From[Bill Williams 31 May 2004]
[From Rick Marken (2004.05.31.1917)]
Bill Williams (31 May 2004 7:20 PM CST) --
Rick Marken (2004.05.31.1600)--
So far, the "experts" in social realities
like language and economics have not bothered to follow his lead.Actually the Giffen model was developed well before the Crowd model.
So, you have your lead and lag a bit mixed up.
The Giffen model was written by Bill Powers, not by you.
This is another case of Rick Marken passing judgment on an issue which
Rick knows almost nothing about. However, it does perhaps provide a
further indication why difficulties have emerged in CSG and on the
CSGnet. And, it also provides an indication of Rick Marken's role in
these difficulties.
First: Bill Powers has been generous in according me credit in
connection with our relative contributions in creating a Giffen
model. At the time I encountered Powers book, I had studied
control theory on my own sufficiently to have gottten employment
in designing control system for agricultural machinery. The
engineer who was my boss had written a control theory program for
an autopilot as a thesis project. But, he didn't know electronmics.
Between us we got some stuff to work-- and the method we used
worked better than the stuff that major corporations delivered.
Now, in describing who did what, my boss understood what control
theory could do, and he also knew about the agricultural equipment
that was supplied with a badly designed poorly functioning system.
But, he didn't know about electronics. So, I designed and built
the electronics. Who was responsible for getting the system running?
It was a colaborative effort.
Now, a couple of years later after reading Bill Powers' book _B:CP_
I called Bill. After talking about control theory and economics, I
flew out to Chicago for a long weekend. After getting acquainted
Bill Powers suggested that we should model some economic phenomena.
And, I suggested the Giffen Paradox. I had touched on the problem of
the Giffen case in a Ph.D. thesis about 13 years earlier. And, I had
been thinking about the problem of value theory in economics since
then. Like my boss for the soya bean project who didn't know electronic
I didn't have experience programing. In restrospect, when you can
look at a graphic depiction of the relationships, it might be hard
to immagine what it was like not to understand quite how the Giffen
effect works. It took most of the weekend to come up with a program
that worked. Bill Powers of course wrote the code. But, Bill Powers
didn't understand what the program ought to do. So there was a lot,
a great lot, of trial and error to try to find a way to simulate the
paradoxical effect. There should be no question that I couldn't have
written the program by myself. But there is no reason to think that
Powers would ever have written it by himself either. Even after I told
Bill Powers about the paradox, Bill Powers wasn't really thinking in
economic terms about how the paradox worked. Now, after the solution
has been around it might not look like such a difficult problem. But,
before it was known, well, it wasn't known how it worked. So, I don't
have any doubts concerning what I contributed. Bill Powers has sometimes
been more generous than accurate in describing our relative contributions
to a control theory model of the Giffen case, but the only thing that
really can be said is that it was a joint project.
You weren't there. It was a collaborative effort-- including the
writing of the program.
You acknowledge that,
Bill Powers has said that you helped in the formulation of that model,
Rather than "helped" I would say that we "collaborated."
but based
the "models" you've posted, I would believe that you wrote the plays of
Shakespeare before I would believe that you wrote the Giffen model.
That is just it, I never claimed that I wrote the Giffen model.
You might have sat on the side and kibbitzed,
Nice way of putting it, but Bill Powers didn't initially understand
the economic side of the Giffen problem. If you never thought about
the problem before there was a solution, it is unlikely that you
would have an appreciation for how puzzling it appeared before the
relationships emerged out of the modeling.
It's clear from the "models" you've posted that you don't know
how to write a computer model
How, would you know? You couldn't figure out how the Lattice model
worked. Initially you said it didn't have a control loop. Basically
you have been looking at stuff you don't understand.
based on your reaction to Bill's recent offer to help you write them
properly, you don't want to learn how either.
This assumes that Bill Powers' criticism was correct. It is easy enough
to show that Bill Powers' understanding of economic modeling is not at
all on a part with his modeling of other simpler phenomena.
You think lots of stuff is clear-- like pedophiles would make good police officers. And, Bill Powers thinks Keynes is a fraud.
I imagine it's hard to want to learn when you already know everything.
And, it is easy to be bitter when you know so little.
Rick I think it is time for you to send me a letter acknowledging that
you without my approval altered the Giffen paper that was published in
the American Behavioral Science issue. While you may not "know everything" you think that you know more than I do. You even think you know more about the Giffen effect than I do. This mistaken notion of yours that you understand economics has created problems. When you decided to improve the Giffen paper you introduced errors that I didn't make. Those errors are your responsiblity. But, anyone reading that issue would think that they are my errors. So, send me a letter
Economics Department
211 Haag Hall
University Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110
Include in your appology for causing me embarassment by presenting your
mistaken conception about the Giffen paradox as if I had written the paper,
a statement that you without my permission altered the paper introducing substantial mistakes that significantly altered the meaning of the paper.
And, to clarify some issues clarify now that you have raised them: I will point out that while Bill Powers recongized when it was pointed out that Rick had altered paper introducing a mistake. Bill Powers didn't notice the istake before I pointed it out that Rick had altered the Giffen paper so as to "improve it."
The changes Rick introduced were I think simplely the result of Rick's thinking he understood the Giffen case when if fact he didn't.
Also, at the time we thrashed this issue out, Rick made a charge that I had was it "stolen" Bill Powers' work? Again, Rick was making a claim regarding a situation which he didn't know what he was talking about. And, since Rick was the editor for the issue, when did he learn that I had stolen the Giffen paper from Bill Powers? When did he find out who really did the work? Was it in 1985 or about then when the work was done? Or was it in 1989 or so when the issue was being prepared? If he knew about this theft before the issue was published, why since he was the editor why was he complicit in what he thought was a theft. And, if he only learned about this theft afterward, from who did he obtain this information. Only two people were effectively there when the work was done, Bill Powers and myself. Bill Powers says there was no theft. At the time the ABS issue was being assembled I told Bill Powers I thought his name belonged on the paper. Bill Powers said No. I think Bill Powers may have been being over sensitive in regard to this issue because of a reaction on his part to senior assoicates taking advantage of him by putting their name on work the was really done by Bill Powers. But, while I tried, I didn't change Bill Powers opinion about his name appearing on the paper.
Despite what Rick thinks he doesn't understand economics nearly as well as he
think that he does. At least there is clear evidence that he didn't understand the Giffen effect. And, frequently, as in the case of American Behavioral Science issue, Rick's over inflated self-assessment causes problems.
Bill Williams
And, Rick sign the letter in blue ink. That way when I copy it I can tell the original from the copies.