# Taking PCT for granted

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [March 1, 1998, 6:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016 "1998-03-01T18:49:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 14\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 1998, 1:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/21 "1998-03-06T13:35:09Z")

</div>

> [From Bruce Gregory (980305.2002 EST)]
> 
> This indeed may be so. But I ask you to think about something for a while.

The

> vast majority of Americans do not believe they are sexists or racists. When  
> they look inside their heads, they do not find "sexist thoughts" or "racist  
> thoughts." But their perceptual worlds are such that they do not even

think of

> women when they considering candidates for certain jobs, and they cross the  
> street to avoid encountering members of some races after 11 p.m. This

suggests

> to me at least, that what we believe and the worlds in which we dwell can be  
> very different.

I agree.

Sincerely,

Jeff

---

<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:** [March 6, 1998, 6:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/22 "1998-03-06T18:50:13Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980306.1146 MST)]

Jeff Vancouver 980304.1255 EST--

> > On the PCT side, we have the basic principle that behavior  
> > is the visible part of a process by which organisms control their own  
> > experiences of the perceived world. What corresponding basic principle do  
> > other psychologists use when they don't use PCT? What do \_they\_ say  
> > behavior is?
> 
> I think Avery's first point is a good one, with clarification. Some do  
> talk about the fundamentals, but they have not achieved any shared  
> understanding. To simplify somewhat, one could classify psychologists into  
> the following categories regarding the fundamentals:

Your list of categories is interesting, but doesn't answer my question.  
What ARE the "fundamentals" the non-PCT psychologists assume? Presumably  
they must have some sort of picture of how behavior works. Can you say what  
it is?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 1998, 7:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/23 "1998-03-06T19:32:41Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 980305.0900 est]

> [From Rick Marken (980305.2020)]
> 
> But before I do, I would like to make a plea to Jeff and everyone  
> else who is certain that he or she understands PCT but continually  
> finds him or herself in arguments with Bill about some "small"  
> issue related to PCT. My plea is to try to stop defending against  
> PCT and try to \_learn\_ it.

Chock this up in your test, but I believe I have learned it. I have read  
all the cites you mentioned and more (thanks to CSG I & II).

> No. It's stretching the tendon, causing the perception of stretch  
> (the controlled perception) to deviate from the reference; the  
> "kick" is a side effect of the muscle output aimed at bringing  
> perceived stretch back to the reference.

Cool, I did not get that one.

> Bill --
> 
> > It looks as though Rick's statement is a stimulus, and your  
> > reaction is a response to it. But can you think of some variable  
> > that might be affected in one direction by Rick's statement, and  
> > in the opposite direction by your reply?
> 
> Jeff --
> 
> > The kinds of statements Rick makes to me.
> 
> No. Remember, the controlled perception is affected \_oppositely\_ by  
> my statement \_and\_ your reply. So my statement can't be the controlled  
> perception. In fact, it's a \_disturbance\_ to a controlled perception.  
> The controlled perception is probably something like "being  
> respected". That perception is pushed one way by my statement and  
> the other way by yours.

This is a very common ploy (not that it is intentional or anything), but  
Rick likes to switch between talking about the controlled variable and the  
controlled perception depending on which allows him to say "No." (I have  
been testing for this controlled variable on your part Rick). In the first  
example, it was the controlled variable (the stretch of the tendon). In  
the second example, it is the controlled perception (the perception of  
respect). In the later case, we know that in fact, perceiving respect from  
Rick is out-of-control (nothing I do affects this perception). Now Rick  
wants to call his statements disturbances, which at first brush seems to  
make sense, but what is the CV (controlled variable)? Rick's answer, there  
is none (correct me if I am wrong). Nor is it necessary: p = d + o, no cv  
in the equation. But then what is the physical system that allows o to  
have an impact on d? Since d and o are operating in the physical  
environment, that is the laws that apply, correct? In other words, how  
could o ever cancel out d such that p was maintained around r? Well if d  
is auditory, o could be plugging my ears or shouting to drown out d. Or o  
could be unsubscribing to the net so that d never made it to p. But both  
of those seem to ignore the possibility that the cv is Rick's respect of me  
and that o be directed at Rick such that it have some affect on my inputs  
about Rick's respect of me. In other words:

&nbsp;&nbsp;\> \>r  
&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_  
p\> \>  
\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
&nbsp;&nbsp;\>s |o  
&nbsp;&nbsp;\> \>  
Rick \<\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|  
&nbsp;&nbsp;^  
&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;\>d

Rick is the CV, s is the statements which are the stimuli that determine  
(dictate) p. In a working control system (which we know this one is not,  
but assuming it is) s is a function of o and d. I have no idea what d is,  
but then I do not really need to as a control system (however the  
psychologist in me has several interesting guesses :)\>). In the actual  
system (the non-working one) after the k in "Rick" is an inpenetrable  
boundary that o cannot cross. Hence, d determines s. So it is true that  
the statements are the disturbance. If, however, I was to wise up such  
that every time Rick made pejorative statements about my understanding of  
PCT (or whatever other kinds of statements that make me feel disrespected  
by Rick), I were to say (as o), "cause-effect is wrong; conventional  
psychology is bad," Rick would stop making the pejorative statements and I  
would have my perception of respect under control. (I must not do that  
because I have higher-level systems which would conflict - get out of  
control - if I did).

This conceptualization helps me to understand what some of our trouble has  
been in terms of communication. Rick and Bill may reject it, but if this  
makes any sense than it suggest that since Rick is a person with a mind,  
psychological principles, not just physical principles, might be relevant  
for understanding the nature of the relationship between o and d (when the  
CV is a person). This has been the type of system I think about.

Sincerely,

Jeff

---

<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:** [March 6, 1998, 7:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/24 "1998-03-06T19:35:44Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980306.1150 MST)]

Jeff Vancouver 980304.1620 EST--

> > Take one of the simplest examples of a stimulus and a response, an  
> > "unconditional reflex."

...

> > Can you make a guess as to what that controlled variable might be?
> 
> Liquid on the eye. But I do not know how it could sense that, so I would  
> need to know more about eye physiology to make a really good guess.

I think that's a reasonable guess. The puff of air dries the surface of the  
eye and the blink restores the moisture. It doesn't matter if this is the  
right controlled variable; it's enough to start with, and for present  
purposes it help to show what is meant by a controlled variable affected  
one way by a disturbance and the opposite way by an action.

> > Or consider the knee-jerk reflex. A hammer applied to the tendon below (or  
> > is it above?) the knee-cap results in the lower leg kicking upward. This  
> > looks like a perfectly straightfoward response to a stimulus, but it could  
> > also be an example of the Behavioral Illusion. What variable might be  
> > affected one way by the hammer-tap, and the other way by the contraction of  
> > the muscle that causes the kick of the leg?
> 
> You got me here. I would think that the hammer-tap may be causing a nerve  
> to fire that normally represents something else.

Right. But in terms of controlled physical variables, what the nerve  
responds to is probably the tension in a tendon or perhaps the length of  
the muscle attached to the tendon. I'd go for the length receptors, myself.  
The hammer displaces the tendon and stretches the muscle; the stretch  
reflex tries to keep the muscle length the same by contracting it. As a  
side-effect, the leg kicks upward.

Again, we find some variable affected one way by the hammer-tap (length of  
muscle is increased) and the opposite way by the action (the muscle  
contracts, shortening it). Since we're only practicing at identifying  
controlled variables, it doesn't matter if this initial guess is wrong. The  
Test will show if it is. The point here is to re-interpret what initially  
looks like a simple response to a stimulus by looking for a controlled  
variable between the stimulus and the response.

> > Here's an easier one. If I push on your chest, you are likely to move one  
> > foot backward by perhaps ten inches. It looks as if the push against the  
> > skin of your chest is a stimulus that causes your muscles to respond by  
> > moving one leg backward. But can you think of some variable that is  
> > affected in one direction by the push and in the opposite direction by  
> > moving the leg? And having identified that variable, could you predict the  
> > response to a similar push in \_any\_ direction?
> 
> Balance, that is easy.

That's definitely the right idea. However, "balance" is not a variable, but  
a sort of general term for the result of balancing. If you want to define a  
controlled variable, you start by defining something that can vary: for  
example, the angle between the long axis of the body and the vertical, or  
equally possible, the location of the center of gravity with respect to the  
feet. The push tends to alter that variable; moving the foot is part of  
generating forces that alter it the opposite way.

> > Here's another one at a different level. Rick says to you, "Only an idiot  
> > could believe what you believe." You reply "Don't insult me, Rick." It  
> > looks as though Rick's statement is a stimulus, and your reaction is a  
> > response to it. But can you think of some variable that might be affected  
> > in one direction by Rick's statement, and in the opposite direction by your  
> > reply?
> 
> The kinds of statements Rick makes to me.

That would be trying to control the \_cause\_ of the disturbance. Assume that  
there's nothing you can do to change what Rick says. Instead, look for an  
\_effect\_ of what Rick says on something that is variable. What would it  
mean if you or somebody else perceived what Rick said as true? Would  
anything important to you be changed? Do you want that (whatever it is) to  
be changed? And if not, what is the intended effect of your reply \_on that  
same variable\_?

> > If you can solve these little problems, then you might start to see that  
> > the Behavioral Illusion, or at least the potential for it, is more common  
> > than you might have thought.

> I am afraid I still do not get this point. The social psychologist is  
> interested in what "causes" violent behavior. She hypothesizes that  
> insults do it \_because\_ they make the person feel bad about themselves and  
> that violence makes them feel good again (or stops the insults). She then  
> wonders what makes people feel insulted. Manipulates that thing in a  
> study, and observes behavior. What she is interested in, more than  
> anything else, is determining what cues create the perception of insult.  
> Her "theory" hypothesizes a control system, but she does not do all the  
> research required to fully test her "theory" (the nature of the perception  
> being controlled). She stops when she finds some cues (inputs). That's  
> her fault, but she is not theorizing behaviorism.

Isn't she assuming that hearing insulting words ("cues") causes a person to  
feel bad, or insulted? That implies an underlying S-R model: sound-waves in  
certain patterns entering the ears cause emotions to arise. This is the  
behaviorist picture of cause and effect in behavior, isn't it? I agree that  
just a little modification would bring her view much closer to PCT -- but  
would she be willing to agree that insults don't in themselves make people  
feel or do anything?

Building on the just-previous example, how would \_you\_ describe the  
phenomenon of "reacting to an insult?" What do Rick's words affect that  
your reaction would affect the opposite way?

> **···**
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> > But if you are always (in parallel) controlling for perceptions of respect  
> > (or avoiding disrespect), then the psychologist learning that  
> > advertisements of white men playing sports is often insulting to African  
> > American men, that is not trivial. It says get those posters out of South  
> > Central LA.
> 
> Sure, that's a very practical finding. But it doesn't explain what is  
> happening. It just says "Don't do this because that bad thing is likely to  
> happen." In other words, you're talking about an \_observed phenomenon\_, not  
> a theory of behavior. If you let go of something you're holding in your  
> hand, it will fall to the ground. That's an observation. It's not a theory  
> of gravitational attraction. When you let go of some things, they blow  
> away, or even rise into the air, or explode five seconds later. Without a  
> theory, these observations are just a muddle that nobody can interpret.
> 
> > Most basic psychologists have stopped looking for responses to stimuli.
> 
> I disagree. They've just changed their terminology. When you explore how  
> certain words can generate a feeling of being insulted, you're still  
> talking about responses to stimuli, even if you don't use the words  
> "response" or "stimulus."
> 
> > The behavioral illusion might be that you infer that that is what they are  
> > doing from their behavior. Rick is convinced that is what I am  
> > controlling. I have not believed in stimulus-response since before high  
> > school. Think about that for awhile.
> 
> But maybe you have believed in antecedents and consequents, or in  
> independent variables and dependent variables, or in conditions that  
> influence behavioral tendencies, or in circumstances that set the occasion  
> for certain behaviors. All these are just different ways of talking about  
> how environmental conditions or events cause behaviors, perhaps with  
> feelings "mediating" the effects. You don't have to say "stimulus and  
> response" to convey the same underlying model that is behind S-R theory.
> 
> How much of your training since high school was based on seeing behavior as  
> purposive, as being varied by the organism to produce results that the  
> organism has selected and deliberately brings about? That is what PCT is  
> about, and to many psychologists, that idea is completely unacceptable and  
> unscientific. I don't know of any department of psychology or biology that  
> promotes such a view under any name.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 1998, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/25 "1998-03-06T20:55:31Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (980306.1250)]

Bill Powers--

> It looks as though Rick's statement is a stimulus, and your  
> reaction is a response to it. But can you think of some variable  
> that might be affected in one direction by Rick's statement, and  
> in the opposite direction by your reply?

Jeff Vancouver --

> The kinds of statements Rick makes to me.

Me:

> No. Remember, the controlled perception is affected \_oppositely\_ by  
> my statement \_and\_ your reply. So my statement can't be the controlled  
> perception. In fact, it's a \_disturbance\_ to a controlled perception.  
> The controlled perception is probably something like "being  
> respected". That perception is pushed one way by my statement and  
> the other way by yours.

Jeff Vancouver (980305.0900 est) --

> Rick likes to switch between talking about the controlled variable  
> and the controlled perception depending on which allows him to say  
> "No."

Not true. I will re-write what I said substituting "controlled  
variable" for "controlled perception", if you like:

> No. Remember, the controlled variable is affected \_oppositely\_ by  
> my statement \_and\_ your reply. So my statement can't be the controlled  
> variable. In fact, it's a \_disturbance\_ to a controlled variable.  
> The controlled variable is probably something like "being  
> respected". That variable is pushed one way by my statement and  
> the other way by yours.

See, it comes out the same.

> (I have been testing for this controlled variable on your part Rick).

Now you will have to revise your hypothesis about what I am  
controlling for. But keep working on it; you will eventually  
discover what I am controlling for. And when you do you will  
discover PCT!

I \_want\_ you to discover what variables (perceptions) I'm controlling  
for, Jeff! Really!

> Now Rick wants to call his statements disturbances, which at first  
> brush seems to make sense, but what is the CV (controlled variable)?  
> Rick's answer, there is none (correct me if I am wrong).

As noted above, you are wrong (no disrespect intended; you just happen  
to wrong; I did not say that there was no controlled variable). I  
was suggesting that the controlled variable (the variable you might  
be controlling for) was "level of respect".

> But then what is the physical system that allows o to have an impact  
> on d?

Any direct effect of outputs on disturbances is not relevant to  
the operation of a control system; what is relevant is that outputs  
and disturbances have \_mutual\_ effects on the same \_variables\_.  
Hammer and muscle tension have a mutual effect on \_tendon tension\_  
(the controlled variable); air puffs and blinks have a mutual effect  
on \_moistness of the sclera\_ (the controlled variable); me saying  
"you are wrong" and you saying "you're insulting me" have mutual  
effects on "level of respect felt by Jeff" (the controlled variable).

> Since d and o are operating in the physical environment, that is  
> the laws that apply, correct?

Not quite. Look at the basic formula: p = o+d; o and d are  
having effects on p (or on cv if you prefer; it makes no difference  
in this context) NOT on each other!!

> In other words, how could o ever cancel out d such that p was  
> maintained around r?

To understand how o cancels the effect of d on p you have to  
understand how control systems work, not how o affects d!! I hate  
to say it but this comment reflects a serious defect in your  
undertanding of PCT. I hope you can treat this comment of mine as an  
informational diagnostic (as it is intended) and not as a personal  
insult.

Please believe me, Jeff. If you would stop trying to prove to us  
that you really know PCT and just admit that there are things you  
don't understand about it yet then you can really \_start\_ to learn  
PCT. There is no sham in not understanding PCT; there are many,  
very smart people out there who don't understand it. Nobody can  
learn PCT if they are busy trying to defend what they already  
believe they know about it. That's why so few people who come to  
CSGNet ever end up learning PCT.

The first step towards learning (anything) is admiting to yourself  
that you have something to learn. It's a scarry feeling -- I KNOW.  
I've been there! Many times. But, believe me, the long term benefits  
of understanding PCT -- \_really understanding it -- far outweigh the  
momentary satisfaction that might come from \_convincing\_ someone (like  
your colleagues) that you do.

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 1998, 9:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/26 "1998-03-06T21:07:23Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 980306.1515 EST]

> [From Bill Powers (980306.1146 MST)]
> 
> Your list of categories is interesting, but doesn't answer my question.  
> What ARE the "fundamentals" the non-PCT psychologists assume? Presumably  
> they must have some sort of picture of how behavior works. Can you say what  
> it is?

Bill, if we put these two posts together we get an interesting idea.

> [From Bill Powers (980306.1150 MST)]
> 
> > Most basic psychologists have stopped looking for responses to stimuli.
> 
> I disagree. They've just changed their terminology. When you explore how  
> certain words can generate a feeling of being insulted, you're still  
> talking about responses to stimuli, even if you don't use the words  
> "response" or "stimulus."
> 
> > The behavioral illusion might be that you infer that that is what they are  
> > doing from their behavior. Rick is convinced that is what I am  
> > controlling. I have not believed in stimulus-response since before high  
> > school. Think about that for awhile.
> 
> But maybe you have believed in antecedents and consequents, or in  
> independent variables and dependent variables, or in conditions that  
> influence behavioral tendencies, or in circumstances that set the occasion  
> for certain behaviors. All these are just different ways of talking about  
> how environmental conditions or events cause behaviors, perhaps with  
> feelings "mediating" the effects. You don't have to say "stimulus and  
> response" to convey the same underlying model that is behind S-R theory.

You are asking what their fundamentals are, but you already think you know  
the answer: S-R. I tell you that most do not have fundamentals and you say  
"nevermind that what are they?"

I understand that it is hard to believe they do not have fundamentals, but  
for many it is like asking the chemist for the fundamentals of physics.  
They have a "working" knowledge, but it may be filled with gaps large  
enough for physicists to fall to their death.

Certainly it is true that some (even many) believe S-R is at least one of  
the fundamentals of psychology, but most basic researchers would say "if I  
knew the fundamentals I would be famous."

> > ME:  
> > The kinds of statements Rick makes to me.
> 
> That would be trying to control the \_cause\_ of the disturbance. Assume that  
> there's nothing you can do to change what Rick says. Instead, look for an  
> \_effect\_ of what Rick says on something that is variable. What would it  
> mean if you or somebody else perceived what Rick said as true? Would  
> anything important to you be changed? Do you want that (whatever it is) to  
> be changed? And if not, what is the intended effect of your reply \_on that  
> same variable\_?

See my post to Rick (JV 980306.0900). To add to that: I cannot conceive  
of what CV I could affect by what I said other than Rick. I cannot  
conceive of what effect my reply might have on anything that is related to  
correcting for what Rick said other than through Rick. (I take that back,  
if I was controlling for what others think of me besides Rick, then my  
statements might effect them, but that is not really any different - the CV  
is still people.) The \_effect\_ of Rick's statements is on my perception,  
but my action does not directly effect my perception. If it did, I should  
feel like I am in control of this respect thing, I am not. My output is  
hitting the brick wall called Rick - the true CV in this ECU.

> Isn't she assuming that hearing insulting words ("cues") causes a person to  
> feel bad, or insulted? That implies an underlying S-R model: sound-waves in  
> certain patterns entering the ears cause emotions to arise.

This is a circular argument we are in. She is testing an assumption that  
can be characterized as cause-effect. But the implication of S-R is your  
logic, not mine.

> This is the  
> behaviorist picture of cause and effect in behavior, isn't it?

No. But it is a type of cause-effect picture (there are several - see Cook  
& Campbell, 1979).

> I agree that  
> just a little modification would bring her view much closer to PCT -- but  
> would she be willing to agree that insults don't in themselves make people  
> feel or do anything?

What does "in themselves" mean? Without o?

> Building on the just-previous example, how would \_you\_ describe the  
> phenomenon of "reacting to an insult?" What do Rick's words affect

my perception of being insulted.

> that  
> your reaction would affect the opposite way?

Nothing. But if the system was working, Rick.

> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> > But if you are always (in parallel) controlling for perceptions of respect  
> > (or avoiding disrespect), then the psychologist learning that  
> > advertisements of white men playing sports is often insulting to African  
> > American men, that is not trivial. It says get those posters out of South  
> > Central LA.
> 
> Sure, that's a very practical finding. But it doesn't explain what is  
> happening. It just says "Don't do this because that bad thing is likely to  
> happen." In other words, you're talking about an \_observed phenomenon\_, not  
> a theory of behavior. If you let go of something you're holding in your  
> hand, it will fall to the ground. That's an observation. It's not a theory  
> of gravitational attraction. When you let go of some things, they blow  
> away, or even rise into the air, or explode five seconds later. Without a  
> theory, these observations are just a muddle that nobody can interpret.

It is practical, yet of no use? It is true that it does not explain what  
is happening. Followup studies are needed to confirm the controlled  
perception, maybe to try to figure out what circumstances lead to the  
organization of an input function that creates the perception of insults  
from x, etc. It is not a theory, it is the use of your theory to help  
create a better world.

Sincerely,

Jeff

---

<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:** [March 6, 1998, 9:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/27 "1998-03-06T21:14:31Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980306.1615 EST)]

Rick Marken (980306.1250)

> The first step towards learning (anything) is admiting to yourself  
> that you have something to learn.

I suspect that we are open to learning only when we are clear  
that we cannot exercise control in some new arena \_and\_ we want  
very much to exercise control in that domain. After all, our  
existing control systems are getting the job done in fine  
fashion--we are very comfortable and "in control." Often our  
inability to exercise control in a new domain seems like a "good  
reason" to avoid this domain altogether. (Many people have this  
reaction to learning to fly.) The fact that we cannot exercise  
control tells us that we must create new perceptual  
organizations -- that our world is going to have to change in some  
way. Unless you are strongly inclined to expose yourself to new  
challenges (snowboarding anyone?) you are likely to resist even  
the idea that you have to crawl out on the "skinny branches".  
People who are \_really\_ open to learning seem to be under the  
age of ten.

Bruce

---

<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:** [March 6, 1998, 9:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/28 "1998-03-06T21:25:08Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980306.1625 EST)]

Jeff Vancouver 980306.1515 EST

> Certainly it is true that some (even many) believe S-R is at least one of  
> the fundamentals of psychology, but most basic researchers would say "if I  
> knew the fundamentals I would be famous."

Boy, have they got that wrong! If they knew the fundamentals  
they would be ignored. At least this is what all the evidence  
supports.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver2)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 1998, 9:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/29 "1998-03-06T21:27:48Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 980306.1615 EST]

> [From Rick Marken (980306.1250)]
> 
> Jeff Vancouver (980305.0900 est) --
> 
> > Rick likes to switch between talking about the controlled variable  
> > and the controlled perception depending on which allows him to say  
> > "No."
> 
> Not true. I will re-write what I said substituting "controlled  
> variable" for "controlled perception", if you like:
> 
> > No. Remember, the controlled variable is affected \_oppositely\_ by  
> > my statement \_and\_ your reply. So my statement can't be the controlled  
> > variable. In fact, it's a \_disturbance\_ to a controlled variable.  
> > The controlled variable is probably something like "being  
> > respected". That variable is pushed one way by my statement and  
> > the other way by yours.
> 
> See, it comes out the same.

Not quite. Where is "being respected" located? It sounds like a very  
reasonable p/r, but not a cv.

> me saying  
> "you are wrong" and you saying "you're insulting me" have mutual  
> effects on "level of respect felt by Jeff" (the controlled variable).

No they don't. My "you're insulting me" has no effect on my "level of  
respect felt." This is because I am out-of-control on my CV.

> > In other words, how could o ever cancel out d such that p was  
> > maintained around r?
> 
> To understand how o cancels the effect of d on p you have to  
> understand how control systems work, not how o affects d!! I hate  
> to say it but this comment reflects a serious defect in your  
> undertanding of PCT. I hope you can treat this comment of mine as an  
> informational diagnostic (as it is intended) and not as a personal  
> insult.

"Cancel out" does not mean "affect." Turning the car steering wheel  
cancels the effect of the wind without actually pushing the wind. I do not  
think you intend to insult me, but because you figured I meant "affects" d  
and not o + d (which is an additive effect, which in a working control  
system means o and d cancel each other to the extent they keep p at r), I  
am insulted (but I am getting use to it). To me it shows a lack of  
respect. Had Bill said what I said you would not have thought he meant  
what you thought I meant. This is what I am trying to control.

> Nobody can  
> learn PCT if they are busy trying to defend what they already  
> believe they know about it.

. . . and don't really understand it.

Yes, I understand your position. But it is based on the belief (which is  
what I am trying to change) that I do not understand it. More specific  
than Rick, it is this belief which is the CV "stop insulting me" is  
designed (although poorly apparently) to counteract.

> The first step towards learning (anything) is admiting to yourself  
> that you have something to learn. It's a scarry feeling -- I KNOW.  
> I've been there! Many times.

Maybe you should go there again.

> But, believe me, the long term benefits  
> of understanding PCT -- \_really understanding it -- far outweigh the  
> momentary satisfaction that might come from \_convincing\_ someone (like  
> your colleagues) that you do.

I do believe you 🙂

Sincerely,

Jeff

---

<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:** [March 7, 1998, 12:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/30 "1998-03-07T12:54:30Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980307.0754)]

Bill Powers (9803061907 MST)

> > > I agree that  
> > > just a little modification would bring her view much closer to

PCT -- but

> > > would she be willing to agree that insults don't in themselves

make people

> > > feel or do anything?

This reminds me of an est exchange from long ago. Someone stood up  
and said to the leader, "You make me angry!" The leader responded,  
"If I could make you angry, everybody in this room would be angry."

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Kennaway1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e495f1/32.png) [@Richard\_Kennaway1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Kennaway1)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 1998, 9:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/31 "1998-03-09T09:48:59Z")

</div>

[From Richard Kennaway (980309.1737 JST)]

Bill Powers (980306.1150 MST):

> I agree that  
> just a little modification would bring her view much closer to PCT -- but  
> would she be willing to agree that insults don't in themselves make people  
> feel or do anything?

I don't know about social psychologists, but several systems of personal  
development (someone mentioned est, and I've been involved with courses run  
by the Kairos Foundation) make this a central part of what they teach: that  
our responses to events are not caused by the events, but by what we do with  
them in our minds. Neither est nor Kairos appear to be PCT-aware, but they're  
definitely about purpose and choice.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(The etl.go.jp address is temporary until 7 April.)

---

<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:** [March 9, 1998, 4:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/32 "1998-03-09T16:06:07Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980309.0858 MST)]

Richard Kennaway (980309.1737 JST)--

> I don't know about social psychologists, but several systems of personal  
> development (someone mentioned est, and I've been involved with courses run  
> by the Kairos Foundation) make this a central part of what they teach: that  
> our responses to events are not caused by the events, but by what we do with  
> them in our minds. Neither est nor Kairos appear to be PCT-aware, but  
> they're definitely about purpose and choice.

I think most "fringe" approaches to therapy, personal growth, and  
enlightenment rest on at least some intepretations of life that are  
consistent with PCT. The main reason they are on the fringe (though by no  
means the only reason) is precisely that their assumptions differ from  
those of conventional wisdom, as does PCT. Many of them assume purposive  
behavior rather than reaction to cirumstances; they assume that "mental"  
processes can have physical effects; they see perception of reality as  
being much more subjective than do conventional scientists. Those  
interpretations, at least, agree with PCT. Other aspects of fringe  
approaches, such as belief in magic or unlimited power of mind over body,  
do not agree with PCT, however.

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:** [March 9, 1998, 5:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/33 "1998-03-09T17:17:53Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980309.1217 EST)]

Bill Powers (980309.0858 MST)

> I think most "fringe" approaches to therapy, personal growth, and  
> enlightenment rest on at least some intepretations of life that are  
> consistent with PCT. The main reason they are on the fringe (though by no  
> means the only reason) is precisely that their assumptions differ from  
> those of conventional wisdom, as does PCT. Many of them assume purposive  
> behavior rather than reaction to cirumstances; they assume that "mental"  
> processes can have physical effects; they see perception of reality as  
> being much more subjective than do conventional scientists. Those  
> interpretations, at least, agree with PCT. Other aspects of fringe  
> approaches, such as belief in magic or unlimited power of mind over body,  
> do not agree with PCT, however.

I think you would find that in its current incarnation as the  
Landmark Forum, the est training is surprisingly consistent with  
what we know from PCT. Almost all its "magic" has disappeared.  
(In truth, it didn't have all that much to begin with. Which is  
not to say that some enthusiasts didn't blend it with their own  
"new age" enthusiasms.)

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 1998, 7:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016/34 "1998-03-09T19:42:28Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (980310.0550)]

> [From Bill Powers (980309.0858 MST)]

> interpretations, at least, agree with PCT. Other aspects of fringe  
> approaches, such as belief in magic or unlimited power of mind over body,  
> do not agree with PCT, however.

And in my experience Bill, when these fringe groups talk about "choice" and  
"purpose" they are talking about choosing how to act or purposeful actions,  
not control of perception.

Cheers,

Tim

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/taking-pct-for-granted/11016.md?page=1)