From[Bill Williams 17 March 2004 1:45 PM CST]
[Bruce Nevin (04.17.04 12:12 EDT)]
Science requires collecting and analyzing data.
Who is collecting and analyzing the data from this remarkable
long-term demonstration of positive feedback (runaway) processes
in social interactions?
Ironic that what is popularly termed "negative feedback" almost
always results in a positive feedback loop of interactions.
Bill Williams, if I understand correctly (and I hope I'm not
blowing your cover) you decided to adopt the way in which you
perceived yourself being treated here >by others as the
established social norm for you to follow in this forum. Is
it time to move from this demonstration to the reduction ad
absurd am argument that it >so patently supports? Or are you
having too much fun?
Bruce, I don't think there is much chance that you are blowing
my cover. And, I know you wouldn't risk blowing my cover if
there was any chance that you were going to ruin my fun. So,
I think we can go ahead and discuss the _real_ issues involved
in the open without any danger of being found out. All that I
am doing is applying control theory-- now this unfortunately has
become something of a lost art. But, old fashioned as it is it
can be quite effective in its own way.
It started when I noticed that Bill Powers was saying things
about me, which were not true and that I didn't like-- such as
you and all the credential zed experts are only engaged in
creating a smoke screen for an economic system that is exploiting
everyone else. this is, simplify, an absolute crock of shit.
And, it hurt the first time Bill Powers said it. So, I thought
about it. Bill Powers was attacking me in a way that I came to
understand had nothing at all to do with the reality or who I
am, or what I have managed to accomplish in studying economics.
Bill Powers had simply created a separate reality for himself,
and in that reality Williams is an immoral, disgusting servant
to a predator corporate power elite. (Why the Marxists here at
UMKC haven't found me out puzzles me.)
So, I gave the problem some thought. Currently, as far as I am
aware, I am the only credentialized expert with a Ph.D. employed
in a graduate degree granting program worldwide that recognizes
the potential that control theory has the potential of providing
the basis for constructing an alternative to orthodox economics.
Not just an alternative, but an analytical heterodox theoretical
alternative. Conceptually the emergence of such a theoretical
alternative will create a drastic change in the conception
of the economy-- a change that is comparable to the ones introduced
by Bentham or Marx. There is, however, a small problem-- the
conceptual change is sufficiently drastic that it is likely to
rejected as too bizarre to be taken seriously. Anyone who is at
all acquainted with Bill Powers' experience should recognize
the nature of the problem that is involved. A part of the problem
involves a defect in the European conception of time and causation.
And, it is this defect which has been behind my suggesting from
time to time that he really ought to expand upon the all too
brief comments that he made concerning these questions in the
appendix to _B:CP_. Bill Powers for what reasons doesn't seem
to be inclined to exert himself in this direction so I am
preparing to do it myself-- I'm now reading Kant's first critique
on pure reason, and looking a Euler, and Descartes' attempt at
a theory of physics. For the last three weeks here we've been
conducting a seminar that has been devoted, in part, to these
issues. Sturgeon seems to understand a good bit of why the issue
is important, and he's provided some support at some crucial
points where other people tried to shout me down. But, he is
mostly occupied with running the Econonics department and three
or four research groups. But, some of the people who don't
quite get it are reading stuff, like Dewey's 1938 chapter 22 in
his _Logic_ on "Sequence and Causation." And, Dewey's 1896
paper, "The Reflex Arc." So, at least they are thinking about
the issues involved, and I find it interesting to talk to them
as they struggle with the issues. And, I've picked up an
intellectual ally in a Chinese mathematician who seems to
understand the issues very well-- he prefers working with the
information theoretic side of the question. But, he has great
difficulty explaining what he is doing to anyone else, except
for me. And, I have been doing some collaborative work with
a guy who is considered the leading heterodox economist in
Great Britain, he has a book out-- it was supposed to be
1 April, but production and shipping seems to have slipped.
What I anticipate Hodgson to say in his new book is that the
those who regarded themselves as the intellectual heirs of
Thorstein Veblen made a very serious error when they attempted
to make use of behaviourism as a psychological model to replace
orthodoxy's principle of maximization.
So, I am beginning to create an intellectual network that
whether or not, everyone agrees with me, they are doing work
that will, I hope provide, a supportive intellectual climate
in which a demonstration of the use of control theory as an
alternative to orthodoxy's maximization based analysis will
be perceived as creditable.
Now, when I contrast this context which I am a work constructing
in econonmics with the situation on the CSGnet, the contrast is
certainly not in favour of CSGnet, or Bill Powers. ( Rick is really
a minor player in this scheme. Fun to play with, but still a
minor player. Just check out the contributions which his allies
make to the science of PCT. ) The basic problem is that Bill
Powers knows so little about the economy and econmics and so much
of what he does "know" is the result of a paranoid world view that
he hasn't despite considerable effort on his part been able to
under stand the Keynesian system. ( In contrast to Bill Powers'
genuine effort to understand, I don't see that Rick has done
much beyond a data mining with the end in view of supporting a
crankish pre-Keynesian conception of the econmy. ) I suppose
that it is obvious that there is a lot of effort here that
seems like it serves no purpose what-so-ever.
