Hi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12, 19 and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate studies or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also the 'control of action' term persists in other talks so no change there. I will go to see Study 30... and I am looking forward to the discussion!
All the best,
Warren
WinterSchool_HumanActionControl.pdf (2.26 MB)
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12, 19 and
24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate studies or
manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also the 'control of
action' term persists in other talks so no change there. I will go to see
Study 30... and I am looking forward to the discussion!
HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks' Control Theory). Watch for the
right PCT concept and don't forget to citate Bill as much as possible. No
Rick.... No RCT...
Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick! :-o
On 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12, 19 and
24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate studies or
manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also the 'control of
action' term persists in other talks so no change there. I will go to see
Study 30... and I am looking forward to the discussion!HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks' Control Theory). Watch for the
right PCT concept and don't forget to citate Bill as much as possible. No
Rick.... No RCT...Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
Hi Warren,
why do I have feeling that you are not taking me seriously.
WM : Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick! :-o
HB : I hope you'll not make mistake when citating Rick. So I hope you'll not
make mistake when citating Rick. You seem to be quite young man and
perspective of life is in front of you. So I'd really like if I wouldn't
have to make some public ciritics. You seem to be nice guy. Please don't
give me a reason.
Best,
Boris
P.S. Instead of Rick you can use CSGnet discussions with citations of
course. It's maybe better way that you will explain right PCT not RCT...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick! :-o
On 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12, 19
and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate studies
or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also the
'control of action' term persists in other talks so no change there. I
will go to see Study 30... and I am looking forward to the discussion!HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks' Control Theory). Watch for
the right PCT concept and don't forget to citate Bill as much as
possible. No Rick.... No RCT...Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion. I am quite comfortable holding both perspectives on Rick's contributions, just as I am comfortable with having a dual perspective on anyone's contribution including my own, and I am not willing to engage in a pejorification of his work using the 'RCT' label. I plan to cite Rick's studies as and where his work complements my talk, and I also plan to continue debating with him as and when I think it might be a helpful way of clarifying PCT for myself and those people who read it.
All the best,
Warren
On 5 Feb 2017, at 13:07, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren,
why do I have feeling that you are not taking me seriously.
WM : Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick! :-o
HB : I hope you'll not make mistake when citating Rick. So I hope you'll not
make mistake when citating Rick. You seem to be quite young man and
perspective of life is in front of you. So I'd really like if I wouldn't
have to make some public ciritics. You seem to be nice guy. Please don't
give me a reason.Best,
Boris
P.S. Instead of Rick you can use CSGnet discussions with citations of
course. It's maybe better way that you will explain right PCT not RCT...-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick! :-o
On 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12, 19
and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate studies
or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also the
'control of action' term persists in other talks so no change there. I
will go to see Study 30... and I am looking forward to the discussion!HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks' Control Theory). Watch for
the right PCT concept and don't forget to citate Bill as much as
possible. No Rick.... No RCT...Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you and everyone else on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve discussed. The main ones I remember are “control of behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no), “control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of perception was the same as control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is only perception that is controlled) and, of course, the “power law”. I welcome the criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting that these same topics (except for the power law, of course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me. Boris was just a particularly unpleasant member of the opposition. But Bill handled Boris with such aplomb that I have decided to stop marking his posts as spam and just ignore them when they are insulting, the way Bill did. Here’s an example of Bill dealing with Boris’s rudeness:Â
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]Â
BP earlier [to Boris–RM]:
When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.
Â
HB :Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that we did it many times with no desireble effect.
BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then understand that you approve of my going in circles?
RM: This is also a good example of Bill trying to take the argument “up a level”; it’s like saying “what do you want?” to a obstreperous child.
RM: And the following is another post from 2012 – basely a year before we lost Bill – where Boris implicitly calls Bill a “behaviorist” for pointing out the fact that behavior can be controlled and that PCT explains why. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph (I’ve Italicized the best part). Also, while you are reading this, recall that when the topic of “control of behavior” came up on CSGNet after Bill passed away, virtually everyone argued, along with Boris, against Bill’s (and my) position. I note this, not because I think Bill was always right (although in my experience he was probably right about 99% of the time) but just to point out that Boris didn’t treat what Bill said as 'gospel" until after he passed away. And, like those who treated what Jesus said as gospel only after he died, he has felt free to interpret Bill’s words in a way that satisfies his own goals. Some might call that casuistry; but I just call it being a control system.
[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
Â
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
Â
HB : Is this again festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet.
It happened quite some time. Does it mean that “We control others’
behavior and they control ours all the time…” , that with
“stimuli” that arise from our action and “influence” other
people state (as something objective in environment), we perceive and think
that other person are behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go
like this : you see your “stimuli” and you see “other persons
behavior” that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka,
we are controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where
is here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any “stimuli”
(perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s
behavior all the time ? What’s the difference between the perceptual input that
is produced by physical and social environment ?
Â
BP: I think you may have missed some discussions of this
interpretation. Of course PCT does not
support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social
environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.” It is
certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable relationships
is that some environmental events simply “cause” the behavior that
follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called “begging the question”
or “petitio principii” (see Google). The PCT view is that when we see
apparent examples of stimuli causing
responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables
disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is
the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance. That sort of
thing happens, as Rick says, all the time. Most of a person’s actions, we might
say, would be unnecessary if there were no disturbances causing errors in
controlled variables. When you drive a car from home to work, the only times
you would turn the steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto
another or into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it
steady, and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that
is not how the real world works.
Â
BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a
person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular
variable. All you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which
of several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict that whatever behavior does occur, it will
have an effect equal and opposite to the effect of the disturbance you apply.
If there happens to be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can
predict quite reliably the behavior that will take place. You can then control
whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the
disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance when your
goal is for that behavior not to occur).
Â
BP: A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if
unopposed, can alter the state of a controlled variable independently of the
control system’s own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything
that can disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as
saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it – you
are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or suspicion, showing
that just saying “hello” to a stranger can disturb variables that
person is controlling, so the person feels it necessary to produce some
behavior such as saying “Well, hello to you, too” before walking on.
That looks like a stimulus-response event, but PCT says that is not what is
happening.
Â
BP: Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all
day long in which there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why
many intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a
simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they
simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been wrong,
but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not occur. They do
occur, and are everywhere. These S-RÂ
theorists observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly;
they simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.
Â
BP: The reason that you can control other people’s behavior
is not that you can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way.
It is that once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find
a disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict
successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your disturbance from
having any continuing effect on the controlled variable. Walk up to a policeman
and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in the nose. You can predict
with some confidence that he will subdue you and put you under arrest. In the
1960s, protesters in Chicago made policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in
front of television cameras. This is how they did it.
Â
BP: I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of
this kind. I recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both
Rick’s and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite
frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a
disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple
disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in three
seconds without causing any problem at all.
 Â
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
That’s fascinating Rick, it pays to know the history. By the way, in the way you state the other two topics I am with you. I see the power law as a bit of an anomaly!
Warren
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you and everyone else on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve discussed. The main ones I remember are “control of behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no), “control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of perception was the same as control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is only perception that is controlled) and, of course, the “power law”. I welcome the criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting that these same topics (except for the power law, of course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me. Boris was just a particularly unpleasant member of the opposition. But Bill handled Boris with such aplomb that I have decided to stop marking his posts as spam and just ignore them when they are insulting, the way Bill did. Here’s an example of Bill dealing with Boris’s rudeness:
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]
BP earlier [to Boris–RM]:
When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.
HB :Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that we did it many times with no desireble effect.
BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then understand that you approve of my going in circles?
RM: This is also a good example of Bill trying to take the argument “up a level”; it’s like saying “what do you want?” to a obstreperous child.
RM: And the following is another post from 2012 – basely a year before we lost Bill – where Boris implicitly calls Bill a “behaviorist” for pointing out the fact that behavior can be controlled and that PCT explains why. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph (I’ve Italicized the best part). Also, while you are reading this, recall that when the topic of “control of behavior” came up on CSGNet after Bill passed away, virtually everyone argued, along with Boris, against Bill’s (and my) position. I note this, not because I think Bill was always right (although in my experience he was probably right about 99% of the time) but just to point out that Boris didn’t treat what Bill said as 'gospel" until after he passed away. And, like those who treated what Jesus said as gospel only after he died, he has felt free to interpret Bill’s words in a way that satisfies his own goals. Some might call that casuistry; but I just call it being a control system.
[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
HB : Is this again festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet.
It happened quite some time. Does it mean that “We control others’
behavior and they control ours all the time…” , that with
“stimuli” that arise from our action and “influence” other
people state (as something objective in environment), we perceive and think
that other person are behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go
like this : you see your “stimuli” and you see “other persons
behavior” that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka,
we are controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where
is here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any “stimuli”
(perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s
behavior all the time ? What’s the difference between the perceptual input that
is produced by physical and social environment ?BP: I think you may have missed some discussions of this
interpretation. Of course PCT does not
support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social
environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.” It is
certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable relationships
is that some environmental events simply “cause” the behavior that
follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called “begging the question”
or “petitio principii” (see Google). The PCT view is that when we see
apparent examples of stimuli causing
responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables
disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is
the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance. That sort of
thing happens, as Rick says, all the time. Most of a person’s actions, we might
say, would be unnecessary if there were no disturbances causing errors in
controlled variables. When you drive a car from home to work, the only times
you would turn the steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto
another or into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it
steady, and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that
is not how the real world works.BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a
person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular
variable. All you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which
of several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict that whatever behavior does occur, it will
have an effect equal and opposite to the effect of the disturbance you apply.
If there happens to be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can
predict quite reliably the behavior that will take place. You can then control
whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the
disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance when your
goal is for that behavior not to occur).BP: A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if
unopposed, can alter the state of a controlled variable independently of the
control system’s own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything
that can disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as
saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it – you
are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or suspicion, showing
that just saying “hello” to a stranger can disturb variables that
person is controlling, so the person feels it necessary to produce some
behavior such as saying “Well, hello to you, too” before walking on.
That looks like a stimulus-response event, but PCT says that is not what is
happening.BP: Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all
day long in which there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why
many intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a
simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they
simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been wrong,
but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not occur. They do
occur, and are everywhere. These S-R
theorists observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly;
they simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.BP: The reason that you can control other people’s behavior
is not that you can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way.
It is that once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find
a disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict
successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your disturbance from
having any continuing effect on the controlled variable. Walk up to a policeman
and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in the nose. You can predict
with some confidence that he will subdue you and put you under arrest. In the
1960s, protesters in Chicago made policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in
front of television cameras. This is how they did it.BP: I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of
this kind. I recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both
Rick’s and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite
frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a
disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple
disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in three
seconds without causing any problem at all.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Adam will be there, representing our lab, and presenting our latest progress on the scientific study of the speed curvature power-law in humans from the perspective of perceptual control.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
That’s fascinating Rick, it pays to know the history. By the way, in the way you state the other two topics I am with you. I see the power law as a bit of an anomaly!
Warren
On 7 Feb 2017, at 20:11, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you and everyone else on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve discussed. The main ones I remember are “control of behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no), “control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of perception was the same as control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is only perception that is controlled) and, of course, the “power law”. I welcome the criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting that these same topics (except for the power law, of course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me. Boris was just a particularly unpleasant member of the opposition. But Bill handled Boris with such aplomb that I have decided to stop marking his posts as spam and just ignore them when they are insulting, the way Bill did. Here’s an example of Bill dealing with Boris’s rudeness:Â
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]Â
BP earlier [to Boris–RM]:
When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.
Â
HB :Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that we did it many times with no desireble effect.
BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then understand that you approve of my going in circles?
RM: This is also a good example of Bill trying to take the argument “up a level”; it’s like saying “what do you want?” to a obstreperous child.
RM: And the following is another post from 2012 – basely a year before we lost Bill – where Boris implicitly calls Bill a “behaviorist” for pointing out the fact that behavior can be controlled and that PCT explains why. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph (I’ve Italicized the best part). Also, while you are reading this, recall that when the topic of “control of behavior” came up on CSGNet after Bill passed away, virtually everyone argued, along with Boris, against Bill’s (and my) position. I note this, not because I think Bill was always right (although in my experience he was probably right about 99% of the time) but just to point out that Boris didn’t treat what Bill said as 'gospel" until after he passed away. And, like those who treated what Jesus said as gospel only after he died, he has felt free to interpret Bill’s words in a way that satisfies his own goals. Some might call that casuistry; but I just call it being a control system.
[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
Â
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
Â
HB : Is this again festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet.
It happened quite some time. Does it mean that “We control others’
behavior and they control ours all the time…” , that with
“stimuli” that arise from our action and “influence” other
people state (as something objective in environment), we perceive and think
that other person are behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go
like this : you see your “stimuli” and you see “other persons
behavior” that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka,
we are controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where
is here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any “stimuli”
(perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s
behavior all the time ? What’s the difference between the perceptual input that
is produced by physical and social environment ?
Â
BP: I think you may have missed some discussions of this
interpretation. Of course PCT does not
support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social
environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.” It is
certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable relationships
is that some environmental events simply “cause” the behavior that
follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called “begging the question”
or “petitio principii” (see Google). The PCT view is that when we see
apparent examples of stimuli causing
responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables
disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is
the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance. That sort of
thing happens, as Rick says, all the time. Most of a person’s actions, we might
say, would be unnecessary if there were no disturbances causing errors in
controlled variables. When you drive a car from home to work, the only times
you would turn the steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto
another or into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it
steady, and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that
is not how the real world works.
Â
BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a
person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular
variable. All you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which
of several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict that whatever behavior does occur, it will
have an effect equal and opposite to the effect of the disturbance you apply.
If there happens to be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can
predict quite reliably the behavior that will take place. You can then control
whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the
disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance when your
goal is for that behavior not to occur).
Â
BP: A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if
unopposed, can alter the state of a controlled variable independently of the
control system’s own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything
that can disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as
saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it – you
are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or suspicion, showing
that just saying “hello” to a stranger can disturb variables that
person is controlling, so the person feels it necessary to produce some
behavior such as saying “Well, hello to you, too” before walking on.
That looks like a stimulus-response event, but PCT says that is not what is
happening.
Â
BP: Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all
day long in which there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why
many intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a
simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they
simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been wrong,
but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not occur. They do
occur, and are everywhere. These S-RÂ
theorists observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly;
they simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.
Â
BP: The reason that you can control other people’s behavior
is not that you can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way.
It is that once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find
a disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict
successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your disturbance from
having any continuing effect on the controlled variable. Walk up to a policeman
and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in the nose. You can predict
with some confidence that he will subdue you and put you under arrest. In the
1960s, protesters in Chicago made policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in
front of television cameras. This is how they did it.
Â
BP: I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of
this kind. I recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both
Rick’s and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite
frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a
disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple
disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in three
seconds without causing any problem at all.
 Â
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 9:46 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young.
HB : It seems that you are old enough to be aware of consequences of your
control :)...
WM : I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of
PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on
CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
HB : I never said that you shouldn't respect Rick. It's your choice. But his
contribution to PCT and empiricical testing are worthless from PCT
perspective. It's selfregulation as Carvers' "Selfregulation on Behavior"
and many other famous psychologist of today's.
I hope there are a lot of places where you disagree with Rick, speccially on
those places where his RCT is not compatible with PCT definitions. I showed
this places many times with citating Bill. I hope you read it. So if you
will citate Bills' defintion to prove compatibility with PCT there is no
place for RCT (Ricks' Conntrol Theory) as they are incompatible. Bills'
defintions about PCT and Ricks' definiton of control loop are opposite.
WM : I am quite comfortable holding both perspectives on Rick's
contributions, just as I am comfortable with having a dual perspective on
anyone's contribution including my own, and I am not willing to engage in a
pejorification of his work using the 'RCT' label.
HB : So how do you call Theory which has following control loop elements :
1. Behavior is Control
2. There is always some "controlled aspect of environment"
3. There is some "Controlled Perceptual Variable"
Can you scientifically prove existance of this entities. You must have
scientific arguments for not accepting label "RCT". Please show them to me.
Can you show in PCT diagram (LCS III) where theese terms exist. And of
course where can we find in Bills' work that everything in control loop is
happening "at the same time". And of course how can you prove that PCT is
"protecting theory". See my PCT and physiological arguments. They are all
scientific. Show me which is not.
WM : I plan to cite Rick's studies as and where his work complements my
talk, and I also plan to continue debating with him as and when I think it
might be a helpful way of clarifying PCT for myself and those people who
read it.
HB : As I said many times before science has nothing to do with friendship.
Science is about following scientific arguments. And Rick didn't show any of
them except some algebraic formulas and "kindergarten" mathematics as Martin
is describing his mathematical knowledge.
So I don't see any reason that you should include Ricks' "scientific" work
into your talk. But I have a suggestion what could you do.
When I talked to Bill and Carver I wanted to clear up whether Bill was the
first to introduce "Control Theory" into Psychology. Bill was pretty sure
that he was the first as there is no literature sources about who could be
the first except Bills' work from 1960. I asked the same question Carver. He
was trying with some sources and on the end we established that there is no
real sources that could be a "witness" to who is the frist to introduce
"Control theory" into Psychology besdie Bill. This could be real task for
PCT'ers to establish clearly whether Bill is "Father of Control Theory" in
Psychology. My explorations also show that Bill was the first. So instead of
promoting Bill as the "Father of Control Theory in Psychology" Rick is
promoting his RCT and Selfregulation. Jeff Vancouver came twice and wanted
to change PCT into some cheap "Self-regulation theory" despite clear
explanation of Mary Powers what is what.
You Warren had also fingers involved in conspiracy against Bills' PCT while
you promoted Jeff Vancouvers' work. So I really asked myself some times
where you belong. Lately I saw some changes in your oppinion, so I thought
that maybe it's time that you "absorbe" right PCT and start promoting it
instead of RCT, behaviorism or self-regulation. You can start with citating
Bills' defintions. And they are all contradicting to RCT, behaviorism and
self-regulation.
So do once a good job for Bill and start pomoting his PCT and him as a
"Father of Control Theory in Psychology".
Bill with no doubt worked hard with his wife Mary to form the best theory
about how Living beings behave. And with no doubt he deserves a place in
any Psychological Dictionary. Somebody could make PhD on that subject...
All in all. Me and Bill were in conflict at the end. But what is right is
right. No matter of my relationship to him I'll scientifically promote his
work as he really deserves that. I'll stand on the positions that his PCT is
the best and first "Control Theory" introduced into Psychology. And I'll
always stand behind these statements no matter of my realtionship to him. I
have mayself for a scientist. And Bill was a scientist not a
para-psychologist or occultist as Rick is traying to present him and his
PCT.
Bill simply deserves his place in history of Psychology. And efforts should
be also focused on that. Barb you said once that your father is on first
place ?
So I'll stand behind PCT even for the price if we'll have publically to
clear up what is PCT and what is not. Ricks' RCT is sure one of them.
Anyway I wish you luck.
Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
On 5 Feb 2017, at 13:07, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren,
why do I have feeling that you are not taking me seriously.
WM : Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also
Rick! :-oHB : I hope you'll not make mistake when citating Rick. So I hope
you'll not make mistake when citating Rick. You seem to be quite young
man and perspective of life is in front of you. So I'd really like if
I wouldn't have to make some public ciritics. You seem to be nice guy.
Please don't give me a reason.Best,
Boris
P.S. Instead of Rick you can use CSGnet discussions with citations of
course. It's maybe better way that you will explain right PCT not RCT...-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick!
:-oOn 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
Hi Warren...
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12,
19 and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate
studies or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also
the 'control of action' term persists in other talks so no change
there. I will go to see Study 30... and I am looking forward to the
discussion!
HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks' Control Theory). Watch for
the right PCT concept and don't forget to citate Bill as much as
possible. No Rick.... No RCT...Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
Hi Warren,
I’d rather wait for my answer. There is nothing in this historical moment that could save Ricks’ PCT ignorancy. So it stilll stands that RCT is ignorant theory. There is no changes.
Best,
Boris
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
That’s fascinating Rick, it pays to know the history. By the way, in the way you state the other two topics I am with you. I see the power law as a bit of an anomaly!
Warren
On 7 Feb 2017, at 20:11, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you and everyone else on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve discussed. The main ones I remember are “control of behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no), “control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of perception was the same as control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is only perception that is controlled) and, of course, the “power law”. I welcome the criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting that these same topics (except for the power law, of course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me. Boris was just a particularly unpleasant member of the opposition. But Bill handled Boris with such aplomb that I have decided to stop marking his posts as spam and just ignore them when they are insulting, the way Bill did. Here’s an example of Bill dealing with Boris’s rudeness:
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]
BP earlier [to Boris–RM]:
When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.
HB :Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that we did it many times with no desireble effect.
BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then understand that you approve of my going in circles?
RM: This is also a good example of Bill trying to take the argument “up a level”; it’s like saying “what do you want?” to a obstreperous child.
RM: And the following is another post from 2012 – basely a year before we lost Bill – where Boris implicitly calls Bill a “behaviorist” for pointing out the fact that behavior can be controlled and that PCT explains why. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph (I’ve Italicized the best part). Also, while you are reading this, recall that when the topic of “control of behavior” came up on CSGNet after Bill passed away, virtually everyone argued, along with Boris, against Bill’s (and my) position. I note this, not because I think Bill was always right (although in my experience he was probably right about 99% of the time) but just to point out that Boris didn’t treat what Bill said as 'gospel" until after he passed away. And, like those who treated what Jesus said as gospel only after he died, he has felt free to interpret Bill’s words in a way that satisfies his own goals. Some might call that casuistry; but I just call it being a control system.
[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
HB : Is this again festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet. It happened quite some time. Does it mean that “We control others’ behavior and they control ours all the time…” , that with “stimuli” that arise from our action and “influence” other people state (as something objective in environment), we perceive and think that other person are behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go like this : you see your “stimuli” and you see “other persons behavior” that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka, we are controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where is here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any “stimuli” (perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time ? What’s the difference between the perceptual input that is produced by physical and social environment ?
BP: I think you may have missed some discussions of this interpretation. Of course PCT does not support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.” It is certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable relationships is that some environmental events simply “cause” the behavior that follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “petitio principii” (see Google). The PCT view is that when we see apparent examples of stimuli causing responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance. That sort of thing happens, as Rick says, all the time. Most of a person’s actions, we might say, would be unnecessary if there were no disturbances causing errors in controlled variables. When you drive a car from home to work, the only times you would turn the steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto another or into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it steady, and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that is not how the real world works.
BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular variable. All you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which of several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict that whatever behavior does occur, it will have an effect equal and opposite to the effect of the disturbance you apply. If there happens to be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can predict quite reliably the behavior that will take place. You can then control whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance when your goal is for that behavior not to occur).
BP: A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if unopposed, can alter the state of a controlled variable independently of the control system’s own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything that can disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it – you are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or suspicion, showing that just saying “hello” to a stranger can disturb variables that person is controlling, so the person feels it necessary to produce some behavior such as saying “Well, hello to you, too” before walking on. That looks like a stimulus-response event, but PCT says that is not what is happening.
BP: Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all day long in which there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why many intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been wrong, but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not occur. They do occur, and are everywhere. These S-R theorists observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly; they simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.
BP: The reason that you can control other people’s behavior is not that you can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way. It is that once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find a disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your disturbance from having any continuing effect on the controlled variable. Walk up to a policeman and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in the nose. You can predict with some confidence that he will subdue you and put you under arrest. In the 1960s, protesters in Chicago made policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in front of television cameras. This is how they did it.
BP: I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of this kind. I recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both Rick’s and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in three seconds without causing any problem at all.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Boris:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/19/4/425/
On 8 Feb 2017, at 19:00, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
On 5 Feb 2017, at 13:07, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren,
why do I have feeling that you are not taking me seriously.
WM : Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also
Rick! :-oHB : I hope you’ll not make mistake when citating
Rick. So I hope
you’ll not make mistake when citating Rick. You seem to be quite young
man and perspective of life is in front of you. So I’d really like if
I wouldn’t have to make some public ciritics. You seem to be nice guy.
Please don’t give me a reason.Best,
Boris
P.S. Instead of Rick you can use CSGnet discussions with citations of
course. It’s maybe better way that you will explain righ
t PCT not RCT…-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick!
:-oOn 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren…
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sen
t: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControlHi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12,
19 and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate
studies or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also
the ‘control of action’ term persists in other talks so no change
there. I will go to see Study 30… and I am looking forward to theHB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). Watch for
the right PCT concept and don’t forget to citate Bill as much as
possible. No Rick… No RCT…Best,
Boris
All the best,
WarrenHi Warren…
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 9:46 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: W
interSchool_HumanActionControlHi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young.
HB : It seems that you are old enough to be aware of consequences of your
control :)…WM : I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of
PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on
CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.HB : I never said that you shouldn’t respect Rick. It’s your choice. But his
contribution to PCT and empiricical testing are worthless from PCT
perspective. It’s selfregulation as Carvers’ “Selfregulation on Behavior”
and many other famous psychologist of today’s.I hope there are a lot of places where you disagree with Rick, speccially on
those places where his RCT is not compatible with PCT definitions. I showed
this places many times with citating Bill. I hope you read it. So if you
will citate Bills’ defintion to prove compatibility with PCT there is no
place for RCT (Ricks’ Conntrol Theory) as they are incompatible. Bills’
defintions about PCT and Ricks’ definiton of control loop are opposite.WM : I am quite comfortable holding both perspectives on Rick’s
contributions, just as I am comfortable with having a dual perspective on
anyone’s contribution including my own, and I am not willing to engage in a
pejorification of his work using the ‘RCT’ label.HB : So how do you call Theory which has following control loop elements :
- Behavior is Control
- There is always some “controlled aspect
of environment”- There is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable”
Can you scientifically prove existance of this entities. You must have
scientific arguments for not accepting label “RCT”. Please show them to me.
Can you show in PCT diagram (LCS III) where theese terms exist. And of
course where can we find in Bills’ work that everything in control loop is
happening “at the same time”. And of course how can you prove that PCT is
“protecting theory”. See my PCT and physiological arguments. They are all
scientific. Show me which is not.WM : I plan to cite Rick’s studies as and where his work complements my
talk, and I also plan to continue debating with him as and when I think it
might be a helpful way of clarifying PCT for myself and those people whoread it.
HB : As I said many times before science has nothing to do with friendship.
Science is about following scientific arguments. And Rick didn’t show any of
them except some algebraic formulas and “kindergarten” mathematics as Martin
is describing his mathematical knowledge.So I don’t see any reason that you should include Ricks’ “scientific” work
into your talk. But I have a suggestion what could you do.When I talked to Bill and Carver I wanted to clear up whether Bill was the
first to introduce “Control Theory” into Psychology. Bill was pretty sure
that he was the first as there is no literature sources about who could be
the first except Bills’ work from 1960. I asked the same question Carver. He
was trying with some sources and on th
e end we established that there is no
real sources that could be a “witness” to who is the frist to introduce
“Control theory” into Psychology besdie Bill. This could be real task for
PCT’ers to establish clearly whether Bill is “Father of Control Theory” in
Psychology. My explorations also show that Bill was the first. So instead of
promoting Bill as the “Father of Control Theory in Psychology” Rick is
promoting his RCT and Selfregulation. Jeff Vancouver came twice and wanted
to change PCT into some cheap “Self-regulation theory” despite clear
explanation of Mary Powers what is what.You Warren had also fingers involved in conspiracy against Bills’ PCT while
you promoted Jeff Vancouvers’ work. So I really asked myself some times
where you belong. Lately I saw some changes in yo
ur oppinion, so I thought
that maybe it’s time that you “absorbe” right PCT and start promoting it
instead of RCT, behaviorism or self-regulation. You can start with citating
Bills’ defintions. And they are all contradicting to RCT, behaviorism and
self-regulation.So do once a good job for Bill and start pomoting his PCT and him as a
“Father of Control Theory in Psychology”.Bill with no doubt worked hard with his wife Mary to form the best theory
about how Living beings behave. And with no doubt he deserves a place in
any Psychological Dictionary. Somebody could make PhD on that subject…All in all. Me and Bill were in conflict at the end. But what is right is
right. No matter of my relationship to him I’ll scientifically promote hiswork as he really deserves that. I’ll stand on the positions that his PCT is
the best and first “Control Theory” introduced into Psychology. And I’ll
always stand behind these statements no matter of my realtionship to him. I
have mayself for a scientist. And Bill was a scientist not a
para-psychologist or occultist as Rick is traying to present him and his
PCT.Bill simply deserves his place in history of Psychology. And efforts should
be also focused on that. Barb you said once that your father is on first
place ?So I’ll stand behind PCT even for the price if we’ll have publically to
clear up what is PCT and what is not. Ricks’ RCT is sure one of them.Anyway I wish you luck.
Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warrendiscussion!
This is a long one… So I made a short »abstract«… who wants ts to read all, I’m thankfull in advance…. In the main text there is aalso experiment done on the bases of Bills’ proposal.
Rick once upon a time made one of his most nonsense statement in history of PCT. He wrote that : People always control other people. He exactly wrote : …that we are always controlling and being controlled by otthers
There was a long discussion on this Theme, but Rick as usual manipulated with »facts« and presented just part of it which suit him.
But even in this presented part here Bill nowhere confirmed that »Peopole always control other people«. Bill sticked to his PCT but occasionaly trying to adpat it to Ricks’ undefendable statement. Bill did protect Rick many times even if it was apperent that he was wrong. Rick was priviliged as he is today by Powers ladies.
So this was one of such cases where Bill diverged from his PCT. Bill madea mistake in contradicting his defitnion of control so to »protect« Ricks’ foollish statement. Bill was trying to make it look like Rick has the same oppinion, but I objected and put my arguments as always. I can prove it any time that Bills’ staement and Ricks RCT diverge to much. On many of my arguments Bill didn’t comment. Rick can present also those parts of conversation ?
Ricks ’ statement was exclusive »People always control other people«. Maybe CSGnet members should read all the discussion on CSGnet so to get right picture. Rick has of course in accordance with his references manipulativelly extact some pieces of discussion. As usuall. But he can’t deny that he changed his oppinion through years under my pressure.
So Rick in last years advanced from :
People always control other peopler into à people try to control other people (Rick Marken, Tim Carey book, 2015)
RM and TC (2015) : If you have ever wondered why some people try to control others…
<
This is a big and crucial difference as the last Ricks’ statement is in accordance with PCT. It’s not his idea because he took it from CSGnet discussions with me, as I was persuading Rick for years that people don’t control people but try to control them.
It is about guessing and predicting what people will do when their »controlled variables« are disturbed, what is also Bills’ non deviating explanation about how people interact with each other. People’s behavior can be very unpredictable and thus not controlled. We can »disturb« their control, but we can never overtake control over their »preselected state« what definition of control is about.
And the biggest tragedy of this change is, that Bill was giving his credibility for a person that didn’t deserve it. Rick changed his oppinion and we see that whatever we talked about in that time is opposite to what he is thinking about »controlling« people today. And I think that Ricks’ instability in PCT understanding caused so much confussion on CSGnet and I can predict that it will cause more.
All in all Bill nowhere confirmed Ricks’ foolish statement that prople always control peopole.
However Bill wanted to protect Rick, although the core idea of his explanation was PCT :
Bill P :
The PCT view is that when we see apparent examples of stimuli causing responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance.
HB : This is PCT and the adaptiaon to Ricks’ statement that people always control people was in the sense :
Bill P :
Of course PCT does not support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.”
BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular variable.
HB : So Bill is talking about predictable change if we disturb variable that person is controlling. The emphasses is on predict not control.
But we can also see that in predicting people behavior on applyed disturbances there is  :
No Control of behavior
No »controlled variables« in outer environment
No »Controlled Perceptual Variable«
No everything happening in the same time, just timeline : disturbance to controlled variable and then opposing effects
No protection from disturbances (just opposing)
No extrasensory perception
So all in all PCT stands as it is defined in B:CP definition and diagram in LCS III.
HB : Control is defined as maintaining internal (predefined) state of organism not some external aspect of environment. Behavior is manifestation (consequence) of control as Henry Yin pointed out. If organisms would always »control« some external aspect of environment they would never survive. But they control their inisde predefined state 24/7.
And Rick still didn’t explain behaviors that don’t feet into his RCT. Behaviors that don’t have any »aspect of environment controlled«. RCT has nothing general. But PCT diagram has.
HB : From the diagram it’s clear that
»Behavior is not control« just »acts to environment«
There is no »controlled aspect of environment« just »feed-back function« which means that outut affects input
There are added »effects of output and disturbances«Â
There is no »Controlled Perceptual Variable« just »Perceptual signal«
There is control process going on in Comparator in which reference and perception are mixed (mismatched) and produce »error« signal which »drives« output, which affect environment and so on…
There is no »Behavior is control of perception«. Behavior is affecting the environment and among other effects to environment it affects also input.
This is enough to know about PCT and control in human beings. But it can be extended with diagram on page 191 (B:CP, 2005) which should be upgraded.
Best,
Boris
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young. I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you and everyone else on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve discussed.
HB : Maybe it was because you were bullshiting.
The main ones I remember are “control of behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no),
HB : First you didn’t say that »control of behavior« is possible. You said that »people always control other peopler«. I nedeed couple years to persuade you that »people are trying to control other people«.
RM and TC (2015) : If you have ever wondered why some people try to control others…<
HB : So It still stands. We can’t control other people behavior (there is an exception), but we can try to control them. You can’t control people behavior, but you can control the perception of people what is a big difference. And you didn’t wrote that »control of behavior« is possible, but that »people always control other people behavior«.
RM ……“control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of perception was the same as control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is only perception that is controlled)
HB : It still stands. Control of perception is not the same as »control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception«.You said it for yourself. Sleeping is behavior that doesn’t feet into your RCT. And there are many other behaviors.
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.
HB : There are also many cases when output is affecting directly input (feed-back function) without any »aspect of environment being affected (controlled)«. Your RCT is generally wrong.
RM :
….and, of coourse, the “power law”. I welcome the criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting that these same topics (except for the power law, of course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me. Boris was just a particularly unpleasant member of the opposition. But Bill handled Boris with such aplomb that I have decided to stop marking his posts as spam and just ignore them when they are insulting, the way Bill did. Here’s an example of Bill dealing with Boris’s rudeness:
HB : Well we all know why I’m unpleasent member. I’m unpleasant because you are promoting RCT instead of PCT and I’m criticizing you. And I’ll continue…
if hope that members of CSGnet will read carefully what Bill wrote (we can’t control their behavior, they will decide what they will do). But we are obviously trying to persuade them to beleive one or another. And you Rick is perfect manipulator who use all kinds of means to achieve his goals. The problem is that your theory RCT is worng all the time.
If members of CSGnet will read they will notice that Bill was not talking about my rudeness. Rick you did. It seems like Rick is an Angel never been rude to anybody on this forum. I’ve learned to be rude from him. But I didn’t learned everything from him. For example I’m still learning how can I be such a manipulator as Rick is. He is World Champion. As usual the great manipulator Rick cut some pieces of the conversations about his statement that »People always control other people«. He presented only Bills’ argumentation and of course cut out mine.
Ricks’ statement that »people always control other people« is of course nonsense of 1. class and Bill made a mistake when he tried to cover Rick. It happened quite some time that Bill was »protecting« Rick and deviate from his PCT. I think that Martin will confirm that. Also on relation to him Bill was acting protectively for Rick.Â
So Rick picked up from CSGmet just choosen example which shows that I was right and that Ricks’ statement that »people always control other people« was and is wrong. And Rick confirmed what I was telling through years (from 2012) to him. As I said before in Ricks’ and Tims’ book about »Controlling people….« there is a statement :
RM and TC (2015) : If you have ever wondered why some people try to control others…
HB : The statement is in accordance with my statements (find them on CSGnet) that people try to control other people not to always control them. So Rick confirmed that I was right and Rick was wrong all the time even when Bill tryed to back up his nonsense.Â
As we said before Bill »covered« and »protected« Rick through years as much as he can. Now Rick is on his own. So now Rick alone will have to prove that his RCT is right theory, because there is nobody to »protect« him.
Let us remember what RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) is about :
Behavior is control or telekinesis is used to control some »aspect of environment«
There is always some »controlled variable« in environment
There is some »Controlled Perceptual Variable«.
Everything is happening at the same time in control loop
There is »Protection from disturbances«
There exist also some extrasensory perception
Bill didn’t write anything about these statements to be right. So they are all wrong. Rick is selling wrong and opposite theory to PCT. I called it RCT.
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.24.0835)]
BP earlier [to Boris–RM]:
When I don’t know how to reply to comments like this one about rejecting you as an equal, I usually don’t say anything. When you tell me I’m walking in circles, what should I do? Defend myself? That would just start another argument. If you want to confront me and criticize and complain, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to ask you to do it even more.
HB :Well my intention was not to criticize you or complain or confront as that we did it many times with no desireble effect.
BP: So telling me I am going in circles is not a criticism? Should I then understand that you approve of my going in circles?
HB : We have to understand here the protective roll Bill was having for Rick. Otherwise it’s impossible to undertsand my criticism.I mostly criticized Bill when he was protecting Rikcs’ nonsense. And I exposed that Rick was many times the reason why Bill went out of PCT line just to protect Rick and so he »circled arround« as Rick is. I can show on this expample or any other example in my conversation with Bill that he was contradicting himself because of Rick.
RM: This is also a good example of Bill trying to take the argument “up a level”; it’s like saying “what do you want?” to a obstreperous child.
RM : Yes that was a problem, because he was trying to get up a level to defend Rick. And this is of course childish Ricks’ manipulation out of wider context. Rick was the cause of quite some conflicts between me and Bill in our back gorund talks. I don’t know what Bill saw in Rick, and I still don’t understand what Powers ladies see in Rick. Is he golden boy ?Â
RM: And the following is another post from 2012 – basely a year before we lost Bill – where Boris implicitly calls Bill a “behaviorist” for pointing out the fact that behavior can be controlled and that PCT explains why.
HB : As I said the problem that I called Bill behaviorist is because he was »protecting« behavioristic Rick and his statement deivated from PCT (people always control other people, what is one of the biggest nonsense in histroy of PCT). So Bill protected Rick and he came into contradiction with himself. He also changed his mind sometimes. But his literature speccially B:CP is the monument of PCT. And there is probably no influence from Rick. So there we can quite »objectivelly« conclude what PCT is about. Specially from defintions of PCT.
RM : Pay particular attention to the last paragraph (I’ve Italicized the best part). Also, while you are reading this, recall that when the topic of “control of behavior” came up on CSGNet after Bill passed away, virtually everyone argued, along with Boris, against Bill’s (and my) position.
HB : Yours’ and Bills’ position are still appart and will be always appart. Bill wrote PCT and you are explaining RCT. He couldn’t cover all your nonsense.I’ll show it later. So your position is far from Bills’ position. And that can be clearly seen from your actual statements, books and articles. His theory is PCT is far away from yours RCT.
RM : I note this, not because I think Bill was always right (although in my experience he was probably right about 99% of the time) but just to point out that Boris didn’t treat what Bill said as 'gospel" until after he passed away.
HB : After Bill passed away, Rick was immediatelly trying to change PCT to RCT and I stopped him. You can see all discussions on CSGnet. Even Fred was helping with statement that Rick is »princing« again on CSGnet.Â
RM : And, like those who treated what Jesus said as gospel only after he died, he has felt free to interpret Bill’s words in a way that satisfies his own goals. Some might call that casuistry; but I just call it being a control system.
HB : Yeah. We are both LCS, but you are much worse than I am. You are manipulator of worse kind.
[From Bill Powers (2012.07.06.0702 MDT)]
At 03:42 AM 7/6/2012, Boris Hartman wrote:
HB : Is this again festival of behaviorism hear on CSGnet. It happened quite some time. Does it mean that “We control others’ behavior and they control ours all the time…” , that with “stimuli” that arise from our action and “influence” other people state (as something objective in environment), we perceive and think that other person are behaving in wanted manner all the time. So does it go like this : you see your “stimuli” and you see “other persons behavior” that is matching your perception of wanted behavior and heureka, we are controlling other person. So stimuli - behavior, cause - effect, where is here controlling in other person ? Does it mean that any “stimuli” (perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time ? What’s the difference between the perceptual input that is produced by physical and social environment ?
HB : Here we have to understand that I was criticizing Rick and his theory that »people always control other people«. And Bill stand for Rick. as usual. That was Bills’ crucial mistake.
So when I tried to point out nonsense that Rick wrote : that »people always control other people« Bill »jumped« in and started to protect Ricks’ behaviorism.
If people would really control each other behavior all the time, how could poeple control thier internal variables and survive and act so to also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP) :
HB : So people wouldn’t survive or feel good if other people would be able to control them all the time as Rick said. So if people would control other people, they could not maintain their »preselcted state«. And the »fact« is that Rick changed his mind as the cosequnce of these discussions. Rick nedeed quite some years to change oppinion from :
People always control other people behavior into à people try to control other people behavior (TC and RM, 2015).
Here it’s even more apparent that Rick don’t think anymore like he did, and thus he is confrontedwith now Bills’ statement that people »quite frequently control« other people behavior what Bill did when he protected Rick.
Bill P :
…that all of us are having our behavior conttrolled quite frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient.
RM and TC (2015) : If you have ever wondered why some people try to control others…
HB : We see that you Rick are not anymore relevant for Bills’ expalantion, because you totally changed your oppinion in these years under my pressure. So whatever Bill was explaning into your favour is not relevant any more as your are now opposing all his explanation about how »people control other people behavior«. They don’t control other people behavior, but they try to control… So by your oppinion now Bill must be wrong in that time.
Bills’ definiton of control shows that it’s impossible to control other people behavior if we don’t change the way how »preselected state« is achieved or maintained in the controlling system. We have to understand that »preselected state« is genetically determined. So if we want to control other people behavior we have to change their genetic structure. And that is possible with »genetic engeneering«, mutations or to kill a person. Then you obviously »controlled« other people. But we can not »control other people behavior« in anyway just with changing disturbances to their control. But we can control perception of their behavior by applying disturbances to them.
So we can control perception of other people behavior through disturbing their »controlled variables« as Bill pointed out. But the problem that Bill tried to adjust controlling of other people to Ricks’ ignorant statement in the sense that »People always control other people behavior« was not good move.Â
BP: I think you may have missed some discussions of this interpretation.
HB : Bill wrote that he thinked that I may missed something. But I didn’t. So show us Rick those discussions that I missed. I don’t remember missing any discussins because I provoked those discussions. So show us all discussions and my evidences against your statements that »people all the time control other people«. We can go through it if you want again. And show us also how your oppinion were changing through those discussions. The final result through years was seen in your statements in Tims’ and your book. People try to control…
/o:p>
BP : Of course PCT does not support the idea that “stimuli (perceptual input) from physical or social environment is controlling people’s behavior all the time.”
HB : Here we see that Bill more supported my standpoint than Ricks’ although Bill is mistaking about hat »people dont’ always control other people behavior«. Bill did violate his PCT with using »control of people’s behavior«. He stood on position (because of Rick) that anyway people can »sometime control« other people behavior what is in contradiction with his defintion of control. See definition above.People in normal circumstances, can only control perception of other people’s behavior. It’s PCT course of explanation which Bill neglected because of Rick.
So Bill should say in accordance to his theory PCT that »PCT support the idea that social environment is controlling perception of people’s behavior all the time«.
BP : It is certainly true that one conventional interpretation of observable relationships is that some environmental events simply “cause” the behavior that follows them. That’s a logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “petitio principii” (see Google).
HB : I think that here Bill talked about calssical S.R.He went a little to phylosophy probably to redirect attention from Ricks’ ignorant statement. He was smart…
BP : The PCT view is that when we see apparent examples of stimuli causing responses, what is really happening is that certain environmental variables disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance. That sort of thing happens, as Rick says, all the time.
HB : Rick of course nowhere wrote that people disturb other people control and they oppose distrubance. Rick wrote that »people always control other people«. And this is a big diference.
But here we see that Bill gave his right definition of PCT. and tryed to connect it with Ricks’ foolish statement that People always control other peopole.
Here we can see what is original defitnion about interaction between people with no control mentioned. There are just disturbances to variabnle people are controlling (maintaining) and opposing effects. There is no RCT :
Behavior is control or telekinesis
»Controlled variable in outer environment
»Controlled Perceptual variable«
Protcection from disturbances
Everything happening at the same time.
Extrasensory perception
People by Bills’ defintion are not controlling other people behavior but they are just »disturbing their control and opposing«. All they can do they can disturb through environmantal variables, a variable that person is controlling in the controlling system and than Control Perception of the behavior of other person… It’s in accordance with his definition of control and with diagram in LCS III. Here we see that there is no »control of other people behavior«, but people oppose the effect of disturbances after disturbances are applied. It’s control of perception of others people behavior. They are certainly not »protected from disturbances« as Rick is saying.
HB : I think it’s obvious that Bill did contradict himself just because of Rick. He is putting worng words into Ricks’ mouth, so to »protect« Ricks’ foolish statement that »people are always controlling other people«. Bill is manipulating here with equating his and Ricks’ statement although it’s clear what Rick said and what Bill was trying to say about perceptual control of behavior…
But let us remember what Bill and Rick really said about »controlling other people«…
<
Bill P : …what is really happening is that certain environmentall variables disturb a variable that a person is controlling, and the so-called response is the person’s action that opposes the effect of the disturbance.
Rick (earlier) : People always control other people behavior
HB : We see cleraly the difference in Bills’ original oppinion about how«control« of people look like and Ricks’ RCT.
Rick didn’t say that people are opposing the effects of disturbances that are casued by other people, but that »people always control behavior of other people«. How they do that Rick didn’t say. But Bill is talking mostly about his normal PCT what means disturbing controlled variables and opposing them. Rick is usually talking about »protection from disturbances«. Ricks’ RCT is in fatal contradiction to PCT.
BP : Most of a person’s actions, we might say, would be unnecessary if there were no disturbances causing errors in controlled variables. When you drive a car from home to work, the only times you would turn the steering wheel would be when you turn off one road and onto another or into a parking lot. The rest of the time you would just hold it steady, and nothing would cause the car to change its direction. Of course that is not how the real world works.
BP: It follows that you can cause a predictable change in a person’s behavior if you know that the person is controlling some particular variable. All you have to do is disturb that variable. You may not know which of several possible behaviors will take place, but you can predict that whatever behavior does occur,
HB : You can notice that in normal Bills’ explanation the emphasis is on predict people behavior, not control. We can make better ot worse prediction of what people will do to our disturbances. Anyway these Bills’ statements has nothing to do with Ricks’ statement that »people always contol other people behavior«. Bills’ statemennts are deviating to much from Ricks’ statement that we can always control other people behavior. Bill never fully confirmed Ricks’ nonsense.
BP : ……it will have an effect equal and opposite to the effect of the ddisturbance you apply.
HB : Still nothing about how people control othe people. Just how people oppose effects of disturbances. People are obviously »not protected against disturbances«. They are all the time exposed to them and create opposing effects.
BP : If there happens to be only one behavior that will have that effect, you can predict quite reliably the behavior that will take place.
HB : We can predict quite realibly is far away form »control other people behavior«. We can predict is quite in acordance to people control perception of other people behavior and predict what they will do.
BP : You can then control whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the disturbance (and making sure nothing else causes the same disturbance when your goal is for that behavior not to occur).
HB : Here is »devastating« point. Because of Ricks foolish statement Bill is trying to connect prediction of people’s behavior to control of their behavior. Prediction and control is hard to equate. Prediction is more unrelyble possibility of what will happen. And control is more determined outcome of people behavior.
But what Bill in accordance to PCT should wrote was : You can then control (perception) whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the disturbance
Bill run out of PCT, although Bill did not fully confirmed Ricks’ statement about »people always controlling other people«. He was just saying that we can control whether or not the person shows that behavior by applying or not applying the disturbamces what is far away from »people always control other peole«. We can see the probability here. There is no trace of probablity in »people always control other people behavior«.
