[From Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[from Jeff Vancouver 990224.1355)]
[From Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Yes, and I posted a question awhile back that got no response. I am trying
to figure out how you operationalize the leaky integrator concept on
Vensim. I am trying to model data I am collecting in which participants
must attempt to keep the area of a square equal to the area of two other
objects. The other objects are changing in size. The participants can
change the size of their square with a scroll bar on the screen.
Initially, the sum of the target objects areas and the participant's square
area are the same, but I would expect that over time, that correspondence
is lost. I need to model the lag in response to the changing target
objects and the decay in MSE due to not having direct feedback on the
difference between the areas. Understand? I think the leaky integrator is
the concept that I is responsible for this decay.
If you want to tell me how you do it in mathematical terms, I might be able
to figure out how to do it in Vensim.
Jeff
Sincerely,
Jeff
[From Bruce Gregory (990224.1452 EST)]
Rick Marken (990224.1030)
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been engaged in studying PCT for
the past three years. From time to time I post tentative conclusions
I've reached, e.g., (990223.1150 EST) or (990204.1735 EST). These often
draw no response so I have decided to conclude that they are reasonable.
This is a dangerous assumption, but one I have had to rely on.
Bruce Gregory
[From Tim Carey (990225.0740)]
[From Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Yep
[From Rick Marken (990224.1550)]
Jeff Vancouver (990224.1355) --
I am trying to figure out how you operationalize the leaky
integrator concept on Vensim.
I think the following formula in a "level" variable called
"output" gives you a leaky integrator:
(100*error signal - output)*0.05
where 100 is the amplification and .05 is the slowing factor.
These two parameters can be adjusted to stabilize the control
system.
I am trying to model data I am collecting in which participants
must attempt to keep the area of a square equal to the area of
two other objects. The other objects are changing in size.
The participants can change the size of their square with a
scroll bar on the screen.
Sounds great!
Me:
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Bruce Gregory (990224.1452 EST) --
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been engaged in
studying PCT for the past three years.
I was actually more interested in whether anyone wanted to
study _perceptual control_ (the phenomenon), not PCT (the model
that explains the phenomenon). I think we spend way too much
time on CSGNet studying PCT; I want to encourage us to spend
more time studying the phenomenon that PCT explains -- perceptual
control.
My question was motivated mainly by John Appel's "Fare Well" post.
It made me wonder why anyone would maintain an interest in PCT
(except out of religious conviction, perhaps) if they were not
constantly reminded, by the astonishingly accurate and reliable
fit of model to data (a fit that Jeff appears to be on the
threshold of seeing), of how beautifully it explains a real
phenomenon -- perceptual control. I make it a habit to go to
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html
once a day to remind myself that, yes, Bill's little brainchild
(PCT) is about what people really do (perceptual control).
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Yes, I'd like to learn, more. I have been involved for the past five
years in a alternative school in Michigan. We have been real
successful, in fact we were the first school outside of Arizona to be
certified by Ed Ford and Assoc. as a responsible thinking school. We
are currently trying to implement the RTP district wide, the success
district wide is very limited.
I must say I am a little,(a lot) apprehensive to communicate with
persons who I sometimes don't understand and who are very knowledgable
in PCT. I am very much a practitioner and before Joe Sierzinga's death,
he and I had lots of conversations. So, most of what I know is because
of Joe's influence, the additional reading he encouraged me to do, and
practicing PCT through RTP.
In a message dated 99-02-24 13:32:40 EST, you write:
<< who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control >>
I do
Alice McElhone
Richard Marken wrote:
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Sure ...
--
Wolfgang Zocher
-------------------------------------------------------------------
email: zocher@rrzn.uni-hannover.de (office)
WZocher@t-online.de (home)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
www: http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/rrzn/zocher (office)
News & E-Mail bei t-online.de | Politik, Sport, Unterhaltung & Ratgeber (home)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Yes, my preliminary orals are within a couple of weeks. Not too long after
that, I will be observing subjects control their perceptions.
I am, like several out there whose responses I read, a practitioner, and I
do observe the phenomenon of control by workshop attendees I teach. It is
amazing how students act to control important social or personal goal
variables, or how they seem to fail to act (are they then controlling
"other" variables that would cause even greater perceptual error if they
did act?). Maybe people on the net refrain from acting when they cannot
sense the controlled variable people are battling (the meaning of a word),
or they feel they cannot influence the outcome of the battle, so they act
to stay away from the row! Perhaps what happens when a big battle is over,
people come out and say "yep," or "I do," or "Sure....," or "Yes, I'd like
to learn, more." I'm with you guys.
More later,
Bryan T.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Kenny Kitzke (990225.0900EST)]
<Rick Marken (990224.1030)>
<Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?>
Present, teacher. 
Studying PCT is my third favorite thing to do. I spend hours a week
studying PCT and if it is correct, what difference does it make to me or
anyone else. Of course, the anyone else are leaders at clients who want
harmony in their organization.
But, I also am studying things about PCT for myself. For example, I am
studying how much PCT really reveals about human nature. I think the claim
is overrated. I am also studying whether the Bible I live my life by
teaches PCT or non-PCT.
I suspect these are not studies of interest to you or most on this net.
And, that is fine with me. But, old autonomous me has my own individual
wants. They don't include creating models and computer demos which is the
study you may want.
PCT has changed me. The Bible has changed me. I like the changes in me
they have made through reorganization at high levels. So, I will keep
studying both for the rest of my life.
Your help in studying PCT is much appreciated. And, that goes for all who
study and ask questions on the net. Talking about PCT has some value to me
too, especially if oriented toward application to living differently (so
what?) and not just theory (how?).
Kenny
[From Fred Nickols (990225.0745 PST)]--
Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
Yes. But right now I'm reading about PCT by re-reading B:CP (after a 25
year lag). Got as far as Chapter 7 and got busy with other matters. I'm
out in California right now and won't be back to my books and other
comforts of home until early March at which time I'll pick up again with
the Leading Questions dialogue with Bill P. In the meantime, I'll see if I
can get out to Rick's web site and play with a model or two. I doubt that
I'll be building any for quite a while.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
[From Rick Marken (990225.0900)]
The response to my plaintive question:
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?
was quite gratifying. Again, what motivated the question was
John Appel's "Fare well" post which revealed John's rather
remarkable lack of interest in understanding the phenomenon
that his own theory purports to explain -- the phenomenon of
control. As a practical person, John was interested in a theory
that could help him fix things (in particular, a theory that
could help him cure mentally disordered patients). So John
is not really interested in theory as a scientific _model_
of phenomena (including the phenomenon of "mental disorder");
John is interested in theory as _recipe_.
I think one reason we get into meaningless debates on CSGNet
is because we end up dealing with PCT as a recipe rather than
as a model. So we argue about what PCT says we should do
about social problems, moral dilemmas, school problems, etc.
I asked my question about studying perceptual control because
I was hoping that we could move the discussion of PCT to where
we might actually be able to get somewhere -- to a discussion
of PCT as a model of the phenomenon of perceptual control. In
order to be able to discuss PCT as a model of perceptual control
we have to have _data_ on perceptual control; and we get data
on perceptual control by doing _research_ on control. Once
we have properly collected data on control we can see how
(and how well) PCT explains the data.
I think PCT will only "make it" when it is seen as an accurate
scientific _model_ of purposeful behavior (perceptual control).
I can't see how PCT can "make it" as a _recipe_ because all
recipes succeed to some extent. John Appel's BCT model works for
him better than PCT. The PCT model works for others. As a recipe
for practical action, PCT is works or not depending on one's
preconceptions about how to deal with people in the first place.
That's why I was gratified to see that there are people out
there doing research on perceptual control; there are people
who want to learn what perceptions people control, how they
control those perceptions, etc. We need high quality research
on perceptual control. Since it's very difficult to get this
research published in the conventional venues (it looks, for
example, like Psych Review is going to reject my most recent
attempt to put research on perceptual control in front of an
audience that is supposed to be interested in the scientific
study of human behavior) I had hoped CSGNet would become
one forum for discussion and publication of that research.
This has not happened to nearly the extent to which I had
hoped it would -- so CGNet has largely turned into a venue
for discussion PCT as a recipe for solving personal and
world problems.
The lack of research on perceptual control has also become
evident at CSG meetings. I seem to recall that about half of
the papers presented at the first CSG meetings (which started
in 1985) were research oriented. At the last meeting I think
only about 20% of the meeting time was devoted to research.
I have nothing against using PCT as a recipe for fixing
schools, improving business management practices, helping
the mentally ill, etc. I think PCT (the model) can be a
powerful basis for making positive contributions in these
applied areas. I would just like to see more basic research
on perceptual control (and have it discussed on CSGNet). So
if anyone is doing research (and this includes observational
studies, like Tim Carey's excellent research on the method
of levels; modeling work, like that done by Wolfgang Zocher,
Kent McClellend and Richard Kennaway; as well as experimental
research, like that being done by Jeff Vancouver and Bryan
Thalhammer) or is willing to start doing research on perceptual
control, please keep us posted on CSGNet -- and please come
and report it at the CSG meeting. If you are doing quality
research on perceptual control CSGNet is probably the only
place you can publish it.
There. I feel much better now;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Dick Robertson,990307.0135CST]
Richard Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (990224.1030)]
Is there anyone out there reading this list who actually wants to
study (rather than just talk about) perceptual control?Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Yeah me. But I just got back from 2 weeks in mexico to find 124 posts
because I must have sent the wrong nomail message to Listserv.
It sure seems easy to get distracted into long debates that keeping
looking to me like mainly semantic sparring matches, but I admire your
recent patience with messages of all types. I guess that's what it
takes to keep the wee sprig of science sprouting.
Best, Dick R..