am i back on line folks?
only thing worse than an error signal is no reference point.
in past 12 hours, have been unsubscribed, then subcribed once again, but still received no emails yet this morning. last received a personal note of concern from gary cziko-thanks gary.
thanks for all your help and look forward to continued correspondences
gary padover
[From Bill Powers (2009.05.12.0818 MDT)]
am i back on line
folks?
Looks like it. Hi, Gary.
Bill P.
Hi bill. Thx so much for your feedback and providing me with a reference point. Have been following all discussions and just emmersed in this stuff as david goldstein is aware. Am fascinated by the minds and brilliance of csg group. As david knows my interest continues to be in applying pct and mol to family therapy. Great to hear from you bill. Have a good day and hope to stay in touch. Gary
I agree that the PCT idea and the idea of feedback as
a-message-I-want-to-give-you is different. My understanding is that in
PCT, feedback is the change in a perception which is the result of a
person's own outputs. This change in perception is called the feedback
effect. It adds to any change in perception which is the result of
disturbances which are called the disturbance effects. The feedback
effect is equal and opposite to the disturbance effects when a person is
controlling a perception. This results in the perception remaining the
same.
In the above PCT sense, feedback is something a person gives to
himself/herself while feedback in the nonPCT sense is something that one
person gives to another person.
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Fred Nichols post on feedback
[From Bill Powers (960724.0915 MDT)]
From David Goldstein, Bruce Gregory (960724 EDT)
Feedback is the effect of a variable on ITSELF. We use "feedback path"
or "feedback function" to mean a connection that makes this effect
possible, but the true meaning of feedback involves a closed loop.
Thus if something I perceive causes an error, I may want to make
something happen that alters this perception. In that case, I'm trying
to get feedback to alter the perception that caused the error. For
example, I don't know how you liked the paper I gave, and I want to
know, so I ask you how you liked it and you tell me. That corrects the
not-knowing error, whether you liked it or hated it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P
[From Bruce Gregory 960724.1310 EDT)]
(Bill Powers 960724.0915 MDT)
Feedback is the effect of a variable on ITSELF. We use "feedback path"
or "feedback function" to mean a connection that makes this effect
possible, but the true meaning of feedback involves a closed loop.
The temperature sensed by the thermostat feeds back via
the furnace to alter itself.
Thus if something I perceive causes an error, I may want to make
something happen that alters this perception. In that case, I'm trying
to get feedback to alter the perception that caused the error. For
example, I don't know how you liked the paper I gave, and I want to
know, so I ask you how you liked it and you tell me. That corrects the
not-knowing error, whether you liked it or hated it.
My perception of your response to my paper feeds back via your
answer to the question, "What did you think of my paper?" to
alter my perception of your response.
O.K.?
(Rick Marken 960724.0930)
Absolutely correct. "Feedback" that is "given" (whether it is wanted or not)
is just a _disturbance_ from a PCT percspective. It is an environmental
variable over which you have no control but one that may influence some
variable you are controlling.
Seen with the eye (I) of faith, I _know_ that Marken and Powers
are saying the same thing. It only _seems_ they are differing.
I'm not saying, by the way, that there is anything wrong with trying to
control by "giving feedback"; the wrongness of doing this can be determined
by those involved in the process. My point is only that the commonly held
view of "giving feedback" as a _helpful_ process is really equivalent to
disturbing a controlled variable, which may or may not end up being helpful
(getting a perception closer to a reference).
In PCT, feedback cannot be given; it can only be taken;-)
It _seems_ to me that feedback of the form "you're getting
warmer" or "you're getting colder" enhances, rather than
detracts from our ability to control. Enlighten me oh fierce
and terrible Marken...
Bruce
<[Bill Leach (960728.1725 EDT)]
[From Bill Powers (960724.0915 MDT)]
From David Goldstein, Bruce Gregory (960724 EDT)
Feedback is the effect of a variable on ITSELF. We use "feedback path"
or "feedback function" to mean a connection that makes this effect
possible, but the true meaning of feedback involves a closed loop.
Thus if something I perceive causes an error, I may want to make
something happen that alters this perception. In that case, I'm trying
to get feedback to alter the perception that caused the error. For
example, I don't know how you liked the paper I gave, and I want to
know, so I ask you how you liked it and you tell me. That corrects the
not-knowing error, whether you liked it or hated it.
And I am commenting rather late on this one but just in case...
An (not explicitely stated) important concept here is that the SOURCE of the
change to the controlled variable is irrelevent. A disturbance or a control
action that results in a change in the perception of the controlled variable
are "equally" feedback.
Bill's example is an example of both "types" of feedback. That is when you
tell him "how you liked his paper (or not)", you are "supplying feedback" in
the common (and unfortunately absolutely wrong) sense of the term. In his
example, it is ONLY feedback in the precise engineering sense (the source
for the term) or PCT sense BECAUSE Bill had a reference for a perception "to
know how you felt about the paper" (as he stated). Unfortunately the loose
use of the term that is so common in both everyday discourse and in other
approaches to psychology destroys the rigorous meaning for most people. For
most people "I received _negative feedback_" is "BAD" and "I received
_positive feedback_" is "GOOD".
Positive feedback is not necessarily _always_ "bad" but I have not heard of
any examples for living control systems where _NET_ positive feedback
represents anything but complete loss of control (use of net positive
feedback for the purpose of creating "binary latches", "switches", etc. is
outside the scope of my comment).
bill leach
b.leach@worldnet.att.net
ars KB7LX