This is a long one… So I made a short Â»abstractÂ«… 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 Â»factsÂ« andÂ presented just part of it which suit him.
But even in this presented part here Bill nowhere confirmed that Â»Peopole always control other peopleÂ«. 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 Â»protectÂ« 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 Â»People always control other peopleÂ«. Maybe CSGnet members should read all the discussion on CSGnet so to get right picture. Rick has of course in accordance with his referencesÂ manipulativelly extact some pieces of discussion. As usuall. But he can’t deny that he changed his oppinion through years under my pressure.
People always control other peopler into Ã 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 Â»controlled variablesÂ« 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 Â»disturbÂ« their control, but we can never overtake control over their Â»preselected stateÂ« 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 Â»controllingÂ« 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 :
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 :
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 Â :
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.Â If organisms would always Â»controlÂ« 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 Â»aspect of environment controlledÂ«. RCT has nothing general. But PCT diagram has.
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.
From: Richard Marken [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: WinterSchool_HumanActionControl
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Warren Mansell email@example.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 Â»control of behaviorÂ« is possible. You said that Â»people always control other peoplerÂ«. I nedeed couple years to persuade you that Â»people are trying to control other peopleÂ«.
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 Â»control of behaviorÂ« is possible, but that Â»people always control other people behaviorÂ«.
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 Â»control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perceptionÂ«.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 Â»aspect of environment being affected (controlled)Â«. Your RCT is generally wrong.
….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 readÂ 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 Â»People always control other peopleÂ«. He presented only Bills’ argumentation and of course cut out mine.
Ricks’ statement that Â»people always control other peopleÂ« 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 Â»protectingÂ« 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 Â»people always control other peopleÂ« 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 Â»Controlling people….Â« 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 Â»coveredÂ« and Â»protectedÂ« 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,Â because there is nobody to Â»protectÂ« him.
Let us remember what RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) is about :
Behavior is control or telekinesis is used to control some Â»aspect of environmentÂ«
There is always some Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment
There is some Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ«.
Everything is happening at the same time in control loop
There is Â»Protection from disturbancesÂ«
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.Â And I exposed that Rick was many times the reason why Bill went out of PCT line just to protect Rick and so he Â»circled arroundÂ« 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 Â»protectingÂ« 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 Â»objectivellyÂ« 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 Â»princingÂ« 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 Â»people always control other peopleÂ«. And Bill stand for Rick. as usual. That was Bills’ crucial mistake.
So when I tried to point out nonsense that Rick wrote : that Â»people always control other peopleÂ« Bill Â»jumpedÂ« 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 alsoÂ cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP) :
HB : SoÂ 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 Â»preselcted stateÂ«. And the Â»factÂ« is that RickÂ changed his mind as the cosequnce of these discussions. Rick nedeed quite some years to change oppinion from :
People always control other people behavior intoÂ Ã 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 confrontedwithÂ now Bills’ statement that people Â»quite frequently controlÂ« 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 othersâ€¦
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 Â»people control other people behaviorÂ«. 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 Â»preselected stateÂ« is achieved or maintained in the controlling system. We have to understand that Â»preselected stateÂ« is genetically determined. So if we want to control other people behavior we have to change their genetic structure. And that is possible with Â»genetic engeneeringÂ«, mutations or to kill a person. Then you obviously Â»controlledÂ« other people. But we can not Â»control other people behaviorÂ« 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 Â»controlled variablesÂ« as Bill pointed out. But the problem that Bill tried to adjust controlling of other people to Ricks’ ignorant statement in the sense that Â»People always control other people behaviorÂ« 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 showÂ us all discussions and my evidences against your statements that Â»people all the time control other peopleÂ«. 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…
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 Â»people dont’ always control other people behaviorÂ«. Bill did violate his PCT with using Â»control of people’s behaviorÂ«. He stood on position (because of Rick) that anyway people can Â»sometime controlÂ« 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 Â»PCT support the idea that social environment is controlling perception of people’s behavior all the timeÂ«.
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 Â»people always control other peopleÂ«. 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
Â»Controlled variable in outer environment
Â»Controlled Perceptual variableÂ«
Protcection from disturbances
Everything happening at the same time.
People by Bills’ defintion are not controlling other people behavior but they are just Â»disturbing their control and opposingÂ«. 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 Â»control of other people behaviorÂ«, but people oppose the effect of disturbances after disturbances are applied. It’s control of perception of others people behavior. They are certainly not Â»protected from disturbancesÂ« 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 Â»protectÂ« Ricks’ foolish statement that Â»people are always controlling other peopleÂ«. 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 Â»controlling other peopleÂ«…
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 howÂ«controlÂ« 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 Â»people always control behavior of other peopleÂ«. 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 Â»protection from disturbancesÂ«. 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 Â»people always contol other people behaviorÂ«. Bills’ statemennts are deviating to much from Ricks’ statement that we can always control other people behavior.Â 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 Â»not protected against disturbancesÂ«. 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 Â»control other people behaviorÂ«. 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 Â»devastatingÂ« 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 Â»people always controlling other peopleÂ«. 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 Â»people always control other peoleÂ«. We can see the probability here. There is no trace of probablity in Â»people always control other people behaviorÂ«.
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 Ã controlled behavior.
Martin proved to Rick that Rick in Â»knot dot experimentÂ« can’t control behavior of other people, but he can Â»control perception of behavior of other peopleÂ«, 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 Â»control perceptionÂ« not behavior. So the statement seems equal to Martins’. We have to add Â»percpetionÂ« to control to get right explanation.
But anyway this was the only place where Bill was trying to connect Â»control of peopleÂ« and Â»disturbingÂ« other people control. It was unsusccesfull attempt.
Otherwise he was talking about PCT. Ricks’ statement that Â»people always control other peopleÂ« 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 Â»helloÂ« to somebody we disturbed some Â»controlled variableÂ« that person is controlling. And Bill didn’t mentioned any Â»outer environmental variableÂ«. Just variable. According to definiotn of control, it’s disturbance to some Â»controlled variableÂ« 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 Â»outside variablesÂ« person that say Â»helloÂ« to each other disturb ???
Both persons that meet on the street are achieving and maintaining Â»predefined stateÂ« as Bills’ defitnion of control says. And by saying Â»helloÂ«, 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 Â
So I was just walking through the streets of my town saying unknown people Â»helloÂ«. 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. Â»Actions on disturbing people control will be different, what means that there is no S-R. People will differently control the same disturbance Â»helloÂ« because they are differently controlling inside whatever they control. They are definitelly not controlling some Â»aspect of outer emvironmentÂ«. 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 Â»helloÂ« didn’t caused the same Â»reactionsÂ« 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 Â»controlled variableÂ« 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 Â»controlledÂ« effects has a little in common with my guessing (predicting) what people will do. Whatever I was controlling inside it was not Â»controlledÂ« outside. I maybe guesed right couple times what Â»disturbedÂ« people will Â»answerÂ«, 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 Â»aspect of their environmentÂ« they could be controlling or telekinetically guid
and there wasn’t any :
behavior that was controlledÂ
people were not Â»protected against my disturbancesÂ«
they didn't create any Â»Controlled Perceptual variableÂ«
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 Â»MouseÂ« or Â»JoysteakÂ«. Rick is gaming boy (child) and he will hardly understand the relations between people. This is for adults. But the principle of Â»controlÂ« are the same. We always Â»Control PerceptionÂ«.
Different Â»responsesÂ« from other people showed clearly that people are differently controlling inside (not outside) and they differently Â»respondÂ«, because their inner Â»controlled variablesÂ« 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 Â»predefined stateÂ«, 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 Â»protected from disturbancesÂ« 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 Â»controllingÂ« 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 Â»people can control other people. But is very cautious.Â 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 Â»MouseÂ« or Â»JoysteakÂ«. 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 Â»aspect of environmentÂ«. 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, guessâ€¦
I think that Bill made that littleÂ mistake because he wanted to adapt PCT to Ricks’ statement. And he used term Â»control of other people’s behaviorÂ«. He should say Â»control of perception of other people’s behaviorÂ«. His theory is about Â»Control of PerceptionÂ« 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 Â»people always control other people behaviorÂ«,Â like Rick was trying to persuade us.
HB : Bills’ defitnion of control is clear….If people want to aachieve and maintain their own Â»preselectedÂ« state, there is nobody that can do that for them. Even other people (doctors) can’t. So nobody can control behavior of other people.Â 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 Â»predefined stateÂ« of organism. We can do it with Â»genetic engineeringÂ«. 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 Â»control perceptionÂ« of other people behaviorÂ« 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 Â»answersÂ« 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 Â»people always control other peopleÂ«. And note that Bill used the word Â»preventÂ« not Â»protectÂ«. So we can prevent people from continuing disturbances to our controlled variables, but we are not Â»protectedÂ« against those disturbancesÂ« 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 Â»Controlling perceptionÂ« 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 Â»equal to hisÂ«. 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 Â»people alwaysÂ control other peopleÂ«.
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 â€¦.:
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 Â»people don’t control peopleÂ«, but they Â»try to control themÂ«. This is a big difference.Â
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â€?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery