Data

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)]

Apparently data is to conservatives what crucifixes are to vampires (the effectiveness coming, of course,from that darn liberal bias of reality). So here’s some more of it, just to rub it in (so to speak). I found this lovely site pointing (in the form of questions) to data that contradicts all the conservative claptrap about how to improve education:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=552

The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care, standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative policies. The answer: none.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert (2012.05.31.1410)

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=552

The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care, standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative policies. The answer: none.

Jim:

Just because you cannot prove premise A to be untrue does not make it true. That is a fallacy. You mentioned in a previous post when you presented the data written by Robert Reich and published in the New York Times that conservatives never present data.
They just point out flaws in your data. The data should stand on their own merits. It is valid to point out flaws in methodology and data. The data that you present is what is at issue not the fact that we may or may not be able to prove it to be untrue. Or,
the fact that we may or may not present a new model.

Just because I cannot point to a nation that has privatized schools, closed those with low test scores, and fired teachers and raised the bar in education does not mean that one does not exist or will not exist in the future. Let’s stick to the merits
of the argument. What are the reasons for privatizing? What are the reasons for closing schools with low test scores? What kind of methodology are we using to measure student performance? What are the reasons for firing teachers? What kind of methodology are
we using to measure teacher performance? Those deserve more analysis on their merits before suggesting they have not worked or will not work.

One other point in the article that you sent in point #1, I am not sure what the regulation of the financial markets has to do with education. Let’s deregulate them both and let the bad (cheaters,etc) financial institutions fail and let the bad (not helping
students) educational institutions fail. Insititutions and people have the right to fail–to deprive people of that is to deprive them of reality and the human experience. Much good and learning has come out of situations in which people have failed. Need
I mention Abraham Lincoln (someone our current President has referred to often and has suggested that he wants to emulate).

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Bob_Hintz]

bob hintz 2012 may 31

I read some of the reponses to the article and thought this one was particularly relevant.

bob

**The big elephant in the classroom **
*Posted by Don Greenwood
02/13/2012, 02:46 PM *

I’m not an educator by profession (I’m an architect).

While Professor Ravitch does not offer concrete solutions, two of her assertions point very clearly to economics and attendant poverty (along with the complication of diversity) as a major contributor to our so-called failing educational system.

As the previous posters probably realize, the income disparity has only gotten worse over the last three decades, with middle class incomes remaining essentially flat, while the upper one percent is thriving and grabbing an ever larger share of private wealth. The lowest income Americans are the biggest losers. Since the 1950s, tax rates have fallen significantly.

The necessity that American secondary education must teach all students, regardless of economic status, quality of home life, and native or immigrant status, translates to students who come to school unprepared to learn. A teacher in a low performing school may actually be a better educator than one in a high performing school.

Until our elected politicians can abandon their winner take all attitudes and come together to begin to solve the economic problems of this country by adopting sane proposals such as those of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, our schools will not improve.

Perhaps more emphasis on early childhood development, more assistance for low income working parents, and a general mind shift toward saving our children prior to reaching school age would be more effective than after the fact band aid ideas.

Unfortunately, my confidence level in the ability of politicians to think out of the box and act like adults is almost nil.

···

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Wuwert, James D jdwuwert@wsfcs.k12.nc.us wrote:

From Jim Wuwert (2012.05.31.1410)

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=552

The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care, standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative policies. The answer: none.

Jim:

Just because you cannot prove premise A to be untrue does not make it true. That is a fallacy. You mentioned in a previous post when you presented the data written by Robert Reich and published in the New York Times that conservatives never present data.
They just point out flaws in your data. The data should stand on their own merits. It is valid to point out flaws in methodology and data. The data that you present is what is at issue not the fact that we may or may not be able to prove it to be untrue. Or,
the fact that we may or may not present a new model.

Just because I cannot point to a nation that has privatized schools, closed those with low test scores, and fired teachers and raised the bar in education does not mean that one does not exist or will not exist in the future. Let’s stick to the merits
of the argument. What are the reasons for privatizing? What are the reasons for closing schools with low test scores? What kind of methodology are we using to measure student performance? What are the reasons for firing teachers? What kind of methodology are
we using to measure teacher performance? Those deserve more analysis on their merits before suggesting they have not worked or will not work.

One other point in the article that you sent in point #1, I am not sure what the regulation of the financial markets has to do with education. Let’s deregulate them both and let the bad (cheaters,etc) financial institutions fail and let the bad (not helping
students) educational institutions fail. Insititutions and people have the right to fail–to deprive people of that is to deprive them of reality and the human experience. Much good and learning has come out of situations in which people have failed. Need
I mention Abraham Lincoln (someone our current President has referred to often and has suggested that he wants to emulate).

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2012.05.31.15:21)]

"Unfortunately, my confidence level in the ability of politicians to think out of the box and act like adults is almost nil."

I am my own worst enemy, and my elected officials are simply a reminder of this inexorable certainty.

On the other hand, is anybody familiar with Unger's notions of false necessity and empowered democracy?

Empowered democracy

False necessity

What happened to America's revolutionary spirit?! You know, "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?!

I would like to hear from Bill on this one.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> 5/31/2012 2:49 PM >>>

bob hintz 2012 may 31

···

*
*
I read some of the reponses to the article and thought this one was
particularly relevant.

bob
*
*
*
*
*
*
*The big elephant in the classroom *
*Posted by Don Greenwood
02/13/2012, 02:46 PM *
I'm not an educator by profession (I'm an architect).

While Professor Ravitch does not offer concrete solutions, two of her
assertions point very clearly to economics and attendant poverty (along
with the complication of diversity) as a major contributor to our so-called
failing educational system.

As the previous posters probably realize, the income disparity has only
gotten worse over the last three decades, with middle class incomes
remaining essentially flat, while the upper one percent is thriving and
grabbing an ever larger share of private wealth. The lowest income
Americans are the biggest losers. Since the 1950s, tax rates have fallen
significantly.

The necessity that American secondary education must teach all students,
regardless of economic status, quality of home life, and native or
immigrant status, translates to students who come to school unprepared to
learn. A teacher in a low performing school may actually be a better
educator than one in a high performing school.

Until our elected politicians can abandon their winner take all attitudes
and come together to begin to solve the economic problems of this country
by adopting sane proposals such as those of the Simpson-Bowles Commission,
our schools will not improve.

Perhaps more emphasis on early childhood development, more assistance for
low income working parents, and a general mind shift toward saving our
children prior to reaching school age would be more effective than after
the fact band aid ideas.

Unfortunately, my confidence level in the ability of politicians to think
out of the box and act like adults is almost nil.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Wuwert, James D <jdwuwert@wsfcs.k12.nc.us>wrote:

From Jim Wuwert (2012.05.31.1410)

  [From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)]

Do politicians know anything at all about schools and education? Anything?

The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of

education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those
with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives
believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care,
standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via
conservative policies. The answer: none.

Jim:

Just because you cannot prove premise A to be untrue does not make it
true. That is a fallacy. You mentioned in a previous post when you
presented the data written by Robert Reich and published in the New York
Times that conservatives never present data. They just point out flaws in
your data. The data should stand on their own merits. It is valid to point
out flaws in methodology and data. The data that you present is what is at
issue not the fact that we may or may not be able to prove it to be untrue.
Or, the fact that we may or may not present a new model.

Just because I cannot point to a nation that has privatized schools,
closed those with low test scores, and fired teachers and raised the bar
in education does not mean that one does not exist or will not exist in the
future. Let's stick to the merits of the argument. What are the reasons for
privatizing? What are the reasons for closing schools with low test scores?
What kind of methodology are we using to measure student performance? What
are the reasons for firing teachers? What kind of methodology are we using
to measure teacher performance? Those deserve more analysis on their merits
before suggesting they have not worked or will not work.

One other point in the article that you sent in point #1, I am not sure
what the regulation of the financial markets has to do with education.
Let's deregulate them both and let the bad (cheaters,etc) financial
institutions fail and let the bad (not helping students) educational
institutions fail. Insititutions and people have the right to fail--to
deprive people of that is to deprive them of reality and the human
experience. Much good and learning has come out of situations in which
people have failed. Need I mention Abraham Lincoln (someone our current
President has referred to often and has suggested that he wants to emulate).

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure
to third parties, including law enforcement. AN EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.1745)]

Jim Wuwert (2012.05.31.1410)–

Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)–

RM: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=552

RM: The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care, standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative policies. The answer: none.

JW: Just because you cannot prove premise A to be untrue does not make it true.

RM: Data is not about proving premises. It’s about testing theories.

You mentioned in a previous post when you presented the data written by Robert Reich and published in the New York Times that conservatives never present data.
They just point out flaws in your data. The data should stand on their own merits. It is valid to point out flaws in methodology and data. The data that you present is what is at issue not the fact that we may or may not be able to prove it to be untrue. Or,
the fact that we may or may not present a new model.

RM: The problem here is that pointing out “flaws” implies that you know what the “unflawed” data are. Unless you can point to the unflawed data that supports your point of view saying that the data are “flawed” is just a dodge.

JW: Just because I cannot point to a nation that has privatized schools, closed those with low test scores, and fired teachers and raised the bar in education does not mean that one does not exist or will not exist in the future.

RM: That’s certainly true. But if your goal is to improve education doesn’t it seem a tad more sensible to try to do it using policies that have been associated with such improvement rather than using those that have not?

JW: Let’s stick to the merits
of the argument. What are the reasons for privatizing? What are the reasons for closing schools with low test scores? What kind of methodology are we using to measure student performance? What are the reasons for firing teachers? What kind of methodology are
we using to measure teacher performance? Those deserve more analysis on their merits before suggesting they have not worked or will not work.

RM: This just privileges theory over data. It’s basically a religious approach to policy analysis (and I think it’s not a coincidence that most conservatives who are not billionaires are also quite religious). The thing that’s cool about the scientific approach is that the merits of a policy are evaluated in terms of results (data) rather than theory.

ML: One other point in the article that you sent in point #1, I am not sure what the regulation of the financial markets has to do with education. Let’s deregulate them both and let the bad (cheaters,etc) financial institutions fail and let the bad (not helping
students) educational institutions fail. Insititutions and people have the right to fail–to deprive people of that is to deprive them of reality and the human experience. Much good and learning has come out of situations in which people have failed. Need
I mention Abraham Lincoln (someone our current President has referred to often and has suggested that he wants to emulate).

RM: I agree that much good and learning comes from failure, but it also comes from success (whether a particular result is a “failure” or “success” is based on data, of course). For example, the US healthcare system is an abysmal failure (in terms of cost and outcomes), certainly in comparison to other countries with very successful systems. Conservatives either won’t admit that the US system is a failure – so they won’t learn from failure (the data) – or, if they are willing to admit failure, they want to change it into a system that is the exact opposite of the systems that are a proven successes.

Conservatives (and, to be fair, some liberals as well) are living proof that ideology (theory) can trump data. They are so sure that their theories are correct – they are controlling so strongly for being right – that data that is inconsistent with the predictions of their theory is just a disturbance to be brushed aside as “flawed”. Again, it’s pretty sad for society but a nifty confirmation of PCT.

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jun 2 1108 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.31.0820)]

Apparently data is to conservatives what crucifixes are to vampires (the effectiveness coming, of course,from that darn liberal bias of reality). So here’s some more of it, just to rub it in (so to speak). I found this lovely site pointing (in the form of questions) to data that contradicts all the conservative claptrap about how to improve education:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=552

The most telling question is the last:

13. Do you know of any high-performing nation in the world [ in terms of education] that got that way by privatizing public schools, closing those with low test scores, and firing teachers? The answer: none.

This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care, standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative policies. The answer: none.

Then how do you explain how the US got that way? The US finances drug development for most of the world and is a destination for medical care, its undemanding education system stays out of the way of children who want to learn instead of imposing high stakes testing and denying them a childhood, the standard of living and short medical care waiting times are the envy of its neighbors. The individual levels of these are all pretty much what the individual thinks is worthwhile. Anyone who can read and has access to libraries, the internet or cable TV has little excuse for being uneducated. Admittedly the government can frustrate initiative, at the individual level you have work the bureaucratic morass until we get reform.

Regards,

Martin

···

On 5/31/12 9:24 AM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM wrote:

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.

Martin Lewitt (2012 Jun 2 1108 MDT)

RM: This question really applies to virtually everything that conservatives
believe in: do you know of any high performing nation in health care,
standard of living, quality of life, etc. that got that way via conservative
policies. The answer: none.

ML: Then how do you explain how the US got that way?

The progressive era, which lasted from 1934 to 1980. There was also a
brief stint in the early 1900s under TR.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980910.0845)]

Tim Carey (980810.1310) --

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks to us having the kind
of discussion you mention above is that we have no common data
to discuss. Would it help do you think if we had some common data
to model and discuss?

Bruce Nevin (980810.0809) --

Hear, hear!

I thought we've been discussing common data and models. What
kind of data and models did you fellows have in mind?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980810.1229 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980910.0845) --

(Is it September already!-)

I thought we've been discussing common data and models. What
kind of data and models did you fellows have in mind?

We've been discussing anecdotal observations that we have evoked from
memory and imagination in association with the word "coercion," and a
single spreadsheet implementation that has to be called a simulation rather
than a model because of the absence of data. When Kent presented his
"collective control" results he acknowledged that he was not modelling
data, he was implementing paired control systems and observing what they
did. Tom pointed out that this is backward, that we were all coming up with
our favorite fairy stories and calling them interpretations of these
results, and that we had to start with data. To this Kent and all present
agreed or at least no one disagreed. Isaac also raised this point: where's
the data.

People in the field in schools and elsewhere have empirical data, at least
for populations, possibly for individuals. Maybe these data are not
suitable for modelling. People applying PCT in the field are in a position
to obtain more suitable data. The requirements for modelling might not be
clear to them. The best thing would be if practitioners in the field could
participate in modelling and understand its requirements better.

Can modellers help to clarify for them what makes good data for modelling,
addressed not to adversaries or potential converts but to allies who are
using PCT in their work? I know there's lots in the PCT literature that
bears on this -- the Byte articles, parts of Bill's papers, such as the
three papers in LCS II mentioned in Greg's "note about the text", much of
_Mind Readings_ -- and methodological threads have come up from time to
time in CSG-L, if one only knew by what keywords to hunt them out in the
archives. There's been a lot about why data from non-PCT research is
defective and to what extent it can be salvaged.

Is there anywhere a simple statement of the requirements for data to be
relevant and useful for modelling? Something addressed to those applying
PCT in the trenches who want to better understand the application of the
theory to their work and who want to make material, empirical contributions
to the furtherance of the science.

Tim, what did you have in mind?

  Bruce Nevin

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0605)]

[From Rick Marken (980910.0845)]

I thought we've been discussing common data and models. What
kind of data and models did you fellows have in mind?

Since this whole conversation has centred around kids in schools and,
specifically, the RTP process I thought the data we would need would be
something to do with that. I wasn't aware that you had any of this data, if
you do I'd love to chat about it with you. Similarly, you've come up with a
model of something and decided that it's a model of coercion, I don't
necessarily think that it is ("Fine, come up with your own model" I can
hear you say)

Exactly what _common_ data and models are you referring to?

Supplying us with a model and _telling_ us that this is coercion, does not
make it _common_. By "common" I mean commonly agreed. Similarly, I am not
aware of any common data that we have.

Bless your heart,

Tim

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0635)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980810.1229 EDT)]

Tim, what did you have in mind?

A great post Bruce, you raised some really crucial issues.

And what I have in mind are the sorts of things you talked about. My
understanding of most of the "data" that has been discussed is that it has
come from long ago experienced _memories_ or else it is what people _think_
are happening. A few posts ago I posted some anecdotal evidence from a
school I have been in. I was told that these were a good start but would
not make an "airtight" argument that would satisfy a scientist. Fine, tell
me what would.

This all seems a bit retrospective to me. There are no clear guidelines
from the people who truly understand the model about how to build an
application based on PCT and yet when something is presented that is
claimed to be an application it is criticised. OK, so what PCT principles
should one consider if they wanted to build a PCT application? And what
data should they be interested in collecting?

While I'm at it .... another non-airtight piece of anecdotal evidence ... A
12 year old boy told me last week in a school that he had spent the first 6
years of his school life plotting every morning as to how he could avoid
going to school. This year he loves school and gets disappointed on the
weekends because he can't go.

Regards,

Tim

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980910.1345)]

Bruce Nevin (980810.1229 EDT)--

We've been discussing anecdotal observations that we have evoked
from memory and imagination in association with the word
"coercion," and a single spreadsheet implementation that has
to be called a simulation rather than a model because of the
absence of data.

The spreadsheet model (sans output limits) is a very good
model of the behavior in my "Different Worlds" demo at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Worlds.html

When you control the sum of the bottom two numbers in the
"With Opposition" condition, you are the coercee and the
computer is the coercer. The "Reference" in the upper right
of the display is the computer's (coercer's) reference for
the state of this sum. You will find that it is impossible
to keep this sum at a value that differs much from the
computer's reference value; the computer determines this
sum, not you. If, on the other hand, you try to keep this
sum at the computer's reference you will have no problem.
So the interaction between you (coercee) and computer
(coercer) in this demo is modelled by the spreadsheet coercion
model where the coercer and coercee are both controlling
qi (the sum of the two lower numbers) and the coercer's gain
is higher than the coercee's.

I don't really see how data would help in this discussion
anyway. Your beef seems to be with how we talk about the
model, not with data. But maybe I'm wrong. I think one of
our difference is this: when a stronger and a weaker control
system have the same reference for a behavior of the weaker
system, you say there is no coercion; I say there is. How do
we decide this with data?

Tim Carey (980811.0605)--

Since this whole conversation has centred around kids in schools
and, specifically, the RTP process I thought the data we would
need would be something to do with that.

I thought the whole conversation has centered around the question
"What is coercion"?

Similarly, you've come up with a model of something and decided
that it's a model of coercion, I don't necessarily think that it
is ("Fine, come up with your own model" I can hear you say)

I came up with the model to explain what we mean by "coercion"
in PCT (coercion is simply control of the behavior of a weaker
by a stronger control system). If this model doesn't correspond
to what you think of as "coercion" then I would, indeed, like to
see your own model of "coercion". Since you reject my model,
I currently have no idea of what you mean by "coercion". I know
you (and Isaac and Bruce N and G and others) don't like my model
of coercion for various reasons but I have no idea what model
you _do_ like. I get the impression from you guys that there
is no way to model coercion using PCT. If this is what you think,
please let me know. If it's not -- and you _do_ think it's possible
to model coercion using PCT, then please show me the model.

Supplying us with a model and _telling_ us that this is coercion,
does not make it _common_. By "common" I mean commonly agreed.

Great. How about showing us your model and we can see if we can
agree on it as a model of coercion.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0700)]

[From Rick Marken (980910.1345)]

I thought the whole conversation has centered around the question
"What is coercion"?

Great. Since this conversation is not about RTP, I have no further interest
in it.

I came up with the model to explain what we mean by "coercion"
in PCT (coercion is simply control of the behavior of a weaker
by a stronger control system).

Who are the "we in PCT" you refer to? You have already mentioned that I,
Isaac, Bruce N & G don't agree with your model. To be a "we" in PCT does
that mean one has to agree with the word of Rick Marken?

I currently have no idea of what you mean by "coercion". I know
you (and Isaac and Bruce N and G and others) don't like my model
of coercion for various reasons but I have no idea what model
you _do_ like.

I don't like your model because it's not a model _of_ anything. You have
not modelled any data. And since this conversation is not about RTP schools
I have no idea what data you are interested in collecting and modelling (or
even _if_ you're interested)

Regards.

Tim

[Marc_Abrams5]

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1702) ]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0700)]

[From Rick Marken (980910.1345)]

I thought the whole conversation has centered around the question
"What is coercion"?

Great. Since this conversation is not about RTP, I have no further

interest

in it.

At least your honest about your agenda.

I came up with the model to explain what we mean by "coercion"
in PCT (coercion is simply control of the behavior of a weaker
by a stronger control system).

Who are the "we in PCT" you refer to? You have already mentioned that

I,

Isaac, Bruce N & G don't agree with your model. To be a "we" in PCT
does that mean one has to agree with the word of Rick Marken?

In _this_ case I guess the answer is yes. I agree with Rick and Bill
and anyone else who believes the model represents a control process
and _that_ process is the reason for our behavior.

I currently have no idea of what you mean by "coercion". I know
you (and Isaac and Bruce N and G and others) don't like my model
of coercion for various reasons but I have no idea what model
you _do_ like.

I don't like your model because it's not a model _of_ anything. You

have

not modelled any data. And since this conversation is not about RTP
schools I have no idea what data you are interested in collecting and
modelling (or even _if_ you're interested)

Wrong. It is a model of a _control process_ What data can you have to
validate _what_ a control process _actually_ looks like? Does your
inability to model an atom as it _actually_ exists invalidate it's
existence?

Marc

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980810.1754 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980910.1345)--

I think one of
our difference is this: when a stronger and a weaker control
system have the same reference for a behavior of the weaker
system, you say there is no coercion; I say there is.

Rick, how the heck do you conclude this from anything I have said?

The spreadsheet is a convincing simulation of the simplest and most direct
form of coercion, conflict in which the greater output capacity of one
control system prevents the other from controlling.

Now where do we disagree?

I disagree with you that the stronger system is controlling the *behavior*
of the weaker one.

When the stronger system is controlling qi then the weaker one cannot
control qi'=qi. The stronger system is not controlling the behavior of the
weaker one, it is controlling qi and preventing the weaker one from
controlling qi'. The fruitless effort to control qi' is the weaker one's
behavior.

When the stronger system is controlling qo', then the value of that
variable is part of the behavior of the stronger system and is no longer
part of the behavior of the weaker system; the behavior of the weaker
system is its fruitless efforts o' to change those output actions qo'.
Those actions are part of the environment of the weaker system--the body is
part of the environment of the nervous system constituting the control
hierarchy, remember?

An analogy. If a person is asleep and another person lifts the sleeper's
hand, flexes the fingers, places the hand on the pillow, those movements of
the hand are not the behavior of the sleeping person, they are part of the
behavior of the waking person. Just so, when Bill grabs my wrist and pulls
my hand over the salt shaker, my hand position is not part of my behavior,
it is part of his behavior.

That's one difference. Here's another point that we have differed about.
But first an area of agreement where you thought we differed. When in the
spreadsheet the reference value of the weaker system is set equal to that
of the stronger one, is the stronger one coercing the weaker one? My answer
is yes. The stronger one is still controlling the variable so that the
weaker one cannot control it. So this is coercion without conflict
(momentarily, in any real-life situation).

Another analogy. Nasrudin says "I can control the position of my house,
just using my mind." We are astonished. "It's true," he says. "Watch. I
want my house to be just here. And behold! Here it is!" "But it hasn't
moved!" we protest. "But I don't want it to move. I want it right here!"
(Or the lady who enthused "I accept the Universe!" to which G.B. Shaw
muttered "She'd damned well better!")

Just as foolish and fruitless for the weaker control system to try to
control any value different from that which the stronger one is controlling.

It is when you extrapolate from this to situations of threat or offer that
we differ. If the stronger system changes the value, the weaker one must
change its value in order to continue the above situation, coercion without
conflict. But in the spreadsheet the weaker control system is not equipped
to do this. Only the person experimenting with the spreadsheet can set the
reference values. This is why the spreadsheet does not simulate any of the
more complicated forms of coercion. If the weaker control system sets its
reference value to what it believes the stronger one is controlling, it is
not at all clear that coercion is going on. It could be manipulation or
counter-control. There's a big can of worms there. Eventually we have to
deal with it. The present spreadsheet cannot.

I came up with the model to explain what we mean by "coercion"
in PCT (coercion is simply control of the behavior of a weaker
by a stronger control system). If this model doesn't correspond
to what you think of as "coercion" then I would, indeed, like to
see your own model of "coercion". Since you reject my model,
I currently have no idea of what you mean by "coercion". I know
you (and Isaac and Bruce N and G and others) don't like my model
of coercion for various reasons but I have no idea what model
you _do_ like. I get the impression from you guys that there
is no way to model coercion using PCT. If this is what you think,
please let me know. If it's not -- and you _do_ think it's possible
to model coercion using PCT, then please show me the model.

Hello? Remember those funny little diagrams I posted? Those are preliminary
sketches of what I think models of the more complicated types of coercion
look like. I asked for help fleshing them out. I ask again.

  Bruce Nevin

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980811.0940 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980810.1754 EDT)

Hello? Remember those funny little diagrams I posted? Those are
preliminary
sketches of what I think models of the more complicated types of coercion
look like. I asked for help fleshing them out. I ask again.

I found this post clear and compelling. I have no explanation for the fact
that Rick apparently cannot understand it. I venture the guess that he is so
persuaded by his own reasoning that he never troubles to follow that of
anyone else. As evidence I offer the fact that be keeps repeating the same
statements over and over as if he had never heard the numerous objections to
them. (The Ronald Reagan syndrome.) This doesn't make communication
difficult, it makes it impossible. Too bad.

Bruce Gregory

[Marken_Richard_S1]

[From Rick Marken (930915.1000)]

Michael Fehling (930914 2:27 PM PDT) --

You may have lost the context of the exchange that you, Bill, and I were
having when you ask, "... after all this modelling, you must know what data

to

collect, right? Could you tell us what it is?" I was defending why we need
to build a PCT version of a UTC. SInce that hasn't been done, your question
must go unanswered.

I don't understand why we need to build a PCT version of a UTC (what does
that stand for again?) in order to know what data to collect. Could you
be a little more specific about what you mean? And how do we know what
the PCT version of the UTC should do before we know what data might be
collected? I guess I just don't understand.

In my agent model behavior is the result of a
tradeoff between pure reaction (based on prior experience) and deliberation
(e.g., formulating a new course of action, deciding among multiple
pre-existing candidate courses, etc.). This higher-level problem of

balancing

reaction and deliberation puts my model between the extremes of traditional
logic-based systems (that always seem to deliberate, even when their is no
time) and more recent reactive approaches (e.g., Agre and Chapman). Two
things are clear in understanding how people intelligently manage to achieve

a

balance--

How do we know that people have to manage this balance; the model has
this problem. How do you know that people have this problem? Have you
seen "pure reaction" and a "deliberation" systems in people's behavior?
In their brains? What's the data that suggests that people "balance"
these cognitive strategies?

You respond to my example of the one-element model's "discovery" of sequence
effects with a rhetorical question: "They were found by looking at behavior,
no?" You seem to miss my point. Of course the sequence effects were
experimentally investigated. In fact, they were always present, sometimes
even recorded in the data of experiments that were conducted before the
one-element model was developed by Bower, Trabasso, and others. However,
until the model had been so formulated, no-one had the good sense to look for
these effects, let alone to understand their significance. A model's ability
to help define the research agenda is one of its major contributions when
carefully used.

I think I understood your point; I am also a fan of modeling because
I know that one of the nice things about a good model is that it let's
you make accurate predictions (including predictions of phenomena that
you probably would not have thought of looking for -- like the delay
in the measured transit of mercury predicted by relativity -- without
the model). My point was simply that the behavior of the model must
always be clearly tied to observations (data); even in "cognitive"
models, some variables in the model must correspond to variables that
we could actually observe and measure. If we don't agree on this point
(and I have the frightening feeling that we don't) then I don't see how
we can do science at all.

Regarding the "sequence effects" themselves, Bill Powers (930914.1415 MDT)
said:

I receive such claims with extreme skepticism. When you say "they
were found," WHAT were found? Were precisely predicted
"contingent sequence effects" found in every subject, to exactly
the predicted degree?

And you replied:

The data on sequence effects are very strong. I have enough professional
integrity that I wouldn't have mentioned them otherwise without properly
qualifying my remarks . Please make that assumption in the future.

Bill was not questioning your integrity. One of the (many) annoying
features of PCT (for conventional psychologists) is that it demands
what appear to be ridiculously high standards for data quality. Nearly
all the data that make it into psychology journals (including journals
with the highest standards and integrity) is junk from a PCT perspective.
Most are based on averaging over subjects. The rest are based on
averaging over trials. Relationships between variables are considered
important if they are statistically significant -- even if this means
that on 40%+ of the occasions the data differed from what was "predicted"
(even qualitatively) from theory. A PCTer just doesn't find that kind of
data particularly useful. But we certainly do find data useful -- high
quality data. The PCT model shows you how, in principle, to find such
data -- by looking for controlled variables.

Best

Rick