TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) --

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.05.1115)]

Martin Taylor (2016.10.01.22.47)--

RM: This is remarkable Martin. In this post you have proven (at least to your own satisfaction) that the Test for the Controlled Variable is impossible.

MT: Nope. I showed that the Runkel criteria were not sufficient in the general case. The Test for the Controlled Variable is both possible and useful under certain conditions.

RM: I agree that Runkel's criteria are not sufficient, but not for the reasons you say. The main problem is his final criterion: "If all preceding steps are passed you have found the controlled variable." This gives the impression that the TCV can end with a definitive identification of a controlled variable. In fact what we get with the TCV are closer and closer approximations to the actual controlled variable. Good illustrations of this are in Powers analysis of a shock avoidance experiment", described in the "Experimental Methods" section of B:CP, where he shows the probability rather than rate of shock is actually a better estimate of the variable controlled by rats. Also, Chapter 4 in my "Doing Research on Purpose" shows how the TCV is used to get closer and closer approximations to the perceptual variable that is actually under control.

MT: Actually, I should have linked to <<Control of Size; because it illustrates my point about the need to vary the reference value if you want to use the Test to choose among selected functions of the same set of variables.

RM: I don't understand where you got this idea. The control of size demo shows that there is no need to vary references in order to chose among selected (perceptual) functions of the same set of variables which is under control. Indeed, the demo works best if, as instructed, the subject adopts a fixed reference for the size of the rectangle.

MT: I only wanted to illustrate that there are quite normal situations in which they are insufficient, particularly number 9, which says that after testing just one hypothesis, if the criteria are met (criteria that can be met by any variable correlated with the actual controlled variable) the one you tested IS the controlled variable, even though a whole raft of other variables might fit the criteria and be better controlled than the one you first thought of.

RM: As noted above, I agree with this. It should always be made clear that the TCV is an iterative process and that the goal is to find the best approximation to the controlled variable.

RM: ...control systems in conflict don't control but, rather, lose control; they can't resist disturbances to the "virtual" controlled variable:

MT: That is exactly right. And totally irrelevant. That's what Kent neatly demonstrated at CSG '93, in the video to which I linked. Here's the link again: <<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mmtaylor.net_PCT_Movie_McClelland-5FCSG93.mp4&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=A-E_OXOguD89CGxh9CdtIVnlmOYWqgcosjElD9WdPJo&s=8bBf6ybWon5JvgRKJ7tXQ1XksT-utgjJMHWRP6ZE39Q&e=&gt;http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Movie/McClelland_CSG93.mp4&gt;\.\.\.

MT: FYI, Kent's is an empirical demonstration, insofar as a computer simulation can be one. But you wouldn't know that, even though you were there when he gave his presentation. However, Bill P said of it at the end, and I quote: "That's great stuff. [You should] go on." (The words in square brackets are indistinct in the video).

RM: Yes, it was great stuff, particularly because, at the time, it was one of the few examples of using working models to test the predictions of PCT. Kent provided some really nice demonstrations of what can happen when two control systems are in conflict. But what struck me when re-watching this video (besides the fact that my hair was still mostly brown) is that these simulations were not (and, as far as I know, still have not been) compared to the actual behavior of people in conflict.
RM: The simulations showed that people in conflict over the state of some variable will keep that variable in a "virtual reference state". Apparently this is now taken to be an example of one kind of "collective control". But I can't think of any real world example of this kind of control. That is, I can't think of situation where two or more people persist in trying to keep a variable in different reference states so that the variable remains in a virtual reference state -- a state that is, in some sense, socially desirable. A real world example of this kind of collective control would be several cooks controlling for different states of a broth -- one wanting bouillabaisse, another tomato bisque, another cream of celery, etc -- and the result will be a delicious vichyssoise, something none of the cooks want. I don't think this ever happens; more likely that the broth is spoiled.
RM: So while Kent's models were a "great" demonstration of some interesting things that can happen when control systems come into conflict, I'm not clear about the relevance of these demonstrations to what actually happens when two or more living control systems come into conflict over the some variable. And I am particularly skeptical of the idea that anything good can come of this kind of conflict. Even if people do maintain variables in virtual references when they are in conflict, it seems that this could only be of interest to an observer; none of the people involved are getting what they want.
Best
Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
"The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

[Kent]

from Kent McClelland (2016.10.05.1445)

Rick Marken (2016.10.05.1115)]

  . . .

RM: . . . Kent provided some really nice demonstrations of what can happen when two control systems are in conflict. But what struck me when re-watching this video (besides the fact that my hair was still mostly brown) is that these simulations were not (and, as far as I know, still have not been) compared to the actual behavior of people in conflict.

RM: The simulations showed that people in conflict over the state of some variable will keep that variable in a "virtual reference state". Apparently this is now taken to be an example of one kind of "collective control". But I can't think of any real world example of this kind of control. That is, I can't think of situation where two or more people persist in trying to keep a variable in different reference states so that the variable remains in a virtual reference state -- a state that is, in some sense, socially desirable. A real world example of this kind of collective control would be several cooks controlling for different states of a broth -- one wanting bouillabaisse, another tomato bisque, another cream of celery, etc -- and the result will be a delicious vichyssoise, something none of the cooks want. I don't think this ever happens; more likely that the broth is spoiled.

RM: So while Kent's models were a "great" demonstration of some interesting things that can happen when control systems come into conflict, I'm not clear about the relevance of these demonstrations to what actually happens when two or more living control systems come into conflict over the some variable. And I am particularly skeptical of the idea that anything good can come of this kind of conflict. Even if people do maintain variables in virtual references when they are in conflict, it seems that this could only be of interest to an observer; none of the people involved are getting what they want.

KM: Perhaps you might open your eyes, Rick, and take another look around. There are many, many examples of interactions between people and groups of people in conflict in which a variable remains in a “virtual reference state,�? although none of the participants would describe this state as “socially desirable.�? It’s called gridlock, or intractable conflict, or even family feuds. It happens all the time. Nothing good comes of it, of course, unless you as an observer would describe the outcome as good because inaction is preferable to either of the extreme alternatives that the two sides are holding out for.

KM: My job as a sociologist is to describe what actually happens in the social world, not to make value judgments about it. I would say that most of the social stability around us comes from collective-control situations in which a certain amount of conflict is occurring but the overall result is stable enough to allow people to carry on with their lives, in spite of the fact that they aren’t totally satisfied with the way things are. That's called compromise, and sadly that’s something that seems to have almost disappeared from American politics. Whether the social result of any given compromise is desirable or not depends entirely on your point of view.

KM: If I recall correctly, you’ve come up with your own definition of “collective control," as referring what happens when people control different perceptions in the service of controlling an overall perception that none of the participants could accomplish on their own. That’s the kind of collective control that Tom Bourbon’s experiments demonstrated. To my mind, that’s just one variation of collective control as I’ve defined it. You can begin to sort out the different kinds of collective control that are taking place simultaneously in a given social interaction by thinking in terms of a variety of levels of perceptions all being controlled at the same time. People can be collectively controlling things cooperatively on one perceptual level and conflictively on another level in the same interaction, as when two people are dancing together but one keeps stepping on the other’s toes.

KM: It seems to me that CSGnet provides some particularly fine examples of simultaneous cooperative-conflictive collective control, as we’re all trying to advance the science of PCT but people keep tramping on each other’s toes.

Best,

Kent

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.05.15.43]

Exactly. That is exactly the reason I say. The rest simply expands

on that, as, having presumably read the message, you know already.
I guess you didn’t like my more mathematically written and more
succinct way of saying the same thing?
Of course. But the subject is able to vary the area perception only
by controlling the perceived value of X. If the reference value for
X was held constant while the computer varies Y, the person would
not be able to control the area perception. Therefore the X
reference value must change. QED. Explanation sufficient?
Martin

···

I predict that we will be into another
interminable case of conflicted collective control, like the
three-month long one that remains in conflict. I plan to make one
contribution, perhaps two, controlling to avoid that situation,
but I may not be successful.

  Since Kent has properly dealt with the latter part of Rick's

message, I will give it the attention it deserves, and say nothing
about it.

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.05.1115)]

Martin Taylor (2016.10.01.22.47)–

                        RM: This is remarkable Martin. In this

post you have proven (at least to your own
satisfaction) that the Test for the
Controlled Variable is impossible.

            MT: Nope. I showed that the Runkel criteria were

not sufficient in the general case. The Test for the
Controlled Variable is both possible and useful under
certain conditions.

          RM:  I agree that Runkel's criteria are not sufficient,

but not for the reasons you say. The main problem is his
final criterion: " If all
preceding steps are passed you have found the controlled
variable."

            This gives the

impression that the TCV can end with a definitive
identification of a controlled variable. In fact what we
get with the TCV are closer and closer approximations to
the actual controlled variable. Good illustrations of
this are in Powers analysis of a shock avoidance
experiment", described in the “Experimental Methods”
section of B:CP, where he shows the probability rather
than rate of shock is actually a better estimate of the
variable controlled by rats. Also, Chapter 4 in my
“Doing Research on Purpose” shows how the TCV is used to
get closer and closer approximations to the perceptual
variable that is actually under control.

          MT: Actually, I should

have linked to <www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html >
because it illustrates my point about the need to vary the
reference value if you want to use the Test to choose
among selected functions of the same set of variables.

          RM: I don't understand where you got this idea. The

control of size demo shows that there is no need to vary
references in order to chose among selected (perceptual)
functions of the same set of variables which is under
control. Indeed, the demo works best if, as instructed,
the subject adopts a fixed reference for the size of the
rectangle.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.05.2310)

···

Kent McClelland (2016.10.05.1445)–

RM: So while Kent’s models were a “great” demonstration of some interesting things that can happen when control systems come into conflict, I’m not clear about the relevance of these demonstrations to what actually happens when two or more living control systems come into conflict over the some variable. …

KM: Perhaps you might open your eyes, Rick, and take another look around. There are many, many examples of interactions between people and groups of people in conflict in which a variable remains in a “virtual reference state,â€? although none of the participants would describe this state as “socially desirable.â€?

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.Â

Â

KM: It’s called gridlock, or intractable conflict, or even family feuds.
It happens all the time.
Â

RM: RM: True gridlock is rather rare, even here in LA. And when it has happened it doesn’t last all that long and it doesn’t seem to result from conflict. Family feuds are certainly conflicts but they don’t seem to result in much stability.

KM: My job as a sociologist is to describe what actually happens in the social world, not to make value judgments about it.

RM: I know. And I would presume that PCT exists to explain what you describe as having observed. What’s missing for me is the link between what you describe and the PCT modeling that you did.

Â

KM: I would say that most of the social stability around us comes from collective-control situations in which a certain amount of conflict is occurring but the overall result is stable enough to allow people to carry on with their lives,

RM: All I’m asking for is concrete examples of this. I would like to see an example of a social variable that is kept stable because people are pushing it toward different references. That is, I would like to see a concrete example of social stability that results from conflict. And using that example I’d like to know what, exactly, is the variable people are controlling that corresponds to the variable that is kept in a virtual reference state in your model? What are the different reference states people are trying to keep that variable in? What is the observed virtual reference state of the variable?Â

Â

KM: If I recall correctly, you’ve come up with your own definition of “collective control," as referring what happens when people control different perceptions in the service of controlling an overall perception that none of the participants could accomplish on their own.

RM: That’s part of my idea of what is involved in cooperation. The other part is that people have to be willing to give up some control in order to get better control. I think social stability – consistently produced societal results - is never the result of conflict, which happens when people control without regard to the fact that they are part of a social system. I think social stability results from cooperation, which requires that people be able to perceive themselves as members of a social system – a business, university or country – and be able to act to control that system concept perception, maintaining it in a reference state.Â

RM: The idea that social stability results from people controlling variables without any concern for the fact that that they are in a society where others are likely to be controlling the same variables relative to different references – that is, the idea that stability emerges from individual pursuing their own goals without concern for the goals of others – is the “free market” or “libertarian” theory of what produces social stability. Maybe it’s right. But I would like to see examples of real social stability that is explained by this theory.Â

Â

KM: That’s the kind of collective control that Tom Bourbon’s experiments demonstrated. To my mind, that’s just one variation of collective control as I’ve defined it.

RM: What was nice about Tom’s research was that he compared the behavior of models of interacting control systems to that of living interacting control systems and found that the model matched the behavior of the real control systems perfectly. You’ve done an excellent job on the modeling side but you have so far neglected to compare the behavior of your models to the real thing. And I mean “compare” in the way Tom did it; by looking at the correspondence between the behavior of variables in the model and the behavior of corresponding variables in the real thing.

RM: So that’s what I’m looking for. Some evidence that the behavior of your models corresponds to the behavior of actual collectives of control systems.Â

BestÂ

Rick

You can begin to sort out the different kinds of collective control that are taking place simultaneously in a given social interaction by thinking in terms of a variety of levels of perceptions all being controlled at the same time. People can be collectively controlling things cooperatively on one perceptual level and conflictively on another level in the same interaction, as when two people are dancing together but one keeps stepping on the other’s toes.

KM: It seems to me that CSGnet provides some particularly fine examples of simultaneous cooperative-conflictive collective control, as we’re all trying to advance the science of PCT but people keep tramping on each other’s toes.

Best,

Kent

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[wmansell]

Kent has some fabulous modelling demos of conflict, from his 2004 paper onwards. Enjoy the debate!

···

Kent McClelland (2016.10.05.1445)–

RM: So while Kent’s models were a “great” demonstration of some interesting things that can happen when control systems come into conflict, I’m not clear about the relevance of these demonstrations to what actually happens when two or more living control systems come into conflict over the some variable. …

KM: Perhaps you might open your eyes, Rick, and take another look around. There are many, many examples of interactions between people and groups of people in conflict in which a variable remains in a “virtual reference state,� although none of the participants would describe this state as “socially desirable.�

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: It’s called gridlock, or intractable conflict, or even family feuds.
It happens all the time.

RM: RM: True gridlock is rather rare, even here in LA. And when it has happened it doesn’t last all that long and it doesn’t seem to result from conflict. Family feuds are certainly conflicts but they don’t seem to result in much stability.

KM: My job as a sociologist is to describe what actually happens in the social world, not to make value judgments about it.

RM: I know. And I would presume that PCT exists to explain what you describe as having observed. What’s missing for me is the link between what you describe and the PCT modeling that you did.

KM: I would say that most of the social stability around us comes from collective-control situations in which a certain amount of conflict is occurring but the overall result is stable enough to allow people to carry on with their lives,

RM: All I’m asking for is concrete examples of this. I would like to see an example of a social variable that is kept stable because people are pushing it toward different references. That is, I would like to see a concrete example of social stability that results from conflict. And using that example I’d like to know what, exactly, is the variable people are controlling that corresponds to the variable that is kept in a virtual reference state in your model? What are the different reference states people are trying to keep that variable in? What is the observed virtual reference state of the variable?

KM: If I recall correctly, you’ve come up with your own definition of “collective control," as referring what happens when people control different perceptions in the service of controlling an overall perception that none of the participants could accomplish on their own.

RM: That’s part of my idea of what is involved in cooperation. The other part is that people have to be willing to give up some control in order to get better control. I think social stability – consistently produced societal results - is never the result of conflict, which happens when people control without regard to the fact that they are part of a social system. I think social stability results from cooperation, which requires that people be able to perceive themselves as members of a social system – a business, university or country – and be able to act to control that system concept perception, maintaining it in a reference state.

RM: The idea that social stability results from people controlling variables without any concern for the fact that that they are in a society where others are likely to be controlling the same variables relative to different references – that is, the idea that stability emerges from individual pursuing their own goals without concern for the goals of others – is the “free market” or “libertarian” theory of what produces social stability. Maybe it’s right. But I would like to see examples of real social stability that is explained by this theory.

KM: That’s the kind of collective control that Tom Bourbon’s experiments demonstrated. To my mind, that’s just one variation of collective control as I’ve defined it.

RM: What was nice about Tom’s research was that he compared the behavior of models of interacting control systems to that of living interacting control systems and found that the model matched the behavior of the real control systems perfectly. You’ve done an excellent job on the modeling side but you have so far neglected to compare the behavior of your models to the real thing. And I mean “compare” in the way Tom did it; by looking at the correspondence between the behavior of variables in the model and the behavior of corresponding variables in the real thing.

RM: So that’s what I’m looking for. Some evidence that the behavior of your models corresponds to the behavior of actual collectives of control systems.

Best

Rick

You can begin to sort out the different kinds of collective control that are taking place simultaneously in a given social interaction by thinking in terms of a variety of levels of perceptions all being controlled at the same time. People can be collectively controlling things cooperatively on one perceptual level and conflictively on another level in the same interaction, as when two people are dancing together but one keeps stepping on the other’s toes.

KM: It seems to me that CSGnet provides some particularly fine examples of simultaneous cooperative-conflictive collective control, as we’re all trying to advance the science of PCT but people keep tramping on each other’s toes.

Best,

Kent

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.06.10.59]

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.05.2310)

How about the perception of who is responsible for (or

alternatively, is allowed to live in) the area between the Jordan
Rivr and the Mediterranean Sea?

Cooperation is basic to most of the forms of collective control.

Conflicted control is just the non-cooperative form. The six forms
that I identify are:

1.    Conflicted Control: The participants have individually derived

reference values for perceptions whose CEVs are closely related to
the common complex environmental variable (CCEV). The CCEV remains
as if it corresponds to a controlled perception, but the outputs of
the individual controllers tend to increase as in any conflict.
Example: Several people push on a rock, all wanting it in a
different place

2.    Collaborative Control: The participants control a higher level

set of perceptions of belonging and being seen to belong to “the
group�, bringing their reference values for their perceptions of the
CEVs that combine to form the CCEV toward a common value,
eliminating the conflict while maintaining strong control. Example:
Several people push on a rock trying to move it to a place on which
they agree.

3.    Coordinated Control: All members controlling for perceiving

themselves and being perceived as belonging to the group accept
reference values provided by an agreed leader. Example: Several
people push on a rock trying to get it to a place designated by one
of them.

The other three forms describe situations in which different people

control perceptions of different environmental variables.

4.    Guided Control: A plan, with or without a specific planner,

determines who does what. Example: I’ll hold the pole while you
hammer it into the ground.

5.    Social Control Unit: Different people or groups of people use

protocols in ways that allow some of them to play the roles of the
different units of a control unit (Sensors, Perceptual Function,
Reference (the CEO or the Commander) , Comparator, Output function,
Effectors), so that the whole social structure acts as a controller.
For further explanation, see
http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/CSG2005/CSG2005cSocialControl.ppt .
Example: A hunting pack, with scouts, leader, killers.

6.    Hierarchy of Social Control Units: Same as 5, with different

levels of controller interacting as in the Powers hierarchy for
control units within an organism. Example: A military unit or a
formally organized company.

And I suggest that the intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict has allowed many politicians to build careers they would
not otherwise have had, has allowed arms dealers to make big
profits, and generally is a stability of the world that people can
count on being likely to continue for a long time. So I would argue
that both conflicted and the many forms of non-conflicted control
all occur in the real world. Many of the conflicted situations don’t
last long because one or more participants can overwhelm the
other(s), so you don’t see many obvious examples at any one moment,
just as in astronomy you see far more normal stars that novae or
supernovae at any one moment. But in both cases, the fact that you
don’t see them at any one moment doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of
them, or that they can’t sustain virtual control of the bone of
contention long enough for others to use that stability while it
exists.

I suppose it is, but did anyone suggest that conflictive control is

the ONLY kind of collective control that occurs in the social world?

Wouldn't the apparent success of the Method of Levels count? The

basic concept is that a locked-in stability exists that is the
result of conflict and that can be resolved only by moving to a
higher-level of perceptual control.

Martin

···

          Kent McClelland

(2016.10.05.1445)–

            > RM: So while Kent's models were a "great"

demonstration of some interesting things that can happen
when control systems come into conflict, I’m not clear
about the relevance of these demonstrations to what
actually happens when two or more living control systems
come into conflict over the some variable. …

                        KM: Perhaps you might open your eyes, Rick, and

take another look around. There are many, many examples of
interactions between people and groups of people in
conflict in which a variable remains in a “virtual
reference state,� although none of the participants would
describe this state as “socially desirable.�

          RM: I just can't think of any. Could you give me a

couple of examples.

Â

…
Â

Â

          KM: If I recall

correctly, you’ve come up with your own definition of
“collective control," as referring what happens when
people control different perceptions in the service of
controlling an overall perception that none of the
participants could accomplish on their own.

          RM: That's part of my idea of what is involved in

cooperation.

          . The other part is that people have to be willing to

give up some control in order to get better control. I
think social stability – consistently produced societal
results - is never the result of conflict, which happens
when people control without regard to the fact that they
are part of a social system. I think social stability
results from cooperation, which requires that people be
able to perceive themselves as members of a social system
– a business, university or country – and be able to act
to control that system concept perception, maintaining it
in a reference state.

          RM: The idea that social stability results from people

controlling variables without any concern for the fact
that that they are in a society where others are likely to
be controlling the same variables relative to different
references – that is, the idea that stability emerges
from individual pursuing their own goals without concern
for the goals of others – is the “free market” or
“libertarian” theory of what produces social stability.
Maybe it’s right. But I would like to see examples of real
social stability that is explained by this theory.

Â

          KM: That’s the kind of

collective control that Tom Bourbon’s experiments
demonstrated. To my mind, that’s just one variation of
collective control as I’ve defined it.

          RM: What was nice about Tom's research was that he

compared the behavior of models of interacting control
systems to that of living interacting control systems and
found that the model matched the behavior of the real
control systems perfectly. You’ve done an excellent job on
the modeling side but you have so far neglected to compare
the behavior of your models to the real thing. And I mean
“compare” in the way Tom did it; by looking at the
correspondence between the behavior of variables in the
model and the behavior of corresponding variables in the
real thing.

          RM: So that's what I'm looking for. Some evidence that

the behavior of your models corresponds to the behavior of
actual collectives of control systems.Â

[rsmarken]

[From RIck Marken (2016.10.06.1130)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.10.05.15.43)–

MT: I guess you didn't like my more mathematically written and more

succinct way of saying the same thing?

RM: Not really. Your example purported to show how a person doing the TCV could conclude that their hypothesis about the controlled variable was correct when it wasn’t. You gave the example of hypothesizing that the controller was controlling X when in fact he was controlling X+Y. You showed that a disturbance to X would also disturb X+Y leading to a compensating action that would be seen as reducing the effect of the disturbance to X. So the tester would conclude that the controller is controlling X when in fact he is X+Y.,

RM: The problems with your succinct mathematical explanation are that it treats Y as a constant and assumes that the test is a one shot affair. In fact, X and Y are variables so, on different occasions the same disturbance to X will result in quite different compensating responses depending on the value of Y. So on some occasions the disturbance would seem to have little effect on X and on others it would seem to be completely effective. X would clearly not behave as a variable under control. A researcher doing the TCV properly would quickly reject the hypothesis that X was under control and go on to the next hypothesis about the controlled variable – maybe that it is X+Y or sqrt (X^2+Y^2) or X*Y.

MT: Of course. But the subject is able to vary the area perception only

by controlling the perceived value of X. If the reference value for
X was held constant while the computer varies Y, the person would
not be able to control the area perception. Therefore the X
reference value must change. QED. Explanation sufficient?

RM: No. If a subject were keeping X (the width of the rectangle) constant then a person doing the test would not suspect that either area or perimeter was being controlled. So your explanation is irrelevant at best and misleading (by trying to make it seem like you were referring to the reference for the means of keeping a controlled variable under control rather than the reference for the controlled variable itself) at worst.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

            RM:..In fact what we

get with the TCV are closer and closer approximations to
the actual controlled variable.

          MT: Actually, I should

have linked to <www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html >
because it illustrates my point about the need to vary the
reference value if you want to use the Test to choose
among selected functions of the same set of variables.

          RM:..The

control of size demo shows that there is no need to vary
references in order to chose among selected (perceptual)
functions of the same set of variables which is under
control.

