Picking up the pieces

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Rick Marken (01.01.14.1440)]

Me to Powers and Nevin:

Since neither of you has seen an RTP school in action, I think
you should carefully avoid making these claims...

Bruce Nevin (01.01.13 110:50 EST)--

I referred to evidence gathered by Tom Bourbon.

Good for you. But Bill Powers did not. He simply said:

In Ed Ford's program, "frequent flyers" are treated as having
special problems, and they are sent for individual counselling.

But instead of dressing Bill down for making unwarrented empirical
claims (as you have so often done with me) you replied with (and
I quote here): "No disagreement". So I conclude that either Bill
is permitted (by you) to make what he [Bill Powers (2001.01.14.0324
MST)] admits are unwarrented empirical claims about RTP while I am
not or (and?) anyone can make certain unwarrented empirical claims
(like the claim about how well frequent fliers are treated) but not
others (like the claim that teachers use the "I see you have chosen.."
tactic).

But neither of you picked up (or wanted to pick up) on the fact
that I was being facetious. I think both of your constructions
were perfectly appropriate; I never took you to be making unwarrented
empirical claims. I knew that what Bill said was based on what he
had heard from Tom and I knew that what you (Bruce) said was
based on what you read. My facetiousness was aimed at pointing
to the hypocrisy of your saying to me what I said to you above: that
since neither of you has seen an RTP school in action, you should
carefully avoid making these claims.

We all sometimes talk in ways which, when taken out of context or
read in an overly literal manner, can be taken as an unwarrented
empirical claim. Even the fellow who started this whole thing about
unwarrented empirical claims, Tom Bourbon, routinely makes statements
that can be read as unwarrented empirical claims: Did Tom actually
see the older brother selling the "frequent flyer" student as a sex
toy, as claimed in MSOB? Did he see the older brother anally raping
the student? If not, then saying this was a seriously unwarrented
empirical claim.

I am not complaining about the unwarrented empirical claims allegedly
made by Tom or anyone else. My point is simply that those of you who
have been busily condemning me for making unwarrented empirical claims
about RTP have been throwing your condemnatory stones from houses
that are built just like mine: from pure glass. If you take a look
around your lovely abodes you'll see that you are up to your knees in
chards. I suggest that you put down the stones and that we all return
to normal, respectful conversation; I'll even help you pick up the
pieces.

In his reply to me, Bill Powers (2001.01.14.0324 MST) said:

You remind us of how dubious is the value of discussions like
these, which are based heavily on imagination.

In fact, I completely disagree. Without imagination, science -- and
certainly the application thereof -- would get nowhere. Imagination
must be tempered by empirical test. But we do that in the lab by
testing the model. Once we have a reasonably well validated model, I
can't see what's wrong with discussing its implications in situations
with which we are basically familiar but specific instances of which
we can only imagine. We are all familiar with school situations, for
example. If our imaginings about a particular school situation (based
on what we read and what we already know about schools), such as what
happens in an RTP school after a kid disrupts twice in a row, is
seriously off base, I'm sure that we will eventually be corrected,
either by seeing for ourselves or by getting a convincing report.

We are almost always basing discussions about the application of
PCT on imagination: we don't all get to directly experience everything
we discuss on CSGNet: animal behavior studies (re: reinforcement),
fossil discoveries (re: evolution), video records of baseball
catches from the fielders point of view, etc.

Why don't we just assume that none of us _intends_ to make any
unwarrented empirical claims? And why don't we also assume that
those who know the empirical facts to be seriously different from
what we imagine them to be will correct us whenever an unwarrented
empirical claim is made (whether it was intended or not)? Isn't this
what scientific dialog is supposed to be about?

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

2

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (01.01.14.1440)]
Why don’t we just assume that none of us intends to make any

unwarrented empirical claims? And why don’t we also assume that

those who know the empirical facts to be seriously different from

what we imagine them to be will correct us whenever an unwarrented

empirical claim is made (whether it was intended or not)? Isn’t this

what scientific dialog is supposed to be about?

My suggestion earlier about having real situations
discussed and having people in the group clarify the theories upon which
some of the behaviours appear to be based was an attempt to have this kind
of dialogue.
PCT relates to all control systems, with
people being only one of them. Teaching is only one situation where people
as control system can be observed. It is for me as a teacher an important
situation. It seems to be an important situation for a number of people
in this group like Bruce G, Tim and Tom …
I would suggest however that it is in
the area of relationships, found in teaching and lots of other situations,
that all of us want to see the implications of PCT. That is how we behave
towards and with others. I would like to hear and talk about this so that
I learn to observe in a PCT way and think and write using language based
on PCT. What would you suggest I am controlling for here?
Ray

3

[From Rick Marken (01.01.16.1250)]

Ray & Merry Bennett (01.01.16)

I would suggest however that it is in the area of relationships,
found in teaching and lots of other situations, that all of us want
to see the implications of PCT.

Relationships between control systems are, of course, very interesting,
especially to people (like teachers) who deal with these relationships
everyday. I agree that many people want to see what PCT has to say
about relationships between control systems. In fact, however, once you
understand how a basic control systems works its pretty easy to figure
out, on your own, what will happen when two or more control systems
interact (behave in various sorts of relationships to one another). This
is illustrated in two excellent papers that deal with interacting
control
systems: Tom Bourbon's "Invitation to the dance" paper in _American
Behavioral Scientist_ (v 34, 1990, p. 95) and McPhail et al's
"Simulating individual and collective action in temporary gatherings"
in _Social Science Computer Review_ (v 10, 1992 pp 1-28). These
papers show that all kinds of interesting group behavior patterns
can be produced (and predicted) by assuming that each individual in
the group is controlling one or more very simple perceptual inputs.
Many complex and eye-catching patterns of behavior emerge as
completely irrelevant side effects of the operation of the individual
control systems, each system controlling only various aspects of
its own perceptions.

The behavior patterns produced by interacting control systems are
the same whether these systems are in different individuals or
all in the same individual. The two papers in Section 6
("Coordination") of my book _Mind Readings_ illustrate this point.
The "Perceptual Organization of Behavior" paper describes research
where two control systems in the same person interact to produce
behavior patterns that are exactly the same as the behavior
patterns produced when the two systems exist in two different
people (as in Tom's "Invitation to the Dance" research, which
was based on, and is a nice two person extension of, the research
described in my paper). The "Degrees of Freedom" paper is another
example of research and modeling which demonstrates the behavior
of two control systems (again in the same person) behaving in
various relationships to one another.

The behavior of control systems in various relationships is
readily understood once you are able to identify the variables
and functions that make up a control loop and understand how
the loop works over time. So, for example, once you know that
control system A controls a particular variable, q, then you
know that the outputs of another control system, B, that affect
this variable will be dealt with as disturbances; control system
A will act to protect the controlled variable from the effect
of the outputs of control system B. If control system B is also
controlling q and is generating its outputs as a means of
protecting q from the outputs produced by control system A,
then you have a conflict. The behavior that actually occurs in
such a conflict depends mainly system A's and B's relative
references for q and the relative strengths and gains
of systems A and B. There is a nice paper by Kent McClelland
that, I believe, deals with conflict between control systems
at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/people/mcclelland/CCP/

There are, of course, many other relationships that may exist
between the variables in two or more different control systems;
some of those relationships result in conflict; others don't
and some others actually help both systems control what they
could not control individually (cooperation). But it's all
control so it's all readily understood (and extrapolated to
new situations once you understand how the control model works.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0116.1650)]

Rick Marken (01.01.16.1250)

There are, of course, many other relationships that may exist
between the variables in two or more different control systems;
some of those relationships result in conflict; others don't
and some others actually help both systems control what they
could not control individually (cooperation). But it's all
control so it's all readily understood (and extrapolated to
new situations once you understand how the control model works.

If one is not interested in the finer points of modeling behavior, it is
not obvious to me what one gains by emphasizing control over goals. Control
is the simplest way to achieve goals, but why not simply say, for example,
if A can't achieve its goals without interfering with B's efforts to
achieve its goals, conflict results? Or that by cooperating A and B can
achieve goals that neither could achieve independently? The advantage of
talking in terms of goals, is that jargon is avoided. The disadvantage is
that a certain precision is lost. But outside the domain of modeling is
precision really that important?

Since it is apparently difficult to read my intentions, let me say that I
have no axe to grind, I'm simply looking for the simplest correct way to
explain what we observe in the world.

BG

BG

5

[From Rick Marken (01.01.16.1540)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0116.1650)

it is not obvious to me what one gains by emphasizing
control over goals.

I don't understand. PCT doesn't _emphasize_ control over
goals. It shows how a model of control can explain what
we informally refer to as having goals.

Control is the simplest way to achieve goals

"Control" is a word that refers to the process of goal
achievement. I don't understand how it can be a "simpler"
(or more complex) explanation of itself. The control model
is currently the _only_ explanation of how organisms control
(achieve goals). There are no simpler or more complex
options.

why not simply say, for example, if A can't achieve its
goals without interfering with B's efforts to achieve its
goals, conflict results?

Because it's not necessarily true that conflict results. If
B can compensate for A's disturbance to the variables B is
controlling without pushing back against any variables A is
controlling, there will be no conflict.

The advantage of talking in terms of goals, is that jargon
is avoided. The disadvantage is that a certain precision is
lost.

If only some precision is lost there is no problem. It's when
informal talk leads one completely astray that there is a problem.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.09560]

Rick Marken (01.01.16.1540)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0116.1650)

> why not simply say, for example, if A can't achieve its
> goals without interfering with B's efforts to achieve its
> goals, conflict results?

Because it's not necessarily true that conflict results. If
B can compensate for A's disturbance to the variables B is
controlling without pushing back against any variables A is
controlling, there will be no conflict.

In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering with B's
efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result. Otherwise, conflict
does result.

BG

7

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.17.0820 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.0956)

In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering with B's
efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result. Otherwise, conflict
does result.

I think that much is probably well known. I'm interested in explanations,
however: what is a goal, that a person can seek it, and what kind of system
can be part of a conflict? That's what PCT is all about.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1037)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.17.0820 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.0956)

>In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering with B's
>efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result. Otherwise, conflict
>does result.

I think that much is probably well known.

I agree. And, as far as I can tell, that is all that needs to be known to
understand the implications of PCT for practice.

I'm interested in explanations,
however: what is a goal, that a person can seek it, and what kind of system
can be part of a conflict? That's what PCT is all about.

I agree. I was simply looking at the implications of PCT for practice.

BG

9

[From Rick Marken (01.01.17.0810)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.0956) --

In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering
with B's efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result.
Otherwise, conflict does result.

Not quite. Even if A _does_ interfere with with B's efforts to
achieve its goals there is not necessarily conflict. For example,
A might be sitting in front of B in a theater, interfering with
B's goal of seeing the screen. If B compensates for this
interference (disturbance) in a way that does not involve pushing
back against any variables A is controlling, there is no conflict.
For example, B might move his head to the side, restoring the
controlled perception (view of the screen) to the reference (goal)
state. In this case, there is obviously no conflict despite the
fact that A was interfering with B's efforts to achieve its goals.
If, however, B tries to push A out of the way, B will be disturbing
a variable (A's location) that A is controlling. If A pushes back
against B then there will be escalating conflict. If A & B don't
come to their senses (go up a level) soon there will be violence.
The conflict is over the state of a variable that both A and B are
controlling relative to different references: the location of A.
A wants that variable centered in the seat in front of B; B wants
it somewhere else.

So the PCT model (and "jargon") does much better than informal talk
about "goals" and "interference" in helping us understand the nature
of conflict (and non-conflict). Conflict only occurs when two (or
more) control systems want the same perceptual variable in different
states. When two or more control systems act to control that variable
relative to different references, they interfere with _each others'_
ability to get the variable into the state each prefers.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1253)]

Rick Marken (01.01.17.0810)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.0956) --

> In other words, if A can achieve its goals without interfering
> with B's efforts to achieve its goals, conflict will not result.
> Otherwise, conflict does result.

Not quite. Even if A _does_ interfere with with B's efforts to
achieve its goals there is not necessarily conflict. For example,
A might be sitting in front of B in a theater, interfering with
B's goal of seeing the screen. If B compensates for this
interference (disturbance) in a way that does not involve pushing
back against any variables A is controlling, there is no conflict.
For example, B might move his head to the side, restoring the
controlled perception (view of the screen) to the reference (goal)
state. In this case, there is obviously no conflict despite the
fact that A was interfering with B's efforts to achieve its goals.
If, however, B tries to push A out of the way,

That is, if A's goal is to move B.

B will be disturbing
a variable (A's location) that A is controlling. If A pushes back
against B then there will be escalating conflict. If A & B don't
come to their senses (go up a level) soon there will be violence.
The conflict is over the state of a variable that both A and B are
controlling relative to different references: the location of A.

In this case, A and B have goals that cannot be achieved simultaneously. B
wants A to be one place and A wants to be somewhere else. Same situation
that you describe, but a different vocabulary.

So the PCT model (and "jargon") does much better than informal talk
about "goals" and "interference" in helping us understand the nature
of conflict (and non-conflict).

I accept that it helps you understand conflict and non-conflict better than
informal talk about goals and interference. I'm not convinced that it helps
those who do not understand the model as well as you do. And that is almost
everyone. (No disrespect intended. Quite the opposite.)

Conflict only occurs when two (or
more) control systems want the same perceptual variable in different
states. When two or more control systems act to control that variable
relative to different references, they interfere with _each others'_
ability to get the variable into the state each prefers.

Yes, but the references are referred to in everyday language as "goals". So
the situation you describe can equally well be described in terms of
different goals with regard to the same "object". Your goal is to be at the
mall hanging with your friends, my goal is for you to be in your room
solving algebra problems. The result is conflict.

BG

11

[From Rick Marken (01.01.17.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1253

I accept that it [PCT] helps you understand conflict and
non-conflict better than informal talk about goals and interference.
I'm not convinced that it helps those who do not understand the
model as well as you do.

Yes, indeed. PCT is of little use to people who don't understand
it. The same is true of most everything, though, is it not? Bach's
keyboard works, for example, wouldn't be of much use if no one
knew how to read music (Angela Hewett certainly does! Wow!)

Yes, but the references are referred to in everyday language
as "goals".

That's not always clear. We also use the word "goal" to refer to
something that corresponds to the reference state of the controlled
variable itself. When I say "His goal is a new Corvette" it's
not clear whether I am talking about his presumed reference for
the Corvette or the Corvette itself.

So the situation you describe can equally well be described in
terms of different goals with regard to the same "object".

It's just not as clear. And "variable" is a lot better than
"object" because it makes clear that what both want can be in
different states; it can vary.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[From Rick Marken (01.01.17.1220)]

Me:

If, however, B tries to push A out of the way [there might be conflict]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1253)]

That is, if A's goal is to move B.

No. I assumed the common controlled variable to be A's position.
So conflict results if A's has a "goal" (reference) for his own
position (which is likely). So there will be conflict if A's
goal is to stay put.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

13

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1619)]

Rick Marken (01.01.17.1220)

Me:

> If, however, B tries to push A out of the way [there might be conflict]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1253)]

> That is, if A's goal is to move B.

No. I assumed the common controlled variable to be A's position.
So conflict results if A's has a "goal" (reference) for his own
position (which is likely). So there will be conflict if A's
goal is to stay put.

Sorry, I interchanged my A's and B's.

BG

14

from Ray Bennett (01.01.18. 850CST Aust.)

Bruce Gregory wrote:

···

Yes, but the references are referred to in everyday
language as “goals”. So

the situation you describe can equally well be described in terms of

different goals with regard to the same “object”. Your goal is to be
at the

mall hanging with your friends, my goal is for you to be in your room

solving algebra problems. The result is conflict.
I think they are referred to in everyday
language as “wants”. The use of the term “goal” has only become popular
recently and is more popular among groups like teachers, managers etc.

Ray

15

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0117.1739)]

>From Ray Bennett (01.01.18. 850CST Aust.)
Bruce Gregory wrote:

Yes, but the references are referred to in everyday language as "goals". So
the situation you describe can equally well be described in terms of
different goals with regard to the same "object". Your goal is to be at the
mall hanging with your friends, my goal is for you to be in your room
solving algebra problems. The result is conflict.

I think they are referred to in everyday language as "wants". The use of
the term "goal" has only become popular recently and is more popular
among groups like teachers, managers etc.
Ray

Right you are. I initially used the word want, but changed it to goal in a
misguided effort to be more precise!

BG