From [ Marc Abrams (980818.1308) ]
[From Rick Marken (980818.0920)]
Yes. But none of those possibilities was relevant to "coercion".
The spreadsheet model was a model of "coercion" (control of
behavior). The other "intersting possibilities" regarding "victim's
perspective" are irrelevant to how coercion works.
I agree completely. That does not diminish ( at least in my mind ) the
interesting possibilities conjectured by Bruce. Two _different_
points. 
Marc Abrams (980818.2232) --
Rick, I was not trying to intimate that Bruce Nevin's conjectures
_could_ be modeled.
Maybe they could. That still would not make them relevent to
the question of how coercion works. This question was answered
by my spreadsheet model.
Again, I agree completely. From my perspective the coercion question
_was_ answered by the spreadsheet model. Bruce introduced some
conjectures about the effects on victims ( yes Rick :-), that is/was
totally irrelevant to the question of coercion itself. ) I think the
_effects_ of _conflict_ ( in which coercion is a special case ) is an
_interesting_ PCT question. By trying to defend the basic concept of
coercion I think you overreached as much as Bruce did. _Your_ basis
for effects were _not_ based on your model, They were based on _your_
own conjectures. it's not a crime to speculate. I think It could be a
little fun if it's not taken to far:-) If it was and is irrelevent to
_you_ ( i.e. the effects on _other_ control processes in the victim ),
I can understand that within the context of discussion on coercion. I
don't think your suggesting it _should_ be unimportant to others.
irrelevant to the coercion argument, yes, but not unimportant to some
of us )
I am hoping that by using SD software we can go from the _very_
basic to the more complex, over time.
I am very much in favor of doing this modeling effort on the
net. I am just injecting a note of pessimism about what people
with an existing agenda might be willing to conclude from the
models.
As Ken said _so well_ yesterday. You can't control the "magic" people
bring to the party. The purpose is _not_ to get _everyone_ thinking
alike. It's to get people to think about their interests ( like Bruce
Nevins notions on coercion ) in terms of _modeling structure_. I am
not a programmer. I tried following BP's post to Rupert Young on
modeling and got a headache. I personally can't follow lines of code
and "see" the dynamics of sets of equations.
I feel resonably comfortable that those folks who want to contribute
to the modeling effort _will_, given a reasonable chance to comprehend
what is being represented.
I developed the spreadsheet coercion model to direct the coercion
discussion from angry accusation to model-based analysis. It
didn't work;
I think because you ( meaning both you and the others ) _left_ the
model. Once you did that it was one conjecture against another,
_based_ not on the model ( which Bruce N kept on pointing out was
insufficent for _his_ arguments, and that you kept on saying was
irrelevant and then proceeded to conjecture yourself to answer Bruces
speculation. And around and around it went. ) If we can take your
basic model and try to _add_ to it some questions _might_ be able to
be answered. If not, at least we understand _what_ our current
limitations and constraints are and what we might be able to work to
in the future. _You_ may currently know these things. Others may not.
It's time to _try_ to bring the modeling effort into the realm of
_all_ who _want_ it.
people who have an agenda simply will not tolerate
the implication (readily apparent in the operation of the
soreadsheet model)
This is _irrelevant_. That will happen, with or without modeling
capability I'll take my chances with a person who understands the
capabilities and limitations of modeling and simulation.
that a coercer is coercing even when the
victim's intentions are what the coercer wants them to be. So
the basic, _simple_ fact that the spreadsheet was meant to
illustrate coercion (control of behavior of a weaker by a
stronger control system) was simply lost on people who din't
want to believe that coercion could be going on when the victim
goes along with the intentions of the coercer.
I have a different perspective. I don't think the fact of coercion was
lost on anyone. Some simply did not agree with facts as shown. Bruce
Nevin _never_ argued that the model was _wrong_. From _his_
perspective ( i.e. including the effects of the victim ) he simply
said the model was _INCOMPLETE_. He speculated on what some of those
effects _might_ be _Not_ the same thing as saying the model _did not_
show coercion. The problem is that _without_ a model this BS can go on
forever. Actually this BS could go on forever even with a model
I've had the same thing happen with my model of the baseball
fielder. There are still people, committed to the idea that
planning and anticipation are fundamental aspects of behavior,
who tell me that my fielder model does not capture what a
fielder is _really_ doing when he catches a fly ball. They believe
this even though they can see that the model clearly involves
no planning and anticipation and they can also see that it behaves
(in terms of movements on the field and the projected image of the
ball on the retina) almost _exactly_ like a real fielder.
Another _great_ illustration of this is in tape 1 of _Minds of our
Own_ Where children are asked whether they can "see" in the dark
i.e. _total_ darkness, _no light_ at all ) They all said yes and it
was simply a matter of the eyes "adjusting" to the lack of light.
After 6 min of total darkness the kids were _not_ disuaded of these
notions. They simply thought that the eyes needed more time to adjust.
People who do not understand _how_ the model operates are not going to
be convinced of the results, and if they are, Each of us will make up
our own little "magic" ( thanks again Ken ) to fill in the details
of _how_ it actually happens. The _clearer_ ( more understandable and
comprehensible the model is ) the better the chance that "reasonable"
discussions can take place about it. I can't reasonably discuss 50
lines of computer code. I _can_ discuss an SD model. _Very_ complex
ones at that.
I guess I am indulging in a bit of intense pessimism based on
nearly 20 years of trying to teach PCT via models and data.
You surprise me. After 20 years and your deep knowledge of PCT You
haven't "seen" that you can't _teach_ _anything_ to someone who isn't
interested in learning what _you_ want to teach. And if they are, they
may not be interested in the same aspects of PCT that you want to
teach.
Modeling again, is irrelevant to this argument.
I
have found (to my dismay) that even very intelligent people,
who are not only capable of understanding the models but, in
many cases, of writing the models themselves, will quickly
dismiss the implications of the models (and data) when these
implications don't fit what they want to believe (when I
reluctantly showed by graduate advisor one of my demos when he
visited me years ago at Augsburg College, he became almost angry;
people, even _very_ smart people -- and my graduate advisor is
_very_ smart -- don't like to find out that they've dedicated
their lives to studying a misconception).
People, even _very_ smart ones ( btw, _what_ makes someone _very
smart_ ) are control systems. We _don't_ like change. Especially
if things are well under control. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
So, again, I applaud your efforts to develop a modeling activity
on the Net. I think it will be _great_ for people who are _willing_
to learn from it. But the fact is, most people are _not_ crazy
about trying to learn things that create a _huge_ disturbance to
beliefs they already cherish.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Only one person has contacted me
personally. I don't know whether others are checking it out or if
there is no interest. That will not deter me in my efforts. I am doing
this for me. It is a way for me to contribute to PCT. I hope others
might find it useful, but I have no control over that.
I think some people (I'm thinking of Bill Powers in particular)
will read my words here as confirmation of my intention to see
that people _do not_ learn PCT. Maybe that is my intention. But I
don't feel like it is. I think that I really want people to learn
PCT and become part of PCT science.
Rick, I think there are _two_ issues here. I am _not_ trying to speak
for anyone else. Your technical expertise in both modeling and PCT is
par excellance. Your people skill ( at times ) sucks ( is that blunt
enough :-), I also know this is not news to you ) Helping people
learn ( vs. teaching ) requires an interest in understanding _what_
kind of baggage someone is bringing to the party. _WE ALL_ have
agenda's. You, me, Bill, Mary, _EVERYONE_. No one comes to CSGnet with
a "clean" slate. We all learn PCT within the _context_ of other things
we know and understand ( maybe ) You want people to "learn" PCT
the way _you_ did, and _that_ is not gonna happen. There is more then
_one_ way to learn PCT. The hope is that we all arrive at the same
station. But how we get there is really an _individual_ thing. If you
really want to help people learn, you will spend the time trying to
understand how to communicate the important ideas you have in terms
_they_ understand and can accept. You can _only_ do that by _asking_.
You have made some major efforts to do this, ( the newer, kinder, Rick
) I think you need to try harder. ( especially when your patience
is sorely tested by rude, crude, or annoyingly repetitive posts ) You
can also take the position that "these are the facts, take 'em or
leave 'em. in which case your wasting your time on the net. Just post
your demos and papers and leave it at that.You don't need the
aggrevation
I think I have proved my
committment to teaching PCT via my participation on the CSGNet
and (more significantly) by my (sometimes successful) efforts to
publish PCT research, models and tutorials. I'll keep doing this,
of course.
I think this proves your committment to PCT ( which I don't think
_anyone_ questions.) I don't think this proves you have the patience
and or interest to deal with individuals that might be "difficult" I
for one am thankful that you have this committment. You have helped me
a great deal and have _always_ been avaiable to me for the most
mundane nonsense, and that I thank you for. Not everyone can be a
great teacher. It's a very difficult job, especially when it matters
( like it does with you )
I guess I just don't want you (Marc) to get your hopes
up too high about the possible success (in terms of getting people
to start looking at behavior in terms of PCT) of the Vinsim PCT
modeling effort; the disappointment (if you are disappointed; and
I hope that you -- we -- are not) can be very depressing.
Thanks Rick I appreciate the sentiments. If this is the biggest
disappointment I have to face the rest of my life I'd consider myself
very fortunate. If the only people who are involved in this effort are
the people currently involved in modeling, then I think we all come
out winners because you were able to add at least one more modeler to
the team, me and _that's_ what really makes me excited
Marc
