Using PCT as a Framework for Behavior Change

CSGnet Archive CSG2012
81

[From Chad Green (2012.07.17.1543)]

Rick, you had asked for a concrete example. Did you not see the way I responded to Bill's e-mail? The data was the pattern that I sensed in the contents of his message and its potential implications had I responded to the challenge. My response was to neutralize the emerging pattern that I saw as detrimental to relational trust (i.e., the drinking bird metaphor).

In other words, the importance of trust trumped the need to disseminate knowledge.

You had also mentioned the following: "it's the test of the model against observation -- not the model itself -- that leads to an outcome." This makes sense if, like a systems thinker, you wish to capture that which you understand within the model's boundaries. That is not how I think, however, thanks to the gyroscope metaphor. I capture that which I do not understand within the boundaries of my models, and that which I do understand on their periphery. Observation has a tendency to lead to the opposite result, no?

Perhaps this has something to do with the use of context as the structure of my models. By using context, I can see what is going on behind the scenes, in the background if you will, the basic patterns of power relations among categories of ideas.

On second thought, I wonder if these basic patterns have anything to do with Nietzsche's will to power?

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/13/2012 1:13 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.13.1015)]

Chad Green (2012.07.13.1240)--

CG: Rick, let me put it this way: The theory of everything that our
brightest minds have been trying to resolve remains elusive because the
models that have been derived to explain it simply cannot contain its
comprehensiveness. It is the metaphor of metaphors.

RM: Boy I wish you had put it another way. This way is, once again,
incomprehensible to me.

CG: My research is no different. I use models for the sole purpose of

exploring the richness of meaningful metaphors, to explore and test their
limits, to atomize them, and finally, annihilate them so that more
powerfully meaningful metaphors emerge.

RM: Maybe if you gave a nice, simple, concrete example of your research I
could understand it. Could you do that? Does your research involve the use
of data, by the way? By "data" I mean measures of variations in the
variables that a model purports to explain.

Best

Rick

···

Models serve merely to probe the metaphors because they are idols of the
mind. They all fall on their swords eventually. :slight_smile:

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

>>> Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/12/2012 1:39 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2012.07.12.1040)]

Chad Green (2012.07.12.1132)--
>
> CG: Rick, what drew me to the drinking bird metaphor was the observation
> that all my program logic models and rubrics appeared to be leading to
the
> same outcome contextually, namely, that the implicit goal of education,
and
> of institutions in general, is the pursuit of trust in one another.

RM: I don't understand how models could lead you to an outcome (did you
mean "conclusion"?). I think of models as inventions of the mind that are
created to explain what we observe. The models themselves don't lead us to
outcomes (conclusions?); it's the observations that lead to the models. If
further testing (observation) leads us to accept the model, then we
conclude that the model is a good explanation. But, ultimately, it's the
test of the model against observation -- not the model itself -- that leads
to an outcome (that the model does or doesn't work). At least that's the
way I see it.

> CG: Because this goal is valued so highly, we have created institutions
in
> a vain attempt to enforce it. However, given that these institutions are
> themselves manifestations of broken trust, they destroy the very
conditions
> that are needed to create it! In short, we are our own worst enemy.
>

RM: Looking at this from a PCT perspective I am wondering what is
"education" that it can have a "goal" (reference) for a result like
"trust". And how do you know that this is the goal of education? And is
this the only goal of education? I have used models to infer goals but it's
not the models themselves that justify the inference; it's the fit of the
models (with particular goals) to the data that is the basis for my
inference about goals. Is your inference about the goal of education based
on fitting your model(s) to data? If so, could you tell us what data you
used and how you evaluated the fit of the model to the data?

> CG: It puts a new spin on the old saying "For with much wisdom comes much
> sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief" (Ecclesiastes 1:18).
>

RM: The things that you're liable to read in the bible it ain't necessarily
so;-) The fact is that wisdom for me has been a mixed blessing, probably
biased in favor of happiness rather than sorrow. But Ecclesiastes is
definitely one of the great pieces in the Old Testament.

CG: The bottom line is that metaphors must empower the sense-making
> process. In my case, if it can handle the stress to which I submit it,
> then it survives another day. If not, it gets subsumed among the others
so
> that I can continue the journey.
>
> Perhaps a solution would entail sharing metaphors so that we can get a
> sense of each other's unique perspectives on concepts?
>

RM: Sounds good. Here's my take on metaphors: they make for great poetry
but lousy science. My "perspective" on life in general -- and human nature
in particular -- is based on models, not metaphors. PCT is a model, not a
metaphor. It's a model that, so far, has stood the test of detailed
experimental test. So I feel comfortable looking at behavior (control)--
which is what the PCT model was invented to explain -- through PCT
glasses. So how does this jibe with your metaphorical approach?

By the way, if you are so interested in metaphors why are you interested in
PCT, which is a model, not a metaphor.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

82

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.18.0945)]

Chad Green (2012.07.17.1543)–

CG: Rick, you had asked for a concrete example. Did you not see the way I responded to Bill’s e-mail? The data was the pattern that I sensed in the contents of his message and its potential implications had I responded to the challenge. My response was to neutralize the emerging pattern that I saw as detrimental to relational trust (i.e., the drinking bird metaphor).

RM: The pattern you sensed in the contents of Bill’s message is not data (actually, a datum, since there is just one) from my point of view because you are the only one who can sense it. In my world, data are observations (perceptions) that are public and preferably measurable. Public means that several independent observers can agree that the perception occurred. So measures of the voltage across the terminals of a battery are data because independent observers can agree on what the voltmeter says. If you could figure out a way to provide a public measure of the aspect of Bill’s message that you “sensed” then you would be dealing with data, from my perspective. Actually, if you could just verbally describe the aspect of Bill’s message to which you refer – and show me exactly how I could sense it also in Bill’s message – then if I was able, based on your description, to sense it as well, then I would also consider it data.

CG: In other words, the importance of trust trumped the need to disseminate knowledge.

RM: This requires a lot more explanation. I have no idea what trust had to do with the interaction. All that happened from my point of view was this: you asked for a PCT interpretation of the drinking bird. Bill said that the drinking bird is not a control system. And then you said something in reply that sounded like a complete non-sequiter. It seemed like a pretty simply interaction. PCT happens to be a theory of control. Control, as Bill noted, is not involved in the drinking bird demo. So PCT is not applicable to that phenomenon any more than it is relevant to the phenomenon of planetary motion. Newtonian physics – a causal effect model – handles both those phenomena just fine.

CG: You had also mentioned the following: “it’s the test of the model against observation – not the model itself – that leads to an outcome.” This makes sense if, like a systems thinker, you wish to capture that which you understand within the model’s boundaries. That is not how I think, however, thanks to the gyroscope metaphor. I capture that which I do not understand within the boundaries of my models, and that which I do understand on their periphery. Observation has a tendency to lead to the opposite result, no?

I think you and I are working in completely different realities. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about; it just sounds like high falutin’ gibberish to me. It just makes me wonder why in the world you have any interest in PCT. Have you read B:CP or anything else relevant to PCT? Have you done the demos? No offense, but from what you write it seems to me that you have little or no understanding of PCT. You don’t seem to know what control is (given your request for a PCT explanation of the drinking bird); you don’t seem to know how to identify control when it’s happening right in front of you (this is based on your agreement with Boris H. that behavior cannot be controlled; yes, behavioral variables can indeed be controlled and readily confirmed examples of this kind of control are happening all around you all the time); you don’t seem to know how PCT applies to the controlling done by living systems (again based on your agreement with Boris about people not being able to control the behavior of other people).

So why in the world are you on this discussion list?

Best

Rick

···

Perhaps this has something to do with the use of context as the structure of my models. By using context, I can see what is going on behind the scenes, in the background if you will, the basic patterns of power relations among categories of ideas.

On second thought, I wonder if these basic patterns have anything to do with Nietzsche’s will to power?

Best,

Chad

Chad Green, PMP

Program Analyst

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1633

“If you want sense, you’ll have to make it yourself.” - Norton Juster

Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM 7/13/2012 1:13 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2012.07.13.1015)]

Chad Green (2012.07.13.1240)–

CG: Rick, let me put it this way: The theory of everything that our

brightest minds have been trying to resolve remains elusive because the

models that have been derived to explain it simply cannot contain its

comprehensiveness. It is the metaphor of metaphors.

RM: Boy I wish you had put it another way. This way is, once again,

incomprehensible to me.

CG: My research is no different. I use models for the sole purpose of

exploring the richness of meaningful metaphors, to explore and test their

limits, to atomize them, and finally, annihilate them so that more

powerfully meaningful metaphors emerge.

RM: Maybe if you gave a nice, simple, concrete example of your research I

could understand it. Could you do that? Does your research involve the use

of data, by the way? By “data” I mean measures of variations in the

variables that a model purports to explain.

Best

Rick

Models serve merely to probe the metaphors because they are idols of the

mind. They all fall on their swords eventually. :slight_smile:

Best,

Chad

Chad Green, PMP

Program Analyst

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1633

“If you want sense, you’ll have to make it yourself.” - Norton Juster

Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM 7/12/2012 1:39 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.12.1040)]

Chad Green (2012.07.12.1132)–

CG: Rick, what drew me to the drinking bird metaphor was the observation

that all my program logic models and rubrics appeared to be leading to

the

same outcome contextually, namely, that the implicit goal of education,

and

of institutions in general, is the pursuit of trust in one another.

RM: I don’t understand how models could lead you to an outcome (did you

mean “conclusion”?). I think of models as inventions of the mind that are

created to explain what we observe. The models themselves don’t lead us to

outcomes (conclusions?); it’s the observations that lead to the models. If

further testing (observation) leads us to accept the model, then we

conclude that the model is a good explanation. But, ultimately, it’s the

test of the model against observation – not the model itself – that leads

to an outcome (that the model does or doesn’t work). At least that’s the

way I see it.

CG: Because this goal is valued so highly, we have created institutions

in

a vain attempt to enforce it. However, given that these institutions are

themselves manifestations of broken trust, they destroy the very

conditions

that are needed to create it! In short, we are our own worst enemy.

RM: Looking at this from a PCT perspective I am wondering what is

“education” that it can have a “goal” (reference) for a result like

“trust”. And how do you know that this is the goal of education? And is

this the only goal of education? I have used models to infer goals but it’s

not the models themselves that justify the inference; it’s the fit of the

models (with particular goals) to the data that is the basis for my

inference about goals. Is your inference about the goal of education based

on fitting your model(s) to data? If so, could you tell us what data you

used and how you evaluated the fit of the model to the data?

CG: It puts a new spin on the old saying "For with much wisdom comes much

sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief" (Ecclesiastes 1:18).

RM: The things that you’re liable to read in the bible it ain’t necessarily

so;-) The fact is that wisdom for me has been a mixed blessing, probably

biased in favor of happiness rather than sorrow. But Ecclesiastes is

definitely one of the great pieces in the Old Testament.

CG: The bottom line is that metaphors must empower the sense-making

process. In my case, if it can handle the stress to which I submit it,

then it survives another day. If not, it gets subsumed among the others

so

that I can continue the journey.

Perhaps a solution would entail sharing metaphors so that we can get a

sense of each other’s unique perspectives on concepts?

RM: Sounds good. Here’s my take on metaphors: they make for great poetry

but lousy science. My “perspective” on life in general – and human nature

in particular – is based on models, not metaphors. PCT is a model, not a

metaphor. It’s a model that, so far, has stood the test of detailed

experimental test. So I feel comfortable looking at behavior (control)–

which is what the PCT model was invented to explain – through PCT

glasses. So how does this jibe with your metaphorical approach?

By the way, if you are so interested in metaphors why are you interested in

PCT, which is a model, not a metaphor.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

83

[From Chad Green (2012.07.18.1414)]

Let's work backward from your e-mail.

RM: So why in the world are you on this discussion list?

I wish to seek the answer to this question: What is the ultimate purpose of PCT? What are its assumptions about situations like this one?

Note that I am not seeking your individual perspective on PCT. I want to surface the hidden assumptions and inherent contradictions in the model itself.

What fundamental problem was it intended to resolve originally?

After this is known, I will address your other questions.

Thanks,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/18/2012 12:46 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.18.0945)]

Chad Green (2012.07.17.1543)--

CG: Rick, you had asked for a concrete example. Did you not see the way I
responded to Bill's e-mail? The data was the pattern that I sensed in the
contents of his message and its potential implications had I responded to
the challenge. My response was to neutralize the emerging pattern that I
saw as detrimental to relational trust (i.e., the drinking bird metaphor).

RM: The pattern you sensed in the contents of Bill's message is not data
(actually, a datum, since there is just one) from my point of view because
you are the only one who can sense it. In my world, data are observations
(perceptions) that are public and preferably measurable. Public means that
several independent observers can agree that the perception occurred. So
measures of the voltage across the terminals of a battery are data because
independent observers can agree on what the voltmeter says. If you could
figure out a way to provide a public measure of the aspect of Bill's
message that you "sensed" then you would be dealing with data, from my
perspective. Actually, if you could just verbally describe the aspect of
Bill's message to which you refer -- and show me exactly how I could sense
it also in Bill's message -- then if I was able, based on your description,
to sense it as well, then I would also consider it data.

CG: In other words, the importance of trust trumped the need to
disseminate knowledge.

RM: This requires a lot more explanation. I have no idea what trust had to
do with the interaction. All that happened from my point of view was this:
you asked for a PCT interpretation of the drinking bird. Bill said that the
drinking bird is not a control system. And then you said something in reply
that sounded like a complete non-sequiter. It seemed like a pretty simply
interaction. PCT happens to be a theory of _control_. Control, as Bill
noted, is not involved in the drinking bird demo. So PCT is not applicable
to that phenomenon any more than it is relevant to the phenomenon of
planetary motion. Newtonian physics -- a causal effect model -- handles
both those phenomena just fine.

CG: You had also mentioned the following: "it's the test of the model
against observation -- not the model itself -- that leads to an outcome."
This makes sense if, like a systems thinker, you wish to capture that
which you understand within the model's boundaries. That is not how I
think, however, thanks to the gyroscope metaphor. I capture that which I
do not understand within the boundaries of my models, and that which I do
understand on their periphery. Observation has a tendency to lead to the
opposite result, no?

I think you and I are working in completely different realities. I have
absolutely no idea what you are talking about; it just sounds like high
falutin' gibberish to me. It just makes me wonder why in the world you have
any interest in PCT. Have you read B:CP or anything else relevant to PCT?
Have you done the demos? No offense, but from what you write it seems to me
that you have little or no understanding of PCT. You don't seem to know
what control is (given your request for a PCT explanation of the drinking
bird); you don't seem to know how to identify control when it's happening
right in front of you (this is based on your agreement with Boris H. that
behavior cannot be controlled; yes, behavioral variables can indeed be
controlled and readily confirmed examples of this kind of control are
happening all around you all the time); you don't seem to know how PCT
applies to the controlling done by living systems (again based on your
agreement with Boris about people not being able to control the behavior of
other people).

So why in the world are you on this discussion list?

Best

Rick

···

Perhaps this has something to do with the use of context as the structure
of my models. By using context, I can see what is going on behind the
scenes, in the background if you will, the basic patterns of power
relations among categories of ideas.

On second thought, I wonder if these basic patterns have anything to do
with Nietzsche's will to power?

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

>>> Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/13/2012 1:13 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2012.07.13.1015)]

Chad Green (2012.07.13.1240)--
>
> CG: Rick, let me put it this way: The theory of everything that our
> brightest minds have been trying to resolve remains elusive because the
> models that have been derived to explain it simply cannot contain its
> comprehensiveness. It is the metaphor of metaphors.
>

RM: Boy I wish you had put it another way. This way is, once again,
incomprehensible to me.

CG: My research is no different. I use models for the sole purpose of
> exploring the richness of meaningful metaphors, to explore and test their
> limits, to atomize them, and finally, annihilate them so that more
> powerfully meaningful metaphors emerge.
>

RM: Maybe if you gave a nice, simple, concrete example of your research I
could understand it. Could you do that? Does your research involve the use
of data, by the way? By "data" I mean measures of variations in the
variables that a model purports to explain.

