[From Rick Marken (940602.0850)]
In their efforts to see what they believe _must_ be some merit in pre-PCT
approaches to understanding human nature, people often ignore some of the
basic facts and principles on which PCT is built. The basic fact of PCT is
that people control: they keep variables from varying "naturally" as the
result of naturally occuring disturbances. The basic priciple of PCT
(revealed by the operation of even the simplest control system) is that
the variables people control must be perceptual representations of aspects of
the world outside the nervous system.
This means that when we talk about "program level" control we are talking
about control of a PERCEPTION of a particular type -- which we call a
"program". Bill Cunningham (940601.1615) says:
I am focused on the program level where I understand there to be choices,
conditional branching, change in controlled variable.
But from all the discussion about this, it seems to me that Bill C. thinks of
the program level as a level of control dealing with the production of a
program of outputs -- what he called "courses of action" in his diagram of a
program controller.
In PCT, a program is a PERCEPTION that is NOT necessarily controlled by the
production of a program of outputs. I demostrated this in the little studies
I described at the conference last year. I had a subject (me) control a
program by simply pressing a button. The program was a conditional sequence
of numbers on the computer screen; the program to be controlled was "if
number on left > 5 then number on right is odd, else number on right is
even". While the sequence of numbers on the screen was perceived as
following this program, the subject did nothing. When the program was
"disturbed" (suddenly the sequence no longer followed the program) the
subject could restore the program by pressing the mouse button. So I was able
to control a program without generating a "program of output" myself. I
just pushed the button or not. This demonstration makes it clear that a
program is a controlled perception -- not a controlled output.
Of course, I could have set things up so that I had to generate something
more like a program of outputs (as Paul Revere did). For example, I could
have set it up so that, in order to control the program. I had to press an
odd numbered key when I saw a number >5 on the left and an even one
otherwise (this is like the "one if by land, two if by sea" situation where,
given the lights I see, I ride yelling the appropriate warning) -- but,
again, even in this situation, I am controlling the lower order
perceptual variables (pressing the keys) in order to maintain a
PERCEPTION of a program in progress.
Bill Powers (940601.2120) summed up the whole discussion so far quite nicely,
I think:
One doesn't discard a tool just because it can't be shown to be a part of
basic human organization. In fact, by studying how some people try to apply
information theory to various subjects, including subjects to which it
doesn't apply, we can learn more about human reasoning capabilities and how
they can be both used and misused.
It is interesting to watch people control for the application of IT to
subjects to which it doesn't apply. But I think (and I'm sure Bill P. would
agree) that we could probably learn more about human reasoning capabilities
if the people who are currently serving as the subjects in our study of
the misapplication of IT would stop being subjects and join us in the study
of behavior as the control of PERCEPTUAL VARIABLES.
Best
Rick