Fred Nickols (2019.01.18.0737 ET)
The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as “living control systems.” No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I’m simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
[Rick Marken 2019-01-18_17:19:03]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.18.0737 ET)
FN: The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as "living control systems." No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I’m simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
RM: In the diagram, you use the term “achievement path” as a synonym for “feedback function”. But what you describe as an “achievement path” is not the same as a “feedback function” in a control loop. It is in this way that your expressions don’t “fit” PCT. Â
RM: In your “Conversation” paper you use “getting a cup of coffee” as an example of an achievement path. You say that if there is coffee in the pot you just pour it into your cup. But if there is no coffee in the pot there are several steps involved in getting the coffee into the cup. That series of steps is not a feedback function connecting your output to the desired input (the filled cup of coffee). Each of those steps is a controlled result in itself – grinding the coffee, putting filter in holder, pouring the grounds into the filter, pouring the water into the tank, turning on the machine, waiting until all the water has gone through and, finally, pouring the coffee into the cup. Each step is a controlled result in the sense that you may have to take action to correct disturbances that can occur at each step in order to produce the desired result.Â
RM: I would say that what you are calling an “achievement path” is what would be called a sequence-type controlled perception in PCT; in order to perceive “brew the coffee” you have to control successfully for perceiving each component of a sequence in the correct order (put filter in before you put the grounds in, for example). In each of these steps there are feedback functions connecting what you do to the results you want. But the sequence itself is not a feedback function.Â
RM: By the way, feedback functions often have many steps involved but those are not achievement paths as you describe them because you can’t perceive and therefore you can’t control for the occurrence of those steps. For example, there are many steps between the muscle forces I exert on the mouse and the effect it has on the cursor whose position I am controlling; the steps are mechanical movement of the mouse, electrical signal sent to computer, A/D conversion of that signal to a computer number, program steps that change that computer number into a number corresponding to screen position, D/A conversion of that computer number into the pixels that correspond to the cursor. But all you care about is that vertical movement of the mouse reliably produces the corresponding vertical movement of the cursor. That’s how feedback functions work; we rarely perceive the feedback functions that relate out outputs to our inputs. You don’t have to learn the “achievement path” running from muscle forces to cursor movement in order to control the cursor. You do have to learn the “making a pot of coffee” achievement path, however, because it’s not a feedback function but a controlled perception; a sequence (or possibly program-type) perception.Â
RM: So when you ask people to “know” an “achievement path” between themselves and a “target” variable what you are asking them to know (or learn) is how to control a higher level perception. Which is certainly very sensible.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Fred Nickols (2019.01.19.0531 ET)
Thanks, Rick. I think I get it. The comment about sequence was particularly helpful.
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
[Martin Taylor 2018.01.20.17.20]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.18.0737 ET)
The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as "living control systems." No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I'm simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
One small point. In the control hierarchy, outputs are simply signals sent to lower stages or to muscles that interface to the environment. All the perceptions involved in the hierarchy are non-conscious. Bill claimed that the perceptions that we can make conscious when we are "thinking, deciding, analyzing or planning" would indeed be perceptions already constructed in the hierarchy, but their appearance in consciousness was irrelevant to the actual control. As I understand it, all these activities are "control in imagination". In any case, they must occur as a way of choosing how to act if such and so was perceived when you actually wanted something or other. When it comes to producing effects in the environment, you are simply acting, so I suggest that the annotation on the Output might be simply "Acting". Maybe "Thinking,..." requires a different diagram, though I don't know what that diagram might look like.
Martin
Fred Nickols (2019.01.20.1735 ET)
Thanks, Martin. That is helpful.
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
Fred,
FN: The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as “living control systems.” No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I’m simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
HB : Well if I’m honest I don’t understand clearly what Rick explained to you, but it seems that he is mostly right, that you are still getting PCT in the manner that does not fit into pCT frame, probably because you want (in accordance to your diagram) to put all control outside organism. I’m really sorry to say but it seems that you don’t aknowledge basic defintion of control in PCT :
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances
HB : I think that basic defintion of “control” will give you the frame about main logic in PCT which should be used in any PCT statement to stay in accordance to PCT logic.
But if I understood right there is one contradiction in Ricks text, so I’ll comment his statement…
RM : ….we rarely perceive the feedback functions that relate out outputs to our inputs.
HB : Maybe I got it wrong, but at least to me it’s quite clear what Rick meant… If he is saying that “output” rarely affects “input”, it’s wrong :
Bill P (B:CP) :
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
HB : It seems that Bill supported idea that the only thing output does through “feedback function” is affecting input among other effects.
Bill P (B:CP) :
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
HB : But despite this by my oppinion Rick is right about that “achievement path” is not outside organism but inside, as nothing is controlled outside (see definition of control). Achievement path if it means “achievements in succesfull control” can be only inside. I also think that also other functions in the loop you described does not fit into PCT. For ex. I don’t understand how “Output function” could think, analyze and so on. Or how “input function” could observe, read, and so on. I’d rather say that these are functions of nervous system. So I would say that Rick was aproximatelly right about :
RM: I would say that what you are calling an “achievement path” is what would be called a sequence-type controlled perception in PCT;
HB : So if I understand Rick right, he is saying that “control achievements” are made inside organism in hierarchy. I only don’t understand why it would be only “sequence type” controlled perception as it sounds like that is “top” of the hierarchy. Perception can be controlled on any level.
Whatever Fred you try to find out about observing, reading, measuring, thinking, analyzing, deciding and so on, I think you should start in comparator (hierarchy) or as we usually say in nervous system.
Best regards,
Boris
So Fred I would start at the beggining. Bills’ basic definition of control says that “control” is happening inside organism. But I’ve told you this and I wrote on CSGnet for maybe 50x and more. It seems that nobody read anymore what I write, although Rick, you and some others regulary fall on the same “spot” seeking for some control and achievements in outer environment. The main problem is that this way of thinking is not general. With what you intend to do, I think you’ll be able to explain just some behaviors that people can produce. And that’s not the logic of PCT which is general theory about how organisms function. So my proposal is Fred, that if you want to explain to others real PCT, you could start with analyzing Bills diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) or it’s better version which Doug announced. Diagram which you analyzed is too narrow to understand clearly what is generally meant by “perceptual control” in organisms functioning.
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:33 AM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The “FIT” between PCT and my expressions of it
Fred Nickols (2019.01.19.0531 ET)
Thanks, Rick. I think I get it. The comment about sequence was particularly helpful.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:20 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Rick Marken 2019-01-18_17:19:03]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.18.0737 ET)
FN: The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as “living control systems.” No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I’m simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
RM: In the diagram, you use the term “achievement path” as a synonym for “feedback function”. But what you describe as an “achievement path” is not the same as a “feedback function” in a control loop. It is in this way that your expressions don’t “fit” PCT.
RM: In your “Conversation” paper you use “getting a cup of coffee” as an example of an achievement path. You say that if there is coffee in the pot you just pour it into your cup. But if there is no coffee in the pot there are several steps involved in getting the coffee into the cup. That series of steps is not a feedback function connecting your output to the desired input (the filled cup of coffee). Each of those steps is a controlled result in itself – grinding the coffee, putting filter in holder, pouring the grounds into the filter, pouring the water into the tank, turning on the machine, waiting until all the water has gone through and, finally, pouring the coffee into the cup. Each step is a controlled result in the sense that you may have to take action to correct disturbances that can occur at each step in order to produce the desired result.
RM: I would say that what you are calling an “achievement path” is what would be called a sequence-type controlled perception in PCT; in order to perceive “brew the coffee” you have to control successfully for perceiving each component of a sequence in the correct order (put filter in before you put the grounds in, for example). In each of these steps there are feedback functions connecting what you do to the results you want. But the sequence itself is not a feedback function.
RM: By the way, feedback functions often have many steps involved but those are not achievement paths as you describe them because you can’t perceive and therefore you can’t control for the occurrence of those steps. For example, there are many steps between the muscle forces I exert on the mouse and the effect it has on the cursor whose position I am controlling; the steps are mechanical movement of the mouse, electrical signal sent to computer, A/D conversion of that signal to a computer number, program steps that change that computer number into a number corresponding to screen position, D/A conversion of that computer number into the pixels that correspond to the cursor. But all you care about is that vertical movement of the mouse reliably produces the corresponding vertical movement of the cursor. That’s how feedback functions work; we rarely perceive the feedback functions that relate out outputs to our inputs. You don’t have to learn the “achievement path” running from muscle forces to cursor movement in order to control the cursor. You do have to learn the “making a pot of coffee” achievement path, however, because it’s not a feedback function but a controlled perception; a sequence (or possibly program-type) perception.
RM: So when you ask people to “know” an “achievement path” between themselves and a “target” variable what you are asking them to know (or learn) is how to control a higher level perception. Which is certainly very sensible.
Best
Rick
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
www.nickols.us
[Martin Taylor 2019.01.22.15.25]
Boris, I interpreted is rather differently. I think Rick was
accepting the usual understanding in PCT that only one thing is
“perceived” in a control loop, and that perception is not of the
feedback function. It is of the state of something in the
environment. That’s my understanding of the background for the bit
you quote. In the quote, I think he is saying that elsewhere in the hierarchy,
though it may be possible for the perception in other control loops
to be of the feedback function in this loop, that is not often the
case. Most of the feedback functions that are part of this loop do
not correspond to a perception in any other control loop.
I grant that it’s potentially confusing, because he mixes the
perception IN a control loop with perceptions elsewhere in the
hierarchy of functions that are part of this loop.
Anyway, that’s how I read it. Others may differ.
Martin
On 2019/01/22 2:37 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
FN: The attached diagram is an annotatedversion of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with
the terms I use when discussing people as “living control
systems.” No one has to comment unless they feel like it.
I’m simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
…
Butif I understood right there is one contradiction in Ricks
text, so I’ll comment his statement…
RM : ….werarely perceive the feedback functions that relate out
outputs to our inputs.
HB: Maybe I got it wrong, but at least to me it’s quite clear
what Rick meant… If he is saying that “output” rarely
affects “input”, it’s wrong :
[Martin Taylor 2019.01.22.16.39]
Fred, may I make slight correction to my previous message. Since you already have action correctly placed as the immediate environmental realization of output, I suggest may replacing your "Thinking..." with "Drive" rather than my "Acting". It's more accurate, anyway, since it incorporates the concept of Gain.
Martin
[Martin Taylor 2018.01.20.17.20]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.18.0737 ET)
The attached diagram is an annotated version of the basic, formal, PCT model. I annotated it with the terms I use when discussing people as "living control systems." No one has to comment unless they feel like it. I'm simply sending it along in case anyone is interested.
One small point. In the control hierarchy, outputs are simply signals sent to lower stages or to muscles that interface to the environment. All the perceptions involved in the hierarchy are non-conscious. Bill claimed that the perceptions that we can make conscious when we are "thinking, deciding, analyzing or planning" would indeed be perceptions already constructed in the hierarchy, but their appearance in consciousness was irrelevant to the actual control. As I understand it, all these activities are "control in imagination". In any case, they must occur as a way of choosing how to act if such and so was perceived when you actually wanted something or other. When it comes to producing effects in the environment, you are simply acting, so I suggest that the annotation on the Output might be simply "Acting". Maybe "Thinking,..." requires a different diagram, though I don't know what that diagram might look like.
Martin
Thanks, Martin. Will do.Â
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.0852 ET)
Martin:
Do you mean to replace only “Thinking” with “Drive” or to replace all four of the current annotations with only Drive?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
[Martin Taylor 2019.01.23.08.55]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.0852 ET)
Martin:
Do you mean to replace only "Thinking" with "Drive" or toreplace all four of the current annotations with only Drive?
Fred, I hope you don't mind, but I will try to answer in the form of
a question or two.
Question 1: Are you intending to represent PCT to your readership?
If “No”, then you could keep the original annotation without any
problem. You are just saying what the cognitive “calculate what to
to to have the desired effect” people have been saying for half a
century at least.
Q 2: If "Yes", then are you trying to represent a single control
loop, as is suggested by your inclusion of a reference input at the
top of the diagram, a chunk of the control hierarchy, or the whole
person? If “whole person”, then it is reasonable to take “Thinking,
…” as part of the output, even though it is not an aspect of
anything in the control hierarchy, since each of your annotations on
the output is done consciously.
Q 3. If your answer to Q2 is either "single control loop" or "chunk
of the control hierarchy", do you think any of “Thinking, Analyzing,
Deciding, or Planning” are on-line activities conducted in real time
by the control hierarchy? If “yes” how do you reconcile that answer
with the annotation inside the “Output Function” box, which mentions
simply a computed value of the output?
Q 4. Do you agree that "Thinking,..." are aspects of control in
imagination, or do you believe that they have immediate effects on
the perception of something int the environment?
Q 5a. If you treat "Thinking, Analyzing, etc." as control in
imagination, does your diagram encompass control in imagination? If
so, is that imagination in the output function?
Q 5b. If you do not think "Thinking,..." are control in imagination,
but are incorporated in the control hierarchy, do you accept that
much of the on-line real-time control is indeed done as the
cognitive people (and optimal control people) claim, by computing
and re-computing “what must be done now”?
Maybe that's enough to answer your question without blindly
incorporating my suggestion of “Drive” into your diagram in place of
one or all of the red annotations on the output function.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
** Distance Consulting
LLC**
“Assistance at A Distance”
From Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1014 ET)
In the annotated diagram, the controlling system is a person. I have not sorted out the hierarchy; it’s all just there. I do think that we human beings give conscious thought to some of the actions we contemplate; I know for a fact that I do. I have conversations with myself. I also have conversations with others as I try to commit to a course of action. Some things I do more or less automatically but others require thought. Those are the kinds of actions I’m trying to deal with in the annotated diagram. For now, I’m going to change “Thinking, Analyzing, Deciding and Planning” to “Decisions and Commitments.”
Thanks for trying to help, Martin.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1029 ET)
I checked B:CP to see what Bill had to say about “conscious” or “consciousness” and, based on what I read, I relabeled the annotation on the output function to read “Conscious Commitments.” My focus is on conscious, deliberate, thoughtful, purposeful actions meant or intended to produce a specified outcome. I think PCT is a big help in that regard but it’s quite possible I don’t fully or correctly understand PCT. I’ll leave it at that for now.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
[Martin Taylor 2019.01.23.11.15]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1029 ET)
I checked B:CP to see what Bill had to say about“conscious” or “consciousness” and, based on what I read, I
relabeled the annotation on the output function to read
“Conscious Commitments.” My focus is on conscious,
deliberate, thoughtful, purposeful actions meant or intended
to produce a specified outcome. I think PCT is a big help in
that regard but it’s quite possible I don’t fully or correctly
understand PCT. I’ll leave it at that for now.
I hope I understand what you want to get across. As I thought might
be possible, it is orthogonal to my suggestions.
As for your not understanding PCT correctly, Bill P. sometimes
commented that he didn’t either, so you are in good company, and, if
I may immodestly say, I include myself among those who do not
understand PCT correctly. To try to understand it better was one of
my objectives in trying to write my book, but the result has been
that the more I find out about PCT, the amount I realize that i
still don’t understand seems to grow ever greater.
So far as I know, PCT doesn't have anything to say about
consciousness that hasn’t been said by battling philosophers over
the centuries. What PCT does say is that what we do without
consciousness, and what all other living things do whether they have
consciousness or not, can be understood functionally, and might well
be mappable onto neural, biochemical, and microbial functioning.
What you want, on the other hand, as I understand it, is to improve
business operations by using the principles of PCT, whether
or not the technical details are perfectly aligned with “official
PCT”. In my view, the principles of PCT are very likely to apply to
conscious thought, with probably some minor amendments related to
the fact that what you do in imagination has no great real time
consequence in the external environment. If they didn’t, I think it
would be rather hard to put into practice any plans or decisions you
made consciously. In that context, if you think your diagram,
however amended, is going to get across the use of PCT in matters of
interest to your readership, then it’s a good diagram. Only by
trying it out on them rather than on the members of CSGnet will you
find out how right you were.
It's important work. Go to it!
Martin
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
** Distance Consulting
LLC**
“Assistance at A Distance”
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1134 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1014 ET
Hi Fred. I’ve been following the discussion about your FIT diagram. Just a quick comment below.
FN: I do think that we human beings give conscious thought to some of the actions we contemplate; I know for a fact that I do. I have conversations with myself. I also have conversations with others as I try to commit to a course of action.
EJ: I think some of the difficulty comes from the language we find ourselves using. For instance, “actions we contemplate.” I’m not sure that I contemplate actions so much as outcomes. There are certain results that I might want, and the actions are just the place to start for getting there.
EJ: That’s the piece I keep having to remind myself when PCT speaks of actions or behaviors. It’s not so much about the verb, as the outcome of the verb. It’s really “a course of results” that I contemplate and commit to. But, of course, that sounds so much more stilted than calling it “a course of action.”
All the best,
Erling
Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*
Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1207 ET)
Fascinating choice of words, Erling. Moments before I received notice of your post, I changed the annotations on the Output Function to read “Contemplating, Considering, Committing” Great minds think alike.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1208 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1207 ET)
EJ: Along the same lines with considering the Results of action… I like your term “Achievement Path.” However, I’d be inclined to call the whole loop The Achievement Path, rather than just the Feedback Function portion. For that segment, your term “Solution Path” might be better, because it may have to wind through various proximate, intermediate, and penultimate causes in the environment, to arrive at its effect on the “Target Variable.”
EJ: We sometimes forget how that small box labeled Feedback Function might include quite convoluted paths, including through other living control systems. That’s one thing the early simulations by Tom Bourbon demonstrated. I think it’s also related to what Kent McClelland is trying to demonstrate, with so many environmental stabilities that other people create, which we can then use as part of our own feedback function.
EJ: In your work of business consulting, it seems a key part is analyzing the network hidden within that Feedback Function box, so you can identify the leverage points among one’s own Accessible Variables, that might have the right rippling effects toward the Target Variable. But of course, “the right rippling effects” implies measuring or monitoring those intermediate steps, too, according to some reference standard, to see if they are leading in the right direction.
EJ: At the risk of wading into soupy CSGnet waters here, let me say a word about terminology. As others have pointed out, you show your Target Variable out in the environment, and by my reading of PCT it is only one’s perception of the target variable that gets controlled. If we hold firmly to that PCT insight, there’s a nice little pay-off. It immediately reminds us that of course each worker may have their own perception of the company’s target variable. In other words, there’s a need to try to communicate a common reference standard for the target. It is a coordinated venture, among many living control systems, subject to all the limitations of misalignment of goals and misdirected gain. Because it is that coordinated and communicative enterprise, however, I support your use of an environmental “Target Variable” term. It suits your audience.
All the best,
Erling
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1207 ET)
Fascinating choice of words, Erling. Moments before I received notice of your post, I changed the annotations on the Output Function to read “Contemplating, Considering, Committing” Great minds think alike.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1315 ET)
Everything you say is spot on, Erling.Â
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
[Rick Marken 2019-01-23_14:12:51]
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1208 EST)]
EJ:Â Along the same lines with considering the Results of action…Â I like your term "Achievement Path."Â
RM: Your point about the “achievement path” being a sequence of intended results of action is a good one. This has to be the case because unpredictable disturbances can affect the results of action at each point in sequence. So the “achievement path” is a sequences of controlled results; and these results have to be carried out in a particular sequence – or according to a particular program – so the achievement path itself is a controlled result – the result being a particular sequence or program. Of course, controlled results are controlled perceptions so an achievement path is a controlled sequence or program perception (when it is being carried out; when it is being planned it is a controlled imagination).Â
EJ: However, I’d be inclined to call the whole loop The Achievement Path, rather than just the Feedback Function portion.Â
RM: Well, it’s definitely not a feedback function because, as you note, there are controlled results to be produced at each step of the way to the “target” result. There are no controllable components in feedback paths. But it doesn’t make sense to me to call the "achievement path" the “whole loop”. Based on your insight about the intermediate steps in the path being themselves controlled results and my observation that the path itself is a controlled result, it seems to me that the most sensible thing is to view the “achievement path” as a controlled sequence (or program) perception that is achieved by controlling lower order perceptions that make up the path in the appropriate sequence (or according to the appropriate program).Â
EJ: At the risk of wading into soupy CSGnet waters here, let me say a word about terminology. As others have pointed out, you show your Target Variable out in the environment, and by my reading of PCT it is only one’s perception of the target variable that gets controlled.Â
RM: I think Fred’s “Target Variable” is analogous to the “Controlled Variable” or “Controlled Quantity” in PCT diagrams and that variable is always shown to be in the environment. And it is controlled right along with the perceptual signal. The problem with Fred’s diagram is not that the Target Variable is in the environment; the problem is that the main Target Variable is actually the “achievement path” itself.Â
Best
Rick
Â
If we hold firmly to that PCT insight, there’s a nice little pay-off.  It immediately reminds us that of course each worker may have their own perception of the company’s target variable. In other words, there’s a need to try to communicate a common reference standard for the target. It is a coordinated venture, among many living control systems, subject to all the limitations of misalignment of goals and misdirected gain. Because it is that coordinated and communicative enterprise, however, I support your use of an environmental “Target Variable” term. It suits your audience.Â
All the best,Â
Erling
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1207 ET)
Fascinating choice of words, Erling. Moments before I received notice of your post, I changed the annotations on the Output Function to read “Contemplating, Considering, Committing” Great minds think alike.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:57 AM Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org wrote:
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1134 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1014 ET
Hi Fred. I’ve been following the discussion about your FIT diagram. Just a quick comment below.
FN: I do think that we human beings give conscious thought to some of the actions we contemplate; I know for a fact that I do. I have conversations with myself. I also have conversations with others as I try to commit to a course of action.
EJ: I think some of the difficulty comes from the language we find ourselves using. For instance, “actions we contemplate.” I’m not sure that I contemplate actions so much as outcomes. There are certain results that I might want, and the actions are just the place to start for getting there.
EJ: That’s the piece I keep having to remind myself when PCT speaks of actions or behaviors. It’s not so much about the verb, as the outcome of the verb. It’s really “a course of results” that I contemplate and commit to. But, of course, that sounds so much more stilted than calling it “a course of action.”
All the best,
Erling
Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*
Please also note: * Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.*
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1806 ET)
Thanks, Rick, especially for the last paragraph.Â
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us