Best

Rick

>
> Models serve merely to probe the metaphors because they are idols of the
> mind. They all fall on their swords eventually. :slight_smile:
>
> Best,
> Chad
>
> Chad Green, PMP
> Program Analyst
> Loudoun County Public Schools
> 21000 Education Court
> Ashburn, VA 20148
> Voice: 571-252-1486
> Fax: 571-252-1633
>
> "If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster
>
>
> >>> Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/12/2012 1:39 PM >>>
> [From Rick Marken (2012.07.12.1040)]
>
> Chad Green (2012.07.12.1132)--
> >
> > CG: Rick, what drew me to the drinking bird metaphor was the
observation
> > that all my program logic models and rubrics appeared to be leading to
> the
> > same outcome contextually, namely, that the implicit goal of education,
> and
> > of institutions in general, is the pursuit of trust in one another.
>
>
> RM: I don't understand how models could lead you to an outcome (did you
> mean "conclusion"?). I think of models as inventions of the mind that are
> created to explain what we observe. The models themselves don't lead us
to
> outcomes (conclusions?); it's the observations that lead to the models.
If
> further testing (observation) leads us to accept the model, then we
> conclude that the model is a good explanation. But, ultimately, it's the
> test of the model against observation -- not the model itself -- that
leads
> to an outcome (that the model does or doesn't work). At least that's the
> way I see it.
>
>
> > CG: Because this goal is valued so highly, we have created institutions
> in
> > a vain attempt to enforce it. However, given that these institutions
are
> > themselves manifestations of broken trust, they destroy the very
> conditions
> > that are needed to create it! In short, we are our own worst enemy.
> >
>
> RM: Looking at this from a PCT perspective I am wondering what is
> "education" that it can have a "goal" (reference) for a result like
> "trust". And how do you know that this is the goal of education? And is
> this the only goal of education? I have used models to infer goals but
it's
> not the models themselves that justify the inference; it's the fit of the
> models (with particular goals) to the data that is the basis for my
> inference about goals. Is your inference about the goal of education
based
> on fitting your model(s) to data? If so, could you tell us what data you
> used and how you evaluated the fit of the model to the data?
>
>
> > CG: It puts a new spin on the old saying "For with much wisdom comes
much
> > sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief" (Ecclesiastes 1:18).
> >
>
> RM: The things that you're liable to read in the bible it ain't
necessarily
> so;-) The fact is that wisdom for me has been a mixed blessing, probably
> biased in favor of happiness rather than sorrow. But Ecclesiastes is
> definitely one of the great pieces in the Old Testament.
>
> CG: The bottom line is that metaphors must empower the sense-making
> > process. In my case, if it can handle the stress to which I submit it,
> > then it survives another day. If not, it gets subsumed among the
others
> so
> > that I can continue the journey.
> >
> > Perhaps a solution would entail sharing metaphors so that we can get a
> > sense of each other's unique perspectives on concepts?
> >
>
> RM: Sounds good. Here's my take on metaphors: they make for great poetry
> but lousy science. My "perspective" on life in general -- and human
nature
> in particular -- is based on models, not metaphors. PCT is a model, not
a
> metaphor. It's a model that, so far, has stood the test of detailed
> experimental test. So I feel comfortable looking at behavior (control)--
> which is what the PCT model was invented to explain -- through PCT
> glasses. So how does this jibe with your metaphorical approach?
>
> By the way, if you are so interested in metaphors why are you interested
in
> PCT, which is a model, not a metaphor.
>
> Best
>
> Rick
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> rsmarken@gmail.com
> www.mindreadings.com
>

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

84

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.18.1630)]

Chad Green (2012.07.18.1414)–

CG: Let’s work backward from your e-mail.

RM: So why in the world are you on this discussion list?

CG: I wish to seek the answer to this question: What is the ultimate purpose of PCT? What are its assumptions about situations like this one?

Note that I am not seeking your individual perspective on PCT. I want to surface the hidden assumptions and inherent contradictions in the model itself.

What fundamental problem was it intended to resolve originally?

After this is known, I will address your other questions.

RM: The ultimate purpose of PCT is to explain the controlling done by living organisms. Its assumptions are described in B:CP. It would take me too long to describe them. But the most important general assumption is that the nervous system is organized as a control system that acts to control perceptual representations of various aspects of the environment. I don’t know what you mean by “situations like this one” but PCT makes the same assumptions about all situations: the assumptions of the PCT model, which you can learn about by reading the many nice descriptions of the model that are out there, particularly, of course, the description in Powers’ Behavior: The control of perception. control system like the one in Figure 5.2, p. 61 of B:CP (second edition).

Now how about you answering my questions? Particularly, why are you here (on CSGNet).

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

85

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.18.22.18]

[From Chad Green (2012.07.18.1414)]

RM: So why in the world are you on this discussion list?

I wish to seek the answer to this question: What is the ultimate purpose of PCT? What are its assumptions about situations like this one?

I've read Rick's answer to this, and I find my take on it is a bit different.

1. "PCT" has no purpose. It is an instrument, which has as much purpose as a pair of pliers or a piano. If an instrument is used, it is because the user of the instrument has a purpose, not because the instrument has a purpose. The builder of an instrument had a purpose in building it, but the builder's purpose is not the purpose of the instrument.

2. Bill Powers had a purpose when he developed PCT. If the assumptions of the theory he developed are approximately correct, we can hypothesise his purpose in doing so, but, according to PCT, even Bill could not provably assert what that purpose (or purposes) might have been. So let us hypothesise.

3. Hypothetically, Bill wanted to be able to understand why people do what they do, and was unable to accept that what he was taught in psychology provided that understanding. At the same time, Bill did understand how mechanical control systems operated, and had the insight that a control system was something that acted to bring some representation of an state outside the control system to a value specified in some manner. As many people, going as far back at least as Aristotle, have pointed out that people act to bring the world closer to what they think it should be like, it was natural to think of people as not only acting like, but as actually _being_ control systems -- systems that act to influence external states so as to bring internal representations he called "perceptions" of those external states towards reference values, and to maintain them there regardless of other influences on those external states.

4. Continuing hypothetically, for Bill the "ultimate purpose of PCT" was and is to allow him to understand why people do what they do. You like metaphor, so I will provide one. PCT is a bridge that allows someone on one side of a big river to cross from the side labelled "misunderstanding of people" to the other side, labelled "potential understanding of people". Initially this bridge consisted of a long, somewhat unstable, log, but over the years its structure has been improved into a substantial trestle bridge capable of carrying fairly heavy traffic.

5. So far as I am aware of my purposes, the "ultimate purpose of PCT" for me is as I hypothesise it was for Bill, to allow me to understand why people do what they do more accurately than I would be able to do without using PCT. Bill has been creating the strong trestle structure, whereas I simply cross the bridge and from time to time attempt to add to the structure to enable it to carry heavier traffic. Some of my additions may stick, whereas others fall off and are lost in the river below.

···

---------

As for "What are its assumptions about situations like this one", I think you have to refer to the specialized version of PCT called "Layered Protocol Theory" that I developed independently of PCT in the 1980s, but which I later found to be just an example of PCT. Simply put, in a conversation, each party has reference values for what they want to perceive about the other party, and act to bring what they actually perceive about the other party toward those reference values. I use the plural "reference values" because there are many levels of complexity involved, from the understanding of individual words to the understanding of complex concepts such as PCT. One reason I entered this part of the thread is that your question disturbed a reference value that I want to perceive you as understanding PCT to such a degree that you would not have to ask such questions.

The "assumptions about situations like this one" include that you are honest in asking your questions, and are not just trolling, that you are intellectually capable of understanding the nature of hierarchic control, and of understanding why it is a sensible approach to studying why people do what they do. Further assumptions include that you are not good at communicating what is in your head, but that you do wish to communicate.

When assumptions (initial perceptions) do not conform to the state of the real world that we presume to exist, control actions fail to have the desired effect. In "situations like this one", a potentially wrong assumption is that you do honestly want to communicate your thought, and want to understand the answers to the questions you posed. If those assumptions (perceptions of your state) are wrong, then our attempts at communication will be unlikely to have the effect we desire, while yours may be having exactly the effect you desire.

Martin

86

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.18.2010)]

I see I accidentally deleted some text from my previous post. What I meant to say was:

The basic assumptions of PCT are embodied in a functional diagram of the PCT model like the one in Figure 5.2, p. 61 of B:CP (second edition).

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

87

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.21.1258)]

Martin Taylor (2012.07.18.22.18)--

CG: I wish to seek the answer to this question: What is the ultimate purpose
of PCT? What are its assumptions about situations like this one?

MT: I've read Rick's answer to this, and I find my take on it is a bit
different.

RM: You make some good points. Since Chad seems to be taking his time
about responding I'll just respond to one of your takes. You say:

MT: 1. "PCT" has no purpose.

RM: Of course. I assumed that Chad was referring to the purpose of
the developer of PCT as you do here:

MT: 2. Bill Powers had a purpose when he developed PCT.

I basically agree with the rest of your post. So let's wait and see
what Chad has to say.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com