One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”SM
www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…
I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, …
Lloyd
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_&d=CwMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=J94HEKdx21XnXWO7mWvEw1zklQ8jy9hf82kQ_BkcA0o&s=UjAbd0XbEI79UeAxn3rrqizzlPssoH7dPW_BkzuGFa0&e=>DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC
“Assistance at a Distance�SM
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_SeaStories.html&d=CwMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=J94HEKdx21XnXWO7mWvEw1zklQ8jy9hf82kQ_BkcA0o&s=gmeAgMkGHR8VvnfUczVEtvWNSdiprQncYbPqpvH3lUQ&e=>www\.nickols\.us/SeaStories\.html
<HPCT Levels v2.jpg>
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols <<mailto:fred@nickols.us>fred@nickols.us> wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Good point, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a much better choice.
Fred Nickols
From: lloydk@klinedinst.com [mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…
I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, …
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance�SM
[From Chad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Fred, nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How is it regulated?
According to megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps rationality (Level 10):
"Foucault says that knowledge-power and rationality-power relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth
is the first casualty of war.’
In an open confrontation, actions are dictated by what works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the specific situation. In such confrontations, use of
naked power tends to be more effective than any appeal to objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even though feigned versions of the latter, that is, rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
The proposition that rationality yields to power in open confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less
the rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation because it is here that naked power can be exercised most freely."
Source:
http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Rat&Pow03.pdf
Best,
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
âWe are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.â? - Mary Catherine Bateson
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Good point, Lloyd. Iâll make that change. Nutrition is a much better choice.
Fred Nickols
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com [mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com
]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges
I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, â¦
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
Iâd like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if itâs a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
âAssistance at a Distanceâ?SM
Chad:
I’ll defer to the experts but I will say this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words, power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of “disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:
[From Chad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Fred, nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How is it regulated?
According to megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps rationality (Level 10):
"Foucault says that knowledge-power and rationality-power relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth
is the first casualty of war.’
In an open confrontation, actions are dictated by what works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the specific situation. In such confrontations, use of
naked power tends to be more effective than any appeal to objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even though feigned versions of the latter, that is, rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
The proposition that rationality yields to power in open confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less
the rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation because it is here that naked power can be exercised most freely."
Best,
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
âWe are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.â? - Mary Catherine Bateson
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Good point, Lloyd. Iâll make that change. Nutrition is a much better choice.
Fred Nickols
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com [mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges
I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, â¦
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
Iâd like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if itâs a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
âAssistance at a Distanceâ?SM
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.04.07.00]
I'm still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies for
probable incoherence.
Fred, in physics, power is energy per unit time. That's not its
meaning for Chad, nor, I think for you in your response. So what
might it mean beyond the metaphor? I start by agreeing with you
that “power” is distributed throughout the hierarchy.
Consider one simple control loop at a middle level of the
hierarchy. It has the power to control its perceptual value if two
things are true: (1. Ability) it has an environmental feedback
path from its output to its perceptual signal through the various
external properties that determine the value of its perception
(the Complex Environmental Variable, CEV), and (2. Strength) it
has enough physical power to change the values of those component
properties to allow it to counter the physical influences of
disturbances and any barriers inherent in the environment.
Illustration: you are driving a car and you want it to be on top
of a particular hill. Type 1 problem, there is no road to the top
of the hill and the car is not an off-road vehicle. Type 2
problem, there is a road, but it is so steep that the underpowered
car cannot make it to the top. In both cases, one might use the
“power metaphor” and say that this car doesn’t have the power to
bring the perception of the car’s location to its reference value.
It might well have the power to bring that perception to other
reference values.
How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphorical
power in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a
higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the
hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a
road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the
driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the
car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might
look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get to the
top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types
involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths
for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent
and I call these components of environmental feedback loops
“atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).
The properties of atenfels are as important as those of every
other component of a control loop in determining whether a
perception can be controlled, and how well it is controlled if the
required atenfels exist. The more potential atenfels available to
a controller (“many means to the same end”) the more Type 1 power
the controller has. The more precisely an atenfel produces a
consistent output for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its
range of output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller
has. A powerful controller has both the ability and the strength
to bring its perceptual value close to its reference value.
I'm not going to go into the ramifications of Type 2a, atenfel
precision, beyond noting that if the atenfel output is the CEV of
a controlled perception, we are talking about a lower-level
supporting control unit with a reference value influenced by the
control unit of interest, whereas if it is not controlled but is
simply commanded, we are talking about a simple link that may be
noisy or inconsistent. The important questions for interpersonal
power relations relate to Types 1 and 2b.
The standard "conflict" situation arises when two controllers
share a part of their environmental feedback paths – in
particular they control perceptions of the same physical variable
with different reference values. So long as each antagonist
applies as much Type 2 power as the other is applying, neither has
any Type 1 power to control its perception. The perception just
stays where it is as both of them increase their influence on it.
But there comes a point when one of the antagonists reaches a
limit of it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output) now provides
the winner with Type 1 power. The winner is able to control its
perception regardless of what the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The person able (and
willing, because of internal conflicts) to apply most money gets
the thing being auctioned, while all the competitors get nothing.
The winner had more Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels
that provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a variety of
perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those atenfels can be seen as
being what was actually auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able to control
perceptions of one’s location. “Be able” implies both Type 1 and
Type 2 power. A person in jail has both, but the range of Type 2
power is very small compared with someone at liberty. If a person
controls those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for him to be in
jail, and he does not have enough money to hire skilled lawyers
(Type 2 power), he will be unable to control his location beyond
the confines of his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an
atenfel essential for controlling variables he wants to control,
so that for those perceptual variables he has no Type 1 power –
no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflict issue is in
the availability of atenfels. The one with more global power (more
ability and strength to control a lot of perceptual variables) has
more ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny them
to others. It is not necessarily true that as the rich get richer,
the poor get poorer, because the stock of potential atenfels may
be increasing, but it is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is relevant to the
thread. I know it’s not relevant to Fred’s original question, but
I think it is relevant to understanding the hierarchy of control.
If it isn’t too incoherent.
Martin
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickols
wrote:
Chad:
I'll defer to the experts but I willsay this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words,
power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now
if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of
“disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green < >wrote:
[FromChad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Â
Fred,nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How
is it regulated?
Â
Accordingto megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps
rationality (Level 10):
Â
"Foucaultsays that knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic
confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that
is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight
in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth is the
first casualty of war.’
Â
Inan open confrontation, actions are dictated by what
works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the
specific situation. In such confrontations, use of naked
power tends to be more effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even
though feigned versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
Â
Theproposition that rationality yields to power in open
confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of
proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost
completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation
because it is here that naked power can be exercised
most freely."
Â
Source:
Â
Best,
Chad
Â
ChadT. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
Â
“Weare not what we know but what we are willing to
learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson
Â
From:
Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[FromFred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Â
Goodpoint, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.
Â
FredNickols
Â
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT
Â
[FromLloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Â
Just some thinking on quicklyglancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<
Â
I would think Healthy diet more asequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …
Â
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:
Â
Oneof my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.
Â
I’dlike to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Â
Regards,
Â
FredNickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance�*SM
Â
Â
Great Diagram Fred,
 but Level 6, ‘Relationships,’ isn’t this really ‘Interrelationshions?’… I mean about interactions, so Inter-Relationships, it’s really about how they interact, not so much the size of 1 to the other.
Google describes this as; (the way in which each of two or more things is related to the other or others.)
One of my hero’s ‘Russel Ackoff’ talks about interactions (It’s not some much about the parts per say; it’s How parts interact) all the time in System Thinking.
Great video on YouTube here of Russ (6 actually, but they are all short; about 5mins lone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxWoZJAD8k
Just a thought,
JC
On 4 June 2016 at 13:28, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.04.07.00]
I'm still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies forprobable incoherence.
Fred, in physics, power is energy per unit time. That's not itsmeaning for Chad, nor, I think for you in your response. So what
might it mean beyond the metaphor? I start by agreeing with you
that “power” is distributed throughout the hierarchy.
Consider one simple control loop at a middle level of thehierarchy. It has the power to control its perceptual value if two
things are true: (1. Ability) it has an environmental feedback
path from its output to its perceptual signal through the various
external properties that determine the value of its perception
(the Complex Environmental Variable, CEV), and (2. Strength) it
has enough physical power to change the values of those component
properties to allow it to counter the physical influences of
disturbances and any barriers inherent in the environment.
Illustration: you are driving a car and you want it to be on topof a particular hill. Type 1 problem, there is no road to the top
of the hill and the car is not an off-road vehicle. Type 2
problem, there is a road, but it is so steep that the underpowered
car cannot make it to the top. In both cases, one might use the
“power metaphor” and say that this car doesn’t have the power to
bring the perception of the car’s location to its reference value.
It might well have the power to bring that perception to other
reference values.
How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphoricalpower in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a
higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the
hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a
road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the
driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the
car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might
look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get to the
top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types
involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths
for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent
and I call these components of environmental feedback loops
“atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).
The properties of atenfels are as important as those of everyother component of a control loop in determining whether a
perception can be controlled, and how well it is controlled if the
required atenfels exist. The more potential atenfels available to
a controller (“many means to the same end”) the more Type 1 power
the controller has. The more precisely an atenfel produces a
consistent output for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its
range of output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller
has. A powerful controller has both the ability and the strength
to bring its perceptual value close to its reference value.
I'm not going to go into the ramifications of Type 2a, atenfelprecision, beyond noting that if the atenfel output is the CEV of
a controlled perception, we are talking about a lower-level
supporting control unit with a reference value influenced by the
control unit of interest, whereas if it is not controlled but is
simply commanded, we are talking about a simple link that may be
noisy or inconsistent. The important questions for interpersonal
power relations relate to Types 1 and 2b.
The standard "conflict" situation arises when two controllersshare a part of their environmental feedback paths – in
particular they control perceptions of the same physical variable
with different reference values. So long as each antagonist
applies as much Type 2 power as the other is applying, neither has
any Type 1 power to control its perception. The perception just
stays where it is as both of them increase their influence on it.
But there comes a point when one of the antagonists reaches a
limit of it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output) now provides
the winner with Type 1 power. The winner is able to control its
perception regardless of what the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The person able (andwilling, because of internal conflicts) to apply most money gets
the thing being auctioned, while all the competitors get nothing.
The winner had more Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels
that provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a variety of
perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those atenfels can be seen as
being what was actually auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able to controlperceptions of one’s location. “Be able” implies both Type 1 and
Type 2 power. A person in jail has both, but the range of Type 2
power is very small compared with someone at liberty. If a person
controls those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for him to be in
jail, and he does not have enough money to hire skilled lawyers
(Type 2 power), he will be unable to control his location beyond
the confines of his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an
atenfel essential for controlling variables he wants to control,
so that for those perceptual variables he has no Type 1 power –
no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflict issue is inthe availability of atenfels. The one with more global power (more
ability and strength to control a lot of perceptual variables) has
more ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny them
to others. It is not necessarily true that as the rich get richer,
the poor get poorer, because the stock of potential atenfels may
be increasing, but it is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is relevant to thethread. I know it’s not relevant to Fred’s original question, but
I think it is relevant to understanding the hierarchy of control.
If it isn’t too incoherent.
Martin
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickolswrote:
Chad:
I'll defer to the experts but I willsay this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words,
power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now
if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of
“disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org >wrote:
[FromChad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Â
Fred,nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How
is it regulated?
Â
Accordingto megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps
rationality (Level 10):
Â
"Foucaultsays that knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic
confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that
is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight
in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth is the
first casualty of war.’
Â
Inan open confrontation, actions are dictated by what
works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the
specific situation. In such confrontations, use of naked
power tends to be more effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even
though feigned versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
Â
Theproposition that rationality yields to power in open
confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of
proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost
completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation
because it is here that naked power can be exercised
most freely."
Â
Source:
Â
Best,
Chad
Â
ChadT. Green, PMP
Research Office Loudoun County Public Schools 21000 Education Court Ashburn, VA 20148 Voice: 571-252-1486 Fax: 571-252-1575
Â
“Weare not what we know but what we are willing to
learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson
Â
From:
Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[FromFred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Â
Goodpoint, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.
Â
FredNickols
Â
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT
Â
[FromLloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Â
Just some thinking on quicklyglancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<
Â
I would think Healthy diet more asequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …<
Â
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:
Â
Oneof my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.
Â
I’dlike to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Â
Regards,
Â
FredNickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance�*SM
Â
Â
I don’t know for sure, John, but my guess is that the level of relationships includes dynamic as well as static relationships.
Fred Nickols
From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 3:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Great Diagram Fred,
but Level 6, ‘Relationships,’ isn’t this really ‘Interrelationshions?’… I mean about interactions, so Inter-Relationships, it’s really about how they interact, not so much the size of 1 to the other.
Google describes this as; (the way in which each of two or more things is related to the other or others.)
One of my hero’s ‘Russel Ackoff’ talks about interactions (It’s not some much about the parts per say; it’s How parts interact) all the time in System Thinking.
Great video on YouTube here of Russ (6 actually, but they are all short; about 5mins lone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxWoZJAD8k
Just a thought,
JC
On 4 June 2016 at 13:28, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.04.07.00]
I’m still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies for probable incoherence.
Fred, in physics, power is energy per unit time. That’s not its meaning for Chad, nor, I think for you in your response. So what might it mean beyond the metaphor? I start by agreeing with you that “power” is distributed throughout the hierarchy.
Consider one simple control loop at a middle level of the hierarchy. It has the power to control its perceptual value if two things are true: (1. Ability) it has an environmental feedback path from its output to its perceptual signal through the various external properties that determine the value of its perception (the Complex Environmental Variable, CEV), and (2. Strength) it has enough physical power to change the values of those component properties to allow it to counter the physical influences of disturbances and any barriers inherent in the environment.
Illustration: you are driving a car and you want it to be on top of a particular hill. Type 1 problem, there is no road to the top of the hill and the car is not an off-road vehicle. Type 2 problem, there is a road, but it is so steep that the underpowered car cannot make it to the top. In both cases, one might use the “power metaphor” and say that this car doesn’t have the power to bring the perception of the car’s location to its reference value. It might well have the power to bring that perception to other reference values.
How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphorical power in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get to the top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent and I call these components of environmental feedback loops “atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).
The properties of atenfels are as important as those of every other component of a control loop in determining whether a perception can be controlled, and how well it is controlled if the required atenfels exist. The more potential atenfels available to a controller (“many means to the same end”) the more Type 1 power the controller has. The more precisely an atenfel produces a consistent output for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its range of output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller has. A powerful controller has both the ability and the strength to bring its perceptual value close to its reference value.
I’m not going to go into the ramifications of Type 2a, atenfel precision, beyond noting that if the atenfel output is the CEV of a controlled perception, we are talking about a lower-level supporting control unit with a reference value influenced by the control unit of interest, whereas if it is not controlled but is simply commanded, we are talking about a simple link that may be noisy or inconsistent. The important questions for interpersonal power relations relate to Types 1 and 2b.
The standard “conflict” situation arises when two controllers share a part of their environmental feedback paths – in particular they control perceptions of the same physical variable with different reference values. So long as each antagonist applies as much Type 2 power as the other is applying, neither has any Type 1 power to control its perception. The perception just stays where it is as both of them increase their influence on it. But there comes a point when one of the antagonists reaches a limit of it range of output, and then the other is able to control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output) now provides the winner with Type 1 power. The winner is able to control its perception regardless of what the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The person able (and willing, because of internal conflicts) to apply most money gets the thing being auctioned, while all the competitors get nothing. The winner had more Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels that provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a variety of perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those atenfels can be seen as being what was actually auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able to control perceptions of one’s location. “Be able” implies both Type 1 and Type 2 power. A person in jail has both, but the range of Type 2 power is very small compared with someone at liberty. If a person controls those many perceptions, he must also control for not being in jail. However, if others are controlling for him to be in jail, and he does not have enough money to hire skilled lawyers (Type 2 power), he will be unable to control his location beyond the confines of his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an atenfel essential for controlling variables he wants to control, so that for those perceptual variables he has no Type 1 power – no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflict issue is in the availability of atenfels. The one with more global power (more ability and strength to control a lot of perceptual variables) has more ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny them to others. It is not necessarily true that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, because the stock of potential atenfels may be increasing, but it is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is relevant to the thread. I know it’s not relevant to Fred’s original question, but I think it is relevant to understanding the hierarchy of control. If it isn’t too incoherent.
Martin
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Chad:
I’ll defer to the experts but I will say this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words, power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of “disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:
[From Chad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Fred, nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How is it regulated?
According to megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps rationality (Level 10):
"Foucault says that knowledge-power and rationality-power relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our study, but modified by the finding that where power relations take the form of open, antagonistic confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth is the first casualty of war.’
In an open confrontation, actions are dictated by what works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the specific situation. In such confrontations, use of naked power tends to be more effective than any appeal to objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even though feigned versions of the latter, that is, rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
The proposition that rationality yields to power in open confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less the rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation because it is here that naked power can be exercised most freely."
Best,
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
“We are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Good point, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a much better choice.
Fred Nickols
From: lloydk@klinedinst.com [mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…
I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, …
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance�SM
[From Rick Marken (2016.06.05.1405)]
Martin Taylor (2016.06.04.07.00)
MT: I'm still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies forprobable incoherence.
RM: Hope you feel better soon.Â
MT: How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphoricalpower in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a
higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the
hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a
road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the
driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the
car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might
look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get to the
top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types
involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths
for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent
and I call these components of environmental feedback loops
“atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).Â
RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement) name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”. It’s true that putting a more powerful engine in a car does change the feedback connection between your output and a controlled variable, such as your speed. But all the hierarchy has done in this case is controlled for a perception of a more powerful engine. Once installed the engine does change the feedback connection between your output and speed. Which is a good observation but why does it merit a new name for the feedback function?
RM: Actually, I think humans are one of the few species that can control perceptions – perceptions of tools – that are specifically designed to improve our control of other perceptions. And I think it’s a great observation that the tools we are able to build (control for)-- because we can control for complex perceptions like sequences, programs and principles – improve our control of certain perceptions by changing the “gain” of the feedback connection between our output and these perceptions. I just don’t understand why this new name – atenfels – is needed.Â
MT: The properties of atenfels are as important as those of everyother component of a control loop in determining whether a
perception can be controlled, and how well it is controlled if the
required atenfels exist. The more potential atenfels available to
a controller (“many means to the same end”) the more Type 1 power
the controller has.Â
RM: Yes, I believe that the more tools one has available the better one can control for certainly things, like doing a root canal.Â
MT: The more precisely an atenfel produces aconsistent output for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its
range of output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller
has.Â
RM: Yes, the feedback function contributes to the gain of the entire control loop. So the higher the gain of the feedback function (greater the range of output) the higher the loop gain and the better control. And I imagine consistency (low noise in the feedback connection) is good too.Â
MT: A powerful controller has both the ability and the strengthto bring its perceptual value close to its reference value.
RM: Yes. Â
MT: The standard "conflict" situation arises when two controllersshare a part of their environmental feedback paths – in
particular they control perceptions of the same physical variable
with different reference values.
RM: Not the same physical variable; the same aspect (perception) of physical variables. It’s possible to control different aspects of the same physical variables without conflict. This is demonstrated in my spreadsheet hierarchy model (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/SpreadsheetHierarchy.zip) where different aspects (perceptions) of 6 physical variables are controlled by 6 different control systems at three different hierarchical levels.
MT: So long as each antagonistapplies as much Type 2 power as the other is applying, neither has
any Type 1 power to control its perception.
RM: Wish I could remember what type 1 and 2 power are. But I think what you mean is that when the output gains of the two conflicted systems are equal they cancel each others efforts and, thus, both lose control of the controlled variable. Good control leads to loss of control: the paradox of controlling people;-)
Best regards
Rick
Â
The perception juststays where it is as both of them increase their influence on it.
But there comes a point when one of the antagonists reaches a
limit of it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output) now provides
the winner with Type 1 power. The winner is able to control its
perception regardless of what the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The person able (andwilling, because of internal conflicts) to apply most money gets
the thing being auctioned, while all the competitors get nothing.
The winner had more Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels
that provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a variety of
perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those atenfels can be seen as
being what was actually auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able to controlperceptions of one’s location. “Be able” implies both Type 1 and
Type 2 power. A person in jail has both, but the range of Type 2
power is very small compared with someone at liberty. If a person
controls those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for him to be in
jail, and he does not have enough money to hire skilled lawyers
(Type 2 power), he will be unable to control his location beyond
the confines of his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an
atenfel essential for controlling variables he wants to control,
so that for those perceptual variables he has no Type 1 power –
no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflict issue is inthe availability of atenfels. The one with more global power (more
ability and strength to control a lot of perceptual variables) has
more ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny them
to others. It is not necessarily true that as the rich get richer,
the poor get poorer, because the stock of potential atenfels may
be increasing, but it is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is relevant to thethread. I know it’s not relevant to Fred’s original question, but
I think it is relevant to understanding the hierarchy of control.
If it isn’t too incoherent.
Martin
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickolswrote:
Chad:
I'll defer to the experts but I willsay this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words,
power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now
if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of
“disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org >wrote:
[FromChad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Â
Fred,nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How
is it regulated?
Â
Accordingto megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps
rationality (Level 10):
Â
"Foucaultsays that knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic
confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that
is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight
in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth is the
first casualty of war.’
Â
Inan open confrontation, actions are dictated by what
works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the
specific situation. In such confrontations, use of naked
power tends to be more effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even
though feigned versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
Â
Theproposition that rationality yields to power in open
confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of
proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost
completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation
because it is here that naked power can be exercised
most freely."
Â
Source:
Â
Best,
Chad
Â
ChadT. Green, PMP
Research Office Loudoun County Public Schools 21000 Education Court Ashburn, VA 20148 Voice: 571-252-1486 Fax: 571-252-1575
Â
“Weare not what we know but what we are willing to
learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson
Â
From:
Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[FromFred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Â
Goodpoint, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.
Â
FredNickols
Â
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT
Â
[FromLloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Â
Just some thinking on quicklyglancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<
Â
I would think Healthy diet more asequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …<
Â
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:
Â
Oneof my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.
Â
I’dlike to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Â
Regards,
Â
FredNickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance�*SM
Â
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would
consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal
preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s
suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to 'coffee
cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually
fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use
the coffee.
I'm presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in
the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7
rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of
putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it
may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been
to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to
produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me
because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed
result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak toPCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram
shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to doso to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything
is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer &Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance”*SM
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.05.20.30]
[From Rick Marken (2016.06.05.1405)]
Thank you. So do I.
That's rather like saying that the sequence of streets, bridges and
crosswalks you traverse walking from A to B could be called “25
minutes”, rather than “25th street, the Harding Bridge, three blocks
on 4th Avenue, turn left into an unnamed alley and find a green
door”.
An atenfel is a component link in an environmental feedback path. It
is neither the path nor the feedback function that is a property of
the path. Its properties contribute to the overall feedback
function, just as the time to walk over a bridge contributes to the
time to walk from A to B, but the bridge is not time, nor is it the
route. It’s a part of the route, and to cross it takes time. Two or
more atenfels may in parallel form part of the feedback path. A pen
provides an atenfel for controlling a perception of writing
thoughts. So is a piece of paper, but the feedback path cannot be
completed without both functioning together.
Oh wow! Two more concepts from very different domains combined in
the word “gain”. “Range of output” means the difference between the
least and the most output that can be produced. If you can lift only
50 kg but can push down with 75 kg, your output range is from -75 kg
to 50 kg. The gain of the control loop when you control a perception
of lifting can be anything, but whatever it is, it’s not measured in
kilograms.
No, two controllers have independent perceptions. And why would you
want to replace the precise term “variable” with the loose “aspect”?
Perceptual variables are, at heart, functions of physical variable.
“At heart” because one must also consider noise and contributions
from imagination and context.
That's an incoherent statement if there ever was one. In the
conflict situation where the conflict is the traditional “set two
perceptions of the same variable to different reference values”
there is only one variable, be it “x” or “x^2+3y+z^x”. There are no
“aspects” to a controlled variable, no matter how loosely you define
“aspect”. It is what it is.
You have 6 perceptual variables that are different functions of 6
components. The components are interesting only in that they are
individually controlled at the lowest level. At the higher level the
variables being controlled are all different, so no conflict. But
take away one of the lowest level variables, and the 6 higher-level
variables could not be controlled without conflict.
You only have to look a paragraph or three back in what you quoted.
Type 1 is ability (technique, knowledge, etc. in the same sense as
“knowledge is power”). Type 2 is range of output. It’s equality of
output that stabilizes the collectively controlled variable in a
classical conflict, removing from both parties the ability to change
its value, and hence the value of their perceptions. As soon as one
of them but not the other reaches its output limit, the other can
control.
Think again. It has nothing to do with gain. Difference in gain
affects only the value at which the conflicted variable gets stuck,
not whether the parties can control their perceptions of it. If your
last sentence means anything, that meaning is lost to me.
Yesterday I was afraid I might have been incoherent in the message
to which you respond, but I can’t believe I was so incoherent as to
have infected you so badly so quickly.
By the way, the jet lag and the cold are improving, but restoration
of normality is far from complete.
Martin
Martin Taylor (2016.06.04.07.00)
MT: I'm still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, soapologies for probable incoherence.
RM: Hope you feel better soon.
MT: How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lackof metaphorical power in a particular control loop?
(Rephrase: how does a higher-level control unit that
needs the car to be on top of the hlll control its
perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a road to
the top of the hill, after which the car would provide
the driver with the ability to drive it to the top.
For Type 2, the car might be fitted with a more
powerful engine, the driver might look at a map and
see that there is a less steep way to get to the top,
the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both
Types involve the provision of different environmental
feedback paths for that particular control loop. In
our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent and I call these
components of environmental feedback loops “atenfels”
(ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).Â
RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement)
name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”.
MT:The properties of atenfels are as important as those of
every other component of a control loop in determining
whether a perception can be controlled, and how well it is
controlled if the required atenfels exist. The more
potential atenfels available to a controller (“many means
to the same end”) the more Type 1 power the controller
has.Â
RM: Yes, I believe that the more tools one has
available the better one can control for certainly things,
like doing a root canal.Â
MT:The more precisely an atenfel produces a consistent output
for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its range of
output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller
has.Â
RM: Yes, the feedback function contributes to the gain
of the entire control loop. So the higher the gain of the
feedback function (greater the range of output)
the higher the loop gain and the better control. And I
imagine consistency (low noise in the feedback connection)
is good too.Â
MT:A powerful controller has both the ability and the
strength to bring its perceptual value close to its
reference value.
RM: Yes. Â
MT: The standard "conflict" situation arises when twocontrollers share a part of their environmental
feedback paths – in particular they control
perceptions of the same physical variable with
different reference values.
RM: Not the same physical variable; the same * aspect*(perception) of physical variables.
It's possible to control different aspects of the same
physical variables without conflict.
This is demonstrated in my spreadsheet hierarchy model
(http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/SpreadsheetHierarchy.zip )
where different aspects (perceptions) of 6 physical
variables are controlled by 6 different control systems at
three different hierarchical levels.
MT: So long as each antagonist applies as much Type 2power as the other is applying, neither has any Type 1
power to control its perception.
RM: Wish I could remember what type 1 and 2 power are.
But I think what you mean is that when the output
gains of the two conflicted systems are equal they cancel
each others efforts and, thus, both lose control of the
controlled variable. Good control leads to loss of
control: the paradox of controlling people;-)
Best regards
Rick
Â
The perception just stays where it is as both of themincrease their influence on it. But there comes a
point when one of the antagonists reaches a limit of
it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output)
now provides the winner with Type 1 power. The winner
is able to control its perception regardless of what
the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The personable (and willing, because of internal conflicts) to
apply most money gets the thing being auctioned, while
all the competitors get nothing. The winner had more
Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels that
provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a
variety of perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those
atenfels can be seen as being what was actually
auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able tocontrol perceptions of one’s location. “Be able”
implies both Type 1 and Type 2 power. A person in jail
has both, but the range of Type 2 power is very small
compared with someone at liberty. If a person controls
those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for
him to be in jail, and he does not have enough money
to hire skilled lawyers (Type 2 power), he will be
unable to control his location beyond the confines of
his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an atenfel
essential for controlling variables he wants to
control, so that for those perceptual variables he has
no Type 1 power – no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflictissue is in the availability of atenfels. The one with
more global power (more ability and strength to
control a lot of perceptual variables) has more
ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny
them to others. It is not necessarily true that as the
rich get richer, the poor get poorer, because the
stock of potential atenfels may be increasing, but it
is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and isrelevant to the thread. I know it’s not relevant to
Fred’s original question, but I think it is relevant
to understanding the hierarchy of control. If it isn’t
too incoherent.
Martin
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Chad:
I'll defer to the experts but I will saythis: Control is Power and Power is Control. In
other words, power is diffused and distributed
up and down the hierarchy. Now if you want to
talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under
the heading of “disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org >wrote:
[FromChad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Â
Fred,nice work. What about power? Where
does it fit? How is it regulated?
Â
Accordingto megaproject researcher Bent
Flyvbjerg, power trumps rationality
(Level 10):
Â
"Foucaultsays that knowledge-power and
rationality-power relations exist
everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that
where power relations take the form of
open, antagonistic confrontations,
power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations; that is, knowledge and
rationality carry little or no weight in
these instances. As the proverb has it,
‘Truth is the first casualty of war.’
Â
Inan open confrontation, actions are
dictated by what works most effectively
to defeat the adversary in the specific
situation. In such confrontations, use
of naked power tends to be more
effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or
rationality, even though feigned
versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to
legitimize naked power.
Â
Theproposition that rationality yields to
power in open confrontations may be seen
as an extreme case of proposition no. 4,
‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields
completely, or almost completely, to
power in open, antagonistic
confrontation because it is here that
naked power can be exercised most
freely."
Â
Source:
Â
Best,
Chad
Â
ChadT. Green, PMP
Research Office Loudoun County Public Schools 21000 Education Court Ashburn, VA 20148 Voice: 571-252-1486 Fax: 571-252-1575
Â
“Weare not what we know but what we are
willing to learn.� - Mary Catherine
Bateson
Â
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016
1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the
11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[FromFred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Â
Goodpoint, Lloyd. I’ll make that change.Â
Nutrition is a much better choice.
Â
FredNickols
Â
From: lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02,
2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the
11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[FromLloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Â
Just some thinkingon quickly glancing - more later, if
anything else emerges…
Â
I would thinkHealthy diet more a sequence or
program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science,
Literature, …
Â
Lloyd
On Jun 2,2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols
<fred@nickols.us >
wrote:
Â
Oneof my upcoming columns
will speak to PCT and I am
including a version of the
11 levels diagram shared
earlier with the list.
Â
I’dlike to ask those who are
willing to do so to take a
look at the diagram and
let me know if anything is
so off that I need to fix
it or if it’s a viable
example.
Â
Regards,
Â
FredNickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistance at aDistance�*SM
Â
<HPCTLevels v2.jpg>
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
Author, with Timothy A. Carey,
of  Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being
Human.Â
Bill:
I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.
I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”SM
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.06.08.46]
I don't know whether it is relevant to what you are trying to do,
but the first time I met Bill I asked him whether he considered
sub-levels to be a reasonable part of the hierarchy, since the
levels are distinguished by the type of perception being controlled.
His response was that there seems no reason why not. For example you
can have configurations of configurations, relations of relations or
sequences of sequences. You could have a configuration of “seated at
breakfast table” or “coffee cup on table”, each as a component of a
perception “seated at breakfast table on which is a coffee cup”.
Martin
On 2016/06/6 8:16 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:
Bill:
I’ve givenyour suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the
example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My
reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular
arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table
is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting
on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will
happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From:
Bill Leach Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that Iwould consider to be important, and is really a matter of
personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as
Lloyd’s suggestion.In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this
example actually fits a little better with many of the other
examples that also use the coffee.I'm presuming that you will actually discuss the chosenexamples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the
example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had
absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary
to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was
just a little slower than I should have been to recognize
that the category might have been “things to include to
produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of
bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean
at least the brewed result which already contains at least
the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickolswrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speakto PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels
diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willingto do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if
anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a
viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance”*SM
mailto:wrleach@cableone.net
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.0907 ET)]
All I’m trying to do, Martin, is make sure my examples fit with that level in the hierarchy. As it happens, I like your example, which accommodates my original example and Bill’s suggestion. I’ll use it.
Do you have any comments regarding the other levels?
Fred Nickols
From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.06.08.46]
I don’t know whether it is relevant to what you are trying to do, but the first time I met Bill I asked him whether he considered sub-levels to be a reasonable part of the hierarchy, since the levels are distinguished by the type of perception being controlled. His response was that there seems no reason why not. For example you can have configurations of configurations, relations of relations or sequences of sequences. You could have a configuration of “seated at breakfast table” or “coffee cup on table”, each as a component of a perception “seated at breakfast table on which is a coffee cup”.
Martin
On 2016/06/6 8:16 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Bill:
I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.
I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”SM
[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.0919)]
P.S. A current version of the 11 levels diagram is attached in .jpg format.
P.P.S. Happy D-Day
Fred Nickols
From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.06.08.46]
I don’t know whether it is relevant to what you are trying to do, but the first time I met Bill I asked him whether he considered sub-levels to be a reasonable part of the hierarchy, since the levels are distinguished by the type of perception being controlled. His response was that there seems no reason why not. For example you can have configurations of configurations, relations of relations or sequences of sequences. You could have a configuration of “seated at breakfast table” or “coffee cup on table”, each as a component of a perception “seated at breakfast table on which is a coffee cup”.
Martin
On 2016/06/6 8:16 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Bill:
I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.
I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”SM
[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.0919)]
P.S. A current version of the 11 levels diagram is attached in .jpg format.
P.P.S. Happy D-Day
Fred Nickols
From: Martin
Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.06.08.46]
I don’t know whether it is relevant to what you are trying to do, but the first time I met Bill I asked him whether he considered sub-levels to be a reasonable part of the hierarchy, since the levels are distinguished by the type of perception being controlled.
His response was that there seems no reason why not. For example you can have configurations of configurations, relations of relations or sequences of sequences. You could have a configuration of “seated at breakfast table” or “coffee cup on table”, each as
a component of a perception “seated at breakfast table on which is a coffee cup”.
Martin
On 2016/06/6 8:16 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Bill:
I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.� My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations� and I think
seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From: Bill
Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.
I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point.
Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to
mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance�SM
[From Kent McClelland (2016.06.06.0935)]
Hi Rick,
See below.
[From
Rick Marken (2016.06.05.1405)]
KM: Martin has already sent another post that provides some good reasons for coining this neologism, but since my name was mentioned, I’ll throw in my two cents worth, too.
KM: Granted, atenfel is a pretty ugly word, but my view is that handsome is as handsome does. When Martin and I were conferring with each other in an effort to put together the arguments for our chapters on social applications of PCT for the Living
Control Systems IV volume, we couldn’t find another word that clearly described the lowest-level components of physical feedback paths (“atomic environmental feedback links”). We certainly considered the term "feedback functionsâ€? as a possibility, but it appeared
to cover way too much territory for the purposes of the arguments we were trying to make in those chapters. The new word, atenfels, proved extremely useful for describing the phenomena of interest in the arguments we wanted to make.
KM: I don’t have the time or the inclination to try to explain in this forum all the arguments made in those long and complicated yet-to-be-published chapters. While I would like to be able to release the pre-publication version of my chapter
for you to review, Alice Powers McElhone, the publisher of the volume, has explicitly asked us not to to so until the book is published, which I hope happens soon.
KM: In the meantime, it might be a good plan to reserve judgment on the utility of this new word until you’ve had a chance to read the chapters and to decide for yourself whether adding it to the PCT vocabulary makes sense. But I’m also aware
that your style of engaging with new ideas is to respond immediately and vigorously to any disturbance, so by all means control your own perceptions about the word!
My best,
Kent
Martin Taylor (2016.06.04.07.00)
MT: I’m still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies for probable incoherence.
RM: Hope you feel better soon.
MT: How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphorical power in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct
a road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get
to the top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent and I call these components of environmental feedback
loops “atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).
RM: Why the special (and rather ugly, in my judgement) name? What was wrong with plain old “feedback function”. It’s true that putting a more powerful engine in a car does change the feedback connection between your output and a controlled variable,
such as your speed. But all the hierarchy has done in this case is controlled for a perception of a more powerful engine. Once installed the engine does change the feedback connection between your output and speed. Which is a good observation but why does
it merit a new name for the feedback function?
[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.1135 ET)]
Thanks, Kent. I’ll incorporate your suggestions.
Anyone else?
Fred Nickols
From: McClelland, Kent [mailto:MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:30 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
Your current diagram looks nice, but I have a couple of minor suggestions.
To the definitions list for level 10, I’d add “values� (or in other words the standards we use for judging what’s good and bad, like it’s good to eat breakfast). As a sociologist, I think of “norms and values� as a good way of summarizing level 10 perceptions.
I’d simplify your example for level 3 to just say, “coffee cup.� The perception of a coffee cup nicely fits the definition of a particular arrangement of sensations, including perceptions of shape, color, weight, reflectivity, hardness, odor, etc. The example that you’ve given for level 3 seems to me much more complicated than necessary to make the point. You offer in your example a fairly complex combination of perceptions (including the breakfast table with all its components, the chair by the table, the posture of the body sitting in the chair, and the coffee cup sitting on the table), which appears to me to involve not just a single configuration, but instead a perception of relationships between a lot of different configurations. The configuration level of perception refers only to perceptions that are low level and thus relatively simple, as I understand it.
Hope this helps.
Kent
On Jun 6, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.06.0919)]
P.S. A current version of the 11 levels diagram is attached in .jpg format.
P.P.S. Happy D-Day
Fred Nickols
From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
[Martin Taylor 2016.06.06.08.46]
I don’t know whether it is relevant to what you are trying to do, but the first time I met Bill I asked him whether he considered sub-levels to be a reasonable part of the hierarchy, since the levels are distinguished by the type of perception being controlled. His response was that there seems no reason why not. For example you can have configurations of configurations, relations of relations or sequences of sequences. You could have a configuration of “seated at breakfast table” or “coffee cup on table”, each as a component of a perception “seated at breakfast table on which is a coffee cup”.
Martin
On 2016/06/6 8:16 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
Bill:
I’ve given your suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.� My reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular arrangement of sensations� and I think seated at the table is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that I would consider to be important, and is really a matter of personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as Lloyd’s suggestion.
In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to ‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this example actually fits a little better with many of the other examples that also use the coffee.
I’m presuming that you will actually discuss the chosen examples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was just a little slower than I should have been to recognize that the category might have been “things to include to produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean at least the brewed result which already contains at least the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickols wrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance�SM
[From Rick Marken (2016.06.06.1015)]
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
FN: One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.
FN: I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.
RM: I think the specific examples are somewhat less important than what you plan to use the hierarchical control diagram for. What I think Bill developed the hierarchical model of control for was 1) to show that a control of input model could account for such complex (and apparently “generated”) behaviors as writing programs (control of program perceptions) and being a good citizen (control of system concept type perceptions) and 2) to provide a framework for research. II’m afraid, however, that what the proposed levels of control have become is a kind of Torah chapter with Talmudic scholars adding commentaries, which I find to be a rather unfortunate development (and I know that Bill felt that way too). So I suggest that when you present this diagram you make it clear that this hierarchical model is a hypothesis that has not been thoroughly tested, though there is quite a bit of evidence that the controlling done by humans is a hierarchical process.
RM: But for your audience, Fred, I think the hypothetical hierarchy can be most useful to show that, in principle, complex behaviors, like being a vegetarian, can be seen as a hierarchical control process. The highest level perceptions we control are system concept type perceptions, like “being a vegetarian”. These highest level perceptions are controlled by setting references for the appropriate lower level perceptions, such as principles (“it’s wrong to eat animals”), which are controlled by setting references for still lower level perception (programs, like a “recipe for meatless breakfast”) and so on down to relationship perceptions (such as “coffee with [rather than after or before] breakfast”), event perceptions (“pour coffee”), etc. In other words, make sure your diagram can be understood in terms of higher level control systems controlling their perceptions by means of setting the references for lower level perceptions.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.
Thank you Fred. I appreciate hearing your reasoning on this. Based
upon that reasoning, I also think that your example provides a
richer starting point for discussion than would have mine.
On 06/06/2016 06:16 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:
Bill:
I’ve givenyour suggestion some thought and I’ve decided to leave the
example at Level 3 as “Seated at breakfast table.” My
reasoning is that Level 3 is defined as “a particular
arrangement of sensations” and I think seated at the table
is more indicative of configuration than coffee cup sitting
on table. I might be wrong; if so, I’m sure someone will
happily correct my thinking.
Fred Nickols
From:
Bill Leach Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:12 PM
Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Hi Fred,
I have a suggestion that certainly is not anything that Iwould consider to be important, and is really a matter of
personal preference. Nor is it anywhere near as valuable as
Lloyd’s suggestion.In the example for Level 3 I propose that you change it to‘coffee cup sitting on table.’ My thinking is that this
example actually fits a little better with many of the other
examples that also use the coffee.I'm presuming that you will actually discuss the chosenexamples in the text. As an example, on first glance, the
example for Level 7 rather threw me. I’m sure that you had
absolutely no intention of putting any more than necessary
to illustrate your point. Again, it may well be that I was
just a little slower than I should have been to recognize
that the category might have been “things to include to
produce a cup of coffee.” Although even that sort of
bothers me because the term coffee is usually taken to mean
at least the brewed result which already contains at least
the water.
On 06/02/2016 09:32 AM, Fred Nickolswrote:
One of my upcoming columns will speakto PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels
diagram shared earlier with the list.
I’d like to ask those who are willingto do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if
anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a
viable example.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer& Consultant
“Assistanceat a Distance”*SM
mailto:wrleach@cableone.net
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
