DIFFERENT TOPICS

******************** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930929 ************************

  ON READING THE POSTS

  I have made the error of trying to read all of the posts on the
  net and thus have very little time for any other activity esp.
  writing on the net. For those who are selective about their
  reading two suggestions can be added to Gary's list: 1) don't
  read on the net and rely only on CLOSED LOOP, and 2) select
  your posts by topic rather than person.

  ORGANIZATIONS AS CONTROL SYSTEMS

  Has anyone got a sense of how this thread was concluded or at what
  point it was suspended? I appreciated Bruce's collection of posts
  on the "information" question BUT am not asking for such a set on
  this topic. I have the sense that the discussion was suspended
  until more work is done or an actual study can be done which would
  indicate to what extent and what circumstances multiple control
  systems (i.e., human beings) can form a single control system.

  I thought that Bill's little demonstration at a cybernetic meeting
  could be used as the beginning of devising a "role-playing" experi-
  ment for a study of an organization as a control system. Danny
  Miller and Carl Couch have done much research using discussion
  groups and persons playing various roles (e.g., Dean) that might
  be used for such a study. All experiments have person playing roles
  such as experimentrer and subject; Milgram's research used Teacher,
  Learner and Experimenter as well as co-teachers. Zimbardo's "study"
  had students from Stanford playing roles as guards and prisoners
  while Zimbardo played Warden. Thus a study could be devised to
  see if one could get a number of people playing roles do interact
  like a control system.

  UNDERSTANDING PCT

  Discussions on the net about terminology suggest that one of the
  major problems (NOT THE ONLY ONE) that people have with PCT is that
  we use words quite differently; not only different definitions but
  in different relationships to each other. I have pointed this out
  several times before. Perhaps it might be useful to include a
  glossary in the INTRODUCTION TO CSGNet statement. The glossary
  should not only define terms but show how some terms (e.g., behavior,
  control, perception, model, theory, input, and so on) differ
  dramatically in PCT as contrasted with everyday language and the
  same terms in other formulations. Bill's post to Wickens should
  be included in such a document. Much time is spent on the net
  writing "No, that is not what PCT means by X."

  FREE ASSOCIATION

  I would encourage more "free association" as was done in the lawn-
  mower discussion. I believe with such examples of actual problems
  it is more evident how PCT works on real problems with real people
  rather than just an abstract theory. I got a different picture of
  reorganization from that discussion than I had before; most of the
  discussion before was about reorganization in answer to disturbances
  of intrinsic variables. I also noticed that none of the participants
  in the discussion mentioned the use of a manual or "how to fix it"
  book; I rarely try to fix anything without the manual that came
  with it or one of my many "fix it" books. Of course with the lawn-
  mower I would just take it down to John at the hardward store and he
  would fix it.

  So keep that "free association" on the net.

  Regards,
                 Chuck