suggestion

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Norman Hovda (2001.08.28.1100 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.27.1307 MDT)]

First, my thanks to Bill Powers for his comments in response to:

[From : Bill Williams Sunday 26 August 2001 18:30 CST ]

If something is found that is actually
under control by a person, then external influences and organismic actions
that affect the controlled variable will be seen to have a cause-like
relationship to each other, but the actual relationship will have been
shown not to be causal in the simpler sense.

As a PCT layman I wish to call attention to the specific text above:

"... the controlled variable will be seen to have a cause-like
relationship..."

These words seem to me to be descriptive as to why many newcomers
to PCT are slow to grasp the revolutionary nature of PCT and
understand its basics. That is, the thoughts that flow in my mind are
something like, "given PCT is a better way to understand behavior, what
is required that I do differently?" As long as the "cause-like relationship"
is what continues to be *seen* - even following exposure to PCT - the
"actual relationship" seldom if ever comes to light as real time
expereince.

IOW, in a very hands on, utilitarian and practical sense how should I
conduct my life differently day to day in order to better comprehend
"actual relationship"? The demos are fascinating and I've tried most all
of them. While I'm engaged and reading commentary, I'm a believer
having *ahh HAA* experiences one after another. When I return to
normal living mode... status quo stability returns.

TCV seems complicated, cumbersome, labor intensive compared to
ease seeking human approaches commonly described as best guess,
common sense, projection and prejudice (ugh) etc. However, if I knew
better how to do TCV I'm reasonably confident there are others who
would enjoy the TCV challenge and may become more readily
convinced that PCT indeed deserves further study.

Therefore, in the spirit of "Applying PCT", my suggestion is for PCT
experts to develop user friendly TCV tools: simpler procedures,
examples, anecdotes, etc., covering many typical daily encounters in
family, school, work environs.

Hopefully, making it clearer how to test PCT's effectiveness by using
TCV in everyday situations would, with practice, offer the potential for
more user satisfying results than habitual conventional means do thus
demonstrating PCTs value and enhancing its attractiveness.

Best,
nth

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0828.1557)]

Norman Hovda (2001.08.28.1100 MST)

Therefore, in the spirit of "Applying PCT", my suggestion is for PCT
experts to develop user friendly TCV tools: simpler procedures,
examples, anecdotes, etc., covering many typical daily encounters in
family, school, work environs.

It seems to me that the primary implication of PCT is that people are
purposeful and will resist efforts to thwart them in achieving their
purposes. The TCV is only of interest if you are trying to model some
behavior. It answers the question "how?" not the question "why?" (While you
can always answer the question, "Why is he doing that?" with "To control
some perceptual variable," that is not the answer we are usually looking
for. We want to know what the goals are more often than we worry about
mechanisms for achieving those goals.)

3

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.28.1340)]

Norman Hovda (2001.08.28.1100 MST)--

As long as the "cause-like relationship" is what continues to
be *seen* - even following exposure to PCT - the "actual
relationship" seldom if ever comes to light as real time
expereince.

I think that the cause-like relationship between disturbance and action
can be seen for what it is -- simultaneous, independent effects on a
controlled variable -- once one has learned to see behavior through
control theory glasses.

IOW, in a very hands on, utilitarian and practical sense how should I
conduct my life differently day to day in order to better comprehend
"actual relationship"?

I don't think that one has to conduct one's life differently in order to
see what may be the actual relationship between variables ("cause-like"
relationships can even be what they appear to be, of course: causal
relationships). All one has to do is learn to see behavior through
control theory glasses. My paper "Looking at behavior through control
theory glasses" gives some exercises to practice that could help one do that.

The demos are fascinating and I've tried most all of them. While I'm
engaged and reading commentary, I'm a believer having *ahh HAA*
experiences one after another. When I return to normal living mode...
status quo stability returns.

The "Glasses" paper was also an attempt to show how the lessons of the
demos (control models) can be applied to real world behavior, the kind
we see during "normal living".

Therefore, in the spirit of "Applying PCT", my suggestion is for PCT
experts to develop user friendly TCV tools: simpler procedures,
examples, anecdotes, etc., covering many typical daily encounters in
family, school, work environs.

I think this is a great suggestion. I, too, have always thought that a
book filled with examples of how to demonstrate controlled variables to
one's self, in everyday life, using simple, non-obtrusive procedures
would be a great addition to the PCT library. I hope someone writes it
soon.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

4

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.28.1930 MDT)]

Norman Hovda (2001.08.28.1100 MST)--

"... the controlled variable will be seen to have a cause-like
relationship..."

These words seem to me to be descriptive as to why many newcomers
to PCT are slow to grasp the revolutionary nature of PCT and
understand its basics. That is, the thoughts that flow in my mind are
something like, "given PCT is a better way to understand behavior, what
is required that I do differently?" As long as the "cause-like relationship"
is what continues to be *seen* - even following exposure to PCT - the
"actual relationship" seldom if ever comes to light as real time
experience.

Actually, words of mine like those don't help anybody. I had in mind the
relationship between a disturbance and an action, but what I said was
"controlled variable," which doesn't make much sense. A disturbance of a
controlled variable results in an action that opposes the effect of the
disturbance on the controlled variable. If you don't know about the
controlled variable (and its reference level), it will seem to you that the
disturbance caused the action directly, as in stimulus and response. If you
do know about the controlled variable, you will see just why that action
took place, and what the person was trying to accomplish with it.

IOW, in a very hands on, utilitarian and practical sense how should I
conduct my life differently day to day in order to better comprehend
"actual relationship"? The demos are fascinating and I've tried most all
of them. While I'm engaged and reading commentary, I'm a believer
having *ahh HAA* experiences one after another. When I return to
normal living mode... status quo stability returns.

If your life runs so smoothly that you have no problems or worries at all,
why should you want to have any AHA (for short) experiences about it? A new
way of looking at things, I would think, would be useful only if the old
way wasn't working well enough for you. Perhaps your insights are like
those we have when playing a game or solving a puzzle -- it's pleasant to
see the pieces come together in a logical way, but when the puzzle is
solved, we put it away and go on to something else. But perhaps there is
something that isn't going perfectly, and you'd like to see what happens if
you look at the problem "through PCT glasses." Is there any reason you
can't do that?

TCV seems complicated, cumbersome, labor intensive compared to
ease seeking human approaches commonly described as best guess,
common sense, projection and prejudice (ugh) etc. However, if I knew
better how to do TCV I'm reasonably confident there are others who
would enjoy the TCV challenge and may become more readily
convinced that PCT indeed deserves further study.

I'll tell you a secret: the Test for the Controlled Variable isn't really a
formal test at all. It's just common sense, combined with an understanding
of how control systems work. I assume you understand how control systems
work. How about just forgetting about the TCV, and telling me how you would
find out what a person is controlling, if anything? Also, of course, how
would you make sure that you don't find a controlled variable when there
isn't actually a controlled variable?

Work it outfor yourself. Then you won't have to ask anyone about the TCV.
There's no deep dark secret.

Therefore, in the spirit of "Applying PCT", my suggestion is for PCT
experts to develop user friendly TCV tools: simpler procedures,
examples, anecdotes, etc., covering many typical daily encounters in
family, school, work environs.

I think I'd rather teach principles, and check to see if they're understood
by having people find their own examples and applications. When I work out
applications that lead to new insights, that doesn't do anyone else any
good. The best insights come from working out the applications for
yourself, once you grasp the basic principles.

Hopefully, making it clearer how to test PCT's effectiveness by using
TCV in everyday situations would, with practice, offer the potential for
more user satisfying results than habitual conventional means do thus
demonstrating PCTs value and enhancing its attractiveness.

I'm not supplying a product for sale to a user, and I'm not trying to
"attract" anyone to PCT. Maybe I should look at it that way, but I don't.
If you want to learn PCT and explore its applications, I'm here to help.
But I'm not here to do it for you, and I certainly don't want to waste my
time trying to tell people who aren't interested in PCT that they ought to
be interested. It's all I can do to keep up a relationship with the people
who _are_ interested.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.28.2025 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0828.1557)--

We want to know what the goals are more often than we worry about
mechanisms for achieving those goals.)

How do you find out what the goals are without doing something like the TCV?

Best,

Bill P.

6

[Bruce Gregory (2001.0829.1120)]

Bill Powers (2001.08.28.2025 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0828.1557)--

>We want to know what the goals are more often than we worry about
>mechanisms for achieving those goals.)

How do you find out what the goals are without doing something like the TCV?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't find it difficult to infer
most people's goals most of the time. If I'm uncertain, I ask. The goals of
my pets are pretty obvious, too. While it's true that some people hide
their goals or are afraid to admit them and some of the time we are
uncertain as to our own goals, these seem to me to be the exceptions rather
than the rule. TCV seems to me to be most useful in everyday life in
dealing with these exceptions. But perhaps I misunderstood the question.

7

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.29.1247 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0829.1120) --

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't find it difficult to infer
most people's goals most of the time. If I'm uncertain, I ask. The goals of
my pets are pretty obvious, too. While it's true that some people hide
their goals or are afraid to admit them and some of the time we are
uncertain as to our own goals, these seem to me to be the exceptions rather
than the rule. TCV seems to me to be most useful in everyday life in
dealing with these exceptions. But perhaps I misunderstood the question.

I see. I'm not as certain as you are about correctly identifying other
people's goals, although practically speaking I often operate on guesses.
Perhaps this just means that I am less surprised on finding out that I
guessed wrong than you would be (about your own guess). If you assume that
you're right most of the time, this just means that you'll do less
verification than if you were less optimistic.

I think that the TCV or something like it is very common in ordinary life.
We "test" to see if we're doing something the way someone else wants it,
for example, saying "Like this? No? Well how about this?"

The formal use of the test just goes a little further in trying to make
sure we haven't been fooled by a plausible but wrong guess.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0829.1654)]

Bill Powers (2001.08.29.1247 MDT)

I think that the TCV or something like it is very common in ordinary life.
We "test" to see if we're doing something the way someone else wants it,
for example, saying "Like this? No? Well how about this?"

The formal use of the test just goes a little further in trying to make
sure we haven't been fooled by a plausible but wrong guess.

Your point is well taken. It's no doubt a very good idea to assume less and
to ask more.

9

I couldn't agree more with Norman's suggestion. For many, if not most,
people, the pursuit demos, while dramatic and "scientific" don't easily
transfer into a belief in PCT. So, let's get creative and a little less
data-determined, and generate those tests for a controlled variable.
David Wolsk

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman T. Hovda" <nth@ULTRASW.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:39 PM
Subject: suggestion

Therefore, in the spirit of "Applying PCT", my suggestion is for PCT
experts to develop user friendly TCV tools: simpler procedures,
examples, anecdotes, etc., covering many typical daily encounters in
family, school, work environs.