X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 09:49:45 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:49:45 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Disturbances

[From Rick Marken (920813.1000)]

Dennis Delprato (920813) --

Great to hear from you. I think your ideas about introducing PCT
to non-PCT psychologists are EXCELLENT.

>Basically, I am suggesting a critical look at the classic
>experimental framework (CEF), a set of assumptions not questioned by
>adherents to otherwise divergent theories and approaches.  CEF-thinking
>is taught to all psychologists.  It is possibly one of the very few
>points of general agreement in the fractured field of psychology.

I agree completely. I've always felt that the difference between conventional
and PCT psychology could be best approached from the point of view of
methodology (since its the same for all psychologists, regardless of
theoretical persuasion). I like your suggestion about moving non-PCT
psychologists gently to the concept of control by showing them how
they might profitably reconceptualize "extraneous" variables as
disturbances. I think you might consider taking the lead on this
approach. Perhaps there are some operant conditioning studies where
people have felt that the results were a bit too noisy due to these
extraneous variables?  If you could find a study like this then
perhaps you could show that the "noisiness" of the behavior is the organism's
efforts to reduce the effect of these variables on a controlled variable.
In fact, now that I think of it, the concept of a controlled variable
let's you distinguish between "extraneous variables" that are disturbances
and extraneous variables that are extraneous. Only variables that have
an effect on the controlled variable are disturbances -- ie. the kind of
extraneous variable that will actually influence behavior.

Go with this idea Dennis.

Oded Maler (920814)

>It is also not
>self-evident at all that a world where all people know what control is
>will be a better one - but anyway I'm not interested in Ideology
>(unless I'm in a historical museum).

I agree that it is not self-evident. I can see that my sloganizing is
coming back to haunt me. What I meant was simply that, if people
understood that people were control systems, then they would KNOW for
a FACT that their efforts to control people (in order to "make things
better") will not work. The reason is simple -- one person's efforts to
control another are just disturbances, and will be automatically countered
by the controllee. This is not an ideological point -- but a fact about
how control systems work.

I have a demo which illustrates this point. It's sort of the inverse of
my mindreading program. I know it's a good demo because Gary Cziko liked
it. I call it "find mind". Here's how it works:

There are 5 numbers roaming around the computer screen. The behavior of
4 of the numbers is determined by a VERY simple output generation model;
at each time interval the x,y specification of position is updated and
the number "moves" to the specified screen position. One of the numbers,
however, is a control system. The x,y specification at each time interval
is the value of the REFERENCE SIGNAL. So this system is controlling it's
perceived x,y position relative to a varying reference. The position of
ALL FIVE numbers is also influenced by the position of the mouse. If you
leave the mouse alone, this just means that a constant is being added to
the x,y position of all 5 numbers. When you look at the screen what you
see are five numbers drifting around, each taking a different path (determined
by the particular waveform that determines its x,y coordinates (or reference
signal)). There is NO WAY to tell, by looking at their behavior, which of
the 5 numbers is a control system and which are "output generators". The
appearance of the behavior of all 5 numbers is EXACTLY the same.

But you can very quickly tell which of the 5 numbers is a control system
if you introduce a disturbance by moving the mouse. If you move the mouse
abruptly, you will see all 5 numbers shift in the direction of mouse movement,
but one number will "bounce back" to its intended path. This bounce is easy to
see, even though you don't really know where the number intends to move.
So the control system "responds" to the mouse disturbance in a very obvious
way; the rest of the numbers show no such bounce -- they just shift their
movement to the "offset" caused by the mouse disturbance. The behavior of
the control system number is like a "reflex" -- such as the behavior of the
pupil when you suddenly shine a light in the eye.

If you apply the disturbance more smoothly then you cannot see it's
differential effect on the "control system" number. If you just move
the mouse around slowly and aimlessly you will not be able to tell, again,
which of the numbers is "alive". But you will quickly learn which number is
alive when you try to hold a number at some target position on the screen --
ie. if you try to control the position of a number. If you try to control
one of the "output generation" numbers then there is no problem -- you
can easily move the mouse appropriately to compensate for the changing
x,y position of the number. But if you happen to pick the control system
number, then you find that your mouse movements become much more exaggerated.
It turns out that the control system is generating outputs to prevent your
disturbance (mouse movements) from moving it from its intended path. Your
efforts to get that number to stay on target are, in fact, placing you in
a conflict with that number. Since I have placed no limit on the amount of
output that the control system number can generate, the control system will
win the conflict (you will run out of disturbance -- mouse -- first). Some-
times, this is the way things work out in real life (like when you try to
control little kids) -- but, as I said, not for long, since control systems
don't give up.

This little demo illustrates my basic point -- if people are control systems
then efforts to control them just create conflict; and conflict is not
good for either party because it involves loss of control.

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU