Bill

[Marc_Abrams1]

Blank
From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.19.2152 )

Bill, I’m baffled. I decided to go public with this post because this is consistent with my attempt to be open and forthright. I realize that some may feel uncomfortable with this but I get to sleep better at night so I do it. I have gone back over my posts of the last two days and I am having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to say and what is bothering you. Any attempt I make to point out to you your inconsistency’s is met with outrage. As if I were trying to show you up, or embarrass you. Do you feel that is the case? If so, can you please point me to the passages in my posts that led you to those beliefs? You have claimed I don’t understand PCT. Your certainly entitled to your opinion. I believe otherwise. Can you please point out to me what I don’t understand? Can you please be specific in what you feel I don’t know. You claim I only have 1 of the 4 necessary “qualifications” to understand PCT. That is desire. What are the other 3, and what do I have to know about them to understand PCT?

You mentioned the George Richardson, Jay Forrester, and Bob Eberlein today and your meeting with them. You didn’t happen to mention who set that meeting up. Who spoke to George and arranged for the meet? Yes, George knew you from his book Feedback thought in Social Systems. But I thought it might be a good idea for you to meet Jay. Second, I don’t think you have you ever spoken to George at length and asked him what he thought you needed to do to get better known in the SD community? I did. Third, you mentioned in your post why you thought SD people were not interested. Check my dreams post earlier in the day. I gave an account of how I felt PCT could help inform SD. Your post did not acknowledge that passage in the your post. You restated something I said ( about the external reference condition ) and commented on why they would not be interested. Except for George Richardson of course. You are badly mistaken, on all counts. You wonder why they don’t get it. You think you know why they don’t get it. In fact you are so sure, it’s a fact. You don’t need to test that belief. It is self sealing. Don’t you see this kind of thinking is putting you into a hopeless situation? You could be right. But you could also be wrong. You could also be partially right. How would you know? You make generalizations about “famous” people and it’s sealed. How did I get a meeting with a “famous” person for you? Because George Richardson loves your theory. He is much less enthusiastic about the path you have taken with your research. I have talked To George about what it would take to turn some heads. I was hoping that Eberlein, when I brought him on to CSGnet, that he and you would be able to work together in developing a couple of working SD models. Things did not work out. Ok, you can’t “win” 'em all. But I know that if I can produce a model that George and I discussed ( and I believe it is possible, I don’t know if I can do it ) SD and Systems thinking people will take notice. I consider all these SD modelers potential researchers. Every time they build a model that includes people, PCT would be an important part of it.

Argyris is another story. What’s with the “rivalry”? Where do you see the competition? Your statement earlier today with;

Since Argyris’ basic
ideas have been in use unchanged for so many years, I don’t have much hope
of persuading him to reconsider the whole thing in the light of PCT.

You can make that statement about any highly educated or skilled individual. Just pick a name instead of Argyris and leave the rest of the statement intact.

Why does he need to reconsider the “whole” thing? What does PCT tell us about Action Science that he needs to reconsider? I know a few right of the bat, but it hardly means his having to reconsider the whole thing. If you have no interest in this fine. Don’t try and discredit me,because of my interest. Your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about both my lack of understanding of PCT and general education is troubling. I’m not offended. I really don’t care what you think. What I do care about is learning and If you have something to say to me say it to my face. I’m a big boy. Not knowing PCT is not real high on my list to commit suicide over. I’m not much interested in talking past one another anymore. I’m trying to make an effort not to. I would like to see you make the same attempt. As with Rick, my flaming days are over. You want to talk, it’s got to be a two way conversation. I’m no longer interested in hearing you from the top of a soap box. You can continue to bash me, and try to discredit me, but I could care less. I would much prefer a cordial relationship with you. If I can’t have one, I’ll manage to survive. The ball’s in your court. Your serve.

Marc

(Attachment Blank Bkgrd25.gif is missing)

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.1027 MDT)]

Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.19.2152 ) --
>Any attempt I make to point out to you your inconsistency's is met with
outrage. As if >I were trying to show you up, or embarrass you. Do you feel
that is the case? If so, >can you please point me to the passages in my
posts that led you to those beliefs?

To the extent that any outrage or embarrassment is involved, it's probably
centered on your claim that my entire career of attempting to communicate
control theory to others has been a failure. It that were true it would be
most embarrassing, and if false it would be an outrageous thing to say.
It's a little odd that you would say that, since one of the people I
thought I was communicating with was you, and you claim to understand
control theory. If I failed to communicate control theory to you, do you
still understand it?

>You have claimed I don't understand PCT. Your certainly entitled to your
opinion. I believe otherwise. Can you please point out to me what I don't
understand?

I keep doing it and you keep not understanding my explanation. Perhaps
that's only because your automatic reaction to criticism is denial and
counterattack, so you just aren't paying attention to what I say. Or
perhaps you react that way _because_ you don't understand what I meant.
Just yesterday Rick pointed out that the same action of the jaw could be an
action at one level and a controlled variable at another level, Your reply
that was claimed to show that you did understand showed that you didn't
have anything to do with what he said. Perhaps you leaped to your own
defense so fast you never stopped to grasp what he said. I don't really
know what you are capable of understanding when you consider things calmly,
reflect on them, and frame your comments carefully. You don't do that very
much.

>Can you please be specific in what you feel I don't know. You claim I
only have 1 of >the 4 necessary "qualifications" to understand PCT. That is
desire. What are the other >3, and what do I have to know about them to
understand PCT?

The other three were listed in the same or just-previous sentence. If you
would slow down, read what's in front of you, and think about it for a
while, you wouldn't miss such things. Being defensive doesn't help.

You mentioned the George Richardson, Jay Forrester, and Bob Eberlein today
and your meeting with them. You didn't happen to mention who set that
meeting up. Who spoke to George and arranged for the meet? Yes, George
knew you from his book *Feedback thought in Social Systems*.

And from other contacts; there was one occasion when he lent me his data
projector to use at a Gordon Research Conference, and of course another
when he invited me to submit a paper to System Dynamics, plus a good bit of
interaction before publication of his book (for which I was a reviewer).
You did set up that meeting, which was a good idea, and it's not your fault
that the exchange of ideas somewhat misfired.

But I thought it might be a good idea for you to meet Jay. Second, I
don't think you have you ever spoken to George at length and asked him
what he thought you needed to do to get better known in the SD community?

Aside from publishing the article in System Dynamics and a number of phone
conversations, no.

>You restated something I said ( about the external reference condition )
and commented >on why they would not be interested.

I generally do not give credit to others for repeating, as if they were
their own, ideas I have been stating for years. On the other hand, I don't
complain about it because it's always possible they came up with them
independently. My comment was not that they "would not" be interested in my
comments about external reference conditions, but that they _were not_
(data, I think you call that).

[Skipping more stuff about SD]

Argyris is another story. What's with the "rivalry"? Where do you see the
competition?

I don't see any competition. Argyris, while he devoted a lot of time to old
philosophical ideas, has nothing to contribute to theories that explain how
people are internally organized. His approach is essentially empirical: he
sees patterns in their behavior and reports them, but he does not explain
them. He isn't doing what we do in PCT. Perhaps he would like to have an
explanatory framework such as PCT could provide, but I've finished Action
Science and don't see any indication that he's looking for one. What was
that you said about not trying to sell people things they don't want?

>Why does he need to reconsider the "whole" thing? What does PCT tell us
about Action Science that he needs to reconsider?

Maybe he doesn't need to change anything, but he has to be _willing_ to
reconsider if he's to get anything out of PCT. If he's not willing to
reconsider anything, he will simply defend against any idea from PCT that
he doesn't feel he already understands. Been There, Done That.

>I'm no longer interested in hearing you from the top of a soap box. You
can continue to >bash me, and try to discredit me, but I could care less. I
would much prefer a cordial >relationship with you. If I can't have one,
I'll manage to survive. The ball's in your >court. Your serve.

Fine. Just think of me as another commentator on CSGnet. I have never asked
any more than that from anybody. I, of course, will continue to say what I
think.

Best,

Bill P.

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.20.1459) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.1027 MDT)]

Fine. Just think of me as another commentator on CSGnet. I have never

asked

any more than that from anybody. I, of course, will continue to say what I
think.

I think this is an excellent first step. I will do the same.

To the extent that any outrage or embarrassment is involved, it's probably
centered on your claim that my entire career of attempting to communicate
control theory to others has been a failure.

Yes, it's unfortunate that I might have contributed to this false
impression. I don't think you have spent your "entire" career in a wasteful
pusuit. I think your attempts have been noble and within the confines and
context of what you knew and thought to be right. You did not spend much
time thinking about my *Purpose II* post; From [ Marc Abrams
(2003.05.18.1632) ] Please take a look at it. I found it very useful for
myself. You might find it useful as well. I was not talking about either you
or Rick with regard to PCT education. I was talking about the failure of us
all to be able to effectively communicate PCT to others. Myself being the
prime example. I know I'm a great salesman. I pride myself on matching
people and products. I do that extremely well, and made a very nice living
doing it. PCT has been the first "failure" in my life. No one I have turned
on to PCT ever took it beyond a mere galnce and nod. It's been a frustrating
experience, only because I know the people I have attempted to talk with
would find PCT helpful. In my relection on why this was happening, I
realized that I was asking the wrong question. I was focusing on what _they_
did not understand about PCT. In acuality, it was I who should have been
asking, "What is it _I_ don't see that they do?" It was with that question
that "flood gates" opened up. I began to "see" and ask about what they saw
and I didn't. I came on the net with some of those answers. Do with it what
you will. I know what I need to do. This will be the last time I bring up
this topic. I will be happy to discuss this with anyone in-depth, but my
advocating is over.

It that were true it would be most embarrassing, and if false it would be

an outrageous thing to say.

Can't win either way can we?

It's a little odd that you would say that, since one of the people I
thought I was communicating with was you, and you claim to understand
control theory. If I failed to communicate control theory to you, do you

still understand it?

You didn't fail. Let me remind you that it really did not click in with me
until 4 months ago. I "thought" I understood it 5 years ago. It was
specifically your contacts with me over the last several months that brought
that about. I went after it. I called you all the time and bugged the hell
out of you. There were times you blew me off, and times I was not sure if
you were. Rick thought he was also being cute with his Experimental methods
book. But I stuck with it. I thought we developed a good working
relationship, and I "knew" that I finally understood PCT from our phone
conversations. I couldn't understand the personal attacks based on our phone
conversations. I will leave it at that.

>You have claimed I don't understand PCT. Your certainly entitled to your
opinion. I believe otherwise. Can you please point out to me what I don't
understand?

I keep doing it and you keep not understanding my explanation. Perhaps
that's only because your automatic reaction to criticism is denial and
counterattack, so you just aren't paying attention to what I say. Or
perhaps you react that way _because_ you don't understand what I meant.

Is this your answer to my question?

Just yesterday Rick pointed out that the same action of the jaw could be

an

action at one level and a controlled variable at another level, Your reply
that was claimed to show that you did understand showed that you didn't
have anything to do with what he said.

I clarified my statement. If I understand this, do I now understand PCT?

Perhaps you leaped to your own
defense so fast you never stopped to grasp what he said. I don't really
know what you are capable of understanding when you consider things

calmly,

reflect on them, and frame your comments carefully. You don't do that very

much.

Is this another statement from the "soap box"? Do you think this was
helpful? I think I tend to reflect a bit to much, actually.

>Can you please be specific in what you feel I don't know. You claim I
only have 1 of >the 4 necessary "qualifications" to understand PCT. That

is

desire. What are the other >3, and what do I have to know about them to
understand PCT?

The other three were listed in the same or just-previous sentence. If you
would slow down, read what's in front of you, and think about it for a
while, you wouldn't miss such things. Being defensive doesn't help.

It seems to work fine for you. But you don't see that in yourself. It's like
your statement that you are the one of the only objective people you know,
and you know this from your 50 years of work in PCT and that if someone does
not think like you they are not objective because you know what it means to
be objective.. Interesting circular thinking.

> But I thought it might be a good idea for you to meet Jay. Second, I
> don't think you have you ever spoken to George at length and asked him
> what he thought you needed to do to get better known in the SD

community?

Aside from publishing the article in System Dynamics and a number of phone
conversations, no.

Do you really care? I'm not suggesting that you should. I am asking if it
matters to you.

I generally do not give credit to others for repeating, as if they were
their own, ideas I have been stating for years.

Is that what you think I was doing? I'm usually very careful about giving
proper credit for ideas not my own. Did I give the impression that the idea
of having the reference condition inside the system was mine? I don't think
PCT can lay sole claim to that idea. I believe the Cog sci people had that
concept in mind.

On the other hand, I don't complain about it because it's always possible

they came up with them

independently. My comment was not that they "would not" be interested in

my

comments about external reference conditions, but that they _were not_
(data, I think you call that).

Yes, I believe they were not is that your tracking task is not a convincing
argument for it. When they see the tracking task they see mouse movement
(actions) reaching an outside goal ( keeping the cursor between the
lines )or intended consequeces. They ask, What's the big deal? We always use
our actions to reacxh our goals. Our goals are provided by a combination of
the environment and our mental maps. _They_ ask What is it that _you_ don't
understand? And around we go. Do you see the problem? What is clear and
obvious to you, is not to others. The question becomes, what is obvious to
others?

I don't see any competition. Argyris, while he devoted a lot of time to

old

philosophical ideas, has nothing to contribute to theories that explain

how

people are internally organized.

I think your wrong.

His approach is essentially empirical:

Not essentially, it is.

he sees patterns in their behavior and reports them,

Yes, _consistent_ patterns in _everyone_. Patterns of control, in fact. He
is unaware of this phenomenon.

but he does not explain them.

No he doesn't HPCT does.

He isn't doing what we do in PCT.

Nope.

Perhaps he would like to have an explanatory framework such as PCT could

provide,

You betcha. At least the "salesmen" in me says so. This would help
facilitate the learning of Model II, and that's how I would "sell" it, as a
way for potential AS people to better understand and more quickly grasp the
significance of Model II behavior. Deep understanding of HPCT not required,
Deep _appreciation_ is.

but I've finished Action Science and don't see any indication that he's

looking for one.

Why should he.He has developed a very successful practice with what he
already knows. There is nothing he does that contradicts HPCT. Nothing that
I am aware of. He simply does not have any valid reasons for explaining why
all this stuff happens. I believe that explanations are useful and
important, based on their desire to be able to "teach" people "Model II"
"behavior. I could be wrong. I just don't think so. Coming in and saying he
needs to re-think his entire position is kind of draconian and will not win
many friends, Approaching him on how he might improve his practice might.

What was that you said about not trying to sell people things they don't

want?

You got it. Do I need to further explain why I think they might be
interested in HPCT. Of course I haven't spoken about how HPCT might benefit
from Action Science. I have already done that.

Maybe he doesn't need to change anything, but he has to be _willing_ to

reconsider if he's to get anything out of PCT.

I will ask again. After you have finished reading Action Science ( which is
probably the 4th book I would have you read on the subject, not the first )
What would you expect Argyris to change? I asked for specific examples.
Please provide them.

If he's not willing to reconsider anything, he will simply defend against

any idea from PCT that

he doesn't feel he already understands. Been There, Done That.

Yes, I know. Please re-read my *purpose II* post. I'm really getting tired
going over the same ground 15 times.

Marc

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.2043 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.20.1459)--

Yes, I know. Please re-read my *purpose II* post. I'm really getting tired
going over the same ground 15 times.

I'm tired of reading it, too.

The most recent remark by Rick and your reply to it follow:

> That remark shows no evidence that you understand that an action can be a
> controlled variable and an action affecting another controlled variable at
the
> same time.

To me it does. _EVERY_ single movement could be a controlled variable, in
fact every movement _is_ controlled. But some movements, when grouped
together are more significant then others with relation to conveying ideas
and meaning to others.

This is still not what Rick is talking about. The "grouping together of
movements" is irrelevant to his point. Here is the sort of explanation he
was looking for from you ( we haven't communicated privately about this):

1. A jaw movement can be a controlled variable. The dentist says, "Open
wider, please," and you adopt this description as a reference level for the
state of your jaw/mouth and hold it open wider than it was. The means of
doing this is to tense and relax various muscles. The position of your jaw
is the controlled variable, closely linked to the openness of your mouth.

2. A jaw movement can be an action used for controlling a different
variable. Your voice coach says "Sing Ahhh", and you drop your jaw to open
your mouth to make the requested phoneme appear in your perceptions and the
coach's. Now what was a controlled variable in its own right has become a
means for controlling an auditory variable. Now you will vary the openness
until the sound is correct.

That is what Rick was talking about. Perhaps you knew that but for some
reason didn't want to say it. Perhaps your attention was on making your
point that you can correctly infer a person's intentions from his outputs
(which I deny that you can do _correctly_). Whatever the case, you did not
reply relevantly to my comments or Rick's about the way actions can be both
controlled variables and means of controlling other variables; your
comments did not show that you understood the two numbered points above. I
don't know why they didn't. A reasonable assumption is that you didn't
understand these points. No harm in that -- except when you try to convince
everyone that you already know everything about control theory that you
need to know. I hope you don't think it unreasonable that Rick or I would
want to test such a claim.

If you asked me why I am going on with this I'd have to say I don't know.
I'm telling myself right now that this conversation has made it impossible
for you to give a reply that would satisfy me, and for me to say anything
that would have any conceivable effect for the better with respect to you.
It's time to end it and go on to other things.

Marc, I will not tell you you are right when I think you are wrong. That's
what you're asking me to do.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers]

[from Mary Powers (2003.05.20.2150)

From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.19.2152 )

Bill, I'm baffled. I decided to go public with this post because this is
consistent with my attempt to be open and forthright. I realize that some
may feel uncomfortable with this but I get to sleep better at night so I
do it. I have gone back over my posts of the last two days and I am
having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to say and what
is bothering you. Any attempt I make to point out to you your
inconsistency's is met with outrage. As if I were trying to show you up,
or embarrass you. Do you feel that is the case? If so, can you please
point me to the passages in my posts that led you to those beliefs? You
have claimed I don't understand PCT. Your certainly entitled to your
opinion. I believe otherwise. Can you please point out to me what I don't
understand? Can you please be specific in what you feel I don't know. You
claim I only have 1 of the 4 necessary "qualifications" to understand PCT.
That is desire. What are the other 3, and what do I have to know about
them to understand PCT?

from Mary: perhaps rereading this post from Bill will help.

                  * * *

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.19.1413 MDT)]

Marc had said:
>Noble. Try something different. What you have done in the past has not
worked.

And Bill replied:
But it has worked. It has worked with people who have or acquired the
needed background training, the willingness to grasp something new, the
patience to develop their understanding and the competence to do their own
investigations. You have a willingness to grasp something new, but that's
just one out of four so far. Don't blame me for your own shortcomings.

                     * * *
from Mary again:

Do you get it now, Marc? Bill says that so far you have one of the four of
these
1. the needed background training
2. the willingness to grasp something new
3. the patience to develop [one's] understanding
4. the competence to do [one's] own investigations

Are you still baffled?

Mary

···

At 12:35 AM 5/20/2003, you wrote:

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.20.0201) ]

[from Mary Powers (2003.05.20.2150)

from Mary again:

Do you get it now, Marc? Bill says that so far you have one of the four of
these
1. the needed background training
2. the willingness to grasp something new
3. the patience to develop [one's] understanding
4. the competence to do [one's] own investigations

Are you still baffled?

No. To each his own. Thank you for the opinion and clarification

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.21.0206) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.2043 MDT)]

Me:

>To me it does. _EVERY_ single movement could be a controlled variable, in
>fact every movement _is_ controlled. But some movements, when grouped
>together are more significant then others with relation to conveying

ideas

>and meaning to others.

This is still not what Rick is talking about. The "grouping together of
movements" is irrelevant to his point. Here is the sort of explanation he
was looking for from you ( we haven't communicated privately about this):

1. A jaw movement can be a controlled variable. The dentist says, "Open
wider, please," and you adopt this description as a reference level for

the

state of your jaw/mouth and hold it open wider than it was. The means of
doing this is to tense and relax various muscles. The position of your jaw
is the controlled variable, closely linked to the openness of your mouth.

2. A jaw movement can be an action used for controlling a different
variable. Your voice coach says "Sing Ahhh", and you drop your jaw to open
your mouth to make the requested phoneme appear in your perceptions and

the

coach's. Now what was a controlled variable in its own right has become a
means for controlling an auditory variable. Now you will vary the openness
until the sound is correct.

Sorry. I see no difference in what I said and the 2 examples you gave. I see
the same thing. I never talk in absolutes. Perhaps you replaced my word
"some" with the word "all". The "grouping together" might be irrelevant to
_his_ point, but it _is_ relevant to mine. I thought I communincated that.
You did not answer my follow-up question. If I "understood" that, would you
say I understand PCT? Mary's post clarified that for me. I guess I'll just
have to stop talking to you about my efforts to speak with others about PCT.
I don't want to upset you with any notions that I might be being blasphamise
in my attempt.

That is what Rick was talking about. Perhaps you knew that but for some
reason didn't want to say it.

Why do you think I would not want to convey that to you?

Perhaps your attention was on making your point that you can correctly

infer a person's intentions from his outputs

(which I deny that you can do _correctly_).

Your certainly entitled to your opinion. My empirical data tells me
something differently then yours. I can infer it most of the time. Sometimes
I can't and I need to do the Test or something similiar. But not all the
time. Most times it either really doesn't matter what someones "real"
intentions are or sometimes they do not affect me. In either of those two
cases, "knowing" the real intentions are meaningless to me. What does that
say about me and PCT? Well maybe I don't care what "PCT" is telling me most
of the time. I seem to care only when certain groups of controlled actions
and thoughts lead to either intended consequences that affect me or help me
explain why a particulair method may or may not work.

Whatever the case, you did not
reply relevantly to my comments or Rick's about the way actions can be

both

controlled variables and means of controlling other variables; your
comments did not show that you understood the two numbered points above. I
don't know why they didn't.

I believe I did.

A reasonable assumption is that you didn't understand these points. No harm

in that -- except when you try to convince

everyone that you already know everything about control theory that you
need to know. I hope you don't think it unreasonable that Rick or I would
want to test such a claim.

You have not "tested" anything. You simply made counter-claims.

If you asked me why I am going on with this I'd have to say I don't know.

Maybe _you_ should do some reflection.

I'm telling myself right now that this conversation has made it impossible
for you to give a reply that would satisfy me,

No kidding. I believe this statement sums it up very nicely and has for
days.

and for me to say anything
that would have any conceivable effect for the better with respect to you.
It's time to end it and go on to other things.

Yes, I agree.

Marc, I will not tell you you are right when I think you are wrong. That's
what you're asking me to do.

No. I'm not asking you to do any such thing. I find it interesting that:

1) Mary had to "explain"to me what you meant by the 4 things you thought I
needed to "know" in order to "learn" PCT.

2) How "dumb" I became in a matter of 2 days. It must be my meds. I'll check
them out.

3) I wonder what you "really" think of others on the net who "know" less
about PCT then I supposedly do. But I guess "knowing" less and kissing your
butt and paying homage to you is more important then real understanding and
communication. Your loss, not mine.

4) You never responded or acknowledged either of my passages in the last
post;

"Yes, it's unfortunate that I might have contributed to this false
impression. I don't think you have spent your "entire" career in a wasteful
pursuit. I think your attempts have been noble and within the confines and
context of what you knew and thought to be right."

and

Bill:

It's a little odd that you would say that, since one of the people I
thought I was communicating with was you, and you claim to understand
control theory. If I failed to communicate control theory to you, do you

still understand it?

Me:
You didn't fail. Let me remind you that it really did not click in with me
until 4 months ago. I "thought" I understood it 5 years ago. It was
specifically your contacts with me over the last several months that brought
that about.

Why does your lack of acknowledgement not surprise me. It is fully
consistent with your recent behavior.

I really wish you well. You have done one helluva job with this theory. I
think it's important, even if I don't fully understand it. You have been a
tremendous help in me getting to this point. For that I thank you. I will
not let your recent actions color that appraisal. As you say, It's time to
move on.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.21.0443) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.2043 MDT)]

This is still not what Rick is talking about. The "grouping together of
movements" is irrelevant to his point. Here is the sort of explanation he
was looking for from you ( we haven't communicated privately about this):

Perhaps your attention was on making your
point that you can correctly infer a person's intentions from his outputs
(which I deny that you can do _correctly_).

You made thses two statements. Do you see the contradiction? No I don't
think you will.

Let me get this straight. _You_ know Rick's intent form seeing his actions
( written words ) but I can't possibly "know" someone's intent by doing the
same. Who endowed you with this magical gift?

You are a piece of work.

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.21.1320)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0521.1536)--

>Bill Powers (2003.05.21.1219 MDT)

> I know what Rick meant because we both understand the same theory in the
> same way, in considerable detail. I'm sure the result looks like magic (or
> collusion) to anyone who does not share the same underlying understanding.
> But it's not even mind-reading.

Bill, this is less than persuasive. Either you performed the test or you
didn't. "We both understand the same theory in the same way," is a just-so
story and you know it.

Bill has been performing the test on my understanding of PCT (and I on his) for
over 20 years. Bill knows what I'm controlling for and I know what he is
controlling for when we talk about PCT. Bill knew exactly what I was "getting at"
(my intended meaning) when I said that jaw movement is both an action and a
controlled variable at the same time because he has tested my understanding of PCT
to a fare thee well.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.21.1219 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.21.0443) --

>Let me get this straight. _You_ know Rick's intent form seeing his actions
>( written words ) but I can't possibly "know" someone's intent by doing the
>same. Who endowed you with this magical gift?

I know what Rick meant because we both understand the same theory in the
same way, in considerable detail. I'm sure the result looks like magic (or
collusion) to anyone who does not share the same underlying understanding.
But it's not even mind-reading.

The problem with inferring someone's intent from his actions without a Test
is that you never know whether you were right or not. If you don't Test,
all you have is your conviction that you got it right. In science, that's
not even worth a cup of coffee.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0521.1536)]

  Bill Powers (2003.05.21.1219 MDT)

I know what Rick meant because we both understand the same theory in the
same way, in considerable detail. I'm sure the result looks like magic (or
collusion) to anyone who does not share the same underlying understanding.
But it's not even mind-reading.

Bill, this is less than persuasive. Either you performed the test or you
didn't. "We both understand the same theory in the same way," is a just-so
story and you know it.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0521.1634)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.21.1320)

Bill has been performing the test on my understanding of PCT (and I on his) for
over 20 years. Bill knows what I'm controlling for and I know what he is
controlling for when we talk about PCT. Bill knew exactly what I was "getting at"
(my intended meaning) when I said that jaw movement is both an action and a
controlled variable at the same time because he has tested my understanding of PCT
to a fare thee well.

Thanks. In other words, he can tell your intentions by your actions.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.21.1607 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0521.1536)--\

>Bill, this is less than persuasive. Either you performed the test or you
>didn't. "We both understand the same theory in the same way," is a just-so
>story and you know it.

OK. Mr. Skeptic, let me put it another way. I _assume_ that Rick is using
the same theoretical structure I am, in considerable detail. I then deduce
predict that if Rick really is using the same theoretical structure, he
will come up with a statement very similar to mine in meaning (to me),
though not in the same words. When he does so, I take this as not
inconsistent with the idea that he and I are basing our comments on the
same theory.

A single test like this proves little, but this is probably the
several-hundredth repeat of this test since Rick started doing successful
experiments with PCT.

So you are right. I performed a test. "The" test? I don't know.

Best,

Bill P.

···

from my understanding of the theory what my statement will be, and I

[dmg]

Dear CSG Friends,

In celebration of Bill’s birthday, I have put in my drop-box

The website Edgemoor Conference 2007, which took place at my house.

There are some interesting videos of Bill and information there.

The drop box link is:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hagrxwdk0563nwy/AADay7QboKtSOjyTTrkSf8tea?dl=0

It has to be opened with internet explorer.

David Goldstein