A nice (actually, rather chilling) example of using a naturalistic disturbance to infer a controlled variable occurred on January 6. On that day, insurgents stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice President of the US. The insurrection appeared to have been incited by President Trump, which he denies.
The house has now impeached Trump, which means they have accused him of inciting the insurrection. In PCT terms this means that the House has hypothesized that Trump was controlling for the violent storming of the Capitol. Trump has said that he wasn’t trying to cause an insurrection – in PCTese, that he wasn’t controlling for it – and he claims that many of his statements prior to and after the insurrection prove that.
But there is a very clear, PCT-based way to test the hypothesis that he was, indeed, controlling for the violent insurrection. If he wasn’t controlling for it then when the insurrection was happening – which Trump was witnessing on the media – it would have been a disturbance to his desire for a peaceful protest and he would have done whatever he could to try to stop it. He did nothing to stop it. Clearly, the insurrection was not a disturbance to the perception he was controlling for; indeed, the violence at the Capitol seemed to be exactly the perception he was controlling for.
Although this test involved only one naturally produced disturbance – the insurrection – I believe the fact that he did nothing to resist that disturbance is the strongest evidence we have that the violent insurrection that occurred on January 6 was something Trump wanted to perceive. This version of the Test strongky suggest that he is guilty of controlling for preventing the peaceful transfer of power to the new, duly elected President and VP of the US.