[From Rick Marken (951128.1500)]
Me:
I don't think EABers believe ANYTHING about the appearance of control
because they don't know what control (purpose) is.
Bill Powers (951128.0805 MST) --
While I'm definitely on your side here, you're fighting a losing battle
over the word "control."
I'm not fighting over the word "control"; I'm fighting over the reality of
the phenomenon that we refer to with that word.
Our problem is not that EABers don't know what "control" really means;
it means to them what it means. The problem is that they're missing a
_concept_
I know. That's what I've been trying to say. When I say that EABers don't
know what control is, I mean they don't know the phenomenon to which the
noise "control" points. I keep getting told that the problem EABers have with
PCT is definitional -- that "control" means something different to EABers
than what it means to PCTers. I am arguing that, although this definitional
problem exists, it's not the reason why EABers have problems with PCT. The
reason is that EABers have no idea (and don't really care) what the
phenomenon that we call "control" is.
Bruce Abbott (951128.1625 EST) --
There's more to be learned from research than what the controlled variable
was.
Yes, there is more to be learned from research than "what is the controlled
variable". The problem is that learning what the controlled variable is is
the most important thing you can learn from research on control systems. The
research you describe tells you nothing about the variables the pigeon is
controlling; hence, from a PCT perspective you have learned nothing of
significance about the behavior of the pigeon.
But I think I see the problem, finally: you don't CARE that you have learned
nothing about what the pigeon might be controlling. What you DO care about
are those other things that you learned from conventional research. That's
why you don't insist on doing research that tests for controlled variables;
that's why you never talk about controlled variables; you're not INTERESTED
in finding out about control; that's why you are not yet a control theorist.
Ken Kitzke (951128) --
I join Rick Marken in encouraging you to confront us with the real world and
its problems as you perceive it.
Great! Let me try to START a thread on real world implications of PCT.
One of the real world problems to which PCT might be relevant is that of
how to organize people into a "better" society. The first thing PCT might
contribute to solving this problem is a view of what might constitute a
"better" society. I suggest that the PCT view of a "better" society is one
in which everyone is in control of their perceptions. This is the one "value"
of the PCT society: every member of the PCT society should be experiencing
only "nominal" levels of error; they should be able to keep the perceptions
they want to control under control.
A corollary of this "value" is that everybody should be able to control their
perceptions in a way that doesn't interfere with the ability of others to
control theirs; when there is significant conflict between control systems,
some or all of the parties to the conflict are not in control -- which
violates the basic "value" of the PCT society (that everyone be in control).
PCT lets us understand people as controllers. If we accept the "value"
that everyone in society should be (to the maximum extent possible) in
control of their perceptions, then we can use PCT to help us understand how
we might go about building this "controlling society".
Any thoughts?
Chris Cherpas (951128.1327 PT) --
San Francisco is as good as Hawaii; and my sister-in-law lives nearby so I
can do a conference there pretty easily; so I'd be happy to be part of a PCT
group up there.
Send me your snail mail address and I'll mail you a copy.
RSM
10459 Holman Ave
LA, CA 90024
Best
Rick