Self-Regulation

[Garett_Howardson]

Hi everyone,
Although I'm still a neophyte to the PCT world I like to think I'm pretty familiar with Jeff's work. I think an excerpt from one of his previous book chapters might be lend something to this discussion:
"In general, regulation refers to keeping something regular; to maintaining a variable at some value despite disturbances to the variable. The value at which the variable is maintained is called the desired state. For a system to regulate a variable itself (i.e., self-regulation), the desired state must be internally represented within the system. In psychology, internally represented desired states are often called goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). The goal construct is perhaps the most common and central component in self-regulation theories (Kanfer, 1990)."
Obviously Jeff can speak better to this than I, but it seems that some of these differences may be due to semantics. Whereas PCT talks about "controlling" and "references," Jeff's work talks about "regulating" and "goals." Clearly these very similar if not the same and the mechanisms of the negative feedback loop are certainly identical in both. However, whereas most psychologists are probably more comfortable thinking about regulating goals, perhaps others with more of an engineering background are comfortable with control systems terminology like controlling and references. So perhaps the differences are primarily for the benefits of communication even if the main ideas are similar.
I do not think that Jeff's work should be equated to other self-regulation researchers. It is a VERY broad term that people seem to latch on to for any number of reasons. As I see it, the differences between Jeff and others' work (e.g., Bandura, Locke & Latham Carver & Scheier) are many but seem to hinge on the fact that Jeff argues, like PCT, that to understand human behavior the best view is to (1) take a formal (i.e., mathematical), subsystem approach and (2) conceptualize behaviors as regulating goals. Others, like Carver & Scheier take a systems approach but still argue that goals regulate behavior. Bandura/Locke/Latham view neither and focus instead on informal, "verbal" theories and argue that goals regulate behavior.
So although many people study behavior through the lens of "self-regulation," Jeff seems to be one of the few that do this in a manner consistent with the actual definition of the term - i.e., to regulate one's goals through behavior, which also is consistent with the main ideas of PCT but perhaps more similar to his audience of applied psychologists.
Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale of two paradigms. In M Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303 - 341). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

···

--
Garett Howardson
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Organizational Sciences
The George Washington University
600 21st St. Washington, DC

[wmansell]

Exactly how I see Jeff’s approach too.

···

Hi everyone,

Although I’m still a neophyte to the PCT world I like to think I’m pretty familiar with Jeff’s work. I think an excerpt from one of his previous book chapters might be lend something to this discussion:

“In general, regulation refers to keeping something regular; to maintaining a variable at some value despite disturbances to the variable. The value at which the variable is maintained is called the desired state. For a system to regulate a variable itself (i.e., self-regulation), the desired state must be internally represented within the system. In psychology, internally represented desired states are often called goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). The goal construct is perhaps the most common and central component in self-regulation theories (Kanfer, 1990).”

Obviously Jeff can speak better to this than I, but it seems that some of these differences may be due to semantics. Whereas PCT talks about “controlling” and “references,” Jeff’s work talks about “regulating” and “goals.” Clearly these very similar if not the same and the mechanisms of the negative feedback loop are certainly identical in both. However, whereas most psychologists are probably more comfortable thinking about regulating goals, perhaps others with more of an engineering background are comfortable with control systems terminology like controlling and references. So perhaps the differences are primarily for the benefits of communication even if the main ideas are similar.

I do not think that Jeff’s work should be equated to other self-regulation researchers. It is a VERY broad term that people seem to latch on to for any number of reasons. As I see it, the differences between Jeff and others’ work (e.g., Bandura, Locke & Latham Carver & Scheier) are many but seem to hinge on the fact that Jeff argues, like PCT, that to understand human behavior the best view is to (1) take a formal (i.e., mathematical), subsystem approach and (2) conceptualize behaviors as regulating goals. Others, like Carver & Scheier take a systems approach but still argue that goals regulate behavior. Bandura/Locke/Latham view neither and focus instead on informal, “verbal” theories and argue that goals regulate behavior.

So although many people study behavior through the lens of “self-regulation,” Jeff seems to be one of the few that do this in a manner consistent with the actual definition of the term - i.e., to regulate one’s goals through behavior, which also is consistent with the main ideas of PCT but perhaps more similar to his audience of applied psychologists.

Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A tale of two paradigms. In M Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303 - 341). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

–
Garett Howardson
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Organizational Sciences
The George Washington University
600 21st St. Washington, DC

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.19.09.23]

Hi, Garett. Great to hear from you, and to get your take on Jeff's work.

I do have a question about your wording, which seems inconsistent with the quote with which you start.

Hi everyone,

Although I'm still a neophyte to the PCT world I like to think I'm pretty familiar with Jeff's work. I think an excerpt from one of his previous book chapters might be lend something to this discussion:

"In general, regulation refers to keeping something regular; to maintaining a variable at some value despite disturbances to the variable. The value at which the variable is maintained is called the desired state. For a system to regulate a variable itself (i.e., self-regulation), the desired state must be internally represented within the system. In psychology, internally represented desired states are often called goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). The goal construct is perhaps the most common and central component in self-regulation theories (Kanfer, 1990)."

Jeff seems clear in this paragraph, that the "desired state" is the goal, and what is regulated is not the goal but a variable that is to be brought to and kept near this desired state. In your following text, however, you refer to "regulating goals". Now if "regulating" here is an adjective, that wording is consistent, but it is easy to take it as a verb, which would not be consistent. Because of the ambiguity, might it not be better to use "regulated variable" or some such, to differentiate that variable from the goal toward which it is "regulated"?

.... most psychologists are probably more comfortable thinking about regulating goals, ....So perhaps the differences are primarily for the benefits of communication even if the main ideas are similar.

...Jeff argues, like PCT, that to understand human behavior the best view is to ... (2) conceptualize behaviors as regulating goals....--

Communication is clearly a problem when discussing even a single feedback loop within CSGnet. The problem is exacerbated when the different terms are used for the same concepts, especially when one set of terms is also used by other people to refer to other concepts. If Jeff's view of "regulation" is different from the views of other "self-regulation" theorists, but uses their terminology to refer to concepts used in PCT, it's not surprising that communication difficulties occur. Nobody is correct or wrong when there's a communication problem, and it is very helpful when someone like you comes forward to identify possible causes of the problem.

I hope you find your way to communicate further with this mailing list, and that it helps with your research to do so.

···

On 2014/04/19 8:52 AM, Garett Howardson wrote:

---------
By the way, so that messages can be accurately referenced later, we conventionally start with an ID and date stamp, as at the head of this message. It's sometimes quite helpful, especially when referring back to a particular message in a long thread.

Martin

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2014.04.19.1715 EDT)]

Martin Taylor 2014.04.19.09.23]

. . .

MT: Communication is clearly a problem when discussing even a single
feedback loop within CSGnet. The problem is exacerbated when the different
terms are used for the same concepts, especially when one set of terms is
also used by other people to refer to other concepts. If Jeff's view of
"regulation" is different from the views of other "self-regulation"
theorists, but uses their terminology to refer to concepts used in PCT, it's
not surprising that communication difficulties occur. Nobody is correct or
wrong when there's a communication problem, and it is very helpful when
someone like you comes forward to identify possible causes of the problem.

BA: Speaking of terms, I've always disliked the term "self-regulation." My
reason is that it implies that some mysterious entity called the "self" does
the regulating. In fact, control systems do the regulating, and they don't
regulate themselves, they regulate their own perceptions.

BA: Also, the term "regulation" refers to the function of a "regulator." In
engineering, regulators often are distinguished from servo-mechanisms. Both
are control systems, but differ in their intended use. Regulators attempt
to keep the sensed variable close to a stationary set point (although the
set-point's value can be adjusted according to the needs of the user).
Examples are a constant-temperature water bath and the electrical voltage
regulator found in many electronic devices, which keeps the supplied voltage
near a specified value such as 5 volts. So are the biological mechanisms
that regulate body temperature. The reference of a servo is intended to be
varied to produce a variable output that follows the value of the servo.
Examples are the power steering mechanism of a car and the servos that
operate the elevator, rudder, etc. of a radio-controlled model aircraft.
Our muscles operate as servos.

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.20.1415)]

···

GH: Hi everyone,

GH: Although I’m still a neophyte to the PCT world I like to think I’m pretty familiar with Jeff’s work. I think an excerpt from one of his previous book chapters might be lend something to this discussion:

GH: Obviously Jeff can speak better to this than I, but it seems that some of these differences may be due to semantics.

RM: I think they are a bit more than semantic differences. There are certainly important overlaps between Jeff’s and my approach to applying control theory to understanding behavior. We both use dynamic, computational models, we use hierarchical control models, and we see these models as controlling perception, not output. That’s a lot of apparent overlap. I think the only non-overlap is in how we actually do the modeling. . There are two main non-overlaps. One is in our willingness to incorporate apparent aspects of the behavior being modeled (like choice, decision making, expectation, etc) into our models (I’m not, Jeff is) and the explicitness with which we describe the perceptual functions that define the variables that are controlled by the model (I want clear, mathematical definitions of perceptual functions; Jeff is apparently satisfied with functions that produce perceptions that are “isomorphic” with the physical variable – at least in some cases). I think these are differences that can be worked out. I hope so.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

[Jeff_Vancouver3]

[From Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.20.2208)]

There is an interesting tug between precision and generalizability in science. We all seek accurate abstractions that largely capture the phenomena of interest. What gets arguments going is what evidence different individuals are willing to accept to assess accuracy, what level of abstractions are too gross or too fine to be considered useful, and what is the phenomena of interest. It seems to me often the case that individuals arguing over one aspect are not realizing that they are actually differing on another – a difference that makes most of the arguments mute. Most often the difference is the phenomena of interest. Personally, I am interested in choice and goal striving. I am not interested in psychomotor phenomena. Not that there is anything wrong with that topic, it is more that it is outside my area of expertise.

I say this because Rick takes exception to my modeling of what appears to me to be choice and goal-striving phenomena. I am not sure what phenomena he thinks the model was trying to explain. He did not talk about the observations the model was trying to account for. This might be largely because the paper he was reading was a follow-up to an earlier paper where all the elements he talked about were described (Vancouver, Weinhardt, & Schmidt, 2010). However, given what he said, I do not think reading that paper would resolve Rick’s issues (though I would encourage it). That is because it is true that some of the input-comparator-output functions (what I call self-regulatory agents) that I describe in that model do not have feedback loops (certainly the time agent, maybe the expectancy and choice agents depending on how abstractly you think about it). It is also true that I assume things in my model. In particular, I assume incentives (and other stuff) affect gains for agents (though only for individuals who care [i.e., are controlling for them] – see 2010 papeer), but I do not attempt to model how that might be the case (i.e., you won’t find an incentive controller in the 2010 paper).  Moreover, my input functions are often, though not always, identity functions. That is, I assume the individual creates a perception of the variables it is attempting to get to reference (e.g. goal) accurately. I do these things because I am trying to keep the modeling simple.

So this gets me to what is most interesting about Rick’s 2014.04.20.1415 post. He claims my model is overly complex. I can certainly see why one would think that; Figure 2 is nasty. But what would interest me is if he could create his own model that accounts for the original data. One of the reasons I am interested in that is because while constructing the model in question, I created a simpler version myself. It did not seem very PCT, but it might have been. It was more that it did not seem very psychologically plausible. I hear that a lot about what models are supposed to be (of psychological phenomenon, of course), but I think all it means is that it has to fit into the psychological community’s Zeitgeist. For me, that was the expectancy concept. The expectancy concept is not in my simpler model. I had a plan for a follow-up paper, though, which was to describe the simpler model and then design and implement an experiment to pit the two against each other. In particular, to manipulate expectancies to see if they mattered and led to the behavior the more complex model would predict. You see, I know expectancies can matter. It is in Psychology’s Zeitgeist because we (including me) have a lot of data to support that they matter. So I am pretty sure my more complex model would win. Indeed, what worried me was that reviewers would see the whole enterprise as me just creating a straw model to make my model look good. Truth is, there was no element of the observations my model was built to explain (i.e., data from a paper by Schmidt and DeShon, 2007) that confirmed this expectancy element of my model. So this pitting of models was largely an excuse to confirm its role in the process. That is, I would have been creating a straw model to make mine look good. So, if Rick wants to create a model, and I am guessing it will not have the expectancy agent, then we might be able to design an experiment to pit them against each other. Then we might have a publishable paper.

There is another reason I would like to see Rick’s model. I might learn something. Rick is one of the people who talked me into computational modeling. I would not be surprised if he had a trick or two up his modeling sleeve.

Indeed, I am just trying to do the best I can. I do not believe I have special powers. The modeling software helps people like me explore my ideas. Provided we are working on the same phenomena, we can agree on what evidence will be diagnostic, and we are dealing with the same level of abstraction, Rick and I might make some progress on understanding.

Now to comment on a few more issues that came up.

Warren, thanks for your defense of me. I am sorry I have not gotten you that chapter I promised you yet. This term is killing me. Avoiding long diatribes on CSGnet has helped me be more productive, but not enough and then there is this diatribe.

Boris, I am trying to avoid a long discussion about Mary’s self-regulation is “opposite.� I would really have to reread that discussion to contribute responsibly. I do not want to do that. There are clearly things about Carver and Scheier’s theory that I think are wrong. Things that some fairly simple modeling would reveal as such. I have more than one project underway doing just that. But that is a detail, perhaps much like the difference between my model and the one Rick has in mind (just egging him on really). I think they are trying to do their best. I get that it is infuriating when they appear to get something wrong because it appears to be taking liberties with a beautiful idea. I suspect Rick is infuriated with the liberties I took (I see them as places Bill did not go and that if he had, he might have modeled them like I did or he might have not tried because he could not figure out how to model them without compromising too many of his assumptions).

Garrett, glad you have read and taken seriously my work. Martin’s comment is similar to many I have given my students. These people take their theorizing seriously and want precision in language. I think I have gotten better (I would not have said regulating goals), but I suspect Martin and Rick and others can find many slip ups in this post alone. Here comes one now.

Bruce, I am not completely comfortable with “self-regulation� either, for the reason you state. But I do not like the term “control theory� either. It has a lot of baggage associated with it. But both have their virtues. I tend to say somewhere in my more recent papers that I am working in or with a control theory-based self-regulation theory. Clearly that is a lot of words so I don’t repeat it in the same paper. For me, the issue is that science take place in a community. I really like much of the ideas of PCT and want the larger community to help in developing its potential. I have come to the conclusion that using the term self-regulation will increase the probability of that happening. Moreover, I think some things that others have done under the self-regulation banner are laudable as well. Working out what we should keep and what we should jettison from each will be something that gets worked out over time.

Back to Rick. The Task A and Task B states are the number of students in lines in School A and School B respectively. The goal, or reference value for each is 0. Otherwise, I think you got it basically correct, but it is getting very late and I need to go to bed.

Jeff

Â

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.21.0905)]

···

 Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.20.2208)–

Â

JV: So this gets me to what is most interesting about Rick’s 2014.04.20.1415 post. He claims my model is overly complex. I can certainly see why one would think that; Figure 2 is nasty. But what would interest me is if he could create his own model that accounts for the original data.

RM: Right after I sent off that post I realized that I should really put my money where my mouth is and produce what I think is a “better” model of your task. After all, words are cheap (unless you’re the Supreme Court and you think that money is speech; don’t these idiots know that money doesn’t talk, it swears;-) And a real working model is where the money is and you have that, Jeff, and I don’t… So in order to not be all talk and no action I’ve started working on trying to create a model of your task  that reflects the modeling principles that I blathered about in my post. After working on it for a few minutes I realized that it was not going to be an easy task. But I’m going to do it because it could be a good learning experience for both of us. It may take a while though. In the mean time, do you have any raw data from that task; I would really like to see what kind of data you have so that I can eventually compare the behavior of the model to the data. This could be the basis of a nice collaboration, by the way.Â

Â

JV: There is another reason I would like to see Rick’s model. I might learn something. Rick is one of the people who talked me into computational modeling. I would not be surprised if he had a trick or two up his modeling sleeve.

RM: It scares me when people pay attention to me. I’m much more comfortable being ignored;-)

JV:Indeed, I am just trying to do the best I can. I do not believe I have special powers. The modeling software helps people like me explore my ideas. Provided we are working on the same phenomena, we can agree on what evidence will be diagnostic, and we are dealing with the same level of abstraction, Rick and I might make some progress on understanding.

RM: You’re doing fine, Jeff. I think a collaboration might be very good for you and me and, even more important, for the development of control models of more complex behaviors than the one’s I’ve worked on.

I’ll try to get a preliminary version of a model to you by the end of the week (I like having goals;-)

Best regards

Rick

Â

Â

Now to comment on a few more issues that came up.

Â

Warren, thanks for your defense of me. I am sorry I have not gotten you that chapter I promised you yet. This term is killing me. Avoiding long diatribes on CSGnet has helped me be more productive, but not enough and then there is this diatribe.

Â

Boris, I am trying to avoid a long discussion about Mary’s self-regulation is “opposite.� I would really have to reread that discussion to contribute responsibly. I do not want to do that. There are clearly things about Carver and Scheier’s theory that I think are wrong. Things that some fairly simple modeling would reveal as such. I have more than one project underway doing just that. But that is a detail, perhaps much like the difference between my model and the one Rick has in mind (just egging him on really). I think they are trying to do their best. I get that it is infuriating when they appear to get something wrong because it appears to be taking liberties with a beautiful idea. I suspect Rick is infuriated with the liberties I took (I see them as places Bill did not go and that if he had, he might have modeled them like I did or he might have not tried because he could not figure out how to model them without compromising too many of his assumptions).

Â

Garrett, glad you have read and taken seriously my work. Martin’s comment is similar to many I have given my students. These people take their theorizing seriously and want precision in language. I think I have gotten better (I would not have said regulating goals), but I suspect Martin and Rick and others can find many slip ups in this post alone. Here comes one now.

Â

Bruce, I am not completely comfortable with “self-regulation� either, for the reason you state. But I do not like the term “control theory� either. It has a lot of baggage associated with it. But both have their virtues. I tend to say somewhere in my more recent papers that I am working in or with a control theory-based self-regulation theory. Clearly that is a lot of words so I don’t repeat it in the same paper. For me, the issue is that science take place in a community. I really like much of the ideas of PCT and want the larger community to help in developing its potential. I have come to the conclusion that using the term self-regulation will increase the probability of that happening. Moreover, I think some things that others have done under the self-regulation banner are laudable as well. Working out what we should keep and what we should jettison from each will be something that gets worked out over time.

Â

Back to Rick. The Task A and Task B states are the number of students in lines in School A and School B respectively. The goal, or reference value for each is 0. Otherwise, I think you got it basically correct, but it is getting very late and I need to go to bed.

Â

Jeff

Â

Â

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
           Â
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Jeff,

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:45
AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[From Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.20.2208)]

JV :

There is an
interesting tug between precision and generalizability in science. We all seek
accurate abstractions that largely capture the phenomena of interest. What gets
arguments going is what evidence different individuals are willing to accept to
assess accuracy, what level of abstractions are too gross or too fine to be
considered useful, and what is the phenomena of interest. It seems to me often
the case that individuals arguing over one aspect are not realizing that they
are actually differing on another – a difference that makes most of the
arguments mute. Most often the difference is the phenomena of interest.

HB :

Interesting thinking Jeff.
It seems like more PCT thinking than self-regulatory. If I assume that everything
you described as “abstraction” is presented with organization
of perceptions (as everything what we are aware of is perception), then we
could easily agree, that every perceptual “world” in individuals are
unique. Like you concluded very fine : " …what evidence different individuals
are willing to accept to assess accuracy". By my opinion that depends from how successful
control in organism is.

So I see answers to all
of your believes and abstractions about individual interest in control of
internal organization in organisms, which can provide homeostasis. But I have
quite no idea how “self-regulatory” theory assume homeostasis is maintained
? Can “self-regulation theory” provide organization of control units that
would be capable of maintaining homeostasis in organisms ? I suppose that like
in PCT also self-regulatory theory assume that organism is constructed from billions
of control units ? Or I’m wrong. Do you have any substitude for control unit in
“self-regulation” theory ? Considering that you don’t like term
control.

But interesting. In some of
the latest C.Carver’s article I saw attempts to support self-regulation theory with
physiological thinking. And I believe that all theoretical approaches about
behavior, which see the “motivation” for behavior in internal structure
of organisms, will have the same wide acceptable source, with which people are quite
successfully cured through centuries. I hope we agree that theoretical
background that can provide more evidence or is more plausible with experiences
with “real world”, should be accepted as more acceptable than other
theories, that can’t do that.

JV :

Personally, I am
interested in choice and goal striving. I am not interested in psychomotor
phenomena. Not that there is anything wrong with that topic, it is more that it
is outside my area of expertise.

HB:

Please accept my apology
if I understood wrong. Do you equate PCT with “psychomotor” theory ?
I would say that self-regulation theory is much closer to “psychomotor
theory” than PCT. Who is regulating behavior with goals ? If we make
substitution to “psycho” with “goals” and “motor”
with “behavior”. There it is : “goal-behavior” or
“psycho-motor” theory. I don’t see much equivalence of PCT to
“psychomotor” theory, if any.

JV :

I say this because
Rick takes exception to my modeling of what appears to me to be choice and
goal-striving phenomena.

HB:

Well put. What appears to
you is probably what you perceive…It’s your unique perceptual position
and by my opinion should be respected.

JV :

That is, I assume
the individual creates a perception of the variables it is attempting to get to
reference (e.g. goal) accurately. I do these things because I am trying to keep
the modeling simple.

HB :

Well what can I say. Good
PCT thinking.

JV :

So I am pretty sure
my more complex model would win.

HB :

It’s better if you are
not pretty sure. Provide evidence to be sure. You are scientist. Aren’t you ?

JV :

Indeed, what worried
me was that reviewers would see the whole enterprise as me just creating a
straw model to make my model look good. Truth is, there was no element of the
observations my model was built to explain (i.e., data from a paper by Schmidt
and DeShon, 2007) that confirmed this expectancy element of my model. So this
pitting of models was largely an excuse to confirm its role in the process.
That is, I would have been creating a straw model to make mine look good. So,
if Rick wants to create a model, and I am guessing it will not have the
expectancy agent, then we might be able to design an experiment to pit them
against each other. Then we might have a publishable paper.

HB:

Good reasoning…

JV :

There is another
reason I would like to see Rick’s model. I might learn something. Rick is
one of the people who talked me into computational modeling. I would not be
surprised if he had a trick or two up his modeling sleeve.

HB:

Good reasoning again….
J

JV :

Warren, thanks for your defense of me. I am sorry
I have not gotten you that chapter I promised you yet. This term is killing me.
Avoiding long diatribes on CSGnet has helped me be more productive, but not
enough and then there is this diatribe.

HB :

Well I think you’ll have
to invite Warren
at least on one drink or teo. You can invite me too J

JV :

Boris, I am trying
to avoid a long discussion about Mary’s self-regulation is
“opposite.” I would really have to reread that discussion to
contribute responsibly. I do not want to do that. There are clearly things
about Carver and Scheier’s theory that I think are wrong. Things that
some fairly simple modeling would reveal as such. I have more than one project
underway doing just that. But that is a detail, perhaps much like the difference
between my model and the one Rick has in mind (just egging him on really). I
think they are trying to do their best. I get that it is infuriating when they
appear to get something wrong because it appears to be taking liberties with a
beautiful idea. I suspect Rick is infuriated with the liberties I took (I see
them as places Bill did not go and that if he had, he might have modeled them
like I did or he might have not tried because he could not figure out how to
model them without compromising too many of his assumptions).

HB :

Still I think that
reading Mary’s discourse could help you. But if you are too busy with projects,
it’s your decision and your priorities.

JV :

Garrett, glad you
have read and taken seriously my work.

HB :

I’m afraid Jeff that you’ll
be more and more busy inviting friends to celebrate…

JV :

Martin’s
comment is similar to many I have given my students. These people take their
theorizing seriously and want precision in language. I think I have gotten
better (I would not have said regulating goals), but I suspect Martin and Rick
and others can find many slip ups in this post alone. Here comes one now.

HB :

Martin is with no doubt
person that you can turn to for help, if you’ll ever try to fully understand
PCT. For me there is no “substitutes” for PCT. Whether you understand
it or not.

JV :

Bruce, I am not
completely comfortable with “self-regulation” either, for the
reason you state. But I do not like the term “control theory”
either. It has a lot of baggage associated with it. But both have their
virtues. I tend to say somewhere in my more recent papers that I am working in
or with a control theory-based self-regulation theory. Clearly that is a lot of
words so I don’t repeat it in the same paper. For me, the issue is that
science take place in a community. I really like much of the ideas of PCT and
want the larger community to help in developing its potential. I have come to
the conclusion that using the term self-regulation will increase the
probability of that happening. Moreover, I think some things that others have
done under the self-regulation banner are laudable as well. Working out what we
should keep and what we should jettison from each will be something that gets
worked out over time.

HB :

I must admit Jeff that
your reason to use your terminology instead of PCT, is very good, I could maybe
say excellent. I needed couple of years to get through PCT terms and so I think
that it’s highly probable that people will understand your terms better. But maybe
you could try to turn PCT terms more precisely into your terms so that PCT reasoning
would stay intact. Bruce is with no doubt another person that can help you with
full understanding of PCT.

Best,

Boris

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7371 - Release Date: 04/20/14

[Jeff_Vancouver3]

[From Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.21.16300]

JV: Boris, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of sniping between complements.

HB:

Do you have any substitude for control unit in “self-regulation” theory ? Considering that you don’t like term control.

JV: I talk about self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

HB: But interesting. In some of the latest C.Carver’s article I saw attempts to support self-regulation theory with physiological thinking. And I believe that all theoretical approaches about behavior, which see the “motivation” for behavior in internal structure of organisms, will have the same wide acceptable source, with which people are quite successfully cured through centuries. I hope we agree that theoretical background that can provide more evidence or is more plausible with experiences with “real world”, should be accepted as more acceptable than other theories, that can’t do that.

JV: I am not sure the exact metrics one would use, but I suspect that my version of human self-regulation is closer to PCT than to Carver and Scheier’s theory. Indeed, I mostly use them as a foil for comparison. I think they are generally on the right track, but there is so much fog in their writing that it is hard to tell. When I can tell, than more often than not I am juxtaposition my view with theirs. I suspect that is because they are not modelers, so they do not understand the dynamics very well. But I think they are trying to be helpful. They are not like Bandura or Locke, who try to shut down anything not exactly like what they espouse (esp. if it sounds like control theory which to them sounds like behaviorism – so misguided). I do not like that kind of behavior.

More to the point, I do not equate self-regulation theory with Carver and Scheier. There are many who claim to work under the self-regulation banner. I am one of those and I happen to be heavily influenced by PCT. But I have no problem seeing the merit of good ideas and compelling data wherever it appears.

JV :

So I am pretty sure my more complex model would win.

HB :

It’s better if you are not pretty sure. Provide evidence to be sure. You are scientist. Aren’t you ?

JV: I am. I like to make predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind creating models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case we are talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model with Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that would lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the data to provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

Still I think that reading Mary’s discourse could help you. But if you are too busy with projects, it’s your decision and your priorities.

JV: I did read Mary’s discourse. I was just that it was years ago. I also remember Mary’s response to my work. She was impressed by the amount of papers I cite. Might be like “nice tie” in that she really had nothing positive to say. But she also had nothing negative she felt she needed to say, and I got the impression she was not one that held back on the negative.

Might I suggest that you take Warren’s advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory) before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT. Perhaps you are not meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having. I have some gain on wanting to not be treated that way. I also have a higher gain on not wasting my time. That one is wanting priority now.

Jeff

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Jeff,

JV :

JV: Boris, I am not
sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of
sniping between complements.

HB :

As I always do, I’m trying to present to co-speaker my problem with language.
I’m not from your language speakung area so there is quite some probability
that I’'ll misunderstand something or make misinterpretation. For ex. I had
problem with word “sniping” and I didn’t find any good translation in
vocabulary, but I think I know what you meant.

JV: I talk about
self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

JV: I like to make
predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind creating
models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case we are
talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model with
Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that would
lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the data to
provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

By my oppinion is very important to make a precise model of something
you try to collect data on If we are talking about constructing a model of
living (human) beings (organisms) and consequently try to analyze why and how
they behave, then I think Bill’s model on page 191 (B:CP, 2005) could be a good
starting-point. I hope I understood your efforts and proposal right.

Ashby’s and Bill’s idea about understanding why and how organisms
survive in Earth or Universe circumstances and maybe how evolutionary perspective
on how organisms “built” their internal structure so to survive
through bilions of years is momentaly as I’m concerned the best theory for
“designing brain” or organism. Carver did use it too.

So “our” models can be matched with no problems.

I think that first it would be good if we make it on some generalized
level (as you proposed) so that main principles will be exposed. I already did
that by mentioning that organisms are constructed with sinchronicly co-operating
Control Units . So as I see it as it’s your turn.

I’m interested how internal structure of the Agent look like (model) so
to be able to analyze the differences of how behavior can be produced in your
and Bill (Ashby) model ?

I don’t understand why Rick is bothering with making his model, if PCT
model is quite known. I assume that you are both psychologists and in that case
he could be of great help. Maybe if this is the case, I could understand why he
is trying to make his model.

I think Bill’s main assumptiom about how organisms are constructed by
my oppinion “stands as a rock”. It’s supported with so many biological
and physiological “facts” that I don’t doubt about it’s credibility. But
it’s true, I don’t know what’s your oppinion about it ? Although Rick is right
person for mathematical modelling of PCT, I’ll be glad if Bruce and Martin join
discussion, speccialy about mathematical comparison of models. I’m more pedagogue
or social-pedagogue.

JV :

Might I suggest that
you take Warren’s advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense
of control theory) before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT.

HB:

I hope you will not be insulted if I refuse reading your article for
which I have to pay. If you’ll send it to me, I’ll read it. Otherwise I hope will
make our points in further communication. But maybe reading your no yet pressed
article is enough to understand your “position” ?

JV :

Perhaps you are not
meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having.

HB :

Please accept my apology if I offended you in any way. As you said : I
didin’t mean to sound insulting. I like communication with ease and relaxed with
some joke in it. That was the way me and Rick communicated when I started on CSGnet.
Now it’s different, although we are both dancers J. Life is
short, so I try to make it full and rich as possible. But as I perceived your
standards as quite different, so I’ll try hard not to “cross the
line”.

Best,

Boris

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:26
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[From Jeff Vancouver
(2014.04.21.16300]

JV: Boris, I am not
sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of
sniping between complements.

HB:

Do you have any
substitude for control unit in “self-regulation” theory ? Considering
that you don’t like term control.

JV: I talk about
self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

HB: But interesting. In
some of the latest C.Carver’s article I saw attempts to support self-regulation
theory with physiological thinking. And I believe that all theoretical
approaches about behavior, which see the “motivation” for behavior in
internal structure of organisms, will have the same wide acceptable source,
with which people are quite successfully cured through centuries. I hope we
agree that theoretical background that can provide more evidence or is more
plausible with experiences with “real world”, should be accepted as
more acceptable than other theories, that can’t do that.

JV: I am not sure
the exact metrics one would use, but I suspect that my version of human
self-regulation is closer to PCT than to Carver and Scheier’s theory.
Indeed, I mostly use them as a foil for comparison. I think they are generally
on the right track, but there is so much fog in their writing that it is hard
to tell. When I can tell, than more often than not I am juxtaposition my view
with theirs. I suspect that is because they are not modelers, so they do not
understand the dynamics very well. But I think they are trying to be helpful.
They are not like Bandura or Locke, who try to shut down anything not exactly
like what they espouse (esp. if it sounds like control theory which to them
sounds like behaviorism – so misguided). I do not like that kind of
behavior.

More to the
point, I do not equate self-regulation theory with Carver and Scheier.
There are many who claim to work under the self-regulation banner. I am one of
those and I happen to be heavily influenced by PCT. But I have no problem
seeing the merit of good ideas and compelling data wherever it appears.

JV :

So I am pretty sure
my more complex model would win.

HB :

It’s better if you are
not pretty sure. Provide evidence to be sure. You are scientist. Aren’t you ?

JV: I am. I like to
make predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind
creating models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case
we are talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model
with Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that
would lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the
data to provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

Still I think that
reading Mary’s discourse could help you. But if you are too busy with projects,
it’s your decision and your priorities.

JV: I did read
Mary’s discourse. I was just that it was years ago. I also remember
Mary’s response to my work. She was impressed by the amount of papers I
cite. Might be like “nice tie” in that she really had nothing positive
to say. But she also had nothing negative she felt she needed to say, and I got
the impression she was not one that held back on the negative.

Might I suggest that
you take Warren’s
advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory)
before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT. Perhaps you are not
meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having. I have some
gain on wanting to not be treated that way. I also have a higher gain on not
wasting my time. That one is wanting priority now.

Jeff

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7373 - Release Date: 04/21/14

[Jeff_Vancouver3]

[From Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.22.0824)]

Hi Boris,

Apology accepted. If you have access to the Internet you can download many of my papers for free at my website (http://www.ohioupsychology.com/JeffsPublications.html). You can see abstracts or opening paragraphs for nearly all my papers there. In some cases you have to request the paper (there is a link for that as well). My home page is (http://www.ohioupsychology.com/Faculty.php?p=65). The self-regulatory agent is mathematically (and pretty much in every other way) equivalent to the control unit. Two names for the same thing. Best place to see this is the 2010 paper with Weinhardt and Schmidt (click on “pdf” at the end of the paper reference on first page above; it is the 12^th reference down from the top) or the paper I send couple of weeks back. Move down 16 more references to get to the 2005 defense of control theory paper. The link to the paper had been broken, but I fixed it recently. You can also get to the 2010 paper via the HEIDi lab page, which can be reached via the second page I mention above. HEIDi stands for Human-Environment Interactional Dynamics initiative.

Jeff

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:38 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Hi Jeff,

JV :

JV: Boris, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of sniping between complements.

HB :

As I always do, I’m trying to present to co-speaker my problem with language. I’m not from your language speakung area so there is quite some probability that I’'ll misunderstand something or make misinterpretation. For ex. I had problem with word “sniping” and I didn’t find any good translation in vocabulary, but I think I know what you meant.

JV: I talk about self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

JV: I like to make predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind creating models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case we are talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model with Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that would lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the data to provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

By my oppinion is very important to make a precise model of something you try to collect data on If we are talking about constructing a model of living (human) beings (organisms) and consequently try to analyze why and how they behave, then I think Bill’s model on page 191 (B:CP, 2005) could be a good starting-point. I hope I understood your efforts and proposal right.

Ashby’s and Bill’s idea about understanding why and how organisms survive in Earth or Universe circumstances and maybe how evolutionary perspective on how organisms “built” their internal structure so to survive through bilions of years is momentaly as I’m concerned the best theory for “designing brain” or organism. Carver did use it too.

So “our” models can be matched with no problems.

I think that first it would be good if we make it on some generalized level (as you proposed) so that main principles will be exposed. I already did that by mentioning that organisms are constructed with sinchronicly co-operating Control Units . So as I see it as it’s your turn.

I’m interested how internal structure of the Agent look like (model) so to be able to analyze the differences of how behavior can be produced in your and Bill (Ashby) model ?

I don’t understand why Rick is bothering with making his model, if PCT model is quite known. I assume that you are both psychologists and in that case he could be of great help. Maybe if this is the case, I could understand why he is trying to make his model.

I think Bill’s main assumptiom about how organisms are constructed by my oppinion “stands as a rock”. It’s supported with so many biological and physiological “facts” that I don’t doubt about it’s credibility. But it’s true, I don’t know what’s your oppinion about it ? Although Rick is right person for mathematical modelling of PCT, I’ll be glad if Bruce and Martin join discussion, speccialy about mathematical comparison of models. I’m more pedagogue or social-pedagogue.

JV :

Might I suggest that you take Warren’s advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory) before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT.

HB:

I hope you will not be insulted if I refuse reading your article for which I have to pay. If you’ll send it to me, I’ll read it. Otherwise I hope will make our points in further communication. But maybe reading your no yet pressed article is enough to understand your “position” ?

JV :

Perhaps you are not meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having.

HB :

Please accept my apology if I offended you in any way. As you said : I didin’t mean to sound insulting. I like communication with ease and relaxed with some joke in it. That was the way me and Rick communicated when I started on CSGnet. Now it’s different, although we are both dancers J. Life is short, so I try to make it full and rich as possible. But as I perceived your standards as quite different, so I’ll try hard not to “cross the line”.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:26 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[From Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.21.16300]

JV: Boris, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of sniping between complements.

HB:

Do you have any substitude for control unit in “self-regulation” theory ? Considering that you don’t like term control.

JV: I talk about self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

HB: But interesting. In some of the latest C.Carver’s article I saw attempts to support self-regulation theory with physiological thinking. And I believe that all theoretical approaches about behavior, which see the “motivation” for behavior in internal structure of organisms, will have the same wide acceptable source, with which people are quite successfully cured through centuries. I hope we agree that theoretical background that can provide more evidence or is more plausible with experiences with “real world”, should be accepted as more acceptable than other theories, that can’t do that.

JV: I am not sure the exact metrics one would use, but I suspect that my version of human self-regulation is closer to PCT than to Carver and Scheier’s theory. Indeed, I mostly use them as a foil for comparison. I think they are generally on the right track, but there is so much fog in their writing that it is hard to tell. When I can tell, than more often than not I am juxtaposition my view with theirs. I suspect that is because they are not modelers, so they do not understand the dynamics very well. But I think they are trying to be helpful. They are not like Bandura or Locke, who try to shut down anything not exactly like what they espouse (esp. if it sounds like control theory which to them sounds like behaviorism – so misguided). I do not like that kind of behavior.

More to the point, I do not equate self-regulation theory with Carver and Scheier. There are many who claim to work under the self-regulation banner. I am one of those and I happen to be heavily influenced by PCT. But I have no problem seeing the merit of good ideas and compelling data wherever it appears.

JV :

So I am pretty sure my more complex model would win.

HB :

It’s better if you are not pretty sure. Provide evidence to be sure. You are scientist. Aren’t you ?

JV: I am. I like to make predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind creating models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case we are talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model with Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that would lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the data to provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

Still I think that reading Mary’s discourse could help you. But if you are too busy with projects, it’s your decision and your priorities.

JV: I did read Mary’s discourse. I was just that it was years ago. I also remember Mary’s response to my work. She was impressed by the amount of papers I cite. Might be like “nice tie” in that she really had nothing positive to say. But she also had nothing negative she felt she needed to say, and I got the impression she was not one that held back on the negative.

Might I suggest that you take Warren’s advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory) before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT. Perhaps you are not meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having. I have some gain on wanting to not be treated that way. I also have a higher gain on not wasting my time. That one is wanting priority now.

Jeff

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7373 - Release Date: 04/21/14

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Jeff,

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:37
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[From Jeff Vancouver
(2014.04.22.0824)]

Hi Boris,

Apology accepted. If
you have access to the Internet you can download many of my papers for free at
my website (http://www.ohioupsychology.com/JeffsPublications.html).
You can see abstracts or opening paragraphs for nearly all my papers there. In
some cases you have to request the paper (there is a link for that as well). My
home page is (http://www.ohioupsychology.com/Faculty.php?p=65).
The self-regulatory agent is mathematically (and pretty much in every other
way) equivalent to the control unit. Two names for the same thing.

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the
links. I was just reading some of them and “flyed over” some articles
, and I must say I’m disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But
you as a scientist must be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to
your theory :

1. Your statement about the
   equality of terms “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control
   unit” is maybe equal in your imagination, because you used so many terms
   from “Control Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual
   illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about
   equality of theories. Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still
   “opposite” to PCT. I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled
   variable” in Bill’s generic diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how
   did you get the idea about PCT being a version of control theory ? A version of which Control Theory ?

3. I don’t understand how
   Bill’s theory can be a version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion
   it’s the first and fundamental stone in psychological theories of
   self-regulation (control) which were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you
   could read their book from 1981 or as I already asked you and Warren to show me
   author who introduced “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that
   Bill was the first. I didn’t hear your voice ?

4. I really said that
   it’s good or even excellent to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly”
   terms, but I also said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or
   intact. But with turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought
   construct”, it seems to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s
   something like Glasser’s “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really
   don’t understand what you psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you
   could start to act right and end the version of “self-regulation theories”
   that are not in accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some
   variation or version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it
   could be a version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to
   me openly and sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for
   presenting “your theory” ?

6. The only real
   reference to all “Control theories” and distorted variation of it,
   like “self-regulation theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”.
   So all of them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t
   support survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can
   think, feel, and learn ?

7. I think that serious
   conversation about your or any other “self-regulation” theory
   wouldn’t stay long in any physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say
   that. You seem to be fine guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would
   advice you to get really serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and
   Bruces’ help, I would advise you also Kents’ articles and book.

These are only first
impressions after reading some of your text.

Best,

Boris

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:38
AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Hi Jeff,

JV :

JV: Boris, I am not
sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of
sniping between complements.

HB :

As I always do, I’m trying to present to co-speaker my problem with
language. I’m not from your language speakung area so there is quite some
probability that I’'ll misunderstand something or make misinterpretation. For
ex. I had problem with word “sniping” and I didn’t find any good
translation in vocabulary, but I think I know what you meant.

JV: I talk about
self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

JV: I like to make
predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind creating
models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case we are
talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model with
Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that would
lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the data to
provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

By my oppinion is very important to make a precise model of something
you try to collect data on If we are talking about constructing a model of living
(human) beings (organisms) and consequently try to analyze why and how they
behave, then I think Bill’s model on page 191 (B:CP, 2005) could be a good
starting-point. I hope I understood your efforts and proposal right.

Ashby’s and Bill’s idea about understanding why and how organisms
survive in Earth or Universe circumstances and maybe how evolutionary
perspective on how organisms “built” their internal structure so to
survive through bilions of years is momentaly as I’m concerned the best theory
for “designing brain” or organism. Carver did use it too.

So “our” models can be matched with no problems.

I think that first it would be good if we make it on some generalized
level (as you proposed) so that main principles will be exposed. I already did
that by mentioning that organisms are constructed with sinchronicly
co-operating Control Units . So as I see it as it’s your turn.

I’m interested how internal structure of the Agent look like (model) so
to be able to analyze the differences of how behavior can be produced in your
and Bill (Ashby) model ?

I don’t understand why Rick is bothering with making his model, if PCT
model is quite known. I assume that you are both psychologists and in that case
he could be of great help. Maybe if this is the case, I could understand why he
is trying to make his model.

I think Bill’s main assumptiom about how organisms are constructed by
my oppinion “stands as a rock”. It’s supported with so many
biological and physiological “facts” that I don’t doubt about it’s credibility.
But it’s true, I don’t know what’s your oppinion about it ? Although Rick is
right person for mathematical modelling of PCT, I’ll be glad if Bruce and
Martin join discussion, speccialy about mathematical comparison of models. I’m
more pedagogue or social-pedagogue.

JV :

Might I suggest that
you take Warren’s
advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory)
before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT.

HB:

I hope you will not be insulted if I refuse reading your article for
which I have to pay. If you’ll send it to me, I’ll read it. Otherwise I hope
will make our points in further communication. But maybe reading your no yet
pressed article is enough to understand your “position” ?

JV :

Perhaps you are not
meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having.

HB :

Please accept my apology if I offended you in any way. As you said : I
didin’t mean to sound insulting. I like communication with ease and relaxed
with some joke in it. That was the way me and Rick communicated when I started
on CSGnet. Now it’s different, although we are both dancers J. Life is
short, so I try to make it full and rich as possible. But as I perceived your
standards as quite different, so I’ll try hard not to “cross the
line”.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:26
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[From Jeff Vancouver
(2014.04.21.16300]

JV: Boris, I am not
sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post. It seemed a lot of
sniping between complements.

HB:

Do you have any
substitude for control unit in “self-regulation” theory ? Considering
that you don’t like term control.

JV: I talk about
self-regulatory agents, or simply agents rather than control units.

HB: But interesting. In
some of the latest C.Carver’s article I saw attempts to support self-regulation
theory with physiological thinking. And I believe that all theoretical
approaches about behavior, which see the “motivation” for behavior in
internal structure of organisms, will have the same wide acceptable source,
with which people are quite successfully cured through centuries. I hope we
agree that theoretical background that can provide more evidence or is more plausible
with experiences with “real world”, should be accepted as more
acceptable than other theories, that can’t do that.

JV: I am not sure
the exact metrics one would use, but I suspect that my version of human
self-regulation is closer to PCT than to Carver and Scheier’s theory.
Indeed, I mostly use them as a foil for comparison. I think they are generally
on the right track, but there is so much fog in their writing that it is hard
to tell. When I can tell, than more often than not I am juxtaposition my view
with theirs. I suspect that is because they are not modelers, so they do not
understand the dynamics very well. But I think they are trying to be helpful.
They are not like Bandura or Locke, who try to shut down anything not exactly
like what they espouse (esp. if it sounds like control theory which to them
sounds like behaviorism – so misguided). I do not like that kind of
behavior.

More to the
point, I do not equate self-regulation theory with Carver and Scheier.
There are many who claim to work under the self-regulation banner. I am one of
those and I happen to be heavily influenced by PCT. But I have no problem
seeing the merit of good ideas and compelling data wherever it appears.

JV :

So I am pretty sure
my more complex model would win.

HB :

It’s better if you are
not pretty sure. Provide evidence to be sure. You are scientist. Aren’t you ?

JV: I am. I like to
make predictions when I can and then collect the data. I don’t mind
creating models that accounts for existing data. That is what I did in the case
we are talking about. This particular prediction is about comparing my model
with Rick’s, but we need Rick’s model first and then a design that
would lead the models to make different predictions. Then we can collect the
data to provide the evidence. Is that okay with you?

HB :

Still I think that
reading Mary’s discourse could help you. But if you are too busy with projects,
it’s your decision and your priorities.

JV: I did read
Mary’s discourse. I was just that it was years ago. I also remember
Mary’s response to my work. She was impressed by the amount of papers I
cite. Might be like “nice tie” in that she really had nothing
positive to say. But she also had nothing negative she felt she needed to say,
and I got the impression she was not one that held back on the negative.

Might I suggest that
you take Warren’s
advice and read some of my stuff (esp. the 2005 defense of control theory)
before continuing to treat me like I am ignorant of PCT. Perhaps you are not
meaning to sound insulting, but that is the perception I am having. I have some
gain on wanting to not be treated that way. I also have a higher gain on not
wasting my time. That one is wanting priority now.

Jeff

No
virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7373 - Release Date: 04/21/14

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7375 - Release Date: 04/21/14

[Jeff_Vancouver3]

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories. Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT. I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT being a version of control theory ? A version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981 or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science (Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just “thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel, and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would advise you also Kents’ articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology. Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves (as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

[wmansell]

Hi there Boris and Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a PCT control unit to me, which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately credited.

I do at the same time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model ‘choice’, for example, as emergent properties of PCT and not requiring additional features that Jeff incorporates but that is an empirical matter and I do see the worth in Rick building a model to test this.

Conversely, again, I see that these kind of concepts, alongside ‘expectancy’ for example, do need to be explored from a PCT perspective and their nature may require some amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I am interested as to how the ‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of Powers, 1973) is managed across the system - is this what we see as ‘expectancy’ the process through which one memory is selected over others? What is this process from a mathematical perspective? Could it possibly (!) be Bayesian?

I like the fact that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the higher level cognitive processes. Biological survival is another key direction to understand PCT, but it is just not as the same level as the domain that Jeff is interested in. Both are potentially complementary and can be explored in parallel to then return to a fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT, but the balance has to be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness of PCT. It seems that some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of PCT starkly (Rick) whereas others is to make it seem like all of these self-regulatory theories broadly agree that behaviour is the control of perception, and get the basic idea accepted and included, even though the uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s approach. It has paid of massively in some ways (Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 338. has a 1300+ citations) but not others (only someone already familiar with PCT would realise how much the full set of ideas in that article are more attributable to PCT than any other specific theory even though the paper cites Powers generously).

It’s a tough political decision and I don’t quite know which one I prefer! I think I might take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories. Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT. I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT being a version of control theory ? A version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981 or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science (Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just “thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel, and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would advise you also Kents’ articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology. Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves (as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren,

I’m sorry but do you wear glasses ? Can
you please show me Bill’s original diagram with variable or “controlled
variable” in it ? If you think that diagrams are the same, where we can
see that Jeff’s diagram is Bill’s ? My oppinion is that Jeff in any case
violated authors rights.

Best,

Boris

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi there Boris and Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a
PCT control unit to me, which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately
credited.

I do at the same time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model
‘choice’, for example, as emergent properties of PCT and not requiring
additional features that Jeff incorporates but that is an empirical matter and
I do see the worth in Rick building a model to test this.

Conversely, again, I see that these kind of concepts, alongside
‘expectancy’ for example, do need to be explored from a PCT perspective and
their nature may require some amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I
am interested as to how the ‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of
Powers, 1973) is managed across the system - is this what we see as
‘expectancy’ the process through which one memory is selected over others? What
is this process from a mathematical perspective? Could it possibly (!) be
Bayesian?

I like the fact that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the
higher level cognitive processes. Biological survival is another key direction
to understand PCT, but it is just not as the same level as the domain that Jeff
is interested in. Both are potentially complementary and can be explored in
parallel to then return to a fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT,
but the balance has to be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness
of PCT. It seems that some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of
PCT starkly (Rick) whereas others is to make it seem like all of these
self-regulatory theories broadly agree that behaviour is the control of
perception, and get the basic idea accepted and included, even though the
uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s
approach. It has paid of massively in some ways (Austin, J. T.,
& Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure,
process, and content. Psychological
bulletin, 120(3),
338. has a 1300+ citations) but not others (only someone already familiar with
PCT would realise how much the full set of ideas in that article are more
attributable to PCT than any other specific theory even though the paper cites
Powers generously).

It’s a tough political decision and I don’t quite know which
one I prefer! I think I might take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading
some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m
disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must
be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms
   “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal
   in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control
   Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories.
   Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT.
   I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic
   diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT
   being a version of control theory ? A
   version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why
this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a
   version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and
   fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which
   were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981
   or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced
   “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I
   didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence
from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller,
Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology
same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial
model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson
has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science
(Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of
concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent
   to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also
   said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with
   turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems
   to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s
   “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you
   psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right
   and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in
   accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or
   version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a
   version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and
   sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting
   “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you
are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just
“thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control
   theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation
   theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of
   them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support
   survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel,
   and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not
survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working
on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level
organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular
phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my
agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your
   or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any
   physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine
   guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really
   serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would
   advise you also Kents’
   articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have
read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and
biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology.
Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves
(as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of
concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely
unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading
some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am
controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14

[wmansell]

Hi Boris, I were glasses to work and contact lenses on my days off! I don’t claim that the diagrams are exactly the same with exactly the same labels. Jeff references Bill, but as I said, I think his work could be more explicit that this is Bill’s unique contribution rather than a generic diagram for ‘control theories’. So, I think I agree with you, but I am very aware that there are much greater aberrations of the control loop out there, probably including some of my own reproductions, for the purposes of accessible dissemination! But for the purposes of exact detail, it is Bill’s diagrams all the way!
Warren

···

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I’m sorry but do you wear glasses ? Can
you please show me Bill’s original diagram with variable or “controlled
variable” in it ? If you think that diagrams are the same, where we can
see that Jeff’s diagram is Bill’s ? My oppinion is that Jeff in any case
violated authors rights.

Best,

Boris

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi there Boris and Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a
PCT control unit to me, which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately
credited.

I do at the same time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model
‘choice’, for example, as emergent properties of PCT and not requiring
additional features that Jeff incorporates but that is an empirical matter and
I do see the worth in Rick building a model to test this.

Conversely, again, I see that these kind of concepts, alongside
‘expectancy’ for example, do need to be explored from a PCT perspective and
their nature may require some amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I
am interested as to how the ‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of
Powers, 1973) is managed across the system - is this what we see as
‘expectancy’ the process through which one memory is selected over others? What
is this process from a mathematical perspective? Could it possibly (!) be
Bayesian?

I like the fact that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the
higher level cognitive processes. Biological survival is another key direction
to understand PCT, but it is just not as the same level as the domain that Jeff
is interested in. Both are potentially complementary and can be explored in
parallel to then return to a fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT,
but the balance has to be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness
of PCT. It seems that some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of
PCT starkly (Rick) whereas others is to make it seem like all of these
self-regulatory theories broadly agree that behaviour is the control of
perception, and get the basic idea accepted and included, even though the
uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s
approach. It has paid of massively in some ways (Austin, J. T.,
& Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure,
process, and content. Psychological
bulletin, 120(3),
338. has a 1300+ citations) but not others (only someone already familiar with
PCT would realise how much the full set of ideas in that article are more
attributable to PCT than any other specific theory even though the paper cites
Powers generously).

It’s a tough political decision and I don’t quite know which
one I prefer! I think I might take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu
wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading
some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m
disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must
be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms
   “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal
   in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control
   Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories.
   Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT.
   I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic
   diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT
   being a version of control theory ? A
   version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why
this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a
   version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and
   fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which
   were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981
   or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced
   “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I
   didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence
from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller,
Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology
same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial
model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson
has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science
(Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of
concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent
   to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also
   said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with
   turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems
   to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s
   “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you
   psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right
   and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in
   accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or
   version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a
   version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and
   sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting
   “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you
are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just
“thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control
   theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation
   theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of
   them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support
   survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel,
   and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not
survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working
on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level
organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular
phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my
agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your
   or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any
   physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine
   guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really
   serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would
   advise you also Kents’
   articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have
read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and
biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology.
Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves
(as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of
concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely
unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading
some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am
controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[_Boris_Hartman]

Thaks Warren,

for your detailed answer. I thought that I
would need new glasses J.

My efforts when talking to Carver and Bil
was just to make Bill’s work recognizible and worth as it is. When he recognized
that Carver/Scheier excuded him as a reference in their 1998 book, as he was
fuly included in their 1981 book, I somehow promised myself that I’ll “prosecute”
all psychologist that will use Bill’s diagram without his
“signature”. I started with Carver.But I soon recognized that articles
and books about “self-regulation” don’t include much respect to
others work. I take that as quite strange in psychological community. It’s
quite a mess. Whatever. I’m struglling for his name wherever I see his work
subscibed with some other text.

I’m sorry to bother you with glasses J.

Best,

Boris

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
7:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi Boris, I were glasses to work and contact lenses on my days off! I
don’t claim that the diagrams are exactly the same with exactly the same
labels. Jeff references Bill, but as I said, I think his work could be more
explicit that this is Bill’s unique contribution rather than a generic diagram
for ‘control theories’. So, I think I agree with you, but I am very aware that
there are much greater aberrations of the control loop out there, probably
including some of my own reproductions, for the purposes of accessible
dissemination! But for the purposes of exact detail, it is Bill’s diagrams all
the way!

Warren

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I’m sorry but do you wear glasses ? Can you please show me Bill’s
original diagram with variable or “controlled variable” in it ? If
you think that diagrams are the same, where we can see that Jeff’s diagram is
Bill’s ? My oppinion is that Jeff in any case violated authors rights.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi there Boris and
Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of
the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a PCT control unit to me,
which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately credited.

I do at the same
time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model ‘choice’, for example, as
emergent properties of PCT and not requiring additional features that Jeff
incorporates but that is an empirical matter and I do see the worth in Rick
building a model to test this.

Conversely, again,
I see that these kind of concepts, alongside ‘expectancy’ for example, do need
to be explored from a PCT perspective and their nature may require some
amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I am interested as to how the
‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of Powers, 1973) is managed
across the system - is this what we see as ‘expectancy’ the process through
which one memory is selected over others? What is this process from a
mathematical perspective? Could it possibly (!) be Bayesian?

I like the fact
that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the higher level cognitive processes.
Biological survival is another key direction to understand PCT, but it is just
not as the same level as the domain that Jeff is interested in. Both are
potentially complementary and can be explored in parallel to then return to a
fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the
worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT, but the balance has to
be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness of PCT. It seems that
some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of PCT starkly (Rick)
whereas others is to make it seem like all of these self-regulatory theories
broadly agree that behaviour is the control of perception, and get the basic
idea accepted and included, even though the uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is
somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s approach. It has paid of massively in
some ways (Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal
constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 338. has a 1300+ citations) but
not others (only someone already familiar with PCT would realise how much the
full set of ideas in that article are more attributable to PCT than any other
specific theory even though the paper cites Powers generously).

It’s a tough
political decision and I don’t quite know which one I prefer! I think I might
take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading
some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m
disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must
be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms
   “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal
   in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control
   Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories.
   Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT.
   I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic
   diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT
   being a version of control theory ? A
   version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why
this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a
   version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and
   fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which
   were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981
   or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced
   “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I
   didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence
from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller,
Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology
same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial
model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson
has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science
(Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of
concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent
   to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also
   said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with
   turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems
   to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s
   “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you
   psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right
   and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in
   accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or
   version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a
   version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and
   sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting
   “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you
are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just
“thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control
   theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation
   theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of
   them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support
   survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel,
   and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not
survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working
on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level organism).
That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular phenomenon with as
few control units as possible (I do not accept that my agents are different
than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your
   or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any
   physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine
   guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really
   serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would
   advise you also Kents’
   articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have
read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and
biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology.
Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves
(as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of
concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely
unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading
some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am controlling
for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date:
04/22/14

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3920/7383 - Release Date: 04/23/14

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Nick,

I’ve also book in front of me. And I
admitt I made a mistake. Sorry to mislead you. The problem was that
Carver&Scheier excuded Bill as a reference in part where “Control Theory”
was explained. I know that they kept Bill as reference in hierarchy of goals. It
would be strange if they didin’t. So thanks for rmembering me, that I make a
wrong statement.

I was talking about the Chapter on
Principles of feed-back Control and diagram which was used there.

So go through pages 12-17 and tell who by
your oppinion is the author of all that knowledge about feed-back. Specially
who is the author of the diagrams, which are labled in Bill’s terms. This was
the discussion on APA, not all book. I’m sorry again to misleead you.

Best,

Boris

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Moberly, Nicholas
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014
11:00 AM
To: ‘csgnet@lists.illinois.edu’
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Hello all,
I’ve been lurking on the list for a while which has been enjoyable as a
PCT neophyte.

Just thought
I’d pitch in on Boris’s statement (below) that Carver & Scheier
excluded Bill from their 1998 book. That’s simply not true. I have that
book here in front of me. Despite the difference in focus (which Warren explained to me in
person slightly later), it references BCP many times and discusses
Powers’ ideas over 15 pages. Anyway, it was certainly enough for me to
sense that “respect” was being paid to Bill’s work. If it
weren’t for the Carver & Scheier book (for all its difference of
emphasis), I would probably never have come across PCT and sampled Bill’s
work first-hand. Perhaps we are in danger of missing the word for the trees?

Regards,

Nick

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: 23 April 2014 19:11
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Thaks Warren,

for your detailed answer. I thought that I
would need new glasses J.

My efforts when talking to Carver and Bil
was just to make Bill’s work recognizible and worth as it is. When he
recognized that Carver/Scheier excuded him as a reference in their 1998 book,
as he was fuly included in their 1981 book, I somehow promised myself that I’ll
“prosecute” all psychologist that will use Bill’s diagram without his
“signature”. I started with Carver.But I soon recognized that
articles and books about “self-regulation” don’t include much respect
to others work. I take that as quite strange in psychological community. It’s
quite a mess. Whatever. I’m struglling for his name wherever I see his work
subscibed with some other text.

I’m sorry to bother you with glasses J.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
7:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi Boris, I were glasses to work and contact lenses on my days off! I
don’t claim that the diagrams are exactly the same with exactly the same
labels. Jeff references Bill, but as I said, I think his work could be more
explicit that this is Bill’s unique contribution rather than a generic diagram
for ‘control theories’. So, I think I agree with you, but I am very aware that
there are much greater aberrations of the control loop out there, probably
including some of my own reproductions, for the purposes of accessible
dissemination! But for the purposes of exact detail, it is Bill’s diagrams all
the way!

Warren

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I’m sorry but do you wear glasses ? Can you please show me Bill’s
original diagram with variable or “controlled variable” in it ? If
you think that diagrams are the same, where we can see that Jeff’s diagram is
Bill’s ? My oppinion is that Jeff in any case violated authors rights.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi there Boris and
Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of
the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a PCT control unit to me,
which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately credited.

I do at the same
time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model ‘choice’, for example, as
emergent properties of PCT and not requiring additional features that Jeff
incorporates but that is an empirical matter and I do see the worth in Rick
building a model to test this.

Conversely, again,
I see that these kind of concepts, alongside ‘expectancy’ for example, do need
to be explored from a PCT perspective and their nature may require some
amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I am interested as to how the
‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of Powers, 1973) is managed
across the system - is this what we see as ‘expectancy’ the process through
which one memory is selected over others? What is this process from a mathematical
perspective? Could it possibly (!) be Bayesian?

I like the fact
that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the higher level cognitive
processes. Biological survival is another key direction to understand PCT, but
it is just not as the same level as the domain that Jeff is interested in. Both
are potentially complementary and can be explored in parallel to then return to
a fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the
worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT, but the balance has to
be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness of PCT. It seems that
some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of PCT starkly (Rick)
whereas others is to make it seem like all of these self-regulatory theories
broadly agree that behaviour is the control of perception, and get the basic
idea accepted and included, even though the uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is
somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s approach. It has paid of massively in
some ways (Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal
constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 338. has a 1300+ citations) but
not others (only someone already familiar with PCT would realise how much the
full set of ideas in that article are more attributable to PCT than any other
specific theory even though the paper cites Powers generously).

It’s a tough
political decision and I don’t quite know which one I prefer! I think I might
take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading
some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m
disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must
be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms
   “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal
   in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control
   Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories.
   Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT.
   I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic
   diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT
   being a version of control theory ? A
   version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why
this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a
   version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and
   fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which
   were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981
   or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced
   “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I
   didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence
from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller,
Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology
same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial
model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson
has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science
(Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of
concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent
   to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also
   said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with
   turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems
   to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s
   “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you
   psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right
   and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in
   accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or
   version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a
   version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and
   sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting
   “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you
are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just
“thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control
   theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation
   theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of
   them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support
   survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel,
   and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not
survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working
on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level
organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular
phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my
agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your
   or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any
   physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine
   guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really
   serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would
   advise you also Kents’
   articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have
read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and
biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology.
Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves
(as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of
concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely
unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading
some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am
controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0)
161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date:
04/22/14

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3920/7383 - Release Date: 04/23/14

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7386 - Release Date: 04/23/14

[_Boris_Hartman]

Sorry Nick,

Pages are 10-17.

Best,

Boris

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Moberly, Nicholas
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014
11:00 AM
To: ‘csgnet@lists.illinois.edu’
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Hello all,
I’ve been lurking on the list for a while which has been enjoyable as a
PCT neophyte.

Just thought
I’d pitch in on Boris’s statement (below) that Carver & Scheier
excluded Bill from their 1998 book. That’s simply not true. I have that
book here in front of me. Despite the difference in focus (which Warren explained to me in
person slightly later), it references BCP many times and discusses
Powers’ ideas over 15 pages. Anyway, it was certainly enough for me to
sense that “respect” was being paid to Bill’s work. If it
weren’t for the Carver & Scheier book (for all its difference of
emphasis), I would probably never have come across PCT and sampled Bill’s
work first-hand. Perhaps we are in danger of missing the word for the trees?

Regards,

Nick

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: 23 April 2014 19:11
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

Thaks Warren,

for your detailed answer. I thought that I
would need new glasses J.

My efforts when talking to Carver and Bil
was just to make Bill’s work recognizible and worth as it is. When he
recognized that Carver/Scheier excuded him as a reference in their 1998 book,
as he was fuly included in their 1981 book, I somehow promised myself that I’ll
“prosecute” all psychologist that will use Bill’s diagram without his
“signature”. I started with Carver.But I soon recognized that
articles and books about “self-regulation” don’t include much respect
to others work. I take that as quite strange in psychological community. It’s
quite a mess. Whatever. I’m struglling for his name wherever I see his work
subscibed with some other text.

I’m sorry to bother you with glasses J.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
7:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi Boris, I were glasses to work and contact lenses on my days off! I
don’t claim that the diagrams are exactly the same with exactly the same
labels. Jeff references Bill, but as I said, I think his work could be more
explicit that this is Bill’s unique contribution rather than a generic diagram
for ‘control theories’. So, I think I agree with you, but I am very aware that
there are much greater aberrations of the control loop out there, probably
including some of my own reproductions, for the purposes of accessible
dissemination! But for the purposes of exact detail, it is Bill’s diagrams all
the way!

Warren

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I’m sorry but do you wear glasses ? Can you please show me Bill’s
original diagram with variable or “controlled variable” in it ? If
you think that diagrams are the same, where we can see that Jeff’s diagram is
Bill’s ? My oppinion is that Jeff in any case violated authors rights.

Best,

Boris

---

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2:46 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Regulation

Hi there Boris and
Jeff,

Well Figure 1 of
the Vancouver et al. (2010) model looks exactly like a PCT control unit to me,
which is as it should be, and Powers is appropriately credited.

I do at the same
time agree with Rick that there may be ways to model ‘choice’, for example, as
emergent properties of PCT and not requiring additional features that Jeff
incorporates but that is an empirical matter and I do see the worth in Rick
building a model to test this.

Conversely, again,
I see that these kind of concepts, alongside ‘expectancy’ for example, do need
to be explored from a PCT perspective and their nature may require some
amendment of the PCT architecture. For example, I am interested as to how the
‘addressing of memories’ in PCT (Memory chapter of Powers, 1973) is managed
across the system - is this what we see as ‘expectancy’ the process through
which one memory is selected over others? What is this process from a mathematical
perspective? Could it possibly (!) be Bayesian?

I like the fact
that Jeff does want to answer, and model, some of the higher level cognitive
processes. Biological survival is another key direction to understand PCT, but
it is just not as the same level as the domain that Jeff is interested in. Both
are potentially complementary and can be explored in parallel to then return to
a fully integrated PCT model.

I also see the
worth in some adaptation of language to disseminate PCT, but the balance has to
be struck between doing that and losing the uniqueness of PCT. It seems that
some people’s strategy is to bring out the differences of PCT starkly (Rick)
whereas others is to make it seem like all of these self-regulatory theories
broadly agree that behaviour is the control of perception, and get the basic
idea accepted and included, even though the uniqueness of PCT’s contribution is
somewhat diluted. This seems to be Jeff’s approach. It has paid of massively in
some ways (Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal
constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 338. has a 1300+ citations) but
not others (only someone already familiar with PCT would realise how much the
full set of ideas in that article are more attributable to PCT than any other
specific theory even though the paper cites Powers generously).

It’s a tough
political decision and I don’t quite know which one I prefer! I think I might
take a step back for longer and reorganise!

Warren

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1700]

---

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the links. I was just reading
some of them and “flyed over” some articles , and I must say I’m
disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But you as a scientist must
be used to other opinions. I made some critical points to your theory :

JV: Would not be the first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about the equality of terms
   “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control unit” is maybe equal
   in your imagination, because you used so many terms from “Control
   Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk about equality of theories.
   Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still “opposite” to PCT.
   I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled variable” in Bill’s generic
   diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how did you get the idea about PCT
   being a version of control theory ? A
   version of which Control Theory ?

JV: not sure why
this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how Bill’s theory can be a
   version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my opinion it’s the first and
   fundamental stone in psychological theories of self-regulation (control) which
   were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you could read their book from 1981
   or as I already asked you and Warren to show me author who introduced
   “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that Bill was the first. I
   didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not understand the first sentence
from above. I read much of C&S’ book in the 80’s. Miller,
Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like theory to psychology
same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular, but was a serial
model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson
has an excellent history of cybernetic and systems concepts in science
(Feedback Though in the social science and systems theory). Great overview of
concepts.

HB:

4. I really said that it’s good or even excellent
   to substitute Bill’s terms with “people friendly” terms, but I also
   said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT originality or intact. But with
   turning PCT terms and diagram into your “thought construct”, it seems
   to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s
   “Choice or Control Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you
   psychologist are up to with self-regulating. But you could start to act right
   and end the version of “self-regulation theories” that are not in
   accordance with PCT. PCT is special and unique theory, not some variation or
   version. I’m really wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a
   version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer to me openly and
   sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using for presenting
   “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite sure what to diagram you
are referring. At this point my models are computational, not just
“thought constructs”.

HB:

6. The only real reference to all “Control
   theories” and distorted variation of it, like “self-regulation
   theory”, are biological and physiological “facts”. So all of
   them has to be in accordance with them. Your theory simply doesn’t support
   survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t survive how they can think, feel,
   and learn ?

JV: “My organisms” will not
survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable organism. I am merely working
on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a human (and maybe higher level
organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can account for particular
phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do not accept that my
agents are different than control units – the math seem clear).

HB:

7. I think that serious conversation about your
   or any other “self-regulation” theory wouldn’t stay long in any
   physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say that. You seem to be fine
   guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would advice you to get really
   serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and Bruces’ help, I would
   advise you also Kents’
   articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know (McClelland), I have
read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from physiology and
biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model physiology or biology.
Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is made up of a few nerves
(as described by Bill in his book). I saw that as a possibility (proof of
concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going on, but I am completely
unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the information processing level.

HB:

These are only first impressions after reading
some of your text.

JV: Please stop asking me questions. I am
controlling for politeness, but my patience is ebbing.

Jeff

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0)
161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date:
04/22/14

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3920/7383 - Release Date: 04/23/14

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7386 - Release Date: 04/23/14

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Jeff,

I didn’t know at first if I should aswer
you or not, as you seems to be quite “high gain guy”. But I decided
to answer you any way. My new text is in green…

···

---

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014
11:32 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Regulation

[Jeff Vancouver
2014.04.22.1700]

HB :

Thank you Jeff for the
links. I was just reading some of them and “flyed over” some articles
, and I must say I’m disappointed. And I’m sorry if I’ll disappoint you. But
you as a scientist must be used to other opinions. I made some critical points
to your theory :

JV: Would not be the
first time.

HB:

1. Your statement about
   the equality of terms “Self-regulatory agent” and “Control
   unit” is maybe equal in your imagination, because you used so many terms
   from “Control Unit”. I see it as your “perceptual
   illusion”.

2. We can hardly talk
   about equality of theories. Your diagram and theory are by my opinion still
   “opposite” to PCT. I’ll be glad if you show me “controlled
   variable” in Bill’s generic diagram ? And I’ll be glad if you show me how
   did you get the idea about PCT being a version of control theory ? A version of which Control Theory ?

JV:
not sure why this is all caps, but “variable” = “controlled
variable”. I have a little less math (e.g., no leak parameter), but not
sure why it looks so different to you.

Hb
:

I’m sorry Jeff to be so guibling
but I’d really want to know what’s the relations between your theory and PCT : so
would you be so kind and show me, where do you see a “variable” in
outside environment in Bill’s diagram ? As I see Bill’s diagram, there is no variable
or “controlled variable” in outside environment ? And as I see
it this is one of the main differences between your “agent” theory
and PCT which is supposed to be general. It’s not environmental variable that
is controlled (it could be a special case), but perception (input) that is
continuously varying and is not controlled just to the end when one goal is
reached i.e. one outside variable is brought to wanted state, but all the time,
even when there is nothing to regulate (control) outside with behavior.

And it’s quite strange
to me : if your and Bill’s diagram are so equal or approximately equal, WHY
CAN’T I SEE BILLS’ NAME UNDER HIS DIAGRAM in your articles ? What kind of Law
about author rights you have in America
that you could write under Bill’s diagram :
"self-regulatory agent as part of cybernetic negative feed-back. In
other words. : as I see it, you presented your “self-regulatory
agent” under Bill’s diagram. That was, what Mary was also talking about. In my country I would be much more
careful when using other author knowledge. By our Law about authors rights I
could be prosecuted for “stealing” somebody knowledge if I use it in
your way.

You maybe can ask on APA
how my conflict with Carver about using Bill’s diagram in his purposes ended. I
reported Carver to APA for wrong use of Bill’s diagram. Well I thought that he
will change his attitude to Bill’s work, but as I see lately he just let out
Bill’s diagram, although he kept him as reference for hierarchy of goals. Very strange. I really don’t understand what you psychologist are up to
with Bill’s diagram and self-regulation.

HB:

3. I don’t understand how
   Bill’s theory can be a version of “unknown Control Theory”. By my
   opinion it’s the first and fundamental stone in psychological theories of
   self-regulation (control) which were started with Carver&Scheier. Maybe you
   could read their book from 1981 or as I already asked you and Warren to show me
   author who introduced “Control Theory” into psychology ? Warren confirmed that
   Bill was the first. I didn’t hear your voice ?

JV. I do not
understand the first sentence from above. I read much of C&S’ book in
the 80’s. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrum introduced a control theory-like
theory to psychology same year as Power and company (1960). Much more popular,
but was a serial model. Big mistake. Anyway, Richardson has an excellent history of
cybernetic and systems concepts in science (Feedback Though in the social
science and systems theory). Great overview of concepts.

HB :

O.K. In our conversation
between Carver, me and Bill, we talked also about Miller, Galanter and Pilbram.
Carver said that he was mostly inspired by them, but he didin’t used their
model of control. No, he rather took Bills’.

Bill said that he was
talking to them, specially with Galanter if I remember right (it’s long time
ago), before they published anything. Bill seemed to me somehow suspicious that
they used some of his work.

But he also said that
there is no “control theory” behind. It’s just goal hierarchy and
TOTE. Kent
wrote something about that. I also didn’t see in the time when we talked any
problem with Miller, Galanter and Pilbrum goal theory. But Bill explained to me
that no real control process in LCS ends or exit. All control processes in
organism work all of the time. And perception is also controlled continuosly,
all the time. Just start to “observe” your visual perception, and you
will have no problem with understanding that. There is no “exit” from
these processes. If any important exit happens, organism soon stops controlling
and we know what is the consequence : death. But I don’t understand what did
you mean by a “serial model” and “Big mistake” ?

Maybe it wouldn’t be bad
if you read something about biology and physiology to understand organisms and
I’m sure you would understand better also how behavior and control of
perception in organisms work. Bill was really “all-round player”. His
knowledge was enormously wide and it’s no wonder to me, that he invented such a
Great Theory. There’s nothing like his theory. It’s definitely no version of
any “Control Theory” or any other theory. But I don’t doubt it’s the
ground for self-regulation theories.

I assume that if you’ll
really understand PCT as a whole (not just parts) you’ll probably have more
chances to understand how goal-directed or goal-seeking behavior (Ashby, 1952,
1960) really works. I’ll try to get Robertson (sociologist). Let me remind you
: If it is the Kent I
know (McClelland), I have read him, but he is a sociologist. So I thought that “but” means that
you have something against sociologist when “control knowledge” is
concerned ?

I’m quite sure that Kent will
surprise you in every aspect you mentioned, if you’ll talk to him.
If I understood Kent
right, to understand society you have to understand individual. So I could say
that also his “psychological” knowledge beside his sociological is
quite huge.

But the main question
is : why didn’t you use model from Miller, Galanter and Pilbrum, if you are so enthusiastic about. Or
any other control model you mentioned to expose “your agent theory” ?
Why Bill’s ?

HB:

4. I really said that
   it’s good or even excellent to substitute Bill’s terms with “people
   friendly” terms, but I also said that it’s necessary to preserve PCT
   originality or intact. But with turning PCT terms and diagram into your
   “thought construct”, it seems to me that Bill’s terms lost all PCT
   credibility. It’s something like Glasser’s “Choice or Control
   Theory”. And I really don’t understand what you psychologist are up to
   with self-regulating. But you could start to act right and end the version of
   “self-regulation theories” that are not in accordance with PCT. PCT
   is special and unique theory, not some variation or version. I’m really
   wondering where did you get the idea that it could be a version ?

5. Jeff. Can you answer
   to me openly and sincerely how did you get the idea for diagram you are using
   for presenting “your theory” ?

JV: I am not quite
sure what to diagram you are referring. At this point my models are
computational, not just “thought constructs”.

HB :

Even they are
computational, they are still your “thought constructs”. Computer
will make no change to them on his own “will”. I’m talking about
“pictured” diagrams in your articles :

1. Change one can
   believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation (p. 3)

2. A Formal, Computational Theory of Multiple-Goal
   Pursuit: Integrating Goal-Choice and Goal-Striving Processes (p. 987)

3. The Depth of History
   and Explanation as Benefit and Bane for Psychological Control Theories (p.39).

There are some more. And
none of them is subscribed by Bill’s name. How’s that possible if diagrams are
his ?

HB:

6. The only real reference
   to all “Control theories” and distorted variation of it, like
   “self-regulation theory”, are biological and physiological
   “facts”. So all of them has to be in accordance with them. Your
   theory simply doesn’t support survival of organisms. And if organisms don’t
   survive how they can think, feel, and learn ?

JV: “My
organisms” will not survive. I am not modeling the complete, viable
organism. I am merely working on a part of the hierarchy that might occur in a
human (and maybe higher level organism). That is, I am trying to see if I can
account for particular phenomenon with as few control units as possible (I do
not accept that my agents are different than control units – the math
seem clear).

HB :

I thought so. That can
also mean that you are exploring just one part of the body. And it can also
mean that your mistake can be quite huge. Organisms deal with billions of
control units. And their combined effects are amazing and very various, as the organisms’
“adaptation” to different environmental circumstances are various and
complex. You can’t even imagine what kind of knowledge you are missing J. But I’m interested, how do you expect to learn something from
few “agents” ?

Whether you accept
differences between your “agent” and “control unit” it’s up
to you and your imagination. But perceptual evidence show that diagrams
distinguish. There is obvious difference, which confirms at least to me, that
you did misunderstand something about PCT. As mathematical equality is
concerned, it would be good if you speak to Martin and Bruce. It would be nice
if you explain mathematics to them. I’ll be glad to hear their opinion. But my
opinion about mathematical (computational) modeling of organisms with
“control unit” theory, tells me, that at least one matrix should be
seen.

HB:

7. I think that serious
   conversation about your or any other “self-regulation” theory
   wouldn’t stay long in any physiological or biological context. I’m sorry to say
   that. You seem to be fine guy, but reading wrong authors. So first I would
   advice you to get really serious conversation about PCT. Beside Martins’ and
   Bruces’ help, I would advise you also Kents’ articles and book.

JV: If it is the Kent I know
(McClelland), I have read him, but he is a sociologist. Seems further removed from
physiology and biology than me. In any case, I am not trying to model
physiology or biology. Frankly, I am not sure I buy that the control unit is
made up of a few nerves (as described by Bill in his book).

HB :

I can confirm (if my
opinion has any value) that Bill’s diagram is very good approximation of
“unit” or “some units” structure and functions of nervous
system, although I think that nerv-net of units or part of unit could be
improved.

Maybe that’s the reason why
Bill was accepted in psychology field. But I’m astonished how his work
(specialy diagram) was treated. But on the other hand knowing that writers on
psychology field are all “HPCT” as other people, I wasn’t surprised
that they maybe control for their Glory and Fame, professional Worth or
whatever is in their interest, to “reach their goals” or much better,
to control perception to the desired state inside them.

There was some
disharmony between me and Bill about coordinated activity and connections
between “control units” in real organisms that is actually possible,
but the bases for thinking about structure and functions of nervous system in
such way (coordinated control units) is incredibly powerful on any level of
organic structure and specialy nervous system.

As I said before. Bill’s
knowledge was incredibly wide, and I haven’t see yet so powerfull tool for
analyzing human body and mind as his PCT is. It can’t be a version of any
control theory.

Bill deserved and still
deserves and will deserve highest respect. My opinion is that his theory is
quite before time that he lived in. I don’t doubt that his time will come when
technology will enable simulating so enormous number of “control
units”, as was done in first simulation of bacteria (that could by my
approximation involve about 2400 control units coordinated, but some
physiological “facts” point to much more involved units). But this is
so enormously little part of live organisms. So I can only imagine technology
that will enable simulation of organism with all control units in coordination
working together as by that living organism is most probably represented.

So I imagine and believe
that maybe I’ll see to the end of my life this whole simulation of control
units and be aware “in real” of how powerful mind Bill was. This is
at least my vision.

I saw that as a
possibility (proof of concept, if you will), and that it may be what is going
on, but I am completely unqualified to address that. I am modeling at the
information processing level.

HB :

I’m sorry for that Jeff.
You don’t know what you are missing J.

HB:

These are only first
impressions after reading some of your text.

JV: Please stop
asking me questions. I am controlling for politeness…

HB :

What is politeness for
you Jeff ? Only words, sentences which confirm your theory or what you want to
perceive. Didn’t you answer on the top that it wouldn’t be the first time that
you disappointed somebody or that somebody has not the same opinion as you ? I
thought you are tolerant (medium or lower gain) to different opinions. In area
of self-respect I suppose you are controlling for a good scientist. But maybe
yours to high expectations could maybe cause “error” for your
“controlling attempt”. I’m not sure. Maybe you could tell us.

JV :

…but my
patience is ebbing.

HB :

J. Well, well, well is this a threat ?
You would like me to write differently, more closer to your references ? Maybe
you could send “hidden” message to my private e-mail, and I’ll
rewrite it here on CSGnet as what you would like to read (perceive). Would that
be enough polite and your “patient will not be ebbing” as you will
not experience so big “error”?

I really think that
you should read Kent
once again and everything what he wrote on attempts of controlling other people
as “Strategies of Interpersonal Control” or you can read all about his
“Collective Control Processes”. I read him sometimes just to enjoy in
his writings. So maybe we could qualify your “outburst” as having
very “high gain”. It seems to me that you are controlling perceptions
very “tight”, like perfectionist. Or I’m wrong ?

PCT in my mind
is not about goals and “chasing variables” around in outer
environment with regulation of behavior to manipulate “controlled
variable” to desired state (goal). And repeating that control loop for all
possible goals in hierarchy of goals.

For me this live
situation is something, where we experience real PCT, with all the recognition
how people relationship should or shouldn’t work and how people experience
“perceptual control” inside their mind, specialy when they interact.

If you know PCT then I
hope you are aware that you tried to control me with “please
stop…” and “my patient is ebbing”…and of course from
our discussion history you have " some gain on wanting to not be treated insulting and even higher
gain on not wasting your time for me". I think these are all your attempts
to make a course of our discussion “going your way”.

You’ll probably
reorganize further to “reach your goal state”. So do you have any
other “demands” i.e. “control attempts” how our
conversation should go on ? Do you try to put conversation “limits”
also to your students ?

I would really advice
you to start to “think, feel and learn” and behave in
experiencing how “perceptual control” works in your mind and
among people you interact and you’ll maybe understand what PCT really
means…. J… As I see it, for real
understanding of PCT it’s really important to see both aspects
(individual and social). So I’m so pretty sure that Kent has a great advantage while he
is exploring both aspects.

I admit, this is my
attempt of controlling you… There were some attempts before J. Of course it’s up to you, whether you’ll accept control or not,
or in your “agent” language : your choice. As it’s mine.

Best,

Boris

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14