A Question

[From Fred Nickols (980410.1630 EDT)] --

In the midst of responding to Jeff Vancouver under the subject line of
elicited and emitted behavior, Bill P wrote:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Loosely translated into layman's language, that reads as follows:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Here's a question for anyone on the list:

        Does that mean that researchers (of all stripes) find
        what they're looking for because they carry out their
        research in ways designed to yield the results they
        seek?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

[from Jeff Vancouver 980413.1715 EST]

[From Fred Nickols (980410.1630 EDT)] --

In the midst of responding to Jeff Vancouver under the subject line of
elicited and emitted behavior, Bill P wrote:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Loosely translated into layman's language, that reads as follows:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Here's a question for anyone on the list:

       Does that mean that researchers (of all stripes) find
       what they're looking for because they carry out their
       research in ways designed to yield the results they
       seek?

No. But I could see why you might think that. And it might be true for
some. But researchers seek the truth (you could more cynically claim that
they seek publications, but same effect). If they do not, others (e.g.,
reviewers) will shoot down their work (here BN, is another example of
gatekeeping). If this does not get the researcher to design research low
in terms of alternative explanations, it does not matter. Other
researchers will stop paying attention to the research.

Hence, science is a social organization. Hence, good gatekeeping functions
are critical and scientists must continually question them.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Bill Powers (980414.0527 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980413.1715 EST--

[From Fred Nickols (980410.1630 EDT)] --

In the midst of responding to Jeff Vancouver under the subject line of
elicited and emitted behavior, Bill P wrote:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Loosely translated into layman's language, that reads as follows:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Here's a question for anyone on the list:

       Does that mean that researchers (of all stripes) find
       what they're looking for because they carry out their
       research in ways designed to yield the results they
       seek?

There is a great deal of confusion in the above exchange, primarily due to
careless use of language.

Fred's interpretation of my words is very misleading. "See what we want to
see" sounds as if we're just deluding ourselves -- the critical fact, that
we normally do this by acting on the world rather than by changing our
perceptual functions, is not made clear. If I'm looking at a Cadillac, but
I want to see a Volkswagen, I must turn my head (or travel as necessary)
and look where there is a Volkswagen, or sell the Cadillac and use the
money to buy a Volkswagen. If I continue looking at the Cadillac and decide
it is a Volkswagen, I will be deluding myself.

No. But I could see why you might think that. And it might be true for
some. But researchers seek the truth (you could more cynically claim that
they seek publications, but same effect). If they do not, others (e.g.,
reviewers) will shoot down their work (here BN, is another example of
gatekeeping). If this does not get the researcher to design research low
in terms of alternative explanations, it does not matter. Other
researchers will stop paying attention to the research.

This response clearly shows that Fred's words were interpreted to mean
"change our way of perceiving the world" instead of "change the world so
our perception changes toward what we want to perceive -- _without_
changing the form of the perceptual input function." Anyone who is still
confused about the meaning of this has some homework to do.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. Yesterday I got the control system to balance the pendulum upside-down
starting about 20 degrees from the vertical. It's unstable (it oscillates
back and forth around the vertical position), but I see now how to do it.
The control system right now consists of one line of code. When it's all
done it will probable expand to around 10 lines, depending on how much the
details are expanded. The basic principle is the same as it is for a mass
on a spring: get the highest derivative under control first, then the next
highest, and finally the lowest -- in this case, position. The highest
derivative is controlled at the lowest hierarchical level.

WTP

[from Jeff Vancouver 980414.1200 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980414.0527 MDT)]

Bill:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Fred:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Bill:

There is a great deal of confusion in the above exchange, primarily due to
careless use of language.

Fred's interpretation of my words is very misleading. "See what we want to
see" sounds as if we're just deluding ourselves -- the critical fact, that
we normally do this by acting on the world rather than by changing our
perceptual functions, is not made clear.

There is indeed confusion. Although Fred's statement could be interpreted
as Bill did, I did not. Instead, I interpreted it as the idea that one
acts on the environment such that the environment changes to keep the
perception controlled. That is not delusion. In the example of the
researcher, I was thinking Fred meant that researchers design experiments
such that the results conform to the hypothesis. The results are an
environmental variable. Others would concur that the results support the
hypothesis. However, others would also note that the results were not all
that compelling because they support multiple hypotheses or do not relate
to anything of concern in the natural world.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Fred Nickols (980414.1500 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980414.0527 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980413.1715 EST--

[From Fred Nickols (980410.1630 EDT)] --

In the midst of responding to Jeff Vancouver under the subject line of
elicited and emitted behavior, Bill P wrote:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Loosely translated into layman's language, that reads as follows:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Here's a question for anyone on the list:

       Does that mean that researchers (of all stripes) find
       what they're looking for because they carry out their
       research in ways designed to yield the results they
       seek?

Bill:

There is a great deal of confusion in the above exchange, primarily due to
careless use of language.

Fred's interpretation of my words is very misleading. "See what we want to
see" sounds as if we're just deluding ourselves -- the critical fact, that
we normally do this by acting on the world rather than by changing our
perceptual functions, is not made clear. If I'm looking at a Cadillac, but
I want to see a Volkswagen, I must turn my head (or travel as necessary)
and look where there is a Volkswagen, or sell the Cadillac and use the
money to buy a Volkswagen. If I continue looking at the Cadillac and decide
it is a Volkswagen, I will be deluding myself.

Fred:
Actually, Bill, you point to something I didn't have in mind. I had partly
in mind the traditional (even if cynical) view of a researcher doctoring
data to yield the results wanted. But, more important, I was asking if some
research might wind up being distorted by researchers who were unaware of
their distortions. It seems safe to say that we are not consciously aware of
all (any?) of our reference conditions. Thus, I was speculating that a
researcher might be in the awkward position of distorting research findings
without consciously intended to, indeed, on a conscious level, said
researcher might intend adhering to the highest standards.

Jeff V.

No. But I could see why you might think that. And it might be true for
some. But researchers seek the truth (you could more cynically claim that
they seek publications, but same effect). If they do not, others (e.g.,
reviewers) will shoot down their work (here BN, is another example of
gatekeeping). If this does not get the researcher to design research low
in terms of alternative explanations, it does not matter. Other
researchers will stop paying attention to the research.

Bill P.

This response clearly shows that Fred's words were interpreted to mean
"change our way of perceiving the world" instead of "change the world so
our perception changes toward what we want to perceive -- _without_
changing the form of the perceptual input function." Anyone who is still
confused about the meaning of this has some homework to do.

I'll leave that you and Jeff. I do not know what Jeff interpreted my words
to mean, although I think he perceived clearly the core issue of distorting
research results, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

[From Bill Powers (980415.0903 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980414.1200 EST--

There is indeed confusion. Although Fred's statement could be interpreted
as Bill did, I did not. Instead, I interpreted it as the idea that one
acts on the environment such that the environment changes to keep the
perception controlled. That is not delusion. In the example of the
researcher, I was thinking Fred meant that researchers design experiments
such that the results conform to the hypothesis. The results are an
environmental variable. Others would concur that the results support the
hypothesis. However, others would also note that the results were not all
that compelling because they support multiple hypotheses or do not relate
to anything of concern in the natural world.

So, are you saying that all research is futile, and all researchers are
dishonest?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (980415.1107 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (980414.1500 EDT)--

Actually, Bill, you point to something I didn't have in mind. I had partly
in mind the traditional (even if cynical) view of a researcher doctoring
data to yield the results wanted. But, more important, I was asking if some
research might wind up being distorted by researchers who were unaware of
their distortions. It seems safe to say that we are not consciously aware of
all (any?) of our reference conditions. Thus, I was speculating that a
researcher might be in the awkward position of distorting research findings
without consciously intended to, indeed, on a conscious level, said
researcher might intend adhering to the highest standards.

Sure, all that's possible. Is it a reason not to do research, or are you
just airing general suspicions?

Best,

Bill P.

[from Jeff Vancouver 980415.1455 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980415.0903 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980414.1200 EST--

There is indeed confusion. Although Fred's statement could be interpreted
as Bill did, I did not. Instead, I interpreted it as the idea that one
acts on the environment such that the environment changes to keep the
perception controlled. That is not delusion. In the example of the
researcher, I was thinking Fred meant that researchers design experiments
such that the results conform to the hypothesis. The results are an
environmental variable. Others would concur that the results support the
hypothesis. However, others would also note that the results were not all
that compelling because they support multiple hypotheses or do not relate
to anything of concern in the natural world.

So, are you saying that all research is futile, and all researchers are
dishonest?

I am reporting above how I interpreted Fred's question. As I told Fred, I
think that mostly the answer it no. That the goal is publication (the
cynical answer) or finding truth (the optimistic answer). In either case
(and mostly in between), the goal will be to use quality methods for
comparing a hypothesis against other hypotheses. Ambiguous findings would
result in perceptions discrepant from the goal, not results that disconfirm
a hypothesis. Of course, reducing the process and results of science to a
single control unit does expose one to vulnerabilities
(oversimplifications), so there is no need to dwell on this unless you
wanted to get into a long debate on epistemology (which I do not).

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Fred Nickols (980415.1555 EDT)] --

Jeff Vancouver 980414.1200 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980414.0527 MDT)]

Bill:

The reference signal _determines_ p, because knowing r is sufficient
to allow us to predict p (d has essentially no effect on p).

Fred:

"We see what we want to see because our behavior controls our perceptions
so as to keep them aligned with what we want to see."

Bill:

There is a great deal of confusion in the above exchange, primarily due to
careless use of language.

Fred's interpretation of my words is very misleading. "See what we want to
see" sounds as if we're just deluding ourselves -- the critical fact, that
we normally do this by acting on the world rather than by changing our
perceptual functions, is not made clear.

Jeff:

There is indeed confusion. Although Fred's statement could be interpreted
as Bill did, I did not. Instead, I interpreted it as the idea that one
acts on the environment such that the environment changes to keep the
perception controlled. That is not delusion. In the example of the
researcher, I was thinking Fred meant that researchers design experiments
such that the results conform to the hypothesis. The results are an
environmental variable. Others would concur that the results support the
hypothesis. However, others would also note that the results were not all
that compelling because they support multiple hypotheses or do not relate
to anything of concern in the natural world.

For my part, this thread is ended. Jeff Vancouver's comment, immediately
above, is a satisfactory indicator (to me) that he got my point -- and has
quite possibly restated it in a way better than the original.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

[From Fred Nickols (980416.1802)] --

Bill Powers (980415.0903 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980414.1200 EST--

There is indeed confusion. Although Fred's statement could be interpreted
as Bill did, I did not. Instead, I interpreted it as the idea that one
acts on the environment such that the environment changes to keep the
perception controlled. That is not delusion. In the example of the
researcher, I was thinking Fred meant that researchers design experiments
such that the results conform to the hypothesis. The results are an
environmental variable. Others would concur that the results support the
hypothesis. However, others would also note that the results were not all
that compelling because they support multiple hypotheses or do not relate
to anything of concern in the natural world.

Bill:

So, are you saying that all research is futile, and all researchers are
dishonest?

Having started this thread, I feel justified in jumping in.

I don't know how Jeff will answer Bill's question, but here's mine.

No. However, if you substitute "some" for "all" in your question, my
answer would be "Yes."

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

[From Fred Nickols (980416.1805)] --

Bill Powers (980415.1107 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (980414.1500 EDT)--

Actually, Bill, you point to something I didn't have in mind. I had partly
in mind the traditional (even if cynical) view of a researcher doctoring
data to yield the results wanted. But, more important, I was asking if some
research might wind up being distorted by researchers who were unaware of
their distortions. It seems safe to say that we are not consciously aware of
all (any?) of our reference conditions. Thus, I was speculating that a
researcher might be in the awkward position of distorting research findings
without consciously intended to, indeed, on a conscious level, said
researcher might intend adhering to the highest standards.

Bill:

Sure, all that's possible. Is it a reason not to do research, or are you
just airing general suspicions?

Actually, neither. I was suggesting that PCT offered a pretty darn good
explanation of why some researchers might inadvertently and unknowingly
distort their research designs so as to arrive at conclusions supporting
their hypotheses.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

From [Marc Abrams (980704.1113)]

Pardon my intrusion, but I have been away for the past week and came
back to find all hell had broken loose. I am trying to catch up and
have finished all the posts midway through July 2nd.

I have a few questions.

Bruce Nevin. Why do you talk of individuals as if those individuals
were and are controlling for _one_ variable _at a Time_? Aren't we
controlling for _many_ perceptions at _many_ levels, all in various
and _continuously_ changing states, all at the _same time_? Do you
believe you can model those complex interactions in a spreadsheet?

