Stuttering

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.08,12:00 EuST)]

In PCT/HPCT I consider talking is a control of
perceptions on the Event level. I know that the content of our speaking is at
levels above. But I think upon simple articulation of a sentence like: “ My
name is Bjorn. How are you”. This
is control of perceptions at the event level. Do you agree?

Some people have stuttering problems saying: “ My name
is Bjorn. How are you”.

I consider one kind of stuttering as missing control
at the event level. I will not think upon why.

Yesterday I saw a TV program where 4 young men and a
well known grown-up Norwegian author participated.

They all stuttered. Viewed in the light of the
knowledge that some stuttering people don’t stutter when they read in chorus,
they gave the participants a hearing aid where they could hear their own voice
some delayed. This was a way to fool the brain that they were reading in
chorus.

First one of the participants read in chorus with another
person. The participant read without (almost) stuttering. Then he read a text
without the hearing aid. He stuttered. At last he read the same text with a
hearing aid. You can see it at: http://www.stutteringcontrol.com/
. The participant read without (almost) stuttering.

At the end of the program we met one of two (the other
was the author) participants who minimized the stuttering considerably three
months after the recording. He talked without stuttering (almost) and he told
us that he stuttered as before if he didn’t use the hearing aid.

The author told us that he used a private technique
when he talked. He concentrated and talked the words he was going to say silent
one second (about) before he articulated the word. He considered this as a kind
of reading in chorus with himself. He could do this in 10 minutes. Then he was tired.
When he talked in his private way he was not stuttering (almost). After (about)
10 minutes he began stuttering. When he read the text with the hearing aid he
did not stutter (almost).

I know some people don’t stutter if they sing a text,
but I don’t think anyone can explain why some people stutter.

The reason for this mail is my wish for comments about
the following suggestion.

In PCT/HPCT speaking is control at the event level. In
PCT we can imagine a well-known person talk.

If a stuttering person imagines a well-known person
reading a text (or just talking) in chorus when he reads a text (or talks).
Then he moves up a level. Then he is controlling at the relationship level. Am
I correct?

Moving up a level will activate other levels below. We know that conflicts can be solved
going up a level.

Is there a chance for a stuttering person reading
(talking) in chorus with an imagined person to stop stutter?

Is it worth a try?

bjorn

2

[From Dan Miller (04.06.08 10:30 EDT)]

Stuttering is an interesting phenomenon. Here is a sociological take on
it.

In the 1950s Wendell Johnson, a sociological researcher, did field research
on stutterers, comparing their speech patterns with non-stutterers and
matched by age and sex. Using the relatively new portable tape recording
technology, Johnson went into the field and recorded the speech of 300
children - half who stuttered and half who were "normal." When he returned
to the lab to analyze the differences, he was befuddled to find that he
could not tell the difference between the stutterers and the nonstutterers.
Nearly all had rates of dysfluency (number of misspoken words over 1000
words spoken) in the stuttering range. No conclusion could be reached
given evidence of individual behavior of each research subject.

Being a good sociological researcher, Johnson went back into the field to
interview parents, caretakers, and guardians of the children. What he
found was quite revealing. He found that with the children who were
defined as stutterers, the primary caregivers (usually parents) all felt
that the child should speak more fluidly - that "something was wrong."
Consequently, they tended to finish sentences for the child, show concern,
speak about the child as if he were not present, and create a context of
anxiety around the child's speech. Contrarily, the primary caregivers of
the nonstutterers made no such assumptions. They thought that their
children were just fine, that they would get the hang of talking in due
time. They did not complete sentences, show concern, or create a context
of anxiety.

Johnson's conclusion was that "stuttering is a problem that begins in the
ear of the beholder." If the problem isn't nipped in its early stages,
then Johnson advocated the hearing "aids" that delayed audial feedback of
one's speech. This created a situation in which the speaker, anxious about
speaking fluently, could not dwell on sounds and block their completion.
Singing, group readings, and talk among friends often involve little
stuttering.

For those of you hyperreductionists who dispute all sociological findings,
it is important to note that Johnson employed analytic induction, a
methodological procedure that accounts for all cases.

Johnson was not saying that stuttering is only a case of "labelling."
Quite the contrary, he describes the social and the psychological process -
noting that one cannot be understood without the other. While he doesn't
use these terms, I believe that he describes the development of a "deviance
amplification loop" as the outcome of a specific social
psychological/interaction process.

His very interesting research is reported in his book: Stuttering and What
You Can Do About It, by Wendell Johnson. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press. 1961.

Keeping the faith,
Dan

Dan Miller
Department of Sociology
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio 45469-1442
937.229.2138
Dan.Miller@notes.udayton.edu

3

[From Shannon Williams (2004.06.08, 11:00 CST)]

Generally when people read or sing, they are not controlling for the same
perceptions as when they talk. People can read or sing without even
knowing the 'content' of what they are reading or singing.

It sounds to me like the hearing aide or private technique described below
emphasizes deferent perceptions, which activate(?) different controls for
the stutterer.

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.08,12:00 EuST)]

In PCT/HPCT I consider talking is a control of perceptions on the Event
level. I know that the content of our speaking is at levels above. But I
think upon simple articulation of a sentence like: � My name is Bjorn. How
are you�. This is control of perceptions at the event level. Do you
agree?

Some people have stuttering problems saying: � My name is Bjorn. How are
you�.

I consider one kind of stuttering as missing control at the event level. I
will not think upon why.

Yesterday I saw a TV program where 4 young men and a well known grown-up
Norwegian author participated.
They all stuttered. Viewed in the light of the knowledge that some
stuttering people don�t stutter when they read in chorus, they gave the
participants a hearing aid where they could hear their own voice some
delayed. This was a way to fool the brain that they were reading in
chorus.

First one of the participants read in chorus with another person. The
participant read without (almost) stuttering. Then he read a text without
the hearing aid. He stuttered. At last he read the same text with a
hearing
aid. You can see it at: http://www.stutteringcontrol.com/
<http://www.stutteringcontrol.com/&gt; . The participant read without
(almost) stuttering.

At the end of the program we met one of two (the other was the author)
participants who minimized the stuttering considerably three months after
the recording. He talked without stuttering (almost) and he told us that
he
stuttered as before if he didn�t use the hearing aid.

The author told us that he used a private technique when he talked. He
concentrated and talked the words he was going to say silent one second
(about) before he articulated the word. He considered this as a kind of
reading in chorus with himself. He could do this in 10 minutes. Then he
was
tired. When he talked in his private way he was not stuttering (almost).
After (about) 10 minutes he began stuttering. When he read the text with
the
hearing aid he did not stutter (almost).

I know some people don�t stutter if they sing a text, but I don�t think
anyone can explain why some people stutter.

The reason for this mail is my wish for comments about the following
suggestion.

In PCT/HPCT speaking is control at the event level. In PCT we can imagine
a
well-known person talk.
If a stuttering person imagines a well-known person reading a text (or
just
talking) in chorus when he reads a text (or talks). Then he moves up a
level. Then he is controlling at the relationship level. Am I correct?

Moving up a level will activate other levels below. We know that
conflicts
can be solved going up a level.

Is there a chance for a stuttering person reading (talking) in chorus with
an imagined person to stop stutter?

Is it worth a try?

bjorn

4

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.09,08:40 EuST)]

[From Dan Miller (04.06.08 10:30 EDT)]

Johnson’s conclusion was that "stuttering is
a problem

that begins in the ear of the beholder." If the problem

isn’t nipped in its early stages, then Johnson advocated

the hearing “aids” that delayed audial feedback of one’s

speech. This created a
situation in which the speaker,

anxious about speaking fluently, could not dwell on

sounds and block their completion.

It was
interestingly what you wrote about Wendell Johnson. Thank you.

How can you or
any other explain your last sentence in a PCT-way?

[From
Shannon Williams (2004.06.08, 11:00 CST)]

It sounds to me like the hearing aide or private
technique

described below emphasizes deferent perceptions, which

activate(?) different controls for the stutterer.

I agree. We can’t
test which perceptions the stutterer controls using the hearing aide or the private
technique when we don’t have any stutterer, but can you name any possible
perceptions?

You indicated a question mark after the concept “activate”.
What do you indicate with that concept?

bjorn

5

[from Dan Miller (04.06.09 - 10:20 EDT)]

Bjorn and other readers:

I am no expert on PCT language. Others on the list can attest to that. However, I suspect that stutterers are creating disturbances themselves and that the anxiety of the situation amplifies the disturbance through the creation of a positive feedback loop.

The delayed hearing of one’s voice would eliminate one element of the disturbance - hearing one’s voice as an utterance occurs. Without the self-imposed disturbance more fluid speech would ensue.

“Normal” speakers do hear their voices as they speak and they continually attend to those spoken to in order to assess from the other’s responses to the speech that the talk is making sense. The process is to generate a functional congruency between what is intended and the response of others. By attending to and responding to the responses of others, speakers can (and do) adjust their utterances accordingly. At times other words are used, or ideas are elaborated. The reference signal (desired outcome) is to achieve the functional congruency (shared understanding). For stutterers using the delayed time hearing aid this process would be more difficult, relying as it were on the verbal and nonverbal responses of other along with the speaker’s unspoken intentions. All this, I believe, has much to do with a reduction in error as perceived in a comparitive process.

As for stutterers, I believe that as they become more comfortable speaking, they no longer need the “aids.”

I’ve gone on too long.

Dan Miller
Department of Sociology
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio 45469-1442
937.229.2138
Dan.Miller@notes.udayton.edu

6

[From Shannon Williams (2004.06.09,23:30 CST)]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.09,08:40 EuST)]

It sounds to me like the hearing aide or private technique
described below emphasizes deferent perceptions, which
activate(?) different controls for the stutterer.

You indicated a question mark after the concept “activate”. What do you indicate with that concept?

I did not want you to discount what I said if it invoked the wrong perception. So I invited you to question the perception. (I did not do this consciously, but because you asked, I now realize this).

We can’t test which perceptions the stutterer controls using the hearing aide or the private

technique when we don’t have any stutterer, but can you name any possible perceptions?

It seems that the hearing aide etc. are ‘distractions’, therefore what they control for may not be important. If this is true, then it would seem that the stutter normally controls against some perception that is generated when making fluid speech. The ‘distraction’ allows the stutter to bypass this control.

How does that sound?

Shannon

7

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.10,12:17 EuST)]

[from Dan Miller
(04.06.09 - 10:20 EDT)]

I am no expert on PCT language. Others
on the list can attest to that. However,

I suspect that stutterers are creating disturbances themselves and that the
anxiety

of the situation amplifies the disturbance through the creation of a
positive feedback

loop.

I
respond to your mode of expression “…that stutterers are creating disturbances
themselves …” at the same time as I agree with the story. Stutterers control
their perceptions. To perceive what they wish to perceive they exercise some
actions. These actions are the basis for the feedback variables the body send
to the input function at the same time as the input function receives
disturbances from the extern world. The feedback variables are opposed to
disturbances. I prefer to use the mode of expression “. stutterers control
their perceptions….”

I
don’t agree with “………. and that anxiety of the situation amplifies the
disturbance through the creation of a positive feedback loop.”

I
don’t think feelings like anxiety amplifies the disturbances. I know that
somebody will substitute the error signal with negative emotions. I don’t think that is
necessary and I think it is something else than PCT. Neither can I understand
how feelings like anxiety can influence the variables we perceive
(disturbances) and still less amplify them.

I
have tried to understand why somebody juxtaposes the error signal and negative
emotions and the nearest I have come is that the errors are the source for the
output signal. The output signal at level 1 is the source for our actions and feedback
signals. Because the actions (result of error signal/output signal) oppose the disturbances
and if we substitute the error-concept with negative emotions somebody will say
that the negative emotions are the “predecessor” to our actions.

I still use the word
error signal and I perceive negative emotions as perceptions
like all the other perceptions. I will say as Tim Carey said: “Just as we can sense the position of our car on the road
or the water temperature of the bath we are about to take we can also sense the
states of our bodies.” … This was many words saying that I don’t agree “that anxiety of the situation amplifies the
disturbance”.

And
I disagree more with the end of your sentence: “………. and that anxiety of the
situation amplifies the disturbance through the creation of a positive feedback
loop.”

I
know that somebody claim that we can point out positive feedback loops in our
brain. I am not preoccupied with positive feedback loops in PCT and I explain a
growing anxiety as a perception of states of our body we have problems to control.
One reason may be conflict. And in these situations the error may be growing
for some time. And then will also our sense of states of our bodies be sensed
greater.

Maybe
someone can name a positive feedback in my brain that not can be explained as a
difficult controllable perception.

I
think a stutterer is controlling his perceptions and for one or more reasons he
has problems with this control and I think using a hearing aid just involve a
new disturbance. I think we always control all of our perceptions. Involving a
new disturbance will cause one of these perceptions to change. Just this
perception is at a higher level than the level the stutterer is controlling
when he talks/reads. The control of the perception at this higher level
involves a different set of underlying loops and it result in almost no
stuttering. I say almost because the stutterer is still controlling a
perception at his lower level that results in stuttering. I will say that the quality of the control
at the higher level is not at top.

This
is why I in my first mail asked for comments to the section below:

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.08,12:00 EuST)]

In PCT/HPCT speaking is
control at the event level. In PCT we can imagine a

well-known person talk. If a stuttering person imagines a well-known person

reading a text (or just talking) in chorus when he reads a text (or talks).

Then he moves up a level. Then he is controlling at the relationship level.
Am I correct?

Your mail explains cessation of stuttering when the
hearing aid is used in an other way.

The delayed hearing of one’s voice
would eliminate one element of the

disturbance - hearing one’s voice as an utterance occurs. Without the

self-imposed disturbance more fluid speech would ensue.

Many
people say that they don’t recognize their own voice when they listen to it
from a tape. The difference is explained that when we talk we also what we are
saying at the same time we are sensing the body effects of talking (the sensing of vibration of
bones/muscles??). Listening to tape, we don’t sense the body effect.

Are
you sure that “The delayed hearing of one’s voice would eliminate one element
of the

disturbance - hearing one’s voice as an utterance occurs”. He is talking; his body is vibrating (?).
I think he perceive the body effect. If I am right, he still has the
self-imposed disturbance.

The reference signal (desired outcome)
is

to achieve the functional congruency (shared understanding). For
stutterers

using the delayed time hearing aid this process would be more difficult,

relying as it were on the verbal and nonverbal responses of other along

with the speaker’s unspoken intentions. All this, I believe, has much
to

do with a reduction in error as perceived in a comparitive process.

I am not sure my reference signal is to achieve the
functional congruency when I talk with other people. Special when I am excited.
And I think a stutterer will
perceive nonverbal responses from his interlocutor if he uses the hearing aid
all day.

As for stutterers, I believe that as
they become more comfortable speaking,

they no longer need the “aids.”

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.08,12:00 EuST)]

At the end of the program we met
one of two (the other was the author)

participants who minimized the stuttering considerably three months after

the recording. He talked without stuttering (almost) and he told us that he

stuttered as before if he didn’t use the hearing aid.

Maybe they have to use the hearing aid for many years
before it is effective?

bjorn

8

From[Bill Williams 9 May 2004 10:40 PM CST]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.10,12:17 EuST)]

[from Dan Miller (04.06.09 - 10:20 EDT)]

I am no expert on PCT language. Others on the list can attest to that.
however, I suspect that stutterers are creating disturbances themselves and > that the anxiety of the situation amplifies the disturbance through the
creation of a positive feedback loop.

I respond to your mode of expression ".that stutterers are creating
disturbances themselves ." at the same time as I agree with the story.

<snip>

I don't agree with ".... and that anxiety of the situation amplifies the
disturbance through the creation of a positive feedback loop."

Maybe someone can name a positive feedback in my brain that not can be
explained as a difficult controllable perception.

I don't have any opinion at all about stuttering. However, I have experienced and observed, some simpler examples of faulty control. Some aircraft have a throttle, or power control, that is a knob on and short rod. It looks just like a power take-off throttle for agricultural machinery. When I was teaching flying in a rural area, some students connected the aircraft power control to the very similiar agricultural power control. However, the connection between the power control knobs and the throttle in the two instances was reversed. So, sometimes a student with agricultural experience would go into a positive feedback loop as a result of associating the agricultural power control setup with the aircraft control configuration.

The other example is the pilot induced oscilation. At least in the case of landing this oscilation seems to be associated with an increase in gain as a result of an increase in anxiety. I am told this sort of oscilation doesn't
happen in simulators because the pilot knows there isn't really any danger involved in the situation.

I am not sure that either of these two examples meet Bjorn's criteria for a "difficult controllable perception" or not.

Bill Williams

9

[From Bjorn Simonsen YG (2004.06.10,21:45
EuST)]

[From
Shannon Williams (2004.06.08, 11:00 CST)]

From Bjorn Simonsen
(2004.06.09,08:40 EuST)]

[From Shannon Williams (2004.06.09,23:30 CST)]

It sounds to me like the hearing aide or
private technique

described below emphasizes deferent perceptions, which

activate(?) different controls for the stutterer.

You indicated a question mark after the
concept “activate”. What do you indicate with that concept?

I did not want you to discount what I said if
it invoked the wrong perception.

So I invited you to question the perception. (I did not do this
consciously,

but because you asked, I now realize this).

I did really write a few sentences about activating
the control of perceptions. But I deleted them and concentrated on what you
wrote below. I may be uncertain what to activate denotes in PCT. Maybe you can
help me?

We can’t test which perceptions the stutterer
controls using the hearing aide or the private

technique when we don’t
have any stutterer, but can you name any possible perceptions?

It seems that the hearing aide etc. are
‘distractions’, therefore what they control for may not

be important. If this is true, then it would seem that the
stutter normally controls against

some perception that is generated when making fluid
speech. The ‘distraction’ allows the

stutter to bypass this control.

How does that sound?

I became
enthusiastic over your firs sentence. But I still think that the hearing aid fools
the brain and that the stutterer controls a perception on a higher level than
what he controls when he talk normally alone. Of course I may be wrong, but I think I analyse in a PCT way.

I can’t
understand how a distraction can allow anybody to bypass a control of a
perception. Can you explain that for me?

bjorn

10

From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 3:20 PM CST]

[From Bjorn Simonsen YG (2004.06.10,21:45 EuST)]

[From Shannon Williams (2004.06.08, 11:00 CST)]

>>From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.09,08:40 EuST)]

[From Shannon Williams (2004.06.09,23:30 CST)]

I can't understand how a distraction can allow anybody to bypass a control
of a perception. Can you explain that for me?

It isn't an explaination, but I have had dentists who shake my cheek at the same time they give an injection. And, the distraction provided by having my cheek shaken does dramatically reduce the perception (pain) of the injection that I would ordinarily experience.

Bill Williams

11

[From Bjorn Simonsen YG (2004.06.10,22:30 EuST)]

From[Bill Williams 9 May 2004
10:40 PM CST]

So, sometimes a student with agricultural
experience would

go into a positive feedback loop as a result of associating

the agricultural power control setup with the aircraft

control configuration.

The only thing I
know about flying are the books of Richard Bach (I know I have told you that
before). I think you would love his “Biplane” or “Nothing by Chance”, I am more
enthusiastic over “One” or “Out of my mind”.

And I know
nothing about agricultural machines.

But I read your
statement over as a student who controlled the perception of coming down. He pulls a throttle and experiences a
pressure against his chair at 2 G. Am I wrong?

If this is what
happened I think his control of the perception he was controlling is instable. And
if he not yet has a stable control of his perception I think he still controls
the same perception. I don’t think an unstable control of a perception becomes
a control with positive feedback. I haven’t thought the thought to model an
organic simulation with positive control.

How will such a
simulation end?

The other example is the pilot induced oscilation.

I am sorry. I
don’t understand this example. My fault, but so is the world.

bjorn

12

[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2004.06.10,22:50 EuST)]

From[Bill
Williams 10 May 2004 3:20 PM CST]

It isn’t an explaination, but I have had dentists
who shake my

cheek at the same time they give an injection. And, the

distraction provided by having my cheek shaken does dramatically

reduce the perception (pain) of the injection that I would

ordinarily experience.

I believe what you say but I am sure your ECUs
perceived the injection. I think it is more possible that you controlled the
perception to not feel pain (at
level 2). The shaking of your cheek disturbed another perception you controlled,
namely keeping your head steady(at level 3). You can’t be conscious for all
your controls and maybe you were unconscious about the injection. This is story
telling, but …

bjorn

13

From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 4:40 PM CST]

[From Bjorn Simonsen YG (2004.06.10,22:30 EuST)]
From[Bill Williams 9 May 2004 10:40 PM CST]

OK, I was assuming a familiarity which I shouldn't have.

However, in regard to your question,

I haven't thought the thought to model an organic simulation with positive

control. How will such a simulation end?

There may be in the phenomena of a loss of temperature control in a heat stroke that has some application. When bodily temperature is excessive the brain may lose control of temperature regulation. When this happens at least sometimes the result is death.

Bill Williams

14

From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 4:50 PM CST]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.10,22:50 EuST)]
From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 3:20 PM CST]

It isn't an explaination, but I have had dentists who shake my
cheek at the same time they give an injection. And, the
distraction provided by having my cheek shaken does dramatically
reduce the perception (pain) of the injection that I would
ordinarily experience.

I believe what you say but I am sure your ECUs perceived the injection.

Perhaps _they_ did, but I didn't myself experience the pain that I would
have expected to feel.

I think it is more possible that you controlled the perception to not feel
pain.

But, I don't know how to do this myself. However when the dentist was shaking the cheek I didn't experience pain from the injection. I wasn't aware of doing anything myself.

ANd, yes it is story telling, but it is a true story about an effect-- which I think can be considered a distraction.

How, it works? I don't have any idea.

Bill Williams

15

[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2004.06.11,10:25 EuST)]

From[Bill
Williams 10 May 2004 4:40 PM CST]

I haven’t thought the thought to model an
organic simulation

with positive control. How will such a simulation end?

There may be in the phenomena of a loss of
temperature control

in a heat stroke that has some application. When bodily

temperature is excessive the brain may lose control of

temperature regulation. When this happens at least sometimes

the result is death.

My problem is
that I don’t understand what and why something happens in the brain so it works
with positive feedback. Therefore I still think the brain is working with a
negative feedback. The disturbance may be so great that the control stays
instable. If the person dies, he is dying with a too small negative feedback in
his brain.

I know Marc
Abrams and Peter Small talk about positive feedback systems in the brain. They
have referred to Marc D. Lewis. But I don’t thrust him, most likely because I
don’t understand what he writes. Can anybody explain how and why “Thus, negative
feedback stabilizes the growth and change initiated by positive feedback”.

From [Marc
Abrams (2004.05.13.1353)]

I can make,
and many others have made, very fine

working SD
models of human behavior, none of which utilize PCT but all

of which
utilize both negative and positive feedback.

I hope Mark soon
will give himself time and show us such a model because it is unpleasant to not
understand what other people says.

bjorn

···
16

From[Bill Williams 11 May 2004 3:50 AM CST]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.11,10:25 EuST)]
From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 4:40 PM CST]

I haven't thought the thought to model an organic simulation
with positive control. How will such a simulation end?

There may be in the phenomena of a loss of temperature control
in a heat stroke that has some application. When bodily
temperature is excessive the brain may lose control of
temperature regulation. When this happens at least sometimes
the result is death.

My problem is that I don't understand what and why something happens in the
brain so it works with positive feedback.

## It isn't so much, if at all that the brain switches into positive feedback,
## as the chemical reactions themselves are not stable. If the brain fails
## to control the unstable reactions then either the body can over heat, or
## if the temperature is low the body may fail to maintain a high enough
## temperature.

Bill Williams

17

[From Bjorn
Simonsen YG (2004.06.11,12:02 EuST)]

[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2004.06.11,10:25 EuST)]

#From[Bill
Williams 11 May 2004 3:50 AM CST]

My problem
is that I don’t understand what and why something

happens in
the brain so it works with positive feedback.

It isn’t so

much, if at all that the brain switches into positive feedback,

as the

chemical reactions themselves are not stable. If the brain fails

to control

the unstable reactions then either the body can over heat, or

if the

temperature is low the body may fail to maintain a high enough

temperature.

I still have the
problem. I am sorry. It is my fault.

bjorn

18

[from Dan Miller (04.06.11 - 10:30 EDT)]

To Bjorn Simonson and others:

Bjorn, you note that stutterers control his/her perceptions. However, I don’t know one stutterer (I have known several in my life) who wants to stutter. So, these people are not controlling for the variable/perception of unaffected speech. Or, perhaps you would suggest that they are not effectively controlling for their desired perceptions.

You disagree with my notion that situational anxiety (or today’s favored word - stress) cannot (or does not) create a deviance amplification loop, i.e., positive feedback. Here is my evidence. Perhaps you or others can explain it better than I. Stutterers are not consistent in their stuttering. That is, their rates of dysfluency varies from situation to situation. By situation I am referring to the social act and the actors involved. With friends having fun the rate of dysfluency is lower. With public speaking as in a classroom recitation, or when speaking to an authority such as a judge, the rate tends to be quite high. In high anxiety situations, once the stuttering starts it tends to get worse, sometimes to a point of being unable to communicate. Such observations seem to be evidence for the emergence of positive feedback loops.

Also, you allude to the idea that people “always” are controlling variables/perceptions. As a social psychologist I can’t agree with that. Professionally, I observe and try to make sense out of various forms of social interaction - from interpersonal conflict to co-operative social acts. Consistently, I have observed situations (social acts and participants) in which one party is not controlling perceptions (not all, and not some pertinent ones). For example, in combat situations fear, even intense fear, is a common emotion. At times soldiers are frozen with fear. Either they cannot, or they do not, move out of harm’ way. I assume that one of the variables they are trying to control is to stay alive. In another example, a woman who is the victim of a stalker may find herself in a situation in which she does not know what to do. No option is good as she imagines the possibilities. Her mind goes into a spiral (I hope this word does not offend). Is she controlling perceptions? Is the soldier? On a more mundane level, last night the Detroit Pistons soundly defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA basketball playoffs. The Lakers looked bad from my vantage point. It was not apparent that they were controlling the action or their incumbent perceptions. The Pistons were.

The situations I noted above were those of conflict and competition. With each the idea is that both parties are trying to disrupt the actions of the other while at the same time trying to overcome their own disruptions in order to establish control. When we get social it seems to get complicated. Then, again, maybe it’s just that I don’t quite understand PCT.

Keeping the faith,

Dan

Dan Miller
Department of Sociology
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio 45469-1442
937.229.2138
Dan.Miller@notes.udayton.edu

19

You disagree with my notion that
situational anxiety (or today’s favored word - stress) cannot (or does
not) create a deviance amplification loop, i.e., positive feedback.
Here is my evidence. Perhaps you or others can explain it better
than I. Stutterers are not consistent in their stuttering.
That is, their rates of dysfluency varies from situation to
situation. By situation I am referring to the social act and the
actors involved. With friends having fun the rate of dysfluency is
lower. With public speaking as in a classroom recitation, or when
speaking to an authority such as a judge, the rate tends to be quite
high. In high anxiety situations, once the stuttering starts it
tends to get worse, sometimes to a point of being unable to
communicate. Such observations seem to be evidence for the
emergence of positive feedback loops.
[From Bill Powers (2004.06.11.1018 MDT)]

Dan Miller (04.06.11 - 10:30 EDT)

···

–

Positive feedback can occur at higher frequencies while the feedback at
low frequencies (or steady-state) is still negative. The result is not
runaway, but oscillation (tremor, vacillation). You can see an example of
this by pushing your hands together as hard as you can. After a while,
the muscles fatigue and the hands begin to shake. This is caused by the
fact that muscles are exponential springs, with a spring constant that
increases with tension. The tension that is pushing the hands together
raises the spring constant, and that raises the loop gain at high
frequencies more than low. Fatigue in the muscles increases their lag,
and the combination of increased lag and increased loop gain produces
positive feedback at a frequency of around 3 to 5 cycles per second. The
average push remains the same, but the amount of push varies up and down
very rapidly.

This could be called “situational stress” since the situation
is one of physical conflict. But we know enough about the neuromuscular
details to say that it is not the conflict situation that causes the
oscillations, but certain consequences of the conflict in the form of
changes in the control system parameters.

Also,
you allude to the idea that people “always” are controlling
variables/perceptions. As a social psychologist I can’t agree with
that. Professionally, I observe and try to make sense out of
various forms of social interaction - from interpersonal conflict to
co-operative social acts. Consistently, I have observed situations
(social acts and participants) in which one party is not controlling
perceptions (not all, and not some pertinent ones). For example, in
combat situations fear, even intense fear, is a common emotion. At
times soldiers are frozen with fear. Either they cannot, or they do
not, move out of harm’ way. I assume that one of the variables they
are trying to control is to stay alive. In another example, a woman
who is the victim of a stalker may find herself in a situation in which
she does not know what to do. No option is good as she imagines the
possibilities. Her mind goes into a spiral (I hope this word does
not offend). Is she controlling perceptions? Is the
soldier?

This is where the term “controlling for” is preferable
to plain “controlling.” When you say that a person is
controlling, the implication is that the controlled variable is being
maintained very close to the reference level – control is successful.
But when you say a person is controlling for some state of a
perception, you mean only that there is a reference signal, a comparator,
an error signal, and an output affecting the perception. You do not imply
that the output is sufficient to prevent disturbances from affecting the
controlled variable.

Above, you are describing conflict situations: a person has more than one
reference condition to satisfy, but any action that will bring the
perceptions closer to satisfying one of them will cause other perceptions
to deviate more from their reference levels, causing other control
systems to push back harder. If oscillation does not occur, the result
will be stasis, the outputs of the conflicting control systems cancelling
each other out. So the soldier wants to flee, but his duty tells him not
to be a coward and let his fellow soldiers down. He is controlling FOR
fleeing, and he is controlling FOR doing his duty, but since these call
for opposite actions, the reference signals for action cancel out and he
can do neither. He freezes.

I think you can make a case for the existence of conflict in most similar
situations. However, failure to control the variable you are controlling
for does not necessarily imply internal conflict:

On a more mundane level, last night the Detroit Pistons soundly
defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA basketball playoffs. The
Lakers looked bad from my vantage point. It was not apparent that
they were controlling the action or their incumbent perceptions.
The Pistons were.

Both teams were controlling FOR winning, but the Pistons were playing
better and did win, so they achieved the result they were controlling
for. The Lakers didn’t have enough coordination or skills that night, so
their actions were insufficient to achieve the result they were
controlling for. This situation involved interpersonal conflict, but it
was unbalanced so that one team actually achieved its goal, while other
tried but failed to achieve its goal.

Again, it was not the situation that produced the stress, but the fact
that the goals were in conflict so both could not be satisfied at
once.

Speaking naturalistically, the idea of “situational stress” is
a perfectly good description. But if you want to explain the consequences
seen under conditions of situational stress, you have to analyze the
systems involved and see what the actual causes are. This is where the
bottom-up approach is required.

The
situations I noted above were those of conflict and competition.
With each the idea is that both parties are trying to disrupt the actions
of the other while at the same time trying to overcome their own
disruptions in order to establish control. When we get social it
seems to get complicated. Then, again, maybe it’s just that I don’t
quite understand PCT.

Not at all, you are quite correct (in terms of my
understanding of PCT). Conflict and competition do have recognizable
consequences. But they do not, in themselves, explain why those
consequences occur instead of others. When you see the situation in terms
of control systems interacting, the consequences become not only
understandable, but theoretically mandatory – if we’re to go on
believing the theory. As Dag Forssell likes to point out whenever
possible, we’re talking about descriptions of relationships versus
explanatory models. The two go together, but the description never can
replace the explanation.

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.06.12,10:15 EuST)]

from Dan Miller
(04.06.11 - 10:30 EDT)]

Bjorn, you note
that stutterers control his/her perceptions. However, I don’t

know one stutterer (I have known several in my life) who wants to stutter.

So, these people are not controlling for the variable/perception of
unaffected

speech. Or, perhaps you would suggest that they are not effectively

controlling for their desired perceptions.

Yes, I suggest
that they are not effectively controlling for their desired perceptions.

You disagree with my notion
that situational anxiety (or today’s favored

word - stress) cannot (or does not) create a deviance amplification loop,

i.e., positive feedback. Here is my evidence. Perhaps you or
others can

explain it better than I. Stutterers are not consistent in their
stuttering.

That is, their rates of dysfluency varies from situation to
situation. By

situation I am referring to the social act and the actors involved. With

friends having fun the rate of dysfluency is lower. With public
speaking

as in a classroom recitation, or when speaking to an
authority such as

a judge, the rate tends to be quite high. In high anxiety situations,

once the stuttering starts it tends to get worse, sometimes to a point

of being unable to communicate. Such observations seem to be evidence

for the emergence of positive feedback loops.

No, I think you explain very well. But you involve their
experience of different situations without mentioning their purposes (references)
when they speak. I think the references means a lot when they speak. Your last sentence indicates that you control a perception at a reference
level e.g. “I wish to perceive more stuttering in stressed situations watching
a stutterer” or a corresponding null hypothesis.

Bill P. explained the deviance amplification loop in
his [From Bill Powers (2004.06.11.1018 MDT)]. I didn’t understand him well and
will ask him for a precision.

Also, you allude to the idea
that people “always” are controlling

variables/perceptions. As a social psychologist I can’t agree with
that.

Professionally, I observe and try to make sense out of various forms of

social interaction - from interpersonal conflict to co-operative social
acts.

Consistently, I have observed situations (social acts and participants)

In which one party is not controlling perceptions (not all, and not

some pertinent ones). For example, in combat situations fear, even

intense fear, is a common emotion. At times soldiers are frozen with

fear. Either they cannot, or they do not, move out of harm’
way.

I assume that one of the variables they are trying to control is to

stay alive. In another example, a woman who is the victim of a

stalker may find herself in a situation in which she does not know

what to do. No option is good as she imagines the
possibilities.

Her mind goes into a spiral (I hope this word does not offend).

Is she controlling perceptions? Is the soldier? On a more
mundane

level, last night the Detroit Pistons soundly defeated the Los Angeles

Lakers in the NBA basketball playoffs. The Lakers looked bad from

my vantage point. It was not apparent that they were controlling

the action or their incumbent perceptions. The Pistons were.

Yes I allude the idea that people “always” are
controlling their perceptions. I do more than allude.

When you say “Professionally, I observe and try to
make sense out of various forms of

social interaction - from interpersonal conflict to co-operative social acts.”,
you are the one who control your perception (often) at a reference level. I
think you empathic professionally
do a good job as a social psychologist. But you don’t mention which references
you experience with your empathy. (Test)

You mention that the lady imagines different
possibilities and you mention that these imagines go into a spiral. (The
concept spiral doesn’t offend me at all. I think you use nomenclature from
Dynamic theory. I am not clever in this, but I study DT and will try to
describe PCT in that way. At the moment I am inclined to juxtapose a trajectory
going into a spiral function with oscillating. But remember I am not clever in
DT.)

I will stop with the concept imagination. I think this
is a kind of behavior that is very normal. It is both “the man’s best friend and worst enemy”.
Our creativity is shaped through imagination and great anxiety is a result of
the same. I think both your lady and your soldiers control their perceptions
and the perceptions are imaginations. And they are not effectively controlling
for their desired perceptions. Let me allude to the reference: “I will not see
an enemy/stalker behind that tree”.

You end your examples with the Pistons controlling
their perceptions. I think it is difficult to talk about a group controlling
one perception. I think each of the Pistons players controlled their own
perceptions, and so did each of the LA Lakers players.

The subject is interesting. I don’t know how the
coaches work before the game, but if I were one of the coaches I would have
used much time to get every single player to imagine that he and his team is
the best in the world. I think you become what you imagine because you control
the perceptions you imagine.

The situations I noted above
were those of conflict and competition. With each the

idea is that both parties are trying to disrupt the actions of the other
while at the same

time trying to overcome their own disruptions in order to establish
control. When

we get social it seems to get complicated. Then, again, maybe it’s
just that I don’t

quite understand PCT.

As I said I
find it difficult to talk about a conflict or a competition between two or more
groups. I reduce my appreciation to each human controlling his/her perceptions
and I let the behavior of other people be disturbances. But I find internal
conflicts exceedingly interesting. They explain often why we they are not effectively controlling
for our desired perceptions.

You understand PCT well and I learn more “talking”
with you.

bjorn

PS I think Bill expressed himself very well saying:

This is where the term
“controlling for” is preferable to plain “controlling.” When

you say that a person is controlling, the implication is that the
controlled variable

is being maintained very close to the reference level – control is
successful. But

when you say a person is controlling for some state of a perception, you
mean

only that there is a reference signal, a comparator, an error signal, and
an output

affecting the perception. You do not imply that the output is sufficient to
prevent

disturbances from affecting the controlled variable.

I have only used the concept “controlling” and I have
thought about the process. In the future I’ll differentiate between “controlling
for” and “controlling”.

···