EP : In that picture in Boris’ message my initial question is nicely pointed with the only question mark in the diagram!
So me and Bill talked a lot about the problem of “question mark” and maybe we could finished the whole diagram as there were many ideas on both sides, but we didn’t manage to make any kind of agreement that could make us both satisfied and cooperational work possible. For unsuccessful collective control every party has it’s share. I take my responsability.
EP : About this invisible side I have stated that we have practically no reasonable knowledge what’s going on there, at least from the point of view of an educationalist.
HB : If I understand this right, it’s a direct hit of hammer on the nail. Exactly. Educationalist are working (or trying to influence – applying disturbances) to the subject they don’t understand or as you said : “…have practically no reasonable knowledge what’s going on there…”. I thought that Finish School System came far ahead because it’s well known to be the best School System on the World or at least one of the best. So I’m little surprised that it has the same problem as all other School Systems. The means educationalists are applying as disturbances on “subjects” (children) about who’s internal functioning they don’t know much are not just unsuitable but also dangerous. So because they don’t know much what kind of effects are producing in childrens’ mind, they can easily peoduce shooters. Specially in USA. And the result of misunderstanding the nature of children, is also not understood what makes shooter active.
I’ll try to explain what does this mean on example which was given from “Once upon a time” one of the best PCT’ers Tim Carey. I had to draw line on him after he published nonsense with Warren under “mentor” Rick Marken, when RCT (Rick’s Control Theory) was fully publicly described under PCT trademark. Rick is often doing this sort of “crime”. I was sorry for Tim and Warren to be involved. But it seems that they are so naive and Rick such a fox, that catastrophy was inevitable. If somebody doesn’t understand how PCT works it’s better not to publish anything under it’s trademark. It’s better to publish it under own “trademark”. It’s the same everywhere : if you don’t understand something, you’d better leave it be as it is.
So in continuity of discussion I’ll try to present a general rule : people should let the things they are if they don’t understand how they function. I’ll return to the example (Tim’s first book) about ignorancy and “skilled” intervention into subject or object gives us live picture about what educationalist are in fact doing to subjects, in this case children.
In order to understand why people might experience problems, it is first necessary to be clear about psychological nature of people. This just makes good sense. To understand the problems that can occur with a pancreas, it is first necessary to understand what a pancreas free from problems does. To be able to fix the engine of a car, it is necessary to have some understanding of how a car engine functions when it doesn’t need to be fixed. That is, one needs to know what a car engine does when it doesn’t have problems. In fact, to decide whether anything needs fixing or not it is important to know what the natural characteristics of the thing are when it doesn’t need fixing. …Without knowing the state that doesn’t need to be fixed it is impossible to determine whether a thing is in that condition or not. Thus, it is also impossible to know how to return it to that state if that is what is required.
So if we apply these examples to education we could say that the problem of learning has something to do with understanding how the internal structure of human functioning look like. If the doctor want to cure something he has to known what is happening in organism. The engineers must understand machine how it function if they want to do something on it, so that it will work. Educationists should understand very clearly how organism function before they act on children and cause effects about which they know a little or don’t know anything. Words can be more painfull than blows.
A. S. Neill (Summerhill) used to say that it’s better to do nothing than to do something that cuase psychical damage, pain, suffering or other psycholgical problems in children…. If we act wrong as doctors it’s catastrophy. If we act wrong as engineers the machine will not work, etc. If we act wrong as educators it can »cause« psychological and psychosocial problems in children.
Tim Carey wrote also a book about schooling children. But I think that he missed a point from PCT perspective. I think that cause is in weak understanding of PCT and how orgaimsms work (probably under Ricks’ »influence«). I hope the book is still available on internet.
I hope I understood you right about what you wanted to say dear Eetu, and that I answered to your question.
P.S.
EP : BTW do you know has anybody studied the structural similarities of PCT with Kant’s philosophy?
HB : I’m not sure if Kant and PCT has anything in common, but I’ll be glad to “hear” why do you think so ? The only one I know that was including phylosophers and PCT into his books was Gary Cziko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cziko
···
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:14 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –
[eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.14]
Thank you for this discussion!
In that picture in Boris’ message my initial question is nicely pointed with the only question mark in the diagram!
Previously I have stated that in human action there is a visible side consisting of subject’s doings (the external action) and the environment and then there is an invisible side consisting of subject’s competences and the internal action. About this invisible side I have stated that we have practically no reasonable knowledge what’s going on there, at least from the point of view of an educationalist. No I have got at least a very interesting and rich hypothesis about it! J
Eetu Pikkarainen
PhD, University Lecturer
University of Oulu, Faculty of Education
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2016 18:25
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –
Well dear Fred was trying to say something but I don’t clearly understand what ?
Diagram on p. 61 is showing nothing about how references are formed. You see only references which are coming from »nowhere«. So it’s not telling anything about how organisms function.
Diagram on p. 61 is a little part of diagram on p. 191, what can be clearly seen in the »contact« of hierachy with external environment labeled as »behavioral acts« and »sensor effects«. This little part of diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) is in more details on p. 61 which doesn’t show practically nothing about how organism function internally. But you can see clearly what diagram on p. 61 represents if you see it from the perspective of diagram on p. 191.
So diagram on p.191 is already including diagram on p. 61. Diagram on p. 191 is trying to show how organims funrction internally and of course how behavior works through external environmen in addition to this. The diagram on p. 61 is explaining behavioral effects to outer environment more in detail. But if you want to understand clearly how behavior works through external enviroment I’d advise you to use LCS III book and diagram on p. 28. It’s much better and it’s giving a chance for easy understand some main points of PCT. Specialy why behavior is not control and why there is no »controlled variable« (target) in outer environment.
So diagram on p. 61 is not ”depicting” anything about »how a living control system functions with respect to its local environment. I don’t understand how anybody can see this from diagram on p. 61 . All we can see from diagram on p. 61 is how sometimes “behavior” is switched on and what effects to environment are caused by behavior. We can see also how perception and references (from nowhere) are subtracted. All this informations tell us nothing about how organism function. We can only guess (better without TCV). Diagram on p. 61 shows just general principle how behavior as effects on environment works, so that organsm can control perception. But all this and much more become more clear if you are using for PCT analyses diagram on p. 191.
Behavior is produced in adition to processes in organism. Behavior is just extension of organisms functioning and it can’t be understood from diagram on p. 61.
So the processes »behind« the organisms »exchanging« with environment are hidden in the other parts of diagram on p.191. It tries to explain how organisms control inside what can’t be seen from diagram on p. 61.
So the diagram on p. 191 explains how organism generally could work to produce references and how references could be realized through incredibly large number of negative control loops.
Diagram on p. 191 is carried out of Ashby’s diagram of immediate effects which shows how ultrastability is kept. In Bill’s diagram you can find »ultrastability« under name of »initrinsic state«.
In many ways Ashby’s diagram and Bill’s are similar, but Powers diagram is more powerfull as it’s showing behavioral hierarchy which is missing in Ashby’s diagram. But Ashby’s diagram have something that is missing in Bill’s diagram or it’s not yet worked out. And there is of course something that is missing in both diagrams. So with lot of collective control work (under some conditions) the diagram on p. 191 could be finished in definite time.
Diagram on p. 191 was transformed in conversation between me and Bill (you can find conversation on CSGmet) and now it looks like :
![cid:image001.png@01D119FD.595FDCD0]()
It’s quite messy and it calls for somebody to solve the problem. So how many years we’ll let the »question open« for somebody to come along to help us decide as Dag pointed out ?
The process of reorganization could by Bill’s oppinion explain how refernces are set in organism, speccially on the highest level. Rick was »shooting in the fog« by assuming that »reorganization is setting references on the highest level only (what is of course another nonsense in Rick’s archive), as it’s obviously from the diagram on p.191 that reorganization is functioning equaly on all levels of behavioral hierarchy. So the main question in diagram is »how references are set on the highest level« so that behavior can be explained in detail.
So the main problem I see in diagram on p. 191 (which is trying to show how organism function so to produce and realize references) is how to solve the riddle of two possible ways which could produce references in organism.
In this moment diagram offered by Dag (Bill) don’t offer the answer. It’s worse. It seems to be split between two options. I must say that I’m sorry to be cause for this »death point«, but nobody ever offered me proposal for how can we start finding solution so that we could be all satisfied. Mostly people think only about themselves and I’m tired of it although it’s logical to me. They are LCS. So people are just waiting and wanting that somebody should be giving them informations for only their satisfaction. Do we understand where the problem is ? It’s the problem of how collective control should be realized in proper way so that diagram offered by Dag could be finished. Maybe than we could say that we understand how organisms function.
If I give an example about our realation with Rick, how it functioned and how is functioning. If we solve this riddle and other riddles in our relationships we could maybe come to the point of »cooperation«. And thois is for me a magic word for human cultural development.
Who could ever thought that me and Rick were friends in the beggining (2007) exploring PCT and even »play« with his »rocket game« asking ourselves which perceptions we have to control for better reasult. We were talking about dancing…etc…How could we became such an enemies ? What happened ? Again task for »Coollective control analyses« ? How could such a good realtionship turned into such a »nightmare« ? Can we explain it with PCT means ?
We understand to some degree theoretically PCT and »collectibve control« but when something has to be transffered into »nature« - the final arbiter - we usually»go out« hardly understanding what is really happening in »Nature«.
Relationship between people are the place where we should understand how PCT works. But do we ?
Best regards Fred and cheers,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: 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
