What to say? (was Improper Actions)

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.0825 EST)] -

I've been following (loosely) this thread ("improper actions") and a comment below caught my eye and triggers a comment...
      

From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,13:15 EUST)]

Well we know (or shall I say hypothesize, Martin) that living organisms
control their perceptions. They don't control their actions. Give me a
reason for reading something I don't know is an action, intended result or a
side effect. Well of course it is entertainment.

The comment above about controlling perceptions and not controlling actions (or behavior) is a commonplace remark on this list. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, it amounts to a central tenet of PCT.

I also think I understand the statement in a PCT sense. I further think it flies in the face of common sense. I just now reached for a cup sitting on my desk and took a sip of coffee. Is there an elegant PCT-based explanation of that "action" or "behavior"? Sure, and it hinges on the control of perception. However, were you to ask me if I controlled my "cup getting" behavior or my "coffee sipping" action, I would say, "Sure." So would most people I know.

I wonder if a technical explanation of control is getting in the way of communicating PCT to others, of capturing their interest, and of engaging their minds.

And so I try to avoid saying things like "we control our perceptions" and "we don't control our behavior." I think they raise unnecessary barriers to understanding and invite rejection as well as scorn.

What do I say instead? Well, I sometimes say that "our actions are controlled by way of our perceptions." I sometimes say that "behavior is controlled through perception." And I sometimes say that "perception is the means through which we control our behavior and actions." But I try very hard NOT to say, "We don't control our behavior or our actions." Or even the more familiar, "Behavior is the control of perception."

What to say? What to say? Do others on this list find it awkward to tell others that they don't control their behavior or actions? What do you say?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at A Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

2

Fred Nickols wrote:

...

The comment above about controlling perceptions and
not controlling actions (or behavior) is a
commonplace remark on this list. Indeed, unless I'm
mistaken, it amounts to a central tenet of PCT.

I also think I understand the statement in a PCT
sense. I further think it flies in the face of
common sense.

That flight is indicative of its advantageous content,
but communication can be difficult as a result.

...
I wonder if a technical explanation of control is
getting in the way of communicating PCT to others,
of capturing their interest, and of engaging their
minds.

Without a doubt. I've noticed this many times.

And so I try to avoid saying things like "we control
our perceptions" and "we don't control our
behavior." I think they raise unnecessary barriers
to understanding and invite rejection as well as
scorn.

What do I say instead? ...
What to say? What to say? Do others on this list
find it awkward to tell others that they don't
control their behavior or actions? What do you say?

At some point, I do bring up these detail, and often
in these terms. But for general discussion of
behavior I've found that the best route is to simply
talk about people doing things. Questions about
behavior are usually cleared up by identifying what
the individuals involved are doing. This is readily
understood as *an internal state of accomplishment*.
The standard vocabulary of motives works quite nicely,
most of the time.

My wife and I have learned to discuss and apply PCT
with only rare recourse to the problematic vocabulary.
I'm certainly interested in getting better at doing
so, and widening the circle of converationalists
within which this seems natural.

Tracy Harms

···

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

3

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.07)]

<Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.0825 EST)>

<What to say? What to say? Do others on this list find it awkward to tell others that they don’t control their behavior or actions? What do you say?>

Great observation Fred and a good question. I do believe PCT defies “common sense.” I have not found it to be confrontational with most people, except with classic psychology scientists.

Most people I deal with can find many examples in life where “common sense” has not proven to be valid. So, I find that disclaiming that, “me, or you, actually control our behavior” captures some attention. They react with suprise. They are inquisitive. What are you talking about? So, I just explain that, “We act/behave to control our perceptions. I can prove it by experiment.”

Knowing that you don’t really “control” actions, even your own, is a good first step in learning why your attempts to control the behavior/actions of others are so often futile.

4

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.07.1230)]

Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.0825 EST)]-

The comment above about controlling perceptions and not controlling actions
(or behavior) is a commonplace remark on this list. Indeed, unless I'm
mistaken, it amounts to a central tenet of PCT.

I suppose it could be a tenet of hierarchical PCT but I think it's also kind
of confusing (for the reasons you give in your post).

I would say that actions are not controlled in the sense that they will be
varied as necessary to achieve the higher order goal that they are the means
of achieving. The mouse movements in a tracking task, for example, are not
controlled in the sense that they will be varied as necessary to keep the
cursor on target. You can't control the cursor and, at the same time,
control the mouse _arbitrarily_, in the sense of keeping the mouse in
whatever position you want. If, for example, I want to keep the mouse over a
spot on table (keeping the mouse in a particular reference position) I won't
be able to control the cursor by moving the mouse as necessary to compensate
for disturbance.

I think the main reason for saying that we control perceptions, not actions,
though, is to make it clear that there are many circumstances where what you
see a person doing (their actions) is not what they intend. For example,
when the subject in the rubber band demo is made to draw a triangle with
their finger, this action (the triangle, which is really a side effect of
finger movements that keep the knot on target) is not intended; it is just a
response to the disturbances to knot position that are produce by the
experimenter.

I also think I understand the statement in a PCT sense. I further think it
flies in the face of common sense. I just now reached for a cup sitting on my
desk and took a sip of coffee. Is there an elegant PCT-based explanation of
that "action" or "behavior"? Sure, and it hinges on the control of
perception. However, were you to ask me if I controlled my "cup getting"
behavior or my "coffee sipping" action, I would say, "Sure." So would most
people I know.

Yes. I agree. Both the sip and the movements used to take the sip are
controlled by you. But the detailed movements you used to take the sip were
determined by prevailing circumstances -- disturbances -- so the actions
used to take the sip were not _arbitrarily_ controlled -- they were
controlled in the way they had to be controlled in order to achieve the goal
of taking a sip.

I wonder if a technical explanation of control is getting in the way of
communicating PCT to others, of capturing their interest, and of engaging
their minds.

If the technical explanation is just words, then I suppose that's possible.
But if the technical definition is taught through demonstrations and working
models, then I think the students will be in better shape.

And so I try to avoid saying things like "we control our perceptions" and "we
don't control our behavior." I think they raise unnecessary barriers to
understanding and invite rejection as well as scorn.

What do I say instead? Well, I sometimes say that "our actions are controlled
by way of our perceptions."

I don't think that's a very good way to say it. Why not just say that
people vary their actions as needed to produce the results they want and
illustrate it with everyday examples?

I sometimes say that "behavior is controlled
through perception." And I sometimes say that "perception is the means
through which we control our behavior and actions."

I don't care for these either. They sounds wrong to me, anyway.

What to say? What to say?

Like Eliza Dolittle, I'm pretty sick of words. Don't talk of control, show
me!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

5

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1632 EST)] -
  

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.07.1230)]

> Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.0825 EST)]-
>
> What do I say instead? Well, I sometimes say that "our actions are controlled
> by way of our perceptions."

I don't think that's a very good way to say it. Why not just say that
people vary their actions as needed to produce the results they want and
illustrate it with everyday examples?

That is indeed a much better way of saying it. But to vary one's actions needn't signify that those actions are not being controlled (or, by implication, out of control) - or does it?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at A Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

6

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.07.1450)]

Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1632 EST)

Rick Marken (2005.11.07.1230)

I don't think that's a very good way to say it. Why not just say that
people vary their actions as needed to produce the results they want and
illustrate it with everyday examples?

That is indeed a much better way of saying it. But to vary one's actions
needn't signify that those actions are not being controlled (or, by
implication, out of control) - or does it?

Yes, I agree. As I said, the fact is that actions other than those at the
lowest level of hierarchy are themselves controlled perceptual variables.
Mouse position (as perceived by the controller) is controlled (relative to a
varying reference) as the means of controlling cursor position, for example.

I think that the "actions are not controlled" mantra is simply a way of
making two points that come from an understanding of how control systems
work. One of the points is that what we see people doing -- their actions --
does not necessarily correspond to the perceptions these people are
controlling. Rather than just saying "actions are not controlled", I think
you can communicate this point better using the rubber band demo where you
get a person to draw a square or write their name (by disturbing a
controlled variable) when that is not what they intend.

The other point is probably only relevant to roboticists and others
interested in modeling behavior. When we say "actions are not controlled"
we mean that behavior is not produced by the computation of appropriate
output actions. You don't keep a cursor on target, for example, by computing
where the cursor should be and then moving it there. Outputs are not really
controlled in output computation models but the word "controlled" is often
used to describe the process of computing outputs based on prediction of
future requirements for what the outputs should be. The reason why output
computation doesn't work is because of the unpredictability of the
environment. But I don't think you need to bore people with that stuff when
you are just introducing PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.