[Kent]

from Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440)

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.05.2310)

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any� sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about, together with a more detailed explanation of my thinking on the topic than I can include in a post to CSGnet.
I would be happy to send you copies of these articles, if you think it’s worth your time to read them, and once you’ve read them I would be happy to discuss with you how one could set up PCT experiments or demos that would provide the missing link that you’re
looking for between simulations and empirical evidence. Until then, it doesn’t seem worth my time to get into a CSGnet discussion of these issues with you. My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

Best,

Kent

···

Kent McClelland (2016.10.05.1445)–

RM: So while Kent’s models were a “great” demonstration of some interesting things that can happen when control systems come into conflict, I’m not clear about the relevance of these demonstrations to what actually happens when two or more living control
systems come into conflict over the some variable. …

KM: Perhaps you might open your eyes, Rick, and take another look around. There are many, many examples of interactions between people and groups of people in conflict in which a variable remains in a “virtual reference state,� although none of the participants
would describe this state as “socially desirable.�

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

···

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of anyâ€? sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.Â

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict. Â

Â

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.Â

Â

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.Â

[Kent]

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

···

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any� sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control� and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control� in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?Â

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance�^SM

Collective Control.docx (42.9 KB)

···

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any� sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[Kent]

Collective Control.docx (42.9 KB)

ATT000013.htm (56 Bytes)

···

Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior.
The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or
not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables
(those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control� and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us
all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control� in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society
for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance�^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any� sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.07.1249 ET)]

Thanks for the feedback, Kent, that was helpful. I will work on fleshing out the definition of “collective control.â€?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?^SM

···

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 11:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

From Kent McClelland (2016.10.07.1040)

Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)

Hi Fred,

Your document looks fine to me, as far as it goes. Your point about different styles of management comes through very clearly, and the management style advocated by Drucker and Semler, who seek to preserve the autonomy of workers in an organization, seems much closer to the PCT ideal of collective control that’s “coordinated, cooperative, collaborative,â€? as you put it in the document.

My only critiques of the document, and these may be irrelevant critiques, given the audience you’re aiming for, are (1) that you haven’t provided any description of how collective control works (you just introduce the term without really explaining it), and (2) that, if you want to get technical about it, I’d describe the traditional, top-down management style as yet another an example of collective control, just a different kind, collective control that’s much more conflictive than the Semler model. Workers in the traditional model must agree to accept all the references sent down from the top, as best they can understand them, whether or not the perceptions that they’re expected to control using these imposed reference levels conflict with other perceptions that they want to control for maintaining their own integrity or sense of self.

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Fred Nickols fred@NICKOLS.US wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective controlâ€? and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective controlâ€? in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of anyâ€? sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[MartinT]

[From
Fred Nickols (2016.10.07.1249 ET)]

Â

        Thanks

for the feedback, Kent, that was helpful. I will work on
fleshing out the definition of “collective control.�

Â

Regards,

Â

        Fred

Nickols, Knowledge Worker

        My

Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

•          “Assistance
  

at a Distance�*^SM

Â

Â

Â

···

From:
McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 11:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was
Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Â

From Kent McClelland (2016.10.07.1040)

Â

              Fred

Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)

Â

Hi Fred,

Â

          Your document looks fine to me, as far

as it goes. Your point about different styles of
management comes through very clearly, and the management
style advocated by Drucker and Semler, who seek to
preserve the autonomy of workers in an organization, seems
much closer to the PCT ideal of collective control that’s
“coordinated, cooperative, collaborative,� as you put it
in the document.

Â

          My only critiques of the document, and

these may be irrelevant critiques, given the audience
you’re aiming for, are (1) that you haven’t provided any
description of how collective control works (you just
introduce the term without really explaining it), and (2)
that, if you want to get technical about it, I’d describe
the traditional, top-down management style as yet another
an example of collective control, just a different kind,
collective control that’s much more conflictive than the
Semler model. Workers in the traditional model must agree
to accept all the references sent down from the top, as
best they can understand them, whether or not the
perceptions that they’re expected to control using these
imposed reference levels conflict with other perceptions
that they want to control for maintaining their own
integrity or sense of self.

Â

KentÂ

Â

                On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Fred

Nickols <fred@NICKOLS.US >
wrote:

Â

                    [From

Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

Â

                    I

don’t want to get caught up in any kind of
ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear
my aims at the outset.

Â

                    First,

I view PCT as having two primary foci or
application points. One is to the observable
behavior of people, with a focus on the direct,
observable, immediate effects of their behavior.
The second is to the behavior of people in the
workplace, where they are in pursuit of results
or effects that are often far removed in space
and time from their direct, immediate behavior.Â
In this latter application point, results are
often realized (or not) as a consequence of
cooperative, coordinated and collaborative
endeavor. People work together to realize some
common goal or objective. In these kinds of
situations, we must be concerned with three
kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate
variables (those a person directly affects), (2)
ultimate variables (those that no single person
can affect or control and (3) intermediate
variables (those variables that connect
proximate and ultimate variables).Â

Â

                    Second,

I have recently expressed an interest in
“collective control� and I am currently
exploring the work and writings of Kent
McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known
to us all as Rick Marken.

Â

                    Third,

in the meantime, I have decided to broach the
issue of “collective control� in the monthly
column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly
publication of the International Society for
Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of
the column I have in mind is attached.

Â

                    I

am interested in constructive comments and
useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do
I have it all wrong? Am I missing something
critical? Â

Â

Regards,

Â

                    Fred

Nickols, Knowledge Worker

                    My

Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC

•                      “Assistance
  

at a Distance�*^SM

Â

Â

**From:**Â McClelland,
Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]Â
**Sent:**Â Thursday,
October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
**To:**Â csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
**Subject:**Â Re:
TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The
Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Â

                    Oops, I apologize. I sent you

more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I
don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read
all the available literature on the topic, if
you’re interested in collective control and want
to discuss it on CSGnet.)Â

Â

Kent

Â

                            On Oct 6, 2016, at

3:15 PM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com >
wrote:

Â

                              [From Rick Marken

(2016.10.06.1315)]

Â

                                      Kent

McClelland (2016.10.06.1440Â

                                                      RM:

I just can’t
think of any.
Could you give
me a couple of
examples.Â

                                          KM:

Rick, “I just can’t think
of any� sounds more like a
comment about the limits
of your own imagination
than an argument meant to
be persuasive to other
people.Â

Â

                                    RM: Perhaps.

I just meant that I couldn’t
think of any everyday examples
of social stability resulting
from conflict. Â

Â

                                          KM: As

Warren noted, I’ve
published several
substantial papers on
collective control, and
they contain numerous
examples of what I’m
talking about,

Â

                                    RM: Great.

Yes, maybe if you could send me
just one that has some nice
concrete examples, that would be
great.Â

Â

                                          KM: ..

My experience has been
that CSGnet discussions
with you usually generate
more heat than light.

Â

                                    RM: Perhaps.

But they do always generate
light for me. I find that it
generally takes some heat to
generate light.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

–Â

                                                      Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "The

childhood of
the human race
is far from
over. We have
a long way to
go before most
people will
understand
that what they
do for others
is just as
important to
their
well-being as
what they do
for
themselves."
– William T.
Powers

Â

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.07.1418 ET)]

Thanks, Martin. I’ll work on folding it or something like it in to the text.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?^SM

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 1:15 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[Martin Taylor 2016.10.07.13.05]

Fred, when I read your document I had much the same reaction as did Kent. But on reflection, I thought that it would be inappropriate in such a commentary to worry too much about how collective control works. To do it right gets quite complicated. However, at the end of or just after something along the lines of “Collective control emerges in a variety of ways when a number of people act to influence their common environment. Sometimes the results are conflicts in which nothing useful gets done, sometimes people all pull together to get one thing done, and sometimes they take on different roles to do what someone else wants done. The effects on the environment and on the individuals can be quite complicated. Here I look at some that are important for management.”

I’m sure you would not want to use that as it is worded, but at the end of para 2, where the term is first used, something of the kind might be sufficient.

Martin

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.07.1249 ET)]

Thanks for the feedback, Kent, that was helpful. I will work on fleshing out the definition of “collective control.â€?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 11:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

From Kent McClelland (2016.10.07.1040)

Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)

Hi Fred,

Your document looks fine to me, as far as it goes. Your point about different styles of management comes through very clearly, and the management style advocated by Drucker and Semler, who seek to preserve the autonomy of workers in an organization, seems much closer to the PCT ideal of collective control that’s “coordinated, cooperative, collaborative,â€? as you put it in the document.

My only critiques of the document, and these may be irrelevant critiques, given the audience you’re aiming for, are (1) that you haven’t provided any description of how collective control works (you just introduce the term without really explaining it), and (2) that, if you want to get technical about it, I’d describe the traditional, top-down management style as yet another an example of collective control, just a different kind, collective control that’s much more conflictive than the Semler model. Workers in the traditional model must agree to accept all the references sent down from the top, as best they can understand them, whether or not the perceptions that they’re expected to control using these imposed reference levels conflict with other perceptions that they want to control for maintaining their own integrity or sense of self.

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Fred Nickols fred@NICKOLS.US wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective controlâ€? and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective controlâ€? in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of anyâ€? sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.09.1606 ET)]

Welcome to the list, Eetu. I hope you find it extremely useful. I will answer your questions as best I can.

So far as I know, all the levels shown in the HPCT diagram are internal to the person. This is not to say that a person might not adopt or agree to a goal set by someone else. Just as we can “set” the desired temperature on a thermostat, our employers often “set” the goals we are to pursue. That said, unless we adopt it and make it our own, progress toward achievement isn’t likely. I think the way we probably do that is to take a goal given us by our boss and tuck it under a goal or reference condition of our own, perhaps something like “Keep the boss happy” or “Do as we are bid” or some such. In other words, I’m inclined to believe that when we pursue goals set for us by others, we do so because it fits under one of our own reference conditions.

