# Reductio ad domesticam

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833>\
**Category:** Troubled discourse\
**Created:** [July 17, 2021, 3:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833 "2021-07-17T15:38:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 3:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/1 "2021-07-17T15:38:49Z")

</div>

This redirects the digression at [Elections as collective control - #12 by rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/elections-as-collective-control/15832/12).

Before a conjecture or proposal can be modeled, it must be understood. Understanding a new idea is a process of integrating it with what is already known and understood.

If what was already known and understood does not change in this process, then either the idea was not new, or it was misunderstood. The misunderstanding re-states the new idea in a form that requires no change to established ideas.

We have seen this in psychologists distorting “behavior is the control of perception” and hearing it as “behavior controls perception”. When we concoct a PCT explanation of their resistance to change we adduce controlled variables like reputation in the field, being a consistent authority to students, admission of error, and so forth. This narrative of why PCT is not universally accepted is frankly speculation based sometimes on anecdotal information and rather free interpretation of correspondence, conversations, and interpersonal interactions as instances of the Test for controlled variables.

Rick, your motives for resisting new proposals in PCT are for you to identify, I won’t speculate. This has been a challenge for you for many years. I take as illustration your reduction of atenfel to ‘feedback function’. The acronym derives from ‘atomic environmental feedback links’. Here is your objection in June of 2016, five years ago.

> [@A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-favor-re-the-11-levels-of-hpct/527/9):
>
> RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement) name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”.

Despite the explanation that Kent and Martin plainly and patiently laid out at that time, you persist in this distortion to this day.

> [@On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/on-atenfels-and-power-was-re-a-favor-re-the-11-levels-of-hpct/7894/7):
>
> [Martin Taylor 2016.06.15.10.39]
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)
> 
> I requote, to illustrate why it is so weird trying to conduct a rational discussion with you.
> 
> > MT (previously): If you can’t tell the difference between the road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you.
> 
> > RM (now): “… you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function”.
> 
> > MT (now): Now you say that I call the road surface a feedback function, and chastise me because it is just a property of the real world, and its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling.
> 
> Also
> 
> > MT(in the tutorial): “The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link allows the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the loop.”
> 
> > RM (now): “You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels.”
> 
> If, and I emphasise “if”, you had actually read the tutorial you have twice claimed to have read, you would have seen that an atenfel is a property whose role in controlling depends on what you are controlling, AND that in the post on which you now comment, I cited the road surface as being such a property related to controlling one’s perception of being on the other side of town, the feedback function of which includes a (literal) transport lag that might depend on the road surface property.
> 
> It’s good to challenge new ideas and concepts. An effective challenge will either show them to be useless or false, or it will show their strength. But challenges that are based on reversing what is actually written do nothing but destroy the reputation of the challenger.
> 
> As Kent said a few days ago
> 
> > [From Kent McClelland (2016.06.06.0935)], “\* I’m also aware that your style of engaging with new ideas is to respond immediately and vigorously to any disturbance, so by all means control your own perceptions about the word!\*”
> 
> Kent’s observation, with which I concur, has been based on long experience, and is so consistent as almost to amount to an S-R phenomenon: “New idea presented” → “Rick strong disagreement before trying to understand what the idea might be”. Even if in order to disagree, you have to assert that the idea is the opposite of what was presented. The disagreement seems to be what is important, not the idea, whatever the idea might be. That is very sad.
> 
> Try actually _reading_ the tutorial, thinking about what it actually says, and considering whether it contains errors, places where there are ambiguities that need clarification, self-contradictions, scientific implausibilities, and so forth. Then post a comment that relates to it.
> 
> I hadn’t intended responding to this latest non-comment of yours, but then I realized that some naive readers might think it had some relevance to what I had written, and so a reply did seem to be warranted. I will welcome, and reply to, any challenges to ideas in the tutorial that are to the point, but probably not to others like this that are based on the opposite of what was written.

> [@On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/on-atenfels-and-power-was-re-a-favor-re-the-11-levels-of-hpct/7894/8):
>
> Come on Rick time for you to open up that massive cranium of yours for the wealth of important new concepts that PCT unveils!
> 
> I think Martin’s contribution here is pivotal to fully rendered modelling (and therefore understanding) of interacting agents in the real world using PCT.

What would be a constructive response? You could ask or propose how a new idea could be tested, what data are needed to model it, programming strategies for creating a computer simulation. These would be constructive responses. They are impossible to state without first accepting the new idea _arguendo_—for the sake of discussion.

You don’t have to agree with it in order to understand it, but you do have to understand it in order to discuss it.

Take some mental allergy medicine and actually read that “useless armchair speculation”; or if you really think it is useless and unworthy of your time to understand it, then stand aside. If your aim is to stop it and make it go away, muddying the water with gross distortions does not work. So stop doing that.

In other areas, you are much more open minded, as for example this very helpful reply about the notion of levels in MoL, which Martin lauded as worthy of preservation in a permanent collection of exemplary posts. Maybe this link is a step in that direction.

> [@On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/on-atenfels-and-power-was-re-a-favor-re-the-11-levels-of-hpct/7894/2):
>
> [From Rick Marken (2016.06.12.1200)] 
> 
> > **···**
> >
> > Martin Taylor (2016.06.07.16.56)– MT: It rather depends on what you mean by "social power". In its usual sense, the atenfel construct isn’t very important. In that sense what is important is getting other people to see things your way so that collective control serves your purposes. RM: That was the sense I meant. MT: But the relative power of two individuals, especially when they are in conflict, that is where atenfels first come in…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 3:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/2 "2021-07-17T15:47:37Z")

</div>

Bruce: Are you saying behavior is not the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions?

Fred

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 4:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/3 "2021-07-17T16:19:49Z")

</div>

Fred, what did I ever say that suggests that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 6:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/4 "2021-07-17T18:09:35Z")

</div>

Hi Fred

> > FN: Bruce: Are you saying behavior is not the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions?

> BN: Fred, what did I ever say that suggests that?

RM: I think it’s because you (Bruce) said: "We have seen this in psychologists distorting “behavior is the control of perception” and hearing it as “behavior controls perception”.

RM: Which is absolutely correct. I think the idea that “behavior controls perception” is the most fundamental conceptual misunderstanding people have about PCT. It has led to the idea that all we can see is “behavior”, not the perceptions that are being controlled. This is errant pedantry up with which I will not put. I think it’s this misunderstanding that has led to the development of such errant pedantry as the notion of an atenfel, or whatever it’s called.

RM: In PCT behavior IS controlled perception. Virtually everything we see as “behavior” is controlled perceptual variables. As I show in my [PCT in a Teacup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88aXMEgvq68) tutorial, when looking at a behavior like “sipping tea” what you are seeing (from outside the behaving system) is the _behavior of controlled perceptual variables_. When you are able to see that this is the case you have learned to look at behavior through [control theory glasses](https://www.dropbox.com/s/eluq79dyzpcb1nh/PCTGlasses2002.pdf?dl=0).

RM: I believe the Summer Olympics will provide a great opportunity to tune up those glasses. Having been a gymnast in my younger days, I love to watch the the behavior of gymnasts. What you will see when you watch these amazing athletes is the behavior of many different controlled variables. Watch as they control their balance (sensation) while transitioning their body into different configurations (an "L’ into an “iron cross” on the rings, for example) as they carry out their program of events so as best to represent the principles of good gymnastics.

RM: What you will be seeing if you watch the Olympics are controlled perceptual variables. Of course, you will only be seeing these controlled variables from outside the athlete, but you can get a pretty good idea of what those perceptual variables are because, through control theory glasses, you can see that these behaviors are being produced in the face of disturbances – the main disturbances being gravity and the forces generated by throwing you body around. So when you see a person doing an iron cross (I can’t believe I used to be able to do that!) toy can “see” that that is a controlled perception because it is being produced by forces you can’t see to compensate for forces (well, actually curves in spacetime) that you also can’t see.

RM: But control theory glasses only give you an approximate view of the perceptions being controlled by these athletes. In order to “see” these perceptions clearly, you have to do the test for controlled variables. But the view through control theory glasses is a good starting point for doing the test inasmuch as it provides the starting hypotheses you need to do it.

Best, Rick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/5 "2021-07-17T18:10:33Z")

</div>

The first sentence in the third paragraph of the message to which I replied.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 6:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/6 "2021-07-17T18:33:33Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t ordinarily comment on such a thread as this, but since my name was used extensively in what Bruce wrote (thank you, Bruce), I think I might be excused on this occasion.

Quite apart from any discussions here or offline with individuals, I have been asking myself what I might be controlling for in respect to my writings on PCT, and what I might perceive to be environmental states for which my control actions correct some perceptual error. I haven’t really come up with a coherent answer to myself, but some of what I have come up with may be worth sharing.

To start with, “I hold these truths to be self-evident”:  
(1) that Scientific enquiry, experimental, observational, or analytic, is the best way to find out how the world works.  
(2) that all current scientific ideas about how the world works are wrong in some respects.  
(3) that what anybody claims to be a truth of science is therefore incorrect.  
(4) that PCT is a science.  
(5) that whatever I say about PCT is therefore wrong in some respect.

For me, this last self-evident truth creates an unresolvable error in a perception I control, which is that I have a correct understanding of what PCT implies about living control systems and their interactions. I don’t and can’t have such a comprehensive understanding. (Bill Powers said the same thing about his own understanding of PCT).

I have two means of controlling this perception, two atenfels if I want to link it to the previous discussion as quoted by Bruce (in which I see that my thinking on atenfels has evolved since then). These are (a) analyze more carefully and deeply, including experiment if that would seem likely to help, and (b) let people know what I currently think in the hope that someone will point out why something I say is unsupportable (if possible) and unsupported (if refutation is impossible).

To follow Bruce’s extensive quotes, I find that simple assertions that I am wrong, leaving the reason as a mystery, simply add to the disturbance to the perception I think I am controlling when I write something. The high probability that anything I write in this forum will be immediately followed either by a statement unsupported by a scientific reason that what I wrote is wrong, or that what I wrote is misrepresented in a way that it appears obviously wrong, is a prime reason why I have seldom contributed to this forum.  
+++++++++++

As some of you know, for the last few years I have been learning about PCT and its implications by writing a book with the working title “Powers of Perceptual Control: an enquiry into language, culture, power and politics”. (The pun on the name Powers is intentional). Currently the book runs about 570K words in 42 Chapters divided into three “Volumes”, the last few Chapters either unwritten or in need of substantial rewriting in light of what I have learned about PCT in the process of writing, Many of the Chapters get edited or largely rewritten as I learn more, so from around the middle of the book, and especially the las half-dozen Chapters it is in a state of flux.

Because I perceive that there exist people who might like to learn about a wider range of things PCT can demonstrate than are “allowed” in this forum, I do hope some day to submit it for open-source publication, but as of now it suffers from “the best is the enemy of the good” (intolerance) syndrome. And as I said above, one of the “self-evident truths” is that the book is science, and is therefore full of errors.

Anyway, to sum up, my own perception of me is that I perceive myself to be a scientist doing science when I talk about PCT, and that entails controlling always for perceiving in what way I am wrong, not that I am wrong, which I already suppose to be the case…

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 9:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/7 "2021-07-17T21:24:18Z")

</div>

> [@FredNickols](#):
>
> Bruce: Are you saying behavior is not the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions?

> [@bnhpct](#):
>
> Fred, what did I ever say that suggests that?

> [@FredNickols](#):
>
> The first sentence in the third paragraph of the message to which I replied.

The first sentence in the third paragraph is

> [@bnhpct](#):
>
> If what was already known and understood does not change in this process, then either the idea was not new, or it was misunderstood.

Perhaps Rick is right, and you mean the fourth sentence?

> [@bnhpct](#):
>
> We have seen this in psychologists distorting “behavior is the control of perception” and hearing it as “behavior controls perception”.

“Behavior is the control of perception” is consistent with “behavior is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions.” The distortion “behavior controls perception” is not. I attribute that distortion to conventional psychologists resisting disturbance to their preconceptions. To attribute it to me as my belief would be wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2021, 10:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/8 "2021-07-17T22:03:30Z")

</div>

Hi Bruce

> BN: “Behavior is the control of perception” is consistent with “behavior is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions.”

RM: No, it is not. As I said in an earlier post in this thread (which I don’t know how to point to but it’s post # 4) what we call “behavior” IS controlled perception seen from the point of view of the observer. Even a behavior we see as a means of controlling some perception is itself a controlled perception. When we are looking at a consistently produced behavior – a behavior we can name, like “a sip of tea” or “an arm movement” – then we are looking at a controlled perceptual variable (or something very close to it) from our (rather than the agent’s) perspective.

Best, Rick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 2:22pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/9 "2021-07-19T14:22:43Z")

</div>

> [@rsmarken](#):
>
> what we call “behavior” IS controlled perception seen from the point of view of the observer.

Yes. We’ve noticed many times that there are two senses of ‘behavior’, behavior from the control system’s point of view and behavioral actions or outputs as seen from an observer’s point of view. “Behavior (from the organism’s point of view) is the control of perception” is consistent with “behavior (from the observer’s point of view) is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Archivist](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/archivist/32/2878_2.png) [@Archivist](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Archivist)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 5:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/10 "2021-07-19T17:33:02Z")

</div>

Martin, I very much like your post, especially the delineation of truths that are self-evident – or not so self evident. Your truths cover both the “hard” sciences and the “soft” life sciences. I have lang had a hard time to think of the soft ones as science.  
Best, adg

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 5:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/11 "2021-07-19T17:46:45Z")

</div>

> > RM: what we call “behavior” IS controlled perception seen from the point of view of the observer.

> BN: Yes. We’ve noticed many times that there are two senses of ‘behavior’, behavior from the control system’s point of view and behavioral actions or outputs as seen from an observer’s point of view. “Behavior (from the organism’s point of view) is the control of perception” is consistent with “behavior (from the observer’s point of view) is the means by which we affect and, hopefully, control our perceptions.”

RM: This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific basis of PCT that I think it merits its own Topic in Fundamentals of PCT. So if anyone is interested in following this discussion I’m going to continue it in a Topic called “What is Behavior?”

Best, Rick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 6:23pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/12 "2021-07-19T18:23:42Z")

</div>

I am interested.

Fred

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 7:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reductio-ad-domesticam/15833/13 "2021-07-19T19:36:30Z")

</div>

[Here’s](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/behavior-is-control/15836) the pointer to a continuation of the conversation in a new Topic.

Best, Rick