decisions

[From Peter Burke (8/4/98 4:35PM PDT)]

I am probably a bit late on the uptake, and may well be redundant at this
point on the topic of choice (since I get the digest a day late), but given
the continuous nature of perception on the input side and activity (I like
that label) on the output side, I don't see where "choice" exists at all.
Our perceptions are manifold and constantly in flux, our reference signals
at all levels are constantly in flux, our activity is constantly managing
perceptions. There is no stopping point where a "choice" or "decision" is
made. One only needs to ask what perceptions are being controlled? If there
are several, and there is conflict, then we feel the usual twinge of some
emotional responses that accompany conflict and disturbances. Images may go
through our minds (potentialities, possibilities, etc.) but, these too are
aspects of the activity that is activated by the error signal. Is there
something special that needs a special label of "decision"? I haven't seen
it yet.
Peter

···

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Burke Phone: 509/335-3249
Professor and Scientist Fax: 509/335-6419
Department of Sociology E-mail: burkep@wsu.edu
Washington State University http://burkep.libarts.wsu.edu
Pullman, WA 99164-4020

[From Bill Powers (980804.2141 MDT)]

Peter Burke (8/4/98 4:35PM PDT)--

There is no stopping point where a "choice" or "decision" is
made. One only needs to ask what perceptions are being controlled? If there
are several, and there is conflict, then we feel the usual twinge of some
emotional responses that accompany conflict and disturbances. Images may go
through our minds (potentialities, possibilities, etc.) but, these too are
aspects of the activity that is activated by the error signal. Is there
something special that needs a special label of "decision"? I haven't seen
it yet.

My check is in the mail. Thank you very much. Obviously I agree with you
that choices and decisions are dubious phenomena. The normal state of the
system is a continuous flow of one equilibrium state into the next, with
actions and perceptions varying simultaneously in specific relationships to
each other. But occasions do arise in which two systems come into conflict
with each other. At that point there is an abrupt departure from the smooth
continuous flow, and the action either stops or goes into some kind of
limit cycle. This is the kind of situation that we say calls for making a
choice or a decision. Sometimes the solution is to go up a level: I want to
go downtown to get some ice cream and I want to stay home and watch TV. So
I guess I'll have to do first one and then the other (up to the sequence
level). Flip a coin, or reason that the program I want to see is on in five
minutes so the ice cream can wait (logic level, adjusting sequence). Once
the "decision" has been made, and I have "chosen" which activity to do
first, the continuous flow resumes, and I can stop deciding and choosing.

Thank you veddy much.

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980805.0940 EDT)]

Peter Burke (8/4/98 4:35PM PDT)

I am probably a bit late on the uptake, and may well be redundant at this
point on the topic of choice (since I get the digest a day late),
but given
the continuous nature of perception on the input side and activity (I like
that label) on the output side, I don't see where "choice" exists at all.
Our perceptions are manifold and constantly in flux, our reference signals
at all levels are constantly in flux, our activity is constantly managing
perceptions. There is no stopping point where a "choice" or "decision" is
made. One only needs to ask what perceptions are being
controlled? If there
are several, and there is conflict, then we feel the usual twinge of some
emotional responses that accompany conflict and disturbances.
Images may go
through our minds (potentialities, possibilities, etc.) but, these too are
aspects of the activity that is activated by the error signal. Is there
something special that needs a special label of "decision"? I haven't seen
it yet.

Thanks. I'm very comforted to know that all the things I thought I had to
decide, such as how to allocate my retirement funds, will take place without
my need to "decide" anything. I'll just wait for all the conflicts to
resolve themselves in the constant flux of life. What a relief!

Bruce Gregory

From [ Marc Abrams (980805.1036)]

[From Bruce Gregory (980805.0940 EDT)]

Thanks. I'm very comforted to know that all the things I thought I

had to

decide, such as how to allocate my retirement funds, will take place

without

my need to "decide" anything. I'll just wait for all the conflicts to
resolve themselves in the constant flux of life. What a relief!

Bruce, I think your missing the point. No matter how long or short
into the future our plans may be ( i.e. "planning' this evenings
activities" or "planning our retirement" ) We can _only_ plan for
_outcomes_ and since our CV's are _continuously_ being disturbed we
can _only_ take _action_ to reduce that error at the _moment_ the
actual disturbances take place. We cannot act for something in the
future. Every time you reduce error you are in fact "choosing" or
"deciding" what the next step _will_ be. We are continuously
"choosing" courses of action that will reduce error. If those
"actions' are insufficient then we reorganize. But all this is done on
an _as needed_ basis. You can't _plan_ reorganizations or actions
around contingencies that have not taken place. That is what control
is all about.

Marc

From [Bruce Gregory (980805.1235 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (980805.1036)

Bruce, I think your missing the point.

I am clearly missing something, since I don't see any connection between
your post and what I said!

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980805.1328 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980804.2141 MDT)

My check is in the mail. Thank you very much. Obviously I agree with you
that choices and decisions are dubious phenomena. The normal state of the
system is a continuous flow of one equilibrium state into the next, with
actions and perceptions varying simultaneously in specific
relationships to
each other. But occasions do arise in which two systems come into conflict
with each other. At that point there is an abrupt departure from
the smooth
continuous flow, and the action either stops or goes into some kind of
limit cycle. This is the kind of situation that we say calls for making a
choice or a decision. Sometimes the solution is to go up a level:
I want to
go downtown to get some ice cream and I want to stay home and watch TV. So
I guess I'll have to do first one and then the other (up to the sequence
level). Flip a coin, or reason that the program I want to see is
on in five
minutes so the ice cream can wait (logic level, adjusting sequence). Once
the "decision" has been made, and I have "chosen" which activity to do
first, the continuous flow resumes, and I can stop deciding and choosing.

You'll have to forgive me, Bill, but I find this post curiously
inconsistent. You first state that "choices and decisions are dubious
phenomena". You then proceed to tell us how choices and decisions are made!
I'm clearly missing something here.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bill Powers (980805.1040 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980805.0940 EDT)--

Thanks. I'm very comforted to know that all the things I thought I had to
decide, such as how to allocate my retirement funds, will take place without
my need to "decide" anything. I'll just wait for all the conflicts to
resolve themselves in the constant flux of life. What a relief!

Suppose you have to decide whether to put your retirement funds in Plan A
or Plan B. Let's say that you are using various data in reaching this
decision: the annual interest rate, the estimated security of the
investments, the age at which you can start withdrawing, and so forth. Each
plan has some advantages and some disadvantages relative to the other plan.
Plan A might, for example, grow faster than Plan B. So if you were
controlling for best growth rate, you would choose Plan A. On the other
hand, Plan B starts paying out sooner than the Plan A, so if you were
controlling for earliest payout, you would choose Plan B. If only one of
these criteria, such as early payout, were being used, you would have no
decision to make. You choose the plan that makes the error the smallest.
There's no alternative to consider.

But when you set up _two_ criteria, earliest payout and best growth rate,
you discover that simple logic stops working: there is a conflict. If you
control for best growth rate, you can't have earliest payout, and vice versa.

Various methods for resolving conflicts like this have been worked out. For
example, you could assign weights to each of the conflicting factors, and
sum up the scores of all the plans, picking the one with the largest score.
But once you've worked out that formula, there is no longer any decision to
make. You apply the formula to the perceptions, and out comes the answer:
Plan B. Given the weighting algorithm, there are no longer any alternatives
to choose or decide between. There can be only one answer. The same goes
for flipping a coin. Once you've accepted that method of reaching a
decision, you no longer have any decision to make. You flip the coin and it
indicates the alternative: tails, it's Plan B. If it's tails, Plan A never
even comes up for consideration.

To sum up: if there's no conflict, you just control for the thing you want.
If there is conflict, you have to choose or decide between the mutually
exclusive alternatives. If you already have a formula for making such
choices or decisions, you simply apply it and do as the result indicates;
there's no decision for you to make, because the formula gives only one
answer. If you don't have any formula, you have to reorganize until there
is some basis for deciding. That "basis," whatever it is, removes the
necessity to choose or decide between alternatives.
Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (980805.1151 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980805.1328 EDT)--

You'll have to forgive me, Bill, but I find this post curiously
inconsistent. You first state that "choices and decisions are dubious
phenomena". You then proceed to tell us how choices and decisions are made!
I'm clearly missing something here.

The way I see choices and decisions being made, they don't seem to involve
anything but ordinary control processes at the logic level, or else the
processes we use to resolve conflicts such as reorganization. They are
"dubious" if you are proposing that they are some special mode of behavior
heretofore unknown to PCTers.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980805.1416 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980805.1040 MDT)

To sum up: if there's no conflict, you just control for the thing
you want.
If there is conflict, you have to choose or decide between the mutually
exclusive alternatives. If you already have a formula for making such
choices or decisions, you simply apply it and do as the result indicates;
there's no decision for you to make, because the formula gives only one
answer. If you don't have any formula, you have to reorganize until there
is some basis for deciding. That "basis," whatever it is, removes the
necessity to choose or decide between alternatives.

Bill, I followed you up to this point and agree completely with your
analysis. Disregarding the question as to whether reorganizing is involved
(I don't want to get on Mary's bad side), I don't see why you say that the
basis "removes the necessity to choose or decide between alternatives." It
seems to me that the basis _allows_ you to choose or decide between
alternatives! Is this just a semantic difference? It seems to be the heart
of our disagreement, assuming we even have one!

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980805.1422 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980805.1151 MDT)

The way I see choices and decisions being made, they don't seem to involve
anything but ordinary control processes at the logic level, or else the
processes we use to resolve conflicts such as reorganization. They are
"dubious" if you are proposing that they are some special mode of behavior
heretofore unknown to PCTers.

Wonderful! We have no disagreement. I never intended to propose that they
were a special mode of behavior unknown to PCTers. I was just trying to
understand _how_ they are explained by PCT. My confusion grew out of Rick's
apparently saying that choice "is" conflict. That confused me no end, which
no doubt contributed to my intemperate statements about Rick.

Bruce Gregory

p.s. Careful using "reorganization", you know what Mary thinks about that
term!

[From Bill Powers (980805.2017 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980805.1416 EDT)--

Bill, I followed you up to this point and agree completely with your
analysis.

Hooray!

Disregarding the question as to whether reorganizing is involved
(I don't want to get on Mary's bad side), I don't see why you say that the
basis "removes the necessity to choose or decide between alternatives."

A "basis" for making a decision is a criterion that you apply, so all you
have to do is observe whether the criterion is satisfied. No creative
thought or reorganization is required: turn the crank and out comes the
decision. If I decide I'm going to buy the cheapest candy bar (the
criterion or basis for the decision), I don't have to compare the candy
bars for taste, nutrition, color, and so forth. I just scan the prices,
discarding all more expensive ones until there is just one left (a
program). Then I buy it. Of course if there are two different candy bars
which are cheaper than all the rest but cost the same, I have a problem.
Now I have to find a way to make a decision -- I have a conflict. My
algorithm has failed me.

I'm using "choose" and "decide" as terms referring to some kind of
conscious involvement, wrestling with alternatives that are all of about
equal value, so there is no clear and automatic basis for picking one. I
think most people use choosing and deciding in this way, especially when
they refer to "alternatives". If the alternatives are, for example, eating
an ice-cream cone and slamming a car door on your thumb, I don't think most
people would consider this a choice situation, or that any decision would
be called for. You would simply reject slamming the car door on your thumb,
regardless of what the other alternatives are, or even if no alternatives
are offered.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980806.0940 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980805.2017 MDT)]

A "basis" for making a decision is a criterion that you apply, so all you
have to do is observe whether the criterion is satisfied. No creative
thought or reorganization is required: turn the crank and out comes the
decision. If I decide I'm going to buy the cheapest candy bar (the
criterion or basis for the decision), I don't have to compare the candy
bars for taste, nutrition, color, and so forth. I just scan the prices,
discarding all more expensive ones until there is just one left (a
program). Then I buy it. Of course if there are two different candy bars
which are cheaper than all the rest but cost the same, I have a problem.
Now I have to find a way to make a decision -- I have a conflict. My
algorithm has failed me.

No problem. I agree. Our differences were semantic, not substantive.

Bruce Gregory

[From Peter Burke (8/6/98 9:36AM PDT)]

From Bruce Gregory (980805.0940 EDT)]
Thanks. I'm very comforted to know that all the things I thought I had to
decide, such as how to allocate my retirement funds, will take place without
my need to "decide" anything. I'll just wait for all the conflicts to
resolve themselves in the constant flux of life. What a relief!

And, you know what? I bet they will. :slight_smile:
Peter

···

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Burke Phone: 509/335-3249
Professor and Scientist Fax: 509/335-6419
Department of Sociology E-mail: burkep@wsu.edu
Washington State University http://burkep.libarts.wsu.edu
Pullman, WA 99164-4020

980806 08:00 PDT David Wolsk suggested:

[From Peter Burke (8/4/98 4:35PM PDT)]

I am probably a bit late on the uptake, and may well be redundant at this
point on the topic of choice (since I get the digest a day late), but given
the continuous nature of perception on the input side and activity (I like
that label) on the output side, I don't see where "choice" exists at all.

snipped

Is there>something special that needs a special label of "decision"? I

haven't seen

it.

I agree, Peter.
I suspect what many would label "decisions" exists as input classification
by the neural circuitry that gets built up through experience .... or is
preexisting from birth. If one looks at reaction times, simple and choice,
and then tries to reconstruct the neural transmission times, one gets a
sense of the complex circuits, using up about 100 msec, or a potential chain
of 10 neurons, for the simplest reaction time.

My own brain is a bit fuzzy this morning as I try to recall the research,
many years ago, of Robert Zajonc, on emotion and decisions. Something is
telling me what I can't remember is significant. Can anyone help me out?

David
Victoria, BC Canada (for the newly wed and the almost dead)

···

At 16:37 04/08/98 -0700, you wrote:

[From Bjoern Simonsen (980809.1530 GMT)]

[From Peter Burke (8/4/98 4:35PM PDT)]

I am probably a bit late on the uptake, and may well be redundant at this
point on the topic of choice (since I get the digest a day late), but

given

the continuous nature of perception on the input side and activity (I

like

that label) on the output side, I don't see where "choice" exists at all.
Our perceptions are manifold and constantly in flux, our reference

signals

at all levels are constantly in flux, our activity is constantly managing
perceptions. There is no stopping point where a "choice" or "decision" is
made. One only needs to ask what perceptions are being controlled? If

there

are several, and there is conflict, then we feel the usual twinge of some
emotional responses that accompany conflict and disturbances. Images may

go

through our minds (potentialities, possibilities, etc.) but, these too

are

aspects of the activity that is activated by the error signal. Is there
something special that needs a special label of "decision"? I haven't

seen

it yet.

I agree, and I can live with your statement but I find it purposeful to
distinguish
between unconscious and conscious perceptions. For me it is OK to use the
word "choise" in situations where I when I try to pronounce the goal I will
try to
attain, - the words that will result in _the refererence signal_.

Regards

Bjoern
bsimonse@c2i.net

From [ Marc Abrams (980809.1144) ]

[From Bjoern Simonsen (980809.1530 GMT)]

I agree, and I can live with your statement but I find it purposeful

to

distinguish between unconscious and conscious perceptions. For me it

is >OK to use the word "choise" in situations where I when I try to
pronounce >the goal I will try to attain, - the words that will result
in _the refererence >signal_.

First, Welcome to CSG. Second, I am trying to clarify for myself what
your intent was in the above statement. When we "choose" a goal we are
choosing an outcome. Whether it be for a dinner date this evening, How
I am going to entertain myself five minutes from now, or what kind of
retirement lifestyle I would prefer. None of these things results
_directly_ in a _reference signal_ Your goals are in your imagination.
The _reference signal_ is generated internally from the next higher
level in the hierarchy. Is this how you understand it?

Marc

[From Bjoern Simonsen (980809.2315)]

From [ Marc Abrams (980809.1144) ]

[From Bjoern Simonsen (980809.1530 GMT)]

I agree, and I can live with your statement but I find it
purposeful to distinguish between unconscious and
unscious perceptions. For me it is OK to use the word
“choise” in situations where I when I try to pronounce
the goal I will try to attain, - the words that will result
in the refererence signal.

Second, I am trying to clarify for myself whatyour intent
was in the above statement. When we “choose” a goal we
are choosing an outcome. Whether it be for a dinner date
this evening, How I am going to entertain myself five
minutes from now, or what kind of retirement lifestyle I
would prefer. None of these things results directly in
a reference signal. Your goals are in your imagination.
The reference signal is generated internally from the
next higher level in the hierarchy. Is this how you
understand it?

Yes. But I disagree you saying

… None of these things results directly in
a reference signal.

An imagination may result in an reference signal as well as
keeping a car on the road in spite ofcrosswind.

Thats my way to understand it, but Iam a newcomer. I am here
to learn in the next months. I will be glad for comments.

Regards

Bjoern Simonsen

From ???@??? Sun Aug 09 22:22:49 1998
Return-Path: owner-csgnet@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Received: from sj-mailhub-2.cisco.com (sj-mailhub-2.cisco.com [171.69.43.88]) by pilgrim.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA25806 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from proxy3.cisco.com (proxy3.cisco.com [192.31.7.90])
by sj-mailhub-2.cisco.com (8.9.1-Cisco/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02354
for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 14:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
by proxy3.cisco.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA18147
for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu(128.174.5.11) by proxy3.cisco.com via smap (V2.0)
id xma018145; Sun, 9 Aug 98 21:55:42 GMT
X-SMAP-Received-From: outside
Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11])
by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA56154;
Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:53:41 -0500
Received: from POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU by POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 9210950 for
CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:53:39 -0500
Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by
postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA40008 for
; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:53:38 -0500
Received: from grayj (ptnm-sh3-port69.snet.net [204.60.42.69]) by
cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA18975 for
; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=“iso-8859-1”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-ID: 000601bdc3e0$212056a0$412a3ccc@grayj

···

Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:53:22 -0400
Reply-To: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

Sender: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

From: Bruce Gregory
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
To: Multiple recipients of list CSGNET

In-Reply-To: 35CE245C.747E@earthlink.net
X-UIDL: 4bd5858420562907909fb04fcaaf7ac3
[From Bruce Gregory (980809.1752 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980809.1430)]

I sure wish you
could change the attitude that makes it impossible for us to
have a coherent, model-based and useful discussion of coercion.
I, for one, would very much appreciate a model of “virtual coercion” of the
kind you described.
Bruce Gregory

From [ Marc Abrams (980809.1744) ]

Hi Bjoern,

    Could you please switch the e-mail package to _plain Text_ rather
then _Rich text/HTML_.

    It's a bit eerie answering a post 6 hrs _after_ me :slight_smile:

    [From Bjoern Simonsen (980809.2315)]

    Yes. But I disagree you saying
    > ............ None of these things results _directly_ in
    > a _reference signal_.

    An imagination may result in an _reference signal_ as well as
    keeping a car on the road in spite ofcrosswind.

    Ok, Can you explain how this happens? Can you draw a diagram of
the control loop and show the connection between imagination and a
reference signal.

    Thanks,

    Marc

    Thats my way to understand it, but Iam a newcomer. I am here
    to learn in the next months. I will be glad for comments.

    Regards

    Bjoern Simonsen

From Bill Powers (980821.1736 MDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980821.1650 EST --

I would like to see one or two example of what is considered good "choice"
research, just to know what it looks like.

Best,

Bill P.