# Subjective Testing for Controlled Variables (was g(d) = - h              (o))

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/subjective-testing-for-controlled-variables-was-g-d-h-o/10875>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [October 30, 1998, 4:22pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/subjective-testing-for-controlled-variables-was-g-d-h-o/10875 "1998-10-30T16:22:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 1998, 4:22pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/subjective-testing-for-controlled-variables-was-g-d-h-o/10875/1 "1998-10-30T16:22:30Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (981030.1120 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981030.0810)

> They are \_subjective\_ experiments. The only one interpreting them  
> is \_you\_ (the subject). So you will just have to be trusted not to  
> interpret the results in S-R terms;-)

Not quite. I was not performing the experiments, I was listening to your  
descriptions of them.

> \> it would be necessary to show that these emotions (or lack  
> \> thereof) are associated with efforts on your part to control.
> 
> Not true (for me, anyway). I experience these emotions whether I  
> am controlling the perception or not. I don't control whether or  
> not I meet people who espouse what Republicans humorously refer  
> to as their "principles" ("greed" and "hatred" and "hypocrisy"  
> are principles?) but I feel unpleasant emotions when I meet such  
> people anyway.

Interesting. So perhaps an S-R interpretation \_is\_ appropriate.

> \> This. I presume, would require the application of the test.
> 
> Yes. When you are dealing with others you have to test to  
> determine what variables they are controlling. But I'm not  
> sure that it's even feasible to try to apply the test to oneself.  
> Remember, the test requires (among other things) the application  
> of a disturbance to a hypothetical controlled variable while  
> monitoring to see whether the hypothetical controlled variable is  
> influenced (as expected) by the disturbance. I don't see how a  
> person can apply this methodology to themselves.

In the imagination mode, I presume. You imagine a disturbance and observe  
your imagined response.

> The test for controlled variables is really aimed at determining  
> what variables others are controlling. I think a person can (if  
> they pay attention) get a pretty good idea of the perceptions they,  
> themselves, are controlling. In this case, the method of doing this  
> is more like introspection than testing for controlled variables.

O.K. But "introspection" is not part of the PCT model. Or is it?

Bruce Gregory

---

<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:** [October 30, 1998, 6:21pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/subjective-testing-for-controlled-variables-was-g-d-h-o/10875/2 "1998-10-30T18:21:18Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (981030.1055 MST)]

Rick Marken (981030.0810)--

I don't know what Bruce Gregory is trying to prove, but it might help if we  
reviewed the theory of emotion I have proposed.

> > Subjective experiments. Just look around. I find that, for \_me\_,  
> > some perceptions (like the perception of a Republican) are associated  
> > with unpleasant emotions while others (like the perception of the  
> > Mozart C major Piano Quartet) are associated with pleasant emotions

I don't think "association" says enough. My conception of emotion is that  
it is a perception that combines sensed physiological states with cognitive  
states, the degree and kind of felt emotion depending on the error in the  
highest level of control involved. You feel emotion when you want to take  
action to control something but are prevented from doing so by your own  
inability to initiate control (perhaps due to conflict) or by the  
environment not being amenable to being affected by you: in either case,  
when the error is not reduced. As Bruce G. is hinting, a bad emotion is not  
simply caused by certain perceptions; it's caused by your (frustrated)  
desire to control them. I don't quite know how to handle the "good"  
emotions, except in cases (like excitement) where they are really bad ones  
in disguise.

So your hatred of "Republicans" (a misleadingly oversimplified label)  
implies a desire to control them, coupled with an inability to do so. If  
you didn't want them to behave differently, and want that to the extent of  
actually preparing for action, you would feel nothing when you considered  
their sins. That would just be the way they are (as you see them). You  
might consider, dispassionately, how to counteract their harmful effects  
when you have the opportunity, but you wouldn't always be girding up for  
action when no effective action is possible.

As for doing the Test on yourself, I agree mostly with you. It's not  
necessary unless you really want to know the details (i.e., exactly what is  
it about Republicans that is disturbing, and exactly what perceptions do  
they disturb, and exactly how do my actions counteract the disturbance?).  
There, you might find some information that had been missing in your  
cognitive model of yourself.

Bruce G. says:

> O.K. But "introspection" is not part of the PCT model. Or is it?

The answer is, yes it is. In the imagination mode one is inspecting  
perceptions that do not represent the present-time state of the external  
world or the body, and many perceptions (such as perceptions of your own  
thoughts and feelings) necessarily are coming from inside the brain and/or  
body even when they are based on real-time sensory information. The term  
"introspection" isn't very useful, since it's based on old-fashioned  
distinctions like "mental" versus "physical" or "concrete" versus "abstract."

Best,

Bill P.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 1998, 10:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/subjective-testing-for-controlled-variables-was-g-d-h-o/10875/3 "1998-10-30T22:02:25Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (981030.1700 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981030.1055 MST)

> Rick Marken (981030.0810)--
> 
> I don't know what Bruce Gregory is trying to prove...

One of my usual devious plans to undermine PCT 😉 In fact, I was simply  
trying to understand. Rick's post and yours have been very helpful.

Bruce Gregory