[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
HM: Now I think
this is enough, Rick. You are to quick in decissions, as I have feeling
that your tongue is running in front of your “thinking”
(controlling on higher level). It’s obviuos to me, that you are
controlling your tongue with lower levels. But that doesn’t make an
excuse for your insulting behavior, even if you were maybe misguided by
some Bill’s thoughts.
BP: If you want Rick to stop insulting you, wouldn’t it be wise to stop
insulting him?
HB : Is this again
festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet. It happened quite some time. Does
it mean that “We control
others’ behavior and they control ours all the time…”
, that with “stimuli” that arise from our
action and “influence” other people state (as something
objective in environment), we perceive and think that other person are
behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go like this : you see
your “stimuli” and you see “other persons behavior”
that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka, we are
controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where is
here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any
“stimuli” (perceptual input) from physical or social
environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time ? What’s the
difference between the perceptual input that is produced by physical and
social environment ?
I think you may have missed some discussions of this
interpretation. Of course PCT does not support the
idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social
environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.” It is
certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable
relationships is that some environmental events simply “cause”
the behavior that follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called
“begging the question” or “petitio principii” (see
Google). The PCT view is that when we see apparent examples of
stimuli causing responses, what is really happening is that certain
environmental variables disturb a variable that a person is controlling,
and the so-called response is the person’s action that opposes the effect
of the disturbance. That sort of thing happens, as Rick says, all the
time. Most of a person’s actions, we might say, would be unnecessary if
there were no disturbances causing errors in controlled variables. When
you drive a car from home to work, the only times you would turn the
steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto another or
into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it steady,
and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that
is not how the real world works.
It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a person’s behavior
if you know that the person is controlling some particular variable. All
you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which of
several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict
that whatever behavior does occur, it will have an effect equal and
opposite to the effect of the disturbance you apply. If there happens to
be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can predict quite
reliably the behavior that will take place. You can then control whether
or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the
disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance
when your goal is for that behavior not to occur).
A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if unopposed, can alter
the state of a controlled variable independently of the control system’s
own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything that can
disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as
saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it –
you are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or
suspicion, showing that just saying “hello” to a stranger can
disturb variables that person is controlling, so the person feels it
necessary to produce some behavior such as saying “Well, hello to
you, too” before walking on. That looks like a stimulus-response
event, but PCT says that is not what is happening.
Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all day long in which
there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why many
intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a
simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they
simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been
wrong, but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not
occur. They do occur, and are everywhere. These S-R theorists
observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly; they
simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.
The reason that you can control other people’s behavior is not that you
can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way. It is that
once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find a
disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict
successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your
disturbance from having any continuing effect on the controlled variable.
Walk up to a policeman and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in
the nose. You can predict with some confidence that he will subdue you
and put you under arrest. In the 1960s, protesters in Chicago made
policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in front of television cameras.
This is how they did it.
I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of this kind. I
recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both Rick’s
and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite
frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of
a disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple
disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in
three seconds without causing any problem at all.
Best,
Bill P.
···
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
RM : It’s also probably the reason why people want to think that they
aren’t controlling people’s behavior when they are controlling people’s
behavior.They don’t want to think that they are like the people who are
trying to control them. So PCT provides a nice out; we control only
perceptions so even when I’m controlling people I’m just controlling my
perception of people. So all those people who are being forced into
cattle cars at gunpoint by Nazis are just perceptions.HB : Yes all there is, is perception. “Even when you
are controlling people, you are just controlling your perception of
people”. What else by your oppinion you are doing ? But you can
conclude, that you are controlling something outside, and you will never
know excatly what. But you can make better or worse guess. Science is
talking about more or less porbabibility. But I have never seen results
in science that are 100 % probable. If you are in desert and you see in
“phatamorgana” - fasle perception “lake and water”
and you come near and there is suddenly no perception of “lake and
water” anymore, what is really outside ? So once perception are
showing something and later perception are showing something else
(unexpected) on the same place in “Real relaity”. What is your
“objective” variable ? You can rely only on your senses, what
is outside. There’s no other “objective” meassure to say what
is outside.How do you know about Nazis and what was happening in that
time ? From perception of perception of perception of other people ? Or
you were there in 1942 and you were “directly looking” in Nazis
with what ? Microscope ? Telescope ? Something-scope ?And all that people being “forced into cattle”, according to
“perceptual” sources, didn’t behave in the same way. Some
resist and bravely die, some “reorganized” and survived. Some
were even not caught by Nazis and were hiding. Look in the history of
2.World War and you will see, percept (as that is all you can do)
different pallete of behaviors, which people invented in that
life-situation to survive. They all chose their different behaviors, when
their control of their perception was disturbed “and their behavior
wouldn’t have occured in that particular way if Nazis actions haven’t had
effective engridient”. But that doesn’t mean that Nazis were
controlling their behavior. People did control their behavior on the
bases of disturbances to their control and decided whatever they did. I
know something about Nazis in 2.World War, mostly from my fathers and
grandfathers talking (perception). And from whom you know it ? Because
that is the “objective truth” ?RM : This view of control of human
behavior is so creepy to me that it is another reason why I would like to
consider abandoning the PCT label and just call it CT. Or, keep the PCT
but make sure people understand that the P stands for
Powers.HB : My feeling is, that only “creepy” here is you. And yes,
maybe you could really consider abandoning PCT, as you’ll probably never
really understand it.I “saw” you quite some time insulting people who
have different view here on CSGnet. If somebody here on CSGnet have
“chauvinistic” views, than maybe you could seriously consider
option that you are “the one”. Think about your control of
perception of some people which you insulted…If any PCT view can be considered as CT, than there is no
doubt for me. You are CT (behaviorist, your command - other people
behave, input - output, cause - effect). I think that you don’t really
understand PCT enough to judge who understand it and who doesn’t. So I
told you to do homework to understand PCT, but you didn’t do it. So go
again and study PCT with the “model of PCT” on the picture on
p.191, B:CP, 2005 (that’s just my proposal). If you and Bill will agree
that REFERENCE SIGNAL can be produced from organism’s environment -
physcal or social - which for now is comming from anywhere or nowhere
(inside the organism) on 11th level, than I’ll consider option of
abandoning PCT, because it could mean that there is 12th level of control
(maybe social organism) which is providing the reference for 11th level
and so on down the hierarchy. Than I’ll beleive that people can
“control” other people, or in other words control systems can
be “controlled” from outside (environment), where references
for organisms control is suplied. That will also mean for me, that there
is no PCT, it’s only CT. But I think you’ll hardly convince Bill, that
there is 12th level, or that the reference is produced outside
organisms…As that could mean that the organism is not the only one who
can control it’s internal stability, or better it’s almost constant
internal environment (homeostasis). That could mean also that something
else in environment can “set” references on 11th level beside
the organism. That could really mean a revolution in PCT thinking as fa
as I understand it. It can be a possibility. We mustn’t exclude that
maybe I understood something wrong what you wrote. It’s possible, but I
can’t tell it in scientific language what is the value of probablility
that I was wrong. Maybe you can calculate for me ?If I’m to beleive PCT, people always control just
“perceptual disturbance” to each other control. So I beleive
that they can’t control other people, because every organism is already
controlling itself until control units are working properly. If they work
properly they will control. If they dont control properly, the organism
dies. Environment, other people can reduce their control, can be helpfull
to organisms control, can even destroy the control, but can not overtake
the control in organism and control behavior of other people. Behavior in
PCT as I see it (diagram) is controlled from inside not outside, as any
other effector in organism like glands, nerv ends… . Other people can’t
overtake the control, because references are genetically set (even if you
make modification to genetics, genes will still exhibit changed control).But somehow is becomming obvious to me, that you will maybe hardly
decline the idea that you can and must “control” other people
here on CSGnet, intruding them with your own point of view as the only
right.You are quite brave to “blindly” rely on theory
which has so many holes in the “model”, which is guessing where
the reference signal on the highest level (probably the most important
part of PCT) is coming from. And insult views, which are maybe right. I
told you to read, read and read…and think, with upper head.And if you don’t mind telling me, whom did you manage to control in your
whole life, who he or she was doing always, whatever you wanted or will
do whatever and anytime you want ? Observe more carefully and you’ll see
that people have their own control as primary goal. Oberve yourself. She
or he will be doing whatever is wanted mostly because of their own
control not others. Maybe you are trapped in “behavioral
illusion”. The most you can probably do to “control”
others people behavior is to “contribute” to people’s control
as much as perceptual signal can “contribute” to control in
comparator. But as far I see (percept) PCT, it says that there are
disturbances to perceptual control, not “overtaking” the
control. But maybe we misunderstood in terms of control.Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken
To:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Using PCT as a Framework for Behavior
Change[From Rick Marken (2012.07.05.1500)]
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Bill Powers > powers_w@frontier.net > wrote:
Hello, Rick and Boris –BP: To say that we control perceptions is, of course, correct in
terms of PCT, but it does not mean that we don’t control something in the
outside world that these perceptions represent. It just means that we
can’t know directly what is being controlled in the world
outside.RM: Of course it means that. But I think the reason we call PCT
Perceptual control theory rather than just control theory is to
emphasize the fact that control systems control perceptual
representations of variables in the environment. That is, to emphasize
the fact that control systems control perceptual inputs, not behavioral
outputs. But I think we also call it PCT to emphasize the fact that one
of the main goals of a science based on control theory is to discover the
perceptual input variables that are being controlled in any observed
instance of behavior.By emphasizing control of perception we are implying that there are
many different ways the same environmental variables can be perceived. So
we have to use some version of the test for the controlled variable to
try to get at what these perceptual variables are; what are the
perceptual aspect(s) of the environment that are under control in any
particular behavioral situation. Unfortunately (as you note below)
control of perception could imply that we control only perceptions –
that there is no external reality – so PCT often ends up being
attractive to the solipsists and their modern cohort, the post-modernists
who really have no particular interest in science. Indeed, they seem to
be rather anti-science. It’s enough to want to make one want to go back
to calling PCT just CT.BP: Now, is it possible to control other people’s behavior? In
many cases, certainly. I can very often act on my world in such a way as
to experience another person doing something I wanted that person to
do.RM: I don’t know why this gets some people so upset. We control
others’ behavior and they control ours all the time and it is almost
always by agreement and it is almost always to produce a collective
result that could not be produced alone. Think orchestra or computer
production company. Agreed on mutual control is called cooperation and
it’s kind of the basis of human civilization. The problem is not that
people can (and do) control other people’s behavior. The problem is that
sometimes this is done without mutual agreement (as in
dictatorships) – that is, it is done arbitrarily, without respect for
the needs and wants of the person/people being controlled. When mutual
control is agreed on then the controlling is done respectfully and
doesn’t create too many problems. But problems are always possible, even
when the mutual control is consensual, and PCT helps us understand why
this is the case and how to minimize the problems that arise even with
consensual mutual control.BP: We must ask, however, whether it is possible to control other
people’s behavior without showing knowledge of and respect for their own
goals. If we try to make another person behave in a way that causes
errors inside that person, our efforts will be resisted, perhaps
violently. Since an understanding of control systems is not widespread,
this sort of result probably happens quite often. This result probably
accounts for the fierceness with which some people refuse to admit that
they can be controlled by other people in any way at all.RM: Yes, I agree. It’s also probably the reason why people want to
think that they aren’t controlling people’s behavior when they are
controlling people’s behavior. They don’t want to think that they are
like the people who are trying to control them. So PCT provides a nice
out; we control only perceptions so even when I’m controlling people I’m
just controlling my perception of people. So all those people who are
being forced into cattle cars at gunpoint by Nazis are just perceptions.
This view of control of human behavior is so creepy to me that it is
another reason why I would like to consider abandoning the PCT label and
just call it CT. Or, keep the PCT but make sure people understand that
the P stands for Powers.Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
