BP : I’m certainly not the expert, …
HB : You could be if you’d study your fathers’ books.
BP : ….and am not picking ssides.I am confident in the extent of knowledge of PCT shown by our moderator, and by the core group with whom I’m most familiar, and by whom most of the contributions here are made.
HB : It seems to me that this things doesn’t fit. Whether you don’t peek sides so you are confident in the extent of knowledge of all members or you peek Rick’s moderater side and side of »core group« who become »first order member« obviously »peeked« because of your long friendship with your familiy (as you pointed out once in our conversation«.
»Others« who are not moderators and are not in »core group« are obviously »second order« members.
But I’m curious whether Rupert Young and Martin Taylor belong to »core group« or group of others. If they don’t belong to »core group« I think that understanding PCT is more on the side of »others« then »core group«. If you need evidence there is lot of them in previous conversations with Rick and some »core group« members. Of course there are some »core group members« who have my full respect. But some don’t. But also the »core group« members are not enough sometimes to stop Rick (moderator). Rick can be  also insulting to respected »core group mambers (ex. Kent) or can drive them to »critical« state (ex. Bruce A.).  Rick is hard to »control«. I know it’s hard for you. But somebody should say something to him about what and why. He simply sometimes has to be »straighten« from his »self-regulation« course. We (others) proved it so many times.  And also some »core-members« did.
I think that also »others« deserve some repsect for the really hard work they’ve done here on CSGnet, preserving your father’s PCT. Rick is sometimes very hard to perusade, although he is learning. But if you »peeked side« of Rick (moderator) I respect your choice. It’s your privilege.
BP : While teaching, there is always more to learn. As you all know, this is one purpose of this forum. A close examination of one’s knowledge by colleagues, and by one’s students, is how one tests and re-examines understanding.
HB : This would be fine if it would be so. But by my oppinion is not.
BP : Hard work can become quite personal. It involves a huge investment in time. I appreciate the very deep well of knowledge from which each of you are dipping. This is complicated, and it can be difficult at times to put one’s understanding in black and white, to “make” others see what one is seeing.
HB : Agree…
/p>
BP : When there is a sticking point, it’s time to come to task and pick through it together.
HB : Well I think it’s hard to put together »picking one isde«, »swallow« all insults Rick has made through time. I doubt that giving him »protecition« and cooperation among all members fits together.  If you’ll manage it I’ll make a bow in front of you.
BP : This is not a competition,
HB ; Good. Explain it to Rick (moderator)
RM earlier : I kind of hate to win debate points this way… (in conversation with me)
HB : I think Barb that you should clealy know what you want.
Moderating : One who holds moderate views or opinions, be less extreme, intense or violent…
Winning : The act of one that wins; victory.
Thrusting : To force into a specified condition or situation:
Forcing : Power made operative against resistance; exertion…
Rick can be very polite and very nasty. But I think he acted in all senses. Two personalities in one. Like Mr. Hyde and dr. Jekyill
BP : …it’s a challenge to see how best thhese different areas can be clarified by a body of highly knowledgeable scientists. In the end, that is what will make all of this more accessible to others.
HB : I diidn’t want to say anything different  Just that your father’s knowledge is preserved as it is, so that Bill’s work will be accesible to other generation. I’m one of the rare »other« members that had all the time citating your father’s work. And what do I get back. Owners have full confidence into moderator, who is mostly presenting his RCT (Rick’s version of self-regulation) on the PCT forum, mostly without Bill’s citaions. And that is enough for owners to beleive him. I’m shocked, but I’ll take it as you wish.
Do you imagine Barb, how hard is sometimes to understand what Rick is saying  and than seek in Bill’s literature for right thougts (citations). Sometimes it takes hours, days, just because Rick don’t want to do it although he has your trust. I think that he should do it, he should present your fathers’ work »as it is« not only through Risk’s »perceptual constructs«. This is second hand knowledge and distortions to »what it is« can be very high. See »B:CP« how it works.
Why don’t you study all the books from your father ? I needed a couple years, you should need less time as your language is native.
Â
In the last case with »coin game« it was so obvious Rick’s manipulation and Bill’s explanation is so short (1 page and a half) that I think everybody could take a little time to understand what your father really wrote about it or what he wanted to say. Isn’t it better if we »hear« original PCT and not secondary interpretation which could be wrong.
But I understand you. I’m educated to understand others. At least I’m trying to. Â But everyone has it’s limits. And I think I’m on the edge or over. So I wish you really luck with preserving PCT.
Best from the second order member, maybe last time.
Boris
Respectfully,
*barb
BH wrote:
···
From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:19 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Declaration of Independence
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
This time I’ll not comment, but I’ll invite all members to participate in deciding whether Rick’s interpretation of Bill’s text is right or wrong. He mostly wrote about »Coin game« (B:CP, 2005, p. 236).
I think that Rick made similary to Philip his own »construction« based on his »behavioristic« psychological knowledge. So simply I think that he read Bill’s thoughts as he wanted to read them not »as they are«. Although also »as they are« can be critical, when there are many obsevers of the same »X« - external events.
But I’m inviting Rick to precisely define symbols he is using in his explanation of »Coin game« and in answer to Bruce and Fred, because I think that using symbols without understanidng their precise meaning can be misleading and manipulative.
Of course, also Powers ladies are kindly invited to participate in discussion about Rick’s interpretation of Bill’s work or they will just beleive Rick »on word«.
Best,
Boris
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:15 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Declaration of Independence
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.24.1215)]
Bruce Nevin 2015.09.23.11:33 PT]
Fred Nickols: What, then, is the difference between X and my perception of X? Very little as far as I can see. And, for practical purposes, next to none.
Fred, You might want to control X as I perceive it.
BN: Yes, that means controlling your perception of my perception of X. We do that all the time. In the methodology of PCT, you do it by experimentally disturbing what you perceive to be my controlled variable. So your perception of my perception of X can be based on sensory input from the environment; it need not be entirely imagined. (Though of course imagination has a much larger role when you don’t Test for the CV.)
RM: The problem here is the idea that there is an X out there that can be perceived in different ways.
What would it mean to perceive X in different ways? It means that your perception, p, is a function of X, p = f(X), and the different ways of perceiving X represent different functions of X. But if X is just a scalar physical variable (as it appears to be when it is symbolized as X) then whatever different forms f() might take in different people, the difference between perceptions of X will only be in terns of the perceived magnitude of X. So a 60 dB tone might sound louder (or softer) to me than it does to you. But clearly there are other ways that perceptions of the same reality can differ. So something is missing here.
RM: What’s missing is this. In PCT, what you call “X”, the reality that is “out there”, is actually set of physical variables, v.i, that is best represented as X = [v.1, v.2…v.n] as it is in Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. Your perception of X is then represented as p = f(v.1, v.2…v.n). Different ways of perceiving X are again represented by different forms of the perceptual function, f(). But now, when p is a function of more than one physical variable, the different ways of perceiving X can differ in other ways besides magnitude. For example, if p = f(v.1, v.2), the perception of X could be p = v.1+v.2 or p = v.1*v.2.
RM: In the Test for the Controlled Variable, we determine the perception that another person is controlling by computing various possible perceptions of the same situation (either using our own perceptual systems, as in the coin game, or actually computing them using a computer, as in the “What is Size” and “Mind Reading” demos) and see whether those perceptions are protected from disturbances. The perceptions that the researcher “computes” are called q.i – a perceptual aspect of X as perceived by the experimenter. So, in the “What is size” demo, if S is controlling p = w * h and E is observing the behavior of q.i = w * h, then E will be able to see that S is controlling a perception of X that is equivalent to w * h rather than w+h.
RM: An example of doing this where q.i is computed using E’s own perceptual functions (and where function f() is a a lot more complex than w * h or w+h) is given in a description of the coin game in B:CP. Here, if S is perceiving and controlling a “zig zag pattern of coins” and E is perceiving the zig zag pattern of coins and sees that this perception is protected from disturbances (such as E moving the coins out of a zig zag pattern) then E knows that he/she is perceiving what S is perceiving and controlling.
RM: Hope this clears things up. I think the main thing to understand is that p and q.i are the same variable. p is not a function of q.i; both p and q.i are the same function of physical variables, where p is what is seen from the perspective of the control system and q.i is the same thing seen from the perspective of an observer of the control system.
Best
Rick
This is the basis of intersubjective agreement. Intersubjective agreement is the definition of objectivity in science. In other words, this provides a definition of X as distinct from one’s perception of X. A provisional definition, of course. But we already knew that about science.
Collective control is related to this.
/B
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2015.09.21.0722)]
We act to control what we perceive.
What we control are our perceptions. When it comes to purposeful, intentional acts, what we want to control is the object of our perceptions, some variable “out there.� Let’s call it X.
For some practical purposes we can treat X and perceptions of X as though they are one and the same. For other, equally practical purposes, we dare not treat those two impostors the same.
I want X to be in a certain state. I act. My perceptions inform me if I succeeded. As a control system, all I can do is control my perceptual input, my perceptions. As a purposeful human being, my perceptions serve to inform me whether or not I succeeded, that I did or didn’t control X.
What seems to be missing from PCT is me. Those are my goals. Those are my actions. Those are my perceptions. That is my world.
What, then, is the difference between X and my perception of X? Very little as far as I can see. And, for practical purposes, next to none.
I hereby declare my independence of and lack of interest in discussions regarding the control of X or the control of perceptions of X.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**
“Assistance at a Distance�
The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room
Be sure you measure what you want.
Be sure you want what you measure.
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble