Understanding the control of behavior: Why it matters

CSGnet Archive CSG2014
1

[David Goldstein (2014.11.24.0939)]

I reread page 243-245 (“The Parable of the Rubber Bands”) as Rick suggested.

Bill says: S now determines to keep the know stationary over some inconspicuous mark on the table.

S is agreeing to participate and do the task. As long as this continues, it may seem that E can control

S’s behavior. Isn’t this what Bill called the behavioral illusion? Wasn’t the whole point that S doesn’t

care about his/her behavior in this task. S only cares about doing the task.

In every work situation, doesn’t the control of the supervisor over the employee depend on the employee’s

willingness to do the task. If the supervisor asks the employee to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical,

the employee may decide to refuse, speak to a higher level superviso
r, call out sick, or quit the job.

One person can only request/ask another person to work on something. The other person can agree or not.

If the other person agrees, and works on the something, are we controlling his/her behavior? The other person

is controlling his/her behavior because he/she wants to, gets something for doing so.

Can one person stop another person from breathing without doing something which would kill the person?

The other person may agree to do so for a brief period of time. However, there comes a point at which

the cooperation stops. The inborn, homeostatic control systems force the person to breathe.

David

2

[Kent McClelland (2014.11.24.0920)]

Rick Marken (2014.11.24.1640)

Rick says:

RM: In the rubber band demo described on p. 245 of B:CP, how would you describe what E is doing when he places S’s finger on the target coin? I suggest that you do this yourself (with a friend or lover) in the role of both S and E. You
could make it somewhat more interesting by having S’s finger trace the outline of a picture on the table rather than just putting the finger on a target coin. What would you say that you are doing when you are E? What is you partner doing when he or she is
on the role of E? If you don’t see that E is controlling S’s finger movements and that Ss finger movements are S’s behavior then there is really no hope.

KM: Imagine this variation of the rubber band experiment:

KM: E and S follow the directions above. A lighted candle is placed in the path that S is tracing so as to be directly under S’s finger at some point. What happens next? What are the relevant behaviors of E and S? Who is controlling these behaviors?

Best,

Kent

···

On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:02 AM, D GOLDSTEIN wrote:

[David Goldstein (2014.11.24.0939)]

I reread page 243-245 (“The Parable of the Rubber Bands”) as Rick suggested.

Bill says: S now determines to keep the know stationary over some inconspicuous mark on the table.

S is agreeing to participate and do the task. As long as this continues, it may seem that E can control

S’s behavior. Isn’t this what Bill called the behavioral illusion? Wasn’t the whole point that S doesn’t

care about his/her behavior in this task. S only cares about doing the task.

In every work situation, doesn’t the control of the supervisor over the employee depend on the employee’s

willingness to do the task. If the supervisor asks the employee to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical,

the employee may decide to refuse, speak to a higher level superviso r, call out sick, or quit the job.

One person can only request/ask another person to work on something. The other person can agree or not.

If the other person agrees, and works on the something, are we controlling his/her behavior? The other person

is controlling his/her behavior because he/she wants to, gets something for doing so.

Can one person stop another person from breathing without doing something which would kill the person?

The other person may agree to do so for a brief period of time. However, there comes a point at which

the cooperation stops. The inborn, homeostatic control systems force the person to breathe.

David

3

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.25.1125)]

···

David Goldstein (2014.11.24.0939)–

I reread page 243-245 (“The Parable of the Rubber Bands”) as Rick suggested.

Bill says: S now determines to keep the know stationary over some inconspicuous mark on the table.

S is agreeing to participate and do the task. As long as this continues, it may seem that E can control

RM: Not quite. As long as S controls for keeping the knot over the coin, E can control (not “seem” to control; actually control) S’s finger (S’s behavior). But as Bill notes E can control S’s behavior as long as it doesn’t end up “inconveniencing” S, like by running S’s finger up against a hot soldering iron,

DG: S’s behavior. Isn’t this what Bill called the behavioral illusion? Wasn’t the whole point that S doesn’t

RM: No, the behavioral illusion is that E’s pulls on the rubber band are causing S’s finger movements. According to PCT, E’s pulls are a disturbance to the variable S is controlling and S’s finger movements are the actions that compensate for that disturbance. The illusion of causality is easily exposed when S stops controlling for controlling the position of the knot; E’s pulls on the rubber band then no longer “cause” S’s finger movements.

Best

Rick

In every work situation, doesn’t the control of the supervisor over the employee depend on the employee’s

willingness to do the task. If the supervisor asks the employee to do something illegal, immoral, or unethical,

the employee may decide to refuse, speak to a higher level superviso
r, call out sick, or quit the job.

One person can only request/ask another person to work on something. The other person can agree or not.

If the other person agrees, and works on the something, are we controlling his/her behavior? The other person

is controlling his/her behavior because he/she wants to, gets something for doing so.

Can one person stop another person from breathing without doing something which would kill the person?

The other person may agree to do so for a brief period of time. However, there comes a point at which

the cooperation stops. The inborn, homeostatic control systems force the person to breathe.

David

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble