Words (was Re: Self-Regulation)

CSGnet Archive CSG2014
1

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.21.10.16]

I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years ago with

three female psychologists who were well acquainted with me and my
work (as I with theirs). I was trying to persuade them to look
carefully into PCT, but their unanimous opinion was “Control –
that’s a male thing. We don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not
get through to them that “control” did not mean power over other
people.
Why are there no female regular contributors to CSGnet? Could it be
that word “control”?
Martin

···

On 2014/04/20 11:44 PM, Vancouver, Jeff
wrote:

        [From

Jeff Vancouver (2014.04.20.2208)]

Â

…

Â

        Bruce,

I am not completely comfortable with “self-regulation�
either, for the reason you state. But I do not like the term
“control theory� either. It has a lot of baggage associated
with it. …

2

[Jeff Vancouver 2014.04.22.1142]

Martin Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years ago with three female psychologists who were well acquainted with me and my work (as I with theirs). I was trying to persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get through to them that “control” did not mean power over other people.

I love that story. Can I use it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation as a grand theory in May)?

But it is just women who have that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior, self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer, palatable, and dare I say, self-affirming (and who does not want that?).

Jeff

3

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.12.45]

Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an anonymous

colleague or some such.
Since I wrote the above quote, I have tried to think of a good word
for what actually is theorized to be happening. With Bruce, I don’t
like “self-regulation” any better than I like “control”, though for
different reasons. My main reason is that “self” implies a complex
of (in Powers’s HPCT very high-level) perceptions that are to be
regulated, whereas you (I believe) understand it to mean
“autonomous”, and to refer to the “agent” triplet of perceptual
function, reference, and output function, which can be at any level.
Nor do I like simple “regulation”, because we don’t actually
regulate our perceptions – or at least, to me the connotations of
“regulation” would make the perceptions seem more stable than they
should be, given the rapidly changing reference values for most
lower-level perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But
I haven’t thought of a better word than either “perceptual control”
or “perceptual regulation” theory. Perhaps we need a new coinage
that would connote “perceptual following”, since the idea is that
the perception follows the reference as it changes.
But to use “following” would eliminate the connotation that the
process is active. The perception isn’t simply dragged around by the
reference. Overt actions of a different kind influence the
perception, and the word “following” carries no hint of this, as
both “control” and “regulation” do. So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word that carries
appropriate connotations for most scientists would be most welcome.
Martin

··· 
        [Jeff Vancouver

2014.04.22.1142]

        Martin

Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

        I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years

ago with three female psychologists who were well acquainted
with me and my work (as I with theirs). I was trying to
persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their
unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We
don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get through to
them that “control” did not mean power over other people.

        I love that story. Can I use

it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation
as a grand theory in May)?

        But it is just women who have

that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described
above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior,
self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer, palatable, and
dare I say, self-affirming (and who does not want that?).

Jeff

4

More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and associated stigma often attached to the word, “control.” He chose his words carefully and wisely. I dare to say that if someone were to become hung up on the word, “control,” in some personal or negative sense, they are missing the whole point anyway.

Just my two cents’…

*barb

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.12.45]

        [Jeff Vancouver

2014.04.22.1142]

        Martin

Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

        I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years

ago with three female psychologists who were well acquainted
with me and my work (as I with theirs). I was trying to
persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their
unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We
don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get through to
them that “control” did not mean power over other people.

        I love that story. Can I use

it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation
as a grand theory in May)?

Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an anonymous

colleague or some such.

        But it is just women who have

that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described
above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior,
self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer, palatable, and
dare I say, self-affirming (and who does not want that?).

Jeff

Since I wrote the above quote, I have tried to think of a good word

for what actually is theorized to be happening. With Bruce, I don’t
like “self-regulation” any better than I like “control”, though for
different reasons. My main reason is that “self” implies a complex
of (in Powers’s HPCT very high-level) perceptions that are to be
regulated, whereas you (I believe) understand it to mean
“autonomous”, and to refer to the “agent” triplet of perceptual
function, reference, and output function, which can be at any level.

Nor do I like simple "regulation", because we don't actually

regulate our perceptions – or at least, to me the connotations of
“regulation” would make the perceptions seem more stable than they
should be, given the rapidly changing reference values for most
lower-level perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But
I haven’t thought of a better word than either “perceptual control”
or “perceptual regulation” theory. Perhaps we need a new coinage
that would connote “perceptual following”, since the idea is that
the perception follows the reference as it changes.

But to use "following" would eliminate the connotation that the

process is active. The perception isn’t simply dragged around by the
reference. Overt actions of a different kind influence the
perception, and the word “following” carries no hint of this, as
both “control” and “regulation” do.

So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word that carries

appropriate connotations for most scientists would be most welcome.

Martin
5

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.13.22]

And a valuable two cents it is. But we are talking about why there

are so few regular female contributors to CSGnet, and about why PCT
makes so little headway in the wider world. Personally, I’m well
aware of how carefully your father chose his words (and corrected
mine). But he and I both came from an engineering kind of background
and had experience with physical controllers. From that background,
“control” has none of the connotations that created a barrier for my
female colleagues, to the extent that they didn’t even want to take
a critical first look at PCT. Of course they were, and probably
still are, missing the point. Our task is to make it as easy as possible to help people to get the
point. If changing “control” into some other word does that, I think
it could be a move in the right direction.
Martin

··· 
      More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and

associated stigma often attached to the word, “control.” He
chose his words carefully and wisely. I dare to say that if
someone were to become hung up on the word, “control,” in some
personal or negative sense, they are missing the whole point
anyway.

Just my two cents’…

*barb

      On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM,

Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2014.04.22.12.45]

                    [Jeff Vancouver

2014.04.22.1142]

                    Martin

Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16]
wrote:

                    I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had

many years ago with three female psychologists
who were well acquainted with me and my work (as
I with theirs). I was trying to persuade them to
look carefully into PCT, but their unanimous
opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We
don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get
through to them that “control” did not mean
power over other people.

                    I

love that story. Can I use it in public (I am
giving a talk at APS on self-regulation as a
grand theory in May)?

          Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an

anonymous colleague or some such.

                    But

it is just women who have that reaction. I had
it (though not to the degree described above).
As a label for a grand theory of human behavior,
self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer,
palatable, and dare I say, self-affirming (and
who does not want that?).

Jeff

          Since I wrote the above quote, I have tried to think of a

good word for what actually is theorized to be happening.
With Bruce, I don’t like “self-regulation” any better than
I like “control”, though for different reasons. My main
reason is that “self” implies a complex of (in Powers’s
HPCT very high-level) perceptions that are to be
regulated, whereas you (I believe) understand it to mean
“autonomous”, and to refer to the “agent” triplet of
perceptual function, reference, and output function, which
can be at any level.

          Nor do I like simple "regulation", because we don't

actually regulate our perceptions – or at least, to me
the connotations of “regulation” would make the
perceptions seem more stable than they should be, given
the rapidly changing reference values for most lower-level
perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But I
haven’t thought of a better word than either “perceptual
control” or “perceptual regulation” theory. Perhaps we
need a new coinage that would connote “perceptual
following”, since the idea is that the perception follows
the reference as it changes.

          But to use "following" would eliminate the connotation

that the process is active. The perception isn’t simply
dragged around by the reference. Overt actions of a
different kind influence the perception, and the word
“following” carries no hint of this, as both “control” and
“regulation” do.

          So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word

that carries appropriate connotations for most scientists
would be most welcome.

              Martin
6

I appreciate what you are saying, and certainly your motivation in making PCT more attractive to a wider audience. I’m assuming you aren’t attempting to change the phrase itself. While I wouldn’t change the word itself, I can understand searching for another way to lead in to it.

Question: Do you feel there are a lot of females in fields such as this, as a whole? I’ve not had that impression myself.

*b

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.13.22]

      More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and

associated stigma often attached to the word, “control.” He
chose his words carefully and wisely. I dare to say that if
someone were to become hung up on the word, “control,” in some
personal or negative sense, they are missing the whole point
anyway.

Just my two cents’…

*barb

And a valuable two cents it is. But we are talking about why there

are so few regular female contributors to CSGnet, and about why PCT
makes so little headway in the wider world. Personally, I’m well
aware of how carefully your father chose his words (and corrected
mine). But he and I both came from an engineering kind of background
and had experience with physical controllers. From that background,
“control” has none of the connotations that created a barrier for my
female colleagues, to the extent that they didn’t even want to take
a critical first look at PCT. Of course they were, and probably
still are, missing the point.

Our task is to make it as easy as possible to help people to get the

point. If changing “control” into some other word does that, I think
it could be a move in the right direction.

Martin

      On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM,

Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2014.04.22.12.45]

                    [Jeff Vancouver

2014.04.22.1142]

                    Martin

Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16]
wrote:

                    I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had

many years ago with three female psychologists
who were well acquainted with me and my work (as
I with theirs). I was trying to persuade them to
look carefully into PCT, but their unanimous
opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We
don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get
through to them that “control” did not mean
power over other people.

                    I

love that story. Can I use it in public (I am
giving a talk at APS on self-regulation as a
grand theory in May)?

          Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an

anonymous colleague or some such.

                    But

it is just women who have that reaction. I had
it (though not to the degree described above).
As a label for a grand theory of human behavior,
self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer,
palatable, and dare I say, self-affirming (and
who does not want that?).

Jeff

          Since I wrote the above quote, I have tried to think of a

good word for what actually is theorized to be happening.
With Bruce, I don’t like “self-regulation” any better than
I like “control”, though for different reasons. My main
reason is that “self” implies a complex of (in Powers’s
HPCT very high-level) perceptions that are to be
regulated, whereas you (I believe) understand it to mean
“autonomous”, and to refer to the “agent” triplet of
perceptual function, reference, and output function, which
can be at any level.

          Nor do I like simple "regulation", because we don't

actually regulate our perceptions – or at least, to me
the connotations of “regulation” would make the
perceptions seem more stable than they should be, given
the rapidly changing reference values for most lower-level
perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But I
haven’t thought of a better word than either “perceptual
control” or “perceptual regulation” theory. Perhaps we
need a new coinage that would connote “perceptual
following”, since the idea is that the perception follows
the reference as it changes.

          But to use "following" would eliminate the connotation

that the process is active. The perception isn’t simply
dragged around by the reference. Overt actions of a
different kind influence the perception, and the word
“following” carries no hint of this, as both “control” and
“regulation” do.

          So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word

that carries appropriate connotations for most scientists
would be most welcome.

              Martin
7

Here’s a story from a woman who grew up learning about control:

Dad was already well in to his work in PCT by the time I was a head-strong teenager. I had been one of his lab rats for years, and understood the basic concepts of his work.

Like most teenagers and parents, I butted heads with Dad from time to time. I would finally exclaim, “You make me so mad!”

He would sit there calmly, and respond, “I’m not making you mad. You are choosing to be angry at what I just said.”

NOT what I wanted to hear, but I couldn’t deny a simple fact. All I could do was stomp off to my room! I had to realize that I was, in fact, totally in control of my reaction to him.

I’d eventually emerge only to see that beckoning finger, Dad employing me once more to balance a pendulum, or play some table tennis…

I realize PCT goes far beyond this level, but I felt compelled to expand on my other email. As I became more educated about PCT, I understood the meaning of control.

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and associated stigma often attached to the word, “control.” He chose his words carefully and wisely. I dare to say that if someone were to become hung up on the word, “control,” in some personal or negative sense, they are missing the whole point anyway.

Just my two cents’…

*barb

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.12.45]

        [Jeff Vancouver

2014.04.22.1142]

        Martin

Taylor [2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

        I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years

ago with three female psychologists who were well acquainted
with me and my work (as I with theirs). I was trying to
persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their
unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We
don’t do that or want to do it”. I could not get through to
them that “control” did not mean power over other people.

        I love that story. Can I use

it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation
as a grand theory in May)?

Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an anonymous

colleague or some such.

        But it is just women who have

that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described
above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior,
self-regulation theory sounds so much nicer, palatable, and
dare I say, self-affirming (and who does not want that?).

Jeff

Since I wrote the above quote, I have tried to think of a good word

for what actually is theorized to be happening. With Bruce, I don’t
like “self-regulation” any better than I like “control”, though for
different reasons. My main reason is that “self” implies a complex
of (in Powers’s HPCT very high-level) perceptions that are to be
regulated, whereas you (I believe) understand it to mean
“autonomous”, and to refer to the “agent” triplet of perceptual
function, reference, and output function, which can be at any level.

Nor do I like simple "regulation", because we don't actually

regulate our perceptions – or at least, to me the connotations of
“regulation” would make the perceptions seem more stable than they
should be, given the rapidly changing reference values for most
lower-level perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But
I haven’t thought of a better word than either “perceptual control”
or “perceptual regulation” theory. Perhaps we need a new coinage
that would connote “perceptual following”, since the idea is that
the perception follows the reference as it changes.

But to use "following" would eliminate the connotation that the

process is active. The perception isn’t simply dragged around by the
reference. Overt actions of a different kind influence the
perception, and the word “following” carries no hint of this, as
both “control” and “regulation” do.

So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word that carries

appropriate connotations for most scientists would be most welcome.

Martin
8

Hi Barb,

I fully agree with your words. I was
really critical to his work, and I always “controlled” his terms to
very hihgh standards in physiology. I very rarely find any “hole” in
his whole theory, including terms he used. The physiological limits of
“intrinsic variables” in organism are controlled through whole
hierarchy. As Bill put it : "from gene expressions to system
concepts”

Partial understanding of PCT can make some
distortions in wording. I really suggested to Jeff that it would be excellent
to substitute words to “people” friendly terms. He is doing it
anyway. But I supposed he will preserve PCT intact.

Bill’s scientific terms are really hard to
understand. At least for me. I thought that it could be good to translate
Bill’s theory only occasionaly when meant as presentation for special audiance.
Like psychologist J. To understand it. But I didn’t think of changing theory or any of
his terms and definitions. Well it’s treu that I think that we could
“upgrade it”.

I think that PCT theory is under author
rights. And I beleive you have the author rights to change it or not. So I
beleive that nothing can happen without your consent. But oppinon about his
theory in own words can give anybody. That I meant by “translation”. I
hope we understand.

Best,

Boris

···

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of bara0361@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:04
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Words (was Re:
Self-Regulation)

More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and associated stigma
often attached to the word, “control.” He chose his words carefully
and wisely. I dare to say that if someone were to become hung up on the
word, “control,” in some personal or negative sense, they
are missing the whole point anyway.

Just my two cents’…

*barb

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor
2014.04.22.12.45]

[Jeff Vancouver
2014.04.22.1142]

Martin Taylor
[2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years ago with three
female psychologists who were well acquainted with me and my work (as I with
theirs). I was trying to persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their
unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We don’t do that or
want to do it”. I could not get through to them that “control”
did not mean power over other people.

I love that story.
Can I use it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation as a grand
theory in May)?

Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an anonymous colleague
or some such.

But it is just
women who have that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described
above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior, self-regulation theory
sounds so much nicer, palatable, and dare I say, self-affirming (and who does
not want that?).

Jeff

Since I wrote the above
quote, I have tried to think of a good word for what actually is theorized to
be happening. With Bruce, I don’t like “self-regulation” any better
than I like “control”, though for different reasons. My main reason
is that “self” implies a complex of (in Powers’s HPCT very
high-level) perceptions that are to be regulated, whereas you (I believe)
understand it to mean “autonomous”, and to refer to the
“agent” triplet of perceptual function, reference, and output
function, which can be at any level.

Nor do I like simple “regulation”, because we don’t actually regulate
our perceptions – or at least, to me the connotations of
“regulation” would make the perceptions seem more stable than they
should be, given the rapidly changing reference values for most lower-level
perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But I haven’t thought of a
better word than either “perceptual control” or “perceptual
regulation” theory. Perhaps we need a new coinage that would connote
“perceptual following”, since the idea is that the perception follows
the reference as it changes.

But to use “following” would eliminate the connotation that the
process is active. The perception isn’t simply dragged around by the reference.
Overt actions of a different kind influence the perception, and the word
“following” carries no hint of this, as both “control” and
“regulation” do.

So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word that carries
appropriate connotations for most scientists would be most welcome.

Martin

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14

9

I think we need to be careful (as Bill was) when considering additions or alterations to the theory.  Reification is a constant possiblity.  Remember, it is Perceptual control theory, and self is a perception as well.  I tend to view the term perceptual control theory as sufficient and necessary in describing what Bill discovered.

Andrew

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Barb,

Â

I fully agree with your words. I was
really critical to his work, and I always “controlled” his terms to
very hihgh standards in physiology. I very rarely find any “hole” in
his whole theory, including terms he used. The physiological limits of
“intrinsic variables” in organism are controlled through whole
hierarchy. As Bill put it : "from gene expressions to system
concepts�

Â

Partial understanding of PCT can make some
distortions in wording. I really suggested to Jeff that it would be excellent
to substitute words to “people” friendly terms. He is doing it
anyway. But I supposed he will preserve PCT intact.

Â

Bill’s scientific terms are really hard to
understand. At least for me. I thought that it could be good to translate
Bill’s theory only occasionaly when meant as presentation for special audiance.
Like psychologist J. To understand it. But I didn’t think of changing theory or any of
his terms and definitions. Well it’s treu that I think that we could
“upgrade it”.

Â

I think that PCT theory is under author
rights. And I beleive you have the author rights to change it or not. So I
beleive that nothing can happen without your consent. But oppinon about his
theory in own words can give anybody. That I meant by “translation”. I
hope we understand.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of bara0361@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:04
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Words (was Re:
Self-Regulation)

Â

More than anyone, my father knew the full meaning and associated stigma
often attached to the word, "control."Â He chose his words carefully
and wisely. I dare to say that if someone were to become hung up on the
word, “control,” in some personal or negative sense, they
are missing the whole point anyway.

Â

Just my two cents’…

*barb

Â

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor
2014.04.22.12.45]

Â

Â

[Jeff Vancouver
2014.04.22.1142]

Â

Martin Taylor
[2014.04.21.10.16] wrote:

I am reminded of a lunch-time conversation I had many years ago with three
female psychologists who were well acquainted with me and my work (as I with
theirs). I was trying to persuade them to look carefully into PCT, but their
unanimous opinion was “Control – that’s a male thing. We don’t do that or
want to do it”. I could not get through to them that “control”
did not mean power over other people.

I love that story.
Can I use it in public (I am giving a talk at APS on self-regulation as a grand
theory in May)?

Â

Sure you can use it, but please attribute it to an anonymous colleague
or some such.

But it is just
women who have that reaction. I had it (though not to the degree described
above). As a label for a grand theory of human behavior, self-regulation theory
sounds so much nicer, palatable, and dare I say, self-affirming (and who does
not want that?).

Jeff

Â

Since I wrote the above
quote, I have tried to think of a good word for what actually is theorized to
be happening. With Bruce, I don’t like “self-regulation” any better
than I like “control”, though for different reasons. My main reason
is that “self” implies a complex of (in Powers’s HPCT very
high-level) perceptions that are to be regulated, whereas you (I believe)
understand it to mean “autonomous”, and to refer to the
“agent” triplet of perceptual function, reference, and output
function, which can be at any level.

Nor do I like simple “regulation”, because we don’t actually regulate
our perceptions – or at least, to me the connotations of
“regulation” would make the perceptions seem more stable than they
should be, given the rapidly changing reference values for most lower-level
perceptions, and probably higher-level ones as well. But I haven’t thought of a
better word than either “perceptual control” or “perceptual
regulation” theory. Perhaps we need a new coinage that would connote
“perceptual following”, since the idea is that the perception follows
the reference as it changes.

But to use “following” would eliminate the connotation that the
process is active. The perception isn’t simply dragged around by the reference.
Overt actions of a different kind influence the perception, and the word
“following” carries no hint of this, as both “control” and
“regulation” do.

So I am at a loss for words! Any suggestions for a word that carries
appropriate connotations for most scientists would be most welcome.

Martin

Â

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14

10

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.17.30]

So do I, but that's just you and me and some others who know what

it’s about and perhaps read CSGnet. A perennial question is why Perceptual CONTROL Theory does not get
quickly and widely accepted outside that small group, and one
possibility is that the word “control” creates a barrier to people
like my female colleagues who didn’t want anything to do with a
theory of control.
Barb asked: “Question: Do you feel there are a lot of females in
fields such as this, as a whole? I’ve not had that impression
myself.”
I suppose it depends on what you call “fields such as this”. I
understand that there are more female graduates in psychology than
males, so if psychology is the field, then yes. If you mean
Mathematical Psychology, I have no idea, but I see no reason why the
field should have substantially fewer females than males. However,
on CSGnet in 2014, I see 34 names of male contributors and 2 female,
both related to Bill Powers. That does not seem to reflect the ratio
of genders in the relevant scientific community.
Martin

···

On 2014/04/22 2:56 PM, Andrew Nichols
wrote:

    I think we need to be careful (as Bill was) when

considering additions or alterations to the theory. Reification
is a constant possiblity. Remember, it is Perceptual control
theory, and self is a perception as well. I tend to
view the term perceptual control theory as sufficient and
necessary in describing what Bill discovered.

Andrew

11

I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of “control.” I have little patience for snap judgements.

Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It’s not a solution.

This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise…

*b

.

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.17.30]

  On 2014/04/22 2:56 PM, Andrew Nichols

wrote:

    I think we need to be careful (as Bill was) when

considering additions or alterations to the theory. Reification
is a constant possiblity. Remember, it is Perceptual control
theory, and self is a perception as well. I tend to
view the term perceptual control theory as sufficient and
necessary in describing what Bill discovered.

Andrew

So do I, but that's just you and me and some others who know what

it’s about and perhaps read CSGnet.

A perennial question is why Perceptual CONTROL Theory does not get

quickly and widely accepted outside that small group, and one
possibility is that the word “control” creates a barrier to people
like my female colleagues who didn’t want anything to do with a
theory of control.

Barb asked: "Question:  Do you feel there are a lot of females in

fields such as this, as a whole? I’ve not had that impression
myself."

I suppose it depends on what you call "fields such as this". I

understand that there are more female graduates in psychology than
males, so if psychology is the field, then yes. If you mean
Mathematical Psychology, I have no idea, but I see no reason why the
field should have substantially fewer females than males. However,
on CSGnet in 2014, I see 34 names of male contributors and 2 female,
both related to Bill Powers. That does not seem to reflect the ratio
of genders in the relevant scientific community.

Martin
12

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.22.1710)]

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

BP: I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of “control.” I have little patience for snap judgements.

BP: Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It’s not a solution.

RM: Right on Barb! It’s not the word “control” that’s kept people (“scientific” psychologists especially) from PCT; it’s the theory itself. It just runs counter to so much of what scientific psychologists hold dear. Acceptance of PCT has been much higher among clinical/counseling psychologists because they are not as committed as the scientific types to seeing behavior as a cause-effect phenomenon.

It’s true that the word “control” has negative connotations for some people. But that’s mainly true of lay people. Scientific psychologists generally have no problem with the word since the ability to predict and control behavior is what conventional scientific psychology is ostensibly all about. And clinical/counseling psychologists also have no problem with the word “control” because they know that people typically describe their problems as their “life feeling out of control” So clinicians/counselors know that being in control is a good thing.

I’ve found that it takes little more than one or to minutes to get a class of freshmen students to feel all warm and cuddly about the word “control” by just reminding them that control is often a good thing: the pitcher with “good control”,the artist who can control the shape of the lines in a drawing, the musician who can control the tone of their instrument, etc.

No, I think if you want PCT to be more generally accepted you can’t do it by changing the name, just by changing the theory.

You’re as smart as your Dad Barb, and considerably prettier;-)

Best

Rick

This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise…

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

13

[John Kirkland 2014 04 23]

By way of loose analogy, try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_Variations which many of you will be familiar with already.

I enjoy listening to these musical themes and yet find the general higher-level design remains elusive. Although Elgar says his thematic glue is original, a good mate reckons it was adapted from ‘God save the Queen/King’ (which, was later modified for 'My country ‘tis of thee’).

Bill sure hammered away, sweating over his anvil to craft text for representing his major and minor themes. He took to heart ‘elements of style’ and said so himself, adding a tribute to E.B White.

My own challenge is to unravel, reveal, penetrate, and understand Bill’s themes. Yet sometimes words get in the way. Dammit. So, variations are quite acceptable as long as those original themes are preserved.

This group has the skills and experience to probe into gender as well as national and historical differences for viewing Bill’s broader canvas. Lurking in the shadows there is possibly a study beckoning.

With kind regards

JohnK

···

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of “control.” I have little patience for snap judgements.

Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It’s not a solution.

This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise…

*b

.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.17.30]

  On 2014/04/22 2:56 PM, Andrew Nichols

wrote:

    I think we need to be careful (as Bill was) when

considering additions or alterations to the theory. Reification
is a constant possiblity. Remember, it is Perceptual control
theory, and self is a perception as well. I tend to
view the term perceptual control theory as sufficient and
necessary in describing what Bill discovered.

Andrew

So do I, but that's just you and me and some others who know what

it’s about and perhaps read CSGnet.

A perennial question is why Perceptual CONTROL Theory does not get

quickly and widely accepted outside that small group, and one
possibility is that the word “control” creates a barrier to people
like my female colleagues who didn’t want anything to do with a
theory of control.

Barb asked: "Question:  Do you feel there are a lot of females in

fields such as this, as a whole? I’ve not had that impression
myself."

I suppose it depends on what you call "fields such as this". I

understand that there are more female graduates in psychology than
males, so if psychology is the field, then yes. If you mean
Mathematical Psychology, I have no idea, but I see no reason why the
field should have substantially fewer females than males. However,
on CSGnet in 2014, I see 34 names of male contributors and 2 female,
both related to Bill Powers. That does not seem to reflect the ratio
of genders in the relevant scientific community.

Martin
14

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.23.38]

I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of "control." I have little patience for snap judgements.
Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It's not a solution.

Is it "a few people"? And don't you make snap judgments all the time when you first come across something and decide whether you have any interest in taking time and effort to investigate it? Don't you pass by shop windows that have uninteresting displays, but take a second look at a window showing something that looks attractive or that matches an interest of the moment? What I'm suggesting is that it takes a little attractive hook to get somebody to take a first look, because if that first look is not attractive, there won't be a second look.

This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise...

Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name? The value of a theory doesn't depend on its name. It depends on the theory itself. Maybe a grandiose Graeco-Latin name that translates into PCT would be more intriguing and generate second looks. As I said, I don't have a candidate name myself -- I've never been good at inventing names for things or people.

I am well aware of Rick's theory about why PCT is not accepted in the wider world, and he might well be right. But whether he is right or not, it seems to me that anything that could be helpful in getting more people to take PCT seriously would be a good thing, not to be rejected out of hand. And I think that the 34/2 gender ratio for all contributors so far in 2014 (and 35/8 in 2013, 41/2 in 2012) has to be a datum worth something, especially when the "2' side represents the majority of practicing psychologists. Are men more capable of learning new ideas? I don't think so.

Martin

···

On 2014/04/22 6:31 PM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

15

“Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name?” This is Perceptual Control Theory. It is not Perceptual Regulation Theory, or Perceptual Following Theory. I can agree that the VALUE does not depend on its name, but this theory is about control. If someone is mistakenly believing it means they will be controlled by someone or something else, then this theory is not being properly explained.

Rick is correct. Dad struggled for years to get anyone to even listen to him, as this theory was (and still is) considered very radical, turning the world of behavioral psychology on its ear. I was witness to endless conversations in which he expressed his frustration at people “window shopping,” not doing their homework before offhandedly dismissing his work. Thankfully, I also often witnessed that certain slow-spreading grin of his, as the dawn of understanding touched another enthusiastic student.

Dad set an example of endless patience, spending his entire adult life ever so slowly sharing this knowledge, often sitting for hours with one person at a time. We might all benefit from learning to exercise even a fraction of that virtue.

I don’t know why there is a lopsided ratio of men to women, but I’m sure that, too, can change with time. After all, there used to be more men graduating from college, more men in government, etc. Some of these ratios have evened out or changed places, some are still slow to change. As suggested in an earlier email, perhaps that merits some study.

*barb

···

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.23.38]

On 2014/04/22 6:31 PM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of “control.” I have little patience for snap judgements.

Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It’s not a solution.

Is it “a few people”? And don’t you make snap judgments all the time when you first come across something and decide whether you have any interest in taking time and effort to investigate it? Don’t you pass by shop windows that have uninteresting displays, but take a second look at a window showing something that looks attractive or that matches an interest of the moment? What I’m suggesting is that it takes a little attractive hook to get somebody to take a first look, because if that first look is not attractive, there won’t be a second look.

This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise…

Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name? The value of a theory doesn’t depend on its name. It depends on the theory itself. Maybe a grandiose Graeco-Latin name that translates into PCT would be more intriguing and generate second looks. As I said, I don’t have a candidate name myself – I’ve never been good at inventing names for things or people.

I am well aware of Rick’s theory about why PCT is not accepted in the wider world, and he might well be right. But whether he is right or not, it seems to me that anything that could be helpful in getting more people to take PCT seriously would be a good thing, not to be rejected out of hand. And I think that the 34/2 gender ratio for all contributors so far in 2014 (and 35/8 in 2013, 41/2 in 2012) has to be a datum worth something, especially when the "2’ side represents the majority of practicing psychologists. Are men more capable of learning new ideas? I don’t think so.

Martin

16

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.23.09.38]

"Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name?" This is Perceptual Control Theory. It is not Perceptual Regulation Theory, or Perceptual Following Theory. I can agree that the VALUE does not depend on its name, but this theory is about control. If someone is mistakenly believing it means they will be controlled by someone or something else, then this theory is not being properly explained.

I'm not controlling for perceiving the name of the theory to be changed. I'm controlling for perceiving as many people as possible having investigated the theory sufficiently to determine whether they want to understand it properly.

Rick is correct. Dad struggled for years to get anyone to even listen to him, as this theory was (and still is) considered very radical, turning the world of behavioral psychology on its ear.

I can well believe it. Even when dealing with people who knew me as a productive psychologist before I understood PCT it was very hard to get people to see the point of PCT and to understand why it mattered in their particular worl of interest. Bill had to do that for decades.

If people in general don't think a name change would be worth the hassle that any name change involves, I have no problem with that. Maybe what we need instead is an analysis of what background understanding is needed for a good appreciation of the theory -- and more than appreciation, understanding. Even on CSGnet, there's a LOT of misunderstanding of how control units work and how they interact, especially nonlinear ones.

You have to get to the appreciation stage before you can get to the understanding stage. I think that's where the difference comes between Rick and some others. Rick insists that understanding has to come first, and without it, appreciation is nothing. I think that appreciation is a necessary lead-in toward understanding.

I don't know why there is a lopsided ratio of men to women, but I'm sure that, too, can change with time. After all, there used to be more men graduating from college, more men in government, etc. Some of these ratios have evened out or changed places, some are still slow to change. As suggested in an earlier email, perhaps that merits some study.

I don't know, either. I offered a single anecdotal data point (or maybe three), and suggested that it might be worth following up to see whether it might mean something. You don't think it would, and I know it would be quite troublesome to test the idea generically. But might it not be worthwhile to figure out a possible other name and see whether using that name might draw some of the very clever females out there into fully understanding PCT as "PCT"?

Martin

···

On 2014/04/23 8:41 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

17

I hadn’t said it wasn’t worth following up; perhaps you’d be interested in looking into it further?

I’m a bit baffled by your continued suggestion to change the name. Simply put, this will not happen, anymore than we would try to change the name of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

I continue to agree that different approaches may be developed in order to attract wider attention. I will do some research with my sister to see where Mom’s (Mary’s) papers are stored. One of her greatest gifts was to be able to reiterate Dad’s work without dumbing it down. There is more than one trail that can lead the masses over the mountain!

*b

···

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.23.09.38]

On 2014/04/23 8:41 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

“Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name?” This is Perceptual Control Theory. It is not Perceptual Regulation Theory, or Perceptual Following Theory. I can agree that the VALUE does not depend on its name, but this theory is about control. If someone is mistakenly believing it means they will be controlled by someone or something else, then this theory is not being properly explained.

I’m not controlling for perceiving the name of the theory to be changed. I’m controlling for perceiving as many people as possible having investigated the theory sufficiently to determine whether they want to understand it properly.

Rick is correct. Dad struggled for years to get anyone to even listen to him, as this theory was (and still is) considered very radical, turning the world of behavioral psychology on its ear.

I can well believe it. Even when dealing with people who knew me as a productive psychologist before I understood PCT it was very hard to get people to see the point of PCT and to understand why it mattered in their particular worl of interest. Bill had to do that for decades.

If people in general don’t think a name change would be worth the hassle that any name change involves, I have no problem with that. Maybe what we need instead is an analysis of what background understanding is needed for a good appreciation of the theory – and more than appreciation, understanding. Even on CSGnet, there’s a LOT of misunderstanding of how control units work and how they interact, especially nonlinear ones.

You have to get to the appreciation stage before you can get to the understanding stage. I think that’s where the difference comes between Rick and some others. Rick insists that understanding has to come first, and without it, appreciation is nothing. I think that appreciation is a necessary lead-in toward understanding.

I don’t know why there is a lopsided ratio of men to women, but I’m sure that, too, can change with time. After all, there used to be more men graduating from college, more men in government, etc. Some of these ratios have evened out or changed places, some are still slow to change. As suggested in an earlier email, perhaps that merits some study.

I don’t know, either. I offered a single anecdotal data point (or maybe three), and suggested that it might be worth following up to see whether it might mean something. You don’t think it would, and I know it would be quite troublesome to test the idea generically. But might it not be worthwhile to figure out a possible other name and see whether using that name might draw some of the very clever females out there into fully understanding PCT as “PCT”?

Martin

18

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.23.13.05]

I hadn't said it wasn't worth following up; perhaps you'd be interested in looking into it further?
I'm a bit baffled by your continued suggestion to change the name. Simply put, this will not happen, anymore than we would try to change the name of Einstein's theory of relativity.

If Jeff Vancouver's work is as much PCT as it seems on the surface to be, the name already has been changed, or at least the community of PCT developers is split into those that use one name and those that use another. That was why, after remembering my long-ago conversation with the three female psychologists, I made the suggestion. The possibility exists that the split might be healed, quite apart from the initial reasons I suggested for possibly looking for a new name.

I didn't like Jeff's "self-regulation", and that made me think more on the way others might possibly react to the names we give our theories. My own "Bilateral Theory of Reading" (BLT) and "Layered Protocol Theory of Communication" (LPT) also have had little influence outside a small coterie. Are those theories wrong, useless, or just named unattractively? Since it was LPT that led me to PCT, in the sense that when I discovered PCT I could say to myself "that's what underlies LPT", and also I had control theory in my background, "Control" seemed to me to be very natural in the name.

The point is that not everyone feels the same way. Jeff said he himself initially had a problem with the word "control". Of course the theory IS all about control, but it's not the control of the outer world that others deal with when they say "control". Maybe we should call it "Inner Control Theory" to make is expressly evident that it has nothing to do with controlling others.

I don't know the degree to which the name contributes to the loss of half the world's psychologists as potential users of PCT in their research, or even if it hs any effect at all. All I know is that my one data point suggests it is offputting to at least some of them, and that's a loss both to them and to the future development of PCT.

For myself alone, I'm quite happy with the name. But I don't work in a vacuum, and I just wish more people would look carefully at the implications of the theory before dismissing it as some small-scale stuff of no interest to them.

Martin

19

I understand, and appreciate the thought you are giving to this. I think we all agree we would like to continue to broaden this horizon.

Now that this conversation has been had, hopefully it will simmer on many back-burners, and new ways to introduce, teach and incorporate PCT will become apparent.

best,

*barb

···

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.04.23.13.05]

I hadn’t said it wasn’t worth following up; perhaps you’d be interested in looking into it further?

I’m a bit baffled by your continued suggestion to change the name. Simply put, this will not happen, anymore than we would try to change the name of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

If Jeff Vancouver’s work is as much PCT as it seems on the surface to be, the name already has been changed, or at least the community of PCT developers is split into those that use one name and those that use another. That was why, after remembering my long-ago conversation with the three female psychologists, I made the suggestion. The possibility exists that the split might be healed, quite apart from the initial reasons I suggested for possibly looking for a new name.

I didn’t like Jeff’s “self-regulation”, and that made me think more on the way others might possibly react to the names we give our theories. My own “Bilateral Theory of Reading” (BLT) and “Layered Protocol Theory of Communication” (LPT) also have had little influence outside a small coterie. Are those theories wrong, useless, or just named unattractively? Since it was LPT that led me to PCT, in the sense that when I discovered PCT I could say to myself “that’s what underlies LPT”, and also I had control theory in my background, “Control” seemed to me to be very natural in the name.

The point is that not everyone feels the same way. Jeff said he himself initially had a problem with the word “control”. Of course the theory IS all about control, but it’s not the control of the outer world that others deal with when they say “control”. Maybe we should call it “Inner Control Theory” to make is expressly evident that it has nothing to do with controlling others.

I don’t know the degree to which the name contributes to the loss of half the world’s psychologists as potential users of PCT in their research, or even if it hs any effect at all. All I know is that my one data point suggests it is offputting to at least some of them, and that’s a loss both to them and to the future development of PCT.

For myself alone, I’m quite happy with the name. But I don’t work in a vacuum, and I just wish more people would look carefully at the implications of the theory before dismissing it as some small-scale stuff of no interest to them.

Martin