Hi Kent !
Kent :
Greetings! I'm returning to CSGNET after quite a long absence, but I
have something to share, and I'm interested in seeing what CSGNET
subscribers have to say.
Boris :
I started to read and I stopped at the first word used. It think I don't
understand exactly the word "fact". Could you explain ? Does this mean
objective or absolute truth ?
Best,
Boris
[From Richard Pfau 2010.11.09.1207EST]
Kent,
Thank you for your very informative, thought provoking article. Very nicely presented! I enjoyed and benefited from it very much.
One small comment. Your suggestion on page 8, top paragraph, that "the building of shiny new urban environments goes hand in hand with the despoiling of remote regions.... In this and similar cases, the collective control process that stabilizes the environment for the benefit of more privileged groups also reduces the degrees of freedom available to disadvantaged groups...." -- this section seems weak, partly because of the value judgements associated with some of the terms used, but more importantly because your statement seems one sided and ignores that degrees of freedom are also increased for many residents of remote regions due, for example, to increased money they earn and the building of access roads that facilitates their movement.
With Regards,
Richard Pfau
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent McClelland <mcclel@GRINNELL.EDU>
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 4:39 pm
Subject: Collective Control and Environmental Stabilities
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.04.1530)]
Greetings! I'm returning to CSGNET after quite a long absence, but I
have something to share, and I'm interested in seeing what CSGNET
subscribers have to say.
The attached pdf describes some of my current thinking about how to
apply PCT to sociology. It's a fragment of a longer paper that I'm
currently working on, which gives a PCT perspective on the theories of
Pierre Bourdieu, a prominent French sociologist. However, the piece
I'm attaching is relatively self contained.
It's a 12-page pdf. If you are interested but have difficulty opening
it, please let me know, and I can send the material to you in another
way.
Kent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kent McClelland, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology
1210 Park Street
Grinnell College
Grinnell, IA 50112
Phone: 641-269-3134
Fax: 641-269-4985
www.grinnell.edu
On Nov 4, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1130)]
Martin Taylor (2010.11.04.15.22) --
When Nixon started the "War on Drugs" and created the DEA we
(my friends and I) all said something on the lines of "Didn't they
learn ANYTHING from prohibition?", but we thought that the
public would soon insist on relegalization and the WoD would
be short-lived. But instead of that, it has grown out of control,
to become a religion or worse.The public learns nothing from experience and right wingers actively
ignore experience (at least the aspect of experience that matters to
me; the well being of the vast majority of our citizens; they are very
tuned in to the difficulties of being a multibillionaire;-)). This is
just the way control systems operate; people don't want to deal with
data that is inconsistent with their preconceived beliefs.Prohibition was repealed only because most people enjoy drinking
alcohol; only a minority of those people drink just to get high.
Everyone who uses marijuana uses it _only_ to get high. I think the
repeal of prohibition had general support because it interfered with
many people's life style; not because they saw that prohibition was
the cause of a huge crime wave. Marijuana is unlikely to ever be
legalized in the US because of the fact that it is used only to get
high and right now I bet only a small minority of people are users.
The non-user population --probably 80% in the US -- could care less
about evidence that drug prohibition is a waste of their taxes.Same is true for right wing policies, such as regressive taxation (the
Reagan/Bush tax cuts), that always increase unemployment and the
deficit. People don't look at the data; they just know what they are
told by the right wing noise machine that now controls the US media.
And right wing policy makers care only about making the rich richer
and they _know_ that making the rich richer is the best thing to do
for the economy so they are certainly not interested in data, which
has that damned liberal bias;-)I'm afraid the US is f**ked by the complete right-wing corporate take
over of the political process and media, along with the active
cheering on of the working class Tea Party mishuganas. But there is a
small ray of hope; California might actually get it together, which
would be nice for me because, though I love Canada, I love sunny
California even more;-)Have a nice winter;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Kent McClelland 2010.11.09.1200 CST]
Thank you, Richard, for your comments on my article. You make a good point about the possible benefits that people in remote regions might derive from stabilization of an urban environment, and it's clear to me that in my next draft of this paper I will need to focus more on how collective control can often increase the degrees of freedom for everyone involved.