I believe many of the higher and the highest reference signals are indeed set within a particular human being; how they get set is a different matter. Some, I believe, are intrinsic or natural (e.g., stay alive); others are developed during maturation (e.g., honor thy father and mother); and some we learn via such mundane activities as working and training (e.g., “don’t over-tighten those screws” and “come to attention in the presence of the commanding officer”).

There is an entire section devoted to PCT on my web site: http://www.nickols.us/controltheory.html Perhaps you can poke around and find something of use.

Again, welcome to the list – and don’t be put off by the intensity of some of the conversations. The people on this list feel strongly about PCT and its value and some of them work extremely hard to clarify and advance it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 3:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[_Boris_Hartman]

Dear Eetu,

HB : It’s nice that you decided to join the group. Your thinking is very interesting.

I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”

HB : If you want to draw a diagram of how living beings function with full self goal creation than you could maybe try to complete the diagram on p. 191 in B:CP (2005). If you didn’t read the basic Bill book (B:CP) than I recommend you to do it. It’s the basic step to drawing any diagram about how organisms »really« control (function). In this way the change would not bring new and worse problems. And you’ll upgrade PCT.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 9:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Fred,

If »targets« in your diagram are »controlled variables« in environment than something is wrong with your diagram. It’s not general diagrma about how LCS function.

If you compare your diagram to Bill’s diagram than you’ll see a totaly diferent »picture« of how Living beings function. So try to harmonize it with Bill’s diagram (LCS III).

Best regards and cheers,

Boris

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 10:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.09.1606 ET)]

Welcome to the list, Eetu. I hope you find it extremely useful. I will answer your questions as best I can.

So far as I know, all the levels shown in the HPCT diagram are internal to the person. This is not to say that a person might not adopt or agree to a goal set by someone else. Just as we can “set” the desired temperature on a thermostat, our employers often “set” the goals we are to pursue. That said, unless we adopt it and make it our own, progress toward achievement isn’t likely. I think the way we probably do that is to take a goal given us by our boss and tuck it under a goal or reference condition of our own, perhaps something like “Keep the boss happy” or “Do as we are bid” or some such. In other words, I’m inclined to believe that when we pursue goals set for us by others, we do so because it fits under one of our own reference conditions.

I believe many of the higher and the highest reference signals are indeed set within a particular human being; how they get set is a different matter. Some, I believe, are intrinsic or natural (e.g., stay alive); others are developed during maturation (e.g., honor thy father and mother); and some we learn via such mundane activities as working and training (e.g., “don’t over-tighten those screws” and “come to attention in the presence of the commanding officer”).

There is an entire section devoted to PCT on my web site: http://www.nickols.us/controltheory.html Perhaps you can poke around and find something of use.

Again, welcome to the list – and don’t be put off by the intensity of some of the conversations. The people on this list feel strongly about PCT and its value and some of them work extremely hard to clarify and advance it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 3:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.10.1207 ET)]

Eetu:

Boris Hartman points you to p.191 in B:CP (2005). Please note that the diagram on p.191 pertains to reorganization or how a living control systems adapts, adjusts and learns. For a diagram depicting how a living control system functions with respect to its local environment, see p.61.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Dear Eetu,

HB : It’s nice that you decided to join the group. Your thinking is very interesting.

I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”

HB : If you want to draw a diagram of how living beings function with full self goal creation than you could maybe try to complete the diagram on p. 191 in B:CP (2005). If you didn’t read the basic Bill book (B:CP) than I recommend you to do it. It’s the basic step to drawing any diagram about how organisms »really« control (function). In this way the change would not bring new and worse problems. And you’ll upgrade PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 9:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.11.0803 ET)]

That’s OK, Eetu, the diagram I pointed you too is on p.61 in the first edition as well. The one Boris pointed to is on p. 188 in the first edition but it is different from the one in the second edition.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:54 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[from Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.11]

Thank you Boris and Fred!

I have ordered the new version of B:CP to our library. (I had only the 1973 version.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 10. lokakuuta 2016 19:10
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.10.1207 ET)]

Eetu:

Boris Hartman points you to p.191 in B:CP (2005). Please note that the diagram on p.191 pertains to reorganization or how a living control systems adapts, adjusts and learns. For a diagram depicting how a living control system functions with respect to its local environment, see p.61.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Dear Eetu,

HB : It’s nice that you decided to join the group. Your thinking is very interesting.

I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”

HB : If you want to draw a diagram of how living beings function with full self goal creation than you could maybe try to complete the diagram on p. 191 in B:CP (2005). If you didn’t read the basic Bill book (B:CP) than I recommend you to do it. It’s the basic step to drawing any diagram about how organisms »really« control (function). In this way the change would not bring new and worse problems. And you’ll upgrade PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 9:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

---

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”^SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers