[From Bruce Abbott (950926.1230 EST)]
Rick Marken (950924.1840) --
Here is my tentative PCT definition of self-control:
Self - control -- the development of a conflict as a means of solving another
conflict.
I agree, but I'm concerned about one situation that may not fit the
definition. What about self-control by preventing the lower-level system
from becoming active in the first place? Can it be said that this involves
conflict?
The success of self-control depends on the relative importance (gain) of the
control systems involved. This is probably why dieting is so difficult; there
are not many variables that we control (consciously) that are more important
than food intake.
I would say that the essential nature of self-regulation is conflict. Whether
or not there is any over-riding depends on the relative gains of the control
systems involved.
Now wait, wouldn't _effective_ self-control (as you have defined
self-control) absolutely _require_ that the actions of the lower-level
control system be overridden? For example, when Eating-Apple-Pie's
reference goes positive, Staying-on-the-Diet acts so as to block or inhibit
Eating-Apple-Pie's actions. That is, it attempts to override
Eating-Apple-Pie's actions so as to prevent the injestion of the pie. The
relative gains would partly determine whether or not the override is
_successful_.
The main thing that seems to be missing from Baumeister et al's approach
(besides a clear description of how control works) is consideration of the
possibility of non-conflictual approaches to dealing with conflict. Notice
that self-control is needed in the first place because there is a conflict
between systems A and B. Before setting up a conflict (self control) to solve
this conflict, control theory might suggest that you first try to see that you
are in a conflict. If system B controls food intake and system A has a
problem with the level of food intake, there must be another system that
wants food intake to be at a different level than A wants. A PCTer might
first try to identify conflicts using the method of levels before tying
oneself in knots. You still may want to tie yourself in knots once you have
identified the conflict, but at least you'll know why you are tying yourself
in knots (trying to use self control) and you'll accept the occasional
failures of self-control as an acceptable price to pay for keeping the
conflicting control systems intact.
Good point, but what do you do once you recognize the conflict? Most
dieters already recognize the nature of the struggle the are in. They want
to enjoy that apple pie and they want to lose weight, which are conflicting
goals. Is there a way to "disolve" the system whose reference is to eat the
pie, thus eliminating the conflict? If not, how does one set the gain of
the override system so that its actions will prevail?
Hans Blom, 950925 --
I don't know whether PCT offers an approach to these issues, but
control theory does, in particular the theory of multi-input multi-
output (MIMO) systems. The basics of this approach are as follows: 1)
a MIMO system has multiple goals; 2) in order to obtain a unique
solution, the number of goals must be equal to the number of outputs;
otherwise the system is under- or overconstrained (solutions are
possible in those cases, but they may become complex); NB: PCT also
takes this approach; 3) the actions required to achieve the goals are
usually non-orthogonal ("conflicting"), therefore fulfilling one goal
may hinder the achievement of the other; 4) the controller must know
the relative importance of its different goals.
Interesting. I assume the relative importance of the different goals is
established by an agency outside the controller (e.g., the engineer,
management, the customer). How does the relative importance of goals get
set in the controller? In the person?
It is the latter that sometimes offers some surprises: _redefining_
the relative importance of the goals may lead to _very_ different
action patterns. This seems to be counter-intuitive to us humans, who
seem to expect that small changes cause small differences; but simu-
lations show it readily. In engineering, an additional goal is often
to conserve energy/fuel/quantity of apllied drugs or what have you.
As an example, practice shows that a control law that takes energy
expenditure into account, even slightly, may save substantial amounts
of energy (say 30%) with almost no quality degradation (say -1%) in
goal achievement.
So part of the problem-solving involved in self-control might include
finding a way to reorder one's priorities that will reduce conflict while
achieving the same goals. One might try adopting an exercise routine and
relax the goal of losing 5 pounds per week to losing 3 pound per week; in
this case perhaps one can have the occasional apple pie after all and still
achieve the goal of losing a given amount of weight.
Oded Maler (950925) --
I thought about it recently. I think the phenomenon can be characterized as
follows: there are various control systems operating at some level, responsible
for opening the frig. and eating something, lighting another cigarette, or any
other activity one is trying to get rid from. Thess systems become active in
certain perceived situations. On the other hand there is some other systems(s)
operating on a larger time-scale and on a higher-level of of perception.
This is the "I" that you refer to while saying "I will hate myself" later.
This higher-level system can say to itself "next time I am in a restaurant,
I will not eat excessively, etc.", but when the situation comes, the
lower-level
systems, invoked by the more concrete surrounding perceptions (the menu, the
process of ordering, or whatever) and it becomes stronger and wins against
the higher-level system. I think PCT as is today cannot fully account for this
phenomenon, first because of its hierarchical structure, and because the
notions
of higher-level cooridnation in complex systems, focus of attention, etc.
are not
(as far as I know) very well-developed. However, PCT principles are
sufficient to
have some ideas about what's going on in such situations.
This view of control systems reminds me a bit of Marvin Minsky's "agents" in
_The Society of Mind_ (1985). (I just used a similar description above in
talking about Eating-Apple-Pie etc.) Some of the most fascinating (in my
opinion) of the unresolved problems to be worked out within the PCT
framework are (a) where do all these control systems come from (that is, how
do they get organized)? and (b) what determines which control systems will
be "active" under given circumstances?
To make things a bit more concrete, imagine that I'm doing fine on my diet
(Staying-on-the-Diet is at reference) and apple pie is the last thing on my
mind. However, as I pass the desserts in the cafeteria, I suddenly find
myself craving for just a taste of that apple pie. Why? Where was
Eating-Apple-Pie prior to that moment? If it was there all the time, what
changed its reference from not-eating to eating?
Even more interesting is this question of "I." You suggest that "I" is a
high-level control system operating (as a high-level system must) on a long
time-scale. Where does this "I" come from, and what is its purpose? Do
other animals besides humans have an "I" system?
Bill Powers (950926.0500 MDT) --
All the terms that involve the word "self" like self-awareness, self-control,
and self-understanding beg the question of what is meant by "self." Exercises
like the method of levels give us some new (-seeming) ideas on that subject.
My own experiences have led me to doubt that there are actually any self-
reflexive processes of awareness, like von Foerster's idea of self-awareness
as a recursive function. Whatever it is about yourself that you are
observing, the Observer is not the same as that which is observed, and the
processes going on in the Observer are not the processes that are being
observed. "Your" body is not the observer of that body; "your" thoughts are
not the observer of those thoughts. Whatever it is that you are being aware
of, it is not that which is being aware.
Yet there does seem to be some process at work which leads us to perceive
the existence of this inner entity we call self or "I." This process is
closely tied to that which we call "awareness" or "attention."
Self-control, as Rick pointed out, is basically a conflict. You want to do or
not do something, and at the same time you want to not do or do it. To put
this more accurately, in terms of the above paragraph, there is a goal of
doing and of not doing the same thing at the same time; you may be aware of
one goal but not so acutely aware of the other. The problem in resolving the
conflict is finding the point of view from which both sides are visible at
once. When that point of view is found, the conflict generally dissolves and
there is no further need for self control.
O.K., I "go up a level" and see that there is a conflict between wanting to
eat high-calorie foods and wanting to lose weight. I can see that clearly,
but for some reason the conflict is not dissolving. Why should it? If your
assertion that "the conflict generally dissolves" is true, there must be
circumstances in which such a dissolution would be expected and others (such
as my dieting dilemma) in which it would not be expected. What are those
circumstances?
All this follows as well just from considering how a control system works. If
there is a goal, and if the related perception is different from it, and if
nothing is interfering with the action that can affect the perception, what
is to prevent the error from being corrected immediately? Obviously, if the
error persists there is something preventing the normal process of error
correction from working. There could be many different problems; for example,
you may never have learned an action that can affect the perception. But a
very common type of interference is from a conflicting goal.
I may fail to control a perception because I don't know what to do to
correct error in that perception. Yes, not all failures at control arise
from conflict.
As Rick pointed out, the self-control or "will power" solution to a conflict
is to bring a third control process into play on one side or the other of the
conflict. This overrides one of the conflicting goals, but does nothing to
remove it: the same goal is still wanted for the same reasons as before. As a
result, the system as a whole can't ever reach a state of low overall error.
If my concept of emotion is right, the uncorrected error signals will
continuously produce reference signals for the biochemical systems that keep
them in an elevated state, as if preparing for some kind of action. Self-
control and will power are, we could guess, the route to psychosomatic
illnesses.
What brings that process into play? If one can create a new process for the
purpose of overriding the actions of another, why can't one just remove the
old control process that is causing the problem? (Or if one can, why doesn't
one just do it?)
I think we've just scratched the surface of this topic. Perhaps a key to
further development along these lines is to think about strategies people
adopt in order to maintain "self"-control. For example, one might try to
stay on the diet by keeping the fridge stocked only with healthful, "legal"
foods and by keeping away from the dessert case at the cafeteria (avoiding
temptation). But why does this strategy help? And what about other
strategies people use?
Wow, I've asked a lot of questions.
Regards,
Bruce