[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
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
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?