[From Rick Marken (2005.10.28.1000)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST) --
Rick, you explained thoughts also I have in a convincing way to me.
Thanks!
May also I ask a question?
From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900)
A person can be tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant
with respect to others. In PCT terms, this means that a person
controls for some perceptions with low gain and for others with
high gain, respectively.Could it also be with respect to the reference value? A person controls for
some perceptions with a not so high reference value for some goals and with a
high reference value for other goals.
Yes, I think this could work if the reference were set to zero, which in a
one way control system would mean that the system is no longer controlling
for that variable when there is no perception of that variable. So setting
the reference to zero would be like ceasing to control the conflicted
variable, which is equivalent to leaving the conflict.
But, in general, changing the reference signal from high to low will not
reduce conflict (at least, in terms of the PCT model of conflict). This is
because the value of the reference signal just specifies the intended state
of the controlled variable; it doesn't determine how hard the system will
work to get that variable to the reference.
I think the easiest and clearest way to think about this is in terms of the
rubber band demo. Assume that there are two different people, each with
their finger in a different loop of the knotted rubber bands and each trying
to keep the knot over different dots (targets). The value of the reference
signal in each person determines where each person wants to keep the knot --
the distance of the knot relative to the target dot. Assume two way control
systems so a zero reference setting results in error (and, thus, action)
when the knot is some distance in either direction from the target. The
result will be conflict, with each person pulling their rubber band end in
opposite directions to oppose each other's disturbance, regardless of the
setting of each person's reference (as long as the references specify even
slightly different reference positions for the knot).
The intensity of the conflict, at least in terms of the initial size of the
response to disturbance, is determined by the size of the _difference_
between the references setting in the two parties; the greater the
difference the more intense the initial response to disturbance because the
error signal in one or both parties start out very large. If the references
happen to be equal (in terms of the objective position of the controlled
variable, the knot) then there will be no conflict at all because both
parties are happy with the knot being in the same place. But the references
can be functionally equal in this way when their values are small (even zero
in this case) or large. So lowering the value of the reference signal does
not necessarily eliminate conflict.
The only way to eliminate conflict is by changing the value of the reference
signal is to change the reference signal so that it is functionally equal to
that of your opponent. So in the rubber band demo, the conflict will
disappear if one party decides to keep the knot where the other party wants
it. This could involve either raising or lowering the value of the
reference, depending on what gets the reference to be the same as the
opponent's.
Does this make sense?
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.