volition and implementation intentions

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention –“ ‘I want to achieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
 It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCTÂ is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

Hi John,

Thanks for putting the implementation intention (imp) work out there to CSG!

I have a few points regarding this as it is a literature I am well versed with. I had email discussions with Gollwitzer a few years ago about PCT but at that time his head seemed to be in the sand. Nonetheless I see no reason not for other people to raise PCT with him. He may eventually see the importance!

I think the first thing to note about imp theory is that it is, like most theories in psychology, a theory of quite a circumscribed process. It is not a unified theory like PCT. So there is scope for Imps being explained within PCT of an Imp researcher would be interested! Related to this point, Bill (e.g. The 1979 ‘cybernetic’ chapter in LCS 1) was well aware that other people’s theories could ‘slot’ into his own. More specifically in relation to this point, the program level in PCT is explicitly formed from If…then branching hierachies that specify the conditions for perceptions to be generated (via envt) by lower levels. At the time he likened this to the TOTE model, but it sounds like Imps are also at this level. Imp theory of course has no architecture for what exists at the ‘top sown’ ‘why’ level or what exists at the lower levels like motor control processes. PCT does.

More specifically though the idea that a person can delegate future ‘control’ to the conditional presence of a perceptual cue in their environment is not inconsistent with PCT and in fact squares the circle of debate between some sets of findings for ‘triggers’ that seem to occur in the environment. However these are not disturbances. These are self-selected feedback functions. We talk a lot of how PCT recoded the envt as disturbances to control. But this omits at least two other important components: the feedback functions and the input quantities. A full analyses of psychology research using PCT needs to decide using at least three different roles for what psychologists unhelpfully call a stimulus.

Vyv and I (ccd) are working on a paper on this topic so any suggestions welcome. Firstly we need to include Imps in the paper!

all the best,

Warren

···

On 11 Oct 2015, at 09:23, John Caines johncaines@gmail.com wrote:

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want to achieve an outcomee’ – the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.0725)]

I read your piece and what I got out of it is that the “if-then� or being specific about when and where is simply a way of making it feasible to compare perceptions with reference conditions and determine if an error requiring action exists.

Fred Nickols

···

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: volition and implementation intentions

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want to achiieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.1114)]

It occurs to me that I should probably say more about what I meant.

Let’s start with this question: When is a “reference condition� a real reference condition as opposed to something that is simply articulated or inferred? I think the answer is that it is when the reference signal actually serves as a benchmark against which perceptions are compared and, if an unacceptable difference exists, action is forthcoming. In other words, an articulated goal, no matter how specifically it is stated, isn’t really a reference condition unless and until it plays an active role in the control loop.

Next question: How do we make uttered or articulated goals real reference conditions? There is where things get murky. However, I’ll go out on a limb and say I think it’s when there is genuine commitment to the goal. There is where specificity comes into play and I mean more than simply the specificity of the goal statement. If I want to lose weight, that’s a goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds that’s a more specific goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months that’s yet more specific. However, no matter how specific I get about the end state, I am talking about ends, not means. So if I elaborate saying that I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months as a result of an exercise program requiring 30 minutes of exercise each day I am now focusing on means – an exercise program. Now my actions innstead of being wide open are circumscribed by the notion of an exercise program. In problem solving terms, I have specified an end or desired state as well as a solution path (30 minutes of exercise each day). It is when I get specific about my intended actions that I do or don’t commit to them.

In sum, I think the if-then proposition has some kind of connection to commitment by way of specific actions, not simply specific goals. It makes goals into reference conditions.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 7:31 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: volition and implementation intentions

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.0725)]

I read your piece and what I got out of it is that the “if-then� or being specific about when and where is simply a way of making it feasible to compare perceptions with reference conditions and determine if an error requiring action exists.

Fred Nickols

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: volition and implementation intentions

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want to achieve an outcome’  “ the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

Many thanks for your reply Warren & Fred.

Warren you said;

More specifically though the idea that a person can delegate future ‘control’ to the conditional presence of a perceptual cue in their environment is not inconsistent with PCT

 I just wanted to throw in something that seems a bit (way out there) but is worth the mention as it might hold big ramifications with regards to past/present/future outcomes.

Interesting (experiment) from

Research School of Physics and Engineering, Australian National University

http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2946445/Can-past-changed-FUTURE-Bizarre-quantum-experiment-suggests-time-run-backwards.html

Submmited to Nature;

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html#author-information

Why mention this?

here’s an excert from the above experiment;

  • Every time the two grates were in place, the helium atom passed through, on many paths in many forms, just like a wave. But whenever the
    second grate was not present, the atom invariably passed through the first grate like a particle. The fascinating part was, the second grate’s very existence in the path was random. And what’s more, it hadn’t happened yet.*

  • In other words, it was as if the helium particle “knewâ€? whether there
    would be a second grate at the time it passed through the first. ** The possible future presence of that second grate appeared to be determining
    the past state of the atom as it passed through grate #1. Whether it continued as a particle or changed into a wave depended on something that might happen in the future.***

“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wavelike or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,� Truscott said. If we are to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths, then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom’s past, he concluded.

···

On 11 October 2015 at 16:24, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.1114)]

Â

It occurs to me that I should probably say more about what I meant.

Â

Let’s start with this question: When is a “reference condition� a real reference condition as opposed to something that is simply articulated or inferred? I think the answer is that it is when the reference signal actually serves as a benchmark against which perceptions are compared and, if an unacceptable difference exists, action is forthcoming. In other words, an articulated goal, no matter how specifically it is stated, isn’t really a reference condition unless and until it plays an active role in the control loop.

Â

Next question: How do we make uttered or articulated goals real reference conditions? There is where things get murky. However, I’ll go out on a limb and say I think it’s when there is genuine commitment to the goal. There is where specificity comes into play and I mean more than simply the specificity of the goal statement. If I want to lose weight, that’s a goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds that’s a more specific goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months that’s yet more specific. However, no matter how specific I get about the end state, I am talking about ends, not means. So if I elaborate saying that I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months as a result of an exercise program requiring 30 minutes of exercise each day I am now focusing on means – an exercise program. Now my actions instead of being wide open are circumscribed by the notion of an exercise program. In problem solving terms, I have specified an end or desired state as well as a solution path (30 minutes of exercise each day). It is when I get specific about my intended actions that I do or don’t commit to them.

Â

In sum, I think the if-then proposition has some kind of connection to commitment by way of specific actions, not simply specific goals. It makes goals into reference conditions.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 7:31 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: volition and implementation intentions

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.0725)]

Â

I read your piece and what I got out of it is that the “if-then� or being specific about when and where is simply a way of making it feasible to compare perceptions with reference conditions and determine if an error requiring action exists.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: volition and implementation intentions

Â

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want to achieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
 It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCTÂ is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Â

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

Â

Seems a bit of a non sequitur from my post

···

On 11 October 2015 at 16:24, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.1114)]

It occurs to me that I should probably say more about what I meant.

Let’s start with this question: When is a “reference condition� a real reference condition as opposed to something that is simply articulated or inferred? I think the answer is that it is when the reference signal actually serves as a benchmark against which perceptions are compared and, if an unacceptable difference exists, action is forthcoming. In other words, an articulated goal, no matter how specifically it is stated, isn’t really a reference condition unless and until it plays an active role in the control loop.

Next question: How do we make uttered or articulated goals real reference conditions? There is where things get murky. However, I’ll go out on a limb and say I think it’s when there is genuine commitment to the goal. There is where specificity comes into play and I mean more than simply the specificity of the goal statement. If I want to lose weight, that’s a goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds that’s a more specific goal statement. If I say I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months that’s yet more specific. However, no matter how specific I get about the end state, I am talking about ends, not means. So if I elaborate saying that I want to lose 25 pounds over the next six months as a result of an exercise program requiring 30 minutes of exercise each day I am now focusing on means – an exercise program. Now my actionns instead of being wide open are circumscribed by the notion of an exercise program. In problem solving terms, I have specified an end or desired state as well as a solution path (30 minutes of exercise each day). It is when I get specific about my intended actions that I do or don’t commit to them.

In sum, I think the if-then proposition has some kind of connection to commitment by way of specific actions, not simply specific goals. It makes goals into reference conditions.

Fred Nickols

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 7:31 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: volition and implementation intentions

[From Fred Nickols (2015.10.11.0725)]

I read your piece and what I got out of it is that the “if-then� or being specific about when and where is simply a way of making it feasible to compare perceptions with reference conditions and determine if an error requiring action exists.

Fred Nickols

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: volition and implementation intentions

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want too achieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’ is in the miiddle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.11.1600)]

JC: Hello all PCTers!

JC: My 1st ever post here (email),

RM: Welcome! Thanks for posting.

JC: Â I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I
wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment
etc.

RM: You’ve come to the right place;-)

JC: If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet,
but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals
(implementation intentions).

RM: I don’t think so. The experiment described in the article can be understood in terms of the subjects’ goal of trying to give the experimenter what was wanted. All subjects expressed an intention to exercise. But they had to guess that the experimenter would be interested in a future report of whether or not they had actually exercised. The control group could have had no idea what the experimenter wanted because they were told nothing. The Exp 1 group, who were given “educational materials correlating exercise and good cardio-vascular health” had a little more to go on but were just as likely to suspect that the experimenter was interested in their cardio-vascular health rather than their exercise. The Exp 2 group was asked to report exactly what their exercise schedule would be. So they could be pretty sure that the experimenter was interested in whether or not they did, in fact, exercise.Â

RM: So the results are not surprising at all, assuming that the subjects’ goal was to please the experimenter, and there is a lot of research that says most subjects do want to give the experimenter what is wanted. But this explanation could also be checked by following up on group Exp 2 (the “if-then” group) about their exercise after they believe they have completed the experiment. My prediction is that if you secretly monitor the exercising of the Exp 2 group after the experiment is completed you will find that they exercise the same amount as group Exp 2. Indeed, if you secretly monitor group Exp 2 before getting their report you are likely to find that their actual exercise rate was not much greater than group Exp 1 since many probably reported exercising just to please the experimenter.Â

RM: From a PCT perspective, the only reason why a person doesn’t carry out an expressed intention is because they also have the intention of not carrying out that intention. That is, the subjects are in conflict. When you feel like you have to force yourself to do something, like exercise, it’s because you also want to not do it. Such a conflict cannot be resolved by filling out the blanks in if-then statements. They can only be resolved via reorganization, which can be done more effectively using the Method of Levels (MOL), a therapy approach based on PCT. I recommend Tim Carey’s book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Timothy-A.-Carey/e/B00E5A62IK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1444601743&sr=1-2-ent

This book is an excellent introduction to the PCT theory of intentional (purposeful) behavior (also known as CONTROL) and shows why we often have difficulty carrying out our intentions. It’s because of conflict.

JC: So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

JC: Â In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our
brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

JC: Â His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention –  ˜I want to achieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’<
is in the middle of it,� he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action.

RM: This is just wrong, There is no “regulation of action” when you have a goal intention; what is regulated is perception (input) not action (output). Action must vary as necessary to protect the intended result from disturbance. Since disturbances are unpredictable (and usually undetectable) you can’t know what actions you will have to take in order to produce the intended result (perception). The actions you take are determined by the effect of disturbances to the intended result; they are not “regulated” by the intentional (control) system itself.Â

 Gollwitzer:  It’s me who regulates where I want to go.Â

RM: Yes, according to PCT you regulate (control) the state of the intended result, not the means (actions) you use to do the regulation (control).Â

 Gollwitzer: The if-then plan delegates the  control to an external stimulus.

RM: This is also wrong. An if-then plan (like “if it’s Tuesday then exercise”) can’t delegate. The if-then plan is just a written description of the goal state of a perception. The person writing it is telling the experimenter the goal (we call it a reference state) for a perception he is going to control for. That goal will be achieved if the person perceives himself exercising on Tuesday. The person controls the state of the if-then relationship; nothing in the if-then relationship controls the person.Â

Gollwitzer: Â It links the situation to the response, so

it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from
top-down to bottom-up.�

RM: It only looks like that to people who don’t understand control and the PCT explanation of how control works. In PCT we call it the “behavioral illusion”, the illusion that external events cause behavior.Â

JC: Â I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.
In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre
determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to
perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means
your behaviour is the control of perception.

RM: Right! We control perception, not action.Â

JC: So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong),
hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

RM: Yes.

JC: I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot ,

RM: He’'s just making the same mistake that all psychologists are making. Â

JC: I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m
wrong here;Â 35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the
bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.
He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

RM: As do all psychologists. It’s not a problem of lack of expertise or intelligence. The problem is not knowing that people CONTROL (produce pre-selected – goal-- results in a disturbance prone environment) and knowing how control works ( PCT explains how control – intentional or purposeful behavior – works).Â

JC: Â Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

RM: I’m quite sure it wouldn’t. The only people who really “get” PCT are those who are willing to give up all their pre-conceptions about what behavior is and how it works. And most psychologists are not willing to do this, for reasons I discuss in my paper “You Say You Had a Revolution” which is reprinted in my book “Doing Research on Purpose”, also available from Amazon at:Â

http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose

RM: People don’t give up their existing perspective and go to PCT because there are careers, prestige and reputations on the line. It’s not easy to change one’s fundamental assumptions, especially later in one’s career. So very few  have actually done it.Â

JC: & I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with
some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his
findings in association with the PCT model.

RM: It won’t work; it’s impossible to modify one’s work to make it consistent with PCT. When it has been tried it always results in a completely incorrect use of PCT. This is the main problem for PCT; it’s completely inconsistent with all existing perspectives on how behavior works. People trying to fit PCT into an existing theory or fit an existing theory into PCT make a mess of things. Powers, the developer of PCT, always said  that PCT is a completely revolutionary approach to understanding behavior and understanding PCT requires leaving one’s existing biases, theories or “agendas” regarding “how people work” behind. Hardly anyone has taken that seriously so PCT has had a rough time becoming “mainstream” because people always want to find a place for it in their favorite theory or a place for their favorite theory in PCT. The result is that PCT gets lost and bastardizations get popular.Â

RM: And so it goes.

Best regards

Rick

···

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:23 AM, John Caines johncaines@gmail.com wrote:

Any comments welcome.
(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe
someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would
benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards
JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea
:-),and see a flaw in the above.
Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW
(because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.
He says;
 It’s me who regulates where I want to go.
Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.
Correct, as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you
are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.
Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the
last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT Â is perceptual disturbance, and the written
if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because
it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or
shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps
one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious
actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.
JC
(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this
isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as
such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)
Best regards
JC


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

Hi John,

Thanks for putting the implementation intention (imp) work out there to CSG!

I have a few points regarding this as it is a literature I am well versed with. I had email discussions with Gollwitzer a few years ago about PCT but at that time his head seemed to be in the sand. Nonetheless I see no reason not for other people to raise PCT with him. He may eventually see the importance!

I think the first thing to note about imp theory is that it is, like most theories in psychology, a theory of quite a circumscribed process. It is not a unified theory like PCT. So there is scope for Imps being explained within PCT of an Imp researcher would be interested! Related to this point, Bill (e.g. The 1979 ‘cybernetic’ chapter in LCS 1) was well aware that other people’s theories could ‘slot’ into his own. More specifically in relation to this point, the program level in PCT is explicitly formed from If…then branching hierachies that specify the conditions for perceptions to be generated (via envt) by lower levels. At the time he likened this to the TOTE model, but it sounds like Imps are also at this level. Imp theory of course has no architecture for what exists at the ‘top sown’ ‘why’ level or what exists at the lower levels like motor control processes. PCT does.

Following on from Rick, this is why the Imp theory misses the importance of goal conflict in blocking effective action AND why imp theorists don’t appreciate that it is a perception that follows the ‘if’ and a desired perception that follows the ‘then’. In PCT disturbances to goals are dealt with automatically as Rick says.

