Bill and Me (and reference signals)

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-05-27_12:56:59]

Well, CSGNet has gotten a nice peek into my personal life over the last couple days, with my posts of pictures of Bill and myself in honor of the anniversary of Bill’s death and my accidental posting of an email to a personal friend that had nothing to do with Control Theory. So I thought I would post a little more personal stuff that is related to Control Theory and that I happened to discover this weekend while doing some spring cleaning.Â

What I found were the first correspondences between Bill and myself. They had been stored in plastic boxes and had suffered some water damage because the boxes were stored in an outdoor shed that had developed a roof leak. So many of the papers were destroyed but, luckily those first correspondences survived. Although I can’t find the very first letter I sent to Bill. So the following set of PDFs start with Bill’s reply to that first letter I sent to this mysterious genius who I had never heard of. The pointers to the PDFs are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykundvkz2brmzsj/1.Powers%20Feb%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/adtgtysogbtdc54/2.Powers%20Nov%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ijom1eehz46hxd/3.Powers%20April%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/43jo6cyzx7zcdfz/4.Powers%20Nov%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru8c152ycl5vb7m/5.Powers%20April%201982.pdf?dl=0

All but two of Bill’s replies are handwritten, but I believe they are quite legible. The most interesting one to me is his reply to my April letter (in the file “3.Powers April 1980.pdf”. In that letter Bill adds a derivation (as “A simple case”) that explains why I got the results I got in my first published paper on what was then called CS psychology. What I showed is that the cursor in a tracking task can’t be considered the cause of the outputs that keep the cursor on target. I think I never really gave a good explanation of why that is the case and at the time I clearly did not understand (or carefully read) Bill’s explanation at the end of the derivation. But at the end of that derivation is this:

That last line explains it all: “One of the “stimuli” is inside.” What a great line!! The “stimulus” inside is, of course, the reference signal! The cursor perception is just one cause of output; the other is the reference signal . If it were possible to hold the reference exactly constant there would indeed be a correlation between cursor and output (handle movement in this case), which is what I had found in my modeling. So I had to add “noise” to have the model perform like the subjects in my experiments. But I felt like this was cheating, in a way. But now, 40 years later, I finally understand what Bill was talking about; the source of noise is slight variations in the reference signal that exist even when you try to maintain a fixed reference signal.Â

I wish I had been able to understand this back then. But for anyone interested in doing PCT research, it seems to me that this derivation of Bill’s can be the basis for some interesting research on that other “stimulus” contribution to behavior that has been consistently ignored in psychology: the reference signal!Â

Oh, and I think these might be a nice addition to Bill’s archives. What do you think, Allie?

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[FredNickols]

Fred Nickols 2019.05.27.1606 ET

Good for you, Rick. Thanks for sharing. As your reward, I will shred the 500 copies I made of your personal email. I definitely think this correspondence belongs in the archives.Â

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Fred,

beleive me, that it would be also good if you share my thoughts about PCT which I produced though all these years trying to stop Rick’s nonsense and keep PCT alive. Finally Rick simply recognized that he was wrong all these years. He is talking of about 40 years of wrong understanding of PCT. Although I think it’s not that catastrophy. From time to time he understood PCT and even practiced it. But he couldn’t escape his psychological education.

I was at Ricks’ actual point of understanding PCT about 14 years ago and I didn’t miss the “magic spot of PCT” like Rick did. I think that right question in this situation is : “where CSGnet will go on from here”. Well, if I’m honest, it’s hard way you’ll have to travel to get to my point of understanding PCT. Rick is now at the beggining. He obviously was mistaking and he misleaded CSGnet for at least 6 years. Imagine if there wouldn’t be me to stop him in his intentions to change PCT into RCT. That was clearly his intention 6 years ago. Many of you supported his nonsense idea of “Control of behavior”, “Controlled variable in outer environment” and so on… Members who insulted me like I was the one who doesn’t understand American or whatever and so I can’t understand what Rick is saying should say something. At least apology.

Well I’m glad that Rick finally admitted that he was wrong all the time. Whatever he was trying to get at was wrong not only from PCT view, but life situations themself. His RCT didn’t work in practical life cases or in nature – the final arbiter as Bill would say. Any theoretical approcah to PCT has to survive scientific cerification in life-situations. The most important for CSGnet now is that finnaly it can step on PCT way.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 10:09 PM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Bill and Me (and reference signals)

Fred Nickols 2019.05.27.1606 ET

Good for you, Rick. Thanks for sharing. As your reward, I will shred the 500 copies I made of your personal email. I definitely think this correspondence belongs in the archives.

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:59 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-05-27_12:56:59]

Well, CSGNet has gotten a nice peek into my personal life over the last couple days, with my posts of pictures of Bill and myself in honor of the anniversary of Bill’s death and my accidental posting of an email to a personal friend that had nothing to do with Control Theory. So I thought I would post a little more personal stuff that is related to Control Theory and that I happened to discover this weekend while doing some spring cleaning.

What I found were the first correspondences between Bill and myself. They had been stored in plastic boxes and had suffered some water damage because the boxes were stored in an outdoor shed that had developed a roof leak. So many of the papers were destroyed but, luckily those first correspondences survived. Although I can’t find the very first letter I sent to Bill. So the following set of PDFs start with Bill’s reply to that first letter I sent to this mysterious genius who I had never heard of. The pointers to the PDFs are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykundvkz2brmzsj/1.Powers%20Feb%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/adtgtysogbtdc54/2.Powers%20Nov%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ijom1eehz46hxd/3.Powers%20April%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/43jo6cyzx7zcdfz/4.Powers%20Nov%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru8c152ycl5vb7m/5.Powers%20April%201982.pdf?dl=0

All but two of Bill’s replies are handwritten, but I believe they are quite legible. The most interesting one to me is his reply to my April letter (in the file “3.Powers April 1980.pdf”. In that letter Bill adds a derivation (as “A simple case”) that explains why I got the results I got in my first published paper on what was then called CS psychology. What I showed is that the cursor in a tracking task can’t be considered the cause of the outputs that keep the cursor on target. I think I never really gave a good explanation of why that is the case and at the time I clearly did not understand (or carefully read) Bill’s explanation at the end of the derivation. But at the end of that derivation is this:

That last line explains it all: “One of the “stimuli” is inside.” What a great line!! The “stimulus” inside is, of course, the reference signal! The cursor perception is just one cause of output; the other is the reference signal . If it were possible to hold the reference exactly constant there would indeed be a correlation between cursor and output (handle movement in this case), which is what I had found in my modeling. So I had to add “noise” to have the model perform like the subjects in my experiments. But I felt like this was cheating, in a way. But now, 40 years later, I finally understand what Bill was talking about; the source of noise is slight variations in the reference signal that exist even when you try to maintain a fixed reference signal.

I wish I had been able to understand this back then. But for anyone interested in doing PCT research, it seems to me that this derivation of Bill’s can be the basis for some interesting research on that other “stimulus” contribution to behavior that has been consistently ignored in psychology: the reference signal!

Oh, and I think these might be a nice addition to Bill’s archives. What do you think, Allie?

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
www.nickols.us

[_Boris_Hartman]

Rick,

I was leaving CSGnet when I take a last “look” on CSGnet forum, and here it was what I was waiting for at least 6 years.

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:58 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Bill and Me (and reference signals)

[Rick Marken 2019-05-27_12:56:59]

RM : Well, CSGNet has gotten a nice peek into my personal life over the last couple days, with my posts of pictures of Bill and myself in honor of the anniversary of Bill’s death and my accidental posting of an email to a personal friend that had nothing to do with Control Theory. So I thought I would post a little more personal stuff that is related to Control Theory and that I happened to discover this weekend while doing some spring cleaning.

HB : I think Rick that you deserve more from PCT than you got. But it’s your fault. You didn’t listen to anybody. You were in your World of RCT and nobody could convince you to step on PCT way. If you mean seriously this time by posting interesting things about you and Bill I’m sure you’ll step again on right PCT way and you can estalish many unconflicting conversations on CSGnet forum. But if this is really your final decission then there is no way back. I hope you understand that. From now on just PCT.

RM : What I found were the first correspondences between Bill and myself. They had been stored in plastic boxes and had suffered some water damage because the boxes were stored in an outdoor shed that had developed a roof leak. So many of the papers were destroyed but, luckily those first correspondences survived. Although I can’t find the very first letter I sent to Bill. So the following set of PDFs start with Bill’s reply to that first letter I sent to this mysterious genius who I had never heard of. The pointers to the PDFs are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykundvkz2brmzsj/1.Powers%20Feb%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/adtgtysogbtdc54/2.Powers%20Nov%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ijom1eehz46hxd/3.Powers%20April%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/43jo6cyzx7zcdfz/4.Powers%20Nov%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru8c152ycl5vb7m/5.Powers%20April%201982.pdf?dl=0

HB : Interesting conversation, and historical because it’s written with his hand. It’s worth of archiving.

RM : All but two of Bill’s replies are handwritten, but I believe they are quite legible. The most interesting one to me is his reply to my April letter (in the file “3.Powers April 1980.pdf”. In that letter Bill adds a derivation (as “A simple case”) that explains why I got the results I got in my first published paper on what was then called CS psychology. What I showed is that the cursor in a tracking task can’t be considered the cause of the outputs that keep the cursor on target. I think I never really gave a good explanation of why that is the case and at the time I clearly did not understand (or carefully read) Bill’s explanation at the end of the derivation.

HB : I’d say that this a historical moment on CSGnet. Do you understand that you admitted your mistakes about understanding PCT all the time of our conversation in last 6 years ? Do you understand that you caused many of my quite “bad psychical states” because your firends were insulting me ? Probably they thought that they have to protect you, because you are one of them. But that had nothing to do with science which was “demanded” by Bill. I hope that in future it will never happen on CSGnet that somebody will “protect” friend, just because of friendship. I’d like to see scientific arguments even if somebody will feel like “protecting” friend. I hope that there will be no “attacks” on members that do not agree with Rick anymore.

RM : But at the end of that derivation is this:

RM : That last line explains it all: “One of the “stimuli” is inside.” What a great line!! The “stimulus” inside is, of course, the reference signal! The cursor perception is just one cause of output; the other is the reference signal . If it were possible to hold the reference exactly constant there would indeed be a correlation between cursor and output (handle movement in this case), which is what I had found in my modeling. So I had to add “noise” to have the model perform like the subjects in my experiments. But I felt like this was cheating, in a way. But now, 40 years later, I finally understand what Bill was talking about; the source of noise is slight variations in the reference signal that exist even when you try to maintain a fixed reference signal.

HB : Better ever then never. I’m glad for you that you finally got it. I’ve been telling you for so many times and offered Bills’ citations but you didn’t beleive me that you are wrong. If you would just read right what he wrote in his books, speccially B:CP. You could still turn your RCT into PCT if you would make basic PCT experiments right as they were described in the book. But you had to do it your way and you were puzzling and misleading the whole forum for years.

RM : I wish I had been able to understand this back then.

HB : I’m not sure about this one for 40 years back. I’m sure that you understood right PCT at least 12 years ago when we were talking about your racquetball game. You were clearly contributing to our conversation with “perceptual control”. So maybe you did understand PCT from time to time, changing your mind like anybody on CSGnet I know.

RM : But for anyone interested in doing PCT research, it seems to me that this derivation of Bill’s can be the basis for some interesting research on that other “stimulus” contribution to behavior that has been consistently ignored in psychology: the reference signal!

HB : I already gave you examples in the past above how you should read Bills’ books. Not what you want to read and how you want to read, but what it is written. You don’t need new science and new PCT researches. Everything what you need for PCT researches is already there in Bills literature. You just have to read it right. And do it following Bills’ instructions.

RM : Oh, and I think these might be a nice addition to Bill’s archives. What do you think, Allie?

HB : I agree. Although I don’t know what Allie and Barb think.

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Alison_Powers]

Yes, indeed they would be a great addition to the archives. I feel though, that at the next conference in Evanston, that we need to look at how the archives are organized and catalogued so that precious things like this are more easily found.Â

Allie

···

On Mon, May 27, 2019, 1:59 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-05-27_12:56:59]

Well, CSGNet has gotten a nice peek into my personal life over the last couple days, with my posts of pictures of Bill and myself in honor of the anniversary of Bill’s death and my accidental posting of an email to a personal friend that had nothing to do with Control Theory. So I thought I would post a little more personal stuff that is related to Control Theory and that I happened to discover this weekend while doing some spring cleaning.Â

What I found were the first correspondences between Bill and myself. They had been stored in plastic boxes and had suffered some water damage because the boxes were stored in an outdoor shed that had developed a roof leak. So many of the papers were destroyed but, luckily those first correspondences survived. Although I can’t find the very first letter I sent to Bill. So the following set of PDFs start with Bill’s reply to that first letter I sent to this mysterious genius who I had never heard of. The pointers to the PDFs are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykundvkz2brmzsj/1.Powers%20Feb%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/adtgtysogbtdc54/2.Powers%20Nov%201979.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ijom1eehz46hxd/3.Powers%20April%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/43jo6cyzx7zcdfz/4.Powers%20Nov%201980.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru8c152ycl5vb7m/5.Powers%20April%201982.pdf?dl=0

All but two of Bill’s replies are handwritten, but I believe they are quite legible. The most interesting one to me is his reply to my April letter (in the file “3.Powers April 1980.pdf”. In that letter Bill adds a derivation (as “A simple case”) that explains why I got the results I got in my first published paper on what was then called CS psychology. What I showed is that the cursor in a tracking task can’t be considered the cause of the outputs that keep the cursor on target. I think I never really gave a good explanation of why that is the case and at the time I clearly did not understand (or carefully read) Bill’s explanation at the end of the derivation. But at the end of that derivation is this:

That last line explains it all: “One of the “stimuli” is inside.” What a great line!! The “stimulus” inside is, of course, the reference signal! The cursor perception is just one cause of output; the other is the reference signal . If it were possible to hold the reference exactly constant there would indeed be a correlation between cursor and output (handle movement in this case), which is what I had found in my modeling. So I had to add “noise” to have the model perform like the subjects in my experiments. But I felt like this was cheating, in a way. But now, 40 years later, I finally understand what Bill was talking about; the source of noise is slight variations in the reference signal that exist even when you try to maintain a fixed reference signal.Â

I wish I had been able to understand this back then. But for anyone interested in doing PCT research, it seems to me that this derivation of Bill’s can be the basis for some interesting research on that other “stimulus” contribution to behavior that has been consistently ignored in psychology: the reference signal!Â

Oh, and I think these might be a nice addition to Bill’s archives. What do you think, Allie?

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery