VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) --

CSGnet Archive CSG2016
1

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action
theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country! After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and
then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central
to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control
system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference
should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in
my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw
it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

···

Eetu Pikkarainen

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable, immediate effects
of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point, results are
often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled variables: (1)
proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin Taylor and that rascal
known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly publication of the International
Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T.
Powers

2

[From Rupert Young (2016.10.10 13.00)]

Welcome! Some quick responses.

No. Well, yes, but the main thing is that goals are perceptual in
nature. That is, the purpose of behaviour is to control perceptions,
at internally defined values.
Yes, but that difference is coincidental. They both control
perceptions, as goals.
The “highest” level goal, of living systems, is to acquire energy
such that the system can combat the inevitable decay of entropy long
enough to procreate.
Regards,
Rupert

···

On 09/10/2016 20:22, Eetu Pikkarainen
wrote:

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

I’m new in this list,

    I have understood that central to PCT is that the special

feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own
goals.

    As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives

its goal from the user of that thermostat.

    Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control

system every control loop receives its reference from up above.
This causes for me a question: from where receives the
hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that
human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this
highest reference should be created inside the human being,
shouldn’t it?

3

In the text bellow…

···

From: Rupert Young [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:09 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Rupert Young (2016.10.10 13.00)]

On 09/10/2016 20:22, Eetu Pikkarainen wrote:

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

I’m new in this list,

Welcome! Some quick responses.

I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals.

No. Well, yes, but the main thing is that goals are perceptual in nature. That is, the purpose of behaviour is to control perceptions, at internally defined values.

HB : This is a little bit tricky meaning, but I’m sure Rupert put in the right sense. The purpose of organism which produce behavior is to control perception at internally defined values. The last words persuded me that Rupert meant it right. Environment can’t produce any comaprable reference values for the organism os there is no control out there what is clearly seen from PCT diagram.

.

Wrong meaning is that »Behavior could control perception«, because that could mean that »behavior is control or controlled or whatever«.

As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user of that thermostat.

Yes, but that difference is coincidental. They both control perceptions, as goals.

Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The “highest” level goal, of living systems, is to acquire energy such that the system can combat the inevitable decay of entropy long enough to procreate.

Regards,
Rupert

4

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.10.0915)]

···

Rupert Young (2016.10.10 13.00) to Eetu Pikkarainen (2016.10.9)

    EP: Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control

system every control loop receives its reference from up above.
This causes for me a question: from where receives the
hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that
human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this
highest reference should be created inside the human being,
shouldn’t it?

RY: The "highest" level goal, of living systems, is to acquire energy

such that the system can combat the inevitable decay of entropy long
enough to procreate.

RM: Yes, in a sense the whole hierarchy of control exists to allow the organism to do things that allow it to acquire the energy used to control for getting the energy that makes control possible.

RM: But I think there Eetu was asking about what sets the highest level goals in the control hierarchy, which is an interesting question since there are presumably no control systems above the highest level systems that can set their goals. We Tim Carey and I deal with this question in Chapter 4 of “Controlling People”. If you haven’t gotten a copy yet, Eetu, I think that book provides a nice, non-technical introduction to PCT and its practical implications. It’s available at https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-People-Paradoxical-Nature-Being/dp/1922117641/

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

5

[from Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.11]

Thank you Boris and Fred!

I have ordered the new version of B:CP to our library. (I had only the 1973 version.)

···

Eetu Pikkarainen

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 10. lokakuuta 2016 19:10
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.10.1207 ET)]

Eetu:

Boris Hartman points you to p.191 in B:CP (2005). Please note that the diagram on p.191 pertains to reorganization or how a living control systems adapts, adjusts and learns.
For a diagram depicting how a living control system functions with respect to its local environment, see p.61.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”SM

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:18 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Dear Eetu,

HB : It’s nice that you decided to join the group. Your thinking is very interesting.

I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”

HB : If you want to draw a diagram of how living beings function with full self goal creation than you could maybe try to complete the diagram on
p. 191 in B:CP (2005). If you didn’t read the basic Bill book (B:CP) than I recommend you to do it. It’s the basic step to drawing any diagram about how organisms »really« control (function). In this way the change would not
bring new and worse problems.
And you’ll upgrade PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 9:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Eetu Pikkarainen 2016.10.9]

Dear Fred and all other csgnet people

I’m new in this list, so perhaps I should introduce myself shortly. I am a university lecturer in education in University of Oulu in Finland and specialized in philosophy and semiotics
of education. Especially I have tried to develop which I call action theoretical semiotics. Recently I happened to find a reference to Powers B:CP and then managed to find a book in a university library in southern Finland – yes only one volume in whole country!
After reading that I was very impressed (as you understand) and then gravitated to this list and have now read some more articles and books which are available via internet. (BTW sorry for my clumsy English.)

And now to the point. Fred, I liked your blog draft very much! It was nice and interesting but I got trouble with the diagram. This is not a critique to you but rather a more general
problem probably just in my understanding. I have understood that central to PCT is that the special feature of living beings in that they set (or have?) their own goals. As control systems they differ from thermostat which receives its goal from the user
of that thermostat. Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that
human as a living being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

The diagram in your blog seems to me very similar to my old action theoretical semiotic model of action as two way interaction between subject and environment where perception gives
feedback about subjects doing. (Now I’m trying to convert that model in my mind to the thought that doings give feedback about perceptions…) Except in your model the goals seem to be imposed for a person from up above. For me this brings to my mind a model
of traditional top-down management??? I would at the moment like to draw it so that there were nothing above the person and below her there would be a writing: “Person with Goals”. But probably this change would bring new and worse problems, I am afraid?

(Probably I will in future ask more these dummy questions.)

Eetu Pikkarainen

Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 6. lokakuuta 2016 23:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.06.1635 ET)]

I don’t want to get caught up in any kind of ego-based conflict so let me try to make clear my aims at the outset.

First, I view PCT as having two primary foci or application points. One is to the observable behavior of people, with a focus on the direct, observable,
immediate effects of their behavior. The second is to the behavior of people in the workplace, where they are in pursuit of results or effects that are often far removed in space and time from their direct, immediate behavior. In this latter application point,
results are often realized (or not) as a consequence of cooperative, coordinated and collaborative endeavor. People work together to realize some common goal or objective. In these kinds of situations, we must be concerned with three kinds of controlled
variables: (1) proximate variables (those a person directly affects), (2) ultimate variables (those that no single person can affect or control and (3) intermediate variables (those variables that connect proximate and ultimate variables).

Second, I have recently expressed an interest in “collective control” and I am currently exploring the work and writings of Kent McClelland, Martin
Taylor and that rascal known to us all as Rick Marken.

Third, in the meantime, I have decided to broach the issue of “collective control” in the monthly column I write for PerformanceXpress, a monthly
publication of the International Society for Performance and Instruction (ISPI). A draft of the column I have in mind is attached.

I am interested in constructive comments and useful suggestions regarding the attachment. Do I have it all wrong? Am I missing something critical?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours

** DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC**

“Assistance at a Distance”SM

From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

Oops, I apologize. I sent you more than just one paper. My bad. (Though I don’t see why you shouldn’t go ahead and read all the available literature on the topic, if you’re interested in collective
control and want to discuss it on CSGnet.)

Kent

On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.06.1315)]

Kent McClelland (2016.10.06.1440

RM: I just can’t think of any. Could you give me a couple of examples.

KM: Rick, “I just can’t think of any” sounds more like a comment about the limits of your own imagination than an argument meant to be persuasive to other people.

RM: Perhaps. I just meant that I couldn’t think of any everyday examples of social stability resulting from conflict.

KM: As Warren noted, I’ve published several substantial papers on collective control, and they contain numerous examples of what I’m talking about,

RM: Great. Yes, maybe if you could send me just one that has some nice concrete examples, that would be great.

KM: … My experience has been that CSGnet discussions with you usually generate more heat than light.

RM: Perhaps. But they do always generate light for me. I find that it generally takes some heat to generate light.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

6

[eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.14]

Thank you Rick (and Tim), that book was really nicely written introduction to different sides of PCT.

It helped me a lot forward.

There was only one small problem with the ethical considerations. You made a difference between respectful and arbitrary control, which well reflects
classical ethical theories which I appreciate. Also you made a difference between control systems and not control systems so that we should control respectfully other control systems. (I think it is quite unproblematic to assume that we may control arbitrarily
any non-control system beings.) But you introduced a thermostat and a cruising control as control systems. As far as understand they have no goals of their own. So I think they need not and perhaps cannot be controlled respectfully. The essential division,
I think, should be drawn between living control systems and all other beings. In this way PCT point of view nicely broadens the scope of traditional Kantian ethics to the direction of something like an environmental ethics (and the question of the rights of
animals).

BTW do you know has anybody studied the structural similarities of PCT with Kant’s philosophy?

First when I read from Powers B:CP about the hierarchy of control systems, it came to my mind that it reminded very much of Kant’s epistemology
in Critic of Pure Reason.

Best wishes,

Eetu Pikkarainen

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: 10. lokakuuta 2016 19:16
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.10.0915)]

Rupert Young (2016.10.10 13.00) to Eetu Pikkarainen (2016.10.9)

EP: Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living
being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

RY: The “highest” level goal, of living systems, is to acquire energy such that the system can combat the inevitable decay of entropy long enough to procreate.

RM: Yes, in a sense the whole hierarchy of control exists to allow the organism to do things that allow it to acquire the energy used to control for getting the energy that makes control possible.

RM: But I think there Eetu was asking about what sets the highest level goals in the control hierarchy, which is an interesting question since there are presumably no control systems above the highest level systems that can set their goals.
We Tim Carey and I deal with this question in Chapter 4 of “Controlling People”. If you haven’t gotten a copy yet, Eetu, I think that book provides a nice, non-technical introduction to PCT and its practical implications. It’s available at

https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-People-Paradoxical-Nature-Being/dp/1922117641/

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

7

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.15.1250)]

···

eetu pikkarainen (2016.10.14)–

EP: Thank you Rick (and Tim), that book was really nicely written introduction to different sides of PCT.

It helped me a lot forward.

RM: Thank you, Eetu! I don’t suppose you would write a little review for us? We’d really appreciate it.

EP: There was only one small problem with the ethical considerations. You made a difference between respectful and arbitrary control, which well reflects
classical ethical theories which I appreciate.

RM: Actually, we made this distinction for practical rather than ethical reasons. The practical difference between arbitrary and respectful control of control systems is that the former is likely to lead to conflict and the latter is not. It’s the difference between demanding and asking that a person pass the salt. Arbitrary control is aimed at getting a person to do something without regard to whether or not she wants to do it; respectful control is aimed at getting a person to do something only if she wants to do it.

RM: Whether or not it is ethical to control arbitrarily or respectfully depends on the values and other goals of the person doing the controlling – and on the circumstances in which this controlling occurs. For example, a person who has the goal of being kind to others and avoiding conflict would generally control another person respectfully (for example, asking “could you please pass the salt” rather than demanding “pass the salt or I’ll break your arm”). But in other circumstances this same person might be quite willing to control arbitrarily, such as when his 4 year old runs into the street to retrieve a ball. In this case the person is willing to disrespect the child (by interfering with the child’s obvious goal of trying to retrieve the ball) and put up with a violent, noisy conflict in order to protect the child (and himself) from a possibly much worse fate.

EP: Also you made a difference between control systems and not control systems so that we should control respectfully other control systems.

RM: Gee, I hope we didn’t give the impression that it’s a good idea to respectfully control the behavior of all control systems. Our argument was meant to apply only to living control systems in general and people in particular. What we were trying to communicate is this: Because we are controlling people we have references for the way things should be, including the way people should behave. Therefore its difficult to avoid wanting people to behave in certain ways (as is the case when we want someone to pass the salt). So when we are inclined to get people to do things, it’s best to do it respectfully (taking into account the fact that the other person has their own references for the way things should be, which may conflict with our references for the way their behavior should be). And this is true if we want to avoid conflict.

EP: (I think it is quite unproblematic to assume that we may control arbitrarily
any non-control system beings.) But you introduced a thermostat and a cruising control as control systems. As far as understand they have no goals of their own.

RM: Actually, the thermostat and cruise control systems do have goals of their own, but they are set from outside the systems, by you. That’s why there is no issue involved in controlling them. You can’t get into conflict with these systems by controlling their behavior because you set the references for the behavior you want these systems to produce. If you want the thermostat to keep the room at 22 C then you set its reference to 22 C. If you want the cruise control to maintain your speed at 105 kph you set its reference to 105 kph. In neither case does the system protest; there is no conflict because these systems have no reason to object to what you are demanding that they do (control for).

EP: So I think they need not and perhaps cannot be controlled respectfully. The essential division,
I think, should be drawn between living control systems and all other beings.

RM: That’s what we were trying to do. Apparently we didn’t make it clear. Control of behavior is only an issue (in terms of the resulting conflict) when you are trying to control a living control system; conflict is not an issue when you control inanimate objects or artificial control systems.

KP: In this way PCT point of view nicely broadens the scope of traditional Kantian ethics to the direction of something like an environmental ethics (and the question of the rights of
animals).

RM: Again, I think it’s a mistake to see PCT as providing answers to ethical questions. PCT only tells us what will happen in certain circumstances. Whether those things are ethically good or not depends on the person to whom those things might happen. The only “ethical” implication of PCT is that keeping perceptions matching their references (keeping them under control) is good (from the perspective of any living control system) and not keeping them at their references is bad.

EP: BTW do you know has anybody studied the structural similarities of PCT with Kant’s philosophy?

RM: No I don’t. But if anybody were doing this I think they would be doing a disservice to PCT. PCT is a model of how (and why) we do behave, not how we should behave.

Best regards

Rick

First when I read from Powers B:CP about the hierarchy of control systems, it came to my mind that it reminded very much of Kant’s epistemology
in Critic of Pure Reason.

Best wishes,

Eetu Pikkarainen

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: 10. lokakuuta 2016 19:16
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.10.0915)]

Rupert Young (2016.10.10 13.00) to Eetu Pikkarainen (2016.10.9)

EP: Still in the PCT diagrams about human hierarchical control system every control loop receives its reference from up above. This causes for me a question: from where receives the hierarchically highest loop its reference? If we think that human as a living
being can set or sets her own goals, then this highest reference should be created inside the human being, shouldn’t it?

RY: The “highest” level goal, of living systems, is to acquire energy such that the system can combat the inevitable decay of entropy long enough to procreate.

RM: Yes, in a sense the whole hierarchy of control exists to allow the organism to do things that allow it to acquire the energy used to control for getting the energy that makes control possible.

RM: But I think there Eetu was asking about what sets the highest level goals in the control hierarchy, which is an interesting question since there are presumably no control systems above the highest level systems that can set their goals.
We Tim Carey and I deal with this question in Chapter 4 of “Controlling People”. If you haven’t gotten a copy yet, Eetu, I think that book provides a nice, non-technical introduction to PCT and its practical implications. It’s available at

https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-People-Paradoxical-Nature-Being/dp/1922117641/

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

8

[eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.14]

Thank you Rick (and Tim), that book was really nicely written introduction to different sides of PCT.

It helped me a lot forward.

There was only one small problem with the ethical considerations. You made a difference between respectful and arbitrary control, which well reflects classical ethical theories which I appreciate. Also you made a difference between control systems and not control systems so that we should control respectfully other control systems. (I think it is quite unproblematic to assume that we may control arbitrarily any non-control system beings.) But you introduced a thermostat and a cruising control as control systems. As far as understand they have no goals of their own. So I think they need not and perhaps cannot be controlled respectfully. The essential division, I think, should be drawn between living control systems and all other beings. In this way PCT point of view nicely broadens the scope of traditional Kantian ethics to the direction of something like an environmental ethics (and the question of the rights of animals).

HB : I can hardly judge what Rick meant although he explained in his “protectingâ€? language. Language is used for “protectingâ€? Rick from disturbances. I’ll assume that his reference for perception (effects of disturbances) is that he is a perfect PCT thinker, what of course is far away from truth. He still don’t understand PCT and problems which you noticed probably spring from his lack of understanding PCT and of course lack of understanding how organism function (PCT diagram on p. 191).

These “factsâ€? are not hard to prove :

RM : PCT only tells us what will happen in certain circumstances

HB . Exactly this is what PCT is not telling us. This is what classical psychology is telling us :

TC and RM :

Skinner concluded that behavior is controlled by environmental events….

RM: Actually, the thermostat and cruise control systems do have goals of their own, but they are set from outside the systems, by you. That’s why there is no issue involved in controlling them. You can’t get into conflict with these systems by controlling their behavior because you set the references for the behavior you want these systems to produce. If you want the thermostat to keep the room at 22 C then you set its reference to 22 C. If you want the cruise control to maintain your speed at 105 kph you set its reference to 105 kph. In neither case does the system protest; there is no conflict because these systems have no reason to object to what you are demanding that they do (control for).

HB :

No matter what Rick answered, the tongue is used as means of control, so he tried to make it look like the book is perfect. But if he was writing the nonsense above than I don’t know who’ll read the book. What else could we expect from LCS. But in the background there is the same problem as with educationalist. Rick doesn’t understand the thing, he is talking or writing about.

I went and took a short look at Preface and Reviews of his and Tims’ book about “Controlling peopleâ€?. I was quite astonished that I read the same lines as I wrote them in my discussions with Rick when I criticized his “People Controlling people all the timeâ€?. He was 5-6 years misleading CSGnet with “People Controling peopleâ€? or “Experimenter controls the subjects’ behaviorâ€? (experiment “Knot over Dotâ€?) and now he is writing about “People try to control peopleâ€? what I was telling him 6 years. At least I think that Rick should apologize to all people on CSGnet for misleading them all these years. So now we know that Rick changed his mind after all these years again as many times before. He once announced that he doesn’t like “winningâ€? discussions in this way. But I’m not him. And I announce that I’m the WINNER of our discussion about whether “People Control other peopleâ€? or not. It’s everything on CSGnet through all these years and through all those discussions.

What’s bodering me about the book : Â

  1.   Both authors don’t understand PCT clearly or how it originally works.

  2.   The book seems not to be original. It seems there is nothing new what was not already discussed on CSGnet through last 5 or 6 years about “People controlling other peopleâ€?. Some of us worked hard to change Rick’s opinion. Rick already made a “demoâ€? which “showedâ€? how control of other people behavior work… (it can be proved from discussions on CSGnet).

  3.   it’s obviously that some parts of the discussions on CSGnet were transferred into the book without asking for the permission.

  4.   It also seems that term “lose of controlâ€? was used many times, what is Glasser’s central term. It would be better to use other terms which represent PCT. The term “lose of controlâ€? represent “Choice Theoryâ€?. It’s not suitable to be used in PCT as it is not representing what is really meant by term “Controlâ€?.  I’d say this is problem of understanding PCT right.

It’s not hard to understand where Ricks’ change from “People control other peopleâ€? into “People try to control other peopleâ€? came from. Use of “people try to control other peopleâ€? is seriously diverging from Ricks’ statements and articles in last years (and there are discussions on CSGnet, a lot of them and it’s still going on with his “Behavior is Controlâ€?).

it’s incredible how Rick changed sides and now he is using arguments from critics to his thinking about how “People control other peopleâ€?. My opinion is that it is some kind of theft. He used conversations from CSGnet forum and this “factâ€? is not mentioned in the book.

Maybe all these stuff will use as an example why I’m not writing important notes on CSGnet. I must say that I was working on diagram on p. 191 alone after me and Bill couldn’t reach the agreement. I managed to work out pretty much of “diagram on p. 191â€?, so I can say that I understand how picture 191 should look like. But for the reasons I wrote above and many other (among them also ethical) I’m not writing about improvement of diagram 191 on CSGnet. But maybe I’ll start writing if forum will protect “authors rightsâ€?. Now it’s working like a “Wild Westâ€? and anything can be used and published by a “free willâ€? as Rick is demonstrating.

But despite quite clear messaging to Rick through all these years that “Behavior has nothing to do with controlâ€?, except that it is consequence of control, they wrote in PREFACE of the BOOK:

:

RMÂ and TC :

»But viewing purposeful behavior as controlling makes us aware of the fact that we are consistently achieving our goals in a constantly and unpredictably changing world that should make such consistency impossible. So we will see that purposeful behavior, controlling, involves varying our actions in just the right way so that we are able to achieve our goals in a world that sometimes seems to be working against us«.

HB : It shows that authors don’t understand how behavior is produced. And here is another problematic statement in the books’ Preview :

Reviewed by Stephanie Kotelnicki :

Getting to the point, Markens and Carey later conclude the obvious: “If you can determine what goal a person is trying to achieve, then you can control the person’s behavior by arranging things so that they can achieve their goal only by doing what you want them to do. It’s that simple. Figure out what speed a person wants their cruise control at and try to control the variables (wind, incline/decline of the road) so that they arrive at whatever destination you want.

HB :

This is of course nonsense. Does this mean that by arranging circumstances around people we can control other people behavior ? That arranged environmental disturbances control people behavior ? Obviously the answer is yes if we can conclude from Ricks’ answers and his “demosâ€?.

HB : It’s seems quite a “messyâ€? book as Rick is. I wanted to emphasize that misunderstanding of PCT can cause troubles in writing any kind of literature about PCT what is our theme : misunderstanding or not understanding how subjects and objects function under applyed disturbances. And one of the reasons is unfinished diagram on p. 191.

In the Reviewed by Stephanie Kotelnicki  we can also find :

According to this book, perhaps it should be “Control others how they would like to be controlled.â€?

HB :

If this is the message of the book than it’s wrong. Again misunderstanding of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

P.S:

EP: BTW do you know has anybody studied the structural similarities of PCT with Kant’s philosophy?

HB : I’m not sure if Kant and PCT has anything in common, but I’ll be glad to “hearâ€? why do you think so ? The only one I know that was including phylosophers and PCT into his books was Gary Cziko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cziko

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:43 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: VS: TCV and Collective Control (was Re: The Concept of Controlled Variable) –

9

[eetu pikkarainen 2016.10.18]

Dear Boris

thank you for your advices and thoughts, while I amd trying get in PCT. One trouble of course is that I have neither any engireering nor any physiological background. Now I have also got and read Powers Making Sense of Behaviour which was very lucid book too.

HB : The question mark on 11th level is indeed showing how helpless PCT is in this moment. Me and Bill talked a lot about it, as it’s connected with physiological explanation of how organisms function. Bill was many times expressing his worries as he couldn’t talk from this point of view with anybody else on CSGnet. He pointed out this problem also in our discussion which he sent to many of his friends (B. Abbott, Tim Carey)…to mention some of them. I already announced this conversation on CSGnet forum so it is available for checking whether I’m talking the truth. I just want to point out that the problem of PCT (question mark) is connected closely to physiological knowledge and Ashby. This can be clearly seen from B:CP (any edition).

...

EP: Thank you very much for these backgrapound information. I will return to the "question of the question mark" after I have studied more and made my thoughts clearer. Anyway I am afraid I can approach these problems only "philosphically"...

HB : If I understand this right, it’s a direct hit of hammer on the nail. Exactly. Educationalist are working (or trying to influence – applying disturbances) to the subject they don’t understand or as you said : “…have practically no reasonable knowledge what’s going on there…”. I thought that Finish School System came far ahead because it’s well known to be the best School System on the World or at least one of the best. So I’m little surprised that it has the same problem as all other School Systems. The means educationalists are applying as disturbances on “subjects” (children) about who’s internal functioning they don’t know much are not just unsuitable but also dangerous. So because they don’t know much what kind of effects are producing in childrens’ mind, they can easily peoduce shooters. Specially in USA. And the result of misunderstanding the nature of children, is also not understood what makes shooter active.

...

EP: Yes, that is the problem of education: we have not the knowledge we need but still we have to educate, because non-education would cause at least as disastrous consequences. Education is a riskable project. Only reliable knowledge we have is from the history and tradition of education. How you will succeed depends on your knowledge about the tradition, your understanding what is essential about it in current situation and your sensible tactfulness - respectfulness to use the term of RM an TC. There are many reasons to the relative succes of Finnish school system: teachers are highly educated, gifted people want to be teacher, school and education are generally appreciated, possibilities to get good education are (until now) quite equally distributed etc. BUT we have no better knowledge about what is happening in the head of a student than anybody else.

EP: Sorry about a typo in my message. There should have been: "NoW I have got at least a very interesting and rich hypothesis about it!" At the moment I should be starting to write my part of a collectively written monography about semiotic theory of learning. PCT has made me somewhat stepping back and thinking again my initial plans about it. When I will in next months get something drafted I hope I may give it to comments here?

Best
Eetu