# Stuttering

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868>\
**Category:** CSG2004\
**Created:** [June 8, 2004, 9:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868 "2004-06-08T09:59:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 9:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/1 "2004-06-08T09:59:54Z")

</div>

[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/)  
. 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dan_Miller_Universit)\
**Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/2 "2004-06-08T14:47:32Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sand\_Dollars](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@Sand\_Dollars](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Sand_Dollars)\
**Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/3 "2004-06-08T15:42:42Z")

</div>

[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/)  
> > \<[http://www.stutteringcontrol.com/&gt](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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 6:41am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/4 "2004-06-09T06:41:25Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dan_Miller_Universit)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/5 "2004-06-09T14:25:37Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sand\_Dollars](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@Sand\_Dollars](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Sand_Dollars)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/6 "2004-06-10T04:51:28Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 10:16am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/7 "2004-06-10T10:16:51Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/8 "2004-06-10T15:43:08Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/9 "2004-06-10T19:49:21Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/10 "2004-06-10T20:08:45Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/11 "2004-06-10T20:31:49Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/12 "2004-06-10T20:48:00Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/13 "2004-06-10T21:34:32Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/14 "2004-06-10T21:50:22Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:24am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/15 "2004-06-11T08:24:29Z")

</div>

[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

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 8:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/16 "2004-06-11T08:35:51Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:02am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/17 "2004-06-11T10:02:52Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dan\_Miller\_Universit](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dan_Miller_Universit)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/18 "2004-06-11T14:38:34Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/19 "2004-06-11T16:55:22Z")

</div>

> 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 8:11am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868/20 "2004-06-12T08:11:11Z")

</div>

[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”.

> **···**
>

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/stuttering/10868.md?page=2)