Bruce Nevin (2015.12.21.11:20 ET)]
Hi, Boris –
Bruce Nevin (2015.12.19.10:20 ET) –
BN: Boris was much vexed with wanting one definition in all contexts.
HB : What I wanted is my problem. But I saw it many times that you are inclined to talk and judge things about which you don’t know much about.
HB : But I think that you are right in this case.
BN: PCT shows us why we are always ignorant about what is Really going on.
HB : PCT shows us to some degree how could we understand what is »really going on«. There are people who understand what is going on in their natural way. They simply survive or understand how people function and their relations with or without PCT. Some things are still hard to describe with PCT.
BN : Successful control of a perceptual variable strongly suggests that the perceptual variable corresponds to something real.
HB : Depends what you understand under »successful« control. If you understand it as something you think what people are controlling or what people should be controlling succesfully than you could be wrong,. But if you think about people succesfully achieving their own goals than you could be right.
BN : Collective control gives a stronger verification by intersubjective agreement. The TCV gives very strong verification of what another is controlling.
HB : It seems that you are one of those guys who think that they know everything and want to »control« everything around them with TCV.
Well you can teach me how you »get strong verification of what people »really« think and feel, what they are »really« controlling for. You must be a genious.
I think that »collective control« and agreements could be good guessing about what people »really« control. But you never know for sure. People can »hide« very succesfully what they really control for. And in adition I think if people want to hide something, you’ll hard »find out« what they really think.     Â
Bill P (B:CP) : One of the first natural predictions to fail is the feeling that practically any disturbance will be resisted. As E gets »no errror« respons after another she will realize how easily her own perceptions can miss what the subject is perceiving and controlling. Another early, and to some shocking realization is that one normally cannot say what the subject »is doing« even though the error-correcting actions are complitely visible and obvious.Â
RM (2013) : But the intentional behavior that occurs in real life often involves the coontrol of variables that are impossible to represent as simple function of physical variables, e.g., the honesty of a communication or the intimacy of a realtionship. A quantitative approcah to the TCV will not work when trying to study such abstract variables….
HBÂ : It seems that PCT is not allmighty and TCV also.
Can you say that you know for most people from »TCV« what they think, feel and how they will act ? I think that you could maybe know it for persons whom you know well. Maybe your wife. But for persons who you don’t know, I doubt that you could guess right whether they are lying or telling truth. But if you can distinguish it »clearly«, with »strong verification«. If you have »Nevin’s magic school« about »reliably determining« what people »really« think and feel with »TCV«, I’d gladly be your student if it’s not too expensive JJ.
But even in the case when somebody thinks that knows somebody well, I’ve seen many people being surprised, when it showed up that they were living with »different« person they thought they do. People can do very wrong judgement of other people, if they rely only on »TCV«. Did you have any experience like this ?
HB :
By all manipulations of people, pretendins, hypochondring, lies, political games, lieing whitnesses on Courts, little lies of wife to husbands and vica verse, lies of kids into the face of parents and teachers, different reports from journalists about same event…you are saying that with »TCVV« you can reliably determine what is »really going on« ? I’d really like to see you in action how you are doing this.
How can you determine with »TCV« »exactly« or »correctly« what one thinks and feel when he is pretending, lieing, playing »games« or promissing or getting corrupt money…… ? D? Do you analyze your wife and kids with »TCV« ? And you know always »correctly« what they think, feel, want… ??? How can youu determine with TCV «correctly« that your wife was really with her friend and not with another man ? Did you get your wife by analyzing »TCV«, disturrbing her »controlled variable«, which was what ? What was »strongly suggesting« to you, thatyou exactly knew what she felt about you ? But it could be interesting what kind of disturbances did you applyed ? Is this how »love« is functioning ? Analyzing »TCV« ???
What you can guess realiably is that they control something about achievieng their goals. But guessing what their real goals are, can be very tricky.
«TCV« can be a good guess or trial, but people who are »tested« will decide whether they will open you and show what they really »control for«. It depends from many things whether they will »really open« to you or not so that you could say that you know them. ¸At least I doubt that you know me, even if I oppend you a little bit. I have experience of writing to some people and when I met them »face to face«… It was something totaly different.
So I don’t beleive that you can »reliably determine« what people »really think and feel« and on this bases »reliably« predict how they will behave, if people don’t want it to. Did you »reliably« predict that I’ll answer your »TCV test« in the way I did ? But you wrote that you »correctly« determined what I’m or was controlling for. If you reliably predicted what I’m controlling for, than you could with no problem determine how will I answer you ? Can you predict how will I answer you next time ?
You definitely disturbed something in my »heirarchical structure«, but your disturbances were obviously »disturbning« the wrong place. I felt it as »shaking« not »disturbing« my whole hierarchy, speccially emotions. Did you really want this ? As I see it you disturbed everything except “wanting one definition in all contexts”.
HB : I must conclude that »TCV« is very unreliable method of »guessing« what people think (abstract variables) and feel (»less abstract variables«). I’d rather say it can be very misleading otherwise we are from other Planets. I’m from Earth.
Bill was talking about »feeling of people and natural predictions« which can be present in »intersubjective agreement«. And Rick about »abstract variables« which are hard to be traced with »TCV«.
So I have serious doubts that »TCV« is reliable or only method for guessing what people really control for (think, feel)?
BN : Attributing a controlled variable to you (“wanting one definition in all contexts”) had the effect of a test for whether or not you were controlling it. Your first sentence above suggests that the testing was itself a disturbance to some other variables that you evidently are controlling; but thanks for corroborating that my informed guess about “wanting one definition in all contexts” was correct.
HB : Your PCT constructs starts to amuse me. Sorry. First of all I doubt that you deliberately »disturbed« anything or that you were deliberately »testing« anything. I’d rather beleive that you got an idea in one momnet and started to write. So I doubt that whatever you were doing has something to do with your rational »testing me« in our conversation for »controlled variabÄ?le« you mentioned above. I’d rather beleive that after 3 weeks of not answering, you thought that I’ll never appear again on CSGnet and you can write whatever you want. That’s what I’m guessing about you. Of course it’s just my imagination.
But don’t worry. I’ll try to appear from time to time.
BN : Your first sentence above suggests that the testing was itself a disturbance to some other variables that you evidently are controlling…«
; …¦what is quite right. I was controlling for »other variables«, and I still am, but not the one which you presented. As you didn’t write which those OTHER variable were, and you »unclearly« assumed that has to be »some variables« which I’m controlling for (what a genious conclussion)… !!!.. Maybe you willl not believe it, but I’m all the time controlling for something.that I stay alive and I try to survive.
I’ll try to describe what was »really« going on.
My first sentence was : »What I wanted is my problem«.
I wanted to emphasize that I’ll take care about me, and you should mind your »own bussines« and not »sticking« your nose arround.
The second sentence »But I saw it many times that you are inclined to talk and judge things about which you don’t know much about« was about you being ignorant about many things about me, and that you know practically nothing about how »organisms function«, what I concluded from our previous converastion and your physiological undersatnding. I could be wrong of course. But you can convince me anytime that you understand how organisms function and speccially nervous system.
So this is what one of »goals« I was »really« controlling for. But there is higher goal I’m controlling for and it seems that is slowly realizing.
HB : So I think that you »attributed« wrong »controlled variable« to me or applyed wrong disturbances or you disturbed your own variables and you got out what you wanted to control, not what I was controlling.
And of course I’m pretty sure that you are missing what I’m »evidently« controlling for now. But I think that you could more reliably conclude what I’m »really« controlling if you read carefully text in our previous conversation and try to guess (conclude) from my writings (behavior) what I’m controlling for. So you could partly understand what I’m controlling for. Although I think that your intentions are »really« directed to something else. I’m guessing again JJ
HB earlier :
But the final goal is that maybe we could start at last closing the gap between PCT model and »how organisms really work«, so to maybe move a little from »basic discusisons« that are seen on CSGnet for years, which by my oppinion lead to »nowhere«…â…… So I propose that we try to analyse basic terms of PCT and see where we agree and where we don’t. Whether there are changes necessary to any of definitions. And probably to PCT itself. It’s easier than analysing all the literature and finding statements for and against, as we all know that Bill and Rick changed their minds many tiimes.
HB : So I wasn’t controlling for »“wanting one definition in all contexts” – you obviously misunderstood something. But I was controlling for agreement about Bill’s »definitions of control« . I didn’t want »one definition« of my own, but I was proposimg Bill’s »definition« (what I’m still doing) as reference to possible agreement. Should I propose yours »definitions« as reference for agreement ?
So it seems that you were WRONG, not correct about what I’m »really« controlling for. And it can also »strongly suggests« that you could be a person who thinks that knows everything and is at least a little arrogant and narcisoid. I’m of course guessing as you are.
So I strongly doubt that you knew what I was controlling for and what I’m controlling for now, but if you prove to me what I’m really controlling for here on CSGnet with »TCV« , I’ll buy you a drink when I’ll come to USA J.
I’d stronlgy advice you to read again everything though our conversations and analyze text not with your wanted meaning (»wanting one definition in all contexts«), but from aspect of mutual agreement about Bill’s text.
You also forgot to consider your another »unintentional disturbance« to my »controlled variables« about Rick. That was, as I see it, the »real reason« for our »happy« conversation »to went into conflict«.
BN : I hope you see now why a definition and its context must be understood together.
HB : I seriously doubt that you are controlling for some »context« that has to be »undersatood toghether«. Your »patronizing tone« is showing something else to me. But I’ll let you surprise me.
If you’ll read back in our conversation you’ll see that I was »controlling for« what you are saying here. I wanted mutual understanding about Bill’s PCT and so I exposed his definitions. What text or »context« would you put for reference to agree about or to be »understood together« about PCT ?
And I told you once to watch your »patronizing tone« in the direction »you see now« or »remember« or »if you want« and so on. I’m not your wife or kid. How many times more do I have to emphasize this ? Usually I tell people one time and they understand JJ
BN : More than that, I hope you see why PCT definitions in words are always imperfect.
HB : If you’ll read back in our coverssation you’ll probably »see« that I didn’t say anywhere that Bill’s definitions are perfect. I even proposed many times »upgrades« to PCT, so I don’t think that PCT is »perfect«. I just thought that his »words« could be references for mutual agreement. It’s his PCT. Do you see any other way ?
BN: PCT is a quantitative science.
HB : PCT is not just qauntitative science. It’s also qualitative including many experiments and knowledge from physiology field. So the larger mainframe of PCT is »general theory of functioning for organisms«. You »sign« for it in article 2011. But I can agree that PCT as quantitative science is included in this larger mainframe as it may help understand how organisms function.Â
So the »final goal« of PCT is by my oppinion much higher than just algebraic »playing« with »control loop«, like Rick is doing, and probably you. You both don’t understand much how organisms function. But you can learn from Henry Yin (my admiration to this deccision) as I seriously doubt that PCT can be »upgraded« with algebraic formulas and » tracking play-stationing«, which is, as I see it, more kids stuff.
Henry Yin proved that without physiology, PCT can not be upgrade. As I pointed out before, physiological knowledge is saving people life. What you can do with PCT knowledge on this stage ? Play with »tracking« experiment as Rick is doing and trying to prove to »whole world« that »behavior is control« ??? Because he has ilussion that he is controlling »target on the spot outside« to some reference state with moving his hand and mouse ???
BN earlier : I’m with Boris on the need for anatomical plausibility.
HB : What happened that you changed your mind ? Can we agree that PCT is not just »quantitative« science ? If physiological and anatomical plausability is needed than PCT is surelly something more. Will you change you mind frequently ?
Rick is the »world champion« in changing his mind about PCT. It’s something that he is sometimes doing daily. Imagine what kind of influence is having his changing of mind on other members on CSGnet ?
BN: I don’t mean that I was in some cynical, detached, analytical way saying to myself “I will now test to see what Boris is controlling.”
HB : This is exactly the way I felt it you did !!! And I felt your writings and your personality exactly match description above. I can add that I feel behind your words »manipuiations«, »dirty game«,….
Sorry to feel this way. I admitt I didn’t make any intentional »TCV« test, but I relayed just on my »feelings« about you. And this »negative« feeling about you seems to grove. So as far as i understand people relations, we will hardly turn conversation to any better. Probably worse if the conflict will escalate like with Rick for years.
**I think Fred understand the reason why this is so. He wrote it once about Rick’s attitude. ** For me Fred is one of the best »natural analyzers« here, what people are »really« controlling for. As I see him, he has increadible »feeling« for understanding people. I think that wihtout confussions and »abstracting« of PCT »maters« here, he could perfectly understand how people function and how their relationship functiion. I’m guessing of course.
And I have the same good »feeling« about Alice, *barb, Kent, Earling, Frans, Frank, … sorry if I missed somebody…. And of course I’m just guesssing again… JJ
I feel that their understanding of people and realtions are somehow different from yours, when you try to understand everything with »TCV«. I feel your way as mechanical, mathemathical, rational, etc… understanding ……of what is really going on So the way you try to understannd people seems to me like »robotic«. It’s just my »feeling or natural predicting« as Bill would say.
And by my oppinion Fred and others I mentioned ares good at understanding people with PCT or without. By my oppinion people are born with »feeling« to understannd what’s »really going on«. No PCT can give that »feeling« to people. And MOL can give very limited »feeling« for other people problems.
BN : I genuinely believed that what I said expressed an accurate perception of what you were doing.
HB : Better »wording«. BELEIVE. NOT i’M CORRECT.
What you genuinely beleive, could be right for you. It’s your problem. I hope that you understand what you are wriritng.
But your beleivings about me, don’t match with mine. Go back to our discussions from the beggining and see what I was really controlling for and then maybe you’ll understand what I was doing and what I’m doing or what I’m writing.
Our quite peacefull conversation turned into conflict. At first it looked like we are approaching agreement, but then I think (feel) you start looking for my »mistakes« and start with disqualifying me. I warned to stop doing it.
Sorry to feel it this way. Now it seems to me, that we are clossing to »war« and I’m acting from the position of defence J J.
You probably didn’t expect that your »disturbances« to my controlled variables could turn into such »hostile control« ??? Or you did. Maybe I just don’t understand your mathematically and geniously precise »TCV-ing« ?
Well I think that you’ll be always surprised if you’ll use only »TCV« for understanding people behavior. I think that you should combine also other methods of understanding what people »really think of« or control for.
BN : The reason for believing this was that our previous exchanges had provided many instances of disturbances, resistance to disturbances, and corroboration of controlled variables by you, me, and several others. That implicit mutual testing of controlled variables is essential to what a conversation is. We always assume things about one another, and we sometimes ask.
HB : Well I see you are still increasing better »wording«. WE BELIEVE, WE ASSUME…. It’s not some of yours »why we are always ignorant«, »I was correct«, etc.  The problem I see is, that your »beleivings« and »assumptions« about me, were and are not »perfectly« correct, You should ask me. And myabe some day I’ll answer you, It seems to me that it would be more cultural. But probably the way you did it shows your »level«. I’m guessing of course again JJJ…
You have lack of informations about me and my knowledge and speccially about my »higher« goals why I’m here. You simply don’t know much about me to make any personal conclussions what I want or wanted, what I have to see and so on…. Â
BN earlier : ‘Determine’ is a useful word for the relation between actions (plus disturbances) and perceptions
HB earlier : It’s helpful to know that effects in environment are »adding« not »subtracting«
BN: They can be subtractive too.
HB : Well it seems that you are changing your mind again. First it was »determined« »adding«, now it’s also »subtraction«… Bill Powerss did change his mind too some times. But that’s normal in people control. It can’t be always perfect.But I think you are WRONG as I never saw Bill saying something like you are proposing here. So it seems to me that what you are proposing is something that doesn’t exist in PCT. Does what you say, mean also that other mathematical operations can be used ???
BN : Or if you prefer, their vectors may be opposed. Raising your arm opposes inertia plus gravity, and maybe friction.
HB : I’m not preffering anything. How mayn times do I have to say to you the same thing. You are determining me again… I’ll prefere what I want, not what you’ll be suggesting that I should. You prefer it, and so it seems that you are equating »opposing« and »subtraction« ??? What is here »subtracted« from what ?
As I see it (I’m guessing again) your description of »behavior« belongs to arsenal of behaviorsi n Rick’s behavioristic »spreadshit«. It seems that you put »references« outside. To which angle your arm will be »opposing« gravity ?
Maybe you could stop supporting Rick’s wrong approach to »control«, and help him understand what PCT is really about ?
BN : A disturbance may help to change the variable toward its desired state (the wind may be closing the door), in which case action and disturbance are additive (you push a bit to make sure it latches), but usually action and disturbance are opposed (you don’t want the door to slam, or you wanted it open).
HB : Are you talking as Rick about »controlled variables« in outer environment, where references are »set« outside to opening the door to a certain angle ?
To be sure in »usual« you could maybe observe yourself for other possibilities when trying to understand what you are »reall »doing. Maybe you could make a list of behaviors, like Rick wanted to do his »spreadshit« unsuccesfully and analyze your behaviors in PCT way.
Maybe you could explore yourself, and note all possible behaviors you can observe through your day life (when you are aware of them). Maybe you can get some average of »usual« behaviors, amd make your own understanding.
All the myriad of behaviors you could possibily get from observing yourself could maybe lead you to understanding how generally people control, and that why »observed behavior« is not control and why nothing is »subtracted« outside. It’s »control of perception«. »Subtraction« happens inside organisms.
Maybe one day we could talk »openly« about this subject and you will get »insight« what I’m really controlling for. Now I’m talking on CSGnet with about 40-50 % of all arguments I can produce.
BN: In the model, effects in the environment are a function of how they are measured. PCT is a quantitative science. When we talk about things less formally, the words can lead us into making wrong inferences if we forget that.
HB : As I wrote above, PCT is not just »quantitative science«. But is very usefull »tool« for understanding how possibly organisms function. This is probably as far as you can go, because you don’t understand physiology. But Bill and Henry Yin proved that PCT is much more. And I think that Henry also proved that without physioligical knowledge you can’t upgrade PCT. But you can play »algebraic games« with control loop. So »the words can lead us into making wrong inferences if we forget that«.
Boris