···

More specifically though the idea that a person can delegate future ‘control’ to the conditional presence of a perceptual cue in their environment is not inconsistent with PCT and in fact squares the circle of debate between some sets of findings for ‘triggers’ that seem to occur in the environment. However these are not disturbances. These are self-selected feedback functions. We talk a lot of how PCT recoded the envt as disturbances to control. But this omits at least two other important components: the feedback functions and the input quantities. A full analyses of psychology research using PCT needs to decide using at least three different roles for what psychologists unhelpfully call a stimulus.

Vyv and I (ccd) are working on a paper on this topic so any suggestions welcome. Firstly we need to include Imps in the paper!

all the best,

Warren

On 11 Oct 2015, at 09:23, John Caines johncaines@gmail.com wrote:

Hello all PCTers!

My 1st ever post here (email),

I’m very new to PCT so bear with me here please.

I have recently come across ‘volition and implementation intentions’ and I wanted to know a bit more about the intrcacies of goal setting/attainment etc.

An expert in this field is Professor Peter M. Gollwitzer,

I’ll just include a few links here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-014-9416-3#/page-1
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevemeyer/files/2014/11/chart-3.jpg

The last link above is an image that comes from a post on Forbes website here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemeyer/2014/11/18/your-new-years-resolutions-will-fail-again-unless-you-do-this/

If you do have time, please read the forbes article (It’s short and sweet, but really makes a case for ‘If/Then’ statements to achive goals (implementation intentions).

So, why email this here, and what does this have to do with PCT?

In the article the author called Gollwitzer at NYU to ask him him why our brains process if-then statements so differently from mere goal intentions.

His reply was as follows;
“When you have a goal intention – ‘I want to achieve an outcome’ – the ‘I’ is in the middle of it,â€? he said. “It’s a top-down regulation of action. It’s me who regulates where I want to go. The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus. It links the situation to the response, so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action. It’s a switch from top-down to bottom-up.â€?

I’ve highlighted the problem phrase I seem to be wrestling with.

In PCT , stimulus doesn’t control the action, it’s you, your pre determined reference signal, that you constantly are comparing to perceptual external stimuli (disturbance) through all your senses that means your behaviour is the control of perception.

So, if what I’ve said above is correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), hasn’t Gollwitzer got this so wrong?

I mean the guy has studied goals etc since 1980, he obviously knows alot , I mean he truely is an expert in this field, but again, correct me if I’m wrong here;

35 years of great great research that is fundamentally flawed from the bottom up (or top down), which every way you want to look at it.

He still believes stimulus controls our actions.

Peter M. Gollwitzer
peter.gollwitzer@nyu.edu

Maybe an email about PCT would be an eye opener for him.

& I really don’t mean that in an insincere way, I genuinely hope that with some research into PCT his excellent work could be modified to link his findings in association with the PCT model.

Any comments welcome.

(PS, I don’t have the deep knowledge of PCT to email PG, but I hope maybe someone with the depth of knowledge in PCT will as Professor PW would benefit immensely (And so would PCT) if he was aware of the model.

Best regards

JC

PS, I’ve just re-read the above before I’ve hit send (Always a good idea :-),and see a flaw in the above.

Maybe the author has inadvertantly misinterpreted PW’s statement, or PW (because of his lack of PCT) has said a statement the wrong way.

He says;
It’s me who regulates where I want to go.

Correct.(In PCT)
The if-then plan delegates the control to an external stimulus.

Correct**,** as this is the equivalent of reference signal in PCT? It’s what you are constantly referencing against external stimuli?

But his final phrase;
so it’s the stimulus, not you, that controls the action.

Incorrect, so so wrong, he’s 2/3rd’s there, but the understanding in the last statement is clearly wrong (Or am I wrong)

I understand stimulus in PCT is perceptual disturbance, and the written if-then statements as the reference signal (to be compared to), and because it’s written, visible in the external world, it holds a stronger will, or shall I say it makes the chances of you succeeding much greater as it helps one focus on your desired result and surpress / override subconscious actions that might be detrimental to your desired result

Comments gladly welcome.

JC

(I hope this post is ok for this PCT forum, if anyone feels in anyway this isn’t worthy or slightly off topic etc for this forum, please comment as such, as I don’t want to waste anyone’s valuable time)

Best regards

JC