A Question, tennis anyone

[From Rick Marken (980705.1030)]

Bruce Nevin (980705.1003 EDT)

What the spreadsheet gets at is the relationships between the above
variables qi, p, etc. What gets left out is the observable behavior
of the weaker system as it struggles to control qi.

The observable behavior of the weaker system is called "Range
Limited output (o')" in Coercion4b.xls. You can see the weaker
system "struggling" (matching the Range Limited output (o) of
the stronger system) until the weaker system hits the Output
Maximum value. It's eqivalent to the situation where I am
arm wrestling a 5 year old; the 5 year old can match the forces
I can generate for a second of two (that's the observable
"struggling" perion but then he reaches Max Output; when that
happens, he continues to produce the maximum amount of force he
can while I put his arm down on the table.

Suppose qi is position of fist. This subsumes hand and finger
configuration forming a fist, many variables of arm and body
configuration, and many variables below configuration level.
Control of these other variables in the effort to control qi
in some way or other results in what we observe as the struggles
of the weaker system against the stronger one. All of these
aspects of the behavior of the weaker system are left out of
Rick's model.

All of these variables are modeled as a single output variable (o');
we could have had multiple outputs affecting qi but that would
be irrelevant to the point you are trying (incorrectly) to make
here. The "struggles" of the weaker system (as I noted above) _are_
clearly shown in the variations in the weaker system's Range Limited
output (o') when that output is within the range of possible
variation.

Ken Kitzke (980705) --

Coercion prevents my behavior to control my perceptions. It is an
exception to B:CP theory which requires freedom from coercion to
work for the coercee.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the fact of
coercion invalidates PCT? Or are you saying that the fact of
coercion requires a fnudamental change in PCT? Or are you saying
that there can't really be coercion because the existence of
coercion would be an exception to PCT?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bill Powers (980705.1811 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980705.1923 EDT) (to Rick) --

Anyway, you mean qo'. The variable o' is an analog of the neural signal(s)
to effectors. It is not observable as "struggle" because it is inside the
organism. You have defined qo' as identical to o' (or o' + qo when qo' is
the coerced variable) so in the spreadsheet the point is moot. Observing an
organism, there is qo' corresponding to o', and there are other also other
actions whose relation to o' is at the very least unclear.

...

I was thinking more of how he twists his other shoulder
toward you, raises his counterposing leg, grips the chair with his other
hand, grimaces, and other behavioral outputs that may have some small but
irrelevant effect on qo', are I assumed unrelated to neural signals o' sent
to the muscles of the engaged arm and shoulder, and may reflect something
at least superficially similar to reorganization, i.e. trying everything
possible to control the perception of hand position. It's these actions
that contribute to what I perceive as "struggling". Simply pouring as much
effort as possible into the muscles of the engaged arm and shoulder I
perceive as "effort". I don't mean to quibble about the "real meaning" of
these words, Rick, just to clarify to you what I meant by them. I could be
wrong, but that's what I meant. I assume these struggling actions are
related ultimately to e=r-p at the highest level where p is "hand in
forward position there on the table and on top of Rick's hand", as is any
reorganization going on. I made the values of e and k explicit by the way
in Coercion4c.xls, though in our present treatment there's nothing much to
learn from them.

This is a useless complaint: basically you're complaining that we can't
provide the kind of model we might be able to develop in 100 years, so
there's no point in dealing with the simpler models we can handle now. And
with what explanation are you comparing the one we can now provide? Is
there any that works better or gives a more complete reason for the child's
"struggles?"

You're disappointed in what PCT can explain. I suggest that without it, you
would be even more disappointed.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (980705.1710)]

Bruce Nevin (980705.1923 EDT)]

The value of (o') goes to its maximum so fast it might as well be
instantaneously. Not much struggle observed there.

But that is irrelevant to whether or not these variables are
"left out" of the model. This is just a problem with the
spreadsheet implementation; if you could plot o' and qo' you
could see the victim's "struggles" just fine.

The point is that the actions of the weaker system (call then
"struggles" if you like) are, indeed, represented in the model.
You had said they were not:

Bruce Nevin (980705.1003 EDT)

What gets left out [of the model of coercion] is the observable
behavior of the weaker system as it struggles to control qi.

I was just pointing out that this is not the case; the behavior
(actions) of the weaker system as it "struggles" to control qi
are, indeed, represented in the model; as is the error in the
weaker system that results from the failure of these actions to
control qi.

For example, the "struggles" of the 5 year old arm wrestler -- the
tensing of the kid's muscles in order to prevent my arm from putting
his arm down -- are basically invisible. But (as the model shows)
these "struggles" are there, as neural signals, o', and the muscle
forces resulting from these signals, qo').

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Nevin (980705.1923 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980705.1030)--

The observable behavior of the weaker system is called "Range
Limited output (o')" in Coercion4b.xls. You can see the weaker
system "struggling" (matching the Range Limited output (o) of
the stronger system) until the weaker system hits the Output
Maximum value.

The value of (o') goes to its maximum so fast it might as well be
instantaneously. Not much struggle observed there. I don't see any way
around it unless we make the max rather large, as there's no way to put in
a time delay--unless maybe you run it on a real slow PC I guess.

Anyway, you mean qo'. The variable o' is an analog of the neural signal(s)
to effectors. It is not observable as "struggle" because it is inside the
organism. You have defined qo' as identical to o' (or o' + qo when qo' is
the coerced variable) so in the spreadsheet the point is moot. Observing an
organism, there is qo' corresponding to o', and there are other also other
actions whose relation to o' is at the very least unclear.

It's eqivalent to the situation where I am
arm wrestling a 5 year old; the 5 year old can match the forces
I can generate for a second of two (that's the observable
"struggling" perion but then he reaches Max Output; when that
happens, he continues to produce the maximum amount of force he
can while I put his arm down on the table.

Imagine that you, the adult, are holding your arm upright against the
child's effort. I was thinking more of how he twists his other shoulder
toward you, raises his counterposing leg, grips the chair with his other
hand, grimaces, and other behavioral outputs that may have some small but
irrelevant effect on qo', are I assumed unrelated to neural signals o' sent
to the muscles of the engaged arm and shoulder, and may reflect something
at least superficially similar to reorganization, i.e. trying everything
possible to control the perception of hand position. It's these actions
that contribute to what I perceive as "struggling". Simply pouring as much
effort as possible into the muscles of the engaged arm and shoulder I
perceive as "effort". I don't mean to quibble about the "real meaning" of
these words, Rick, just to clarify to you what I meant by them. I could be
wrong, but that's what I meant. I assume these struggling actions are
related ultimately to e=r-p at the highest level where p is "hand in
forward position there on the table and on top of Rick's hand", as is any
reorganization going on. I made the values of e and k explicit by the way
in Coercion4c.xls, though in our present treatment there's nothing much to
learn from them.

Suppose qi is position of fist. This subsumes hand and finger
configuration forming a fist, many variables of arm and body
configuration, and many variables below configuration level.
Control of these other variables in the effort to control qi
in some way or other results in what we observe as the struggles
of the weaker system against the stronger one. All of these
aspects of the behavior of the weaker system are left out of
Rick's model.

All of these variables are modeled as a single output variable (o');
we could have had multiple outputs affecting qi but that would
be irrelevant to the point you are trying (incorrectly) to make
here. The "struggles" of the weaker system (as I noted above) _are_
clearly shown in the variations in the weaker system's Range Limited
output (o') when that output is within the range of possible
variation.

If o' and qo' include all outputs, whether in the absence of the coercer's
qo they would be effective on qi or not, you have well emphasized another
point: the non-specificity of this kind of model. To make a generalization
about coercion it models the behavior if individuals in particular
instances of coercion poorly. That's not to say it's a bad model, just to
say what kind of model it is.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Nevin (980705.2024 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980705.1710)--

The value of (o') goes to its maximum so fast it might as well be
instantaneously. Not much struggle observed there.

But that is irrelevant to whether or not these variables are
"left out" of the model. This is just a problem with the
spreadsheet implementation

That is what I said.

There must be a reason why you are ignoring what I said about my perception
of what "struggling" is and what I intended by the word. I'm guessing it's
because in the model the coerced system can't try anything else, can't
reorganize. It can't even give up. So there's no way for it to either
struggle (in my sense) or give up its uniform, maxed-out effort. That's all
I'm saying. It doesn't model what a victim of coercion does. It only models
what a coercer does. Not that I think that a spreadsheet model should be
expected to. Just pointing out what more is needed to model coercion.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Rick Marken (980705.2005)]

Bruce Nevin (980705.2024 EDT)]

There must be a reason why you are ignoring what I said about my
perception of what "struggling" is and what I intended by the word.

The reason is given by Bill Powers (980705.1811 MDT)

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

i.kurtzer (980706.0045)
Rick Marken (980705.1710)

For example, the "struggles" of the 5 year old arm wrestler -- the
tensing of the kid's muscles in order to prevent my arm from putting
his arm down -- are basically invisible. But (as the model shows)
these "struggles" are there, as neural signals, o', and the muscle
forces resulting from these signals, qo').

I am glad we don't have to rely on EMGs anymore, we now know because of the
spreadsheet model.

i.

Best >>

[From Bill Powers (980705.1811 MDT)]

This is a useless complaint: basically you're complaining that we can't
provide the kind of model we might be able to develop in 100 years, so
there's no point in dealing with the simpler models we can handle now. And
with what explanation are you comparing the one we can now provide? Is
there any that works better or gives a more complete reason for the child's
"struggles?"

I agree with you for the most part. The models we can create now are
incomplete, but they do tell us something essential about coercion.

My complaint really is about the interpretations that were being made of
this avowedly incomplete model, as though it were in fact telling us
everything that was relevant about coercion. Instead of acknowledging that
we had an excellent model of some important aspects of coercion, the claim
was made that the model provided a definition of coercion. Strange
conclusions were then drawn as to what coercion "really" is.

If any of our goats somehow came into the house here I would compel it to
leave. In the heat of that coercion debate it would have been asserted that
I am at this moment, as I type this, coercing my goats in that regard. Just
as it was claimed that the mythical uncle Al was coercing over there in the
hockey rink, making sure that I would never perform a triple axel,
something that I will never do anyway in a place that I will never enter
anyway.

These absurd claims arose from misapplication of an incomplete model back
to the full situation that was modelled, attempting to redefine the
original in its image.

We should learn everything that we can from our models, but not more than
that. In other words, it is important to be clear what a given model cannot
tell us about the situation being modelled, and not to make claims that it
does not warrant.

  Bruce Nevin