I like you, would _love_ to be able to _definitively_ answer all those
great juicy questions about human interaction, but, as BP has said
many times, a few details need to filled in first :slight_smile:

Isaac. I don't understand the rage and anger. You might disagree with
what Rick and Bill have postulated, but why have you and Tom Bourbon
taken the low road of personal attacks? What is the RTP agenda here?
Reasonable discourse does not seem to be the goal. Neither does better
understanding. I probably won't get an answer to this and since I
cannot come to the conference I cannot ask you these questions face to
face. For that I am sorry.

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (980704.1113)]

Isaac. I don't understand the rage and anger. You might disagree with
what Rick and Bill have postulated, but why have you and Tom Bourbon
taken the low road of personal attacks?

Maybe you should read those posts again. I have stuck to the issues proper.
In turn, I have recieved red herrings, arguments from authority, pure
assertions masked as facts, and a whole new slew of word-salad such as
"universal error curve" , "punishment" and--for god's sake--"brain-washing" .
I don't get angery when people talk about their position on god. I consider
that outside the realm of demonstratebility. But if someone says that two and
two is three, or tries to pan off a set of assertions as fact, then i freak.
As far as personal attacks, you're wrong. Instead, Tom's work has been
neglected and his complaint regarded with an "oh pish-posh, don't be silly"
manner as if comparisons of RTP and the mafia were accidental or a misreading.

What is the RTP agenda here?
Reasonable discourse does not seem to be the goal. Neither does better
understanding. I probably won't get an answer to this and since I
cannot come to the conference I cannot ask you these questions face to
face. For that I am sorry.

Oh, this takes it Abrams. "Agenda"? I suppose you imagine a den where we
covort. And since you don't think my posts have been reasonable or geared
towards understanding please tell me specifically in what respects they are
lacking.
  If you have reasons tell me..i will listen; if not, then don't get
sanctimonious because you can't see the problem.

i.

From [Marc Abrams (980704.1113)]

First, thanks for responding Isaac. I really do appreciate it.

Maybe you should read those posts again. I have stuck to the issues

proper.

Fair enough, I will. But my initial impression from Tom's initial
forwarded post which i assume (maybe I am mistaken) had your full
support and backing to your post of (980701.1430) which in part

Rick said:
...> spreadsheet model. It's true that I neglected to mention the

reference of the other social actor in my definition above.

your response:
I do not think the neglect was accidental.

Ok, why do you think he did it? Again, I very well might be mistaken
but the tone here seems to be angry or at least accusatory. Why?

Rick also said:

Would it help if I redefined coercion as follows: coercion occurs

when

a stronger system controls an aspect of the behavior of a weaker
system, _regardless of the reference setting of the weaker system_?
Now the reference of the victim is not neglected in the definition.

your response
Are you just trying to piss me off? You know that is not what i mean,
have
meant, or was meant by Bourbon et al.'s 12+ years of social
interaction

Am I mistaken again in "hearing" the anger. I think Rick was _really_
trying to reach out and talk about this. Your response was a _none_
answer to _his_ questions. You think this is "sticking" to the issues.
Sorry, I don't.

You say

... But if someone says that two and
two is three, or tries to pan off a set of assertions as fact, then i

freak.

Talk about being sactimonious :slight_smile:

As far as personal attacks, you're wrong. Instead, Tom's work has

been

neglected and his complaint regarded with an "oh pish-posh, don't be

silly"

manner as if comparisons of RTP and the mafia were accidental or a

misreading.

Glad you brought this up. Where is Mr. Boubon? To post a message like
that and disappear is childish. Why the hit and run? If he truly
wanted to find out what the current positions were and are he would
have asked many more questions and many less accusations and would
have stuck around to iron things out. I do not believe Mr. Bourbon
_wanted_ to iron anything out. I believe he had a very specific agenda
for making that post on CSG and RespThink at the same time and choose
to handle that publicily rather then privately. That is _my_ opinion.

Second, I have been trying for the past several months to get Tom's
work. Until your recent reference on the masters thesis available from
Greg Williams I have not known of any of his work that is _available_.
If he and, seemingly you, are so concerned with Tom's work ( as you
should be )how about making it _available_. Why isn't he on CSG to
talk about his work? I have repeatedly aked for and would _love_ to
hear what Tom has to say about just about anything on this net. I
understand he is busy and may not have the time or patience to get
involved in most of the stuff, but why has he seemingly turned his
back on the net?

I asked

What is the RTP agenda here?
Reasonable discourse does not seem to be the goal. Neither does

better

understanding. I probably won't get an answer to this and since I
cannot come to the conference I cannot ask you these questions face

to

face. For that I am sorry.

Your response:

Oh, this takes it Abrams. "Agenda"? I suppose you imagine a den

where >we covort.

Not really, but now that you mention it. :slight_smile: (see my statement and
questions above with regard to Tom)

You continue with:

And since you don't think my posts have been reasonable or geared
towards understanding please tell me specifically in what respects

they >are lacking.

In my view and experience when people are _interested_ in what others
have to say they usually make an effort to try to understand _what_
someone is saying and _why_ they might be saying it. You "seem" ( i
could be wrong ) to advocate a position _without_ inquiring. You just
"seem" to be a very angry puppy.

You finished with:

If you have reasons tell me..i will listen; if not, then don't get
sanctimonious because you can't see the problem.

I stated it above. Sorry if it came across as being sanctimonious. It
was not my attempt.

Marc

[From Bruce Nevin (980705.1003 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (980704.1113) --

Bruce Nevin. Why do you talk of individuals as if those individuals
were and are controlling for _one_ variable _at a Time_?

I don't. It appears that way because in conflict the focus devolves to
control of perceptions of one environmental variable. In our discussions
and in models that variable has been treated as one a single variable
quantity qi, corresponding to a single variable p, and so on.

Aren't we
controlling for _many_ perceptions at _many_ levels, all in various
and _continuously_ changing states, all at the _same time_?

Yes, of course.

Do you
believe you can model those complex interactions in a spreadsheet?

No, of course not. 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.
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.
But that is OK. The point of the model is to show what is essential in
coercion. Nevertheless those omitted aspects are again essential when we
start interpreting what the model tells us.

I like you, would _love_ to be able to _definitively_ answer all those
great juicy questions about human interaction, but, as BP has said
many times, a few details need to filled in first :slight_smile:

A range of complex situations can be modelled according to what is
essential to them all. This is where the observational generalizations of
social scientists can be useful to PCT, if they are valid, and if we use
them properly.

A vast amount of detail at lower levels of control can be similated in a
single variable. The variable qi above could be position of fist or it
could be the national affiliation of Northern Ireland. In either case, qi
subsumes many other variables not included in the model. We are not
prevented from creating and studying models of social interaction. We are
limited in the interpretations that we can legitimately make (we can apply
them to situations under generalization with far less certainty about
precise behaviors of individuals; any test against the behavior of
individuals is also a test of the generalizations about interactions with
which we started). Most importantly, we are limited by the number of people
who are actually creating and testing models. I think Rick has shown us how
we can proceed without waiting for all the details of lower levels to be
filled in first.

Many aspects of behavior are left out of this kind of model of social
interaction. But that is OK. The point of the model is to show what is
essential in the interaction. Nevertheless those omitted aspects are again
essential when we start interpreting what the model tells us.

  Bruce Nevin

i.kurtzer (980705.1200)

From [Marc Abrams (980705.1113)]

>>Maybe you should read those posts again. I have stuck to the issues
>>proper.

>Fair enough, I will. But my initial impression from Tom's initial
>forwarded post which i assume (maybe I am mistaken) had your full
>support and backing to your post of (980701.1430) which in part

I forwarded the post. And he has my sympathies. But RTP is his schtick and
I'll let him and Tim defend it.

Rick said:
...> spreadsheet model. It's true that I neglected to mention the
> reference of the other social actor in my definition above.

me:
I do not think the neglect was accidental.

Ok, why do you think he did it?

Deliberately, because he feels coersion is an interaction qualified as
coersive by only one member, the coercer.

Again, I very well might be mistaken
but the tone here seems to be angry or at least accusatory. Why?

Angry at several weeks of copmletely ignoring my argument, as well as wanting
it both ways, yes.

Rick also said:
> Would it help if I redefined coercion as follows: coercion occurs
when
> a stronger system controls an aspect of the behavior of a weaker
> system, _regardless of the reference setting of the weaker system_?
> Now the reference of the victim is not neglected in the definition.

me responding to Rick:
Are you just trying to piss me off? You know that is not what i mean,
have
meant, or was meant by Bourbon et al.'s 12+ years of social
interaction

Am I mistaken again in "hearing" the anger. I think Rick was _really_
trying to reach out and talk about this. Your response was a _none_
answer to _his_ questions. You think this is "sticking" to the issues.
Sorry, I don't.

In this instance I was angry at a JOKE of a defintion---inclusion for
exclusion, which is a more explicit exclusion. Read his above and see if that
includes the "coercee" in the sense I've been agruning [where his/her
reference STATE is partially determines the type of interaction] not a the
exact OPPOSITE where the interaction is coersive due to the "coercer"
"regardless of the reference setting of the weaker system" .

Me:
>As far as personal attacks, you're wrong. Instead, Tom's work has
been
>neglected and his complaint regarded with an "oh pish-posh, don't be
silly"
>manner as if comparisons of RTP and the mafia were accidental or a
misreading.

Abrams:

Glad you brought this up. Where is Mr. Boubon? To post a message like
that and disappear is childish. Why the hit and run?

I will let him conduct his own affairs, but will relay your observations.

Second, I have been trying for the past several months to get Tom's
work. Until your recent reference on the masters thesis available from
Greg Williams I have not known of any of his work that is _available_.
If he and, seemingly you, are so concerned with Tom's work ( as you
should be )how about making it _available_.

I made the source public. Write to Greg Williams. Also, ask for a PCT
bibilography. There is a fairly extensive listing of materia--some pro, some
con, some crap, some gems There are also some items I would purge as totally
irrelevant--such as articles strategically introduced by an author no
originally written from a decade and more back _as if_ that author had been
around or at least pursuing parrallel aims for quite a while. Check it out,
and you'll find a very clear agenda there. And, yes, this person has been on
the net. Enjoy the mystery!

>And since you don't think my posts have been reasonable or geared
>towards understanding please tell me specifically in what respects

they are lacking.

In my view and experience when people are _interested_ in what others
have to say they usually make an effort to try to understand _what_
someone is saying and _why_ they might be saying it. You "seem" ( i
could be wrong ) to advocate a position _without_ inquiring. You just
"seem" to be a very angry puppy.

No, that i not what I meant. If you have clear disagreemnets with my argument
then put them on the table. Secondly, I am not required to ask their ultimate
motives, nor they to defend them. They are required to put forth good reasons
if they expect rational agreement, and vice versa. Do you have a complaint
about the content of my argument?

i.

From [Marc Abrams (980704.1343)]

i.kurtzer (980705.1200)

I forwarded the post. And he has my sympathies. But RTP is his

schtick >and I'll let him and Tim defend it.

Fair enough, but Isaac, my point is and has been. Why and what do RTP
people believe is under attack and needs _defending_? Do you really
think that Bills responses to the coercion thread deserved the kind of
response he got from Tom. I don't.

Again, I very well might be mistaken
but the tone here seems to be angry or at least accusatory. Why?

Angry at several weeks of copmletely ignoring my argument, as well as

wanting

it both ways, yes.

Sorry I, I did not see it that way.

In this instance I was angry at a JOKE of a defintion---inclusion for
exclusion, which is a more explicit exclusion. Read his above and

see if that

includes the "coercee" in the sense I've been agruning [where his/her
reference STATE is partially determines the type of interaction] not

a the

exact OPPOSITE where the interaction is coersive due to the "coercer"
"regardless of the reference setting of the weaker system" .

Ok.

Me:
>As far as personal attacks, you're wrong. Instead, Tom's work has
been neglected and his complaint regarded with an "oh pish-posh,

don't >be silly"

>manner as if comparisons of RTP and the mafia were accidental or a
misreading.

Sorry I, I think this is a _gross_ overstatement. We both know that
Rick tends to take _extreme_ examples to make his points.

Abrams:

Glad you brought this up. Where is Mr. Boubon? To post a message

like

that and disappear is childish. Why the hit and run?

I will let him conduct his own affairs, but will relay your

observations.

If he is conducting his own affairs why does he need you to relay it
to him. Isaac, you are acting as a conduit for Tom. Why? Can words be
_so_ intolerable?. Sorry, I just don't get it.

I made the source public. Write to Greg Williams. Also, ask for a

PCT

bibilography. There is a fairly extensive listing of materia--some

pro, >some con, some crap, some gems There are also some items I
would >purge as totally irrelevant--such as articles strategically
introduced by an >author no originally written from a decade and more
back _as if_ that >author had been around or at least pursuing
parrallel aims for quite a >while. Check it out,

I will do that thanks.

and you'll find a very clear agenda there. And, yes, this person has

been >on the net. Enjoy the mystery!

I love mysteries :slight_smile:

No, that i not what I meant. If you have clear disagreemnets with my
argument then put them on the table.

Yes I do. I will stick by the Bill Powers/ Rick Marken definition of
coercion, but that was not my point. It was not the "facts" as
presented it was the "tone" that was disturbing. Maybe _I_ was being
a bit over sensitive.

Secondly, I am not required to ask their ultimate motives, nor they

to >defend them.

I agree. I think it just makes for better communication and
understanding. Just my feeling.

They are required to put forth good reasons if they expect rational
agreement, and vice versa. Do you have a complaint about the content
of my argument?

No, Just that I don't agree with it. But again my disagreement was
_not_ with your content.

Marc

[From Bruce Nevin (980705.1305 EDT)]

I said (980705.1003 EDT)

A range of complex situations can be modelled according to what is
essential to them all. This is where the observational generalizations of
social scientists can be useful to PCT, if they are valid, and if we use
them properly.

It should be obvious, but it's worth repeating: the generalizations can
give us an idea what to model, but they don't tell us how to model them.

That's the difference between abstraction and generalization. A
generalization, like the observation that people in crowds form arcs and
rings, has the effect of abstracting a regularity from all the other things
that the people involved are doing. An *abstraction* is a reification of
the regularity, as though rings and arcs were what the people were doing.

Such abstractions fit well with the idea of a "cognitive map." Chomskyan
linguistics is much involved with abstractions, cleverly named reifications
of linguistic generalizations which are then assumed to be the generative
causes or sources of what is observed. I expect that this happens in other
fields as well.

  Bruce Nevin

From [Marc Abrams (980705.2028)]

Thanks Bruce. I hope all is well with Tom. I hope he decides to come
back to CSG.

Marc

[From Bruce Nevin (980705.1930)]

Marc Abrams (980704.1343)--

If he is conducting his own affairs why does he need you to relay it
to him. Isaac, you are acting as a conduit for Tom. Why? Can words

be

_so_ intolerable?. Sorry, I just don't get it.

I think there's some logistical reason Tom is dependant on Isaac to

relay

messages to him. He told me a while back that he was in process of a
household move of 300 miles, and at the time he mentioned flaky

network

connections and software losing messages. I don't know the state of

all

that. He obviously had some strong feelings about how RTP was being
characterized and about the modelling of social interactions, and is
presumably sorting all that out too. I suggest we be patient with the

guy.

He has well proved his bona fides, I'm sure he'll be back to tell us

himself.

···

       Bruce Nevin

[From Bill Powers (980705.1833 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (980705.1200)

In this instance I was angry at a JOKE of a defintion---inclusion for
exclusion, which is a more explicit exclusion. Read his above and see if

that

includes the "coercee" in the sense I've been agruning [where his/her
reference STATE is partially determines the type of interaction] not a the
exact OPPOSITE where the interaction is coersive due to the "coercer"
"regardless of the reference setting of the weaker system" .

Let me try.

Suppose the coercer and coercee are both trying to control the position of
the coercee's hand. The coercee can exert + or - 10 Kg of force, and the
coercer can exert + or - 100 Kg of force. While the systems are connected
to each other, the coercee's reference level can vary from +30 cm to -30
cm, and the position of the hand may vary by 2 or 3 centimeters. But if the
coercer's reference level varies from -30 cm to +30 cm, the hand will move
by something like -27 to +27 centimeters. I'm making these numbers up but
an exact treatment wouldn't come out much different. The result is that the
coercee's reference level has hardly any effect on the hand position, while
the coercer's reference level has 10 times as much effect. So I believe it
is legitimate to say that the coercer controls the hand position without
regard to the coercee's reference signal. Of course we can make both
systems much more sensitive to error and equip them with integrating output
functions; in that case the coercee's reference setting will have
essentially zero effect on the position of the hand, and the coercer will
be the only determinant of hand position.

Now do you understand what Rick means by "regardless of the reference
setting of the weaker system"?

Is anyone else having difficult understand this?

Best,

Bill P.