What's in a name?

[JohnK]

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer (Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious, the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

···

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[FredNickols]

from Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception
Control Theory.

Fred Nickols
Performance Improvement Professional
Distance Consulting LLC
fred@nickols.us
www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

···

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few hundred
yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent development of
flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on a farm in the
South
Pacific where communication was limited to sailing ships. And the locals
threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour has it he made a
significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse lacked was marketing and
support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it takes
three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right mind will
spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious, the
adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT archives
will
be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one's wardrobe, is unlikely to affect the
body of PCT. There's no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who could
assist here. If not, let's consider additional views from those with a
working knowledge of 'history of science'.

Kind regards...

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak <tcloak@unm.edu> wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(Ethology - Wikipedia) ?

Nope. It's got to include "perception" and "control" and there's nothing
wrong with "theory". PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

*From:* csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

*To:* csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
*Subject:* Re: What's in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning
to seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the
PCT
way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around
measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over
geological
timescales?

Teleonomy - Wikipedia

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

I'm enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
crafting
a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take
time,
so it's not as if this has to be decided right away. When I'm in the
process of writing something, I often need to place it on the back
burner
for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at
the
oddest moments, usually when my back is turned...

I was laughing at "The Theory of Everything," and "Reality." ha! Would
that it should be that obvious...

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> >> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it could be understood to
mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support
of
purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
study
of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose.
I
think of "purpose" as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
the
phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying
actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable
disturbances
to those results. So I don't see control as something that "supports"
purpose; control _is_ purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It
didn't get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

--

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

--

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT
using Method of Levels
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-Therapy/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1&gt;
is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control
Theory

[dmg]

[David Goldstein (2014.06.12.0643)]

Biocybernetics is defined
as:

“Biocybernetics is the application of cybernetics to biological science, composed of biological disciplines that benefit from the application of cybernetics including …”

There are journals, for example, Biological Cybernetics.

Bill chose the name Living Control Systems for his books.

Perhaps, PCT_biocybernetics is a term to consider. Then we could say: I am a PCT_biocyberneticist.

Before CSG, we attended the cybernetics meetings.

In any case, it is fun to play with this.

David

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

···

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:06 PM, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,
Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I
often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production
of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on
A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[tedcloak]

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we were stuck with "perceptual".
But I'd definitely support the change to "Perception Control Theory".
Ted

···

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

from Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control Theory.

Fred Nickols
Performance Improvement Professional
Distance Consulting LLC
fred@nickols.us
www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few
hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent
development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on
a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing
ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour
has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse
lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it
takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right
mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,
the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT
archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one's wardrobe, is unlikely to affect
the body of PCT. There's no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who
could assist here. If not, let's consider additional views from those
with a working knowledge of 'history of science'.

Kind regards...

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak <tcloak@unm.edu> wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(Ethology - Wikipedia) ?

Nope. It's got to include "perception" and "control" and there's
nothing wrong with "theory". PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

*From:* csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

*To:* csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
*Subject:* Re: What's in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to
seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as
the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around
measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over
geological timescales?

Teleonomy - Wikipedia

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

I'm enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good
things take time, so it's not as if this has to be decided right
away. When I'm in the process of writing something, I often need to
place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once
eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when
my back is turned...

I was laughing at "The Theory of Everything," and "Reality." ha! Would
that it should be that obvious...

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> >> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it could be understood to
mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support
of
purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
study
of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose.
I
think of "purpose" as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
the
phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying
actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable
disturbances
to those results. So I don't see control as something that "supports"
purpose; control _is_ purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It
didn't get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

--

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

--

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT
using Method of Levels
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-Therapy/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1&gt;
is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control
Theory

[_bara0361]

I continue to balk at changing the name of the theory itself.

I agree with exploring new marketing angles, however. And I also really liked the idea of approaching MIT.

*barb

···

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we were stuck with “perceptual”.

But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.

Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional

Distance Consulting LLC

fred@nickols.us

www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer

(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent

development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on

a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour

has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse

lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it

takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right

mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT

archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who

could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s

nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that

purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as

the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around

measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on

evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over

geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of

crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good

things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right

away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to

place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once

eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when

my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would

that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to

mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support

of

purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the

study

of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose.

I

think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be

the

phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying

actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable

disturbances

to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports”

purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of

Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in

Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It

didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as

important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for

Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT

using Method of Levels

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-Therapy/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>
is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control

Theory

[FredNickols]

from Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is "of or relating to perceptions." Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control Theory. Now there's no ambiguity, we're talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.

Fred

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What's in a name?

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we
were stuck with "perceptual".
But I'd definitely support the change to "Perception Control Theory".
Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-
request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What's in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control
Theory.

Fred Nickols
Performance Improvement Professional
Distance Consulting LLC
fred@nickols.us
www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:
> [John Kirkland 20140611]
>
> A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
> (Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few
> hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent
> development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on
> a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing
> ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour
> has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse
> lacked was marketing and support.
>
> Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it
> takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right
> mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,
> the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT
> archives will be bombarded with controversy.
>
> Changing a name, like changing one's wardrobe, is unlikely to affect
> the body of PCT. There's no need to re-brand.
>
> Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who
> could assist here. If not, let's consider additional views from those
> with a working knowledge of 'history of science'.
>
> Kind regards...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak <tcloak@unm.edu> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology
>>
>> (Ethology - Wikipedia) ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope. It's got to include "perception" and "control" and there's
>> nothing wrong with "theory". PCT it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
>> csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR
>> YERANOSIAN
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM
>>
>> *To:* csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: What's in a name?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to
>> seem vain.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>>
>> I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
>> purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as
>> the PCT way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Warren Mansell
>> Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
>> Subject: Re: What's in a name?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around
>> measurement.
>>
>> Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
>> evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over
>> geological timescales?
>>
>> Teleonomy - Wikipedia
>>
>>
>>
>> Warren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>>
>> What about teleometrics?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: bara0361@gmail.com
>> Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
>> Subject: Re: What's in a name?
>>
>> I'm enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
>> crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good
>> things take time, so it's not as if this has to be decided right
>> away. When I'm in the process of writing something, I often need to
>> place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once
>> eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when
>> my back is turned...
>>
>>
>>
>> I was laughing at "The Theory of Everything," and "Reality." ha!
>> Would that it should be that obvious...
>>
>>
>>
>> best,
>>
>> *barb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken > <rsmarken@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
>>
>> [From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)
>>
>>
>>
>> MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it could be understood
>> to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in
>> support of purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
>> study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of
>> purpose.
>> I
>> think of "purpose" as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
>> the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by
>> varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and
>> undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don't see control as
>> something that "supports"
>> purpose; control _is_ purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
>> Al-gebra?
>>
>>
>>
>> RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
>> Arabic.
>>
>>
>> MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.
>> It didn't get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?
>>
>>
>>
>> RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
>> important as the destination, grasshopper;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Richard S. Marken PhD
>> www.mindreadings.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr Warren Mansell
>> Reader in Psychology
>> Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
>> School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester
>> Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL
>> Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
>>
>> Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
>>
>>
>> See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
>> Bipolar Disorders in NW England
>>
>> The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to
>> CBT using Method of Levels
>> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-
Thera
>> py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>
>> is available now.
>>
>> Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control
>> Theory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.12.0930)]

···

John Kirkland (20140611)

JK: A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer (Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse lacked was marketing and support.

JK: Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious, the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT archives will be bombarded with controversy.

JK: Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

RM: I agree. And I want to try to make it clear again that I am not interested in renaming the theory that we call PCT; I like the name of the theory just fine. The exercise I suggested was to find a name for the subject area that to which the theory is applied. As I said, I think one of the big problems for PCT has been a failure to understand what PCT is a theory of. I think “teleonomy” is a good description of what PCT is a theory of: control or purposeful behavior, particularly as it is exhibited in the behavior of living organisms, So maybe “bioteleonomy” is a better name for the subject matter explained by PCT.

This brings up the interesting question of what is the alternative to PCT as a theory of bioteleonomy. I would say that right now there is no alternative to PCT. PCT is currently the only theory that explains the purposeful (control) behavior of living systems. If there ever is an alternative to PCT is will still be a control theory and it will still involve the control of perception. It will only differ from PCT in details, such as the nature of the organization of a structure of control systems (hierarchical, heterarchical, etc). So maybe as PCT is tweaked based on the results of research we will have to find names for competing versions of PCT. But right now, I think PCT describes the correct basic model of purposeful (control) behavior.

Best

Rick

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[David_M]

From David Milem (2014.06.12.1128)

I like this slight shift from “perceptual” to “perception.” I am not a “core” contributor here, but thought I would chime in … .

David

···

From: fred@nickols.us
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What’s in a name?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:08:40 -0400

From Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is “of or relating to perceptions.” Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control Theory. Now there’s no ambiguity, we’re talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we
were stuck with “perceptual”.
But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.
Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-
request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control
Theory.

Fred Nickols
Performance Improvement Professional
Distance Consulting LLC
fred@nickols.us
www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few
hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent
development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on
a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing
ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour
has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse
lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it
takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right
mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,
the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT
archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect
the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who
could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those
with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(Ethology - Wikipedia) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s
nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to
seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com > > wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as
the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around
measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over
geological timescales?

Teleonomy - Wikipedia

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com > > wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good
things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right
away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to
place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once
eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when
my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha!
Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken > > rsmarken@gmail.com > > >> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood
to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in
support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of
purpose.
I
think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by
varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and
undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as
something that “supports”
purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.
It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester
Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to
CBT using Method of Levels
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-
Thera
py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>
is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control
Theory

[_bara0361]

And that, David, I’m sure is why Dad entitled his book, “Behavior: The Control of Perception,” as you all well know. It sounds good because that is indeed what it is all about.

I totally see what you’re driving at, Rick, and I think it merits careful research and thought to develop a new name for this field of study. What an interesting competition, to actually create a new field!

I’ll soon be on a very long flight for a vacation, at which time I am sure to have some time on my hands to consider all of this. I rely on the members of this csgnet to know better than I what new names would make the most sense, but I enjoy being a wordsmith of sorts, and this is a compelling challenge. I think with a little time and your fine teamwork, the answer will become apparent.

best,

*barb

···

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, David M davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

From David Milem (2014.06.12.1128)

I like this slight shift from “perceptual” to “perception.” I am not a “core” contributor here, but thought I would chime in … .

David

From: fred@nickols.us
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:08:40 -0400

From Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is “of or relating to perceptions.” Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control Theory. Now there’s no ambiguity, we’re talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we

were stuck with “perceptual”.
But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.
Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-
request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control
Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional
Distance Consulting LLC
fred@nickols.us
www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent
development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on
a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour
has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse
lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it
takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right
mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT
archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who
could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s
nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com
wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as
the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around

measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over

geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com

wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good

things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right
away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to
place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once

eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when
my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha!

Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood
to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in

support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of

purpose.
I
think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by

varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and
undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as
something that “supports”

purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.
It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester
Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to
CBT using Method of Levels

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-

Thera

py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>

is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control

Theory

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

[phil 6/12/14 11:14]

RM: The exercise I suggested was to find a name for the subject area that to which the theory is applied. As I said, I think one of the big problems for PCT has been a failure to understand what PCT is a theory of. I think “teleonomy” is a good description of what PCT is a theory of: control or purposeful behavior, particularly as it is exhibited in the behavior of living organisms,

PY: The word you’re looking for is phenomenology. It is the nature of observed phenomena from the perspective of the observer itself. I know you think PCT is mainly about observing control from the experimenters perspective. But it’s really about perceptions from the living systems perspective.

For example, has anybody read the philosophical piece called “what it’s like to be a bat”, where the author tries to describe the conscious experience of a bat and explains the necessity of an organizational framework of perception to help us understand what it would consciously ‘feel’ like to be a bat. He points out the inadequacy of describing the experience as the performance of various actions and begs for a clearer understanding of the nature of experience itself. The experience of the bat consists, for example, of the perceptions it controls while it catches insects by using echolocation. We can imagine, as humans, if we had ecolocative capacity, what it would be like to control this input only if we built a perceptual control organization to describe it. The most powerful utility of PCT is its ability to put you in the skin of another living thing - whether it’s a bat catching flies or a zombie eating brains - and just understand what the hell is going on from their perspective. To pretend not that you are mimicking their actions and seeing what it feels like to do the action, but rather to imagine actually trying to establish a controlled experience from the perspective of the other. PCT is a theory of relativity. And I think that once we establish this whole ‘living things are control systems’ situation and we figure out the ‘origin of life’ situation, then well be able to bring artificial control systems into the picture.

Speaking about the origin of life. Does anybody know ‘why’ DNA exists? I mean, not in the Darwinian sense of ‘whatever exists survives’ but in the literal sense of ‘why’. Give me a second to explain.

Do you guys ever wonder whether there was intelligent life on Mars? We’re checking the soil for moisture, microbes, etc. This pathetic entreaty constitutes our search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Did you know that there are huge pyramids on Mars? They are organized into a star tetrahedron (Star of David) and a Fibonacci (Golden ratio) spiral. These pyramids exist in very precise mathematical relationships with other structures including - wait for it - a buried city and a human face, a mile wide, carved into a stone mesa. Don’t believe me? Your disbelief is a controlled perception of NASA. But the book I read was by guys who were dealing with NASA’s cover ups. Anyway, humans have been to Mars a long time ago. And now you know that there were humans on Mars.

Which brings us back to Earth. The great pyramid on earth is a very special structure, as it serves as the keystone for a global organization of megalithic structures (it is located at the intersection of two great circles, and every single megalithic structure on earth is built on these two circles). These megaliths are built at their locations for a very specific reason, namely that they are directly on nodal points of the earths geomagnetic energy grid.

The guy who built the great pyramid (yea, it was Just one guy responsible), his name is Thoth. He was the Einstein of the ancients and he invented what we puny mortals refer to as ‘sacred geometry’. Hardly anyone studies Thoth but without Thoth the earth might not still be here.

So about DNA. It spontaneously forms in the presence of Schumann resonance. It does not form without this presence. This means, put a test tube of DNA precursors in the presence of any frequency except this one and DNA does not form. But under this frequency, it forms. Schumann resonance is the global electromagnetic resonance of the earth, formed between the ionosphere and the surface of the earth. These are very important energies, and the megalithic structures were used to harvest these energies.

So, When is PCT going to be awesome? Either, when it computationally solves the origin of life question, when it technically explains the observer effect of quantum mechanics, or when it eloquently describes the phenomenological concepts of philosophy. You guys choose which path to take first.

Meanwhile, we’ll do the ROS thing very seriously. But next time you see a psychologist who scoffs at PCT, slap them in the face and tell them they’re doing humanity a terrific service.

Phil

···

On Thursday, June 12, 2014, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

I continue to balk at changing the name of the theory itself.

I agree with exploring new marketing angles, however. And I also really liked the idea of approaching MIT.

*barb

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we were stuck with “perceptual”.

But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.

Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional

Distance Consulting LLC

fred@nickols.us

www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer

(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent

development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on

a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour

has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse

lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it

takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right

mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT

archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who

could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s

nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that

purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as

the PCT way.

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

Of course, we know PCT is awesome regardless.

···

On Thursday, June 12, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[phil 6/12/14 11:14]

RM: The exercise I suggested was to find a name for the subject area that to which the theory is applied. As I said, I think one of the big problems for PCT has been a failure to understand what PCT is a theory of. I think “teleonomy” is a good description of what PCT is a theory of: control or purposeful behavior, particularly as it is exhibited in the behavior of living organisms,

PY: The word you’re looking for is phenomenology. It is the nature of observed phenomena from the perspective of the observer itself. I know you think PCT is mainly about observing control from the experimenters perspective. But it’s really about perceptions from the living systems perspective.

For example, has anybody read the philosophical piece called “what it’s like to be a bat”, where the author tries to describe the conscious experience of a bat and explains the necessity of an organizational framework of perception to help us understand what it would consciously ‘feel’ like to be a bat. He points out the inadequacy of describing the experience as the performance of various actions and begs for a clearer understanding of the nature of experience itself. The experience of the bat consists, for example, of the perceptions it controls while it catches insects by using echolocation. We can imagine, as humans, if we had ecolocative capacity, what it would be like to control this input only if we built a perceptual control organization to describe it. The most powerful utility of PCT is its ability to put you in the skin of another living thing - whether it’s a bat catching flies or a zombie eating brains - and just understand what the hell is going on from their perspective. To pretend not that you are mimicking their actions and seeing what it feels like to do the action, but rather to imagine actually trying to establish a controlled experience from the perspective of the other. PCT is a theory of relativity. And I think that once we establish this whole ‘living things are control systems’ situation and we figure out the ‘origin of life’ situation, then well be able to bring artificial control systems into the picture.

Speaking about the origin of life. Does anybody know ‘why’ DNA exists? I mean, not in the Darwinian sense of ‘whatever exists survives’ but in the literal sense of ‘why’. Give me a second to explain.

Do you guys ever wonder whether there was intelligent life on Mars? We’re checking the soil for moisture, microbes, etc. This pathetic entreaty constitutes our search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Did you know that there are huge pyramids on Mars? They are organized into a star tetrahedron (Star of David) and a Fibonacci (Golden ratio) spiral. These pyramids exist in very precise mathematical relationships with other structures including - wait for it - a buried city and a human face, a mile wide, carved into a stone mesa. Don’t believe me? Your disbelief is a controlled perception of NASA. But the book I read was by guys who were dealing with NASA’s cover ups. Anyway, humans have been to Mars a long time ago. And now you know that there were humans on Mars.

Which brings us back to Earth. The great pyramid on earth is a very special structure, as it serves as the keystone for a global organization of megalithic structures (it is located at the intersection of two great circles, and every single megalithic structure on earth is built on these two circles). These megaliths are built at their locations for a very specific reason, namely that they are directly on nodal points of the earths geomagnetic energy grid.

The guy who built the great pyramid (yea, it was Just one guy responsible), his name is Thoth. He was the Einstein of the ancients and he invented what we puny mortals refer to as ‘sacred geometry’. Hardly anyone studies Thoth but without Thoth the earth might not still be here.

So about DNA. It spontaneously forms in the presence of Schumann resonance. It does not form without this presence. This means, put a test tube of DNA precursors in the presence of any frequency except this one and DNA does not form. But under this frequency, it forms. Schumann resonance is the global electromagnetic resonance of the earth, formed between the ionosphere and the surface of the earth. These are very important energies, and the megalithic structures were used to harvest these energies.

So, When is PCT going to be awesome? Either, when it computationally solves the origin of life question, when it technically explains the observer effect of quantum mechanics, or when it eloquently describes the phenomenological concepts of philosophy. You guys choose which path to take first.

Meanwhile, we’ll do the ROS thing very seriously. But next time you see a psychologist who scoffs at PCT, slap them in the face and tell them they’re doing humanity a terrific service.

Phil

On Thursday, June 12, 2014, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

I continue to balk at changing the name of the theory itself.

I agree with exploring new marketing angles, however. And I also really liked the idea of approaching MIT.

*barb

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we were stuck with “perceptual”.

But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.

Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional

Distance Consulting LLC

fred@nickols.us

www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer

(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent

development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on

a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour

has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse

lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it

takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right

mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT

archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who

could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s

nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that

purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as

the PCT way.

[Kent]

[From Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)]

There's some precedent for using the name Perception Control Theory to describe PCT. Back in the early 1990s, when the name of the theory was still in flux, sociologists Clark McPhail and Chuck Tucker decided that they liked Perception better than Perceptual, and they used that name in a book and several articles that they published. There was, perhaps, some confusion in the field of sociology about the name of the theory, since I published an article a couple of years later that used the name Perceptual Control Theory.

Other sociologists at the time (and since) have also used the names Affect Control Theory and Identity Control Theory to describe theoretical offshoots of PCT, so although PCT has had a lot of influence on sociology, most sociologists may not recognize that influence because of the surplus of names for it.

To expand a little on the name's history, Perceptual Control Theory was a label that I coined to use in a paper that I presented at the 1991 CSG conference. I think I chose Perceptual over Perception for strictly grammatical reasons, since perceptual is an adjective and perception a noun, and putting two nouns in a row in the label (perception and control) struck me at the time as grammatically uncouth.

Gary Cziko liked the name Perceptual Control Theory, and my recollection is that he pushed big time on CSGnet to get others to adopt it. He was also the first to use the name Perceptual Control Theory in a publication, in a paper he published in 1992, "Purposeful Behavior as the Control of Perception: Implications for Educational Research."

If I'm remembering correctly, Bill Powers's preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn't want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

I still prefer Perceptual to Perception, perhaps for sentimental reasons, and because changing the name would require a lot of editing of websites, etc., and might well create some confusion and lose some Google hits. Nevertheless, substituting Perception for Perceptual doesn't seem to me like a big deal, and I expect that most people wouldn't even notice the difference. It probably isn't the key to getting wider attention for PCT.

Kent

···

On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:39 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

And that, David, I'm sure is why Dad entitled his book, "Behavior: The Control of Perception," as you all well know. It sounds good because that is indeed what it is all about.

I totally see what you're driving at, Rick, and I think it merits careful research and thought to develop a new name for this field of study. What an interesting competition, to actually create a new field!

I'll soon be on a very long flight for a vacation, at which time I am sure to have some time on my hands to consider all of this. I rely on the members of this csgnet to know better than I what new names would make the most sense, but I enjoy being a wordsmith of sorts, and this is a compelling challenge. I think with a little time and your fine teamwork, the answer will become apparent.

best,
*barb

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, David M <davidwm40@hotmail.com> wrote:
From David Milem (2014.06.12.1128)

I like this slight shift from "perceptual" to "perception." I am not a "core" contributor here, but thought I would chime in ... .

David

> From: fred@nickols.us
> To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> Subject: RE: What's in a name?
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:08:40 -0400

>
> From Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is "of or relating to perceptions." Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control Theory. Now there's no ambiguity, we're talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.
>
> Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM
> > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> > Subject: RE: What's in a name?
> >
> > Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we
> > were stuck with "perceptual".
> > But I'd definitely support the change to "Perception Control Theory".
> > Ted
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-
> > request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM
> > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> > Subject: Re: What's in a name?
> >
> > From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645
> >
> > I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control
> > Theory.
> >
> > Fred Nickols
> > Performance Improvement Professional
> > Distance Consulting LLC
> > fred@nickols.us
> > www.nickols.us
> >
> > John Kirkland wrote:
> > > [John Kirkland 20140611]
> > >
> > > A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer
> > > (Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few
> > > hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent
> > > development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on
> > > a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing
> > > ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour
> > > has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse
> > > lacked was marketing and support.
> > >
> > > Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it
> > > takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right
> > > mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,
> > > the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT
> > > archives will be bombarded with controversy.
> > >
> > > Changing a name, like changing one's wardrobe, is unlikely to affect
> > > the body of PCT. There's no need to re-brand.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who
> > > could assist here. If not, let's consider additional views from those
> > > with a working knowledge of 'history of science'.
> > >
> > > Kind regards...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak <tcloak@unm.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology
> > >>
> > >> (Ethology - Wikipedia) ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Nope. It's got to include "perception" and "control" and there's
> > >> nothing wrong with "theory". PCT it is.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> HTH
> > >>
> > >> Ted
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *From:* csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:
> > >> csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR
> > >> YERANOSIAN
> > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM
> > >>
> > >> *To:* csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> > >> *Subject:* Re: What's in a name?

> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to
> > >> seem vain.
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that
> > >> purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as
> > >> the PCT way.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S� 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------- Original message --------
> > >> From: Warren Mansell
> > >> Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
> > >> To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> > >> Subject: Re: What's in a name?
> > >>
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around
> > >> measurement.
> > >>
> > >> Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on
> > >> evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over
> > >> geological timescales?
> > >>
> > >> Teleonomy - Wikipedia
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Warren
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 <davidwm40@hotmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What about teleometrics?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S� 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------- Original message --------
> > >> From: bara0361@gmail.com
> > >> Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
> > >> To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> > >> Subject: Re: What's in a name?
> > >>
> > >> I'm enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of
> > >> crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good
> > >> things take time, so it's not as if this has to be decided right
> > >> away. When I'm in the process of writing something, I often need to
> > >> place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once
> > >> eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when
> > >> my back is turned...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I was laughing at "The Theory of Everything," and "Reality." ha!
> > >> Would that it should be that obvious...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >>
> > >> *barb
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken > > > <rsmarken@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it could be understood
> > >> to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in
> > >> support of purpose.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the
> > >> study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of
> > >> purpose.
> > >> I
> > >> think of "purpose" as a lay term that refers what we understand to be
> > >> the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by
> > >> varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and
> > >> undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don't see control as
> > >> something that "supports"
> > >> purpose; control _is_ purpose.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
> > >> Al-gebra?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in
> > >> Arabic.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.
> > >> It didn't get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as
> > >> important as the destination, grasshopper;-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Rick
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Richard S. Marken PhD
> > >> www.mindreadings.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Dr Warren Mansell
> > >> Reader in Psychology
> > >> Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
> > >> School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester
> > >> Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL
> > >> Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
> > >>
> > >> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
> > >>
> > >> Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for
> > >> Bipolar Disorders in NW England
> > >>
> > >> The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to
> > >> CBT using Method of Levels
> > >> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-
> > Thera
> > >> py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>

> > >> is available now.
> > >>
> > >> Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control
> > >> Theory
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[_bara0361]

In my humble opinion, you have illustrated one reason why I feel it should be left alone. When it starts to be referred to by too many names, people may not realize which theory they are discussing. Consistency is key.

Rick’s proposal had nothing to do with changing the name of the theory.

*barb

···

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:46 PM, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

[From Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)]

There’s some precedent for using the name Perception Control Theory to describe PCT. Back in the early 1990s, when the name of the theory was still in flux, sociologists Clark McPhail and Chuck Tucker decided that they liked Perception better than Perceptual, and they used that name in a book and several articles that they published. There was, perhaps, some confusion in the field of sociology about the name of the theory, since I published an article a couple of years later that used the name Perceptual Control Theory.

Other sociologists at the time (and since) have also used the names Affect Control Theory and Identity Control Theory to describe theoretical offshoots of PCT, so although PCT has had a lot of influence on sociology, most sociologists may not recognize that influence because of the surplus of names for it.

To expand a little on the name’s history, Perceptual Control Theory was a label that I coined to use in a paper that I presented at the 1991 CSG conference. I think I chose Perceptual over Perception for strictly grammatical reasons, since perceptual is an adjective and perception a noun, and putting two nouns in a row in the label (perception and control) struck me at the time as grammatically uncouth.

Gary Cziko liked the name Perceptual Control Theory, and my recollection is that he pushed big time on CSGnet to get others to adopt it. He was also the first to use the name Perceptual Control Theory in a publication, in a paper he published in 1992, “Purposeful Behavior as the Control of Perception: Implications for Educational Research.”

If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

I still prefer Perceptual to Perception, perhaps for sentimental reasons, and because changing the name would require a lot of editing of websites, etc., and might well create some confusion and lose some Google hits. Nevertheless, substituting Perception for Perceptual doesn’t seem to me like a big deal, and I expect that most people wouldn’t even notice the difference. It probably isn’t the key to getting wider attention for PCT.

Kent

On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:39 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

And that, David, I’m sure is why Dad entitled his book, “Behavior: The Control of Perception,” as you all well know. It sounds good because that is indeed what it is all about.

I totally see what you’re driving at, Rick, and I think it merits careful research and thought to develop a new name for this field of study. What an interesting competition, to actually create a new field!

I’ll soon be on a very long flight for a vacation, at which time I am sure to have some time on my hands to consider all of this. I rely on the members of this csgnet to know better than I what new names would make the most sense, but I enjoy being a wordsmith of sorts, and this is a compelling challenge. I think with a little time and your fine teamwork, the answer will become apparent.

best,

*barb

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, David M davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

From David Milem (2014.06.12.1128)

I like this slight shift from “perceptual” to “perception.” I am not a “core” contributor here, but thought I would chime in … .

David

From: fred@nickols.us

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:08:40 -0400

From Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is “of or relating to perceptions.” Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control Theory. Now there’s no ambiguity, we’re talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.

Fred

-----Original Message-----

From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we

were stuck with “perceptual”.

But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.

Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-

request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control

Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional

Distance Consulting LLC

fred@nickols.us

www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer

(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent

development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on

a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour

has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse

lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it

takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right

mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT

archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who

could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s

nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com

wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that

purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as

the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around

measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on

evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over

geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com

wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of

crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good

things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right

away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to

place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once

eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when

my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha!

Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken

rsmarken@gmail.com

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood

to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in

support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the

study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of

purpose.

I

think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be

the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by

varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and

undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as

something that “supports”

purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of

Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in

Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.

It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as

important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester

Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for

Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to

CBT using Method of Levels

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-

Thera

py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>

is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control

Theory

[David_M]

(David Milem

(2014.06.12.1516))

The lesson on history from Kent helps and converts me to PCT as it stands now without any change.

[From Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)]

There’s some precedent for using the name Perception Control Theory to describe PCT. Back in the early 1990s, when the name of the theory was still in flux, sociologists Clark McPhail and Chuck Tucker decided that they liked Perception better than Perceptual,
and they used that name in a book and several articles that they published. There was, perhaps, some confusion in the field of sociology about the name of the theory, since I published an article a couple of years later that used the name Perceptual Control
Theory.

Other sociologists at the time (and since) have also used the names Affect Control Theory and Identity Control Theory to describe theoretical offshoots of PCT, so although PCT has had a lot of influence on sociology, most sociologists may not recognize that
influence because of the surplus of names for it.

To expand a little on the name’s history, Perceptual Control Theory was a label that I coined to use in a paper that I presented at the 1991 CSG conference. I think I chose Perceptual over Perception for strictly grammatical reasons, since perceptual is an
adjective and perception a noun, and putting two nouns in a row in the label (perception and control) struck me at the time as grammatically uncouth.

Gary Cziko liked the name Perceptual Control Theory, and my recollection is that he pushed big time on CSGnet to get others to adopt it. He was also the first to use the name Perceptual Control Theory in a publication, in a paper he published in 1992, “Purposeful
Behavior as the Control of Perception: Implications for Educational Research.”

If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself,
who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

I still prefer Perceptual to Perception, perhaps for sentimental reasons, and because changing the name would require a lot of editing of websites, etc., and might well create some confusion and lose some Google hits. Nevertheless, substituting Perception for
Perceptual doesn’t seem to me like a big deal, and I expect that most people wouldn’t even notice the difference. It probably isn’t the key to getting wider attention for PCT.

Kent

And that, David, I’m sure is why Dad entitled his book, “Behavior: The Control of Perception,” as you all well know. It sounds good because that is indeed what it is all about.

I totally see what you’re driving at, Rick, and I think it merits careful research and thought to develop a new name for this field of study. What an interesting competition, to actually create a new field!

I’ll soon be on a very long flight for a vacation, at which time I am sure to have some time on my hands to consider all of this. I rely on the members of this csgnet to know better than I what new names would make the most sense, but I enjoy being a wordsmith
of sorts, and this is a compelling challenge. I think with a little time and your fine teamwork, the answer will become apparent.

best,

*barb

From David Milem (2014.06.12.1128)

I like this slight shift from “perceptual” to “perception.” I am not a “core” contributor here, but thought I would chime in … .

David

From: fred@nickols.us

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:08:40 -0400

From Fred Nickols (2014.06.12.1203)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. I think the differences are truly minor. The definition of perceptual is “of or relating to perceptions.” Taken literally, PCT would mean control theory related to perceptions. So why not just say it? Perception Control
Theory. Now there’s no ambiguity, we’re talking about the theory of the control of perception. We act/behave to control our perceptions so PCT is also a theory of behavior. From a practical, workplace-oriented perspective, performance consists of activity
or behavior and the outcomes produced (P=A+O). PCT, then, is also a theory of performance.

···

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:39 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, David M davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

Fred

-----Original Message-----

From: Ted Cloak [mailto:tcloak@unm.edu]

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:27 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: RE: What’s in a name?

Yes, Bill mentioned that once, I forget when. As I recall, he concluded we

were stuck with “perceptual”.

But I’d definitely support the change to “Perception Control Theory”.

Ted

-----Original Message-----

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-

request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:47 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

From Fred Nickols 2014.06.12.0645

I think I am in favor of a minor modification. I lean toward Perception Control

Theory.

Fred Nickols

Performance Improvement Professional

Distance Consulting LLC

fred@nickols.us

www.nickols.us

John Kirkland wrote:

[John Kirkland 20140611]

A few months before the Wright Brothers did their stint a NZ farmer

(Richard Pearse) apparently flew a heavier-than-air machine a few

hundred yards. It made not a scrap of difference to subsequent

development of flight. Why? One reason is that he was stuck there on

a farm in the South Pacific where communication was limited to sailing

ships. And the locals threw potatoes at him too; a crack-pot. Rumour

has it he made a significant contribution: aerilons. What Pearse

lacked was marketing and support.

Perhaps PCT has a similar set of difficulties. Rick once noted it

takes three years to catch the drift of PCT. Now, who in their right

mind will spend that amount of time grappling with PCT? The curious,

the adventurous, the challenge seekers? Any tyro dipping into PCT

archives will be bombarded with controversy.

Changing a name, like changing one’s wardrobe, is unlikely to affect

the body of PCT. There’s no need to re-brand.

Perhaps there are some professional marketeers lurking already who

could assist here. If not, let’s consider additional views from those

with a working knowledge of ‘history of science’.

Kind regards…

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s

nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] *On Behalf Of *PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to

seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com > > > wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that

purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as

the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around

measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on

evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over

geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com > > > wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of

crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good

things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right

away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to

place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once

eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when

my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha!

Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken > > > rsmarken@gmail.com > > > >> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood

to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in

support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the

study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of

purpose.

I

think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be

the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by

varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and

undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as

something that “supports”

purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of

Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in

Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago.

It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as

important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences Coupland I University of Manchester

Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for

Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to

CBT using Method of Levels

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-

Thera

py/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1>

is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control

Theory

-------- Original message --------

From: “McClelland, Kent”

Date:06/12/2014 2:47 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: “”

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.12.1600)]

···

Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)

RM: Thanks for the history, Kent. I knew that you get the credit for coining the term PCT but I didn’t remember the details of the back story. I found this part particularly interesting:

KM: If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

RM: This is really too bad because Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) really is, indeed, the name that describes Bill’s theory the best. Perceptual Control Theory is fine, too, but the fact is that all control theories are perceptual control theories. This is just the way closed negative feedback systems work; they controls perceptual representations of the variables they control. So the control theory that describes the behavior of a thermostat is a perceptual control theory as much as is the control theory that describes the behavior of a human.

RM: All control systems control a perceptual representation of controlled variable(s). This fact is rarely explicitly taken into account in engineering applications of control theory because the control engineer knows what variable is to be controlled and, therefore, what variable should be sensed (perceived). The main concern for the engineer is that the system be built so that it controls well. But it is crucial to be aware of the fact that it is perception that is controlled when trying to understand the controlling (behavior) of control systems that have already been built – living control systems. One of Powers’ main contributions was pointing this out to students of the behavior of living control systems; that to understand the behavior of such systems you have to understand what perceptions they are controlling. So naming Bill’s application of control theory Perceptual Control Theory was brilliant because it called attention not only to what is most important about the application of control theory to the behavior of living systems but also to what distinguishes Bill’s application of control theory from others that were also being applied in psychology.

RM: But I think Bill’s most important contribution to understanding the behavior of living systems was pointing out that behavior is control and that, therefore, only control theory can account for such behavior. He then went on to propose a hierarchical version of control theory to show how control theory could account for all aspects for behavior, from controlling the position of a limb to controlling one’s position on political issues. This Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) model is the one that Bill hoped researchers would test; it’s the theory that Bill was sure was not completely correct and that would surely have to be change. It’s HCT that is Bill’s theory of behavior that has to be tested; there is no need to test PCT because virtually all of what we call “behavior” is control and all control is perceptual control; if behavior is control then it’s perceptual control. The only way to reject PCT is to reject the fact that behavior is control or to reject that fact that control involves active resistance to disturbance – both of which are arguments used by opponents of PCT. But I’m pretty tired of fighting (via research) to show that PCT is right. That’s why I was suggesting that maybe we should change the name of field of study of PCT to indicate that PCT is only relevant to the study of control in living organisms. Then we could start doing the science that Bill hoped to see emerge out of his work; a science dedicated to testing theories, like Bill’s HCT, of how control works in living organisms.

Best regards

Rick

[chadtgreen]

“Behavior is the control of perception” = Truth of Dukkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha)

Chad

Chad T. Green, PMP

Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/page/1966

“The future is already here—it’ss just not very evenly distributed.â€? - William Gibson

On Behalf Of Richard Marken

···

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they
are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying
to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using
the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The
Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed,
why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

[dmg]

David Goldstein (2014.05.23.1023)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

···

Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)

RM: Thanks for the history, Kent. I knew that you get the credit for coining the term PCT but I didn’t remember the details of the back story. I found this part particularly interesting:

KM: If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

RM: This is really too bad because Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) really is, indeed, the name that describes Bill’s theory the best. Perceptual Control Theory is fine, too, but the fact is that all control theories are perceptual control theories. This is just the way closed negative feedback systems work; they controls perceptual representations of the variables they control. So the control theory that describes the behavior of a thermostat is a perceptual control theory as much as is the control theory that describes the behavior of a human.

RM: All control systems control a perceptual representation of controlled variable(s). This fact is rarely explicitly taken into account in engineering applications of control theory because the control engineer knows what variable is to be controlled and, therefore, what variable should be sensed (perceived). The main concern for the engineer is that the system be built so that it controls well. But it is crucial to be aware of the fact that it is perception that is controlled when trying to understand the controlling (behavior) of control systems that have already been built – living control systems. One of Powers’ main contributions was pointing this out to students of the behavior of living control systems; that to understand the behavior of such systems you have to understand what perceptions they are controlling. So naming Bill’s application of control theory Perceptual Control Theory was brilliant because it called attention not only to what is most important about the application of control theory to the behavior of living systems but also to what distinguishes Bill’s application of control theory from others that were also being applied in psychology.

RM: But I think Bill’s most important contribution to understanding the behavior of living systems was pointing out that behavior is control and that, therefore, only control theory can account for such behavior. He then went on to propose a hierarchical version of control theory to show how control theory could account for all aspects for behavior, from controlling the position of a limb to controlling one’s position on political issues. This Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) model is the one that Bill hoped researchers would test; it’s the theory that Bill was sure was not completely correct and that would surely have to be change. It’s HCT that is Bill’s theory of behavior that has to be tested; there is no need to test PCT because virtually all of what we call “behavior” is control and all control is perceptual control; if behavior is control then it’s perceptual control. The only way to reject PCT is to reject the fact that behavior is control or to reject that fact that control involves active resistance to disturbance – both of which are arguments used by opponents of PCT. But I’m pretty tired of fighting (via research) to show that PCT is right. That’s why I was suggesting that maybe we should change the name of field of study of PCT to indicate that PCT is only relevant to the study of control in living organisms. Then we could start doing the science that Bill hoped to see emerge out of his work; a science dedicated to testing theories, like Bill’s HCT, of how control works in living organisms.

Best regards

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.23.0840)]

···

David Goldstein (2014.05.23.1023)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

RM: Damn! It’s not the name of a field; it’s the name of what is thought to be an illusion (purposefulness). But I can hijack it as the name of a field; the study of the real phenomenon of purpose (control).

Or I can just keep saying that I’m a psychologist and live with the consequences;-)

Best

Rick

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.12.1600)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)

RM: Thanks for the history, Kent. I knew that you get the credit for coining the term PCT but I didn’t remember the details of the back story. I found this part particularly interesting:

KM: If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

RM: This is really too bad because Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) really is, indeed, the name that describes Bill’s theory the best. Perceptual Control Theory is fine, too, but the fact is that all control theories are perceptual control theories. This is just the way closed negative feedback systems work; they controls perceptual representations of the variables they control. So the control theory that describes the behavior of a thermostat is a perceptual control theory as much as is the control theory that describes the behavior of a human.

RM: All control systems control a perceptual representation of controlled variable(s). This fact is rarely explicitly taken into account in engineering applications of control theory because the control engineer knows what variable is to be controlled and, therefore, what variable should be sensed (perceived). The main concern for the engineer is that the system be built so that it controls well. But it is crucial to be aware of the fact that it is perception that is controlled when trying to understand the controlling (behavior) of control systems that have already been built – living control systems. One of Powers’ main contributions was pointing this out to students of the behavior of living control systems; that to understand the behavior of such systems you have to understand what perceptions they are controlling. So naming Bill’s application of control theory Perceptual Control Theory was brilliant because it called attention not only to what is most important about the application of control theory to the behavior of living systems but also to what distinguishes Bill’s application of control theory from others that were also being applied in psychology.

RM: But I think Bill’s most important contribution to understanding the behavior of living systems was pointing out that behavior is control and that, therefore, only control theory can account for such behavior. He then went on to propose a hierarchical version of control theory to show how control theory could account for all aspects for behavior, from controlling the position of a limb to controlling one’s position on political issues. This Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) model is the one that Bill hoped researchers would test; it’s the theory that Bill was sure was not completely correct and that would surely have to be change. It’s HCT that is Bill’s theory of behavior that has to be tested; there is no need to test PCT because virtually all of what we call “behavior” is control and all control is perceptual control; if behavior is control then it’s perceptual control. The only way to reject PCT is to reject the fact that behavior is control or to reject that fact that control involves active resistance to disturbance – both of which are arguments used by opponents of PCT. But I’m pretty tired of fighting (via research) to show that PCT is right. That’s why I was suggesting that maybe we should change the name of field of study of PCT to indicate that PCT is only relevant to the study of control in living organisms. Then we could start doing the science that Bill hoped to see emerge out of his work; a science dedicated to testing theories, like Bill’s HCT, of how control works in living organisms.

Best regards

Rick

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.23.12.00]

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.23.0840)]

It's interesting, though, that the Wikipedia description is rather

close to the operation of reorganization, especially if we remember
that the functional boxes of a reorganizing control hierarchy
actually represent many parallel biological structures. The
teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions
important to survival, is it not?

Martin

···

David Goldstein (2014.05.23.1023)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

          RM: Damn! It's not the name of a field; it's the name

of what is thought to be an illusion (purposefulness). But
I can hijack it as the name of a field; the study of the
real phenomenon of purpose (control).

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

[phil 6/23/12 10:12]

Honestly, who even looked at the phenomenology page? I got 0 feedback, thanks allot feedback guys. Anyway, if you looked, you’d find that phenomenology CONTAINS teleonomy. It is about the observation of experience, of the observation of the phenomenon or the fact of control, or of any other experience. Perceptual control places the stress on the controlled nature of the perceptual experience. Phenomenology seeks to describe this experience as a hierarchical structure. If you study telenomy you’re going to get entangled in time-tunneling quantum sci-fi bullshit. I’m sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists. What exists is perception, and if that perception is not actively controlled, then purpose does not exist, simple as that.
As for what you should call yourself, as if you needed to figure this out in 2014. You guys are perceptual-control-system engineers: not psychologists (because psychologists refuse to grant you entry into their stupid club), not engineering control theorists (as they too do not grant you entry). Define a group in terms of how its members’ behavior includes or excludes membership. You generate all of human history, from science to genocide. You cannot hijack names, I’m sorry, but all a person needs to do to foil your intention is to resist an disturbance to an imaginary abstract conception in their head and your name is controlled. In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science, it’s not important what you think your name is. What is important is how the others will control what to call you in order to resist disturbances to what they will call themselves. As a result, you need to resist the proper disturbances to your study. You should know not to control other peoples’ behavior by applying disturbances (changing your name, changing what they’re supposed to call you). People will do what they want and YOU need to do the extra work, thinking in circles, to figure out why.
I don’t want to keep reading about how everybody else needs to drop what they’re doing and start calling you guys teleopathologists (how do you like that for a name). If you haven’t figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math. Most of quantum mechanics is ACCIDENTALLY discovered because people have been doing totally applicationless math. That’s like accidentally perceiving something and then pretending like you were actively controlling it and having it as the purpose of your behavior all along. Do you think the geometry which went into the pyramids and into the structures on mars came from a race of people sitting at desks collecting grant money while…I’m just not even going to get into this.

Long story short, I don’t see in you guys the proper attitude it takes to further this field. I’m sorry, but if you refuse to start describing PCT more in terms of why what everyone else is doing is CORRECT instead of fundamentally wrong, you will get nowhere. Try reading Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”. That teaches you more about PCT than a study of the disturbance, the feedback, the output, etc.

···

David Goldstein (2014.05.23.1023)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

RM: Damn! It’s not the name of a field; it’s the name of what is thought to be an illusion (purposefulness). But I can hijack it as the name of a field; the study of the real phenomenon of purpose (control).

Or I can just keep saying that I’m a psychologist and live with the consequences;-)

Best

Rick

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.12.1600)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

Kent McClelland (2014.06.12.1410 CDT)

RM: Thanks for the history, Kent. I knew that you get the credit for coining the term PCT but I didn’t remember the details of the back story. I found this part particularly interesting:

KM: If I’m remembering correctly, Bill Powers’s preference for the name of the theory during that 1990s CSGnet debate was Hierarchical Control Theory, a name that describes the theory a little better, perhaps, but was regarded as poison by sociologists like myself, who didn’t want to be associated with anything smacking of hierarchy, let alone hierarchical control!

Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

RM: This is really too bad because Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) really is, indeed, the name that describes Bill’s theory the best. Perceptual Control Theory is fine, too, but the fact is that all control theories are perceptual control theories. This is just the way closed negative feedback systems work; they controls perceptual representations of the variables they control. So the control theory that describes the behavior of a thermostat is a perceptual control theory as much as is the control theory that describes the behavior of a human.

RM: All control systems control a perceptual representation of controlled variable(s). This fact is rarely explicitly taken into account in engineering applications of control theory because the control engineer knows what variable is to be controlled and, therefore, what variable should be sensed (perceived). The main concern for the engineer is that the system be built so that it controls well. But it is crucial to be aware of the fact that it is perception that is controlled when trying to understand the controlling (behavior) of control systems that have already been built – living control systems. One of Powers’ main contributions was pointing this out to students of the behavior of living control systems; that to understand the behavior of such systems you have to understand what perceptions they are controlling. So naming Bill’s application of control theory Perceptual Control Theory was brilliant because it called attention not only to what is most important about the application of control theory to the behavior of living systems but also to what distinguishes Bill’s application of control theory from others that were also being applied in psychology.

RM: But I think Bill’s most important contribution to understanding the behavior of living systems was pointing out that behavior is control and that, therefore, only control theory can account for such behavior. He then went on to propose a hierarchical version of control theory to show how control theory could account for all aspects for behavior, from controlling the position of a limb to controlling one’s position on political issues. This Hierarchical Control Theory (HCT) model is the one that Bill hoped researchers would test; it’s the theory that Bill was sure was not completely correct and that would surely have to be change. It’s HCT that is Bill’s theory of behavior that has to be tested; there is no need to test PCT because virtually all of what we call “behavior” is control and all control is perceptual control; if behavior is control then it’s perceptual control. The only way to reject PCT is to reject the fact that behavior is control or to reject that fact that control involves active resistance to disturbance – both of which are arguments used by opponents of PCT. But I’m pretty tired of fighting (via research) to show that PCT is right. That’s why I was suggesting that maybe we should change the name of field of study of PCT to indicate that PCT is only relevant to the study of control in living organisms. Then we could start doing the science that Bill hoped to see emerge out of his work; a science dedicated to testing theories, like Bill’s HCT, of how control works in living organisms.

Best regards

Rick