Quantitative & Qualitative Modeling using traditionalstats&methods

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (990602.1320)]

Marc Abrams (990602.1233)--

People did not object to the PCT model of coercion, They
objected to the fact that you _generalized_ from this simple
_one_ behavior model to a much more complex interaction of
individuals and _all_ there behaviors ( or at least the ones
which might influence coercion )

I think people simply objected to the idea that coercion
is occurring when a coercee does what he would be forced
to do if he didn't do it.

How do we begin to understand CV's?

You use The Test to see which variables are controlled. That
is, you begin to understand CVs by doing research aimed at
determining what variables are controlled.

Can CV's be components of other CV's? If so, what determines
priority in error correction? If CV's are independent how do
various parts of us cooperate to get things done? These are
among some of the questions I have. It's also my area of
greatest interest in PCT.

These are all fine questions. But they cannot be answered (or
even _asked) until you have identified the CVs. The first step
in the study of purposeful behavior is the identification of CVs.

What we _observe_ are the actions people take. That's _all_ we
can observe. We cannot observe the reference states, nor can we
observe their perceptions. We can _infer_ them, but the best we
can do is educated guesses.

This is not true. We can observe controlled perceptions
(perceptions maintained in reference states) just as well
as we can see actions or disturbances. Controlled perceptions
(CVs), like actions and disturbances, are _variable_ aspects
of our own experience. Sometimes the state of these variables
can be measured by artificial measuring devices (like thermometers,
rulers, etc) and sometimes they can only be measured by human
perceptual functions (these are probably the kinds of variables
you are thinking of -- variables like "honesty" -- when you
say that we cannot observe CVs).

How do you tell the difference between control and inadverdant
side effects?

That's what The Test is for.

You _think_ you see control. How do you know you are?

I know I'm seeing control when I find a variable that passes
The Test and is, therefore, a _controlled_ variable.

What to look for? Is there something special that sets apart
a side effect from an action on a controlled perception?

Of course! A side effect is not a link in the causal loop that
keeps the controlled perception under control; an action _is_
a link in that loop.

You have to be _very_ careful when you say someone is
"controlling" for something. That might _have_ been true
when you first started to make that statement and is no
longer true, now that you have finished making it.

CVs are not variables that people necessarily control always
and forever. A CV is a variable that a person has been shown
to control. I'm not currently controlling the position of a
cursor but I have controlled that variable so "position of
cursor" is one of the variables I (can) control.

Conventional psychologists have no need for PCT because they
think they have an accurate theory of behavior and an agenda
to protect.

That's true too. But I think one important reason why they
think their theories are adequate is because they have never
had to explain why certain variables are maintained in
particular states, protected from disturbance; that is, they
have never had to explain the behavior of CVs because they
have never seen (observed) these variables.

Rick, you confuse me.

What are you confused about?

Best

Rick

···

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

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990602.1908) ]

[From Rick Marken (990602.1320)]

I think people simply objected to the idea that coercion
is occurring when a coercee does what he would be forced
to do if he didn't do it.

I think all of these reasons might be viable.

> How do we begin to understand CV's?

You use The Test to see which variables are controlled. That
is, you begin to understand CVs by doing research aimed at
determining what variables are controlled.

The Test with another individual is not a practical way to do this, ( i.e.
get and collect the kind of data we need ) The SDMOL does this. I am not
clear on how well it works, but it seems to work for me. My point here is
that as long as we need to rely on our interpretations of someone else, we
are in a tenuous position.

> Can CV's be components of other CV's? If so, what determines
> priority in error correction? If CV's are independent how do
> various parts of us cooperate to get things done? These are
> among some of the questions I have. It's also my area of
> greatest interest in PCT.

These are all fine questions. But they cannot be answered (or
even _asked) until you have identified the CVs. The first step
in the study of purposeful behavior is the identification of CVs.

And you can't do that until you understand the _nature_ of a CV. How do you
know you have identified a CV? Do the test? Well if you are looking for a
specific kind of CV there is no guarentee you will find it. If you are
looking for any ol CV what do you do with the knowledge? The Test as it's
currently configured gives no history of where you have been, so what kind
of data can you collect?

> What we _observe_ are the actions people take. That's _all_ we
> can observe. We cannot observe the reference states, nor can we
> observe their perceptions. We can _infer_ them, but the best we
> can do is educated guesses.

This is not true. We can observe controlled perceptions
(perceptions maintained in reference states) just as well
as we can see actions or disturbances. Controlled perceptions
(CVs), like actions and disturbances, are _variable_ aspects
of our own experience.

Fine, But how do you _know_ it's a CV. Are you going to stop people inthe
street for impromptu Tests?, I don't think so. I also contend, that it is
the _nature_ of the CV that is important. _Naming_ possible CV's is easy.

Sometimes the state of these variables
can be measured by artificial measuring devices (like thermometers,
rulers, etc) and sometimes they can only be measured by human
perceptual functions (these are probably the kinds of variables
you are thinking of -- variables like "honesty" -- when you
say that we cannot observe CVs).

When I say we cannot observe them, I mean we cannot tell them apart from
uncontrolled actions, unless we do the test, and doing the test is no
guarentee that we will uncover the CV.

> You _think_ you see control. How do you know you are?

I know I'm seeing control when I find a variable that passes
The Test and is, therefore, a _controlled_ variable.

How many times have you done the Test? Can you relate one or two experiences
and tell me if those CV's were components of other CV's. Did these CV's have
to "cooperate with other CV's to get things done? What else did you learn
about CV's from doing the test?

> What to look for? Is there something special that sets apart
> a side effect from an action on a controlled perception?

Of course! A side effect is not a link in the causal loop that
keeps the controlled perception under control; an action _is_
a link in that loop.

I'm talking real world. Not a model. I haven't seen anyone with a sign on
their forehead saying "-Link-" or "-non-link-"

> You have to be _very_ careful when you say someone is
> "controlling" for something. That might _have_ been true
> when you first started to make that statement and is no
> longer true, now that you have finished making it.

CVs are not variables that people necessarily control always
and forever.

Thats my point.

A CV is a variable that a person has been shown
to control. I'm not currently controlling the position of a
cursor but I have controlled that variable so "position of
cursor" is one of the variables I (can) control.

So there is no difference in a) Currently controlling b) was just
controlling, but not anymore c) I think I controlled for that 10 years ago
but that was the last time

Rick, you know the old saying " You never step in the same river twice"
Could this not be true with regard to CV's?

> Rick, you confuse me.

What are you confused about?

I was refering to your position on people learning PCT. Sometimes it seems
to matter. Other times not. I wonder what answers the test would provide
with regard to what you were controlling for with regard to Aquiring PCT
knowledge.

Marc