Kent
On Nov 9, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Richard H. Pfau wrote:
[From Richard Pfau 2010.11.09.1207EST]
Kent,
Thank you for your very informative, thought provoking article. Very nicely presented! I enjoyed and benefited from it very much.
One small comment. Your suggestion on page 8, top paragraph, that "the building of shiny new urban environments goes hand in hand with the despoiling of remote regions.... In this and similar cases, the collective control process that stabilizes the environment for the benefit of more privileged groups also reduces the degrees of freedom available to disadvantaged groups...." -- this section seems weak, partly because of the value judgements associated with some of the terms used, but more importantly because your statement seems one sided and ignores that degrees of freedom are also increased for many residents of remote regions due, for example, to increased money they earn and the building of access roads that facilitates their movement.
With Regards,
Richard Pfau
[From Fred Nickols (2010.11.09.1239 MST)]
Kent:
I just read your paper and find it very interesting and very useful. I am
prompted to ask a couple of questions.
(1) The use of "virtual reference level" is new to me. Where can I find out
more about that?
(2) Assuming you are familiar with "the tragedy of the commons" (i.e., the
destruction of shared resources owing to a lack of assumption of
responsibility), how would you explain that using PCT?
Thanks again for the paper. I'll mull it over some more.
Fred Nickols
fred@nickols.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Kent McClelland
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:29 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Collective Control and Environmental Stabilities
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.04.1530)]
Greetings! I'm returning to CSGNET after quite a long absence, but I have
something to share, and I'm interested in seeing what CSGNET subscribers
have to say.
The attached pdf describes some of my current thinking about how to apply
PCT to sociology. It's a fragment of a longer paper that I'm currently
working on, which gives a PCT perspective on the theories of Pierre
Bourdieu, a prominent French sociologist. However, the piece I'm attaching
is relatively self contained.
It's a 12-page pdf. If you are interested but have difficulty opening it,
please let me know, and I can send the material to you in another way.
Kent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kent McClelland, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology
1210 Park Street
Grinnell College
Grinnell, IA 50112
Phone: 641-269-3134
Fax: 641-269-4985
www.grinnell.edu
On Nov 4, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1130)]
Martin Taylor (2010.11.04.15.22) --
When Nixon started the "War on Drugs" and created the DEA we (my
friends and I) all said something on the lines of "Didn't they learn
ANYTHING from prohibition?", but we thought that the public would
soon insist on relegalization and the WoD would be short-lived. But
instead of that, it has grown out of control, to become a religion or
worse.The public learns nothing from experience and right wingers actively
ignore experience (at least the aspect of experience that matters to
me; the well being of the vast majority of our citizens; they are very
tuned in to the difficulties of being a multibillionaire;-)). This is
just the way control systems operate; people don't want to deal with
data that is inconsistent with their preconceived beliefs.Prohibition was repealed only because most people enjoy drinking
alcohol; only a minority of those people drink just to get high.
Everyone who uses marijuana uses it _only_ to get high. I think the
repeal of prohibition had general support because it interfered with
many people's life style; not because they saw that prohibition was
the cause of a huge crime wave. Marijuana is unlikely to ever be
legalized in the US because of the fact that it is used only to get
high and right now I bet only a small minority of people are users.
The non-user population --probably 80% in the US -- could care less
about evidence that drug prohibition is a waste of their taxes.Same is true for right wing policies, such as regressive taxation (the
Reagan/Bush tax cuts), that always increase unemployment and the
deficit. People don't look at the data; they just know what they are
told by the right wing noise machine that now controls the US media.
And right wing policy makers care only about making the rich richer
and they _know_ that making the rich richer is the best thing to do
for the economy so they are certainly not interested in data, which
has that damned liberal bias;-)I'm afraid the US is f**ked by the complete right-wing corporate take
over of the political process and media, along with the active
cheering on of the working class Tea Party mishuganas. But there is a
small ray of hope; California might actually get it together, which
would be nice for me because, though I love Canada, I love sunny
California even more;-)Have a nice winter;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Kent McClelland 2010.11.09.1400 CST]
[From Fred Nickols (2010.11.09.1239 MST)]
Thanks for your comments, Fred. I'll try to answer your questions:
(1) The use of "virtual reference level" is new to me. Where can I find out
more about that?
This is a term that Bill Powers coined. He talks about it in Behavior: The Control of Perception (p. 255 original edition, p. 267 second edition). I also discuss it in my 2004 paper on collective control.
(2) Assuming you are familiar with "the tragedy of the commons" (i.e., the
destruction of shared resources owing to a lack of assumption of
responsibility), how would you explain that using PCT?
I see the commons (in its original guise) as a stabilized portion of the environment (kept in grassland, probably fenced, open to all in the community) which does not provide enough degrees of freedom for everyone who wants to graze sheep on it. There just aren't enough blades of grass for all the sheep to eat.
This example seems very much the same as the "traffic jam on the expressway" example that I discuss in the article I distributed. The environmental stabilization that channels lots of people's behavior into trying to control similar perceptions (graze as many of my sheep as I can on this "public" land) leads to competition and contention for the resource. (And here we can think of "resources" as parts of the environment that have been stabilized sufficiently to become raw materials for controlling other more complex perceptions and processes.)
Does this make sense to you?
Kent
[From Kent McClelland 2010.11.09.1515 CDT]
Hi Rick,
I missed responding to this post last weekend, but you’ve raised some good points.
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.05.1915)]
To Kent McClelland:
It’s great to have you back, Kent. I have a lot I would like to say about your essay but I don’t have much time at the moment. And I must confess that I didn’t read the whole essay closely. But I do have a couple questions:
- You say: "However, when the actors involved in the joint control of an environmental variable use different reference points in attempting to control the variable, their actions will come into conflict, because the outcome of this “collective control process,” as it has been called (McClelland 2006), will stabilize the controlled variable at a “virtual reference level”. Is the “environmental variable” controlled by the individuals the same as the “controlled variable” for which there is a virtual reference level? I think it must be but maybe you could clear that up.
Yes. I’m referring to what is usually called the “controlled variable”.
- It seems like your essay is focused on the “side effects” of collective control, where collective control always involves control of a controlled variable that is a function of the same physical (environmental) variables. Another example of collective control that has interesting side effects but seems a bit different than that discussed in you paper is the kind seen in Bill’s “Crowd” demo (which I know you are familiar with). In that case all the actors are controlling the same perceptions (proximity, destination, etc), but the physical variables involved are usually different (because they are in different locations) so there is little or no conflict; but you do get organized side effects (like the circle formed around the guru). But these results are not like the virtual reference states you discuss in the paper (at least to the point I got) because it can be demonstrated that they are not controlled.
No, I’m not referring to the kinds of side effects shown in the Crowd demo (what sociologists might call emergent effects) when I’m talking about stabilization of the environment by collective control. However, I guess you could class some of the “inequality effects” that I describe in the paper as side effects, since no one necessarily sets out to create inequality when, for instance, a road is built to serve the interests of some groups in the population, and it goes through an area of natural beauty, which greatly inconveniences the local residents who have been using the area for their outdoor activities. Some other kinds of inequality (racism, sexism) are fully intentional, as when an advantaged group structures the environment to support their own perceptions of superiority over others, and such things can’t be considered side effects at all.
And there is another kind of collective control that I don’t believe was discussed in your paper but is probably the most effective in terms of producing controlled results: cooperation. I was at a concert today and was fascinated by the beautiful controlled result (The Firebird Suite) that was produced by all those skillful individual controllers (the musicians) cooperating with each other to produce that result. This didn’t happen by accident or by each musician controlling for The Firebird Suite on his or her own. Each individual musician had to also coordinate the sounds (and silences) they were producing with those being made by all the others (and with the movements of the conductor). This is the kind of collective control that produces the reference states for the perceptual variables that make up a civilization.
I see cooperation as simply one way of perceiving collective control processes, and I would say that, in general, collective control processes can be regarded as simultaneously cooperative and conflictive, almost always a mixture of the two. The degree to which a collective control process is more cooperative than conflictive depends on the degree of alignment of the reference conditions being used by the individuals engaged in the collective control. (That’s something I talked about in my 1994 paper, “Perceptual Control and Social Power.”)
An extremely precise musical performance, such as the Firebird Suite you describe, falls on the extreme cooperative end of the cooperation-conflict continuum, although even in this case I would imagine that this collective control process has some tinge of conflict to it, perhaps in the way that individual performers have had to suppress their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the musical score in order to follow the lead of the group’s conductor.
So what do you think; is it worth distinguishing these three different kinds of collective control (if you think they are different)?
No, I think that rather than setting up discrete categories for classification of different kinds of collective control, it’s better to see various processes as arrayed on a continuum from pure conflict to pure cooperation.
Thanks again for your comments!
Kent
Hi !
Kent to Fred Nichols :
�The environmental stabilization that channels lots of people's behavior
into trying to control similar perceptionsďż˝.
Bill P :
(1988) THE ASYMMETRY OF CONTROL
The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well known :
behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior. On
superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the organism
controls it�s environment, or equally well the environment controls the
organism. That�s not true�//� Organisms control enviroemnt but not vice
versa (W.T.Powers, Living Control Systems, page 251).
Boris :
Are these statements comparable ? Are they having the same meaning that
environment can�t control (channel) lots of people�s behavior ?
Best,
Boris
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.0720 MDT)]
To Boris Hartman
BH:
Kent to Fred Nichols :
�The environmental stabilization that channels lots of people's behavior
into trying to control similar perceptions�.Bill P :
(1988) THE ASYMMETRY OF CONTROL
The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well known :
behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior. On
superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the organism
controls it�s environment, or equally well the environment controls the
organism. That�s not true�//� Organisms control enviroemnt but not vice
versa (W.T.Powers, Living Control Systems, page 251).Boris :
Are these statements comparable ? Are they having the same meaning that
environment can�t control (channel) lots of people�s behavior ?
The nonliving environment controls nothing. Affect, influence, even determine, yes -- control, no. Control has a specific technical meaning in PCT. A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from changing. If a car goes off the road, the road does nothing to put it back on the road. So the road does not control where the car goes. The rate of a chemical reaction increases when the temperature rises, so the temperature affects or influences the rate of the reaction, but does not control it. If a mixture is stirred, the overall reaction rate will increase, but the temperature will not then change in an attempt to restore the previous reaction rate.
If you don't want to use the technical terms of PCT correctly, that's your priviledge. But if you use them incorrectly, what you say will have nothing to do with PCT. "Channeling" is not a PCT term so you can use it any way you like. Some people use it to mean communication with the dead. It's not interchangeable with "controlling."
Best,
Bill P.
Bill wrote:
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from
changing."
The minor edit below reflects how I interact chaotically with my
surrounding environment, including people, the totality of which I view
as a complete signifier.
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from [NOT]
changing."
These two forces presented in a dynamic equilibrium should help humanity
to avoid its own self-destruction, in the grand scheme of things.
BTW, as we continue this discussion I suspect that HPCT will be
dissolved eventually into something a bit more sophisticated than its
original configuration. So what's the harm in doing that? 
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/50910052783559/site/default.asp
There are no great organizations, just great workgroups.
-- Results from a study of 80,000 managers by The Gallup Organization
Bill Powers 11/11/10 9:40 AM >>>
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.0720 MDT)]
To Boris Hartman
BH:
Kent to Fred Nichols :
*The environmental stabilization that channels lots of people's
behavior
into trying to control similar perceptions*.
Bill P :
(1988) THE ASYMMETRY OF CONTROL
The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well
known :
behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior.
On
superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the
organism
controls it�s environment, or equally well the environment controls the
organism. That�s not true*//* Organisms control enviroemnt but not vice
versa (W.T.Powers, Living Control Systems, page 251).Boris :
Are these statements comparable ? Are they having the same meaning that
environment can�t control (channel) lots of people�s behavior ?
The nonliving environment controls nothing.
Affect, influence, even determine, yes --
control, no. Control has a specific technical
meaning in PCT. A controls B if and only if for
every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its effect on B
to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B
from changing. If a car goes off the road, the
road does nothing to put it back on the road. So
the road does not control where the car goes. The
rate of a chemical reaction increases when the
temperature rises, so the temperature affects or
influences the rate of the reaction, but does not
control it. If a mixture is stirred, the overall
reaction rate will increase, but the temperature
will not then change in an attempt to restore the previous reaction
rate.
If you don't want to use the technical terms of
PCT correctly, that's your priviledge. But if you
use them incorrectly, what you say will have
nothing to do with PCT. "Channeling" is not a PCT
term so you can use it any way you like. Some
people use it to mean communication with the
dead. It's not interchangeable with "controlling."
Best,
Bill P.
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.11.1035 MDT)]
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.0720 MDT)]
To Boris Hartman
BH:
Kent to Fred Nichols :
.The environmental stabilization that channels lots of people's behavior
into trying to control similar perceptions..Bill P :
(1988) THE ASYMMETRY OF CONTROL
The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well known :
behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior. On
superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the organism
controls it's environment, or equally well the environment controls the
organism. That's not true.//. Organisms control enviroemnt but not vice
versa (W.T.Powers, Living Control Systems, page 251).Boris :
Are these statements comparable ? Are they having the same meaning that
environment can't control (channel) lots of people's behavior ?The nonliving environment controls nothing. Affect, influence, even determine, yes -- control, no. Control has a specific technical meaning in PCT. A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from changing. If a car goes off the road, the road does nothing to put it back on the road. So the road does not control where the car goes. The rate of a chemical reaction increases when the temperature rises, so the temperature affects or influences the rate of the reaction, but does not control it. If a mixture is stirred, the overall reaction rate will increase, but the temperature will not then change in an attempt to restore the previous reaction rate.
If you don't want to use the technical terms of PCT correctly, that's your priviledge. But if you use them incorrectly, what you say will have nothing to do with PCT. "Channeling" is not a PCT term so you can use it any way you like. Some people use it to mean communication with the dead. It's not interchangeable with "controlling."
Kent:
I certainly didn't mean my use of the term "channel" to suggest that the environment controls people's behavior. Our environments may channel our behavior in somewhat the same way that riverbanks channel the course of a river. But in the case of the river, that channelling doesn't equate with control, as we find out when we get to flood season and the riverbank does nothing to restrain the out-of-control river.
Still, I think that a good bit of the time, people, like rivers, take the path of least resistance that the environment offers, but they always have the option of going a different direction than what the environment makes easiest (unless, of course, the environment offers only one degree of freedom to control a perception that a person wants to control).
My best to you both,
Kent
[From Richard Kennaway (2010.11.11.1652)]
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.11.1035 MDT)]
I certainly didn't mean my use of the term "channel" to suggest that the environment controls people's behavior. Our environments may channel our behavior in somewhat the same way that riverbanks channel the course of a river. But in the case of the river, that channelling doesn't equate with control, as we find out when we get to flood season and the riverbank does nothing to restrain the out-of-control river.Still, I think that a good bit of the time, people, like rivers, take the path of least resistance that the environment offers, but they always have the option of going a different direction than what the environment makes easiest (unless, of course, the environment offers only one degree of freedom to control a perception that a person wants to control).
Unless there is a physical barrier, the road does nothing to channel the drivers. It is only the drivers' own intentions to drive along the road that keep the cars there. The road isn't a path of least resistance, it's a path of effectiveness in achieving the drivers' intentions. The moment a driver intends to pull off the road, that is what he will do.
--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.09.0900)]
Kent McClelland (2010.11.09.1515 CDT)
RM: So what do you think; is it worth distinguishing these three different kinds
of collective control (if you think they are different)?KM: No, I think that rather than setting up discrete categories for
classification of different kinds of collective control, it's better to see
various processes as arrayed on a continuum from pure conflict to pure
cooperation.
I see what you mean. I think we can look at it in terms of several
people controlling the same variable, like the position of a cursor.
So c = o1+o2+o3...+ d, where o1, o2.. are the outputs of the different
people controlling the same environmental variable, c, and d is the
net disturbance to that variable. If everyone controlling c has the
same reference for c then we have what appears to be cooperation; if
everyone has a slightly different reference for c then we get low
level conflict and c stabilized at a virtual reference state that is
the average of the references for each controller; if everyone has a
very different reference for c then we get lots of conflict (Most
everyone evperiencing large error) but still c is stabilized at at a
virtual reference. Is this what you mean by the continuum from
coordination to conflict?
If this is right then I have a somewhat different notion of
cooperation than this. My idea of cooperation requires control of
cooperation itself; cooperation, as I see it, doesn't happen by
chance; it is something we do on purpose; it is a controlled
perception.
The "cooperation" described above results from everyone controlling,
for unspecified reasons, the same variable at the same reference
level. In my view, this kind of cooperation can occur on purpose if
the individuals can perceive the benefits of cooperating and are
willing to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve the desired
result. So one of the individuals -- a leader -- might explain to the
individuals that if they all adopt the same reference for c then c can
be brought to that reference (where it would be difficult or
impossible to bring c to anyone's individual reference for c if each
selected a different reference for c).
One example of where this kind of cooperation is required is in moving
furniture. If I want to move a couch I can't do it on my own; I've got
to get some help, which means convincing at least one other person to
have the same reference as me for the new location of the couch. I can
usually get such cooperation from people who know that I will help
them (adopt their references) when they need help. Cooperation of this
sort requires, I think, controllers giving up some control (the person
who helps me has to be willing to control for something they don't
want to control, thus creating higher order error) in order for
everyone involved to eventually control better (I can control the
location of my couch with their help and my helper knows they will be
able to control in the future with my help).
So I do think this kind of cooperative control is somewhat different
that the kind of cooperation that happens when people, by chance,
happen to end up with the same or very similar references for the same
variable.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.11.1105 CDT)]
Hi Rick,
All of your comments below seem right on target to me. There's nothing I would add or take away from your discussion. Clearly, "controlling for cooperation" is a different kind of collective control process than an alignment of reference conditions among controllers that takes place by accident or without conscious intention.
I guess there is one thing I would add. Even when a group of people have a leader and are controlling for cooperation, they may fail to align their reference conditions for the collective control process they are engaged in. You should have heard the chaos in the singing group that I'm a part of when we rehearsed last night! (Actually, you're lucky you didn't.)
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.09.0900)]
Kent McClelland (2010.11.09.1515 CDT)
RM: So what do you think; is it worth distinguishing these three different kinds
of collective control (if you think they are different)?KM: No, I think that rather than setting up discrete categories for
classification of different kinds of collective control, it's better to see
various processes as arrayed on a continuum from pure conflict to pure
cooperation.I see what you mean. I think we can look at it in terms of several
people controlling the same variable, like the position of a cursor.
So c = o1+o2+o3...+ d, where o1, o2.. are the outputs of the different
people controlling the same environmental variable, c, and d is the
net disturbance to that variable. If everyone controlling c has the
same reference for c then we have what appears to be cooperation; if
everyone has a slightly different reference for c then we get low
level conflict and c stabilized at a virtual reference state that is
the average of the references for each controller; if everyone has a
very different reference for c then we get lots of conflict (Most
everyone evperiencing large error) but still c is stabilized at at a
virtual reference. Is this what you mean by the continuum from
coordination to conflict?If this is right then I have a somewhat different notion of
cooperation than this. My idea of cooperation requires control of
cooperation itself; cooperation, as I see it, doesn't happen by
chance; it is something we do on purpose; it is a controlled
perception.The "cooperation" described above results from everyone controlling,
for unspecified reasons, the same variable at the same reference
level. In my view, this kind of cooperation can occur on purpose if
the individuals can perceive the benefits of cooperating and are
willing to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve the desired
result. So one of the individuals -- a leader -- might explain to the
individuals that if they all adopt the same reference for c then c can
be brought to that reference (where it would be difficult or
impossible to bring c to anyone's individual reference for c if each
selected a different reference for c).One example of where this kind of cooperation is required is in moving
furniture. If I want to move a couch I can't do it on my own; I've got
to get some help, which means convincing at least one other person to
have the same reference as me for the new location of the couch. I can
usually get such cooperation from people who know that I will help
them (adopt their references) when they need help. Cooperation of this
sort requires, I think, controllers giving up some control (the person
who helps me has to be willing to control for something they don't
want to control, thus creating higher order error) in order for
everyone involved to eventually control better (I can control the
location of my couch with their help and my helper knows they will be
able to control in the future with my help).So I do think this kind of cooperative control is somewhat different
that the kind of cooperation that happens when people, by chance,
happen to end up with the same or very similar references for the same
variable.Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.1010 MDT)]
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from [NOT]
changing."
Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way. It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed.
These two forces presented in a dynamic equilibrium should help humanity
to avoid its own self-destruction, in the grand scheme of things.
You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about, do you?
Bill P.
At 11:37 AM 11/11/2010 -0500, Chad Green wrote:
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.11.1120 CDT)]
[From Richard Kennaway (2010.11.11.1652)]
[From Kent McClelland (2010.11.11.1035 MDT)]
I certainly didn't mean my use of the term "channel" to suggest that the environment controls people's behavior. Our environments may channel our behavior in somewhat the same way that riverbanks channel the course of a river. But in the case of the river, that channelling doesn't equate with control, as we find out when we get to flood season and the riverbank does nothing to restrain the out-of-control river.Still, I think that a good bit of the time, people, like rivers, take the path of least resistance that the environment offers, but they always have the option of going a different direction than what the environment makes easiest (unless, of course, the environment offers only one degree of freedom to control a perception that a person wants to control).
Unless there is a physical barrier, the road does nothing to channel the drivers. It is only the drivers' own intentions to drive along the road that keep the cars there. The road isn't a path of least resistance, it's a path of effectiveness in achieving the drivers' intentions. The moment a driver intends to pull off the road, that is what he will do.
Hi Richard! Hope you're doing well.
My point, Richard, was just that if there are two routes to drive from one place to another, and one is an expressway with high speed limits and no stoplights, while the other is an ordinary road through urban areas with low speed limits and lots of stoplights, most people most of the time will take the expressway as the path of least resistance. However, if they expect terrible traffic jams on the expressway, the path of least resistance may become the ordinary road.
The driver always has options: taking the path of more resistance in spite of the expected resistance, looking for a third way to go, or simply staying home. But given a perception that a person wants to control, most people most of the time will choose what they perceive to be the most expeditious and easiest way to do it. That's not a law of human behavior, or anything of that sort. Just an empirical observation.
Kent
Bill said:
"You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about, do you?"
I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, Bill.
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/50910052783559/site/default.asp
There are no great organizations, just great workgroups.
-- Results from a study of 80,000 managers by The Gallup Organization
Bill Powers 11/11/10 12:18 PM >>>
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.1010 MDT)]
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from [NOT]
changing."
Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a
state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't
advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way.
It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed.
These two forces presented in a dynamic equilibrium should help humanity
to avoid its own self-destruction, in the grand scheme of things.
You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about, do you?
Bill P.
At 11:37 AM 11/11/2010 -0500, Chad Green wrote:
Bill also said:
"Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a
state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't
advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way.
It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed."
Yes, this notion of the car controlling its position within its lane applies to the physical world, and the subjective world is no different. We call them mental models or conceptual frameworks that experts use to simplify their understanding of the environment (e.g., domain, disciplinary, topical knowledge). The NAP's publication How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School provides some excellent examples: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School | The National Academies Press.
However, what I'm talking about transcends our facility for creating and navigating within those mental lanes, if you will. It involves developing a fluid intelligence that is unbounded by these boundaries to begin with.
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/50910052783559/site/default.asp
There are no great organizations, just great workgroups.
-- Results from a study of 80,000 managers by The Gallup Organization
Bill Powers 11/11/10 12:18 PM >>>
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.1010 MDT)]
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from [NOT]
changing."
Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a
state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't
advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way.
It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed.
These two forces presented in a dynamic equilibrium should help humanity
to avoid its own self-destruction, in the grand scheme of things.
You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about, do you?
Bill P.
At 11:37 AM 11/11/2010 -0500, Chad Green wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2010.11.11.12.43]
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.09.0900)]If this is right then I have a somewhat different notion of
cooperation than this. My idea of cooperation requires control of
cooperation itself; cooperation, as I see it, doesn't happen by
chance; it is something we do on purpose; it is a controlled
perception.
Sure, control of the perception of being cooperative is important (see my old analysis of "Helping" <http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Helping/helping.html> , but...
Cooperation can happen by chance as well as by design. You are considering only situations in which different control systems are controlling perceptions with the same environmental correlate at the same reference value. More often (my opinion) cooperation occurs when the actions of one person ease another person's ability to control some perception uncontrolled by the first person. Kent's "stabilization" comes in that form as well as in the form of virtual reference levels for control systems in conflict.
Any time the control actions of one control system stabilize the value of some variable in the environment, that variable has the potential to be part of an environmental feedback path (an environmental affordance) for a whole raft of perceptions being controlled by other control systems. As Stuart Kauffman showed (in "At Home in the Universe" and probably elsewhere), if there are enough such potentially interacting systems, it is almost certain that loops will occur. We would call such loops "homeostatic". They are self-sustaining because eventually the actions of each member of the loop assist that member in controlling its own perceptions.
As I see it, this kind of homeostatic loop is the reason for the existence of multicellular organisms, and for the existence of all stable social groupings, from family to nation or religion. (See <http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html> which deals with Kent's first kind of stabilization, ignoring the effects of stabilization on another's environmental feedback path, though the analysis works for both).
In other words, chance cooperation in which the control behaviour of one person controlling one perceptual variable stabilizes a variable used in the environmental feedback path of another person's control of a quite different perceptual variable is likely to be the dominant effect in the construction of societies, whether it be of cells, co-evolving flora and fauna, or people.
Martin
On 2010/11/11 12:01 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
Bill, I apologize for that last e-mail. Below is what I should've written.
Bill said:
"Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a
state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't
advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way.
It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed."
Yes, this notion of the car controlling its position within its lane applies to the physical world, and the subjective world is no different. We call them mental models or conceptual frameworks that experts use to simplify their understanding of the environment (e.g., domain, disciplinary, topical knowledge). The NAP's publication How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School provides some excellent examples: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School | The National Academies Press.
However, what I'm talking about transcends our facility for creating and navigating within those mental lanes, if you will. It involves developing a fluid intelligence that is unbounded by these boundaries to begin with.
Chad
Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/50910052783559/site/default.asp
There are no great organizations, just great workgroups.
-- Results from a study of 80,000 managers by The Gallup Organization
Bill Powers 11/11/10 12:18 PM >>>
[From Bill Powers (2010.11.11.1010 MDT)]
"A controls B if and only if for every disturbance of B, A ALTERS its
effect on B to try to counteract the disturbance and keep B from [NOT]
changing."
Yes, that would apply if the controlled variable were to be kept in a
state of change matching some reference rate of change. I wouldn't
advise controlling the position of your car in its lane that way.
It's fine for driving or biking at a specific speed.
These two forces presented in a dynamic equilibrium should help humanity
to avoid its own self-destruction, in the grand scheme of things.
You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about, do you?
Bill P.
At 11:37 AM 11/11/2010 -0500, Chad Green wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.11.1140)]
Martin Taylor (2010.11.11.12.43) --
Cooperation can happen by chance as well as by design.
Of course. That's what Kent's modeling shows. It can also appear to
be occurring when two control systems act to control two different
variables in a coordinated way, as in my models of coordinated
movement (a good example is at
Bimanual Coordination). These are examples of
what I would call "apparent" rather than "controlled " cooperation.
Any time the control actions of one control system stabilize the value of
some variable in the environment, that variable has the potential to be part
of an environmental feedback path (an environmental affordance) for a whole
raft of perceptions being controlled by other control systems. As Stuart
Kauffman showed (in "At Home in the Universe" and probably elsewhere), if
there are enough such potentially interacting systems, it is almost certain
that loops will occur. We would call such loops "homeostatic". They are
self-sustaining because eventually the actions of each member of the loop
assist that member in controlling its own perceptions.
Sure. That's would be an example of apparent rather than controlled
coordination.
In other words, chance cooperation in which the control behaviour of one
person controlling one perceptual variable stabilizes a variable used in the
environmental feedback path of another person's control of a quite different
perceptual variable is likely to be the dominant effect in the construction
of societies, whether it be of cells, co-evolving flora and fauna, or
people.
I don't think you're going to get a successful antelope hunt together
using chance cooperation. So, no, when it comes to human societies I
think what makes them work is mainly controlled cooperation. I would
guess that people succeeded as a species because their brains
developed the perceptual capabilities that allowed them to perceive
and thus control for cooperation.
I agree that some pretty complex societies, like bee hives, work on
the basis of apparent cooperation; the kind of cooperation seen in
that between movements of the two hands in the bimanual control model
(Bimanual Coordination). But I think the kind
of cooperation in bees can produce nothing compared to what can be
produced by the purposeful cooperation that we see in humans, which is
the kind of cooperation required to produce successful hunts as well
as computers, airplanes, air traffic control systems, cars, roads,
etc.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com