[From Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 1547)]
I just did some friendly editing of the Wikipedia article on PCT. The section on “Current Events” isn’t current.
In the process I came across this:
B:CP is cited as an uncredited source of NLP.
Best of the new year to all!
/BN[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.01.1644 MT)]
Thanks for passing along the link, Bruce. It's almost enough to make me take another look at NLP.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@CISCO.COM>
[From Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 1547)]
I just did some friendly editing of the Wikipedia article on PCT. The
section on "Current Events" isn't current.In the process I came across this:
The Neurophysics of Human Behavior: Explorations at the Interface of Brain ... - Mark E. Furman, Fred P. Gallo - Google Books
<The Neurophysics of Human Behavior: Explorations at the Interface of Brain ... - Mark E. Furman, Fred P. Gallo - Google Books
vior:+the+control+of+perception%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IYN8sbM32P_gM7Ca18v
DNDQwRS4#PPA17,M1>B:CP is cited as an uncredited source of NLP.
Best of the new year to all!
/BN
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.1640)]
Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 1547)--
I just did some friendly editing of the Wikipedia article on PCT. The
section on "Current Events" isn't current.In the process I came across this:
B:CP is cited as an uncredited source of NLP.
Thanks, Bruce. I think? Actually, I find it rather depressing when a
theory (PCT) is used as justification for what is basically another
theory (NLP). I guess it is better than the "nothing but" syndrome,
which would be saying that "PCT is nothing but NLP". What seems to be
happening is the "I told you so" syndrome, which is essentially saying
"I told you that NLP is a great idea because it is derived from PCT".
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.01.2034 MT)]
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.1640)]
Thanks, Bruce. I think? Actually, I find it rather depressing when a
theory (PCT) is used as justification for what is basically another
theory (NLP). I guess it is better than the "nothing but" syndrome,
which would be saying that "PCT is nothing but NLP". What seems to be
happening is the "I told you so" syndrome, which is essentially saying
"I told you that NLP is a great idea because it is derived from PCT".
I didn't take it that way. Instead, I thought what was being said is that NLP is consistent with PCT, not "derived" from PCT. In that vein, I've generally thought it was useful if connections could be made between one theory and another. The exception, of course, is a theory that is brand-spanking-new and a complete departure from anything that has gone before. Is that your take on PCT, Rick?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Old Guy Wintering in Tucson
nickols@att.net
(Gavin Ritz 2008.01.02.1519 NZ time).
Which part of NLP, the "spiritual" or the "Linguistic" part? (This is tongue
in cheek). There are a whole bunch of nutters that think NLP is a spiritual
theory.
I'm sure John Grinder would be happy to hear that PCT is nothing but NLP.
NLP has never been successful in any organisational sense but the Lab
Profile has been helpful, yes there is a link between what we say and some
stuff inside.
What is the connection besides both having some representation of stuff
going on internally?
Regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2008 2:38 p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Wiki update
[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.01.2034 MT)]
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.1640)]
Thanks, Bruce. I think? Actually, I find it rather depressing when a
theory (PCT) is used as justification for what is basically another
theory (NLP). I guess it is better than the "nothing but" syndrome,
which would be saying that "PCT is nothing but NLP". What seems to be
happening is the "I told you so" syndrome, which is essentially saying
"I told you that NLP is a great idea because it is derived from PCT".
I didn't take it that way. Instead, I thought what was being said is that
NLP is consistent with PCT, not "derived" from PCT. In that vein, I've
generally thought it was useful if connections could be made between one
theory and another. The exception, of course, is a theory that is
brand-spanking-new and a complete departure from anything that has gone
before. Is that your take on PCT, Rick?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Old Guy Wintering in Tucson
nickols@att.net
[Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 2128 EST)]
What I read there is an assertion that B:CP influenced the developers of
NLP to place more emphasis the intrapersonal context of reference values
and less emphasis on the environment. The authors, Furman and Gallo,
regard this shift as very important for development of NLP. I also read
their accusation that the developers of NLP didn't acknowledge that
influence.
I don't think that they are saying that NLP really is PCT, nor that PCT
is "nothing but" NLP. The audience of this book PCT can reasonably be
expected to know nothing of PCT, and to be familiar with NLP, so the
authors can hardly be accused of using PCT to justify NLP or to convince
that audience how terrific NLP is because of how terrific PCT is.
A valid criticism might be that the authors seem to equate PCT with
TOTE. The discussion is sketchy enough that it would be difficult to pin
this on them definitively. The aim of this section of their book is to
review sources for "cybernetics" as one of several "conceptual tools"
that NLP was "aggregating" in the early 1970s, and the aim of the book
is to develop a "science of neurocognitive intervention" in a "unified
theory of human change." Change and intervention are not in the central
focus of PCT, reorganization and MOL are among its less well defined
aspects.
I came across this accidentally while chasing some links for the
Wikipedia article. I offered it because I thought it was a good thing
that someone perceives PCT as being influential and is saying that B:CP
should be cited and its influence acknowledged. I don't think it's every
day that you come across that sort of thing.
/Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:36 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Wiki update[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.1640)]
> Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 1547 EST)--
>
> I just did some friendly editing of the Wikipedia article
on PCT. The
> section on "Current Events" isn't current.
>
> In the process I came across this:
>
> The Neurophysics of Human Behavior: Explorations at the Interface of Brain ... - Mark E. Furman, Fred P. Gallo - Google Books
>
> B:CP is cited as an uncredited source of NLP.Thanks, Bruce. I think? Actually, I find it rather
depressing when a theory (PCT) is used as justification for
what is basically another theory (NLP). I guess it is better
than the "nothing but" syndrome, which would be saying that
"PCT is nothing but NLP". What seems to be happening is the
"I told you so" syndrome, which is essentially saying "I told
you that NLP is a great idea because it is derived from PCT".Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From RIck Marken (2008.01.01.2145)]
Fred Nickols (2008.01.01.2034 MT)]
> Rick Marken (2008.01.01.1640)]
> What seems to be
> happening is the "I told you so" syndrome, which is essentially saying
> "I told you that NLP is a great idea because it is derived from PCT".I didn't take it that way. Instead, I thought what was being said is that NLP is
consistent with PCT, not "derived" from PCT.
Yes. Actually they said that PCT reinforced the idea that the TOTE
unit is a basic unit of behavior and that therapy should be oriented
toward changing references. In fact, PCT shows that the TOTE unit is
not the basic unit of behavior at all. TOTEs don't control, control
systems do. Moreover, PCT shows that changing other people's
references can be done only via disturbance to higher level variable
or through coercion and this can create more problems than it might
solve. So whatever they found in NLP to be consistent with PCT
wasn't.
But the thing that really drives me crazy in the NLP piece is the idea
that you can learn how to improve your own theory by looking at
someone else's. The segment that Bruce posted did just that; they said
that aspects of NLP were informed by PCT. I don't think you can
imporve a theory by looking at another theory. You improve a theory by
testing its predictions and changing it if necessary to fit the data.
In that vein, I've generally thought it was useful if connections
could be made between
one theory and another.
I don't think so, unless it's showing how one's own theory handles
phenomena that are also handled by the other theory. I think it's OK
to show, for example, how PCT handles the apparent "strengthening"
effect of behavioral consequences that is (actually inadequately)
handled by reinforcement theory. But the fact that two theories handle
the same phenomenon does not mean that the two theories are
consistent. I think finding consistencies between PCT and other
theories is a sure sign that the person seeking the consistencies is
not ready to abandon the other theory.
The exception, of course, is a theory that is brand-spanking-new and a complete
departure from anything that has gone before. Is that your take on PCT, Rick?
No, I think it's true of all theories. Finding consistencies is just a
way to avoid abandoning one's own theory. If you are really interested
in looking for consistencies between one theory and another, I would
suggest doing it only after you have already given up the old theory.
It's an interesting literary exercise to find consistencies between
theories but it's just a waste of time (or worse) scientifically.
That's my opinion, anyway, but it's based on years of experience
seeing people get all excited about PCT because there were
"consistencies" between it and what they already believed. So they
kept on believing in their old theory, which generally turned out have
only the most superficial similarity to PCT.
Best regards
Rick
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Old Guy Wintering in Tucson
nickols@att.net
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.2200)]
Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 2128 EST)
What I read there is an assertion that B:CP influenced the developers of
NLP to place more emphasis the intrapersonal context of reference values
and less emphasis on the environment. The authors, Furman and Gallo,
regard this shift as very important for development of NLP. I also read
their accusation that the developers of NLP didn't acknowledge that
influence.
I think it's good that they didn't acknowledge it because what they
got from PCT was completely wrong. If only Carver and Scheier and
their ilk hadn't acknowledged PCT.
A valid criticism might be that the authors seem to equate PCT with
TOTE.
Yes, and it shows that they got PCT completely wrong. So it's really a
lucky break that they didn't acknowledge it.
I came across this accidentally while chasing some links for the
Wikipedia article. I offered it because I thought it was a good thing
that someone perceives PCT as being influential and is saying that B:CP
should be cited and its influence acknowledged. I don't think it's every
day that you come across that sort of thing.
I agree. But I don't think it's very helpful to PCT when people get it
all wrong. I actually find it rather infuriating. I'd rather have
people ignore PCT rather than give a completely misleading picture of
what it is.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.02.0833 MT)]
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.01.2200)]
I agree. But I don't think it's very helpful to PCT when people get it
all wrong. I actually find it rather infuriating. I'd rather have
people ignore PCT rather than give a completely misleading picture of
what it is.
Well, I agree with the logic of your statement, but I'd rather have lots
more people become aware of PCT (and bet that some of them will get it
right) than have people ignore PCT.
It was P.T. Barnum, I believe, who said "All publicity is good publicity."
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
[From Bruce Abbott (2008.01.02.1140 EST)]
First, a slightly belated Happy New Year! to everyone on CSGnet.
Rick Marken (2008.01.01.2200) --
Bruce Nevin (2008.01.01 2128 EST)
What I read there is an assertion that B:CP influenced the developers of
NLP to place more emphasis the intrapersonal context of reference values
and less emphasis on the environment. The authors, Furman and Gallo,
regard this shift as very important for development of NLP. I also read
their accusation that the developers of NLP didn't acknowledge that
influence.I think it's good that they didn't acknowledge it because what they
got from PCT was completely wrong. If only Carver and Scheier and
their ilk hadn't acknowledged PCT.A valid criticism might be that the authors seem to equate PCT with
TOTE.Yes, and it shows that they got PCT completely wrong. So it's really a
lucky break that they didn't acknowledge it.
Rick, with respect to Furman and Gallo, I understand the basis of your criticism but have to disagree with your conclusion that by equating PCT with Miller et al's TOTE mechanism, Furman and Gallo "got PCT completely wrong." True, Miller et al. describe TOTE as a sequence whereas PCT has all parts of the loop simultaneously active. But TOTE is simply a type of control system found at the HPCT program level, so to say that TOTE gets PCT "completely wrong." is a bit of an overstatement.
Both types of control system include a reference level or goal state. In both, this reference level is compared to a current perception. In both, any difference between the two results in further action being taken. In both, the effect of this action on the current perception is to reduce the error between perception and the reference.
TOTES have an interesting property: They can be organized such that bringing one perception to a reference value functions as the means by which another perception may be controlled (e.g., you can't take a sip of coffee from your coffee cup until the cup is perceived to be positioned properly on your lip). This organization yields a sequence of acts, each of which is accomplished via the operation of a control system. That is why I stated above that TOTES fit into PCT's program level: the next action in the sequence cannot begin until the previous one makes some "if-then" statement true (e.g., if cup at lip then begin sipping).
Of course, PCT is far more extensive and inclusive than TOTE, which describes only one of many possible control-system architectures subsumed by PCT, but it's certainly not "completely wrong."
Bruce A.
Rick, with respect to Furman and
Gallo, I understand the basis of your criticism but have to disagree with
your conclusion that by equating PCT with Miller et al’s TOTE mechanism,
Furman and Gallo “got PCT completely wrong.” True, Miller
et al. describe TOTE as a sequence whereas PCT has all parts of the loop
simultaneously active. But TOTE is simply a type of control system
found at the HPCT program level, so to say that TOTE gets PCT
“completely wrong.” is a bit of an
overstatement.
Both types of control system
include a reference level or goal state. In both, this reference
level is compared to a current perception. In both, any difference
between the two results in further action being taken. In both, the
effect of this action on the current perception is to reduce the error
between perception and the reference.That is why I stated above that TOTES fit into PCT’s program level: the
next action in the sequence cannot begin until the previous one makes
some “if-then” statement true (e.g., if cup at lip then begin
sipping).
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.02.0959)]
Happy New Year, All!
Bruce Abbott (2008.01.02.1140 EST)]
I somewhat agree with you, but the TOTE unit is really not any kind of
system model – it’s a description of what the same system is doing at
different times. The key is the “E” in the name: this
“unit of behavior” is modeled after a computer subroutine, from
which it is possible to “exit.”
I was in communication with Pribram for a year or so before 1960, when
both “Plans and the organization of behavior” and “A
general feedback theory of human behavior” were published. Nothing
much came of the correspondence, but Pribram was aware of the work of
Powers, Clark, and MacFarland when “Plans” was published. I
don’t believe we were cited.
In 1960, “sequence” was the fourth level of control, just below
“relationships.” That level finally turned into
“events” sometime in the 1990s, with sequence moving up to
level 8. Actually, the TOTE unit fits best at current level 9, the
program level, which involves tests and choice points. Sequences would
describe the fixed lists of processes that take place between tests –
Pribram’s “operations.”
I agree with Rick that generally, attempts to link PCT with other
theories have been pretty unsuccessful. What usually happens is that the
other person is looking for validation of his own theory. The person
tries to find things in PCT that agree with his theory – which usually
results in some pretty gross distortions of PCT like the ones in that
book excerpt about NLP, which I’m sure everyone here noticed. It’s pretty
rare to find another theory linked to PCT in a way that shows any modest
degree of understanding of PCT.
I really think Rick is right in saying that the only meaningful
comparisons are between a theory and the relevant data. Theories should
be compared not on the basis of how well the terms of one theory
translate into terms of the other theory, but on the basis of how well
each theory explains and predicts observations.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.02.1530)]
Bruce Abbott (2008.01.02.1140 EST)--
Rick, with respect to Furman and Gallo, I understand the basis of your
criticism but have to disagree with your conclusion that by equating PCT
with Miller et al's TOTE mechanism, Furman and Gallo "got PCT completely
wrong."
OK, they didn't get it _completely_ wrong; they just got the most
important stuff wrong. The TOTE unit misses the most important points
of control from a PCT perspective. There is no explicit recognition of
a reference specification for input nor any recognition that the input
controlled is a perceptual representation of some aspect of the
environmental situation. How's that for missing the boat. They
basically missed that one little aspect of PCT that seems so important
to me: that behavior is the control of perception.
Happy New Year.
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com