Purposive Behavior, Behavior & Action; PCT Dictionary

[Henry_James_Bicycles]

[Hank Folson 940724]

      [CHUCK TUCKER 940720]

       >no matter
       >how people try to avoid it and say it doesn't make a
       >difference, definition and specification of the words
       >that are used are crucial in developing an understanding
       >of a subject matter.

I agree with you 100%. It is fascinating to me that the people posting
regularly always define their _symbols_ when they use an equation, but they
_NEVER_ define their _words_ when they make a verbal statement. ArenUt
words nothing but multi-lettered symbols?? :>)

       >How many times and with how many
       >others has been a discussion of the meaning of the words
       >'behavior' and 'control' on this net?

Here is an excerpt from one of my posts, offering a related approach to
improving understanding:

[Hank Folson 940522]

    > .......a dictionary containing
    >both PCT and traditional definitions was needed because both
    >traditional psychology and PCT used many of the same words, with
    >entirely different meanings, making understanding and communication
    >difficult.

    >A practical matter is identifying which definition is being used. I
    >propose that as the newcomer, the PCT versions be identified by some
    >ASCII character at the beginning and ending of the word. If behavior
    >appears in a sentence, we are referring to behavior as traditionally
    >defined. If $behavior$ appears in a sentence, we are referring to
    >behavior as defined in PCT.

    >The use of "$" is an arbitrary choice which I don't care for. Any
    >suggestions for which ASCII character to use, or for another
    >identifying means? (The INTERNET can only perceive ASCII characters.)

I have been trying to find time to put together a thread on the effect of
our culture on how we interact with others. MUST NOT OPTIMAL COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNIQUES FOR STIMULUS-RESPONSE SYSTEMS BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE FOR
HIERARCHICAL CONTROL SYSTEMS?

Our culture is based on the belief that people are stimulus-response
systems. Thus we learn in our society, communications techniques based on
this philosophy. We remain, and continue to act as, independent living
control systems, however.

The waters get muddied because, as hierarchical control systems, we
naturally change our means as needed to achieve our goals. People only
continue to do what they perceive as working (i.e., perceive as helping
them achieve goals). Those who perceive that the culturally correct
communications techniques do not work for them, may reorganize and try
something else that does work. This is done, of course, without
understanding of the control system basis of their existence. There will be
no awareness that the techniques that work better for them are NOT
techniques that our cultural rules of thumb say will work. Thus some of us
may use communication techniques that work for us without realizing they
are techniques that are better suited for communications between control
systems than between stimulus-response systems. (My belief is that this is
the difference between those who communicate well and the rest of us.)

My very personal perception of communications on the CSGnet is that the
communication techniques strongly reflect the stimulus-response culture the
writers were all raised in (for more decades than we care to count). One
example is what you talking about, Chuck: In our culture, we define the
symbols for equations, but words, which are also symbols, are not defined
when used. (Presumably, our culture believes that the word in context
implies one universal definition understood by all.)

Another example is that writers on the net tend to state and restate
positions in an attempt to "stimulate" a desired "response". The proof is
in megabytes of circular conversations going nowhere.

I wonder, Chuck, if our posts will stimulate a positive response? ;>)

Hank Folson % Henry James Bicycles Inc % 509-6370@MCIMail.com

[Bill_Leach1]

<[Bill Leach 940724.14:31 EST(EDT)]

[Hank Folson 940724]

I agree with you 100%. It is fascinating to me that the people posting
regularly always define their _symbols_ when they use an equation, but
they _NEVER_ define their _words_ when they make a verbal statement.
ArenUt words nothing but multi-lettered symbols?? :>)

Are you seeking disagreement?

Symbols as used in equations are defined because such symbols are
normally context sensitive. For example the famous "i" in math and "i"
in electronics.

We use words to define these equation symbols (of course). When we use
words to define other words, we are still relying upon a common
understand of the word used in the definition. This is, has been and
probably always will be a problem when people are trying to communcate
with a high degree of precision.

In a subject such as this one, things are even worse because the words
almost can not describe the basic phenomenon. We all control, of course,
whether we want to or not and whether we know that we do or not.
However, understanding the significance of control goes, I think, beyond
words. Unless one has "discovered" a control phenomenon or been
surprised by a control system behaviour AND realized that the surprise
was due to a misunderstanding of how control systems work, then I think
that the "words" are lacking.

I am not yet willing to claim the title of "real PCTer" particularly
since my PCT experience is still so short in a chronological sense. I
tend to believe that I do "understand" the essential basics and believe
that was possible because as a child I encountered control systems that I
was free to play with (servo loop positioners). Though I had not thought
about it in years, I still remember my initial surprises as I "fooled
around" with these systems and learned of their unique behaviour!

I have been trying to find time to put together a thread on the effect
of our culture on how we interact with others. MUST NOT OPTIMAL
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES FOR STIMULUS-RESPONSE SYSTEMS BE DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE FOR HIERARCHICAL CONTROL SYSTEMS?

Don't know other than I know that I would be interested in such a
discussion.

Our culture is based on the belief that people are stimulus-response
systems.

I'm not convinced that this statement is true. Psychitrists,
psychologists, social scientists, and behaviouralists of all sorts (with
a notable exception of course) probably believe such a thing. I am not
convinced that the vast majority of people believe it and even many that
profess to still do not attempt to deal with others in that fashion.

People that actually do try to "get along with others" and accomplish
some common goals attempt to do whatever it is that achieves these goals
and most probably without much serious thought about underlying
structure.

The "S-R" "tendencies" in our language are probably only due to the fact
that we can really only talk about that which we ourselves perceive.
Thus, when we discuss someone elses' behaviour, we are using our own
perception of what we observe. I think that this is a perfectly
"natural" development. A great many people are aware that there is a
flaw in this approach an proverbs such as "Appearences can be deceiving"
indicate an awareness of such.

Thus we learn in our society, communications techniques based on
this philosophy. We remain, and continue to act as, independent living
control systems, however.

... Those who perceive that the culturally correct communications
techniques do not work for them, may reorganize and try something else
that does work. ... (My belief is that this is the difference between
those who communicate well and the rest of us.)

Again, this reads as though I sat down one day and considered that I
needed to use a "culturally correct" system of communications and that
maybe I even considered that it must be based on an S-R philosophy of
human behaviour.

The second quote is what indeed happens regardless and is how the
communications for each of us begins. I agree enough with the last line
there however, to feel that working on an understanding of how we use
language that is inconsistant with control system behaviour is worthy of
effort.

... (Presumably, our culture believes that the word in
context implies one universal definition understood by all.)

This is a bit strong. I don't think that is the belief at all. A
serious problem in our society today (esp. the U.S.) is that most people
are not taught to recognize (and for whatever reason do not recognize on
their own) that meaningful communications is work. The same sort of
difficulty that we see here (and I am aware of the fact that I am
certainly an excellent example of the difficulty that you describe, other
than my awareness of just how "slippery" words can be) is also common in
forums associated with philosophy (if not worse). Many other scientific
forums experience the same sort of difficulty. This is to be expected as
there is no magic forumula in coming to terms. One just has to work at
it until it happens, often one term at a time.

If one is lazy, then one can assume that the writer has precisely the
same meaning for a term as we ourselves do and then go on blissfully
ignorant content that "we are sooooo smart".

I certainly do have an ego, but I would rather "look stupid" trying to
understand this subject and eventually gain that "prize" than to look "Oh
so suave" and "with it" but have no more understanding of PCT than can be
obtained only from the surface concepts. I don't think for a moment that
I am alone in that attitude and I like to flatter myself by saying that
the likes of Bill & Mary P., Rick, and Tom have the same sort of beliefs.

Another example is that writers on the net tend to state and restate
positions in an attempt to "stimulate" a desired "response".

Being a major "megabyte generator"; I did just look over the last couple
of weeks worth of postings and I certainly have created my share (and
probably enough to make up for quite a few lurkers); I will comment on
this one too.

I can say rather unequivocally that I am controlling for perceptions
here (what a surprise huh?). The major perception is to understand PCT
and be able to benefit in my own life from that understanding. As I
learned very early on here on CSG-L, it is easy to think that you
understand something when in fact you do not. It is also quite easy to
see some "minor" point that you don't quite understand and believe that
it is not significant when in fact it is.

Thus, at least in my case, I am not "stating and restating positions in
an attempt to 'stimulate' a desired 'response'." As I learned in my
earlier interactions, if I think I understand, then I had best try to
apply that understanding several time in several different ways to see if
I really do understand or not because in fact I rarely did understand. I
don't think that I am particularly dense (though of course that is my own
perception) but it does appear to me that at least several others have
had similar difficulty.

And finally, as far as I am concerned, the real indicator of what is
going on is the quality of responses that I receive from Bill P., Rick
and Tom (in particular). Since these people take this whole matter of
PCT very seriously then as long as their responses indicate to me that
they view my efforts as serious enough to be worthy of their effort then
I am satisfied.

The proof is in megabytes of circular conversations going nowhere.

Your explaination is hardly any proof. (speaking of definitions of terms)

I wonder, Chuck, if our posts will stimulate a positive response? ;>)

Is your perception that this was "positive"?

-bill