We can’t control other people behavior by applying disturbances to other people control. But we can control perception of other people behavior by applying disturbances. Whether change of other people control we’ll be succesfull or not depends how other people we’ll control disturbance. But they sure are not protected from them. If we would control other behvaior the outcome would be defined like in S-R.Stimulus à controlled behavior.
Martin proved to Rick that Rick in »knot dot experiment« can’t control behavior of other people, but he can »control perception of behavior of other people«, what can be done with applying disturbances. And Bill here did not mention what people control but from his theory we can conclude that people »control perception« not behavior. So the statement seems equal to Martins’. We have to add »percpetion« to control to get right explanation.
But anyway this was the only place where Bill was trying to connect »control of people« and »disturbing« other people control. It was unsusccesfull attempt.
Otherwise he was talking about PCT. Ricks’ statement that »people always control other people« is too extreme to defend.
BP: A disturbance is defined as any variable which, if unopposed, can alter the state of a controlled variable independently of the control system’s own behavior. This broadens the definition to include anything that can disturb a controlled variable, including even such simple things as saying “hello” to someone unknown to you passing by. Try it – you are very likely to see a definition reaction of surprise or suspicion, showing that just saying “hello” to a stranger can disturb variables that person is controlling, so the person feels it necessary to produce some behavior such as saying “Well, hello to you, too” before walking on. That looks like a stimulus-response event, but PCT says that is not what is happening.
HB : With saying »hello« to somebody we disturbed some »controlled variable« that person is controlling. And Bill didn’t mentioned any »outer environmental variable«. Just variable. According to definiotn of control, it’s disturbance to some »controlled variable« inside person. So if we want that Bill is in accordance with himself we must assume that internal variable is disturbed. Or Rick can show us what »outside variables« person that say »hello« to each other disturb ???
Both persons that meet on the street are achieving and maintaining »predefined state« as Bills’ defitnion of control says. And by saying »hello«, someone disturbed other people control or maybe not, what we’ll see later why not. I haven’t answered immediatelly on Ricks’ post because I made an experiment as Bill proposed with saying hello to unknown people on the street. Â
So I was just walking through the streets of my town saying unknown people »hello«. Actions of people were very different speccially in accordance to gender. Actions of other people were from just ignoring me, to showing me that I’m crazy. But some did say hello back. You try it Rick or anybody. »Actions on disturbing people control will be different, what means that there is no S-R. People will differently control the same disturbance »hello« because they are differently controlling inside whatever they control. They are definitelly not controlling some »aspect of outer emvironment«. In accordance what people internally control they will act. It’s in accordance to Bills’ defintion of control.
Bill P :
As people to my hello acted in very different ways we can assume that PCT is right and my stimulus »hello« didn’t caused the same »reactions« in people. People were differently controlling my disturbance in aacordance to their control in the controlling system.
And most important to understand is that I didn’t disturbed any »controlled variable« outside that people were controlling, because there wasn’t any. It was also clear that by controlling perception of people behavior (inside me) I didn’t control to the same extent aspect of environment as Rick is saying, I was controlling the perception of people behavior that I disturbed, but the »controlled« effects has a little in common with my guessing (predicting) what people will do. Whatever I was controlling inside it was not »controlled« outside. I maybe guesed right couple times what »disturbed« people will »answer«, but I mostly wasn’t right. But I definitely didn’t control other people’s behavior. I did control perception of people’s behavior more or less succesfully.Â
So I wasn’t disturbing :
any »aspect of their environment« they could be controlling or telekinetically guid
and there wasn’t any :
behavior that was controlledÂ
people were not »protected against my disturbances«
they didn't create any »Controlled Perceptual variable«
they didn't control at the same time
they didn't have any extrasensory perception
We can clerarly see that we can not treat people in the same way as we do »Mouse« or »Joysteak«. Rick is gaming boy (child) and he will hardly understand the relations between people. This is for adults. But the principle of »control« are the same. We always »Control Perception«.
Different »responses« from other people showed clearly that people are differently controlling inside (not outside) and they differently »respond«, because their inner »controlled variables« were differently disturbed in respect to their different references.
We can’t achieve and maintain their preselected state. They have to do it on their owm if they want to survive. Nobody can do that by controlling for them. Even doctors. They can help people stabilize their »predefined state«, but they can’t control instead of them or control their predefined state… If Rick can do that then this is another quality in his superman carrier, beside that he is »protected from disturbances« that he has Telekinetic abilities and that he can control at the same time, and that he has some extrasensory abilities.
BP: Theory aside, you can’t deny that many events occur all day long in which there is an illusion of stimulus and response. That is why many intelligent people observing human behavior thought they were observing a simple cause-effect phenomenon. They were not stupid or evil people; they simply didn’t know of any other explanation. They happen to have been wrong, but that doesn’t say that the apparent causes and effects do not occur. They do occur, and are everywhere. These S-R theorists observed the environmental events and the behaviors correctly; they simply guessed wrong about the connection between them.
HB : Well isn’t this description that suit you Rick. Your RCT is not only wrongly connecting the environmental S-R but your RCT is also wrongly showing what people are always »controlling« in inner and outer environment. This kind of illussions that Bill described are present in your books and demos …
BP: The reason that you can control other people’s behavior is not that you can apply stimuli that cause them to respond in a certain way.
HB : Here Bill is deviating a little form his PCT, because he is trying to prove Ricks’ foolish statement that »people can control other people. But is very cautious. He is not saying that with stimuli to their varibale we can cause them to repsond in certain way, what is happening in tracking task when Rick is playing with his »Mouse« or »Joysteak«. Computer, mouse, joysteak are not alive and Rick experiences that on his stimuli everything is happening just as he wants. Machines are responding in the way he wants. So he thinks that he can control »aspect of environment«. That’s not hard to achieve with machines. But can we do that with people ??? By applying stimuli, we can’t cause people to respond in certain way, what means that we can’t control them (their behavior), but we can assume, predict, guess…
I think that Bill made that little mistake because he wanted to adapt PCT to Ricks’ statement. And he used term »control of other people’s behavior«. He should say »control of perception of other people’s behavior«. His theory is about »Control of Perception« not about how people control their physical and social environment. They don’t control it by they affect it in cerrtain way. But it’s obviously that Bill didn’t confirm that »people always control other people behavior«, like Rick was trying to persuade us.
HB : Bills’ defitnion of control is clear….If people want to aachieve and maintain their own »preselected« state, there is nobody that can do that for them. Even other people (doctors) can’t. So nobody can control behavior of other people. They have to do it by themselves alone to survive… But they can learn from other how to do it for mmore succesfull control.
Bill P :
HB : As I mentioned above according to Bills’ defitnion of control, we can control other people behavior by changing their genetic structure which is determining »predefined state« of organism. We can do it with »genetic engineering«. And that doesn’t happen often if at all. We can’t change genetic structure and thus control behavior of other person just with disturbing some environmental variables. To overtake control over them we have to make structural changes.
For example in the case of saying hello. We can »control perception« of other people behavior« with disturbing environmental variables and hoping (predicting, guessing) that person will do what we expect them to do. In my experiment I rarely manage to guess what will be the opposed action of other people (speccially women). It was far away form thinking of any kind of control over them. So it’s no way that I was controlling something in them. They were deciding on their own what they will do after I applyed disturbances. Their different »answers« showed clearly that they were controlling for themselves.
BP : It is that once you know what another person is controlling, you can often find a disturbance which can be counteracted in only one way, and predict successfully that the person will use that way to prevent your disturbance from having any continuing effect on the controlled variable.
HB : This is Bills’ PCT. Bill is on his right PCT way to delete Rikcs’ nonsesnse statement that »people always control other people«. And note that Bill used the word »prevent« not »protect«. So we can prevent people from continuing disturbances to our controlled variables, but we are not »protected« against those disturbances« as Rick is repeating all the time.
BP : Walk up to a policeman and say angrily that you’re going to punch him in the nose. You can predict with some confidence that he will subdue you and put you under arrest. In the 1960s, protesters in Chicago made policemen demonstrate brutal behavior in front of television cameras. This is how they did it.
HB : We can predict (not control) other people behavior in any case by »Controlling perception« of other people’s behavior.
BP: I’m sure that you can think of many more examples of this kind. I recommend doing so if you want to understand the reasons for both Rick’s and my claim that all of us are having our behavior controlled quite frequently, and that most of the time our reaction against the effect of a disturbance is quite successful and not at all inconvenient. A simple disturbance like “Please pass the salt” can be disposed of in three seconds without causing any problem at all.
HB : You Rick and Bill have just opposite oppinion although Bill wanted to show how your oppinion is »equal to his«. But its’ far away. I can every time you want Rick list all you nonsense statements about human control. It’s your RCT which is diverging from PCT. And you are definitelly not promoting PCT as science but Occultims and Parapsychology.
As I said before and Martin will probably confirm that Bill was protecting Rick quite some times. That was the reason that Bill sometimes deviate from his standard PCT which is clearly defined in B:CP and LCS III diagram…
Rick your statement was that »people always control other people«.
And this is far away from normal everydaylife experiences and science. Even Bill couldn’t save you Rick.
All in all I don’t see in Bills’ text any discrepancy from his definitions and his diagram in LCS III except one which he made for his friend Rick. Other text is filled with PCT not RCT.
HB : But your statement ….:
RM and TC (2015) : If you have ever wondered why some people try to control others…
HB : …is in acccordance with PCT. But it’s not yours it’s mine. You can go and search archive and see who was telling for years that »people don’t control people«, but they »try to control them«. This is a big difference.Â
Boris
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Warren,
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 12:10 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi Boris:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/19/4/425/
I read abstract and I must say that I’m again dissapointed. The only statement that is describing PCT is : »Behavior is the Control of Perception«. It’s wrong. Original Title of the book is »Behavior : the control of Perception«. You have to watch on time line.
It means that behavior is not controlling input, but it’s driven by »control of perception«. How can behavior control perception ??? With what ?
Behavior is the consequence of controlled perception in comparator. Result in »error« signal«, which is »driving« behavior. So the right interpretation of Titles book would be that »Behavior is consequence of Control of Perception«. That’s what PCT diagram in LCS III is showing. So »Behavior : the Control of Perception« means that behavior is manifestation of control as Henry yin put it.
Diagram (LCS III) :
You can clearly see that behavior is produced by »error« signal so behavior is the consequence of control of perception in comparator. Behavior can’t control anything. You have to prove how behavior is controlled if you want to continue with statements like »Behavior is control of perception«. How behavior control perception ? Explain it to me through diagram LCS III.
Best,
Boris
On 8 Feb 2017, at 19:00, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren…
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 9:46 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: W interSchool_HumanActionControlHi Boris, I am 44, so not old or young.
HB : It seems that you are old enough to be aware of consequences of your
control :)…WM : I greatly respect what Rick has contributed to the empirical testing of
PCT while at the same time I have disagreed with some of his points on
CSGnet, especially his approach to the power law discussion.HB : I never said that you shouldn’t respect Rick. It’s your choice. But his
contribution to PCT and empiricical testing are worthless from PCT
perspective. It’s selfregulation as Carvers’ “Selfregulation on Behavior”
and many other famous psychologist of today’s.I hope there are a lot of places where you disagree with Rick, speccially on
those places where his RCT is not compatible with PCT definitions. I showed
this places many times with citating Bill. I hope you read it. So if you
will citate Bills’ defintion to prove compatibility with PCT there is no
place for RCT (Ricks’ Conntrol Theory) as they are incompatible. Bills’
defintions about PCT and Ricks’ definiton of control loop are opposite.WM : I am quite comfortable holding both perspectives on Rick’s
contributions, just as I am comfortable with having a dual perspective on
anyone’s contribution including my own, and I am not willing to engage in a
pejorification of his work using the ‘RCT’ label.HB : So how do you call Theory which has following control loop elements :
- Behavior is Control
- There is always some “controlled aspect of environment”
- There is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable”
Can you scientifically prove existance of this entities. You must have
scientific arguments for not accepting label “RCT”. Please show them to me.
Can you show in PCT diagram (LCS III) where theese terms exist. And of
course where can we find in Bills’ work that everything in control loop is
happening “at the same time”. And of course how can you prove that PCT is
“protecting theory”. See my PCT and physiological arguments. They are all
scientific. Show me which is not.WM : I plan to cite Rick’s studies as and where his work complements my
talk, and I also plan to continue debating with him as and when I think it
might be a helpful way of clarifying PCT for myself and those people who
read it.HB : As I said many times before science has nothing to do with friendship.
Science is about following scientific arguments. And Rick didn’t show any of
them except some algebraic formulas and “kindergarten” mathematics as Martin
is describing his mathematical knowledge.So I don’t see any reason that you should include Ricks’ “scientific” work
into your talk. But I have a suggestion what could you do.When I talked to Bill and Carver I wanted to clear up whether Bill was the
first to introduce “Control Theory” into Psychology. Bill was pretty sure
that he was the first as there is no literature sources about who could be
the first except Bills’ work from 1960. I asked the same question Carver. He
was trying with some sources and on th e end we established that there is no
real sources that could be a “witness” to who is the frist to introduce
“Control theory” into Psychology besdie Bill. This could be real task for
PCT’ers to establish clearly whether Bill is “Father of Control Theory” in
Psychology. My explorations also show that Bill was the first. So instead of
promoting Bill as the “Father of Control Theory in Psychology” Rick is
promoting his RCT and Selfregulation. Jeff Vancouver came twice and wanted
to change PCT into some cheap “Self-regulation theory” despite clear
explanation of Mary Powers what is what.You Warren had also fingers involved in conspiracy against Bills’ PCT while
you promoted Jeff Vancouvers’ work. So I really asked myself some times
where you belong. Lately I saw some changes in yo ur oppinion, so I thought
that maybe it’s time that you “absorbe” right PCT and start promoting it
instead of RCT, behaviorism or self-regulation. You can start with citating
Bills’ defintions. And they are all contradicting to RCT, behaviorism and
self-regulation.So do once a good job for Bill and start pomoting his PCT and him as a
“Father of Control Theory in Psychology”.Bill with no doubt worked hard with his wife Mary to form the best theory
about how Living beings behave. And with no doubt he deserves a place in
any Psychological Dictionary. Somebody could make PhD on that subject…All in all. Me and Bill were in conflict at the end. But what is right is
right. No matter of my relationship to him I’ll scientifically promote his
work as he really deserves that. I’ll stand on the positions that his PCT is
the best and first “Control Theory” introduced into Psychology. And I’ll
always stand behind these statements no matter of my realtionship to him. I
have mayself for a scientist. And Bill was a scientist not a
para-psychologist or occultist as Rick is traying to present him and his
PCT.Bill simply deserves his place in history of Psychology. And efforts should
be also focused on that. Barb you said once that your father is on first
place ?So I’ll stand behind PCT even for the price if we’ll have publically to
clear up what is PCT and what is not. Ricks’ RCT is sure one of them.Anyway I wish you luck.
Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren
On 5 Feb 2017, at 13:07, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren,
why do I have feeling that you are not taking me seriously.
WM : Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also
Rick! :-o
HB : I hope you’ll not make mistake when citating Rick. So I hope
you’ll not make mistake when citating Rick. You seem to be quite young
man and perspective of life is in front of you. So I’d really like if
I wouldn’t have to make some public ciritics. You seem to be nice guy.
Please don’t give me a reason.
Best,
Boris
P.S. Instead of Rick you can use CSGnet discussions with citations of
course. It’s maybe better way that you will explain righ t PCT not RCT…
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi Boris, I will be of course citing Bill profusely, and also Rick!
:-o
On 5 Feb 2017, at 06:32, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren…
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sen t: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
Hi CSGers, I hope you like this little treat. Check out posters 12,
19 and 24. Most of the other presentations are neural correlate
studies or manipulation with barely any mention of theory. Not also
the ‘control of action’ term persists in other talks so no change
there. I will go to see Study 30… and I am looking forward to the
discussion!
HB : I hope you will not sell RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). Watch for
the right PCT concept and don’t forget to citate Bill as much as
possible. No Rick… No RCT…
Best,
Boris
All the best,
Warren