What I'm controlling for...

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
1

Well,

I see you made your own interpretation of my text. You shorten my text to the degree, that suit your pusposes ,so that you could probably explain your view of what I’m controlling for.

Ashby would say that you have from available variables in environment chosen only those which suit you to make your own »abstract system« which was the referecne for your control. You didn’t make interpretation of »corresponding variables«, which you perceived in outer environment (written down statements), but »limited« version of  of »corresponding variables«. There were many more of them than you later controlled.

So it seems that you didn’t make a »list of all variables« that I controlled (wrote down) in answer to you. So I’m aksing mayself what did you want to tell me, because I think you missed the point.

And I also think that’s quite often happening when people are reducing the possible variables into their own »limited«, »narrowed« »abstract system« in their mind.

So I can inform you that you got wrong »picture« of my »controlled variables«, what is ussually happening to people with »reducing« strategy. I must also notice that you made very bad »TCV«, and if you are doing so subjective »TCV’s«, this has a little to do with science.

So beside the variable which you »controlled«, I listed in the text bellow most of those which I’ve written. You will easilly conclude that »controlled variable« seing you not being an expert in PCT simply is not mentioned. So I think that you still don’t know what I’m really controlling for. Written text is usually quite tricky ground for doing the TCV. Did you try to do TCV on politicians text. People talk a lot, but what they are really controlling is not so easy to discover. So here is my expanded text and much more variables than you presented.

  1.   So Rick I think this **our ongoing story** that is not finished yet.

  2.   … I'll answer to anyy of **your »deviations« from Bill's theory** which I think is right, and I'll try to use **as many scientific tools as possible**. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that **all on CSGnet would work as you think it's right**. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As **Rick wants**.

  3.   And I still think that you are sometimes wrongly presenting Bill's theory. **I know you can present it in at least two forms.**

  4.   Also I noticed when I was **talking to Bill, that he »changed his mind« sometimes**  also under impressions of talkings to different members of the CSGnet group and made an allowance to change his criterium. It's human characteristic. Who knows. Maybe **you influenced his choice to accept the term »protect**«.

  5.   I'll be glad to hear that **I have limited understanding of PCT**. But It would be nice if you show me, **where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited**.  I'll gladly **correct my mistake**.

From a list of variables above you can see a little of what I was controlling for, but you choose just statement which suit you, for your interpretation, for your control of something. I doubt I could guess what was your real »controlled variable«.

You didn’t make »representation« of text that you perceived, although you keep saying that »external variables« are perceptual representations or correlates. You proved that they are not. You choosed from available variables in environment those which suit your purposes.

I assume that they were those which were probably the most interesting for you to form »abstract system« for controlling. These are my assumption. Who knows what did you really control for.

So it seems that you answered what you wanted to answer, not what was »represented« to you from your perceptual »correlates« (written text). You answer has little to do with »representation« of variables in environment, but has a lot to do with your intentions (goals) and hidden thoughts and feelings. I can guess which they really were but I’ll probably never know for sure. Even if I do your precise »TCV«, it’s useless. You can never get really into mind of other people. Everyone has it’s own little secrets.

You showed variables which you wanted to show in your answer, trying to present from your limited selection of »controlled variables« what I’m controlling for. Because your selection is limited, I asked myself what your  real intentions were ?

I must say that you missed when trying to find out what I’m controlling for. So I can say that you still don’t know what I’m really controling for.

But I can help you. I was controlling something that you couldn’t see, because it was controlled inside :

RM:Â Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB : It was your insult. And mostly I was answering on your insult.

If you remember I wrote : »I’ll be glad to hear that I have limited understanding of PCT. But It would be nice if you show me, where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited. I’ll gladly correct my mistake«.

That was partly what I was really controling for. For you to write down evidence of my »limited understanding«.

I think that you totaly missed (you made a wrong interpretaion what I’m controlling for), because of limited and wanted variables you have choosen in your TCV. But even if I’ve wrote whatever I did, you still don’ know what I’m »really« controlling for. And you’ll probably never know.

If you feel that you are not an expert for PCT this is your problem. But I sure don’t think so. I mentioned many times that I think you are presenting PCT in two forms (mr. Hyde and dr. Jekyll). Remember.

»Seeing you (and having others see you) as someone who is not an expert in PCT« is your pure »construct«, which you somehow »projected« into me. So I’m controlling for : »you writing in PCT language« as I still beleive you can. And if you do that I think that you are an expert for PCT.

And I also control for :«that you have to choose which one is your favourite«. When you are writing in self-regulation or behavioristic terms, I got impression that you are not expert for PCT, but that you are an expert for self-regulation and behaviorism. So you see, you got it all wrong because you made limited and subjective analysis of TCV. So I doubt that »TCV« method for higher »controlled variables« in hierarchy can be precise. I even think it’s useless and some other methods could be better.

I think that TCV is too much inclined to assumptions, which may sometimes cause conflicts if people are accused of something they are not controlling for.

So Rick sorry to say, but I think your TCV analysis for what I’m controlling for, was wrong. You just made a mistake. So make it better next time.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 7:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.11.1010)]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

HB : And you predicted right and you know what I’m contrrolling for ? Well I’d like to hear it ?

RM: One of the main things you are clearly controlling for is seeing me (and having others see me) as someone who is not an expert in PCT.

HB :

Nice try, but you only tried to guess. I think that you missed, because you frequently arrange the answer to suit your references, not to what is written. So you see your answer is not »corresponding« to your »perceptual correlates« (to what I’ve written) but to your »abstract system« or »model« which you created in your mind (or perceptual hierarchy) and that’s what you are controlling for. And sorry to say, it’s clearly that I’m not controlling for »you not being an expert in PCT«. But how could you from variables listed bellow, found out that I’m controlling what you are saying. Because this is some of the text I’ve written.

  1.   Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«. What **I'm really controlling for, is in my mind,** and you will probably never know, because it's my private thought. So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can't give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

  2.   So Rick I think this **our ongoing story** that is not finished yet.

  3.   … I'll answer to any of **your »deviations« from Bill's theory** which I think is right, and I'll try to use **as many scientific tools as possible**. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that **all on CSGnet would work as you think it's right**. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As **Rick wants**.

  4.   And I still think that you are sometimes wrongly presenting Bill's theory. **I know you can present it in at least two forms.**

  5.   Also I noticed when I was **talking to Bill, that he »changed his mind« sometimes**  also under impressions of talkings to different members of the CSGnet group and made an allowance to change his criterium. It's human characteristic. Who knows. Maybe **you influenced his choice to accept the term »protect**«.

  6.   I'll be glad to hear that **I have limited understanding of PCT**. But It would be nice if you show me, **where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited**.  I'll gladly **correct my mistake**.

But even from these variables you could hardly guess right what I was REALLY controlling for when I was writing my answer to you, because you can’t see variables that I was controlling inside (feelings). Written words can hardly express the feelings, speccially when people are expert to hide them, like politicians for example. Do you think that you can always »guess right« from political text or political speaches SHOW what polticians are REALLY »CONTROLLING FOR«. You can maybe GUESS if you are able to read »subtitles« in text or speaches. But mostly I think that people JUST TELL WHAT THEY WANT TO TELL, AND SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, in accordance to their goals in hieracrhy. And that is quite complicated to »imagine« what hierarchies of goals are in different people. But you can probbaly guess right sometimes.

 Â

I think that you missed some important »informations«, when you were »translating real text« into your »representation« what is written. I think that in »translating« or tranforming the reality into »perceptual hierarchy«, many percpetions are »transformed« from it’s »counterpart« in reality. So mostly I think that people »see« what they »want to see« not what is »objectivelly written«. So I have impression (as I transformed reality in accordance with my goals) that you missed because your »perceptual transformation of my real text« was subjective (it was yours). And others I beleive have made their own interpretation. So I serriously doubt that they saw my text as you see it.

Â

 of that yoi missed some important informations, which could lead to my »controlled variables«. So you »modeled« your own wishion of my »controlled variables«, which are more you imagination then real statements. In other words, you wrote what you think I’m controlling. So you somehow didnt’ look for »real« corresponding perception of my teaxt but those which you wanted to see. So you made quite huge mistake in predicting what I was controlling for. You’ll see that whan you’ll go in precise conversation about what really people think. You’ll never get to the end.

HB: Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«.

RM: I (or anyone) can get a pretty good idea of what you are controlling for by looking at what you say in response to what I say. The same is true of me, by the way; you can pretty easily tell what I’m controlling for by looking at what I say in response to what you say.

HB :

I don’t know who are these ANYONE, who can get pretty good idea about what I’m controlling for, but it would be interesting to »hear« theam. I think that »anyone« has it’s own oppinion, but if you are such a good interpretator of other thoughts, can you speccifically fo anyone on CSGnet write what is she/he controlling for.Â

Well I’m not sure what you are controlling for, becaus eyour text is polite, artificial. And I can’t say wjat your thioughts and frrlings were when you wrote this. But thought a lot of beside for which is not good that you »hear them«. Then you could maybe get the real picture of what I was controlling for

HB: There isn’t any. What I’m really controlling for, is in my mind, and you will probably never know, because it’s my private thought.

RM: It’s really not very private. In order to control for your “private thought” you have to act by posting things on the net to protect that thought from disturbances, such as my posts. And what I am controlling for is not very private either since I have to protect those controlled perceptions from the disturbances that are your posts. So you should be able to tell what I am controlling for quite easily, just as I can tell what you are controlling for.

HB : We didn’t protect anything. We just controlled what ever we wanted to controll and the result was the text, which did express very little about what we were controlling. But I was really controlling form your answer about me being limited. You didn’t even mentioned that.

People do have theri secrets, don’t they ? So whatever you were controlling you hide it quite good with selecting text from my answer and form some your model of answer, which you wanted to see. You didn’t answer my challenge, but instead you answered your wanted perception. You somehow projected into me, what by your oppinion I was thinking. And you let half of the text out. So we know only that you were controlling for some of your’s models of what you expected to be contolled

HB: So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can’t give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

RM: The “physical variables” that betray what you (and I) are controlling for are the words typed on the computer screen (and exist as perceptions in our brains). The fact that you are controlling for a perception that can be described as “Rick is not an expert in PCT” is revealed by typed comments like this:

HB : What I’m typing doesn’t mean some exactness in my thinking and emotions. What pokiticians are writing, and what they reakky think it’s

HB: I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from Bill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

HB: We already saw some of your examples of limiting PCT to »Control of behavior« or »selfregulation theory«. Until you will stay with your »demos, models« and so on – third class scientific experiments« - I don’t think that you’ll understand that PCT is not only about »protection« and it’s not only about »controlled variables« that have correlates in »perception« and it’s not only about »people controlling other people behavior«, like players in tennis controlling behavior of opponents or baseball cathers »controlled« by the flight of the ball, and so on.

HB: Its’ much more and I doubt that you will ever understand the wholness of it. PCT is »General Theory« of how organisms function (50th Anniversary)«. But you know so little about this subject (how organisms function) specially in comparison to Bill, that I think you are really not competent to talk about who has limited understanding of PCT and who has not.

RM: Since I know you are controlling for “Rick is not an expert in PCT” I can predict that you will act to protect that perception from disturbances, such as nearly anything I say about PCT. So when I showed you that Powers had described control just as I had – as “protection” from the effects of disturbance – it was easy to predict that you would react to that disturbance by not conceding that this was a legitimate way to describe control because it would make it seem like I did have some expertise in PCT.

RM: By the way, I’m sure that what I am controlling for is as publicly discernible as what you are controlling for. Indeed, I keep posting because I want people to see what I am controlling for.

RM: By the way, people can try to conceal what they are controlling for; the way to do it is to lie. So it is possible that you are lying and you actually respect me as an expert in PCT but just don’t want me or others on the net to know that you feel that way (for some higher level reason)t. If that’s the case then, indeed, I don’t know what you are “really” controlling for and I would be very happy about having been deceived in that way;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

2

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.20.2300)]

···

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: I see you made your own interpretation of my text. You shorten my text to the degree, that suit your pusposes ,so that you could probably explain your view of what I’m controlling for.

RM: Yes, I was using you text in the same way as Bill used the subject’s verbal responses to his disturbances to the pattern of coins in the coin game (pp. 236-238 in B:CP, 2nd Ed.) Â in order to test hypotheses about the variable you are controlling for in these discussions. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

 HB: Ashby would say that you have from available variables in environment chosen only those which suit you to make your own »abstract system« which was the referecne for your control.

RM: And Powers would say that I am testing to determine (infer) what perceptual variable you are controlling for based on you verbal corrections to my disturbances to the variable that I hypothesize to be the one you are controlling.Â

Â

HB: You didn’t make interpretation of »corresponding variables«, which you perceived in outer environment (written down statements), but »limited« version of  of »corresponding variables«. There were many more of them than you later controlled.

RM: My interpretations (inferences) were (and could only be) based on your written down statements.Â

Â

 HB: So it seems that you didn’t make a »list of all variables« that I controlled (wrote down) in answer to you. So I’m aksing mayself what did you want to tell me, because I think you missed the point.

RM: My goal was only to determine one of the variables you are controlling for. I’m sure the things I say on the net are disturbances to many variables that you control but I am only interested in whether your responses are consistent with your controlling one particular variable; the variable that is consistently protected from my disturbances by your replies to me.Â

Â

HB: And I also think that’s quite often happening when people are reducing the possible variables into their own »limited«, »narrowed« »abstract system« in their mind.

RM: That is certainly a possibility; the TCV is not guaranteed to produce exactly the right answer. And the tester certainly has to avoid personal bias (their own limited, narrowed abstract system). But I think I’ve been pretty unbiased; your responses to my disturbances are very consistent.Â

HB:  So I can inform you that you got wrong »picture« of my »controlled variables«,

RM: That’s certainly possible. But it’s also possible that I described it differently than you would. Bill noted this possibility in his description of the Coin Game version of the test where the subject, S, is controlling for a “zig zag” pattern and the experimenter, E, concludes that S is controlling for the coins being in an N or Z pattern. As Bill says (p. 237) “if both are word-oriented types, E and S may argue about whose definition is the “right” one, forgetting that E has discovered what S is controlling, whatever either of them likes to call it”. I would verbally describe what you are controlling for is for “Marken is not an expert in PCT”. You might prefer saying that what you are “really” controlling for is “Marken is saying the wrong things about PCT”. I see both of those as verbal descriptions of the same non-verbal perception.Â

Â

HB: what is ussually happening to people with »reducing« strategy. I must also notice that you made very bad »TCV«, and if you are doing so subjective »TCV’s«, this has a little to do with science.

RM: This is a reaction to the disturbance of my describing the results of the TCV, a basic concept in PCT. Your reaction is just what one would expert if you are controlling for “Marken is not an expert in PCT” or, equivalently, “Marken is saying the wrong things about PCT”.

Â

HB: So beside the variable which you »controlled«, I listed in the text bellow most of those which I’ve written. You will easilly conclude that »controlled variable« seing you not being an expert in PCT simply is not mentioned.

RM: Of course not. “Marken is not an expert in PCT” is a description of the non-verbal perception that is being controlled when you reply to my comments with things like “you made very bad »TCV«”. You could explicitly say "Marken is not an expert in PCT" but you don’t need to; everything you say in response to me is consistent with  “Marken is not an expert in PCT”.Â

Â

HB: So I think that you still don’t know what I’m really controlling for.

RM: Perhaps so. But, again, it also might just be a difference in how we verbally describe the perception. What would you say what you are controlling for?

Â

HB: Written text is usually quite tricky ground for doing the TCV.

RM: True. But for testing for control of higher order variables I think it’s all we have. We have to use words and our own perceptual capabilities – the perceptions in this case being the meanings evoked by the words – to monitor the state of these hypothetical controlled variable to determine whether the written texts produced by the subject (you in this case, at least relative to me) are protecting the hypothetical controlled variable from the disturbances that are themselves written texts.Â

Â

HB: Did you try to do TCV on politicians text.

RM: It’s difficult since I don’t get to talk directly to many politicians so I can’t introduce disturbances of my own. But I do see how they answer other people’s questions and try to figure out what they are controlling based on their answers. But people who talk to politicians don’t usually ask the questions (introduce the disturbances) that I would like to have introduced. Also, part of the game of being a politician is trying to conceal what you are really controlling for; so politicians are controlling for making it difficult for people to see what they are actually controlling for. You may be doing that too. I am not, by the way. You should be able to use the test to tell rather easily what I’m controlling for.Â

HB: People talk a lot, but what they are really controlling is not so easy to discover. So here is my expanded text and much more variables than you presented.

1.      So Rick I think this our ongoing story that is not finished yet

2.      … I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from Bill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

3.      And I still think that you are sometimes wrongly presenting Bill’s theory. I know you can present it in at least two forms.

4.      Also I noticed when I was talking to Bill, that he »changed his mind« sometimes also under impressions of talkings to different members of the CSGnet group and made an allowance to change his criterium. It’s human characteristic. Who knows. Maybe you influenced his choice to accept the term »protect«.

5.      I’ll be glad to hear that I have limited understanding of PCT. But It would be nice if you show me, where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited. I’ll gladly correct my mistake.

RM: All of these statements are completely consistent with my hypothesis that you are controlling for “Rick is not an expert in PCT”. Maybe a better way to describe it is “Marken is presenting his own version of PCT”. Since you imply that I know the “right” version of PCT, there is an implication that I am doing this maliciously, Â possibly with the aim of starting my own school of PCT with me as the leader. So perhaps a better description of what you are controlling for is “Exposing Marken as a false prophet of PCT”.Â

HB: Â From a list of variables above you can see a little of what I was controlling for, but you choose just statement which suit you, for your interpretation, for your control of something.

RM: Again, I choose a verbal description of what seems to me to be a controlled perception that is consistent with everything you said above. “Exposing Marken as a false prophet of PCT” seems like a good description to me. How would you describe the variable you are controlling?

Â

HB: I doubt I could guess what was your real »controlled variable«.

RM: I can’t see how it would be difficult for you to guess what I am controlling for. In my discussions with you I am controlling for showing that most of what you say about PCT is wrong. I don’t know how I could be more obvious about it. Â

Â

HB: You didn’t make »representation« of text that you perceived, although you keep saying that »external variables« are perceptual representations or correlates.

You proved that they are not. You choosed from available variables in environment those which suit your purposes.

RM: All we have are our perceptions. The text messages are perceptions but, according to PCT, they are a function of environmental variables – the variables described by the models of chemistry and physics. What looks like the environment to you – all the stuff that you are reading, for example – is perception. But it is, in theory,a function of environmental variables.Â

Â

 HB: I assume that they were those which were probably the most interesting for you to form »abstract system« for controlling. These are my assumption. Who knows what did you really control for.

RM: I based my conclusions about what you are controlling on what you said (your text messages, which are perceptions) in reply to what I said (my test messages, which are also perceptions).Â

Â

HB: So it seems that you answered what you wanted to answer, not what was »represented« to you from your perceptual »correlates« (written text). You answer has little to do with »representation« of variables in environment,

RM: Unless you are able to see past your perceptual experience to the environmental variables on which they are presumably based, you can’[t possibly know this.Â

Â

HB: but has a lot to do with your intentions (goals) and hidden thoughts and feelings. I can guess which they really were but I’ll probably never know for sure. Even if I do your precise »TCV«, it’s useless. You can never get really into mind of other people. Everyone has it’s own little secrets.

RM: Why do you want to believe that? Do you have something to hide? Yes, people do have secrets – they control for variables that they would rather other people not know they are controlling for – but that’s only true when people think (or know) that if someone found out what they were controlling for they would get in trouble for it. Is this the case with you on CSGNet. Are you controlling for something that you are ashamed of controlling for? Do you have purposes on the net that you would rather have people not know of? If so, that’s really too bad. People may disagree with you for controlling for certain things on the net – for example, I disagree with your controlling for the idea that it’s wrong to say that a control system acts to protect controlled variables from disturbance – but that’s the worst people get for controlling for ideas on CSGNet: disagreement. Disagreements can be unpleasant but they can’t really hurt you. You seem to be surviving them pretty well.Â

Â

HB: You showed variables which you wanted to show in your answer, trying to present from your limited selection of »controlled variables« what I’m controlling for. Because your selection is limited, I asked myself what your  real intentions were ?

RM: Again, my real intentions should be obvious. I’m just trying to show that nearly everything you say is wrong. Your controlling for showing that everything I say is wrong. So there’s bound to be some conflict. But it’s pretty obvious what we’re controlling for. Â

Â

HB: I must say that you missed when trying to find out what I’m controlling for. So I can say that you still don’t know what I’m really controling for.

RM: OK, so what would you say you’re controlling for? And what do you think I’m controlling for, by the way? You must know by now.Â

Â

 HB: But I can help you. I was controlling something that you couldn’t see, because it was controlled inside :

RM: So what was it? Was it not that “Marken is a false prophet of PCT”? If not, what was it?Â

Â

 RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

Â

HB : It was your insult. And mostly I was answering on your insult.

RM: I can see that you would take it as an insult. But try to look at it as an informational diagnostic.Â

HB:  If you remember I wrote : »I’ll be glad to hear that I have limited understanding of PCT. But It would be nice if you show me, where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited. I’ll gladly correct my mistake«.

RM: I’ve given rather detailed explanations, demonstrations an even references to Powers writings to show where you (and others) were “mistaken” about PCT. These have had little success but it gives me a chance to correct what I think are mistaken ideas about PCT on the net. These  explanations, demonstrations and writings were not effective when Powers was here doing it himself so it’s highly unlikely that I’ll have any better luck, but it’s fun to keep trying. Â

Â

 HB: That was partly what I was really controling for. For you to write down evidence of my »limited understanding«.

RM: If that’s what you are really controlling for then when I give you evidence (whether it’s convincing or not) you should be satisfied and not resist it. So I can test this hypothesis by seeing whether giving you evidence stops you from posting things like the examples you give above. And I have given you evidence – the control of behavior demo as evidence to counter your (and others’) claim that behavior can’t be controlled, a detailed reply to Fred explaining why it’s perfectly ok – even preferable – to describe control as acting to protect a controlled variable from the effects of disturbance and quoted Powers using the same terminology – and rather than satisfying you this evidence just produced more test saying I was wrong. So it seems to me that what you are actually controlling for showing that I am wrong about PCT – or that I’m a false profit – and that you would rather describe this as my inability to provide evidence for what I say when I say you are wrong.Â

Â

HB:  I think that you totaly missed (you made a wrong interpretaion what I’m controlling for), because of limited and wanted variables you have choosen in your TCV. But even if I’ve wrote whatever I did, you still don’ know what I’m »really« controlling for. And you’ll probably never know.

 RM: But you just told me what you were controlling for. I don’t believe it, but that’s what you say you were really controlling for. Were you lying about that?

Â

HB: If you feel that you are not an expert for PCT this is your problem. But I sure don’t think so. I mentioned many times that I think you are presenting PCT in two forms (mr. Hyde and dr. Jekyll). Remember.

RM: Yes, so would an expert at PCT knowingly present the wrong ideas? Your Jekyll/Hyde perception of me is consistent with that idea that you are controlling for seeing me (or having me be seen) as a false prophet.Â

Â

HB:  »Seeing you (and having others see you) as someone who is not an expert in PCT« is your pure »construct«, which you somehow »projected« into me. So I’m controlling for : »you writing in PCT language« as I still beleive you can. And if you do that I think that you are an expert for PCT.

RM: Yes, I think that is really the best description of what you are controlling for; you want me to stop being a false prophet and start doing PCT right. And because you are controlling for that you are encountering the basic problem involved in arbitrarily controlling another person’s behavior. The problem is that doing what you want me to do would  be quite “inconvenient” for me because the PCT language you want me to use is not even close to PCT from my perspective.Â

Â

 HB: And I also control for :«that you have to choose which one is your favourite«. When you are writing in self-regulation or behavioristic terms, I got impression that you are not expert for PCT, but that you are an expert for self-regulation and behaviorism. So you see, you got it all wrong because you made limited and subjective analysis of TCV. So I doubt that »TCV« method for higher »controlled variables« in hierarchy can be precise. I even think it’s useless and some other methods could be better.Â

Â

HB: I think that TCV is too much inclined to assumptions, which may sometimes cause conflicts if people are accused of something they are not controlling for.

Â

HB: So Rick sorry to say, but I think your TCV analysis for what I’m controlling for, was wrong. You just made a mistake. So make it better next time.

RM: Based on this conversation I’d say that the best description of what you are controlling for is what you say you are controlling for:  “I’m controlling for : »you writing in PCT language« as I still beleive you can”.

RM: There is certainly nothing wrong with controlling for this; the only problem is that what you seem to think of as PCT language has very little to do with PCT, from my perspective.Â

RM: But this little discussion has given me some ideas about how do use language to do the test for higher level controlled variables. I hope it’s been useful to others as well, maybe even to you.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 7:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.11.1010)]

Â

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

 RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for. Â

HB :Â And you predicted right and you know what I’m contrrolling for ? Well I’d like to hear it ?

Â

RM: One of the main things you are clearly controlling for is seeing me (and having others see me) as someone who is not an expert in PCT.Â

Â

HB :

Nice try, but you only tried to guess. I think that you missed, because you frequently arrange the answer to suit your references, not to what is written. So you see your answer is not »corresponding« to your »perceptual correlates« (to what I’ve written) but to your »abstract system« or »model« which you created in your mind (or perceptual hierarchy) and that’s what you are controlling for. And sorry to say, it’s clearly that I’m not controlling for »you not being an expert in PCT«. But how could you from variables listed bellow, found out that I’m controlling what you are saying. Because this is some of the text I’ve written.

Â

Â

Â

1.      Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«. What I’m really controlling for, is in my mind, and you will probably never know, because it’s my private thought. So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can’t give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

Â

2.      So Rick I think this our ongoing story that is not finished yet.

Â

3.      … I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from BBill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

Â

4.      And I still think that you are sometimes wrongly presenting Bill’s theory. I know you can present it in at least two forms.

Â

5.      Also I noticed when I was talking to Bill, that he »changed his mind« sometimes also under impressions of talkings to different members of the CSGnet group and made an allowance to change his criterium. It’s human characteristic. Who knows. Maybe you influenced his choice to accept the term »protect«.

Â

6.      I’ll be glad to hear that I have limited understanding of PCT. But It would be nice if you show me, where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited. I’ll gladly correct my mistake.

Â

Â

But even from these variables you could hardly guess right what I was REALLY controlling for when I was writing my answer to you, because you can’t see variables that I was controlling inside (feelings). Written words can hardly express the feelings, speccially when people are expert to hide them, like politicians for example. Do you think that you can always »guess right« from political text or political speaches SHOW what polticians are REALLY »CONTROLLING FOR«. You can maybe GUESS if you are able to read »subtitles« in text or speaches. But mostly I think that people JUST TELL WHAT THEY WANT TO TELL, AND SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, in accordance to their goals in hieracrhy. And that is quite complicated to »imagine« what hierarchies of goals are in different people. But you can probbaly guess right sometimes.

 Â

I think that you missed some important »informations«, when you were »translating real text« into your »representation« what is written. I think that in »translating« or tranforming the reality into »perceptual hierarchy«, many percpetions are »transformed« from it’s »counterpart« in reality. So mostly I think that people »see« what they »want to see« not what is »objectivelly written«. So I have impression (as I transformed reality in accordance with my goals) that you missed because your »perceptual transformation of my real text« was subjective (it was yours). And others I beleive have made their own interpretation. So I serriously doubt that they saw my text as you see it.

Â

 of that yoi missed some important informations, which could lead to my »controlled variables«. So you »modeled« your own wishion of my »controlled variables«, which are more you imagination then real statements. In other words, you wrote what you think I’m controlling. So you somehow didnt’ look for »real« corresponding perception of my teaxt but those which you wanted to see. So you made quite huge mistake in predicting what I was controlling for. You’ll see that whan you’ll go in precise conversation about what really people think. You’ll never get to the end.

Â

HB: Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«.

Â

RM: I (or anyone) can get a pretty good idea of what you are controlling for by looking at what you say in response to what I say. The same is true of me, by the way; you can pretty easily tell what I’m controlling for by looking at what I say in response to what you say.Â

Â

HB :

I don’t know who are these ANYONE, who can get pretty good idea about what I’m controlling for, but it would be interesting to »hear« theam. I think that »anyone« has it’s own oppinion, but if you are such a good interpretator of other thoughts, can you speccifically fo anyone on CSGnet write what is she/he controlling for.Â

Â

Â

Well I’m not sure what you are controlling for, becaus eyour text is polite, artificial. And I can’t say wjat your thioughts and frrlings were when you wrote this. But thought a lot of beside for which is not good that you »hear them«. Then you could maybe get the real picture of what I was controlling for

Â

HB: There isn’t any. What I’m really controlling for, is in my mind, and you will probably never know, because it’s my private thought.

Â

RM: It’s really not very private. In order to control for your “private thought” you have to act by posting things on the net to protect that thought from disturbances, such as my posts. And what I am controlling for is not very private either since I have to protect those controlled perceptions from the disturbances that are your posts. So you should be able to tell what I am controlling for quite easily, just as I can tell what you are controlling for.Â

Â

HB : We didn’t protect anything. We just controlled what ever we wanted to controll and the result was the text, which did express very little about what we were controlling. But I was really controlling form your answer about me being limited. You didn’t even mentioned that.

People do have theri secrets, don’t they ? So whatever you were controlling you hide it quite good with selecting text from my answer and form some your model of answer, which you wanted to see. You didn’t answer my challenge, but instead you answered your wanted perception. You somehow projected into me, what by your oppinion I was thinking. And you let half of the text out. So we know only that you were controlling for some of your’s models of what you expected to be contolled

Â

Â

Â

HB: So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can’t give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

Â

RM: The “physical variables” that betray what you (and I) Â are controlling for are the words typed on the computer screen (and exist as perceptions in our brains). The fact that you are controlling for a perception that can be described as “Rick is not an expert in PCT” is revealed by typed comments like this:

Â

HB : What I’m typing doesn’t mean some exactness in my thinking and emotions. What pokiticians are writing, and what they reakky think it’s

Â

HB: I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from Bill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

Â

HB: We already saw some of your examples of limiting PCT to »Control of behavior« or »selfregulation theory«. Until you will stay with your »demos, models« and so on – third class scientific experiiments« - I don’t think that you’ll understand that PCT is not only about »protection« and it’s not only about »controlled variables« that have correlates in »perception« and it’s not only about »people controlling other people behavior«, like players in tennis controlling behavior of opponents or baseball cathers »controlled« by the flight of the ball, and so on.

Â

HB: Its’ much more and I doubt that you will ever understand the wholness of it. PCT is »General Theory« of how organisms function (50th Anniversary)«. But you know so little about this subject (how organisms function) specially in comparison to Bill, that I think you are really not competent to talk about who has limited understanding of PCT and who has not.Â

Â

RM: Since I know you are controlling for “Rick is not an expert in PCT” I can predict that you will act to protect that perception from disturbances, such as nearly anything I say about PCT. So when I showed you that Powers had described control just as I had – as “protection” from the effects of disturbance – it was easy to predict that you would react to that disturbance by not conceding that this was a legitimate way to describe control because it would make it seem like I did have some expertise in PCT.

Â

RM: By the way, I’m sure that what I am controlling for is as publicly discernible as what you are controlling for. Indeed, I keep posting because I want people to see what I am controlling for.Â

Â

RM: By the way, people can try to conceal what they are controlling for; the way to do it is to lie. So it is possible that you are lying and you actually respect me as an expert in PCT but just don’t want me or others on the net to know that you feel that way (for some higher level reason)t. If that’s the case then, indeed, I don’t know what you are “really” controlling for and I would be very happy about having been deceived in that way;-)

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

3

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.20.2300)]

HB: I see you made your own interpretation of my text. You shorten my text to the degree, that suit your pusposes ,so that you could probably explain your view of what I’m controlling for.

RM: Yes, I was using you text in the same way as Bill used the subject’s verbal responses to his disturbances to the pattern of coins in the coin game (pp. 236-238 in B:CP, 2nd Ed.) in order to test hypotheses about the variable you are controlling for in these discussions.

HB: Ashby would say that you have from available variables in environment chosen only those which suit you to make your own »abstract system« which was the referecne for your control.

RM: And Powers would say that I am testing to determine (infer) what perceptual variable you are controlling for based on you verbal corrections to my disturbances to the variable that I hypothesize to be the one you are controlling.

HB : Maybe. Bill changed his mind couple times. But I think that he would agree with Ashby :

Bill P :

Something is coming together that is making sense of some ideas I have resisted for a long time. It has to do with the brain’s models of the external world. From the way I have seen those models proposed by others such as Ashby and Modern Control Theory adherents, I have thought they were simply impractical, calling for far too much knowledge, computing power, and precision of action – as indeed they are and they do, as they have been presented.

But those ideas may nevertheless be right. Some of those other blind men standing around the elephant are perhaps only a little nearsighted, and are seeing something going on that looks fuzzily like modeling, but there’s something funny about it so it isn’t quite how it seems from this angle or that. This particular blind or nearsighted man writing these sentences has not seen models; he has seen a hierarchy of perceptions that somehow represents an external world, and a large collection of Complex Environmental Variables (as Martin Taylor calls them) that is mirrored inside the brain in the form of perceptions.

Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience ANYTHING BUT the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.

That is all we need to do to build up a model of the external world. It’s not even that; it’s just a model of the world. The idea that there’s also an external world that we don’t experience takes a while to develop. At first it’s just the only world there is.

So that is the model that Ashby and the Modern Control Theorists are talking about. It’s the world we experience. When we examine that external plant in order to model it, we’re already looking at the brain’s model. It lacks detail, but as we probe and push and peer and twiddle and otherwise act on these rudimentary perceptions, new perceptions form that begin to add features and properties – like mass – to the model. We say we are analyzing the plant. What we are doing is building up perceptions of properties and features that can be affected by sending signals outward, learning how to control the perceptions. Why we have to act one way instead of another to get a particular effect is unknown, but we learn the rules. When we don’t get the effect we want, we alter what we are doing until we do get it.

We never do actually, knowingly, interact with the plant itself.

It seems very risky to be operating entirely on an internal model without any ability to know what is really going on that we can’t see, but really, it’s not. Before you step into the bathtub you feel the water, so if you’ve made a mistake you’re not going to scald your whole body. We detect errors very quickly and make adjustments almost as quickly to limit the errors, and eventually to keep them from ever getting very large. We’re always interacting with whatever is Out There, and we learn fast. Most of us. most of the time, don’t even think about the invisible universe Out There. The visible one is sufficient to keep us busy and interested. The idea that there’s another bigger one that actually determines what the rules are doesn’t usually arise.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:16 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What I’m controlling for…

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

4

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.21.1320)]

···

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: A**shby would say that you have from available variables in environment chosen only those which suit you to make your own »abstract system« **which was the referecne for your control.

RM: And Powers would say that I am testing to determine (infer) what perceptual variable you are controlling for based on you verbal corrections to my disturbances to the variable that I hypothesize to be the one you are controlling.

HB : Maybe. Bill changed his mind couple times. But I think that he would agree with Ashby :

Bill P :

Something is coming together that is making sense of some ideas I have resisted for a long time. It has to do with the brain’s models of the external world. from the way I have seen those models proposed by others such as Ashby and Modern Control Theory adherents, I have thought they were simply impractical, calling for far too much knowledge, computing power, and precision of action – as indeed they are and they do, as they have been presented.

But those ideas may nevertheless be right.

RM: This is a wonderful quote from Bill but I don’t see it as suggesting that Bill would agree with what you say Ashby would say about my testing for the perception you are controlling. Bill’s quote is an extremely clever way of making the predictive or model-based approach to control taken by Ashby and Modern Control Theorists sensible in terms of PCT. He does this by realizing that what we experience as the environment is actually a model of the environment. Powers is saying here that our perceptions (which we experience as the environment) are the model of the actual environment “out there” (what he called “plant” in the quote).

RM: If you read Bill’s quote carefully you will see that he is describing learning to control as a process of building our model (perceptions) by seeing the effect of our actions on the model. The model is a function of the plant – the real environment out there – which we never experience directly but is what constrains the way we have to act in order to get the model to act as we want. That’s what that last paragraph is about. When Bill says that “We’re always interacting with whatever is Out There, and we learn fast” he’s saying that we are always interacting with a real physical environment that is the basis of out model (perception) and we learn how to act within the constraints of that reality in order to get the model to act as we wish. For example, you learn pretty quickly which way to turn the handle on the faucet to increase or decrease the perception of water temperature when you’re taking a shower. The reason certain forces have to be used to increase the temperature and others to decrease it is presumably a constraint imposed by the environment “out there” on the other side of he model, so to speak In other words, he is describing the PCT model of control but using the word model to refer to our perceptual world that we experience as the environment.

RM: So what I see here is Powers discovering a way to look at “Model based control” that makes sense in terms of his existing epistemology. And trying to give some credit to Ashby who, like Weiner and others, was a pioneer in the application of control theory in psychology.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

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

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:16 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What I’m controlling for…

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.20.2300)]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: I see you made your own interpretation of my text. You shorten my text to the degree, that suit your pusposes ,so that you could probably explain your view of what I’m controlling for.

RM: Yes, I was using you text in the same way as Bill used the subject’s verbal responses to his disturbances to the pattern of coins in the coin game (pp. 236-238 in B:CP, 2nd Ed.) in order to test hypotheses about the variable you are controlling for in these discussions.

HB: Ashby would say that you have from available variables in environment chosen only those which suit you to make your own »abstract system« which was the referecne for your control.

RM: And Powers would say that I am testing to determine (infer) what perceptual variable you are controlling for based on you verbal corrections to my disturbances to the variable that I hypothesize to be the one you are controlling.

HB : Maybe. Bill changed his mind couple times. But I think that he would agree with Ashby :

Bill P :

Something is coming together that is making sense of some ideas I have resisted for a long time. It has to do with the brain’s models of the external world. From the way I have seen those models proposed by others such as Ashby and Modern Control Theory adherents, I have thought they were simply impractical, calling for far too much knowledge, computing power, and precision of action – as indeed they are and they do, as they have been presented.

But those ideas may nevertheless be right. Some of those other blind men standing around the elephant are perhaps only a little nearsighted, and are seeing something going on that looks fuzzily like modeling, but there’s something funny about it so it isn’t quite how it seems from this angle or that. This particular blind or nearsighted man writing these sentences has not seen models; he has seen a hierarchy of perceptions that somehow represents an external world, and a large collection of Complex Environmental Variables (as Martin Taylor calls them) that is mirrored inside the brain in the form of perceptions.

Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience ANYTHING BUT the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.

That is all we need to do to build up a model of the external world. It’s not even that; it’s just a model of the world. The idea that there’s also an external world that we don’t experience takes a while to develop. At first it’s just the only world there is.

So that is the model that Ashby and the Modern Control Theorists are talking about. It’s the world we experience. When we examine that external plant in order to model it, we’re already looking at the brain’s model. It lacks detail, but as we probe and push and peer and twiddle and otherwise act on these rudimentary perceptions, new perceptions form that begin to add features and properties – like mass – to the model. We say we are analyzing the plant. What we are doing is building up perceptions of properties and features that can be affected by sending signals outward, learning how to control the perceptions. Why we have to act one way instead of another to get a particular effect is unknown, but we learn the rules. When we don’t get the effect we want, we alter what we are doing until we do get it.

We never do actually, knowingly, interact with the plant itself.

It seems very risky to be operating entirely on an internal model without any ability to know what is really going on that we can’t see, but really, it’s not. Before you step into the bathtub you feel the water, so if you’ve made a mistake you’re not going to scald your whole body. We detect errors very quickly and make adjustments almost as quickly to limit the errors, and eventually to keep them from ever getting very large. We’re always interacting with whatever is Out There, and we learn fast. Most of us. most of the time, don’t even think about the invisible universe Out There. The visible one is sufficient to keep us busy and interested. The idea that there’s another bigger one that actually determines what the rules are doesn’t usually arise.

Best,

Boris

–
Richard S. Marken

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