Review of “Reconstructing Your World View�? b y Bart Madden

“I found this focus on solving business problems only from the employers perspective to be almost obscene…”

Right on.
Allie
(Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

···

On Oct 16, 2014 1:18 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From
Rick Marken (2014.10.16.1220)]

Â

“Reconstructing Your World Viewâ€? introduces Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) as one of four “core beliefsâ€? that can help people solve
their business problems. While there is a brief but adequate description of PCT
in Chapter 5 it was never clear to me how PCT was relevant to all the proposed solutions
to the business problems described in the book. Indeed, many of these proposals
seemed to have little to do with an understanding of humans in terms of PCT. One
example of this is the basic premise of the book: that you can solve your
problems by “reconstructing your worldviewâ€?. This is presented as a matter of
disabusing oneself of “faulty assumptionsâ€? so that one can perceive things
correctly.

One example given in the book of the benefits of disabusing oneself of “faulty
assumptionsâ€? is Walmart’s success due to Sam Walton’s ability to see that the
perception “big stores in small townsâ€? was correct while Kmart’s failure
resulted from its inability to get past the idea that “big stores in big townsâ€?
is correct. But there is nothing in PCT that says that one way of perceiving the
world is more correct than another. The “correctnessâ€? of a perception makes
sense only in terms of whether controlling it achieves the controller’s higher
order goals – all of them. So controlling for “big stores iin small townsâ€? may
have been “correctâ€? for Walton inasmuch as it achieved all of his higher level
goals but controlling that perception may not have been correct for Kmart because
it would not have achieved all of Kmart’s higher level goals.

How you solve problems (from a PCT perspective) depends on the
type of problem you have. A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control
a perception you want to control. There are basically two kinds of problems
from a PCT perspective: lack of control due to lack of skill (such as inability
to solve a math problem due to lack of knowledge of the rules of algebra) and
lack of control due to conflict (such as lack of control of eating due to a
conflict between wanting nourishment and wanting to be thin). Tim Carey and I discuss
the difference between these two types of problems and how to solve them in our
recent paper Understanding the Change
Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to
Understanding How Psychotherapy Works
(2014). The solution to both of these types of problems involves
what could be called “reconstructing your worldviewâ€?; but the reconstructing is
quite different in each case. If the problem results from lack of skill then
the solution is education; teaching the person the perceptions to control to
achieve the desired result. If it’s a conflict-based problem then the solution
can only be achieved through reorganization; there is no way to teach the
person the perceptions to control that will achieve the desired result. If the �complex
business problems� addressed in the book are lack of skill problems then they
can be readily solved by simply teaching the correct way to achieve the desired
results. If, however, these problems are conflict-based – as they sseem to be
since they are described as involving resistance to change of “worldviewâ€? – then
the only solution is random reorganization, perhaps assisted by MOL; an outsider cannot tell the person with the problem what the correct solution to their problem is.

PCT is simply a model of how purposeful behavior (control)
works; it supports no particular political point of view or value system. But
it does show what a properly functioning living system is: it’s a system that
is in control. So if one’s idea of a “goodâ€? society is one where everyone is in
control of their lives – that is, if one is controlling for the perrception of a
society made up of individuals who are able to control the perceptions they
need and want to control (as mine is) – then “Reconstructinng Your World Viewâ€? is particularly
disappointing forum for “promulgating PCTâ€?. This is because the book seems to
accept the idea that competition is a good thing; that  "society benefits from business firms competingâ€?. Competition
is just another word for conflict and if PCT teaches us anything it’s that
conflict is the enemy of control. So I think that
an understanding of PCT leads to a very different conclusion about the merits
of competition in society, more like the conclusion so beautifully articulated by
Powers in his paper “Degrees of freedom in social interaction”(
reprinted in LCS I). In particular, see the section on “Freedom in Social
Interactions” (starting on p. 229) for the PCT view of the supposed
benefits of competition in a society.Â

Â

Complementing the lack of understanding of the debilitating
effects of conflict is a lack of understanding of the nature of cooperation.
One of the “Key pointsâ€? at the end of the chapter on PCT is the following: “When
people working together have sharply different high-level goals, conflict is to
be expected. When their high-level goals are similar, expect cooperation.� What
is being described is not necessarily cooperation. If the simultaneous control
of the same perception is simply coincidental then there was no cooperation involved;
it’s just two systems that happen to be controlling the same variable at the same time. Either system could have controlled the variable on its own;
there was no need for the other system to be controlling as well. The only benefit of simultaneous control of the variable is that each system needs to produce less output to produce
the desired result than it would have if it were on its own. This would be an
example of cooperation if the two systems had agreed in advance to control the
same perception so that each would have to expend less effort at controlling it
individually. Cooperation involves two or more control systems achieving a
result that could not be achieved by either system acting on its own. Real
cooperation requires that each system give up some control (give up some “personal freedomâ€?)
in order to achieve control of some variable that the systems involved could
not achieve individually (so that they are all “freerâ€?). Cooperation does not “just
happen� when people adopt (coincidentally) similar goals (although adopting
similar goals can be part of what is agreed to as part of being cooperative).

Cooperation is the basis of civilized human society. And I
think it is the failure to understand the nature of cooperation from a PCT
perspective that I find most problematic about this book. A business is a
cooperative venture between employees and employers. So any problems in the
business are control problems for both employees and employers. But this book
presents PCT as a solution to the problems the employer only (with even the small nod
toward improving “worker satisfactionâ€? being aimed at making business better
for the employer). I find this focus on solving business problems only from the employers perspective to be almost obscene in the context of an economy where over the last 30 years CEO remuneration
has gone from 50 to over 300 times that of the average employee while employee
wages have remained stagnant or actually declined in real terms. Since money is what gives people a great deal of their ability to control (in a society based on specialized production) it’s pretty clear that over the last 30 years the problems of employers have declined considerably while those of their employees have increased substantially. It seems to me that what we need are more
books on how employers can better cooperate with employees to give employees
better control of their lives. Â

Â

Ultimately I think this book suffers from a “worldviewâ€? that
is well described in these quotes from two of my favorite economists:

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich
and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and
mean condition…[is] the great and most universal cause of the corruption of
our moral sentiments… We frequently see the respectful attentions of the
world more strongly directed towards the rich and the great, than towards the
wise and the virtuous. We see frequently the vices and follies of the powerful
much less despised than the poverty and weakness of the innocent. (Adam Smith,
Theory of Moral Sentiments I.III.28).

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith

I look forward to someday seeing a truly PCT-based book on economics and business. I think it would describe an economy organized a lot more like those of the the Nordic countries than that of the US.Â

RSM


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

AP: Rick - I still really liked your review but in all fairness I should have just sent my comment to you and not the whole net. Dag is kindly forwarding a copy of Bart’s book to me so I will take a stab at it (I owe that much to you, Bart!)

I very much appreciate your taking the time to look at the potential effects this book could have but also whether or not PCT is accurately integrated into the ideas presented there.

It is so important for new works that are directly referencing PCT to be critically reviewed by people who know PCT backwards and forwards.Having you and the many others here on CSGnet who post PCT related finds and compare your opinions about them is invaluable.

···

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.19.1145)]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you want to control.

Â

HB :

I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I don’t think one can go over the basics too much.Â

“Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled variable at its reference. In a simple control task, like a tracking task, where the controller is asked to maintain a constant reference, “inability to control” is measured as either RMS error or stability factor (see http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target). These are continuous measures of inability to control inasmuch as they can vary from very low to very high values; the larger the value of RMS error the greater the inability to control (the more the controlled variable varies around he reference); the larger the stability factor, the greater the ability to control (the less the controlled variable varies around he reference);Â

Â

 RM :

There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of control due to lack of skill …and lack of control due to conflict.Â

HB :

I wonder again what could it mean »lack of control« in PCT ? And what is »lack of skill« in PCT ?

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference). Lack of skill characterizes a control system that is not able to keep a controlled variable at the reference. Lack of skill results from having a control system that is not properly organized, in terms of the characteristics of its input and/or output functions, to control the perceptual output of its input function.

HB :

Do I understand right that solutions in PCT have more possible basic principles , mechanisms ? And the basic term is »reconstructing« in two possible meanings ?

RM: Yes. I think the two different approaches to improving control correspond to what Powers described in B:CP as learning to control through memory versus through reorganization.

Â

Â

RM :

If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education; teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired result.

Â

HB :

Again I’m wondering what this could mean ?

RM: Improving skill through education is probably mainly a process of learning through memory. For example, if you are having a problem solving a math problem and you are helped to solve it (control for the result) by a teacher reminding (or telling) Â you about multiplying or dividing both sides of the equation by the same variable then you have improved your control of math problems by being told (or reminded of) a process that you were already able to carry out. There was no fundamental change in the characteristics of your math control system, as would happen with reorganization.

HB :

Well if I understand right there are basically two mechanisms for solving problems in human organism ? One is »skill-oriented education« like »teaching students to control perceptions« and the other is reorganization, which doesn’t allow »any kind of teaching the person the perception to control« ? What a mess if I understood it right…

RM: You do understand right. Â

Â

HB:

Do you suggest that there are two ways of solving problems in PCT :

1.      teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results.

2.      solving conflict with random reorganization, perhaps assisted with MOL

RM: Yes, but they are appropriate to different kinds of problems, as Tim and I explain in our paper "Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works"Â (2014). Approach 1 works for problems, like math problems, where the nature of the problem (what perception is to be controlled at what reference level) and steps required to solve it are known. There may be some reorganization involved when people are first learning to solve such problems but most of the learning involves what is basically memorizing – remembering what perceptions to control at what level in order to get the problem solved. But problems resulting from conflict – which is the cause of most psychological problems – cannot be solved in the same way math problems are solved. Solving these problems is not a matter of carrying out a known set of procedures; it’s a matter of changing the way one controls. That is, it requires a change (reorganization) of the existing control structures. What kinds of changes are needed are not known; if they were known then it would be a problem that could be solved by teaching. But since the way to solve the problem (and even what would constitute a solution) is not known the only way to find a solution is through random trial and error (E. coli) reorganization of one’s existing control hierarchy. MOL presumably makes this reorganization process more efficient, although, because the process involves random trial and error, a solution is still not guaranteed.Â

HB :

So here we have »control of the same variable« in outer environment, although there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in Bill’s diagram ?

RM: The environmental correlate of the controlled variable is called the “controlled quantity”.Â

HB :

But interesting, here we have »control of the same perception« ? Are there also two ways of perceiving »cooperation« in PCT ?

RM: I see cooperation as involving two or more people producing a result that they all could not produce on their own, like a computer (no one individual would have the time or ability to build a tablet computer from the raw materials to end result). Not everyone involved would have to be controlling for the same perception of the final result but certainly more than one would. The perception of the final result would be quite high level so even though the people producing the result would not perceive that result in the same way at a low level (the tablet, for example, would look different to the different people involved in producing it because it would be seen from different visual perspectives) the higher level perception of the result (in the case of a tablet as being a very light, easy to use, touch based network node) would be the same for its producers. Â

HB :

What could this »PCT« constructs mean ? »Give up some control«, »give up some personal freedom«, »adopt similar goals«…… Are you explaining your own psychological view on the boook or PCT ? You are psychologist aren’t you ? Well that could explain many explanation problems you used….

RM: Good question. Take a simple example of cooperation: stopping at a red light at an intersection. I am giving up my freedom to continue controlling for driving down the street by stopping at a red light in order to achieve the higher order goal of not crashing into or running over others or having them crash into me. I (along with the other drivers) am giving up some freedom (to control my car as I might want) in order to control for having a safe and orderly traffic system.Â

Â

 BH: I left out critics based on your worldview of economy. Afterall it’s your problem what you think.

RM: Absolutely. And I said that in my review. I said that I find the book’s focus on solving business problems only from the employers “almost obscene” because I am controlling for a worldview (system concept perception) of a society where everyone – not just the top 1% –  is able to be in good control of their lives – a society more like the one I was born into (a more equitable society with a large and prosperous middle class, thanks to FDR) than like the one it has become (with high inequality and a shrinking and struggling middle class, thanks to Reagan). That criticism of the book really has nothing to do with PCT except for the fact that I think US society has been moving in a direction where people who are not in the top income/wealth % are not able to control their lives as well as they used to. But PCT can’t say whether that’s a good or bad thing; it just is. There are many people, some of them PCT aficionados, who apparently think that increased inequality and a shrinking middle class is just fine and dandy. So they won’t object to Bart’s book being aimed at helping the rich get richer. But that’s the values (references) that they adopt for whatever reason they adopt them. Nothing I can do about that. And as the Adam Smith quote shows, this value – of reverence for the rich – has been around for quite a while so I don['t expect it to go away soon. Who knows, maybe my values are wrong and they just come from watching too many episodes of Robin Hood when I was a kid;-)

BestÂ

Rick

Â

It seems to me Rick, that you are frequently using two ways (approaches) to solving problems One is Mr Hyde (behaviorism) and other is Dr. Jekyll (PCT). So it maybe seems to you that the »world problems« are divided into two possible soilutions. That’s not how organisms work. They have one basic mechanism for solving problems. And Bill described it very good. My proposal is to get rid of Mr.Hyde.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

P.S.

AP : (Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

HB : I agree J

Â


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.19.1145)]

···

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you want to control.

Â

HB :

I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I don’t think one can go over the basics too much.Â

“Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled variable at its reference. In a simple control task, like a tracking task, where the controller is asked to maintain a constant reference, “inability to control” is measured as either RMS error or stability factor (see http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target). These are continuous measures of inability to control inasmuch as they can vary from very low to very high values; the larger the value of RMS error the greater the inability to control (the more the controlled variable varies around he reference); the larger the stability factor, the greater the ability to control (the less the controlled variable varies around he reference);Â

Â

 RM :

There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of control due to lack of skill …and lack of control due to conflict.Â

HB :

I wonder again what could it mean »lack of control« in PCT ? And what is »lack of skill« in PCT ?

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference). Lack of skill characterizes a control system that is not able to keep a controlled variable at the reference. Lack of skill results from having a control system that is not properly organized, in terms of the characteristics of its input and/or output functions, to control the perceptual output of its input function.

HB :

Do I understand right that solutions in PCT have more possible basic principles , mechanisms ? And the basic term is »reconstructing« in two possible meanings ?

RM: Yes. I think the two different approaches to improving control correspond to what Powers described in B:CP as learning to control through memory versus through reorganization.

Â

Â

RM :

If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education; teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired result.

Â

HB :

Again I’m wondering what this could mean ?

RM: Improving skill through education is probably mainly a process of learning through memory. For example, if you are having a problem solving a math problem and you are helped to solve it (control for the result) by a teacher reminding (or telling) Â you about multiplying or dividing both sides of the equation by the same variable then you have improved your control of math problems by being told (or reminded of) a process that you were already able to carry out. There was no fundamental change in the characteristics of your math control system, as would happen with reorganization.

HB :

Well if I understand right there are basically two mechanisms for solving problems in human organism ? One is »skill-oriented education« like »teaching students to control perceptions« and the other is reorganization, which doesn’t allow »any kind of teaching the person the perception to control« ? What a mess if I understood it right…

RM: You do understand right. Â

Â

HB:

Do you suggest that there are two ways of solving problems in PCT :

1.      teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results.

2.      solving conflict with random reorganization, perhaps assisted with MOL

RM: Yes, but they are appropriate to different kinds of problems, as Tim and I explain in our paper "Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works"Â (2014). Approach 1 works for problems, like math problems, where the nature of the problem (what perception is to be controlled at what reference level) and steps required to solve it are known. There may be some reorganization involved when people are first learning to solve such problems but most of the learning involves what is basically memorizing – remembering what perceptions to control at what level in order to get the problem solved. But problems resulting from conflict – which is the cause of most psychological problems – cannot be solved in the same way math problems are solved. Solving these problems is not a matter of carrying out a known set of procedures; it’s a matter of changing the way one controls. That is, it requires a change (reorganization) of the existing control structures. What kinds of changes are needed are not known; if they were known then it would be a problem that could be solved by teaching. But since the way to solve the problem (and even what would constitute a solution) is not known the only way to find a solution is through random trial and error (E. coli) reorganization of one’s existing control hierarchy. MOL presumably makes this reorganization process more efficient, although, because the process involves random trial and error, a solution is still not guaranteed.Â

HB :

So here we have »control of the same variable« in outer environment, although there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in Bill’s diagram ?

RM: The environmental correlate of the controlled variable is called the “controlled quantity”.Â

HB :

But interesting, here we have »control of the same perception« ? Are there also two ways of perceiving »cooperation« in PCT ?

RM: I see cooperation as involving two or more people producing a result that they all could not produce on their own, like a computer (no one individual would have the time or ability to build a tablet computer from the raw materials to end result). Not everyone involved would have to be controlling for the same perception of the final result but certainly more than one would. The perception of the final result would be quite high level so even though the people producing the result would not perceive that result in the same way at a low level (the tablet, for example, would look different to the different people involved in producing it because it would be seen from different visual perspectives) the higher level perception of the result (in the case of a tablet as being a very light, easy to use, touch based network node) would be the same for its producers. Â

HB :

What could this »PCT« constructs mean ? »Give up some control«, »give up some personal freedom«, »adopt similar goals«…… Are you expexplaining your own psychological view on the book or PCT ? You are psychologist aren’t you ? Well that could explain many explanation problems you used….

RM: Good queestion. Take a simple example of cooperation: stopping at a red light at an intersection. I am giving up my freedom to continue controlling for driving down the street by stopping at a red light in order to achieve the higher order goal of not crashing into or running over others or having them crash into me. I (along with the other drivers) am giving up some freedom (to control my car as I might want) in order to control for having a safe and orderly traffic system.Â

Â

 BH: I left out critics based on your worldview of economy. Afterall it’s your problem what you think.

RM: Absolutely. And I said that in my review. I said that I find the book’s focus on solving business problems only from the employers “almost obscene” because I am controlling for a worldview (system concept perception) of a society where everyone – not just the top 1% –  is able to be in good control of their lives – a society more like the one I was born into (a more equitable society with a large and prosperous middle class, thanks to FDR) than like the one it has become (with high inequality and a shrinking and struggling middle class, thanks to Reagan). That criticism of the book really has nothing to do with PCT except for the fact that I think US society has been moving in a direction where people who are not in the top income/wealth % are not able to control their lives as well as they used to. But PCT can’t say whether that’s a good or bad thing; it just is. There are many people, some of them PCT aficionados, who apparently think that increased inequality and a shrinking middle class is just fine and dandy. So they won’t object to Bart’s book being aimed at helping the rich get richer. But that’s the values (references) that they adopt for whatever reason they adopt them. Nothing I can do about that. And as the Adam Smith quote shows, this value – of reverence for the rich – has been around for quite a while so I don['t expect it to go away soon. Who knows, maybe my values are wrong and they just come from watching too many episodes of Robin Hood when I was a kid;-)

BestÂ

Rick

Â

It seems to me Rick, that you are frequently using two ways (approaches) to solving problems One is Mr Hyde (behaviorism) and other is Dr. Jekyll (PCT). So it maybe seems to you that the »world problems« are divided into two possible soilutions. That’s not how organisms work. They have one basic mechanism for solving problems. And Bill described it very good. My proposal is to get rid of Mr.Hyde.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

P.S.

AP : (Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

HB : I agree J

Â


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.21.1620)]

AP: Rick - I still really liked your review but in all fairness I should
have just sent my comment to you and not the whole net. Dag is kindly
forwarding a copy of Bart's book to me so I will take a stab at it (I owe
that much to you, Bart!)

RM: I don't think you said anything wrong or, for that matter,
anything that would have required your having read the book (though I
think it's would be good for you to read it; I'd be interested in
hearing what you think of it). You were simply agreeing with my
opinion that it is obscene to use PCT as a basis for helping employers
rather than than employees with their problems in teh context of an
economy that over the last 30 years has seen business (employer)
profits skyrocket while wages stagnate. You were just saying that you
agreed with that opinion. You don't have to know PCT to feel that it
is wrong that the economy in the US over the last 30 years has been
biased substantially in favor of management (employers) over labor
(employees), making it much easier for employers than employees to
solve whatever problems they might have.

RM: Also, I know that Bill was not just scientifically interested in
PCT; he thought that an understanding of PCT would help make the world
a better place in the sense of being a world where people were able to
be in control of their lives-- all people, not just a few who happen
to be particularly talented, skillful, ruthless or lucky. I don't
think that necessarily means that Bill would not have liked Bart's
book; Bill tried to see the good in everyone's work (not always
successfully, but he tried). But I mention this because I do think it
is appropriate to discuss the real-life socioeconomic implications of
PCT on CSGNet. Bill certainly did this in the "Conflict and Control"
chapter of B:CP. So I think we can do it here on CSGNet, which is a
discussion group that has B:CP as its original impetus.

Best regards

Rick

···

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Alison Powers <controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com> wrote:

I very much appreciate your taking the time to look at the potential effects
this book could have but also whether or not PCT is accurately integrated
into the ideas presented there.

It is so important for new works that are directly referencing PCT to be
critically reviewed by people who know PCT backwards and forwards.Having you
and the many others here on CSGnet who post PCT related finds and compare
your opinions about them is invaluable.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.19.1145)]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Boris Hartman >> <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you
want to control.

HB :

I'm wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you
give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I'm sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I'm happy to try to explain these things; I don't
think one can go over the basics too much.

"Inability to control" means an inability to keep a controlled variable at
its reference. In a simple control task, like a tracking task, where the
controller is asked to maintain a constant reference, "inability to control"
is measured as either RMS error or stability factor (see
Nature of Control). Both are measures
of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and target)
varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target). These
are continuous measures of inability to control inasmuch as they can vary
from very low to very high values; the larger the value of RMS error the
greater the inability to control (the more the controlled variable varies
around he reference); the larger the stability factor, the greater the
ability to control (the less the controlled variable varies around he
reference);

RM :

There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of
control due to lack of skill ...and lack of control due to conflict.

HB :

I wonder again what could it mean »lack of control« in PCT ? And what is
»lack of skill« in PCT ?

RM: I hope you now understand what "lack of control" means (the degree to
which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference). Lack of
skill characterizes a control system that is not able to keep a controlled
variable at the reference. Lack of skill results from having a control
system that is not properly organized, in terms of the characteristics of
its input and/or output functions, to control the perceptual output of its
input function.

HB :

Do I understand right that solutions in PCT have more possible basic
principles , mechanisms ? And the basic term is »reconstructing« in two
possible meanings ?

RM: Yes. I think the two different approaches to improving control
correspond to what Powers described in B:CP as learning to control through
memory versus through reorganization.

RM :

If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education;
teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired
result.

HB :

Again I'm wondering what this could mean ?

RM: Improving skill through education is probably mainly a process of
learning through memory. For example, if you are having a problem solving a
math problem and you are helped to solve it (control for the result) by a
teacher reminding (or telling) you about multiplying or dividing both sides
of the equation by the same variable then you have improved your control of
math problems by being told (or reminded of) a process that you were already
able to carry out. There was no fundamental change in the characteristics of
your math control system, as would happen with reorganization.

HB :

Well if I understand right there are basically two mechanisms for solving
problems in human organism ? One is »skill-oriented education« like
»teaching students to control perceptions« and the other is reorganization,
which doesn't allow »any kind of teaching the person the perception to
control« ? What a mess if I understood it right�

RM: You do understand right.

HB:

Do you suggest that there are two ways of solving problems in PCT :

1. teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results.

2. solving conflict with random reorganization, perhaps assisted
with MOL

RM: Yes, but they are appropriate to different kinds of problems, as Tim
and I explain in our paper "Understanding the Change Process Involved in
Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How
Psychotherapy Works" (2014). Approach 1 works for problems, like math
problems, where the nature of the problem (what perception is to be
controlled at what reference level) and steps required to solve it are
known. There may be some reorganization involved when people are first
learning to solve such problems but most of the learning involves what is
basically memorizing -- remembering what perceptions to control at what
level in order to get the problem solved. But problems resulting from
conflict -- which is the cause of most psychological problems -- cannot be
solved in the same way math problems are solved. Solving these problems is
not a matter of carrying out a known set of procedures; it's a matter of
changing the _way_ one controls. That is, it requires a change
(reorganization) of the existing control structures. What kinds of changes
are needed are not known; if they were known then it would be a problem that
could be solved by teaching. But since the way to solve the problem (and
even what would constitute a solution) is not known the only way to find a
solution is through random trial and error (E. coli) reorganization of one's
existing control hierarchy. MOL presumably makes this reorganization process
more efficient, although, because the process involves random trial and
error, a solution is still not guaranteed.

HB :

So here we have »control of the same variable« in outer environment,
although there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in Bill's
diagram ?

RM: The environmental correlate of the controlled variable is called the
"controlled quantity".

HB :

But interesting, here we have »control of the same perception« ? Are
there also two ways of perceiving »cooperation« in PCT ?

RM: I see cooperation as involving two or more people producing a result
that they all could not produce on their own, like a computer (no one
individual would have the time or ability to build a tablet computer from
the raw materials to end result). Not everyone involved would have to be
controlling for the same perception of the final result but certainly more
than one would. The perception of the final result would be quite high level
so even though the people producing the result would not perceive that
result in the same way at a low level (the tablet, for example, would look
different to the different people involved in producing it because it would
be seen from different visual perspectives) the higher level perception of
the result (in the case of a tablet as being a very light, easy to use,
touch based network node) would be the same for its producers.

HB :

What could this »PCT« constructs mean ? »Give up some control«, »give up
some personal freedom«, »adopt similar goals«��� Are you explaining your own

psychological view on the book or PCT ? You are psychologist aren't you ?
Well that could explain many explanation problems you used�.

RM: Good question. Take a simple example of cooperation: stopping at a red
light at an intersection. I am giving up my freedom to continue controlling
for driving down the street by stopping at a red light in order to achieve
the higher order goal of not crashing into or running over others or having
them crash into me. I (along with the other drivers) am giving up some
freedom (to control my car as I might want) in order to control for having a
safe and orderly traffic system.

BH: I left out critics based on your worldview of economy. Afterall it's
your problem what you think.

RM: Absolutely. And I said that in my review. I said that I find the
book's focus on solving business problems only from the employers "almost
obscene" because I am controlling for a worldview (system concept
perception) of a society where everyone -- not just the top 1% -- is able
to be in good control of their lives -- a society more like the one I was
born into (a more equitable society with a large and prosperous middle
class, thanks to FDR) than like the one it has become (with high inequality
and a shrinking and struggling middle class, thanks to Reagan). That
criticism of the book really has nothing to do with PCT except for the fact
that I think US society has been moving in a direction where people who are
not in the top income/wealth % are not able to control their lives as well
as they used to. But PCT can't say whether that's a good or bad thing; it
just is. There are many people, some of them PCT aficionados, who apparently
think that increased inequality and a shrinking middle class is just fine
and dandy. So they won't object to Bart's book being aimed at helping the
rich get richer. But that's the values (references) that they adopt for
whatever reason they adopt them. Nothing I can do about that. And as the
Adam Smith quote shows, this value -- of reverence for the rich -- has been
around for quite a while so I don['t expect it to go away soon. Who knows,
maybe my values are wrong and they just come from watching too many episodes
of Robin Hood when I was a kid;-)

Best

Rick

It seems to me Rick, that you are frequently using two ways (approaches)
to solving problems One is Mr Hyde (behaviorism) and other is Dr. Jekyll
(PCT). So it maybe seems to you that the »world problems« are divided into
two possible soilutions. That's not how organisms work. They have one basic
mechanism for solving problems. And Bill described it very good. My proposal
is to get rid of Mr.Hyde.

Best,

Boris

P.S.

AP : (Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

HB : I agree J

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Alison Powers <controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com> wrote:

AP: Rick - I still really liked your review but in all fairness I should
have just sent my comment to you and not the whole net. Dag is kindly
forwarding a copy of Bart's book to me so I will take a stab at it (I owe
that much to you, Bart!)

I very much appreciate your taking the time to look at the potential effects
this book could have but also whether or not PCT is accurately integrated
into the ideas presented there.

It is so important for new works that are directly referencing PCT to be
critically reviewed by people who know PCT backwards and forwards.Having you
and the many others here on CSGnet who post PCT related finds and compare
your opinions about them is invaluable.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.19.1145)]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Boris Hartman >> <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you
want to control.

HB :

I'm wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you
give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I'm sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I'm happy to try to explain these things; I don't
think one can go over the basics too much.

"Inability to control" means an inability to keep a controlled variable at
its reference. In a simple control task, like a tracking task, where the
controller is asked to maintain a constant reference, "inability to control"
is measured as either RMS error or stability factor (see
Nature of Control). Both are measures
of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and target)
varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target). These
are continuous measures of inability to control inasmuch as they can vary
from very low to very high values; the larger the value of RMS error the
greater the inability to control (the more the controlled variable varies
around he reference); the larger the stability factor, the greater the
ability to control (the less the controlled variable varies around he
reference);

RM :

There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of
control due to lack of skill ...and lack of control due to conflict.

HB :

I wonder again what could it mean »lack of control« in PCT ? And what is
»lack of skill« in PCT ?

RM: I hope you now understand what "lack of control" means (the degree to
which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference). Lack of
skill characterizes a control system that is not able to keep a controlled
variable at the reference. Lack of skill results from having a control
system that is not properly organized, in terms of the characteristics of
its input and/or output functions, to control the perceptual output of its
input function.

HB :

Do I understand right that solutions in PCT have more possible basic
principles , mechanisms ? And the basic term is »reconstructing« in two
possible meanings ?

RM: Yes. I think the two different approaches to improving control
correspond to what Powers described in B:CP as learning to control through
memory versus through reorganization.

RM :

If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education;
teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired
result.

HB :

Again I'm wondering what this could mean ?

RM: Improving skill through education is probably mainly a process of
learning through memory. For example, if you are having a problem solving a
math problem and you are helped to solve it (control for the result) by a
teacher reminding (or telling) you about multiplying or dividing both sides
of the equation by the same variable then you have improved your control of
math problems by being told (or reminded of) a process that you were already
able to carry out. There was no fundamental change in the characteristics of
your math control system, as would happen with reorganization.

HB :

Well if I understand right there are basically two mechanisms for solving
problems in human organism ? One is »skill-oriented education« like
»teaching students to control perceptions« and the other is reorganization,
which doesn't allow »any kind of teaching the person the perception to
control« ? What a mess if I understood it right�

RM: You do understand right.

HB:

Do you suggest that there are two ways of solving problems in PCT :

1. teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results.

2. solving conflict with random reorganization, perhaps assisted
with MOL

RM: Yes, but they are appropriate to different kinds of problems, as Tim
and I explain in our paper "Understanding the Change Process Involved in
Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How
Psychotherapy Works" (2014). Approach 1 works for problems, like math
problems, where the nature of the problem (what perception is to be
controlled at what reference level) and steps required to solve it are
known. There may be some reorganization involved when people are first
learning to solve such problems but most of the learning involves what is
basically memorizing -- remembering what perceptions to control at what
level in order to get the problem solved. But problems resulting from
conflict -- which is the cause of most psychological problems -- cannot be
solved in the same way math problems are solved. Solving these problems is
not a matter of carrying out a known set of procedures; it's a matter of
changing the _way_ one controls. That is, it requires a change
(reorganization) of the existing control structures. What kinds of changes
are needed are not known; if they were known then it would be a problem that
could be solved by teaching. But since the way to solve the problem (and
even what would constitute a solution) is not known the only way to find a
solution is through random trial and error (E. coli) reorganization of one's
existing control hierarchy. MOL presumably makes this reorganization process
more efficient, although, because the process involves random trial and
error, a solution is still not guaranteed.

HB :

So here we have »control of the same variable« in outer environment,
although there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in Bill's
diagram ?

RM: The environmental correlate of the controlled variable is called the
"controlled quantity".

HB :

But interesting, here we have »control of the same perception« ? Are
there also two ways of perceiving »cooperation« in PCT ?

RM: I see cooperation as involving two or more people producing a result
that they all could not produce on their own, like a computer (no one
individual would have the time or ability to build a tablet computer from
the raw materials to end result). Not everyone involved would have to be
controlling for the same perception of the final result but certainly more
than one would. The perception of the final result would be quite high level
so even though the people producing the result would not perceive that
result in the same way at a low level (the tablet, for example, would look
different to the different people involved in producing it because it would
be seen from different visual perspectives) the higher level perception of
the result (in the case of a tablet as being a very light, easy to use,
touch based network node) would be the same for its producers.

HB :

What could this »PCT« constructs mean ? »Give up some control«, »give up
some personal freedom«, »adopt similar goals«��� Are you explaining your own

psychological view on the book or PCT ? You are psychologist aren't you ?
Well that could explain many explanation problems you used�.

RM: Good question. Take a simple example of cooperation: stopping at a red
light at an intersection. I am giving up my freedom to continue controlling
for driving down the street by stopping at a red light in order to achieve
the higher order goal of not crashing into or running over others or having
them crash into me. I (along with the other drivers) am giving up some
freedom (to control my car as I might want) in order to control for having a
safe and orderly traffic system.

BH: I left out critics based on your worldview of economy. Afterall it's
your problem what you think.

RM: Absolutely. And I said that in my review. I said that I find the
book's focus on solving business problems only from the employers "almost
obscene" because I am controlling for a worldview (system concept
perception) of a society where everyone -- not just the top 1% -- is able
to be in good control of their lives -- a society more like the one I was
born into (a more equitable society with a large and prosperous middle
class, thanks to FDR) than like the one it has become (with high inequality
and a shrinking and struggling middle class, thanks to Reagan). That
criticism of the book really has nothing to do with PCT except for the fact
that I think US society has been moving in a direction where people who are
not in the top income/wealth % are not able to control their lives as well
as they used to. But PCT can't say whether that's a good or bad thing; it
just is. There are many people, some of them PCT aficionados, who apparently
think that increased inequality and a shrinking middle class is just fine
and dandy. So they won't object to Bart's book being aimed at helping the
rich get richer. But that's the values (references) that they adopt for
whatever reason they adopt them. Nothing I can do about that. And as the
Adam Smith quote shows, this value -- of reverence for the rich -- has been
around for quite a while so I don['t expect it to go away soon. Who knows,
maybe my values are wrong and they just come from watching too many episodes
of Robin Hood when I was a kid;-)

Best

Rick

It seems to me Rick, that you are frequently using two ways (approaches)
to solving problems One is Mr Hyde (behaviorism) and other is Dr. Jekyll
(PCT). So it maybe seems to you that the »world problems« are divided into
two possible soilutions. That's not how organisms work. They have one basic
mechanism for solving problems. And Bill described it very good. My proposal
is to get rid of Mr.Hyde.

Best,

Boris

P.S.

AP : (Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

HB : I agree J

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.26.1455)]

HB : I'm wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you give
some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I'm sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT when
I post to CSGNet. But I'm happy to try to explain these things; I don't
think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic understanding of
PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people.

RM: Sorry you feel insulted.

RM : "Inability to control" means an inability to keep a controlled variable at
its reference…."inability to control" is measured as either RMS eerror or stability factor
(see Nature of Control). Both are
measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and
target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target).

HB: If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled variable« in
outer environment (distance between cursor and target), which varies around
the reference (zero distance between cursor and target) also in outer
environment. And this can be meassured like everything is tried to be
measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

HB: So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from outside (error)
and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying behavior to »control
»controled variable«. So zero error outside (reference) is somehow directing
behavior. It is seen as observable phenomenon which is happening outside. I
call it perceptual illusion.

RM: I don't think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it
difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it's a language
problem. But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is
measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable
around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to
expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure). You
seem to be saying that it's not possible to measure the ability to
control because controlled variables and the references for the states
of these variables are all in the controller's head and, thus, cannot
be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going
against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily
obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above
(Nature of Control).

While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the
controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception
is by seeing whether a perception of our own -- such as our
(quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a
tracking task -- is kept in some reference state, protected from
disturbance, This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV)
is about; it's a procedure for identifying in the tester's perceptions
the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be
done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference
for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading
demonstration (Mindreading).
Of course, we don't necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I
have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance
between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that
corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in
"Doing Research on Purpose"). But you can measure the ability to
control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the
perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly
right.

HB: So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control perspective
has different meaning. It's not any more difference that can be seen outside
and isn't telling practicaly anything, except that people are deviating from
something. The main problem I see is, that we can't see what's causing it.
The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside has
serious implications.

RM: There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don't think it
has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside
and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers'
description of "The Coin Game" in B:CP. See in particular the last
paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter
(E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a
zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is
controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and
say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument
misses the point since "E has discovered what S is controlling". In
other words, E's perception of the "zigzag" pattern of the coins that
S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent
to the perception of the "zigzag" pattern of coins that S is
controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of
controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered
equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually
being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said
that The Test is "... the nearest approach I know of to mind
reading."(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an
outside view of a controller's inside (mental) view inasmuch as the
the tester's perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to
the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a
controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are
controlling it.

HB: The outside definition of
»inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it said that
population for example children can deviate from standards (in your case
references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other purposes. So
children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard« and somewhere arround
standard. What means that they by behavioristic logic they are »un.normal«,
»normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

RM: The standards you are talking about here are not references in the
PCT sense. And the measures of inability to control are not based on a
determination of whether students are trying to control the variables
for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests
can be viewed as measures of students' ability to control for
particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no
TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether
this observed performance results from an inability to control the
variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student
wasn't even trying to control that variable.

HB: In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«, »deviating« behavior
(inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was seen outisde) was labeled
as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«, »dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were
»unable to control« near reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that
children get »stigma«, just because they were born.

RM: I agree with much of what follows; I think "stigmatizing" students
based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I
think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is
unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the
ability to control a perception using PCT.

RM: I hope you now understand what "lack of control" means (the degree to
which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB : I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with your »narrow
Mr. Hide« thinking.

RM: I sort of understand why you think there are problems but I think
you are misidentifying the source of your concerns. The problem is not
with measuring the ability to control. The problem (at least in the
US) seems to come from people who are trying to improve education
based on a business model where the aim is to increase "profit"
(standardized test scores) by increasing productivity (getting rid of
ineffective teachers -- the one's not increasing standardized test
scores) and reducing costs (lower wages, fewer teachers, cheaper
facilities). Don't blame that on how ability to control is measured
in PCT. I think the understanding of ability to control that comes
from PCT would lead educators to emphasize reduced class size, broader
curriculum and more discretion about how to teach to teachers who
tend to be quite good (when class sizes are manageable) at determining
what each child is trying to do (control) and how well they are
managing to do it (their ability to control); that is, at informally
evaluating studnets' ability to control.

HB: I think we have to solve the »conflict« about
what of your text is representing PCT and what is not.

RM: I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and
I think the same of you. So let's just go our own ways. People who
like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and
people who like my version will like mine.

HB: I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill's daughters) into self-regulation
or even behaviorism.

RM: My days of misleading ladies are well behind me but even if they
weren't I know that Bill's daughters can think for themselves
extremely well! I wouldn't have a chance.

HB: How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ?

RM: The same way they control when they are disturbed.

HB: Disturbances are necesary part of control

RM: I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I've attached a
copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I've taken the
liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 -- so there are no
disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key
(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control
systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control
systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their
references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So,
again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT
control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

Best

Rick

Control Hierarchy.xls (36.5 KB)

···

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="Control Hierarchy.xls"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Control Hierarchy.xls"
X-Attachment-Id: f_i1r1bsi10

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.28.1150)]

HB : On general I think if we are talking about PCT is good to put some of his words into
conversation, just to keep PCT course. Let us deifne control in Bill terms :
"Achievement and maintainance a preselected state in the controling system, though
actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances (BCP : 296).
HB: Â Ability or inability Control as I understand it in this sense is ablility to inability to
“achieve and maintain a preselcted state”, what for me represents much more than simulate
controlling in outer environment with “controlled variables”, which seems to be circuling as
“isolated control loop” as if it’s determind to be like an objective truth as something that is
valid for every case of control.
RM: What “achieve and maintain a pre-selected state” means to me is that a properly designed control system acts to bring a perceptual variable, such as the visual distance between cursor and target, to a reference state, such as “zero distance” and keeps it in that state, protected, as best as possible, from the net effects of disturbances. This “protection” is seen as the systems acting in opposition to (or compensating for) the net effects of disturbances. How well a system opposes the effect of disturbances to the perceptual variable it controls is seen as the system’s ability to control. The better the system opposes the effect of disturbances, the closer the controlled perception is kept to the reference and the greater is the system’s observed ability to control. The main determiners of a control system’s ability to control (keep the perceptual variable it controls at the specified reference) are system gain, slowing and transport lag.

HB: PCT probably differs from all the other “control theories” in
important aspect, control system is controlling own state and consequentially also outer
states.

RM: I assume that by “controlling own state” you mean “controlling its own perceptions”. All control systems control their perceptions so any theory that explains control will explain it in terms of control of perception. PCT is just more explicit about this than other versions of control theory for reasons that I explain in my paper in LCS IV. So PCT does differ from other control theories by being explicit about the fact that, as you say, a “control system is controlling [its] own state and consequentially also outer [environmental] states”. But I don’t think this means that control systems are controlling two different things – outer and inner – independently. The aspect of the “outer” world that is controlled by a control system is defined by the system’s perceptual function. Control of that perception will require the system to have effects on the outside world that keep the perception at the reference. The world outside the system is, according to PCT, the physical world described by the current models of chemistry and physics. It’s a world of atoms. forces, waves and such; it is not a world of temperatures, colors and objects. So an observer doesn’t see the outer world any better than the controller. What an observer sees as the outer world is their perception of the outer world.Â

RM: An engineer who designs a system to control an “outer variable” like temperature is actually designing a system system that will control a perception that corresponds to the engineer’s perception of temperature. The engineer might “perceive” temperature via a thermometer reading  or via his/her own senses. But it’s the engineer’s perception of the “outer variable” that the system is controlling. The point is that the “inner variable” controlled by a control system – what we call the controlled variable or controlled perception in PCT – will correspond to an outside observer’s perception of the “outer variable” that is the physical correlate of the controlled variable when that observer is correctly perceiving what the system is controlling.Â

RM: This is a subtle and difficult concept to get and I don’t know if I have made it clear. But the upshot is that observers of control systems are perfectly capable of “seeing” the “inner” perceptions that the system is controlling to the extent that the observer is able to perceive the same aspect of the “outer” world that the system is perceiving (and controlling). This is the basis of the Test for the Controlled Variable.Â

RM: I’ll leave off here because this is quite a lot in itself and see what you think of it. We can handle the other stuff later if you like. But I think this distinction between control of “inner” and “outer” variables is central to whatever disagreements we may have and working it out should help get us on the same page. It is a very difficult aspect of PCT and one that we should discuss more often.

BestÂ

Rick

So self-repeating outer control process of “controlled variable” seemed to me like being “cut” from internal control that can “break” the outer loop any time. The point of any control outside is to contribute to internal control to “maintain” preselected state in controlling system. So in the case of “tracking experiment” it seems that you are not considering that. I think this is related to what is written on pages 245 and 246 (BC:P, 2005)  It seems to me as the same problem. Can you exactly “translate” it (as it’s possible) with using as little of your meaning as possible,  what is written there. I’m also asking any other who is willing to read it and make interpretation (Martin, Bruce, Adam…any other…?).

···

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM :
You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

HB :
Problem is that I’m maybe not against your data, but that you have not sufficient theory behind and maybe you are differently inetrpreting “defintion of control,” that could support your interpretation. I suppose that “empirical data” are also obtained on the bases of some theoretical knowledge which could be subjective. But it’s good, we finaly start to talk again.

RM :
While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our (quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance,

HB :
The problem I see is that you are putting “controlled variable” into a diagram, although I never saw Bill doing that. If we suppose that whoever has pretty accurate idea of what he is perceiving, it’s perceiving “controled variable” only when he is controlling. But putting “controlled variable” in environment means that is generaly there, although person is not controlling anything in environment.
And please if you could wait with your “protection from disturbances” until we clear problem about it’s meaning.

RM :
This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about;

HB :
Why not test for the controlled perception, if everything is our minds. Why test for the “controlled variable” ? It’s “perceptual control theory” not “variable control theory”

RM :
… it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions  the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB :
The relativity of thinking you used here is promising. In your past article about TCV you described also the huge limitations of TCV. The problem is again the simplicity of simlutaions on which data are obtained and interpretation made. It’s a question of whether or not free-living organisms with all the hierarchy working all the time inside organism will act like you predict in testing TCV. People usually hide their real intention with behavior, and it’s very problematic how to determine what they really think. So if I understood right all the “tests for controlled variable” can be tricky. “Real controlling” of free-living organism which is predicted can be false, because data are obtained on wrong theoretical bases. If the test for “controlled perception” is executed, organisms whole control in organism would be considered and maybe real intentions discovered. I hope that we understood, what I wanted to say.

RM:
There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’ description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter (E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is  “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: I think this is fine PCT description. You also used “once we know what perception a controller is controlling, not which variable”.
 But I see the problem that nothing what is perceived is exactly what is seen, although maybe it seems to be. People also perceive what they want to perceive and has great imagination when describing things they perceived (think of smokers who permanently lie how many cigarettes they smoke or fisherman and hunter what did they caught :). I want to say that simplified simulations in laboratory conditions can not show the complexity of “real life situations” like Kent noticed. So whatever findings of your experiments were. It doesn’t mean that they will work in everyday life. When Bill analyzed Maturana’s work, he noticed something about “simplicity”, relations between model and experience. Briliant thinking (LCS II, p. 184 - …).

RM:
The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense.

HB :
Everything what’s “build” in human organism is reference. No matter how we call it. It’s product of internal control - “control of perception”.

RM :
And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB:
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you wanted to say.

RM:
I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

HB :
If you put the “references” - standards (tests) into the head of the teachers and students, you will see that they control perception as any other human do. So they try to control with thier own references which are produced inside them. Conflict is inevitable. Try to think in the sense of “Collective control processes” as Kent do. I think that we can’t say that whatever people are doing in school has nothing to do with PCT. It has everything to do. All that people in schools do, is “Control of perception”. All what is happening to people in schools is  included in the “Fact of control”. I think we can not “isolate” “controlled variables” in environment like “standards” or “exames” as something objective that has nothing to do with PCT. All are constructs of people, so we have all the time to think of them as people creations, which are controlled inside them. So PCT is everywhere when social or other living control system are studied.

RM:
I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB :
I’m sorry Rick. Why should we do that. The only thing we have to do is change our way of discussion. And talk like old friends as we used to do in the beggining. Mutual repect and listening to each other, and myabe we and others will learn something. We just have to let out sarcasm, raillery, offences, …etc. Just try to put our arguments “on the table” as equal “control constructs” and also any others can contribute, although they could have maybe different oppinion or knowledge. It’s not necessary that we all think the same. Diversity is what is “propeling” the world.

RM:
I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

HB :
O.K. I’ll try first to “break” with our tradition of using “You are bad -sentence” as Gordon is proposing. So I’ll tell that I respect your work Rick, although you maybe got an impression that I don’t. But sincerely speaking your tiral (simulation) to simplify understanding of how coordinated work of control units can be done in organisms are  insufficient. They are based on still not general understanding how “Perceptual control” in real organisms work and approximations that PCT is doing is also insufficient, although I think PCT is the best “tool” to explore organisms.

It is a great job that Bill have done, but simluations can be improved if you improve the knowledge about organism on which bases simulations are to be done. So it’s not my or your version of PCT, it’s how near is our thinking about how organisms work, because that is the goal of PCT :
Bill P at all (2011). : Â Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

So if we start to talk  about internal “controlled variables” in organism, we have to incorporate all the time ongoing disturbances like : continuous heat exchange and gravity disturbances which we can not escape, etc. The most disturbances to internal control in organisms are coming from inside the body beacuse of methabolic processes and so on. I didn’t noticed that Bill included them, but they are very important in understanding why control in organism continuously counteracting. So however you simulation can be good, it’s too simplifyed, to show all the control problems in organism and efects of all disturbances from internal and external environment that are counteracted in organism. Disturbances in outer environment are affecting the whole organism, beside receptors also other structures of organism.
If we want to understand the final “goal” Â of PCT, understanding the organism, then there is quite difficult task in front of all CSGnet group.

All the terms like “inability”, “lack of control” and so on are getting by my oppinion different meaning if observed from the point of internal control in organisms, which primarly is responsible for “achieving and maintaining preselected state…” that is determined by genetics.

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:55 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.26.1455)]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT.
Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I
don’t think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic
understanding of PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people.

RM: Sorry you feel insulted.

RM : “Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled
variable at its reference….“inability to control” is measuredd as
either RMS error or stability factor (see
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are
measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor
and
target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target).

HB:  If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled
variable« in  outer environment (distance between cursor and target),
which varies around  the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target) also in outer  environment. And this can be meassured like
everything is tried to be  measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

HB: So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from
outside (error) and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying
behavior to »control »controled variable«. So zero error outside
(reference) is somehow directing behavior. It is seen as observable
phenomenon which is happening outside. I call it perceptual illusion.

RM: I don’t think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it’s a language problem. But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure). You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our
(quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance, This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about; it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions  the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB: So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control
perspective has different meaning. It’s not any more difference that
can be seen outside and isn’t telling practicaly anything, except that
people are deviating from something. The main problem I see is, that we can’t see what’s causing it.
The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside
has serious implications.

RM: There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’
description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter
(E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is  “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: The outside definition of
»inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it
said that  population for example children can deviate from standards
(in your case
references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other
purposes. So  children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard«
and somewhere arround  standard. What means that they by behavioristic
logic they are »un.normal«,  »normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

RM: The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense. And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB: In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«,
»deviating« behavior
(inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was
seen outisde) was labeled  as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«,
»dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were  »unable to control« near
reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that  children get »stigma«, just because they were born.

RM: I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree
to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB : I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with
your »narrow Mr. Hide« thinking.

RM: I sort of understand why you think there are problems but I think you are misidentifying the source of your concerns. The problem is not with measuring the ability to control. The problem (at least in the
US) seems to come from people who are trying to improve education based on a business model where the aim is to increase “profit”
(standardized test scores) by increasing productivity (getting rid of ineffective teachers – the one’s not increasing standardized test
scores) and reducing costs (lower wages, fewer teachers, cheaper facilities). Don’t blame that on how ability to control is measured in PCT. I think the understanding of ability to control that comes from PCT would lead educators to emphasize reduced class size, broader curriculum and  more discretion about how to teach to teachers who tend to be quite good (when class sizes are manageable) at determining what each child is trying to do (control) and how well they are managing to do it (their ability to control); that is, at informally evaluating studnets’ ability to control.

HB: I think we have to solve the »conflict« about what of your text is
representing PCT and what is not.

RM: I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB: I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill’s daughters)
into self-regulation  or even behaviorism.

RM: My days of misleading ladies are well behind me but even if they weren’t I know that Bill’s daughters can think for themselves extremely well! I wouldn’t have a chance.

HB: How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ?

RM: The same way they control when they are disturbed.

HB: Â Disturbances are necesary part of control

RM: I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key
(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.0920)]

···

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Â I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It meeans bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.Â

RM


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

···

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical,  mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

Â

HB: Â I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

Â

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.Â

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.Â

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Me too. Let’s abandon emotionality and any hint of fanaticism for scientific exploration.

Andrew Nichols

···

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:10 AM, D Goldstein davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

I agree with Warren.

David Goldstein

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical,  mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

Â

HB: Â I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

Â

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.Â

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.Â

Best

Rick

Boris, it seems to me that the frequently hostile tone of your posts may be related to some internal conflicts you have and/or reorganization you are undergoing. We are all in this together, and an emotional, contentious tone will likely only cloud the issues involved, retarding progress in understanding and disseminating accurate information regarding PCT.

Andrew Nichols

···

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

Â

this is a nice message and I agree wtih you. But you have to tell also others to do their part. I tried nice and gentel (see the posts), and what did I get ? Selfish personal promotion. I’m sorry but I won’t serve as subject of manipulations.

Â

I don’t know anything about who dwarfs who. But I know that I understand quite something about the organisms and after long talkings to Bill and  some others on CSGnet, you can beleive me,I know what I’m talking about. Bill is really not with us, but his work is. And from time to time it’s good to remember what he said about something, not to read some »strange interpretations« of his work, which maybe even don’t resemble PCT.

Â

I’m not sure what you meant with »steady steer« on the PCT boat. Warren I try to keep steady steer of PCT boat. You should turn to those who are not.

Â

I admire Kent’s work, and I think that we should cite him more. I beleive that cooperation is effective maybe more than conflict. So arguments and common agreement of arguments shoud prevail not writing of one man, as that is the only thing we should beleive. Â

Â

I beleive that you are a good guy. But people are very different. There are also bad guys. So I’m sorry if I’ll make differences in atitude to them. Enough openness can sometimes cuase damagable consequences. Experiences show that we should be carefull.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Â

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

Â

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical,  mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

Â

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

Â

HB: Â I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«>

Â

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.Â

Â

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.Â

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

I’ve a slightly different take on proceedings and support plurality, diversity and even interpersonal disruptions on CSGNet. Why? Because I’m grateful for the carefully-crafted patiently-toned replies from contributing experts that I find informative and illuminating, helping to ease the errors of my own ways as I grapple with subtle nuances of PCT.Â

To continue Warren’s analogy, consider what a ship’s designed for; sea-worthiness. Â “And bless all those who sail in it”. Special thanks to those crew-members tossing out life-buoys.Â

Kind regards

JohnK

···

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Rupert Young rupert@moonsit.co.uk wrote:

So do I, and with Martin and Rick.



Regards,
Rupert On 30/10/2014 14:10, D Goldstein wrote:

I agree with Warren.

David Goldstein

    Sent from my iPhone
    On Oct 30, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Warren Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com        >

wrote:

        Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill's knowledge dwarfs

Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of
modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

        But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each

other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages,
and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further
enquiry.

        Let's keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the

inevitability of conflict with all this collective control.
Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources
and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and
sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

        On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com            >

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

                On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45

PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
wrote:

                          HB:

Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You
are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and
self-regulation . What you are proposin is
almost the same as Carver and Scheier do.
You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s
knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you
will substitute Bill’s
physiological,anathomical, Â mathematical,
physical and probably saome more
knowlegde, to understand that you are
making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m
only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe
beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire«
some experts to clear mess you made.

                  RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don't suppose

you would be willing to explain just what I got so
wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism,
self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge
damage to PCT). Here is your question and my
answer again:

Â

                                    HB:

 I’m interested what it means to
you first part of Bill’s
definiton :

                                    »Achievement

and maintainance of a preselcted
perceptual state in the
controlling system….«<

Â

                                  RM: It means

bringing a perceptual variable,
such as the perception of the
vertical optical velocity of a
Frisbee, to a reference or goal
value, such as zero optical
velocity, and keeping it at the
value, as best as possible,
protected from the effects of
disturbance, such as changes in
the vertical movement of the
Frisbee itself.Â

                  RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what

is wrong with what I said. It would surely help
your cause of getting others to see why they
shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about
PCT.Â

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

                Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose). 

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

No relation to Fred other than involvement with PCT. I’m a psychotherapist who uses MOL. I have tried to understand the source of your concerns with Rick’s comments/presentation of PCT ideas, but I’m confused. Is there any way you could state your concerns in a simple summary for me? Then I could share with you my reaction/opinion (a humble one, I might add, I’m no PCT expert :))

Thanks, Boris

Andrew

···

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Andrew.

Â

Are you somehow related to Fred ? J

Â

AN :

Boris, it seems to me that the frequently hostile tone of your posts may be related to some internal conflicts you have and/or reorganization you are undergoing.Â

Â

HB :

Maybe you are right. But I’m surely not hostile to everbody. Probably only to person’s who are hostile to me. But beleive me, that it wasn’t so in the beggining when I came to CSGnet. I remember how nice talkings we had. But later everything changed. I got a feeling that somebody here on CSGnet  »attacked« every »different oppinion«. In the past  some quite superb thinkers left CSGnet, probably because of »hostile attitude to them«, and so on.

Â

I can’t ignore sentences like Rick is sending. Why should I ? And if he is so good at PCT with so various knowledge, why he doesn’t put arguments »on the table« supported by Bill’s citations. Afterall everyrthing here should be arround Bill.

Â

But you are right. I have a problem, maybe as you said »internal conflict« which is going on as difference between my »wanted self« and actually »perceived self« here on CSGnet, where difference show to me, that I’m quite some years unwanted person, and quite often treated as »3.rd class member«. But I suppose we can’t solve that. It’s sad and melancholic, but so it is.

Â

Thanks anyway for your concern about my »internal state« J.

Â

AN : We are all in this together, and an emotional, contentious tone will likely only cloud the issues involved, retarding progress in understanding and disseminating accurate information regarding PCT.

Â

HB :

As I said Andrew, I don’t know how much I’m appart from CSgnet or how much we are together, because of insults that appeared »from time to time« As i said  when I joined CSGnet it was nice and quite, but then it exploded and from than on, there is no peace.

Â

I remember well only that me and Martin quite often stepped together against »agressors« J, and we were quite some years »shoulder by shoulder«. But I think that we splitted for not important reason or ?

Â

So clouds you are talking about were here before. Those clouds which you are mentioned, are just »desert«. Conflicts about who is right and who is not conitnued and will continue. But I hope you saw it. I tried nice way. But it didn’t help. As I also said to Warren, you could tell some words also to others involved in conflict. Never only one is guilty when many persons are involved. By collective control logic they are all involved in cooperation or conflict.

Â

I will stay on te position that arguments which are supported by citation from Bill’s work should prevale. As I said before. I’m quite sure in arguments I present.

Â

So retardation of process in understanding and disseminating accurate informations are in treatment through our discussions. There in no objective truth what is right about PCT.

Â

But I’m interested what do you think is right and accurate information regarding PCT ? Those which Rick represent ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew Nichols
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:15 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Â

Boris, it seems to me that the frequently hostile tone of your posts may be related to some internal conflicts you have and/or reorganization you are undergoing. We are all in this together, and an emotional, contentious tone will likely only cloud the issues involved, retarding progress in understanding and disseminating accurate information regarding PCT.

Â

Andrew Nichols

Â

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

Â

this is a nice message and I agree wtih you. But you have to tell also others to do their part. I tried nice and gentel (see the posts), and what did I get ? Selfish personal promotion. I’m sorry but I won’t serve as subject of manipulations.

Â

I don’t know anything about who dwarfs who. But I know that I understand quite something about the organisms and after long talkings to Bill and  some others on CSGnet, you can beleive me,I know what I’m talking about. Bill is really not with us, but his work is. And from time to time it’s good to remember what he said about something, not to read some »strange interpretations« of his work, which maybe even don’t resemble PCT.

Â

I’m not sure what you meant with »steady steer« on the PCT boat. Warren I try to keep steady steer of PCT boat. You should turn to those who are not.

Â

I admire Kent’s work, and I think that we should cite him more. I beleive that cooperation is effective maybe more than conflict. So arguments and common agreement of arguments shoud prevail not writing of one man, as that is the only thing we should beleive. Â

Â

I beleive that you are a good guy. But people are very different. There are also bad guys. So I’m sorry if I’ll make differences in atitude to them. Enough openness can sometimes cuase damagable consequences. Experiences show that we should be carefull.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Â

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

Â

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

Â

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical,  mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

Â

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

Â

HB: Â I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

Â

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.Â

Â

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.Â

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

I appreciate everyone’s continued efforts to stay on the same page here. It seemed to me that the on-line “course,” going through Dad’s first book, was very adhesive, directing everyone’s focus on working through each chapter. At least my impression was that it went a long way in helping to clarify a lot of points, in continuing to gain a collective understanding of PCT. Perhaps a review of that, or a similar course in further books could be helpful…?

Â

best,

*barb

···

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Â

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.31.14.52]

On 2014/10/31 3:27 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Martin, thank you.

Â

I’m not sure if we read corresponding pages. There is so much differences in what you read and what I was reading. And beside that you exposed my oppinion about the problem and then talked about how Rick’s oppinion »exactly match« Bill’s. It’s confusing.

I find it hard to understand your interpretation of PCT, which appears to have diverged considerably from mine. There was a time when I thought our understandings were different only in a few small technical details that you agreed (I thought) could be resolved if you came to understand the mathematical background. At that time, we disagreed also over what I thought were rather peripheral matters where the disagreement was unimportant. But on the main points, I thought we were in full agreement.

Â

HB :

Yes, I agree that there is still diversity in our thinking and it will probably stay as this is our natural divergence. And I think you are right that most of difference rise from your mathematical view of the »reality« and mine physiological view. That’s probably the main difference in »filters« for our judging the »physical quantities«.

MT :
This seems not to be the case now, and as I said, I don’t understand how you now see PCT. So when I respond, I can do so only from my own understanding of PCT, not from an understanding of where your view of PCT differs from mine. To reconcile our views, we have to recognize where they are different, and I don’t. Mine starts from this diagram, and goes on from there with various elaborations, many but not all of them presented by Bill.

A state sensed as S (a lot of sensory inputs) in the outer world (the CEV) is transformed by some internal operations into a perceptual signal P, which is compared to a reference value R. The difference is an error signal E, which is converted by some internal operations into actions O on the environment. The environment reacts to O in a variety of ways, some of which alter S and therefore P. If control is good, P approaches R over time. This is the diagram I tried to justify (partially) with my assumptions, to which you object.

HB :

I don’t think that I object to this (narrow) part of understanding how organisms work, but more how perceptual signals are »treated« in organism with references. My picture of how comparator works and how references are produced in organism is much different from yours and PCT. I tried once to present it to Bill and CSGnet, but presentation was disastrous. And that what I wanted to present was something what was somehow hidden under »the water« or if use your diagram, »under« your basic diagram of understanding PCT, which by your words resemble to Bill’s.

Â

By my oppinion model you and Rick use for analyzing LCS is much too narrow. By my oppinion it does not allow full insight how organism works as that is the goal of PCT. So I see it difficult to advise you what to do to understand or get the whole picture of the »whole mountain under the water«, without advising you to get some knowledge of physiology. That seems to be crucial in full understanding of how organisms work and consequetially in full understanding of PCT. It’s paradocs. By my oppinion physilogy doesn’t have the »whole picture« but have all details how organism works, and PCT have (theoretically) the whole picture, but does not have details. So both can offer the whole picture of organisms functioning with all details.

Â

MT :

Apparently you have a different view, and it would help us to communicate if we knew how your view differs from this. Maybe you could present your own diagram.

HB :

I’m trying to make my picture to reading and understanding PCT based on my knowledge  and I assuume that you are trying to make your model based on your knowledge and there are quite differences (what we also noticed through our reading of 2 pages).

Â

But I think we’ve been through all this at least 3 times if we count discussions on ECACS where »we disagreed also over what I thought were rather peripheral matters where the disagreement was unimportant. But on the main points, I thought we were in full agreement«.

Â

If you remember you proposed the same thing you are proposing me now : to communicate the differences and to present you my original view. Â And if you remember I offered you cooperation, but you refused (or you never answered to my proposal). The same was with Bill, as he didn’t accept my terms. So I don’t know what else could I do, but offer fair agreement, which put as in equal position. So I concluded that you both wanted something else. But I will not talk about it anymore.

Â

As you already said there were quite little differences in our perceiving and understanding of »the reality« when »narrow« general diagram of PCT was analyzed. More disagreements derive from our understanding how organisms work or what is the whole picture that PCT and other knowledge could offer.Â

Â

PCT can offer some extent of understanding the »truth« about LCS, so we can get this picture with reading LCS I, LCS II, B:CP, »Making sense of behavior«, Ken’ts work, Czico’s work, Bruce Abbott’s synopsys … and so forth. Interesting I noticed that I never reead anything from Rick J. They all offer aproximaltelly the same »picture« although I noticed once that Bill was enthusiastic about Czico’s explanation. I personally think that Kent and Bruce are closer to the truth of how organisms work and their language is quite understandable also for foreigner. I even think that Bill »stopped« their progressing to the »final truth«, although I don’t know if that is what they felt. But from Kent’s whole work from 1994 it’s obvious how his theoretical knowledge varyed. But please don’t take this for granted. It’s just humble oppinion of »3.rd order member«.

Â

Speccially on the bases of reading Kent’s work and Bruce’s, which were the first things I read about PCT I suspected that there is something missing. Although I admitt (I’m trully sorry Kent and Bruce) that  I first thought that simplicity of their understanding is not enough to understand PCT. So with further readings (by buying Bill’s books, maybe Allison will remember the disaster) I thought that I will extend my knowledge of PCT. But that wasn’t so, because of »very heavy« Bill’s  language although I could see how powerfull his knowledge was. So I get back to Kent and Bruce and finished my basic understanding of PCT. Than I get involved into conversation with you and later with Bill and to Kent and on ECACS to others. Interesting conversation was also with Bruce.

Â

I must admitt that you gave me many basic clarifications of PCT outline. And I think you get it back when we talked on ECACS. But Bill gave the »whole picture« of PCT, so the missing parts become more than obvious. I got some ideas and exposed them and there our relationship sadly ended. Although I was sorry later thinking that maybe I could travel to USA and meet him, speccially when my daughter was there. But I was delaying my travel, thought there would be chances later but I obviously »missed the train«. And I’m trully sorry that our relationship ended like that.

Â

After I get the »full picture« of PCT and noticed possible weakness, I tried to extend my knowledge about how organisms work. So I read Ashby, Maturana and  renewiev my physilogical knowledge. I also talked to Maturana. Well I was surprised. The picture did extend and gave quite different angle on how LCS could work, inside.

Â

But the basic  Bill’s premise is probably »unbeatable« : all organism working as coordinated »machine« of bilions control units. It simplifies analitic approcah although it maybe look like enormous number. But imagine this enormous number without any »glue« keeping organism together as some sciences are trying to get to the »final truth«. Practically with nothing, chasing bilions adn bilions connections and impulses in nervous system without any basic »glue«. So my final goal as I repeated many times is to see how all possible control units work coordinatedly in organism at the same time. And as I repeated many times, the time of the PCT by my oppinion hasn’t come yet, because of the missing technology.

Â

I hope Martin that I answered your question, as that is as far as I go. For now…

I will omitt other discussion as irrelevant. It was just for »testing« for how »reality« will be always perceived differently in different persons Most probable in accordance to their purposes, which are varying. And I think that no simple experiment can prove opposite. I think more of them as being missleading. I’m only sorry that nobody else joined the »Test«.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

MT :

What is written on Pages 245 and 246 is an expansion of what Rick has been trying to tell you. By that far into the book, what Rick has been saying should already be taken for granted.

Â

HB :

As I said I don’t see any expansion of what Rick wrote.

Well, from a quote you make later in your message, at least we are reading the same text, and I see it as very much an expansion of what Rick wrote; an expansion into the situation in which the reference values can change while the experimenter is doing the Test for the Controlled Variable (which Bill just calls “The Test” in this passage (as we did for at least the first decade of my involvement with PCT–adding “for the Controlled Variable” came much later).

In his expansion (p246-7) starting with “The usefulness of The Test would be greatly increased if a way could be found to make it independent of reference level.” Bill explains firstly where the problem is and then in the paragraph that crosses between p246and 247 derives the mathematics necessary to deal with the changing reference problem.

I see only mine »expansion« exposed. And I don’t remember that I asked for oppinion about Rick’s text.

No you didn’t. I simply didn’t see any need to repeat what Rick had already explained.

Â

MT :

In those pages, Bill is giving in words a mathematical discussion of how to do the “Test for the Controlled Variable” when the subject’s reference value is changing all the time. Earlier he described how to do it when the subject’s reference value doesn’t change.

Â

HB :

I also don’t see any mathematical discussion in words of how to do »Test for Controlled Variable«. Probably your imagination. I got an impression that you use frequently mathemathical descriptions and it seems that, this is your »background« when observing text and reality.

Â

And if I’m sincere I even don’t see where Bill mentioned  any »Test for Controlled Variable«. He is realy mentioning variable once, but as i see it iwas in the context of internal environment. What I see Bill showed an introduction to introduce feed-back theory to behaviorists.     So the main point of what is written on p. 245 and 246 is for me the differences in views between behaviorist and PCT.

Bill certainly does that, but only as an introduction to the TCV. If you are a behaviourist, you aren’t even looking for a controlled variable. In the first part of this section, Bill shows that you should be.

Â

Â

The main point of Bill’s text as I see it, is about how references (inside events in organism) are important in control and perceiving the »world outside«.

Here’s a mystery. Within PCT as described by Bill, how can references affect how you perceive the world outside? In my understanding of PCT, a reference value is compared with the perceptual value as in the diagram above, and doesn’t affect “perceiving the world outside” in any way.

The difference between reference and perceptual value is an input to the output function, which eventually results in action that changes the state of the outer world so that what is perceived is altered. If the fact that control is done by changing the outer world is what you mean by references changing “perceiving the world outside”, then OK. If it isn’t what you mean, then it would help if you expand on this comment and explain how it might work.

And that has little to do with Rick’s view of control. He is controlling mostly outside and then bring outside »controlled variable« into perceptual representation inside. And also this has little to do with how LCS really work.

In your view, then, what we perceive is unrelated to what is outside?

Whether Bill’s HPCT is the way LCS (Living Control Systems) really work is open to question. Rick works only within Bill’s version of HPCT, so he could be wrong as well.

Â

Whatever you are writing later as »mathematical description in words«, which is by your oppinion »exact« as Rick’s, has serious conditions to work (Bill, 2005) : »The usefulness of the Test would be greatly increased if a way could be found to make it independent of reference level«. Nothing in the Rick’s text resemble to what Bill wrote here.Â

No, it wouldn’t, because what Bill wrote is the expansion on what Rick said (as I explained).

Â

By all »if«, »guessing«, »assuming«  I really don’t understand how could you find Rick’s text »being exact« or even extended from exactness ?

I don’t remember any “guessing”. Which assumptions do you think not valid? The "if"s are there to say that it is possible the assumptions are wrong. You seem to think that at least one of them is invalid, so which one(s)? Here they are again, to save you from having to look back.

[MT earlier] We assume that there exists an outer world of considerable complexity. We assume that what we perceive is based, at least in part, on what is in that external world. We assume that when we act on the outer world, changes in our perception of it are, at least in part, influenced by our actions.

Martin

Â

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.05.1700)]

···

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Boris,

MT: I won't try to answer your points, but I appreciate your

clarifications of where you are coming from.

RM:  It looks like Boris has dropped out of this conversation for the time being, perhaps waiting for the arrival of LCS IV. But this gives me a chance to get back to the topic that is the title of this thread , my review of “Reconstructing Your World Viewâ€?. I gave it a pretty negative review but some PCTers seemed to like it a lot. I would really like to hear from those PCTers who liked the book what is was that they liked about it. And also I’d like to hear from any other PCTers (beside Fred Nichols, who liked my review – thanks Fred!) who read the book what they thought of it and/or what they thought of my review.Â

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.09.1100)]

···

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:35 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

Hi Rick,

KM: My reaction to your review was that it seemed a little harsh. When I read the book, I was just happy to see a description of PCT that was more or less accurate in a book meant for a general audience. The rest of the book’s content wasn’t really well integrated
with the PCT ideas, but it didn’t seem like terrible advice, given the assumptions of audience at which it was aimed.Â

RM: Thanks for the reply, Kent. I guess different things make us happy. I’m not particularly happy to see a more or less accurate description of PCT in a book when the rest of the book demonstrates no evidence of understanding what PCT is about. Carver and Scheier’s first book had a very good description of what we now call PCT at the beginning and then went off and described research and theories that had nothing to do with PCT. Back then (this was in 1981 I think) I was all excited to see a more or less accurate description of PCT in a book meant for a large audience, one of experimental psychologists – my people;-) But you know how that turned out. That is why more or less accurate descriptions of PCT in the context  of books that reflect little understanding of PCT don’t make me happy; indeed, they make me rather sad, which apparently came through in my “harsh” review.

RM: There was some reasonable advice in the “Reconstructing Your World View” book but most of the advice seemed to be pretty facile. How, for example, do you follow the advice to examine your hidden (and presumably “wrong”) assumptions if they’re hidden? And even if you manage to find those assumptions, how do you take the advice of going from there to having the “right” assumptions. And some of the advice did seem somewhat terrible to me, at least in terms of my value system (my references for a good society). Advising the rich on how to get richer just seems rather ugly in the context of a society where, since 1980, the rich have been getting progressively richer while the middle class and poor have been treading water or losing ground. While PCT supports no particular political perspective, I think it does suggest that living control systems are doing best when they are in control. And when there’s too much of nothing (because a few people have most of the somethng – money) no one’s in control.Â

RM: And there is one huge contradiction at the heart of the book that would be instantly noticed by anyone looking at the world through PCT glasses. Here is a book that is giving businesses advice on how to have a “competitive advantage” over other businesses. But what if every business manager read the book? It is impossible for every business to have a competitive advantage over every other one. So if the audience for this book is all business managers then its aim is contradictory in the sense that if all business managers followed its advice about how to succeed then none would succeed. If, however, the audience is just a savvy subset of business managers (while the others are just saps) then the book is not what it purports to be: a guide for all business managers regarding how to solve their business problems. Actually, PCT could have helped the author figure this out and might have changed the advice from how to have a “competitive advantage” to how to successfully manage a business while avoiding conflict.Â

KM: To ask that people do a good job of integrating the PCT perspective into the rest of their thinking before saying anything about it is to set a pretty high bar for them.

RM: I disagree here too. I think the ability to incorporate PCT into “the rest of one’s thinking” like one’s thinking about “how to solve business problems” is the true test of one’s understanding of PCT. A budding engineer may be able to do a passable job of describing Newtonian physics but if he or she is unable to correctly apply the theory to building a bridge, for example, they I would say that the engineer does not really understand the theory; a little knowledge – actually, too little knowledge – can be a dangerous thing. I think that is what is clearly going on with “Reconstructing your worldview”. The book does a passable job of describing PCT but then demonstrates little understanding of how to apply it to “solving complex business problems”.

Â

KM: It takes a whole lot of reorganization to work out the implications of PCT for one’s
other habits of thought, and for most people reorganization like that is a mater of successive approximations rather than an immediate jump to a thoroughly coherent PCT outlook.Â

RM: Then I would have preferred that the book were put on hold until PCT was thoroughly understood by the author. Same with Carver and Scheier and William Glasser, for that matter: if only they had waited until they understood PCT before writing their books. Of course, that would  have meant waiting forever but I think that would have been better than what we now have: several confusing, counterfeit versions of PCT out there in the world.Â

Â

KM: For myself, it’s taken me years, even decades, to begin to figure out a coherent way of integrating PCT into sociology (or vice versa), and I’m probably not there yet. You’re lucky that you encountered PCT at early enough point in your career that your
thinking was flexible enough to make a relatively quick transition to the PCT perspective, much faster than for people whose traditional career perspectives are more entrenched when they start trying to make the jump.

RM: My transition was not all that fast. Like everyone else I had agendas that kept me from understanding things about PCT. Indeed, the main agenda I had was the idea that people can’t be controlled. I came to PCT because it seemed to be the best “answer” to the Skinnerian idea that human behavior was controlled by the environment. Well, it’s taken me 20 years to realize that though human behavior is, indeed, not controlled by the environment it certainly can be controlled by other control systems (as demonstrated in the demo I just put up on the net: http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BehavioralControl.html). PCT shows how this control is exerted (by control systems like Skinner) and why it can lead to conflict when it is exerted arbitrarily (without regard to the fact that the subjects of control may have goals that conflict with what the controller wants them to do). So there’s really nothing special about me with respect to PCT. I’m everybody’;s brother and son; I ain’t no different than anyone;it’s no use talking to me, it’s the same as talking to you (I think I’m in a Dylan loop because they just released some new Basement Tapes).Â

Â

KM: If Bill had a fault, it was probably a little too firm insistence on the purity of the thought about PCT that he would tolerate in other people.

RM: And again I disagree. PCT is not a religious cult; it’s a scientific theory. Bill’s “fault” was that he just couldn’t stop being a great teacher. He tried to be encouraging but when people (including, most surely, me) got things wrong he would correct them. I think of it as similar to being in an algebra or calculus course with a very pleasant, non-authoritarian teacher. If you got an answer wrong Bill would try to see why you might have gotten the answer you got but he would eventually show you how to get the correct answer. Of course, many of the answers you get from PCT (unlike those from algebra or calculus) conflict with previously held agendas (references for the “correct” answer) so there were often protests that were corrected again and again by Bill so I can see that Bill could have looked like he was preserving purity. But I never had a problem with Bill’s corrections of me; indeed, I appreciated them enormously. I would sometimes protest his corrections (due to my own agendas) but I would go test things out in the lab (running computer simulations) and found that he was virtually always correct. Would you consider a kind but rigorous algebra teacher to be insisting on the “purity” of algebra?Â

KM: And while that really isn’t a fault, it probably did turn some people off before they had time to come all
the way around to his new way of thinking, and thus it tended to slow down the spread of the ideas. (Or maybe those people were just dolts. I don’t know.)

RM: They were certainly not dolts. Usually, they were very smart people, The problem is agendas. Everyone comes to PCT with some previously held agenda that conflicts in one way or another with some aspect of PCT. When the system in the person that is controlling for the existing agenda is stronger than the system controlling for learning PCT, the existing agenda “wins” the conflict and the person leaves PCT or controls for something that they might call “PCT” but is actually something that is more in line with their existing agenda. All this is explained by PCT itself, by the way! There’s not much that can be done about it. All you can do is hope that people reorganize (as I did) and end up abandoning the old agenda in favor of PCT. But reorganization is random so there is no telling where it will end up.Â

RM: Those who want to sell PCT to as many people as possible, as though it were a Buick or something, may succeed in getting people to “buy” it but, if those who are buying it because they think PCT is consistent with some existing agenda of theirs – and that’s how you sell stuff; by convincing people that your product is “just what they need” –  then their not going to end up enjoying  their purchase.Â

RM: I’m much more interested in getting a rigorous and correct picture of PCT  “out there” than in “selling” PCT to as many people as possible. It would be nice if lots of people “got” PCT and I’m sure human society would  be made better if PCT became the “default” way of understanding human nature. But you can’t force people to understand PCT and society is certainly not made better when counterfeit applications of PCT are proposed as ways to improve aspects of society, such as businesses.

Best regards

Rick

Â

Best,

Kent

On Nov 5, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.05.1700)]


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Martin Taylor
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Boris,

MT: I won’t try to answer your points, but I appreciate your clarifications of where you are coming from.

RM:  It looks like Boris has dropped out of this conversation for the time being, perhaps waiting for the arrival of LCS IV. But this gives me a chance to get back to the topic that is the title of this thread , my review of “Reconstructing Your World
Viewâ€?. I gave it a pretty negative review but some PCTers seemed to like it a lot. I would really like to hear from those PCTers who liked the book what is was that they liked about it. And also I’d like to hear from any other PCTers (beside Fred Nichols,
who liked my review – thanks Fred!) who read the book what they thought of it and/or what they thought of my review.Â

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Author of  Doing
Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble