[jim dundom 012/11/08 1047 edt]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.01.10.15.40 NZ)
No, it actually supports it or the other way around. But as I said Im very focused in this line of thinking now.
Just like in engineering (Im an engineer too) when we go down one path with some unknown design model it
becomes increasing hard to change because of the mental and physical investments into such a path.
You have said so much in that simple statement
Best
Jim
( Gavin
Ritz 2008.01.12.14.55NZ)
Jim
I’m just being frank about myself
and those I have observed in the work place, what I have found from my travels within
models is that generally when there is a problem most look immediately at old problems
that have occurred, because that is where the thinking has been focused in the
past. Even if it’s sophisticated thinking it’s often wrong.
But mostly when it comes to a pattern of
thinking the more we think about a particular way (model, idea, notion, theory,
faith etc) the more we invest our energies into it, the more ATTACHED we become
to it. No different from an addict attached to drugs.
Trying to close the “error” of
the “unknown” is a tedious lifetime journey, fraught with living
thinking breathing obstacles all trying to close their errors with their ideas,
using their power of attraction.
Of course some models are just plainly better
than others, I don’t subscribe to Marshall Applewhite’s notions, in
my mind that’s just plain junk, conversely I think PCT has a lot to offer
(with my personal reservation which has nothing to do with PCT).
Regards
Gavin
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of jim dundon
January 2008 4:54 a.m.
important comment
[jim
dundom 012/11/08 1047 edt]
(Gavin
Ritz 2008.01.10.15.40 NZ)
No,
it actually supports it or the other way around. But as I said I’m very
focused in this line of thinking now.
Just
like in engineering (I’m an engineer too) when we go down one path with
some unknown design model it
becomes
increasing hard to change because of the mental and physical investments into
such a path.
You have
said so much in that simple statement
Best
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group
Sent: Saturday, 12
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: gavin’s singularly
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.11.2000)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.01.12.14.55NZ) --
what I have found from my travels within models is that
generally when there is a problem most look immediately
at old problems that have occurred, because that is where
the thinking has been focused in the past. Even if it's
sophisticated thinking it's often wrong.
Could you give me an example of a problem with a model?
But mostly when it comes to a pattern of thinking the more we
think about a particular way (model, idea, notion, theory, faith
etc) the more we invest our energies into it, the more
ATTACHED we become to it. No different from
an addict attached to drugs.
Yes, attachment to a model or theory can be a problem. That's why I
think it's a good idea to be willing to subject models to empirical
test and abide by the results of those tests.
Of course some models are just plainly better than others
I agree. The better models are the one's that correctly and accurately
pass all empirical tests. Do you know of any models of behavior that
are better that -- or even as good as -- PCT by that criterion?
I don't subscribe to Marshall Applewhite's notions, in my
mind that's just plain junk,
Why?
conversely I think PCT has a lot to offer
Why?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(2008.01.12.17.28NZ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2008 5:02 p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.11.2000)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.01.12.14.55NZ) --
what I have found from my travels within models is that
generally when there is a problem most look immediately
at old problems that have occurred, because that is where
the thinking has been focused in the past. Even if it's
sophisticated thinking it's often wrong.
Could you give me an example of a problem with a model?
What I mean here for example is if one has a financial problem in a business
when the next problem surfaces the first thing everyone does is look at the
same financial problem again, it is often there but the cause may lie
somewhere else say in the IP of the company far removed from the old
problem.
But mostly when it comes to a pattern of thinking the more we
think about a particular way (model, idea, notion, theory, faith
etc) the more we invest our energies into it, the more
ATTACHED we become to it. No different from
an addict attached to drugs.
Yes, attachment to a model or theory can be a problem. That's why I
think it's a good idea to be willing to subject models to empirical
test and abide by the results of those tests.
Sure
Of course some models are just plainly better than others
I agree. The better models are the one's that correctly and accurately
pass all empirical tests. Do you know of any models of behavior that
are better that -- or even as good as -- PCT by that criterion?
Sure, SST or RO, Elliot Jaques' model on human capability is applicable (and
very simple to do so).
EKS by Wolfgang Mewes is very robust easily applicable in the organisational
sense. Forces perceptual thinking outside the box.
