From Greg Williams (920919 - 2)
Bill Powers (920919.0900)
Also being careful, I want to reserve control to refer to situations
in which the loop is actually closed.
Agreed.
Until Pat finds a way of perceiving the actual effects of her nutritional
scheme, she is operating open loop.
No. From the first time I gave this example, I have said that Pat is trying to
control for her perception that the kids are eating healthy food. The
"healthy" is her definition. I have made no claim that she is CONTROLLING for
the kids' being healthy because they eat the "healthy" (her definition) food.
Pat is operating CLOSED-LOOP: she can see whether or not the kids are eating
the food she offers. If they don't, she'll alter her actions in an attempt to
regain control of her perception that she wants to control.
Lest you think this is a cop-out, consider the case where Pat is attempting to
control for her perception that the kids are healthy. Again, the definition of
healthy MUST be hers -- as the slogan goes, it's all perception! How she came
up with her definition of health is not an issue here. In this case, if she
sees the kids NOT being healthy (her definition), she performs actions which
result in that error signal being corrected. If she performs an action and
sees the kids becoming LESS healthy (her definition), she performs different
actions.
I see no fundamental difference in control which involves other persons (of
whatever developmental stages) and control which involves non-living entities,
EXCEPT that in the former kind of control, (some of) the other persons' wants
must be taken into account for the control to succeed without generating
conflict in the others' control systems. Both kinds of control might be
unsuccessful because of ignorance or ineptness on the part of the would-be
controller. Both kinds of control might require very complicated monitoring
processes. Both kinds of control might (practically) need to involve
statistics (if the controlled perception is a function of the perceived
activities of a POPULATION of entities, living or not). And both kinds of
control might have continuous and/or discontinuous monitoring of the entities'
activities.
The essential distinguishing feature between the two types of control, as far
as I can see, is that if the entities are alive and the controller doesn't
want to give rise to conflict in their control systems, then he/she must take
(some of) the entities' wants into account, as I've discussed previously,
using The Test (repeatedly, if necessary) so as to determine how to "link"
something the entities want with what the controller wants (i.e., "tasty" (to
the kids) linked with "healthy" (to Pat) food).
For Pat to successfully control for her perception that the kids are "healthy"
(her definition), she would need to figure out how to "link" whatever promotes
their health with something(s) the kids want. She could be wrong about what is
health-promoting; then, when she saw less healthy kids, she would need to do
something else. It is possible that NOTHING she thinks is health-promoting
will actually result in the kids becoming more healthy, in which case her
control would be impossible. But this is no different from wanting to pick up
a rock, deciding to lift it by hand, and finding that the rock is too heavy to
lift -- and then finding that it is too heavy (in turn) for a shovel, for a
winch, and even for a bulldozer, which exhausts your abilities to attempt to
control -- and so control fails.
However, if Pat is wrong about WHAT THE KIDS WANT, then she must revise her
model of the kids' controlling and try again. If rocks, rather than kids, were
important in her controlling certain of her perceptions, the problem would
never arise. Rocks don't have wants.
And if Pat can't figure out a way to "link" what she wants to perceive to
something the kids want (i.e., the kids' fasting example in the last post),
she simply CANNOT control for her perception without resulting in conflict in
the kids' control systems. Such a problem does not arise when dealing with
rocks, rather than kids.
All she can control is what she can perceive:
namely, what the kids are eating. That's true control; what they eat,
or at least have available to eat, is adjustable by her. We don't need
to call that an influence, and indeed shouldn't, because it's a
controlled outcome of the actions she takes.
But it is successful (without causing conflict in the kids' control systems)
ONLY if Pat succeeds in "linking" what she wants to perceive with something
the kids want. Not just Pat, but the KIDS, too, must act in a PARTICULAR way
(eat healthy (Pat's definition) food) rather than in other ways (eat any old
tasty food) for Pat to control her desired perception. Pat MUST "influence"
the kids to achieve their wants in a manner which ALSO results in her
achieving control. Pat must purposively ... hmmm.... not "control," so it must
be "influence," right?... the kids. She controls her perception by (in part)
influencing the kids. Do you have another candidate term for providing an
opportunity for another to control for what he/she wants in a way which also
results in your being able to get what you want, too? Pat is certainly
AFFECTING the kids -- if Pat didn't do what she does, they'd eat tasty (to
them) but not healthy (to Pat) food. Pat is PURPOSEFULLY AFFECTING the kids.
Is she not "purposively influencing" the kids? If there is a better
terminology, I'm open to it. Maybe we should say that Pat is "channeling" the
kids' controlling along the path of interest to her. Similarly, teachers,
therapists, advertisers, politicians, con men, etc., etc. "channel." A lot of
the time, I claim. With much success, I further claim. Judging the MORALITY of
those successes is not something which PCT science can do, but PCT science
explains what is NECESSARY for such successes: "linking," as described above.
And The Test is the means to successful "linking."
The kids will eat if it's tasty to them, no problem. So you can control what
they're eating and they won't push back. If they don't like the taste,
they'll push back against the taste, not the eating.
Right. Pat must "link" her want to THEIR "tasty." Similarly, I contend,
teachers try to "link," advertisers try to "link," politicians try to "link,"
therapists try to "link," etc., etc. Maybe even cats try to "link." And it
looks like the "linking" is often successful. (An aside: One reason for the
"drug wars" is that no LEGAL "linking" is possible. The addicts want drugs,
period, and the cops aren't allowed (methadone excepted) to "link" ANYTHING to
that want. So the cops must resort to the only kind of control possible: the
kind that produces conflict in the addicts. Of course, some cops go overboard,
controlling for their own perception that they MAXIMIZE the conflict by
beating the crap out of the "offenders.")
I don't know the developmental stage of your kids right now, but there
must have been a time when they simply ate what they were given
because they were hungry and it tasted fine to them. From their point
of view that's all that was going on. But to Pat, something else was
going on. She was planning, choosing, and preparing meals controlled
along dimensions that the kids didn't perceive. Tastiness was only one
dimension, picked for practical reasons having to do with the kids'
goals. The other dimensions mattered much more: it had to be food that
was free of poisons, that was nutritionally balanced, and that fit an
aesthetic view of how we should live in relation to nature. None of
these considerations meant anything to the kids, yet by eating the
food Pat gave them, they were fitting into her picture of how to raise
children and how to be in the world. As they get older, they may
gradually come to perceive what's going on in similar terms, and then
what she's doing (and what they themselves are doing at the table)
will take on added meaning in their perceptions. They may, of course,
decide on different reference levels for those new perceptions.
I agree with all you say here, except that you miss the point that Pat's
model of the kids' goals (here, with regard to what kind of food they want)
is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT for Pat's successfully controlling for her perceptions.
The "trick" of her achieving control of her desired perception is in
her pairing WHAT SHE WANTS with WHAT THE KIDS WANT.
In the context, however, the important thing is that she was
controlling perceptual variables at a higher level than they were.
That means that she can work around their wants as a means of
controlling for what she thinks is important, because their wants are
at a lower level, and many different wants would be consistent with
the higher goal. This isn't just a "pairing," because Pat has much
more flexibility than the kids do. As you pointed out -- if they want
"cool" food, Pat can probably think up something acceptably cool that
still exemplifies her own higher-level perceptions and goals.
I don't follow this reasoning. I think it's the SAME story if Pat wants to see
ME eating healthy (her definition) food. If she wants to succeed, she'll try
to figure out something I want which she can "link" to healthy (her
definition) food. My "linkable" want could be high- or low-level. The
possibility of linkage has nothing to do with levels of her or my controlling
relating to each other as higher/lower, so far as I can see. The question is
whether she can find ANY way to "link." I might have very-high-level
perceptions which I am trying to control, which could be as readily "linked"
by Pat to healthy (her definition) food as could the kid's "tasty" perception.
Advertising writers appeal to consumers' patriotism to sell them dinnerware at
gas stations; who is controlling the higher-level perception? A particular
consumer might be controlling for self-as-patriot while the writer is
controlling for maintaining a single number (namely that on his/her monthly
paycheck) constant.
[Bill and his cat] Doing something together that neither one could do
alone.
Symmetrical (more-or-less) purposive influence?
Not of each others' behavior.
Why not? Why are you not controlling for being amused by seeing your cat drink
from the faucet, and in order to successfully control for that, PURPOSIVELY
providing the opportunity for the cat to get what you think (model) him to
want, namely drinking from the faucet. And why isn't the cat controlling for
drinking from the faucet, by PURPOSIVELY providing an opportunity for you to
provide him with the opportunity to get what he wants?
It's control of a variable of a special kind: one that needs two
independent control systems to be controlled.
It's that, also. IN ADDITION to being (I think) an example of simultaneous
purposive influence by two interacting organisms.
I need to think some more about your suitcase-lifting example. Can you expand
a bit on your final remarks?
ยทยทยท
-----
No Mac version of TUTsim, but I just had a thought: IBMers could probably
build systems with identical blocks (amps, integrators, delays, etc.) as those
used in STELLA, so what could be passed from IBMers to MACers and back could
be lists of the blocks and their connections and parameters. The basic TUTsim
"personal" version allows up to 1000 blocks and has a vast variety of block
types, so it probably can do everything STELLA can do. It also comes with ONE
real-time input (joystick)/output (kludged) block; unlimited i/o (including
full support for A-to-D boards) costs extra, as does user-defined blocks
(which I think wouldn't be needed to mesh with STELLA). What's really needed
is an improved STELLA, with real-time i/o and user-defined blocks; then it
would be a match for the deluxe "personal" TUTsim, which probably would run
less than $300 even with the new graphical interface. And I think the TUTsim
folks would be generous with discounts for PCTers.
Best wishes,
Greg