determine
people's goals, and so avoid wasting time trying to exert influence
misguidedly, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door.

RY: On the other hand, a benefit of knowing about PCT would enable "victims" to
realise when they are being manipulated.

RM: I think that as with any scientific discovery the benefits of PCT
depend on the nature of the people who use it. People who are greedy
and mean will use it to justify their greedy and mean-spirited
approach to life . People who are generous and kind will use it to
justify their generous and kind approach to life.

RM: My only interest is that people get PCT right. What they do with
it after that, I have no control of;-) Actually, I don't even have any
control of whether or not they get it right, do I? But, for what it's
worth, you definitely get it right, Rupert. Fact is, it's always the
generous/ kind people who do;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

14

Frank,

Here is the paper (attached).

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Pfau - CSG Conference Paper - 11 June 2012 - with jpg figure.doc (610 KB)

···

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

From: “Franklin Lenk” (frank.lenk@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

To: csgnet csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu

Sent: Sat, Jan 3, 2015 12:00 pm

Subject: Re: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From Frank Lenk (2015.01.03.10:48 CST)]

Richard – I see that the attachment is an excerpt from a largeer paper presented at the 2012 CSG conference that I was unable to attend. Would it be possible to send me the whole paper?

Thanks,

Frank

From: “csgnet@lists.illinois.edu” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Reply-To: richardpfau4153@aol.com

Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 at 11:03 PM

To: Control Network CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Subject: Re: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

[From: Richard Pfau (2015.01.03 00:03)]

[Ref: Fred Nickols (2015.01.01 0906)]

It seems that politicians, dictators, managers, teachers, parents and others are trying to influence references (and reference signals) all the time. Some examples: military training, Boy Scouts (and the Scout Law), propaganda, formal education (ranging from North Korea to the US School system), job training and orientation, managers setting goals for workers (including job tasks and production goals), religious leaders pointing out important values and commandments, some forms of psychotherapy, and so on.

Some common ways used to change reference signals are indicated on the attached.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

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

From: ""Fred Nickols"" (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>

To: csgnet <csgnet@listserv.illinois.edu>

Sent: Thu, Jan 1, 2015 9:06 am

Subject: PCT - Too much of a good thing?

The following statement by Bill on page 8 of LCS caught my eye:

“Thus the reference-signal is the obvious means by which the system is controlled.â€?

It occurred to me that if the world were to somehow come to understand, accept, adopt and pursue PCT that this might not be such a good thing.

If researchers, managers, politicians, dictators, mob bosses and anyone and everyone with an interest in controlling other people came to view this as true and then set to work developing ways and means of influencing other people’s reference-signals, would that be a good thing? As it is, they don’t have a clue about reference-signals so why enlighten them? (I think we do some of it anyway, especially under the heading of “inculcating valuesâ€? but those efforts proceed under a different theoretical framework.)

Just curious.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.â€?

“Be sure you want what you measure.â€?

15

[From Rick Marken (2015.01.04.2200)]

Frank,

RF: Here is the paper (attached).

RM: I'm surprised that a paper on "Using Perceptual Control Theory as
a Framework for Influencing and Changing Behavior" doesn't spend some
considerable amount of time discussing the problems that are likely to
result from trying to change behavior -- especially when this is done
_arbitrarily_; that is, without the agreement of those whose behavior
is to be changed. And even when this agreement is implicitly given (as
when you act to change your own behavior) the result is likely to be
internal conflict rather rather than change for the better.

RM: I really don't think PCT tells us anything more about how to
change the behavior of others than is already well known. Animal
trainers, for example, are amazingly skilled at changing (controlling)
the behavior of animals. The difficulty of changing behavior exists
mainly with people. PCT doesn't help us more effectively change the
behavior of people; it tells us why changing the behavior of other
people is often difficult but also why it's just not a good idea to
approach dealing with people this way (in terms of wanting to get the
best "performance" out of them).

RM: I think your paper would be much improved (and more consistent
with what we learn from PCT) if it were about "Using Perceptual
Control Theory as a Framework for Cooperating With People and Avoiding
the Impulse to Change Their Behavior". An important section of the
paper would be an explanation of why it's hard to avoid that impulse.
Of course, PCT explains that while no other theory of behavior can!

Best

Rick

···

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:47 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble