[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