[Martin Taylor 2017.06.25.17.54]
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.23.1845)]
True, but that's not responsive to what I said, which you actually
quoted, but perhaps did not read.
Quite true. but irrelevant.
No. My hypothesis, if you want to call it that, is that people who
are trying to find out what each other’s intentions are are carrying
out a Test for the Controlled Variable, whether the actual technique
conforms to the classical TCV or not. The “General Protocol Grammar”
described in any of my publications of the Layered protocol Theory
describes the technique for a collaborative (or deceptive)
interaction. In fact, I think it does conform, though not to the
version you prescribe below. If it doesn’t, that would be a
demonstration that there’s more than one way to do a TCV.
My hypothesis includes the idea that you can't successfully have a
cooperative interaction if either of the parties doesn’t know what
the other is trying to achieve by participating in the interaction.
Yes, that could be a Test for a controlled variable. It's not
unique, however. You offered a 9-step version by Phil Runkel in
[From Rick Marken (2016.09.30.2155)].
Here's another possibility. Ask someone what they want. Give it them
and see whether they cease the action that appeared to be involved
in bringing that variable closer to its reference value. Granted,
the result is not unique, but neither is it for your proposal. Nor
is it for the classic 5-phase TCV:
1. checking to determine whether the hypothetical controller
could sense the supposed controlled environmental property,
2. checking to determine whether the hypothetical controller
could act to influence its value,
3. applying a disturbing influence to the hypothesized controlled
property, and
4. applying one or more of the following tests:
a. whether the hypothesized property changes appreciably less
than would be expected if a corresponding perception were not being
controlled, or
b. measuring the influence of the putative controller and
determining that it is negatively correlated with the (time-lagged)
influence of the experimenter-induced disturbance, or
c. measuring the varying value of the complex property and
determining that its variation has a low correlation with variation
in the applied disturbance.
5. If all the hypothesized properties are equally plausible
according to the first three conditions, the controlled perception
is provisionally taken to be the one that best satisfies any test of
step 4.
Martin
···
[Martin Taylor 2017.06.22.12.53]
MT: That there IS an interaction, in which each party istrying to discover the intentions of the other – at
several levels, I should add. They do this by acting in
ways that would disturb the perceptions they hypothesise
that the other is controlling, and observe the actions
produced by the other.
RM: The fact that there is an interaction between
people is not evidence that the parties to the interaction
are carrying out the TCV.
RM: What is the evidence that these
interactions involve mutual use of the TCV?
Indeed, I consider it highly unlikely that they are
carrying out the TCV. But maybe they are. It has to be
tested!
MT: Oh, well, I just pointed out another kind.
RM: As I said, the fact that people are interacting is
not evidence that they are carrying out the TCV.
RM: The only evidence I could imagine is
data showing that the members of the
cooperative interaction are controlling for
doing the TCV.
MT: I wouldn't expect to, since the proportion of peopleengaged in cooperative or non-cooperative interactions
who have heard of the TCV is probably close to one in a
billion. If they haven’t heard of it, they would not
perceive themselves as performing it. But that doesn’t
mean that they aren’t.
RM: Your hypothesis is that people who are interacting
are carrying out the TCV.
RM: How you would obtain such evidence, I
don’t know,
The TCV is a program of actions inasmuch as it
involves at least one contingency (if-then branch). So you
are hypothesizing that the participants in an interaction
are controlling a program perception called the TCV that
can be described as follows:
-
Hypothesize a new controlled variable
2. Apply disturbance that should have an effect on the
variable if it is not controlled
-
If the disturbance does have an effect the goto 1
4. Else tentatively assume the hypothesized variable is
controlled