Thanks to the CSGnet members...

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2015.06.28.08020 CDT)]

…who replied to mmy June 12 request for "Habit - Help Wanted!â€?.
Attached is my processing of your posts. They confirmed and elaborated

my thinking about ‘habit’.

Thanks much.

[I attach the file of your posts and my processing reply in order not to

bother members who are not interested with a long post.

Lloyd

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst
10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

image00126.gif

yyanimation12.gif

CSG on Habit.rtf (25.3 KB)

[From Rick Marken (2015.06.28.1150)]

···

Lloyd Klinedinst (2015.06.28.08020 CDT)–

LK: …who replied to my June 12 request for ";Habit - Help Wanted!â€?.
Attached is my processing of your posts. They confirmed and elaborated

my thinking about ‘habit’.

 RM: Very nice Lloyd. Also, nice to see someone is still using CSGNet :wink:

RM: But maybe I can kick up some excitement by commenting on one part of your nice treatise on habit:

LK: I get back on my hobby horse and insist on the distinction between non-observable behavior (i.e. control) and action, that part of behavior(i.e. the control loop) which is observable.

RM As you note later in the post this is a distinction between q.i and q.o, where q.i is the controlled variable and q.o is the system’s action. My only comment is that I believe both are observable. But in some situations (like reflexes) it’s easier to see q.o, the actions that compensate for the abrupt disturbances to q.i. And in others it’s easier to see q.i, the controlled variable itself. For example, when we see people walking down the street we see the varying state of q.i, the position of the legs, but not the actions, q.o – Â the variations in muscle forces that are controlling q.i. But in many cases of behavior both q.i and q.o are visible. If that weren’t so, by the way, the test for the controlled variable would be impossible.Â

RM: Of course, what we can’t see ever is the controlled perception, p. But when we make a detailed identification of q.i using “The Test” we are getting a pretty accurate picture of the perception being controlled. That, of course, is what my “Mind Reading” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html)Â demonstrates.Â

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2015.06.28.2257 CDT)]

Again I find in your post the opportunity to parse ever more discreetly the simple complexity of behavior, i.e.the whole control loop, and learn and appreciate some more about ourselves and how we behave…or as Bill has titledd it, Making Sense of Behavior: The Meaning of Control.

To be exact, my understanding of **behavior** is that it is the whole control loop. The reference figure I most use is in The Method of Levels: How to Do Psychotherapy Without Getting in the Way Jan 1, 2006 by Timothy A. Carey, p 37, Figure One.

My understanding of **action** is that it is the output quantity (qo).

So what never ceases to amaze me about behavior is that, for example, from our speech actuators (mouth, lips, teeth, tongue…) we generate an action of air vibrations, which wwhen passed through the feedback function into the sensors of our organism and into the hierarchy of our control systems we enjoy the experience of verbal behavior: words, sentences, paragraphs, books, listserv messages …

And, of course the Test is always happening informally to the degree that any of us are trying to understand others of us and to cooperate in making sense of each other and making sense of the world we live in.

I am also always already self-testing for the CV in the sense that it is the comparison of P with R to acquire and maintain the world I want to live in.

For me, that’s how my world goes round and round.

Thanks for the further reply to my search for understanding habit.

Lloyd

BTW, will my working definition of habit make sense?: a repeatedly used and preferred control system regularly invoked (perhaps, activated(though I know all systems are always ‘on’)) in given similar environmental conditions.

yyanimation12.gif

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst
10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

image00126.gif

···

On Jun 28, 2015, at 13:51, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.06.28.1150)]

[From Richard Pfau (2015.06.29 09:00 EST)]

Lloyd,

I like your working definition of habit so much that I’m quoting it in a book I’m completing – one that highlights PCT.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

yyanimation12.gif

image00126.gif

···

-----Original Message-----

From: ““lloydk@klinedinst.com”” (lloydk@klinedinst.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

To: CSG LISTSERV csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Sent: Sun, Jun 28, 2015 11:57 pm

Subject: Re: Thanks to the CSGnet members…

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2015.06.28.2257 CDT)]

Again I find in your post the opportunity to parse ever more discreetly the simple complexity of behavior, i.e.the whole control loop, and learn and appreciate some more about ourselves and how we behave…or as Billl has titled it, Making Sense of Behavior: The Meaning of Control.

To be exact, my understanding of **behavior** is that it is the whole control loop. The reference figure I most use is in The Method of Levels: How to Do Psychotherapy Without Getting in the Way Jan 1, 2006 by Timothy A. Carey, p 37, Figure One.

My understanding of **action** is that it is the output quantity (qo).

So what never ceases to amaze me about behavior is that, for example, from our speech actuators (mouth, lips, teeth, tongue…) we generate an action of aiir vibrations, which when passed through the feedback function into the sensors of our organism and into the hierarchy of our control systems we enjoy the experience of verbal behavior: words, sentences, paragraphs, books, listserv messages

And, of course the Test is always happening informally to the degree that any of us are trying to understand others of us and to cooperate in making sense of each other and making sense of the world we live in.

I am also always already self-testing for the CV in the sense that it is the comparison of P with R to acquire and maintain the world I want to live in.

For me, that’s how my world goes round and round.

Thanks for the further reply to my search for understanding habit.

Lloyd

BTW, will my working definition of habit make sense?: a repeatedly used and preferred control system regularly invoked (perhaps, activated(though I know all systems are always ‘on’)) in given similar environmental conditions.

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst
10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

On Jun 28, 2015, at 13:51, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.06.28.1150)]

[From Rick Marken (2015.06.30.0840)]

···

Lloyd Klinedinst (2015.06.28.2257 CDT)

LK: BTW, will my working definition of habit make sense?: a repeatedly used and preferred control system regularly invoked (perhaps, activated(though I know all systems are always ‘on’)) in given similar environmental conditions.

RM: Your definition of habit defines the model of habit (a control system that is regularly invoked in similar environmental conditions) in terms of the symptoms it produces (actions that regularly occur under similar environmental conditions). One way to see that this is not really a model of habit is to ask what the mechanism is that knows when to “invoke” the control system. The model implies that there must be some mechanism that is capable to invoking the control system only under particular environmental circumstances.

RM: The problem with this (for me) is that it is not really model of habit. As you note, Bill said the following about models in B:CP:

BP: Freud‘s id, ego, and superego might possibly qualify
as models except for one fact: They were defined in terms of the symptoms they
produced, which means that their individual properties were not underlying properties
but simply subdivisions of observed symptoms.

RM: I think PCT explains habit without requiring any new mechanism to invoke a control system. I think the control mechanism itself explains habit just fine as a response to disturbances that have a particular effect on a controlled variable. The observe habit is just the way error relates to output in the control loop. So, for example, if you habitually scratch an itch with you right hand it’s because, other things being equal, error in the “itch control system” – the system organized to keep the perception of an itch at 0 – will drive the right hand output function.

RM: In other words, habit falls naturally out of the PCT model of behavior as a compensating response to a disturbance to a controlled variable; essentially the same response beng made to the same disturbance, all other things being equal. The “all other things being equal” accounts for the fact that a response to a disturbance will not be the same “habitual” response if other disturbances (including changes in one’s own references) are acting at the same time. For example, the “habitual” knee jerk response to a hammer tap on the patellar tendon doesn’t happen if you change the reference for muscle tension in your leg.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Bkp: I’m sure I’m over-simplifying, but it appears to the wordsmith in me that “habit” is simply a word which refers to a behavior which is repeated. No matter how many times you scratch that itch with your right hand, it still requires the same steps in the process of noticing a disturbance and responding. It may become more "automatic, " i.e. you are less actively conscious of it, so perhaps it takes less effort, or causes less of a disturbance because the response required is already familiar. If you are trying to consciously break a bad habit, it seems you are simply figuring out what to do about a larger (and more annoying) disturbance.

Does that make any sense in relation to your discussion?

So, to this member of the audience; the word “habit” is simpky a label, a way of defining behavior you repeat, and not a separate off-shoot of PCT.

Best,
*barb

···

[From Rick Marken (2015.07.01.0850)]

        On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:31 PM,

Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

Rick,

            I don't see how your model of habit deals with what I

would see as habit.

          RM: I agree. That's why coming up with a PCT model of

“habit” is a fool’s errand unless we know what we are
talking about when we talk about “habit”. I think your
example is called a “habit” (I was going to place X but
took my “habitual” path to place Y instead). So is mine (I
habitually scratch an itch with my right hand). So that
gets me back to the original point: we can’t know what the
PCT explanation of “habit” is until we know what a habit
is. And it’s probably many different things, each of which
can be explained by PCT, I’m sure, but using different
features of the model.

Best

Rick