Are Cultures Control Systems?

[From Bruce Gregory 9980317.1325 EST)]

Well, to answer this question we ought to carry out the test. I
conjecture that the the state of Massachusetts is controlling
a perception that traffic does not travel at a speed greater
than 75 mph on major highways. (This perception is monitered
by a distributed set of "State Troopers.") To disturb this
perception I plan to drive home at 100 mph on the Mass Turnpike.
If I am correct, the State will take steps to counter the
disturbance I produce by inducing me to stop my car somewhere
between here and my home. I'll let you know if my prediction is
born out. If so, I will follow up to be sure that it is the
speed that is being controlled and not the color or make of the
car, or of any other variables that Rick wants to suggest...

Bruce

i.kurtzer (980316)

i'm not sure how tongue in cheek bruce g.'s query was/is.
however, the work by K. McClelland should be noted as bridging the gap between
"social constructs" and individual control systems.

see working paper
The Collective Control of Perceptions:Towards a Person-Centered Sociology
K.McClelland
Dept. of Sociology
Grinnell College
Grinnell, IA
50112

of course there could be some reworking, but it is nice.
see also any papers by W.T. Bourbon, for a typology of social interactions
without requiring supra-individual agents.

i.

[From Bill Powers (980317.1825 MST)]

Bruce Gregory 9980317.1325 EST)--

Well, to answer this question we ought to carry out the test. I
conjecture that the the state of Massachusetts is controlling
a perception that traffic does not travel at a speed greater
than 75 mph on major highways. (This perception is monitered
by a distributed set of "State Troopers.") To disturb this
perception I plan to drive home at 100 mph on the Mass Turnpike.
If I am correct, the State will take steps to counter the
disturbance I produce by inducing me to stop my car somewhere
between here and my home. I'll let you know if my prediction is
born out. If so, I will follow up to be sure that it is the
speed that is being controlled and not the color or make of the
car, or of any other variables that Rick wants to suggest...

Please let me know if the State does arrest you for speeding. I would
really like to see that -- a whole State roaring up behind you, siren
whooping and lights flashing. Not only would this be a spectacle worth
witnessing, but it would show that you are far more important than might
seem to be the case -- your violation of the law has caused the entire
legislature and judicial system, not to mention all the sheriffs and chiefs
of police, to pursue you down the highway, abandoning all their other
concerns.

I must be a much more humble citizen. I have never been stopped except by
one lonely cop, who sometimes refused to be swayed by my defense (if I
offered one), but sometimes decided that what I did wasn't bad enough to
merit a ticket. And I doubt whether the State ever knew that I had
committed an offense if the cop didn't report it.

In West Virginia some years back, a State trooper told me as we looked down
from a hill onto an interstate where a UFO had supposedly been seen, "We
give 'em 5, they take 10, and we nail 'em on 15."

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (80317.2100 EST)]

Bill Powers (980317.1825 MST)

I must be a much more humble citizen. I have never been stopped except by
one lonely cop, who sometimes refused to be swayed by my defense (if I
offered one), but sometimes decided that what I did wasn't bad enough to
merit a ticket. And I doubt whether the State ever knew that I had
committed an offense if the cop didn't report it.

Wonder how the cop developed his reference level for the speed you were
driving? Wonder if the same thing might have happened if a different cop
were there? Could we do a similar analysis of the behavior of white blood
cells in your body and decide that "you" are an abstraction when it comes to
fighting infection?

Bruce

i.kurtzer (980316.2100)

[From Bruce Gregory (80317.2100 EST)]
  Bill Powers (980317.1825 MST)

>I must be a much more humble citizen. I have never been stopped except by
>one lonely cop, who sometimes refused to be swayed by my defense (if I
>offered one), but sometimes decided that what I did wasn't bad enough to
>merit a ticket. And I doubt whether the State ever knew that I had
>committed an offense if the cop didn't report it.

>Wonder how the cop developed his reference level for the speed you were
>driving?

That is a separate question.

Wonder if the same thing might have happened if a different cop

>were there?

and what would be concluded either way?
That people do and do not adopt similar references? that's not much.

Could we do a similar analysis of the behavior of white blood
cells in your body and decide that "you" are an abstraction when it comes to

>fighting infection?

Do you miss Hans that much to be recreating his arguments in abstentia?

PCT is not necessarily pro-individual anti-supra-individual anymore than it
is pro-prokaryote. What PCT demands is
1) a control phenomena
2) identifiable physical mechanisms to map the functions to.

Both of these are empirically testable.
Clearly, there are collective activities that stabilize portions of the world.
When a city of bereft of citizens, the city crumbles. Cities, functioning
power lines, dikes that don't leak, and many other things are certainly a
function of concerted purposeful behavior. So we have 1. But we do not have
2. There are some activities that look like 2, but that is refication. I do
count PIFs that can decide to call in sick.

Kent, i'd love to he

···

[From Bill Powers (980318.0247 MST)]

i.kurtzer (980316.2100)

PCT is not necessarily pro-individual anti-supra-individual anymore than it
is pro-prokaryote. What PCT demands is
1) a control phenomena
2) identifiable physical mechanisms to map the functions to.

There is the whole argument. It's easy to think you have identified (1),
but without (2) it's an illusion. When you look for the identifiable
physical mechanisms, you always end up with an individual or a group of
individuals acting in concert. The State, the Culture, the Society is only
a concept; it has no goals, no perceptions, no error signals, no means of
acting, no capacity to reorganize or learn. All those essential properties
belong to individuals and individuals only.

Thank you, Isaac.

Best,
Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (980318.0254 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (80317.2100 EST)--

Wonder how the cop developed his reference level for the speed you were
driving?

From other cops in cop school; from reading materials in which laws

concerning speed limits were described, understanding what the words meant,
adopting the legal recommendations as personal reference levels, and
agreeing to be personally responsible for upholding the laws. If cops
didn't do those things, laws would have no effect.

Wonder if the same thing might have happened if a different cop
were there?

Cops have a great deal of discretion concerning what will and will not be
consider a violation, and whether a violation requires a warning, an
arrest, or no action (consider gambling laws and office football pools).
How they use this discretion is widely variable from one cop to another.

Could we do a similar analysis of the behavior of white blood
cells in your body and decide that "you" are an abstraction when it comes to
fighting infection?

No. "I" am a physical collection of neurons that accomplish functions which
no white blood cell can accomplishm including influencing how white blood
cells will be mobilized and how many of them there are. If you analyze the
role of white blood cells in the body while ignoring the functions of the
brain, you're making a mistake. The whole body is a hierarchy of controls
systems, with the brain setting reference signals for lower systems and
using the lower systems for its own purposes. Each level of control is
autonomous with respect to the control processes appropriate to its level,
but under control in the sense that it does not pick its own reference
signals.

Societies cannot set the reference signals in an individual brain. That is
done by the individual. Society proposes; the individual disposes.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980318.0725 EST)]

Bill Powers (980318.0247 MST)

i.kurtzer (980316.2100)

PCT is not necessarily pro-individual anti-supra-individual anymore than

it

is pro-prokaryote. What PCT demands is
1) a control phenomena
2) identifiable physical mechanisms to map the functions to.

There is the whole argument. It's easy to think you have identified (1),
but without (2) it's an illusion. When you look for the identifiable
physical mechanisms, you always end up with an individual or a group of
individuals acting in concert. The State, the Culture, the Society is only
a concept; it has no goals, no perceptions, no error signals, no means of
acting, no capacity to reorganize or learn. All those essential properties
belong to individuals and individuals only.

Thank you, Isaac.

You guys are really full of it. The only _true_ reality is atoms (or as we
now say leptons and quarks) and the void. Everything else is a concept.
(Come to think of it, so are atoms and the void...)

Bruce

[from Jeff Vancouver 980318.0846 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980317.1825 MST)] to Bruce Gregory 9980317.1325 EST)--

In West Virginia some years back, a State trooper told me as we looked down
from a hill onto an interstate where a UFO had supposedly been seen, "We
give 'em 5, they take 10, and we nail 'em on 15."

The operative word in your quote is "we." Does is make more sense to
analysis this potential control system as located in the trooper or the
"state"? Answer: both.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[from Jeff Vancouver 980318.0853 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980318.0247 MST)]

i.kurtzer (980316.2100)

PCT is not necessarily pro-individual anti-supra-individual anymore than it
is pro-prokaryote. What PCT demands is
1) a control phenomena
2) identifiable physical mechanisms to map the functions to.

There is the whole argument. It's easy to think you have identified (1),
but without (2) it's an illusion. When you look for the identifiable
physical mechanisms, you always end up with an individual or a group of
individuals acting in concert. The State, the Culture, the Society is only
a concept; it has no goals, no perceptions, no error signals, no means of
acting, no capacity to reorganize or learn. All those essential properties
belong to individuals and individuals only.

The neuroscientist: The essential properties belong to the neurons.
The chemistist: The essential properties belong to the elements.
The physicist: The only _true_ reality is atoms (or as we now say leptons
and quarks) and the void. Everything else is a concept. [From Bruce Gregory
(980318.0725 EST)]

Reductionism reigns.

[From Bill Powers (980318.0254 MST)]

No. "I" am a physical collection of neurons that accomplish functions which
no white blood cell can accomplishm including influencing how white blood
cells will be mobilized and how many of them there are. If you analyze the
role of white blood cells in the body while ignoring the functions of the
brain, you're making a mistake. The whole body is a hierarchy of controls
systems, with the brain setting reference signals for lower systems and
using the lower systems for its own purposes. Each level of control is
autonomous with respect to the control processes appropriate to its level,
but under control in the sense that it does not pick its own reference
signals.

If you analyze the role of the individual in society without considering
the society you are making a mistake.

Societies cannot set the reference signals in an individual brain. That is
done by the individual. Society proposes; the individual disposes.

How does the "individual" do this? Is it not a function of the neural,
chemical, and physic structure of the brain? Why is it everyone thinks
theirs is the most important level of analysis?

Jeff

P.S. Bruce G., welcome to the other side.
P.P.S. Bill P. apparently does not endorse his theory enough to call it
fact (a laudable position), but he endorses it enough to trash the ideas of
others. I guess consistency _is_ the hobgoblin of small minds.

Sincerely,

Jeff

i.kurtzer (980316.2100)

Do you miss Hans that much to be recreating his arguments in abstentia?

Interesting question. I wonder if Hans would agree that I am
recreating his arguments?

PCT is not necessarily pro-individual anti-supra-individual anymore than it
is pro-prokaryote. What PCT demands is
1) a control phenomena
2) identifiable physical mechanisms to map the functions to.

Both of these are empirically testable.
Clearly, there are collective activities that stabilize portions of the world.
When a city of bereft of citizens, the city crumbles. Cities, functioning
power lines, dikes that don't leak, and many other things are certainly a
function of concerted purposeful behavior. So we have 1. But we do not have
2. There are some activities that look like 2, but that is refication. I do
count PIFs that can decide to call in sick.

Ah, reification. One of my favorite words. I lost some of my
enthusiasm for "identifiable physical mechanisms" as a result of
thinking too much about quantum physics. I'll have to keep in
mind that PCT is a classical theory. By the way I understand the
world that you and Bill dwell in. In it the above rules are in
force. In my world, on the other hand, all there is is
perception and the stories we tell about perception. Some of
those stories involve only leptons and quarks. Other stories
involve control systems. In the latter stories, some involve
only individuals and others involve cultures. If you tell me
that you have figured out a way to avoid introducing cultures
into any of the stories you tell and can still predict complex
human behaviors, I find that very interesting. (Physicists tell
me that "in principle" they don't need to involve chemistry in
the stories they tell. I don't find that very interesting. I've
learned that "in principle" means "impossible in practice.")

We can avoid confusion if I call the version of PCT that exists
in my world PCT'. It looks very much like the version of PCT
that exists in your world, Bill's world, and Ric's world. The
fundamental difference is that my only ontological commitment is
to perceptions and stories about perceptions.

Bruce

Here, for those of you who might have forgotten, is W.V.O.
Quine's prescient comment about my world. "What there is does
not in general depend on our use of language. But what we say
there is, does."

[From Bruce Gregory 9980318.1017 EST)]

Jeff Vancouver 980318.0853 EST

Reductionism reigns.

It might be more accurate to say that parochialism reigns.

If you analyze the role of the individual in society without considering
the society you are making a mistake.

Often true. It all depends on the problem you are trying to
solve. If you want to understand why the Catholic Church
tolerated the holocaust, it is probably helpful to look beyond
the individual LCS. Looting is certainly an act of individuals.
Some people are interested in the fact that lots of people seem
to decide to loot at almost the the same time.

>Societies cannot set the reference signals in an individual brain. That is
>done by the individual. Society proposes; the individual disposes.

How does the "individual" do this? Is it not a function of the neural,
chemical, and physic structure of the brain? Why is it everyone thinks
theirs is the most important level of analysis?

Tunnel vision.

P.S. Bruce G., welcome to the other side.

Thanks.

P.P.S. Bill P. apparently does not endorse his theory enough to call it
fact (a laudable position), but he endorses it enough to trash the ideas of
others. I guess consistency _is_ the hobgoblin of small minds.

Interesting point. Bill says "Its all perception." He can talk
the talk, but does he walk the walk?

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (980318.0725)]

Bruce Gregory (980318.1000 EST)

If you tell me that you have figured out a way to avoid
introducing cultures into any of the stories you tell and
can still predict complex human behaviors, I find that very
interesting.

Culture is a perceived side effect of the contolling done by
groups of individuals. This perception doesn't help us predict
human behavior. It is an emergent (perceived) aspect of individual
human behavior that control theory should be able to predict.

Jeff Vancouver (980318.0853 EST) --

If you analyze the role of the individual in society without
considering the society you are making a mistake.

Study Bill's CROWD program to see why this is not quite true.
Social phenomena "emerge" from the interaction of individual
control systems. The trick is to give the individuals properties
so that, when left to interact on their own (as in the CROWD
program) the observed social phenomenon emerges in the simulation.
To do this, we don't really need to consider the individual's
"role" in society; we just have to guess at the variables the
individuals are controlling.

I got the papers in the mail, by the way. Thanks. Now what was it
you wanted me to evaluate about them?

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 Gregory (980318.1115 EST)]

Rick Marken (980318.0725)

Study Bill's CROWD program to see why this is not quite true.
Social phenomena "emerge" from the interaction of individual
control systems. The trick is to give the individuals properties
so that, when left to interact on their own (as in the CROWD
program) the observed social phenomenon emerges in the simulation.
To do this, we don't really need to consider the individual's
"role" in society; we just have to guess at the variables the
individuals are controlling.

Some might be not satisfied by simply guessing that the
individuals in a mob are controlling for "get it while you can".
They might wonder why a bunch of people who do not normally
control for this perception suddenly decide to start doing so.
The answer might be that people control for a percpetion when
they perceive that others like them are now controlling for a
similar perception. "Like them" may be easier to understand in a
framework that includes "cultural" terms. Behavior that is
mysterious at the individual level (why does this Moslem
control for bowing down five times a day?) makes sense at the
cultural level. This is _not_ to say that culture is some
mysterious force that compells individuals to act in certain
ways anymore than chemistry is some mysterious force that causes
atoms to behave in some way. Anyhow that's how it looks over
here in this world...

Bruce

[from Jeff Vancouver 980318.1150 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980318.0725)]

Study Bill's CROWD program to see why this is not quite true.
Social phenomena "emerge" from the interaction of individual
control systems. The trick is to give the individuals properties
so that, when left to interact on their own (as in the CROWD
program) the observed social phenomenon emerges in the simulation.
To do this, we don't really need to consider the individual's
"role" in society; we just have to guess at the variables the
individuals are controlling.

An example of a social phenomena that can be explained by individual-level
properties does not negate the merit of social-level concepts and measures.
But see Bruce G. response. It is not clear that the CROWD program
represents what is actually happening in any, much less all real contexts.
But even if it did represent one context, can we generalize the approach to
all contexts? This is what Kent McClelland argued in his paper. It is an
interesting idea, but so is the extrapolation of control to social
entities. At least that is what I argued in my behavioral science paper.

I got the papers in the mail, by the way. Thanks. Now what was it
you wanted me to evaluate about them?

How loud of a sound they make when they hit the bottom of the trash can.

You asked for the psych bull article. In a moment of weakness I included
my self-regulation chapter. If you read these it will just be fodder for
your harangues. The less I am involved with the net the more conventional
psychology I read. The more conventional psychology I read the more I find
problematic. I am also using your algorithms (and paradigms) for some of
my research of control systems. Let me be and the disturbancies (not your
actions) may well get your perceptions regarding me aligned to your
reference signals.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[From Bruce Nevin (980318.1207)]

If there is a supra-biological order of control systems in which our role
is analogous to the role of cells in our bodies, then we are inherently and
necessarily ignorant of its workings. What would happen if nerve cells
controlled their rates of firing (our perceptual signals), rather than
producing a rate of firing as a byproduct of controlling the inputs that
cells do control? It would be destructive both to the neural control system
and to the nerve cell. All the vaporings about mimetics and so on are
almost certainly just so much gas.

Rick Marken (980318.0725)

Culture is a perceived side effect of the contolling done by
groups of individuals. This perception doesn't help us predict
human behavior. It is an emergent (perceived) aspect of individual
human behavior that control theory should be able to predict.

It's a bit more complicated, because people learn how to do things based on
how they see others doing things. When you see one person's manner of doing
a thing conforming to the observed manner in which others do it,
voluntarily constraining her available degrees of freedom, then it looks
like she is perceiving certain of the behavioral outputs of the other
people and controlling her perception of her own corresponding behavioral
outputs accordingly.

I think there is a slower, higher-level loop for modelling another's
behavior and learning how it feels to act that way, and then subsequently
ongoing control of those learned, lower-level perceptions is what results
in the resemblant behavior thereafter. I'm thinking of what I learned about
the slower loop with acoustic feedback as distinct from the immediate loop
with tactile feedback for speech.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bill Powers (980318.1028 MST)]

I seem to have three Bruces and a Gregory mad at me. Must be some cultural
thing.

All of you are missing my point. The concepts of Society, Culture, The
System, and other such things are already in the HPCT model. They are
_system concepts_: perceptions of the type found at the 11th level in every
normal adult human individual, if the theory is right. Nobody without this
level of perceptual organization could perceive anything of the nature of a
social system or any other kind of system (mathematics, physics, economics,
Bruces A, N, or G, an automobile engine, chess, or HPCT). System concepts
are _created_ at this level out of collections of principles, logical
rules, procedures, and so on.

What all of you are arguing about is the ontological existence (if I use
this unfamiliar term right) of whatever it is that corresponds to a
perception at the system concept level. This existence is no more knowable
at the 11th level than the external counterparts of other perceptions are
at the first to tenth levels.

All we can say with certainty about system concepts is that we do have
experiences of that type. The HPCT model says that these experiences are
functions of perceptions arising at lower levels; it says nothing at all
about their reality. If you break down a perception at the system concept
level into the components from which it is made, you get principles,
programs, sequences, and so on. You don't get real things outside the brain
-- you just get other perceptions.

So society and culture, in the HPCT model, are system concepts, and system
concepts are perceptions inside a human brain. Are there control systems at
this level? Of course there are: their reference signals are the system
concepts we would prefer to experience, the perceptual signals are the
system concepts we are experiencing, the error signals are the
discrepancies, and the output functions are the means we use to convert
errors into new choices of principles and so on down the hierarchy.

Can anything external determine the reference signals at this level? Not in
THIS model of how the brain is organized. In THIS model, all that can enter
the brain from outside it (representing the external world) is the set of
intensity perceptual signals arising from sensory nerve endings. Those
perceptual signals are connected to first-order comparators and
second-order perceptual input functions, and that is all. They are not
connected to 11th order reference inputs. They do not cause reorganization.
So there is no way that anything external to the body can control the
brain. The organism is _autonomous_. It is run from inside.

Anyone who wants to propose a type of control system that operates on human
beings from above the 11th level as defined in HPCT is free to do so. But
if you do that, you will have to show how this superordinate system sets
reference levels for the individual's 11th level, how it constructs
perceptions out of 11th-level individual perceptions, and where its own
reference signals come from. You will have to prove that it is a control
system by disturbing it, and showing how it acts to counter the
disturbance. I don't think that anyone can do that.

In one sense, all of your vehemently offered examples intended to show the
reality of societies and cultures are very supportive of the HPCT model.
You all definitely agree that there is a strong sense of an organized
entity out there, an entity defined (if we were to explore what you-all
mean) in terms of equally convincing perceptions of kinds that match the
lower levels in the proposed hierarchy, from principles, down through
rules, sequences, categories, relationships, events, transitions,
configurations, and sensations, to intensities. And that is how perceptions
at the system concept level _should_ look: they should be utterly,
convincingly, real, as real as the person you know as your friend or your
boss, as real as the form of the chair in which you sit, as real as the
logic that tells you that 2 + 2 equals 4. But real as they seem, they are
perceptions -- and they are YOUR perceptions.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980318.1700 EST)]

Bill Powers (980318.1028 MST)

I seem to have three Bruces and a Gregory mad at me. Must be some cultural
thing.

Must be, since I can't find anything to disagree with in this
post. Perhaps you are mellowing....

Bruce

[From Bruce Nevin (980318.1807 EST)]

Bill Powers (980318.1028 MST)--

I seem to have three Bruces and a Gregory mad at me.

Only two Bruces and a Gregory. I said nothing about the ontological status
of System Concepts.

The remarkable thing about the 11th-level perceptions that you're thinking
of as culture, and about the perceptions down to category level and lower
that are involved in culture as well as in language, is the extent to which
people of the "same culture" or who speak the "same language" agree as to
what those perceptions are and what their reference levels for them ought
to be.

Agreement is not so surprising in most instances of perceptual control,
when the "boss reality" that we assume to be pushing back from the
environment is physics. Whether it's you or me or Adam kicking the boulder
it seems to be the same boulder with similar effects on the boulder and the
foot, recalling Ben Johnson's point about Berkeley's notions. A gross
mechanical level of physics accounts for those effects. In the case of
language and culture, all that is pushing back from the environment is the
environmental effects created by other people controlling like perceptions
in like ways.

Yet environmental effects created by other people controlling perceptions
(the effects and the perceptions alike called language and culture) seem to
be as fixed attributes of the environment as any boulder, so that change in
them, while historically demonstrable, is even less visible to us than the
growth of a tree. You have little or no awareness that the language of your
childhood environment differs from the language of your present environment
though it does so just as surely and definitely as does the language of
Chaucer. At no time between our present and your childhood, or indeed
between our present and Chaucer's England, have neighbors ceased to
perceive language as the same for all of them and as something that is
fixed so in their shared environment.

And we are puzzled by differences from one community to another, when we
notice them at all. Louise Woodward in the dock with downcast eye and bowed
posture appears to be acting guilty to an American audience, for whom the
expectation is that you look people squarely in the eye and stand up for
yourself if you're in the right. To a British audience, she was showing not
contrition or guilt but deference, demonstrating that she was a well
brought-up girl who one couldn't imagine would do such a dastardly thing to
that little baby, Matthew Eappen.

Two questions then: How do we bring this off, these in-effect agreements as
to what the perceptions are and what their reference levels for them ought
to be, constituting language and culture? And is it your view that this
question is outside the bounds of PCT?

  Bruce

[From Bill Powers (980318.1635 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (980318.1807 EST)--

The remarkable thing about the 11th-level perceptions that you're thinking
of as culture, and about the perceptions down to category level and lower
that are involved in culture as well as in language, is the extent to which
people of the "same culture" or who speak the "same language" agree as to
what those perceptions are and what their reference levels for them ought
to be.

Why is that remarkable? It seems to me that people are talking about these
things all the time, being corrected by their parents and peers, and
generally discovering what it takes to be understood by others and get
along with them. The mechanisms by which system concepts are formed seem
straighforward to me.

Two questions then: How do we bring this off, these in-effect agreements as
to what the perceptions are and what their reference levels for them ought
to be, constituting language and culture? And is it your view that this
question is outside the bounds of PCT?

It's a practical question, not a theoretical one. How indeed DO they
construct language and culture? If you watched them doing it, I expect that
you'd find out. I also expect that you'd find a good deal less agreement
than your words imply (for example, by doing the Test to see just what a
person does mean by, say, "deference"). PCT wouldn't make any prediction
about that.

Best,

Bill P.