[From Dag Forssell (930423 11.30) Ken Hacker [930422]
I have found many references to "causes" and "effects," albeit internal,
in Bill's book, Behavior: The Control of Perception.
Of course. The control loop is a chain of cause-effect relationships. The
controlled variable causes perception. The comparison of reference and
perception causes an error signal. The error signal causes an output. The
output causes some influence on the controlled variable. And the
disturbance causes some influence on the controlled variable as well.
What is unique about control is that these cause-effect relationships
form a closed loop (The name of our quarterly paper). Therefore, no cause
is the only cause. It is not a step-by-step chain either, because all the
cause-effect relationships are in effect continuously, all the time.
Because of the arrangement of these cause-effect interactions, the net
result is that the output causes the perception of the controlled
variable to (almost) equal the reference perception. The action is
simultaneous all around the loop, and behavior is the control of
perception.
I can already hear the question, but where, where, where are such
studies. In second response to that question, I will say, check out the
recent journals for disciplines like communication studies and
sociology. I will say, check out the recent journals for disciplines
like communication studies and sociology. The work of Tucker and McPhail
is instructive.
Are you aware that Tucker and McPhail are PCT advocates and hear you on
this net. It is no accident that
The work of Tucker and McPhail is instructive.
[6] PCT explains the internal control of perceptions. It does not
explain memory, interpretation, social systems, culture, and other
aspects of human life that are important to all human beings.
However, it should not be held to the standard of doing so.
Let us know when you have finished reading Bill's book, Behavior: The
Control of Perception.
With reference to my posts on descriptive, generative and reasoning
theory last sunday, (Five page paper now available by snail mail) let me
suggest that most (99+%?) people have never given generative theory much
thought. Even those who have, live 99+% of their daily lives based on
intuitively developed and accumulated descriptive theory, also known as
common sense.
I believe that for most behavioral scientists, PCT is the first
generative theory they have ever been exposed to in their own fields. It
becomes a real challenge to recognize and appreciate that PCT does not
describe what is going on. PCT *predicts* what *will* go on, given a
structure and closed loop cause-effect relationships in a hierarchical
structure.
Ken, your posts illustrate one aspect of control that PCT predicts. Once
a human has developed an understanding (system concept) - in any field -
that understanding serves as a reference at a high level in the control
hierarchy. Any disturbance is resisted. You are certainly resisting the
implications of PCT that you have been told about on this net, and are
telling us why they cannot be, from your descriptive perspective.
You will also read in "Behavior: The Control of Perception" about re-
organization. It is uncomfortable to struggle with the conflict that
arises when you realize that what you have come to depend on may be
incomplete to say the least. Some people have the courage think hard and
take the consequences, others have withdrawn to the safe territory of
what they already think they know. Many of us on this net are rooting for
you and hope you will take the first route. I think you may find it
easier on you to take the time to study PCT carefully before you stick
your neck out.
Best, Dag