Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

···

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Rick,

you are a shame for PCT. You again of course presented RCT. And how can we exactly know that you were bullshitting. Because I explained EART that you didn’t use the diagram from LCS III but the diagram that you could transform into RCT. So you weren’t explaning PCT, but RCT as you usualy do. Behavior is not process of Control.

I explained them many things about you and your manipulations and lack of evidences.

I also directed membes of RT to CSGnet so that they can see clearly what you are presenting and what kind of »bullshit« you are selling arround the World

What was wrong with your presentation on Bled ? Instead of explaninig PCT you presented RCT. As we mentioned many times before you should citate from Bill’s books. But you didn’t do this. You were just explaining your fantasy of whatever you think about RCT what of course is out of PCT range.

Again I’m presenting diagram from Bills’ book LCS III, and I’m asking you to prove your RCT in accordance wirh this diagram. We need PROOFS Rick not your fantasy.

image00353.jpg

From diagram we see that :

  1.   You didn't citate anything from diagram in LCS III in your prezentation on Bled.
    
  2.   Behavior is not control or any kind of control process. You just imagine that it is. You didn't prove that.
    
  3.   That there is no »controlled variable« in outer  environment at least it's not in PCT diagram.
    
  4.   That Input quantity is just representing »added« effects of disturbances and output of LCS, nothing else
    
  5.   There is not »Controlled variable« in outer environment.  Controled variable is »Perceptual signal« which will be controlled in comparator. It's not already controlled in environment.
    

I’m tyred of repeating this. Get some evidences Rick. As I said many times Rick you are the most dangerous man in PCT that can cause PCT to disapear. But if you find all those evoidences that are missing in your RCT, I’ll beleive that »Behavior is Control« and that there is »Controlled varaible« in outer environment and that some kind of »Cotrolled Perceptual Variable« exists.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:02 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; mol@mail-list.com
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are  not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

···

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

···

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Thank you, Warren. That means a lot coming from you.

I support Rick whole heartedly, as I know Dad did. Rick worked with Dad for literally decades. Bill would not have devoted that kind of time & energy to work with someone who simply did not understand, or who twisted PCT in some self-serving way, as has been implied. (Sorry to talk about you in the third-person, Rick.)

I see that communication can be difficult across these emails and perhaps languages, and I hope everyone continues to find patience to work on through.

Regards,
*barb

···

On Oct 29, 2016 8:31 AM, “Warren Mansell” wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

To Boris, I appreciate that you are so passionate and determined that PCT be interpreted correctly.

I might suggest that a fresh approach be taken to some of the issues you have been discussing. I’m optimistic that you are actually on the same page as Rick, and that perhaps there are just some things getting lost in translation.

*barb

···

On Oct 29, 2016 9:35 AM, “bara0361@gmail.combara0361@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you, Warren. That means a lot coming from you.

I support Rick whole heartedly, as I know Dad did. Rick worked with Dad for literally decades. Bill would not have devoted that kind of time & energy to work with someone who simply did not understand, or who twisted PCT in some self-serving way, as has been implied. (Sorry to talk about you in the third-person, Rick.)

I see that communication can be difficult across these emails and perhaps languages, and I hope everyone continues to find patience to work on through.

Regards,
*barb

On Oct 29, 2016 8:31 AM, “Warren Mansell” wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.29.11.49]

    Hi Barb, I am sure you don't need me to say it, but feel free

to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and
validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on
CSGNet put together…

Warren

Let me support Warren in this. I may disagree with Rick on details

of PCT and its future direction, but I do agree with Warren. Rick
likes to keep things tight to what Bill actually said and did,
whereas I like to look further afield, and that’s a clash of
research styles that sometimes looks nasty on CSGnet. I definitely
do not agree with Boris that Rick is presenting “RCT” rather than
“PCT”.

Where I do persistently disagree with Rick is in his continuing

implication that the strict Powers HPCT hierarchy IS
PCT, and that whatever Rick believes is the truth “according to
PCT”. Even Bill was not so restrictive. I find that to be a
disturbance to my controlled perception of PCT as the fundamental
science of life, and of HPCT as a firm foundation on which to build
further, rather than a completed “science in aspic”. Rick controls
his perception of the same variable at a different reference value.
Hence, conflict.

But what Warren says is, to me, no more than the clear truth.

Martin

Thank you, Martin. I appreciate your hard work as well. I can see that each of you makes such a valuable contribution here. It’s important to keep feeding the PCT machine and push the envelope. We don’t learn much if we become complacent and accept only the status quo…

Respectfully,
*barb

···

On Oct 29, 2016 10:00 AM, “Martin Taylor” mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.29.11.49]

    Hi Barb, I am sure you don't need me to say it, but feel free

to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and
validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on
CSGNet put together…

Warren

Let me support Warren in this. I may disagree with Rick on details

of PCT and its future direction, but I do agree with Warren. Rick
likes to keep things tight to what Bill actually said and did,
whereas I like to look further afield, and that’s a clash of
research styles that sometimes looks nasty on CSGnet. I definitely
do not agree with Boris that Rick is presenting “RCT” rather than
“PCT”.

Where I do persistently disagree with Rick is in his continuing

implication that the strict Powers HPCT hierarchy IS
PCT, and that whatever Rick believes is the truth “according to
PCT”. Even Bill was not so restrictive. I find that to be a
disturbance to my controlled perception of PCT as the fundamental
science of life, and of HPCT as a firm foundation on which to build
further, rather than a completed “science in aspic”. Rick controls
his perception of the same variable at a different reference value.
Hence, conflict.

But what Warren says is, to me, no more than the clear truth.



Martin

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.29.1345)]

···

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

BP: I support Rick whole heartedly, as I know Dad did. Rick worked with Dad for literally decades. Bill would not have devoted that kind of time & energy to work with someone who simply did not understand, or who twisted PCT in some self-serving way, as has been implied. (Sorry to talk about you in the third-person, Rick.)

RM: Thanks Barb. I didn’t see Boris’s post because his posts go directly to my spam filter. But I figured he wouldn’t like it much. But if you or anyone else saw the talk I’d be interested in what you thought of it. There were some things that I wished I had said that I didn’t and places where I probably said too much. But overall I thought it was OK. Linda liked it a lot but I also got some good feedback from an unbiased source – a friend of my friend who helped me with embedding of the video into the power point and turning the whole thing into an mp3 video.

Best regards

Rick

On Oct 29, 2016 8:31 AM, “Warren Mansell” wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

Barb,

I’ve done a lot of work stopping Rick from invading CSGnet with RCT and nobody stopped me. I offered so many evidences from Bill’s books (and I still do) so that everybody can »hear« Bill’s scientific word. Isn’t it refreshing when you can read his original PCT and his thinking. I must say that I enjoy.

I’m really sorry that me and Bill had misunderstanding and I’m sure that I would not act in the same way again. But I must admit that I was so glad when we were talking for hours and I could see his incredible wisdom. Beleive me that I miss that talkings. And beleive that I can clearly distinguish what Bill was talking to me and what Rick is talking.

So I can assure you that I’m trying to represent PCT and I’m offering so many evidnces from his work that probably everyone has noted that I’m the one who is promoting PCT and not Rick. Rick is simply promoting wrong theory that is deviating to much from PCT or is even opposite, like self-regulation (see what your maothe rwrote about self-regulation).

Me and Rick will be on the same page when I’ll see some citations from Bill’s books and synchronised statements with Bill’s diagram in LCS III. I beleive this is the base line of books if you are trying to publish LCS IV.

I’m sure that Rick is aware of his defectivness, burt why is he persisting at RCT I don’t understand clearly if he can talk perfect PCT language. I also showed in my posts clear difference when Rick is talking PCT and RCT an dhis spslit personality.

Ups sorry there is another way that maybe me and Rick could be on »the same page«. He made an experiment (the final arbiter nature). Probably his first of a kind. There are some interesting results which support PCT.

If you support Rick and RCT than you can’t support your Dad and PCT. The fact that you don’t understand PCT shouldn’t be the reason that you support RCT. I clearly made distinction between them and I demanded evidences from Rick that could support his theory. But he didn’t offer them yet. I crticised Ricks’ RCT even in the presence of your father and he didin’t stop me (you can see discussions from many years back). I just expect that Rick will use his evidences or better your Dad’s evidences to prove that he is talking PCT. Do I demand to much ?

One solution is also that you could get better acquanted with PCT and Rick would be forced to stop misleading CSGnet.

What is the obstacle that you shouldn’t demand from Rick some citations from Bills’ books so that we can be sure that he is talking about PCT not RCT. I managed to move his oppinion about »people controlling people all the time« to »people try control people« so many years that somebody could recognize this and do something to change Rick into real PCT representer.

RCT with »Behavior is control« (no evidences), »controlled variable in environment« (no evidences), »Controlled perceptual variable« (no evidences) is perfectly matching behaviorism and self-regulation theory from Carver and Scheier. They also learned from Bill but they deviated aproximatelly the same as Rick does.Â

You want a scientific forum or friendly based forum where everyone can say anything without offering any scientific evidence.

With supporting Ricks’ RCTÂ the forum is friendly based and self-regulation (Carver) and should be reported as such.

Best,

BorisÂ

···

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Thank you, Warren. That means a lot coming from you.

I support Rick whole heartedly, as I know Dad did. Rick worked with Dad for literally decades. Bill would not have devoted that kind of time & energy to work with someone who simply did not understand, or who twisted PCT in some self-serving way, as has been implied. (Sorry to talk about you in the third-person, Rick.)

I see that communication can be difficult across these emails and perhaps languages, and I hope everyone continues to find patience to work on through.

Regards,
*barb

On Oct 29, 2016 8:31 AM, “Warren Mansell” wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Hi Warren,

I understand, that »birds of the feather flock together«, but prasing the work that was meant as RCT is not acceptable for me and one day i’ll probably start criticising Ricks »validation work« for PCT. Maybe I’ll start with your and Tim article which has nothing to do with PCT except that you showed his diagram and make wrong interpretation of it.

If somebody is selling »beaf meat« and he is promoting »horse meat« and when people coming to him wanting to buy »horse meat« he answers that he is selling »beaf-meat«. Do you understand what I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter how much you are writing about but what you are writing.

You don’t contribute to quality of PCTÂ if you support Rick and RCT. And if you support RCT it’s great probability that you don’t understand PCT.

As I said before. Friendship has nothing to do with science. We need evidences.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

In the text bellow….

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:01 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.29.11.49]

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

Let me support Warren in this. I may disagree with Rick on details of PCT and its future direction, but I do agree with Warren. Rick likes to keep things tight to what Bill actually said and did,

HB : Where did Rick keep tight to what Bill actually said and did, except couple times when he was really in acoordance with PCT. You should go back and look also discussions when you were »querellling« with Rick and you accused Bill that he is protecting Rick. And all those your angry sessions with Rick.

I still am confirming that Ricks’ RCT most articles and demos support behaviorism or selfregulation because they show that environment is controlling behavior of the people or that »behavior is control«. You can go back in all our discusiions with Rick I tell me where I was wrong, speccially the conversation where you accused Rick that he is promoting »Perception : Control of behavior«. You made a conclission that Rick is talking just opposite to Bil. On your place I would go back and refresh a little memomry before announcing something you did

MT : ….whereas I like to look further afield, and that’s a clash of research styles that sometimes looks nasty on CSGnet. I definitely do not agree with Boris that Rick is presenting “RCT” rather than “PCT”.

HB . O.K. Martin than explain to me how we can »control behavior« and how we get »Controlled perceptual variable«. And you also contributed to discussion that people can’t control other people beharior, what is logical conclussion to Rick if you assume that »behaior is control« and can be controled. You should stick to Rick when I was criticizing his RCT approach. Show me where I was wrong ? When I was cittaing Bill ? Or your last critics of his understanding of »Actually, p and qi are not the same variable, not the way the diagram is drawn«. You sre right. If only I could explain with my »full power« what is q.i. and what is »perceptual signal« you would see how righht you are. But you know relationship problems don’t allow me to do this. And forum is »authors protected«.

Rick is definitelly promoting RCT, where »behavior is control«, there is some »controllled variable« in environment and there is some kind of »Controlled perceptual variable« in afferent nerv going to afferent neuron (comparator). There is no such things in PCT.

And of course I’d like some physilogoical evidences if you’ll try to prove that Rick is not talking about RCT. If you think that RCT is in accordance with Bills’ PCT than prove it to me. Andi if you will write about RCT beleive me that I’ll start criticizing you. Then the times will return when you wrote :

MT earlier :

Almost everyone (Boris excluded) seem to agree that the experimenter does control the subject’s behaviour,…

HB : And you helped me proving to Rick that he is not right. And who beleive today that we can control the subject’s behavior ???

If you Martin step on side of Rick, then CSGnet forum will realy become selfregulation and behavioristic forum. I just can’t beleive Martin that you wrote what you did.

Boris

Where I do persistently disagree with Rick is in his continuing implication that the strict Powers HPCT hierarchy IS PCT, and that whatever Rick believes is the truth “according to PCT”. Even Bill was not so restrictive. I find that to be a disturbance to my controlled perception of PCT as the fundamental science of life, and of HPCT as a firm foundation on which to build further, rather than a completed “science in aspic”. Rick controls his perception of the same variable at a different reference value. Hence, conflict.

But what Warren says is, to me, no more than the clear truth.

Martin

In the text bellow.

···

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:43 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

To Boris, I appreciate that you are so passionate and determined that PCT be interpreted correctly.

I might suggest that a fresh approach be taken to some of the issues you have been discussing. I’m optimistic that you are actually on the same page as Rick, and that perhaps there are just some things getting lost in translation.

*barb

On Oct 29, 2016 9:35 AM, “bara0361@gmail.combara0361@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you, Warren. That means a lot coming from you.

I support Rick whole heartedly, as I know Dad did. Rick worked with Dad for literally decades. Bill would not have devoted that kind of time & energy to work with someone who simply did not understand, or who twisted PCT in some self-serving way, as has been implied. (Sorry to talk about you in the third-person, Rick.)

HB : I criticized Rick many times in the presence of Bill. You can look back all those discussions. And Bill didn’t object.

I see that communication can be difficult across these emails and perhaps languages, and I hope everyone continues to find patience to work on through.

HB : I was not first who was accusing Rick that he is »bullshiting«. See discussions with Alex.

Regards,
*barb

On Oct 29, 2016 8:31 AM, “Warren Mansell” wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Hi Boris, as well as Rick, Tim and I have written a lot on PCT, much of which is published. I think that the best way to help us, a la PCT, would be to point out where you perceive we have got it right (or nearly right!) and help us refine our ways of heading there…
Warren

···

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I understand, that »birds of the feather flock together«, but prasing the work that was meant as RCT is not acceptable for me and one day i’ll probably start criticising Ricks »validation work« for PCT. Maybe I’ll start with your and Tim article which has nothing to do with PCT except that you showed his diagram and make wrong interpretation of it.

If somebody is selling »beaf meat« and he is promoting »horse meat« and when people coming to him wanting to buy »horse meat« he answers that he is selling »beaf-meat«. Do you understand what I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter how much you are writing about but what you are writing.

You don’t contribute to quality of PCT if you support Rick and RCT. And if you support RCT it’s great probability that you don’t understand PCT.

As I said before. Friendship has nothing to do with science. We need evidences.

Best,

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.01.1340)]

···

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Boris, as well as Rick, Tim and I have written a lot on PCT, much of which is published. I think that the best way to help us, a la PCT, would be to point out where you perceive we have got it right (or nearly right!) and help us refine our ways of heading there…
Warren

So other than that how was the talk, PCT fans?

Best

Rick

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I understand, that »birds of the feather flock together«, but prasing the work that was meant as RCT is not acceptable for me and one day i’ll probably start criticising Ricks »validation work« for PCT. Maybe I’ll start with your and Tim article which has nothing to do with PCT except that you showed his diagram and make wrong interpretation of it.

If somebody is selling »beaf meat« and he is promoting »horse meat« and when people coming to him wanting to buy »horse meat« he answers that he is selling »beaf-meat«. Do you understand what I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter how much you are writing about but what you are writing.

You don’t contribute to quality of PCT if you support Rick and RCT. And if you support RCT it’s great probability that you don’t understand PCT.

As I said before. Friendship has nothing to do with science. We need evidences.

Best,

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0


Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

Hi Rick, it’s great, and linked on pctweb now…

···

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Boris, as well as Rick, Tim and I have written a lot on PCT, much of which is published. I think that the best way to help us, a la PCT, would be to point out where you perceive we have got it right (or nearly right!) and help us refine our ways of heading there…
Warren

So other than that how was the talk, PCT fans?

Best

Rick

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I understand, that »birds of the feather flock together«, but prasing the work that was meant as RCT is not acceptable for me and one day i’ll probably start criticising Ricks »validation work« for PCT. Maybe I’ll start with your and Tim article which has nothing to do with PCT except that you showed his diagram and make wrong interpretation of it.

If somebody is selling »beaf meat« and he is promoting »horse meat« and when people coming to him wanting to buy »horse meat« he answers that he is selling »beaf-meat«. Do you understand what I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter how much you are writing about but what you are writing.

You don’t contribute to quality of PCT if you support Rick and RCT. And if you support RCT it’s great probability that you don’t understand PCT.

As I said before. Friendship has nothing to do with science. We need evidences.

Best,

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Barb, I am sure you don’t need me to say it, but feel free to support Rick’s work. He has done more to robustly test and validate PCT in peer-reviewed journals than everyone else on CSGNet put together…

Warren

On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Barb,

I’m really sorry to see that you are supporting Ricks’ RCT instead of supporting your Dads’ theory as you said once that you are not having “deep emotions” regarding anyone in this group, except my father It seems that you are contradicting yourself. What is more important to you RCT or PCT ?

If you’ll continue to support RCT instead of PCT I’m interested if this is officialy ? Because if you let Rick continue with promoting RCT , PCT will slowly dissapear.

Now I’m asking you directly. Does your permition to Rick that he can spread RCT means that you are officially supporting promotion of RCT instead of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:11 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: mol@mail-list.com; Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Wow, what a great invitation! Will save this to watch soon. Thanks, Rick!

*barb

On Oct 24, 2016 6:03 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.24.1700)]

I was invited to give a talk on PCT at the European Institute for Reality Therapy conference in Bled, Slovenia. Unfortunately, I was unable to at attend the conference in person so I made a video of the talk and it was shown at the conference on Oct 21st. I’ve now put it up at YouTube in case anyone is interested and has a spare hour and 20 minutes. The talk is here:

https://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powershttps://youtu.be/m3PEuf3wUL0


Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[Vyv Huddy 1247.02.11.2016]

Hi Eetu,

Just sharing an experience of learning about PCT. Carefully reading B:CP has helped but, looking back, I would have learned about PCT
more quickly if I’d started with the book Living Control Systems III. If you are not already aware this book comes with a selection of demonstrations that run on a PC. The parameters of the demonstrations can be adjusted and the effect of these adjustments
can be observed and experienced. This is important because the experience of seeing control happening, and recognising it as such, is key to opening the window on understanding it. For me at least!

All the best,

Vyv

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: 31 October 2016 09:41
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[from eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.31]

Dear Boris,

Thank you for your relentless criticality, I really appreciate such.

As a newcomer I have problems to follow and find the most essential points – even though I am in a process of re-reading B:CP (in the middle of doing much else). You wrote:

“Rick is definitelly promoting RCT, where »behavior is control«, there is some »controllled variable« in environment and there is some kind of »Controlled perceptual variable« in afferent nerv going
to afferent neuron (comparator). There is no such things in PCT.”

I understand that 1) behavior (doings) are not controlled and 2) things in the environment are not controlled, but the third issue is problematic to me. I have understood that it is just the perception
i.e. the variable called p i.e. the neural signal created in receptor(s) and transmitted to comparator, which IS controlled. Have got it wrong?

The whole concept of “control” is difficult me because of the different theoretical background and also the language: If I try to tell shortly to some of my fellow citizens about my newly found theoretical
inspiration, I have the first trouble how to translate the name of PCT in Finnish! I believe many other outsiders have similar problems. And for you insiders the question may seem so self-evident that it is hard to explain / narrate understandably? Sometimes
I feel like I had understood the whole idea perfectly and then again I am totally confused.

So how would you define shortly for a newcomer what does the “control” mean? What is it what is controlled and how? Does controlling take place in a certain place or stage of the closed loop? Or
is control rather a function of the whole loop?

(And apologies beforehand if I will make follow-up questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

Hi Eetu,

You’re welcome. I mixed metaphors there with the key to opening a window comment. I think of PCT as both a door to a new way of doing research and also opening a window to a new perspective on behaviour… hope that makes sense!

Also check

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/demos/tutor_pct.htmlAnd

http://www.mindreadings.com

The demos on Adam Matic’s excellent website are good too.

http://www.pct-labs.com

All the best

VYv

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
Sent: 03 November 2016 07:26
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Vyv, thank you for this hint. I see that this last book of Powers is really something to read and I will order it.

Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Huddy, Vyv v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk
Lähetetty: 2. marraskuuta 2016 15:08
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[Vyv Huddy 1247.02.11.2016]

Hi Eetu,

Just sharing an experience of learning about PCT. Carefully reading B:CP has helped but, looking back, I would have learned about PCT more quickly if I’d started
with the book Living Control Systems III. If you are not already aware this book comes with a selection of demonstrations that run on a PC. The parameters of the demonstrations can be adjusted and the effect of these adjustments can be observed and experienced.
This is important because the experience of seeing control happening, and recognising it as such, is key to opening the window on understanding it. For me at least!

All the best,

Vyv

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: 31 October 2016 09:41
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[from eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.31]

Dear Boris,

Thank you for your relentless criticality, I really appreciate such.

As a newcomer I have problems to follow and find the most essential points – even though I am in a process of re-reading B:CP (in the middle of doing much else). You wrote:

“Rick is definitelly promoting RCT, where »behavior is control«, there is some »controllled variable« in environment and there is some kind of »Controlled perceptual variable« in afferent nerv
going to afferent neuron (comparator). There is no such things in PCT.”

I understand that 1) behavior (doings) are not controlled and 2) things in the environment are not controlled, but the third issue is problematic to me. I have understood that it is just the perception
i.e. the variable called p i.e. the neural signal created in receptor(s) and transmitted to comparator, which IS controlled. Have got it wrong?

The whole concept of “control” is difficult me because of the different theoretical background and also the language: If I try to tell shortly to some of my fellow citizens about my newly found
theoretical inspiration, I have the first trouble how to translate the name of PCT in Finnish! I believe many other outsiders have similar problems. And for you insiders the question may seem so self-evident that it is hard to explain / narrate understandably?
Sometimes I feel like I had understood the whole idea perfectly and then again I am totally confused.

So how would you define shortly for a newcomer what does the “control” mean? What is it what is controlled and how? Does controlling take place in a certain place or stage of the closed loop? Or
is control rather a function of the whole loop?

(And apologies beforehand if I will make follow-up questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

Dear Eetu.

I answered in your text bellow….

image00280.png

ATT00002.jpg

ATT00003.jpg

ATT00004.jpg

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:27 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

Hi Vyv, thank you for this hint. I see that this last book of Powers is really something to read and I will order it.

Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Huddy, Vyv v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk
Lähetetty: 2. marraskuuta 2016 15:08
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[Vyv Huddy 1247.02.11.2016]

Hi Eetu,

Just sharing an experience of learning about PCT. Carefully reading B:CP has helped but, looking back, I would have learned about PCT more quickly if I’d started with the book Living Control Systems III. If you are not already aware this book comes with a selection of demonstrations that run on a PC. The parameters of the demonstrations can be adjusted and the effect of these adjustments can be observed and experienced. This is important because the experience of seeing control happening, and recognising it as such, is key to opening the window on understanding it. For me at least!

All the best,

Vyv

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: 31 October 2016 09:41
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Perceptual Control Theory Talk

[from eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.31]

Dear Boris,

Thank you for your relentless criticality, I really appreciate such.

As a newcomer I have problems to follow and find the most essential points – even though I am in a process of re-reading B:CP (in the middle of doing much else). You wrote:

“Rick is definitelly promoting RCT, where »behavior is control«, there is some »controllled variable« in environment and there is some kind of »Controlled perceptual variable« in afferent nerv going to afferent neuron (comparator). There is no such things in PCT.”

HB : Ricks’ terminology show that »control« is something that is happening in environment. So he is putting all the time »controlled variable« into organisms environment in PCT diagram what is not the case with Bill. Rick tried many times to make it »official« and I don’t understand how he didn’t succed, because he has Powers lady in his »pocket«. Whatever. PCT is still as it was although Rick is desperately trying to change it with his »Behavior is control« and »controlled variable« etc.

Bill is not putting »controlled variable« in the environment in the sense that »control« is happening in organisms environment. At least in diagram LCS III. Bills’ defitnion of »control« is clear (mostly from B:CP) :

cid:image001.png@01D23600.98B1E160

Bill also mentioned many times that PCT is about how organisms control.

EP : I understand that 1) behavior (doings) are not controlled and 2) things in the environment are not controlled, but the third issue is problematic to me. I have understood that it is just the perception i.e. the variable called p i.e. the neural signal created in receptor(s) and transmitted to comparator, which IS controlled. Have got it wrong?

HB : You understand right, that behavior (output) is not control or process of control, so that something or anything in the environment is controlled. Bill is mostlly (99%) using word »affect«, what I think actually happens in the environment of organism. So yes things in environment if they exist are not controlled but affected. And yes to 3). Only Perceptual signal will be directly »controlled« and that’s why it’s called »controlled variable«.

So we see that in this Bill’s definition there is no control and if you will read Glossary in B:CP nowhere in other definitions Bill mentioned anything about »behavior is control« except in term »controlled quantitty« which I answered in conversation between Rick and Martin.

Things in environment are not controlled, because behavior is not control, and there is no »controlled variable« in environment in GENERAL sense that SOMETHING will be controlled by behavior. Important is that we stick to GENERAL SENSE of PCT so how organisms generaly control. And that is the diagram in LCS III showing clearly.

There is not always (continuously) present something in environment that behavior could control (reduce discrepancy). Generally speaking output (behavior) is used for affecting input and also for canceling the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (LCS III):

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the acrtion of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : Mostly behavior if you will observe yourself don’t have anything special in environment that is »manipulated« by behavior, as behavior is not process of control in general sense. We don’t dig a cup of coffee with our hands or eat with moving (controlling the movement) of our hands or that we move legs while we are walking and so on. That is self-regulation theory. And Rick is supporting it all the time. He is afterall psychologist like for example Carver and Scheier (the authors of selfregulation theory based on PCT). When I was mediating between Bill and Carver, Bill told me that they were his students what their book from 1981 prove.

But I think that »controlled quantitty« which could be present in »environment of organism« will sooner or later become part of perceptual signal, which is controlled variable (will be matched with reference in comparator). And this is the only place where by my oppinion control is happening. Comparator is not a function in the sense all other boxes in diagram are. So it’s the only place where control can happen (nervous system).

Comparator present one neuron or the whole nervous system. I think that all controlling is done in nervous system. I don’t see any place in control loop that control can be done. Specially not in environment of control system. And perceptual signal is the »controlled variable« which enters comprator. I think it’s obvious.

The result of control is »error signal«.

Here it seems that Bill was equating »Controlled quantitty« with »perceptual signal«. It could be equated with »input quantitty« although from diagram in LCS III is not clear that »controlled quantitty« exist in any general sense. But »input quantity« in general sense represent effects of disturbances or effects of behavior or both. Bill wanted to create a theory that would generally answer the question how organisms generally control.

In the environment (LCS III diagram) there are present effects of disturbances and effects of behavior (output) added. For disturbances we can assume that they are always present (hit, radiation of all kinds, sun, etc.), but effects of behavior (ouptut) are present more or less discreetly.

For example in sleeping, what Rick correctly described as »tough one«, existance of »input quantity« in environment, doesn’t have any effects of behavior (output) that would by definition of control also cancel the effects of disturbances. Disturbance in sleeping for ex. is temperature of the room that is affecting organisms control. In this case »input quantitty« contain just »effects of disturbances« and no counter effetcs of behavior (output) that could be present in environment. So there is no »controlled quanttity« in outer environment as Rick is trying to present as general principle. But organism is still controlling. The body temperature in accordance with room temperature is controlled (ex. 36,8). So there are »controlled quantities« in organism and »controlled process« in organism that are always present in if you look at definition of control above. So control in organism in general sense is present 24/7 as Bob Hintz denoted this process. I think he is momentaly one of those who also understand PCT in the sense of my explanation and according to Bills’ definitions.

EP :

The whole concept of “control” is difficult me because of the different theoretical background and also the language: If I try to tell shortly to some of my fellow citizens about my newly found theoretical inspiration, I have the first trouble how to translate the name of PCT in Finnish! I believe many other outsiders have similar problems. And for you insiders the question may seem so self-evident that it is hard to explain / narrate understandably? Sometimes I feel like I had understood the whole idea perfectly and then again I am totally confused.

HB :

Beleive me dear Eetu the same thing happened to me. When i was trying to understand PCT I thought that I’ll finish in »mental hospital«. My first »teacher« was Kent (his »papers« on internet and some meils in 1999). His language is quite clear and understandable, but i thought that the word of author of PCT will reveal to me all »secrets« of PCT. And than troubles began because Bill’s sicentific language in his LCS chain of books is hard to understand for the begginer. I have to consult with Bill but in the beggining I didn’t understand even his explanations and I was confused as you are now. Then I found Bruce Abbotts’ synopsis. You can get it on this page http://users.ipfw.edu/abbott/pct/pct.html. I also returned to Kent and his »papers«. And the »light« above my head start slowly to shine. After all these first difficulties which happened in 6 years I take a break and than one day I started the talk with Rick Marken. Well Rick (somewhere in 2007) in the beggining understood PCT and as I described many times our converstaion started with which »perception do we control« and not which »controlled variable« we are controlling in environment. So I don’t understand where Rick was lost, but he is totaly out of PCT line. After that I talked a lot also with Martin and wrote on ECACS. I talked also to Kent and some other PCT’ers. I talked also a lot with Bill whom I finaly understood with no problem.

All in all it took me quite long time to understand PCT. Maybe you could try with the same literature and members I did. But I strongly advise that you don’t try with Rick. He is a confussion maker because his RCT is contrary to PCT and he has »power« because Powers ladies are fully supporting him (see Barbs’ message). They took me half of my health in last years to keep CSGnet close to PCT. But I don’t know how long will I persist. Rick is coming with new manipulations and seeking through Bills’ literature to find appropriate answer is not easy job. Anybody can try it.

EP : So how would you define shortly for a newcomer what does the “control” mean? What is it what is controlled and how? Does controlling take place in a certain place or stage of the closed loop? Or is control rather a function of the whole loop?

HB : I hope dear Eetu, I described you shortly what »control«, »control system«, »ouptut«, »feed-back«, and so on mean through Bills’ definitions. I think this is only fair approach to hear the »sound« of author. It’s refreshing among all other oppinions. Isn’t it Barb ?

I hope that I manage to present you also what »controlled quantity« and »input quantity« could mean. Problem is that Bill did changed his mind sometimes but Rick is a World Champion. He is changing his oppinion sometimes daily, weekly, monthly…. Also constant in his oppinion is Kent with his concept of »stability«. It’s PCT. Martin was very stable when Bill was with us. As I understood him he was quite often communicating with Bill. But now I think that he is too much communicating with Rick and he started to »fluctuate« like him. And he was so stable and perfect in PCT understanding. Rick can cause a lot of troubles in understanding of PCT because he is just relaying on his experiences which can be misleading as he can observe his behavior as control of limbs. It’s common psychological approach. It’s common sense reasoning. But Bill showed it’s wrong. We control our perception not limbs. Rikcs’ »cancer point« are his demos and tests, because he thinks that he will understand PCT through them. But as Bill said, the final arbiter is nature. So we should learn there. Experimenting in nature. And I noticed that Rick could be going that way if I may conclude from his latest experiment with Warren. I hope he will continue his nature experimental work as this is the way to understand PCT.

EP : (And apologies beforehand if I will make follow-up questions.)

HB : As I mentioned mayn times I’m in troubled life position and I don’t have always time. But I’ll answer sooner or later J

Best,

Boris

Eetu Pikkarainen