I don't subscribe to Marshall Applewhite's notions, in my
mind that's just plain junk,
Why?
I don't believe that a space ship is travelling behind Hale Bop comet
looking to pick up people on earth. Not very empirical plainly nonsense.
Most of his followers followed him to get on the space ship, (of course they
had to kill themselves first). The Heaven's Gate Cult.
conversely I think PCT has a lot to offer
Why?
Forces critical thinking outside the box.
Regards
Gavin
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Bruce Nevin (2008.01.11.2220 PST)]
Getting "outside the box" of prior conceptualizations cannot be the only
criterion of worthiness.
/B
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:01 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment(2008.01.12.17.28NZ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2008 5:02 p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment[From Rick Marken (2008.01.11.2000)]
> Gavin Ritz (2008.01.12.14.55NZ) --
>> what I have found from my travels within models is that generally
>> when there is a problem most look immediately at old problems that
>> have occurred, because that is where the thinking has been
focused in
>> the past. Even if it's sophisticated thinking it's often wrong.>Could you give me an example of a problem with a model?
What I mean here for example is if one has a financial
problem in a business when the next problem surfaces the
first thing everyone does is look at the same financial
problem again, it is often there but the cause may lie
somewhere else say in the IP of the company far removed from
the old problem.>> But mostly when it comes to a pattern of thinking the more
we think
>> about a particular way (model, idea, notion, theory, faith
>> etc) the more we invest our energies into it, the more ATTACHED we
>> become to it. No different from an addict attached to drugs.>Yes, attachment to a model or theory can be a problem. That's why I
>think it's a good idea to be willing to subject models to empirical
>test and abide by the results of those tests.Sure
>> Of course some models are just plainly better than others
>I agree. The better models are the one's that correctly and
accurately
>pass all empirical tests. Do you know of any models of behavior that
>are better that -- or even as good as -- PCT by that criterion?Sure, SST or RO, Elliot Jaques' model on human capability is
applicable (and very simple to do so).EKS by Wolfgang Mewes is very robust easily applicable in the
organisational sense. Forces perceptual thinking outside the box.>> I don't subscribe to Marshall Applewhite's notions, in my mind
>> that's just plain junk,>Why?
I don't believe that a space ship is travelling behind Hale
Bop comet looking to pick up people on earth. Not very
empirical plainly nonsense.
Most of his followers followed him to get on the space ship,
(of course they had to kill themselves first). The Heaven's Gate Cult.> conversely I think PCT has a lot to offer
>Why?
Forces critical thinking outside the box.
Regards
GavinBest
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.01.12.23.48NZ)
Worthiness is and interesting concept about a theory. It reminds me of
Wendell Johnson's "People in Quandaries" story of the Ploggly Man Theory,
here is my short version.
In a very modern technical society a concerned populace was scared and
concerned that every morning when they awoke to find their pencils sharpened
and the sharpenings in waste bins.
After a while all the wise men of science agreed that Ploggly Men who lived
underground came out at night. Obviously with stealth crept into the houses
and sharpened the pencils leaving the sharpenings in the bins.
This worthy theory then satisfied the populace (including the wise men of
science) who then slept with peace of mind and questioned no more the
strange behaviours.
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bruce Nevin (bnevin)
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2008 7:21 p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment
[From Bruce Nevin (2008.01.11.2220 PST)]
Getting "outside the box" of prior conceptualizations cannot be the only
criterion of worthiness.
/B
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:01 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment(2008.01.12.17.28NZ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2008 5:02 p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin's singularly important comment[From Rick Marken (2008.01.11.2000)]
> Gavin Ritz (2008.01.12.14.55NZ) --
>> what I have found from my travels within models is that generally
>> when there is a problem most look immediately at old problems that
>> have occurred, because that is where the thinking has been
focused in
>> the past. Even if it's sophisticated thinking it's often wrong.>Could you give me an example of a problem with a model?
What I mean here for example is if one has a financial
problem in a business when the next problem surfaces the
first thing everyone does is look at the same financial
problem again, it is often there but the cause may lie
somewhere else say in the IP of the company far removed from
the old problem.>> But mostly when it comes to a pattern of thinking the more
we think
>> about a particular way (model, idea, notion, theory, faith
>> etc) the more we invest our energies into it, the more ATTACHED we
>> become to it. No different from an addict attached to drugs.>Yes, attachment to a model or theory can be a problem. That's why I
>think it's a good idea to be willing to subject models to empirical
>test and abide by the results of those tests.Sure
>> Of course some models are just plainly better than others
>I agree. The better models are the one's that correctly and
accurately
>pass all empirical tests. Do you know of any models of behavior that
>are better that -- or even as good as -- PCT by that criterion?Sure, SST or RO, Elliot Jaques' model on human capability is
applicable (and very simple to do so).EKS by Wolfgang Mewes is very robust easily applicable in the
organisational sense. Forces perceptual thinking outside the box.>> I don't subscribe to Marshall Applewhite's notions, in my mind
>> that's just plain junk,>Why?
I don't believe that a space ship is travelling behind Hale
Bop comet looking to pick up people on earth. Not very
empirical plainly nonsense.
Most of his followers followed him to get on the space ship,
(of course they had to kill themselves first). The Heaven's Gate Cult.> conversely I think PCT has a lot to offer
>Why?
Forces critical thinking outside the box.
Regards
GavinBest
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
Gavin Ritz
2008.01.12.23.48NZ
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.12.0754 MST)]
This worthy theory
then satisfied the populace (including the wise men ofscience) who then slept with peace of mind and questioned no more
thestrange behaviours.
If you’re thinking of applying this to PCT, there’s one step
this story leaves out: finding out if there are actually any Ploggly Men
sharpening the pencils, and if not, who is really doing it.
Models or theories are cheap and easy to invent – as long as nobody asks
you to show your evidence that the model is right. Evidence is never
wholly conclusive, but it’s a lot better than no evidence. And when two
models offer different explanations of the same phenomenon, evidence can
at least tell you which is the better model.
I guess the point of your Ploggly Men story is that when people don’t ask
how you know something, they’re easy to satisfy.
Best,
Bill P.
(Gavin 2008.01.13.11.06 NZ)
The Ploggly Men story relates to the words
“worthiness of a theory” from the last thread, I’m not sure
what a worthy theory is, worthy is a qualitative word, is a theory worthy, I
don’t know the answer to that, a theory can be useful, is PCT useful, the
answer to that is yes.
Does worthy have a reference point, probably
but I don’t know where and in whose mind. Worthy is more associated with
an intrinsic error. Worthy and value seem to have more in common.
If I make a major breakthrough in some endeavor
and PCT is part of that endeavor then it’s probably worth something to
me.
Regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2008 4:02
a.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin’s singularly
important comment
[From Bill Powers
(2008.01.12.0754 MST)]
Gavin Ritz
2008.01.12.23.48NZ
This worthy theory then
satisfied the populace (including the wise men of
science) who then slept with peace of mind and questioned no more the
strange behaviours.
If you’re thinking of applying this to PCT, there’s one step this story leaves
out: finding out if there are actually any Ploggly Men sharpening the pencils,
and if not, who is really doing it.
Models or theories are cheap and easy to invent – as long as nobody asks you
to show your evidence that the model is right. Evidence is never wholly
conclusive, but it’s a lot better than no evidence. And when two models offer
different explanations of the same phenomenon, evidence can at least tell you
which is the better model.
I guess the point of your Ploggly Men story is that when people don’t ask how
you know something, they’re easy to satisfy.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2009.12.1546 MST)]
The Ploggly Men
story relates to the words worthiness of a theory from the last thread,
Im not sure what a worthy theory is, worthy is a qualitative word, is a
theory worthy, I dont know the answer to that, a theory can be useful,
is PCT useful, the answer to that is yes.
PCT doesn’t depend on how you define “worthy.” Words like
worthy and value are vague enough to mean about anything you want them to
mean.
I judge PCT by how well it fits what we observe about human behavior,
both the behavior of others and our own behavior as we experience it. In
all cases where we have been able to do quantitative experiments with it,
it fits behavior accurately and predicts behavior even under changed
experimental conditions. Does your “MM” theory do that, or any
of the other theories you mention as being “consistent with”
PCT?