I, however, don't see it this way. I've gained quite a lot as
a result of the squabbles on the CSGnet. Take for instance a
seminar this last Friday. One of the participants tried to
extract from us an agreement that we all shared a common basic
reality. I said that I didn't agree that "We shared" any such
thing. The guy went on to argue "But you have to recognized... "
To which I said, "For starters, I don't have to do what you
say." He threatened that if we didn't agree with him, there
wasn't anything to discuss, and he said if that was the case
he was going to walk out. And, I said, "The door is over there."
I really have learned a lot about how to engage in an eristic
dispute. Going into these sorts of encounters with an attitude
that is spring loaded in the pissed off position is something
that is of an enormous advantage.
Now, Bruce is entirely right in his speculation, in regard to
how I came to adopt the policy that I have. However, in the
process, I gave the issues involved some thought. And, thinking,
at least as I go about it, is something more than a simplistic
instrumentalism where the exercise starts with an unexamined,
uncriticized goal and works forward and backward looking for a
path by which to reach this unexamined, uncriticized, unreflective
goal. In a hostile environment this sort of simplistic approach
isn't going to be of much if any use.
Now, Rick has charged that I am lacking in any scruples. Whether
this is true or not, I think it should be evident that I may have
done some planning. And, while in respect to some details, not
everything planned worked out, at least judging from what people
say, what I planned, has come about. Now obviously this is an
achievement which I couldn't bring about by myself. I needed
the cooperation of Bill Powers, Rick Marken, Bryan, the two
Davids, and many others. After all it has been a community
project that has tested doctrines abut control theory. As,
Bruce Nevin says, the record of this on the CSGnet is a
fascinating document.
Now Bruce asks if I have had enough fun with this? He says,
Is it time to move from this demonstration to the reductio ad
absurdam argument that it so patently supports?
I guess the question is, or at least might be, to whom has the
moral of the demonstration become "so patently" obvious.
I thought a while back that Bill Powers had genuinely caught on.
But, then he went back to his paranoid accusations that the
economics profession is, everylast one of them, a servant of a
predatory ruling corporate elite. And, Rick was happy to
re-start beavering a way at his data mining in support of
Bill Powers' dad's crack-pot scheme. As far as I am concerned
this is one more chapter in the "Running Naked in the Forest"
fable. And, Bill is back to being disguised with me for
maintaining that he is a lunatic. (Just my opinion, and also
Sturgeon's (as best I can judge), and a bunch of sometimes
on-lookers here.)
So, anyway you ask, am I ready to give this up? You say,
Or are you having too much fun?
Actually, I would like to win a war in a larger world than the
micro-cosmism of the CSGnet. There really is a fight going on
over whether the heterodox traditions in economics are going to
survive. It really is an iffy business. I'm not sure precisely
what search words to use, but "Notre Dame economics department,"
ought to get you discussions about the heterodox program that
was lets say castrated--their Ph.D granting portion of the
program was destroyed. These people were never really friends
of mine but they were still useful folks to have around, and
they were turning out new Ph.D's who attempted to think about
the economy in reflective critical ways. The program at Cambridge
University UK was once a center of critical economic thought.
that program was destroyed. This really isn't a time to be doing
stuff out of Jack Horner complex-you remember the boy who stuck
his thumb into a pie and pulled out a plum? It really does
appear to me to be floridly obscene when people are more
concerned with whether they are going to dictate what happens,
than that some crucial stuff gets done. But, if some old guy
insists upon engaging in a Ghost Dance with his dad, what can
I do? If narcissism and other sorts of foolishness is the rule
I can have fun at doing my skit characterature of an Oxbridge
intellectual fop.
I healthy control theory group could I believe make a genuine
contribution to the creation of an alternative to orthodox
economic theory. I say "could." But, Bill Powers is too pig
headed to think beyond his own paranoid misconception of the
world and his exclusive role as its saviour. So, for the time
being, your question,
Or are you having too much fun?
It isn't up to me, not entirely.
Bill Williams
···
________________________________
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bruce Nevin
Sent: Sat 4/17/2004 11:12 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Alien Eating Habits in Jeopardy Enough
[Bruce Nevin (04.17.04 12:12 EDT)]
Science requires collecting and analyzing data.
Who is collecting and analyzing the data from this remarkable long-term demonstration of positive feedback (runaway) processes in social interactions?
Ironic that what is popularly termed "negative feedback" almost always results in a positive feedback loop of interactions.
Bill Williams, if I understand correctly (and I hope I'm not blowing your cover) you decided to adopt the way in which you perceived yourself being treated here by others as the established social norm for you to follow in this forum. Is it time to move from this demonstration to the reductio ad absurdam argument that it so patently supports? Or are you having too much fun?
An analysis of relations among control systems not just in terms of conflict (contesting the state of the same variable) but in terms of feedback loops between them might bring a new level of maturity to PCT, and might take CSGnet up a level. (It's hard to stay embroiled in what you're talking about.)
Rick, maybe you could work this up in a spreadsheet simulation.
Positive feedback within a single control system ends control and can be prevented by changing the sign of a variable (e.g. subtracting rather than adding in the comparator). Positive feedback in interactions of two control systems does not end control by either of them, though it does dominate and redirect or disrupt their interaction, and remediating or averting it is a bit more complicated (e.g. if you are going to change the sign of a variable, in which system do you make the change?).
There's lots of data here, all nicely recorded in the CSGnet archive. But who's minding the store?
/Bruce Nevin