An Astonishing Claim

From[Bill Williams 22 May 2004 3:40 AM CST]

In a recent post I said that Bill Powers can say things are obviously

not true such as when he said, that "Williams has never made a

substantive contribution to CSG." Powers denied having said such a

thing. So, I went looking in the CSG archive. And, I found that

Bill Powers had said that I hadn't made a single contribution to

CSG-- prior to this single contribution of a table of data. Prior to

that table-- nothing.

When Bill Powers gets excited he says stuff that is so obviously

absurd that it is laughable. And, then he can't admit to having

said stuff that obviously isn't true so he digs himself into a

deeper hole. If Powers' emotions are engaged in the issue you can

not trust what he says-- like the stuff he says about me.

[From Bill Powers (2004.05.20.1412 MST)]

  I said in an earlier post,

>Nor is there any justification for Bill Powers to claim that I have never

>made any contribution to efforts to apply control theory to problems

>involving human behavior or at least economic behavior.

I would be astonished to discover that I had ever said any such thing.

Then be "astonished." See the following:

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.26.0705 MST)]

Bill Williams 24 January 2OO4 4:10 PM CST --

Bill Powers says,

>Unfortunately I can't answer your question

I don't believe you. I could be wrong but I think you

could answer the question. The question is whether

I have ever made a single substantive contribution to

CSG.

The answer to that question (which is not the one you asked above) is yes,

a single one. You contributed the above table of data.

So, Bill Powers is saying that prior to this table of data in January of

this year, I had never made "a single substansitive contribution to CSG."

I don't think my favorite guy, the "reasonable man" would find Bill Powers'

claim remotely plausible. And, even Bill Powers says he finds his own
claim,

"astonishing." When Bill Powers gets his emotions charged up he can say
things

that I have difficulty believing that he believes himself. And, then after

having said stuff, that obviously isn't true, he claims that he didn't say

them.

Bill Williams

[From Bill Powers (2004.05.22.0938 MST)]

Bill Williams 22 May 2004 3:40 AM CST --

In a recent post I said that Bill Powers can say things are obviously
not true such as when he said, that "Williams has never made a
substantive contribution to CSG." Powers denied having said such a
thing. So, I went looking in the CSG archive. And, I found that
Bill Powers had said that I hadn't made a single contribution to
CSG-- prior to this single contribution of a table of data.

No, Bill, when you first brought this up, you said control theory, not CSG
(net). As you will see below, you have misread the words again. I said, in
that archived post you quote, that you had not made a single substantive
contribution to CSGnet (not control theory) prior to your offering of a
table of data. And that is true; all your offerings had been of the nature
of diatribes against personalities, or references to other people's
writings that give no hint as to what they are about, or sneers at people's
lack of knowledge of economics, or refusals to offer "tutorials" or any
other sort of substantive discussion, or lectures on abstract topics. You
have, of course, successfully applied PCT (not CSG) to some economic
problems, the most successful being your analysis of the Giffen Effect. But
as to your interactions on CSGnet, they have been almost entirely
destructive. There have been moments of light, but most often you waste
your time by reading deep dark evil intentions into what you read, or
imagine that you have read.

Here is the quote from the archive again. See if you find anything in it
where I said you have never contributed anything to PCT or the uses of
control theory:

Bill W.
> The question is whether
>I have ever made a single substantive contribution to
>CSG.

Me:
> The answer to that question (which is not the one you asked above) is yes,
> a single one. You contributed the above table of data.
> Prior to that table-- nothing.

You, currently:

When Bill Powers gets excited he says stuff that is so obviously
absurd that it is laughable. And, then he can't admit to having
said stuff that obviously isn't true so he digs himself into a
deeper hole. If Powers' emotions are engaged in the issue you can
not trust what he says-- like the stuff he says about me.

Now consider this, the recent trigger for your remarks above:

Bill W. said:

> >Nor is there any justification for Bill Powers to claim that I have never
> >made any contribution to efforts to apply control theory to problems
> >involving human behavior or at least economic behavior.

And I replied:

> I would be astonished to discover that I had ever said any such thing.

Clearly, I never said that you "have never made any contribution to efforts
to apply control theory to problems involving human behavior or at least
economic behavior." You made up that quotation out of thin air. This is a
perfect example of what I called "insult inflation". In this case it has an
obvious purpose: to divert attention from a truthful statement that is not
flattering to you by converting it into something that was never said, and
which, if said, would call for objection from any reasonable person who
knows your work.

  I was complaining, in the archived passage above, that you had
contributed essentially nothing of substance to CSGnet. I did not amplify,
but I could have said it was because of your preoccupation with imagined
slights and insults, and your reluctance to offer any of your knowledge in
a normal intellectual interaction -- in your words, to act as an "unpaid
consultant.") You had spoken frequently ex cathedra, sharing your
conclusions and beliefs, but never explaining how you got to them. This is
not substantive conversation, it's bragging, preaching, and bullying. That
is why I said what I said, and I doubt that you could find anyone on CSGnet
to contradict it.

Your problem, I am beginning to realize, is that you simply can't read
without your imagination twisting the words on the way in so you see
something utterly different from what other people see. I don't know why
you do that, and it's not my place to guess. But it's the source of a great
deal of unnecessary friction. If you would just read my words carefully and
make sure you are aware of what I actually said and quite likely meant, I
think you would react differently. You are putting words in my mouth that I
never said, and the words you choose to put there seem to be selected for
maximum negative effect. Again, I don't claim to know why you do that, but
that you do it there is no doubt. Ask anyone.

If we don't abandon this futile back-and-forth arguing we may as well give
up any joint attempt to further a theory of economics. The arguments are
repetitive, childish, and dull, and have already driven people away. If you
could simply burn that list of gripes and forget about them, we might be
able to stay on the subject of interest. But if you simply have to keep
coming up with these cheap shots at people, anything of value here is going
to be lost. Maybe it's already been lost.

Bill P.

[Martin Taylor 2004.05.22.1302]

[From Bill Powers (2004.05.22.0938 MST)] to

Bill Williams 22 May 2004 3:40 AM CST --
.... you simply can't read
without your imagination twisting the words on the way in so you see
something utterly different from what other people see.

That, I think, is normal for every reader. I'm amazed at myself for
how often I read something and start a strong critique of it, only to
check back and find that it actually said something quite different.

Possibly the difference among posters is the care with which they
recheck their sources before letting their thoughts become public.
Probably none of us is as careful as we should be. And probably most
bystanders would read a lot of messages in a dialogue in ways
different both from the way the message was intended and the way the
"target" interpreted it. We all carry our own baggage, in which to
put the manna of words which droppeth from the mailing list.

Here endeth the lesson:-)

Bye for now--ducking sharply.

Martin

From[Bill Williams 22 May 2004 12:30 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2004.05.22.1302]

Martin is applying his usual irenic policy. Which I think has some value,
some of the time.

However, if he thinks that he needs to be wary of brickbats or other
objects flying at him from my direction.

Bye for now--ducking sharply.

Then he is mistaken.

But, then Martin has sometimes admitted to being mistaken, so I am sure it
won't bother him for me to tell him that once again he has made a mistake--
that is his anticipation that he needs to duck on my account.

Bill Williams

From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.22.1418)

[Martin Taylor 2004.05.22.1302]

BRAVO MT. Truer words of wisdom have rarely been seen on CSGnet like
this. This one is a keeper.

But it's not 'baggage' MT. IMO,It's how we see and interpret the world,
and we do so as control systems that look to minimize internal error
(figuratively speaking) Making up stories so we can 'justify' our
'feelings' is one way we have to stay internally consistent. And most
importantly it works. Unfortunately, for the 5% of the cases where it
really matters how someone else interprets what we think or say
accurately, that is, from the speakers perspective, conflicts often
follow.

You should look at the work of Argyris and Schon. Their theories help
explain and provide solutions for the resolution of this type of
conflict & phenomena. The solutions are not easy to implement and
maintain, in part because going against a negative feedback loop can be
tough work :-). Control theory provides a very nice foundation for their
work and helps explain _their_ theories better than they can. :slight_smile:

Marc

>[From Bill Powers (2004.05.22.0938 MST)] to
>
>Bill Williams 22 May 2004 3:40 AM CST --
>.... you simply can't read
>without your imagination twisting the words on the way in so you see
>something utterly different from what other people see.

That, I think, is normal for every reader. I'm amazed at
myself for how often I read something and start a strong
critique of it, only to check back and find that it actually
said something quite different.

Possibly the difference among posters is the care with which
they recheck their sources before letting their thoughts
become public. Probably none of us is as careful as we should
be. And probably most bystanders would read a lot of messages
in a dialogue in ways different both from the way the message
was intended and the way the "target" interpreted it. We all
carry our own baggage, in which to put the manna of words
which droppeth from the mailing list.

Here endeth the lesson:-)

Bye for now--ducking sharply.

Martin

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the
difference.

Anon

I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get
elected

Anon

ยทยทยท

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:08 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: An Astonishing Claim