Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:26:51 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: pasking levels

[Martin Taylor 921116 16:45]
(Avery Andrews 921114.1250)

>Surely people rarely in real life do anything half as hard is
>controlling perceptions at the Pasking levels.  Mostly people control
>for the other person looking as if they were paying attention &
>understanding.  When this does not seem to be happening, they do
>something to attract attention (grad students who I'm familiar
>with might say `hey, did you get that', or something), but there
>are very strong social constraints on serious checking of
>comprehension.

What happens in any particular case would depend on the difference between
reference levels and perceptual signals.  If the talker perceives (believes)
that if the listener hears, then the listener will understand, all the
listener need do to satisfy the talker's reference for perceiving the
listener to understand is to take an attentive attitude.

In the current version of Layered Protocol theory, there are three propositions
relating to the transmission of any message at any level of abstraction:

P1) The recipient has made an interpretation of the message
P2) If P1, the recipient has made a correct interpretation of the message
P3) It is not worth continuing to try to transmit this message.

P1 and P2 relate reasonably closely to perceptual signals, P3 to an output
gain control and an error signal (P3 doesn't have any very clear PCT analogue
and may have ti be rethought).  It is assumed by default that the Originator
had a reference signal that P1 and P2 become true, and an original perception
that they were not true.  If P1 and P2 do become true, there is no remaining
error, and therefore P3 becomes true.  But P3 can also become true if the
reference for P1 and/or P2 changes, which can happen if the Originator
perceives the Recipient to have correctly interpreted the higher-level
message to which this one is contributing.  P3 can also become true if the
parties get into difficulties, so that there is a continuing error--this is
a "giving up" condition, about which we had some discussion a month or two ago.

So now we can look at Pask's levels and Avery's comments.  We assume that
what is wanted is an understanding of the message, which means that Pask's
third level of agreement is required.  But that doesn't mean that an outside
observer will detect actions corresponding to Pask's feedback.  It depends
on (a) the gain or insistence of the Originator's highest level SCS (Structured
Control System, or Protocol Node in LP terms), and (b) whether at the highest
level the Originator believes P2 initially to be true.  If (b) is true, then
there will be no feedback at that level.  All that may be needed is a low-level
determination of whether P1 is true--the listener heard the words, and for
that, all that is necessary is, as Avery says: "Mostly people control
for the other person looking as if they were paying attention & understanding."
That is what LP theory (or equivalently PCT), combined with Pask, says.

I don't think there are "strong social constraints on serious checking of
comprehension" when lack of comprehension would probably lead to serious
perceptual error in the Originator of the message.  If I tell you "We must
get out quickly, because there's a bomb about to go off" I don't expect you
to sit there looking attentive.  I expect you to move.  That's third level
Paskian feedback, and if I don't get it, I'll continue to try to get it
by whatever means I can.  I'm controlling for the perception of your moving,
which I would take to be a consequence of your understanding, given my
assumptions about a few of the percepts you are controlling for and
their reference levels.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU