[From Bill Powers (960605.0730 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (960604.1435 EDT) --
I want to encourage them to be _conscious_ control systems. That
is, I want them to direct their attention to controlling for
whatever it is they call "understanding" by encouraging them to ask
the questions and to carry out the measurements necessary for them
to be confident that they understand a concept. I encourage this
by asking questions, and suggesting measurements, hoping not to
discourage them in the process.
I think they're probably controlling as consciously as they're going to.
This is a tricky question. Just what is it, exactly, that a teacher can
do to alter the course of a student's life? You can't inject reference
signals into the student; all you can do, basically, is present strings
of words and arrange the environment so it has particular properties.
You can't put "encouragement" or "understanding" into a student's brain.
Where does inspiration come from? What is it in a student that results
in a desire to learn?
I can't answer any of these questions. I think that answering them
requires disassembling a lot of the words we use, and trying to figure
out what they mean in terms of processes in the student. For example,
what is discouragement? For that matter, what is couragement? A student
may become discouraged quite realistically: a student without any math
background trying to learn physics ought become discouraged quickly, and
either turn to remedying the math deficiency or to pursuing some other
field where success is more likely.
I think that real teaching has to involve a lot of psychotherapy. The
student has to become clear about the structure of goals into which
learning fits, or perhaps doesn't fit. The student has to envision
possibilities that are consistent with the whole structure of goals as
it is so far, and that seem like something really interesting and
possible to do right now. I don't know if mass-production teaching can
help with this.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Marken (960604.1545) --
While I'm on the subject, I would like to note that I am not
particularly fond of the word "goal" as a synonym for "reference
signal". The reason I don't like it is because "goal" suggests a
_future_ state of a perception; it gives the impression that
control is a process of working _towards_ a, possibly never
achieved, future state of affairs. In fact, control is best viewed
as _maintanance_ of the current state of a perception at some
reference condition.
I emphatically agree with this. For me, goals having to do with the
future are pretty vague. What normally happens is that as I work my way
toward some image of a future condition, I learn more about the world
and my conception of a desirable end changes, so the "goal" as a future
state of affairs is always changing.
One of the most important aspects of distant goals is how they relate to
what you really feel like doing right now. How much of the time during
which a student is working toward a degree is spent actually working
toward a degree? For some, it seems that the time is completely devoted
to this end, but when you look at the actual processes going on, most of
them involve much more specific control processes: trying to understand
a specific chapter in a book, looking up references, working on a
mathematical concept, typing up notes (I have heard rumors that there
are people who actually do this), and so on. The main goal is always
what is going on right now. Somewhere in the back of the mind there is a
thought that all of this is going to lead to something good, like
graduating with honors (or at all), but nobody really has a clear
picture of what that is going to mean when the time comes. What is
really interesting and absorbing is _the process_, not the distant end.
Being in school, experiencing the growth of understanding, solving the
problem immediately at hand, interacting with interesting people, are
all part of the present-time process, which is far more important than
the indefinite goal called "graduating." It's as though the higher goal
is timeless, with the present activities being even more to the point
than the largely unpredictable state to which they will lead.
While I was going through high school and college, my goal was "to be a
physicist." At the age of 15, I didn't know what the hell a physicist
was; the main thing was that he didn't have to do manual labor. I wanted
to be a physicist because I hated mowing the lawn. Also, when I said
what my goal was, people (i.e., girls) looked impressed, although as it
turned out that wasn't enough (and maybe worked the wrong way) for
getting laid. I talked a lot about this distant goal, but the real goals
were all about RIGHT NOW. I was really surprised, when I got into my
first physics class, to find that it was an interesting subject that I
could understand. In a way, it's too bad that I started out using
physics as a means toward some other ephemeral goals; I think I would
have done better at it, become more absorbed in it, if all these other
social motives hadn't got mixed up with it. I think I wish that I had
never thought about what being a physicist would mean in the future, so
I could have just enjoyed the experience of immersing myself in learning
it, like learning an exceptionally fascinating game.
And anyway, look how it turned out! Physics helped me to learn
electronics in a pressure-cooker Navy course, and it was really that
course that carried me through college and into a career of designing
electronic systems. And what is it that I actually do, and did? It
turned out not to be even electronics, but PCT. Go figure.
If I could give advice to myself 50 years ago, I would say "Stop
worrying about why you're learning all this stuff. Just learn what's
interesting, and more things will become interesting. Follow your nose.
Learn about everything that you can and keep an eye open for
opportunities." That's not much of a Plan, but I think it's probably the
most realistic as well as useful kind. When the future comes, it won't
be anything like what you thought it would be anyhow, and you won't be
doing anything like what you thought you'd be doing. Well, maybe
something like, but "like" in dimensions you didn't know were important.
So I agree, Rick, in 10,000 words or less. Control is always a present-
time process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.
