Phenomena

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Rick Marken (970826.1240)]

Me:

I have long felt that the best way to promulgate PCT is to publish
tons of papers describing demonstrations of the _phenomena_ of control.

Chris Cherpas (970826.1105 PT)

I think you have to consider the tremendous impact applications
can have.

I was hoping that many of the papers describing control phenomena
would come from people doing applications. Educational and clinical
settings seem like great venues for testing for controlled variables.
You should get results that are a lot more interesting than the
one's I've gotten so far:

1. I discovered that the fellow I was having lunch with was _not_
controlling for the orientation of his tray; my hypothesis was
that he was and I surreptitiously disturbed this variable by
slowly rotating the tray a little at a time: no corrective action.
I have a feeling that he was controlling his distance from his
meal but he's much larger than I am and I didn't have the
guts to move his food away from him;-)

2. I discovered that he (like me) was controlling for getting back
to the office after lunch and that he was _not_ controlling for the
route back. We return to the office every day after lunch but for
the last couple days our usual route has been blocked by some
construction. My hypothesis was that we would get back to the
office despite this disturbance; we did.

I think a clever educator or therapist could come up with far
more interesting examples than these. Not only am I not very
clever at this, but I don't deal with people very often here at
work (thank god) so I don't have many opportunities to
(intentionally) disturb possible controlled variables.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

2

[From Bill Powers (970826.1631 MDT)]

Rick Marken (970826.1240)--

1. I discovered that the fellow I was having lunch with was _not_
controlling for the orientation of his tray; my hypothesis was
that he was and I surreptitiously disturbed this variable by
slowly rotating the tray a little at a time: no corrective action.
I have a feeling that he was controlling his distance from his
meal but he's much larger than I am and I didn't have the
guts to move his food away from him;-)

2. I discovered that he (like me) was controlling for getting back
to the office after lunch and that he was _not_ controlling for the
route back. We return to the office every day after lunch but for
the last couple days our usual route has been blocked by some
construction. My hypothesis was that we would get back to the
office despite this disturbance; we did.

It's a start. Keep looking for opportunities and you'll find better ones.
Try holding out your bill and the money just out of reach of the cashier.
Try walking over to the TV and standing in front of it -- or changing the
channel -- while someone is watching it. Making "mistakes" is a nice way to
put disturbance into the situation: "Excuse me, but isn't that my coat
you're putting on?"

The problem with impromptu tests is that they may convince you, but since
there's no record of what happened nobody else can make an independent
assessment. I think we have to be a wee bit more formal about this,
especially if we hope to collect results in a standardized form. And the
tests have to be replicable -- somebody else has to be able to try the same
thing and get the same result, or a clearly similar result.

Let's keep thinking about it. I don't have any great ideas just now, but
I've put in a request through the "in" slot in here.

Best,

Bill P.

3

A colleague of mine was trying to get the CEO to install a new printer
for his new computer. This went on for weeks. My colleague suspected
that he was being punished for some unknown reason. I got tired of
hearing his complaints and decided to try to bring it about.

I asked the CEO to help me win a "bagel" bet with my colleague. I was
betting that the printer would not be installed today. I said my
colleague was betting that it would. I promised to share half the bagel
if the CEO did not install it today and therefore, help me win the bet.

The CEO said/acted upset that I was being so devious. He ordered me to
install the printer today for my colleague as extra punishment, instead
of installing it himself. I reluctantly agreed to comply with the order.

As soon as I returned from the CEO's office, my colleague received a
telephone call from the CEO who revealed my devious plan to my colleague
and told him what my punishment was.

My colleague has his printer (to which I have access when needed).

Some comments about this: I suspected that my CEO really wanted to
install the printer but was being a little lazy about it. I didn't
believe that he was punishing my colleague (who is his golf buddy). If
my CEO did not install the printer on that day, it would seem as if he
were cooperating with me and I would win the "bagel" bet. This was an
error signal for him. He did the opposite of what I asked him to do,
as a lesson for me, and because he really wanted to install the printer
in the first place.

Did I mention that my colleague was in on the intrigue? I suspect, but
don't know whether he let his "golf buddy" in on the joke.

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 8/26/97

4

[From Bill Powers (970826.2336 MDT)]

David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 8/26/97

A colleague of mine was trying to get the CEO to install a new printer
for his new computer....

The CEO said/acted upset that I was being so devious. He ordered me to
install the printer today ...

my colleague received a
telephone call from the CEO who revealed my devious plan to my colleague
and told him what my punishment was.

My colleague has his printer (to which I have access when needed).

Some comments about this: I suspected that my CEO really wanted to
install the printer but was being a little lazy about it. I didn't
believe that he was punishing my colleague (who is his golf buddy).

He did the opposite of what I asked him to do,
as a lesson for me, and because he really wanted to install the printer
in the first place.

Did I mention that my colleague was in on the intrigue? I suspect, but
don't know whether he let his "golf buddy" in on the joke.

You have succeeded in totally confusing me. Are you talking about the Chief
Executive Officer of your organization? Who installs people's new printers
for them? And can punish them? And you? And can "order" you to install a
printer for someone else?

Please clarify social relationships -- I think I've missed the point. Or am
suffering some kind of culture shock. I don't know which parts of your post
to take seriously.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bill Powers (970827.0003 MDT)]

One thing I would suggest is that we always be as explicit
as possible about what the controlled variable is -- or what it is
_suspected_ to be. I think this is important for many reasons,
not the least of which is that the existance of controlled
variables is the aspect of control that is most often missed (or
at least treated as a side-effect) by conventional psychology.

Yes, good. Maybe some sort of form like this:

···

---------------------------------------------------------------
Context: what's going on, what the question is:

Paying lunch bill at cashier's counter. The cashier always says, "Was your
lunch all right, sir?" Question: does the cashier really want to know?

Proposed control process:

The cashier asks the question to elicit information from me about how I
enjoyed my lunch.

Disturbance: what I do to vary the CV:

I answer "I hope it's not too hot [cold] outside."

Rationale: what makes this a disturbance.

If the cashier wants to hear how I enjoyed my lunch and I do not provide
this information, the cashier should experience an error.

Predicted behavior: what I expect to happen if the variable is controlled:

There should be an action that indicates again or more strongly that I
should provide the requested information. The cashier will repeat the
request for information in the same or different words.

Observation: what actually happens when the disturbance is applied:

Cashier takes bill and money, gives me my change, and says "Thank you,
come again."

Conclusion:

The variable as defined is not a controlled variable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As with most made-up examples that's pretty silly. I guess I'm sleepy.

Why don't you give it a whack with few more brain cells than I have working
right now?

Best,

Bill P.

6

The CEO has an autocratic style of leadership who micromanages anything
he cares to. He has the final say on just about any decision within the
adolescent residential treatment center.

I am the Clinical Director at the residential center. The CEO is my
administrative supervisor.

My colleague is the quality assurance person at the residential center.
He monitors how well the center stays in compliance with the various
regulating agencies.

Does this clarify things?

(I and my colleague office in a new annex. The CEO offices in another
building.)

Bill Powers wrote:

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 08/27/97

[From Bill Powers (970826.2336 MDT)]

>David Goldstein
>Subject: Re: Phenomena
>Date: 8/26/97
>
>A colleague of mine was trying to get the CEO to install a new printer
>for his new computer....

>The CEO said/acted upset that I was being so devious. He ordered me to
>install the printer today ...

>my colleague received a
>telephone call from the CEO who revealed my devious plan to my colleague
>and told him what my punishment was.
>
>My colleague has his printer (to which I have access when needed).
>
>Some comments about this: I suspected that my CEO really wanted to
>install the printer but was being a little lazy about it. I didn't
>believe that he was punishing my colleague (who is his golf buddy).

>He did the opposite of what I asked him to do,
>as a lesson for me, and because he really wanted to install the printer
>in the first place.

>Did I mention that my colleague was in on the intrigue? I suspect, but
>don't know whether he let his "golf buddy" in on the joke.

You have succeeded in totally confusing me. Are you talking about the Chief
Executive Officer of your organization? Who installs people's new printers
for them? And can punish them? And you? And can "order" you to install a
printer for someone else?

Please clarify social relationships -- I think I've missed the point. Or am
suffering some kind of culture shock. I don't know which parts of your post
to take seriously.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Bill Powers (970827.0712 MDT)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 08/27/97

The CEO has an autocratic style of leadership who micromanages anything
he cares to. He has the final say on just about any decision within the
adolescent residential treatment center.

...

Does this clarify things?

Up to a point. I guess the main unanswered question is what sort of
comments you're looking for, if any.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Rick Marken (970826.1240)]

Bill Powers (970826.1631 MDT) --

It's a start. Keep looking for opportunities and you'll find
better ones. Try holding out your bill and the money just out
of reach of the cashier. Try walking over to the TV and
standing in front of it.

Try asking you local loan shark for a few more weeks to
pay back the 50 grand;-)

I think we have to be a wee bit more formal about this,
especially if we hope to collect results in a standardized
form.

I agree. One thing I would suggest is that we always be as explicit
as possible about what the controlled variable is -- or what it is
_suspected_ to be. I think this is important for many reasons,
not the least of which is that the existance of controlled
variables is the aspect of control that is most often missed (or
at least treated as a side-effect) by conventional psychology.
I also think it is important because it will help people
understand that testing for control involes more than just
applying "disturbances". The word "disturbance" implies that
something is being disrupted, being pushed from a preferred state.
Indeed, when there is a disturbance it is the behavior of the
controlled variable that is disrupted, being pushed from (or kept
from getting to) its preferred state.

In your examples (of holding the money just out of reach and
standing in front of the TV) you describe the disturbances
and leave it to the reader to guess what you think the controlled
variable is. I think it would be helpful to be explicit about
what variable you think you are disturbing (what variable is
controlled). I suspect that you are assuminng that the cashier
is controlling for having the money in her hand (a relationship
perception) and that the TV viewer is controlling for seeing
the picture on the screen. If these people actually are
controlling these variables then you will see actions that
oppose the disturbance; you will also see the controlled
variable returned to its reference state. But these
"disturbances" won't be disturbances at all if the cashier
is not controlling for having the money in hand (the cashier
might be reaching for someone else's money, or for something
else entirely) and if the TV viewer is not controlling for
seeing the screen (the viewer might just be listening or
might not care to see every minute of the boring news program).

And the tests have to be replicable -- somebody else
has to be able to try the same thing and get the same
result, or a clearly similar result.

Absolutely!

Let's keep thinking about it.

Here I go. But it's like asking Pooh to figure out how to get
to the North Pole. Actually, Pooh did figure out how to get to
the North Pole! Stand by, Piglet. The bear of very little brain
is on the case;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

9

I was submitting a real life example of an incident which involves
control phenomena. I was wanting the printer to be installed. And it
was installed. I had to figure out a way to get it out of the CEO's
office where it was sitting for several months. He insists on
installing all things having to do with computers at the center, he is
very possessive. I simply introduced a disturbance which " he couldn't
refuse. " If it was not out of the office, based on the story I made
up, he was collaborating with me in winning a bet.

He could have said: " I don't care what you two do. " He could have
disbelieved me (I am usually not a good actor).

From what I said, I was asking him to continue doing what he had been

doing and that would win me a bagel.

My colleague was assuming that he was being punished by the CEO, for
unknown reasons, and that this was taking the form of his not
installing the printer for him. I didn't believe this to be true.

If he was controlling some experience of his by not installing the
printer, then he should have someone managed to keep on doing it.

He changed his course of action. True, I was " ordered " to install it.
Of course, I could have said " no " or said " I don't know how. "

My conclusion: Each of us was controlling our own experiences. He
didn't know what mine was. I didn't know exactly what his was. We both
were satisfied with the outcome. This kind of incident probably takes
place every day. I wouldn't be all that surprised if he figured out
what was going on and decided to go along with it because he meant to
install the printer all along for his " golf buddy. " It is a
complicated, but ordinary, example of people controlling experiences.
We make educated guesses of what is going on. Not everything is what it
seems.

In your example of the man and the cashier: The cashier could have
assumed that you did not want to talk about the meal. He might have
decided not to pursue it out of respect for your not wanting to talk
about it. He might have really wanted to know whether you liked it or
not but it was less important than annoying you.

Bill Powers wrote:

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 08/27/97

[From Bill Powers (970827.0712 MDT)]

>From: David Goldstein
>Subject: Re: Phenomena
>Date: 08/27/97
>
>The CEO has an autocratic style of leadership who micromanages anything
>he cares to. He has the final say on just about any decision within the
>adolescent residential treatment center.
...
>Does this clarify things?

Up to a point. I guess the main unanswered question is what sort of
comments you're looking for, if any.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Rick Marken (970828.0800)]

David Goldstein (08/27/97) --

I was submitting a real life example of an incident which involves
control phenomena.

I suspect that nearly _all_ real life examples of incidents
(at least those involving people) can be used to illustrate
control phenomena;-)

I was wanting the printer to be installed.

So one of your controlled variables (CVs) was the state of the
printer; and your reference for the state of the printer was
"installed" rather than, say, "paid for" or "beige".

I had to figure out a way to get it out of the CEO's office

OK. You had to control the location of the printer (another CV)
in order to control for seeing it "installed".

I simply introduced a disturbance which " he couldn't refuse. "

How do you know it was a disturbance? What CV was being disturbed?
If, in fact, you are disturbing a CV then, of course, the CEO
"cannot refuse" to try to oppose it. Again, I think that whenever
we describe control phenomena it is _very important_ to explicitly
describe the variables we think are under control -- the controlled
variables -- not just the presumed disturbances.

If it was not out of the office, based on the story I made
up, he was collaborating with me in winning a bet.

So (if I understand you correctly) you were hypothesizing that the
boss was controlling for _not_ conspiring with you against his
friend. Is that it? The CV was something like "not conspiring".
So if he accepted your bet he would have to see himself as a
co-conspirator -- which is not what he would want to perceive.
Your bet, if taken, would, therefore, move the CEO's CV to an
undesired state: "conspiring". So your bet was a disturbance
because it would have moved the CEO's CV to an undesired state
if the CEO had not taken action (refused the bet) to oppose it.

My conclusion: Each of us was controlling our own experiences.
He didn't know what mine was.

How do you know? There is nothing in the story to suggest that he
didn't know what you were controlling for. Just because someone
knows what you want doesn't mean that they are going to try to
keep you from getting it. Maybe he knew that you wanted the
printer installed and didn't care.

I didn't know exactly what his was.

But I thought the whole point of the story was that you _did_
have a very good idea of what he (the CEO) was controlling for;
that's why you were able to manipulate his actions (the one's
that compensated for the disturbance to the perception of not
conspiring against his friend) by applying a disturbance to the
suspected controlled variable.

This kind of incident probably takes place every day.

I think that sentence would be true if you just replaced
"probably" with "certainly":wink:

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

11

[From Bill Powers (970828.1305 MDT)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Phenomena
Date: 08/27/97

I was submitting a real life example of an incident which involves
control phenomena. I was wanting the printer to be installed. And it
was installed. I had to figure out a way to get it out of the CEO's
office where it was sitting for several months. He insists on
installing all things having to do with computers at the center, he is
very possessive. I simply introduced a disturbance which " he couldn't
refuse. " If it was not out of the office, based on the story I made
up, he was collaborating with me in winning a bet.

... etc.

That was a more useful description of the point of the exercise. However,
as Rick said, it still needs to be made more explicit. If we're going to
record instances of real control of variables, we do need to make the
process more formal. What we're after isn't just to end up with "You could
say that ..." but to leave no realistic alternative description that fits
the observations equally well.

With regard to you suggested alternatives for my cashier example, each one
would of course have to be checked out with the Test as my first suggestion
was. But don't miss the point: the conclusion was that my hypotheses about
the variable the cashier was controlling was _rejected_. You proposed some
reasons why it was not controlled -- conflict with other goals, for example
-- but the point is that whatever the reason, this variable _was not
controlled_. The reasons are irrelevant.

The time to think about alternative explanations is _after_ a proposed
variable has passed the Test. Now you have an appparent controlled
variable; it is stabilized by behavior against disturbance, and you can
point out the means of perceiving it and the means of acting on it. The
next question is, what _other_ definition of a controlled variable might
work just as well? You're not really finished until you've racked your
brains and come up with all the alternatives you can think of, and have
tested every one and rejected all but one. This means, when you have more
than one that works, thinking up disturbances that would affect one but not
the other, and seeing if the Test is still passed. Ideally, only one would
pass. When you've eliminated all but one, and can't think of any more,
you've done all that a human being can do to find an acceptable definition
of a controlled variable.

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Bruce Abbott (970907.1030 EST)]

Bruce Nevin (970906.2120 EST) --

Not to hide my face, in my own view to say a phenomenon is "objective" begs
insupportably many questions . . .

I would be interested in your presenting the many questions that saying a
phenomenon is "objective" begs insupportably (or is it insupportably many
questions that saying this begs; the sentence is ambiguous). Thus far you
have only presented an unsupported assertion. Would you say, for example,
that the retrograde motion of the planets against the backdrop of the
"fixed" stars is not an objective phenomenon? What about lightning?
Thunder? The temporal relationship between the two? Are these not
objective phenomena?

Regards,

Bruce

13

Bruce Nevin (970906.2120 EST) --

There is an objective reality. All I know of it is my world of perceptions.
In my world of perceptions are those of language that I control in ways that
pretty reliably result in perceptions of agreement with others about what we
are talking about. We may not agree to say the same things, but we agree
that we are saying what we are saying about the same things. This supports
an illusion of objectivity. It also supports the only means that we have
found for modelling, with what appears to us to be closer and closer
exactness, actual reality--or so we presume. But the retrograde motion of
the planets against the backdrop of the "fixed" stars, lightning, thunder,
the temporal relationship between the two, and so on and on--aside from
being words (which they are), these in their reference are perceptions. You
and I might come each to a perception that we were in close agreement in our
discourse about these, using these and other words; in discourse with others
on this planet I can assure you that we would not. I cannot simply say that
they are prescientific or uneducated or deluded if by that I mean that we
have the correct answers and they do not. (Nor do I say that they are more
correct than we.) Science is essentially open-ended about actual reality
underlying its discourses and its models, and this is both necessary and wise.

        Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:28 AM 9/7/97 -0400, Bruce Abbott wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (970907.1030 EST)]

Bruce Nevin (970906.2120 EST) --

Not to hide my face, in my own view to say a phenomenon is "objective" begs
insupportably many questions . . .

I would be interested in your presenting the many questions that saying a
phenomenon is "objective" begs insupportably (or is it insupportably many
questions that saying this begs; the sentence is ambiguous). Thus far you
have only presented an unsupported assertion. Would you say, for example,
that the retrograde motion of the planets against the backdrop of the
"fixed" stars is not an objective phenomenon? What about lightning?
Thunder? The temporal relationship between the two? Are these not
objective phenomena?

Regards,

Bruce