In answer to your earlier question, I knew that Heinz von Foerster was
referring to PCT because he put up great resistance to the idea of a
hierarchy of control. To him the very word was a red flag, because he
associated it with social hierarchies and hierarchies of authority, which
he vehemently rejected. I must say that the incident to which I referred
was at the Wolfboro Gordon Conference on Cybernetics, which occurred
after he had been in a very serious car accident and suffered a head
injury which bothered him until he died. Before that he was much more
supportive and friendly. So perhaps he was not himself that day.
Best,
Bill P.
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.13.17.41 NZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2008
11:59 a.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin’s singularly important
comment
[From Bill Powers
(2009.12.1546 MST)]
The
Ploggly Men story relates to the words “worthiness of a theory”
from the last thread, I’m not sure what a worthy theory is, worthy is a
qualitative word, is a theory worthy, I don’t know the answer to that, a
theory can be useful, is PCT useful, the answer to that is yes.
PCT doesn’t depend on how you define “worthy.” Words like worthy and
value are vague enough to mean about anything you want them to mean.
My point
exactly. Hence the story.
I judge PCT by how well it fits what we observe about human behavior, both the
behavior of others and our own behavior as we experience it. In all cases where
we have been able to do quantitative experiments with it, it fits behavior
accurately and predicts behavior even under changed experimental conditions.
Couldn’t
agree more.
Does
your “MM” theory do that,
It sure
does, I would have developed it if it didn’t, I’m not a philosopher,
rather I want to know how and why things do as they do, because we need to know
this, for obvious reasons.
or
any of the other theories you mention as being “consistent with” PCT?
They
sure do.
My interest
is primary organizational behaviour and such an organisation mostly is not the sum of the individual behaviours of its
parts in this instance parts being individual roles. But as we have individuals
that inhabit these parts we do want to know their behaviours.
In answer to your earlier question, I knew that Heinz von
Foerster was referring to PCT because he put up great resistance to the idea
of a hierarchy of control. To him the very word was a red flag, because he
associated it with social hierarchies and hierarchies of authority, which he
vehemently rejected.
There’s
a lot of resistance to hierarchies, and the problem is many people see hierarchies
as if they would totalarianism, that is the un-freedom or the highly
restrictive, but that is just not always so.
I
must say that the incident to which I referred was at the Wolfboro Gordon
Conference on Cybernetics, which occurred after he had been in a very serious
car accident and suffered a head injury which bothered him until he died.
Before that he was much more supportive and friendly. So perhaps he was not
himself that day.
Who knows?
Regards
Gavin
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.13.0810 MST)]
Gavin Ritz
2008.01.13.17.41 NZ
Does your “MM”
theory do that,It sure does,
I would have developed it if it didnt, Im not a philosopher, rather I
want to know how and why things do as they do, because we need to know
this, for obvious reasons
Then I’d surely be interested in it. Where can I read about it?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.13.1000 MST)]
Gavin Ritz
2008.01.13.17.41 NZ
Does your “MM”
theory do that,It sure does,
I would have developed it if it didnt, Im not a philosopher, rather I
want to know how and why things do as they do, because we need to know
this, for obvious reasonsThen I’d surely be interested in it. Where can I read about
it?
Never mind, I found your “Motivational modeling, a systems thinking
approach” and downloaded it. We have different ideas about what
theory, model, and systems thinking are.
Best,
Bill P.
[From David Goldstein (2008.01.13.1307) EST]
About [From Bill Powers (2008.01.13.1000 MST)
I also downloaded the pdf file entitled Motivational Modeling, a Systems Thinking Approach
Gavin, can you please send me a copy of the assessment instrument that you use?
Thank you.
my email is: davidmg@verizon.net
Will you be attending the CSG 2008 Annual Conference? Would you like to present your Motivational Model?
----- Original Message -----
From:
Bill Powers
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: gavin’s singularly important comment
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.13.1000 MST)]
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.13.17.41 NZ
Does your "MM" theory do that, It sure does, I would have developed it if it didnt, Im not a philosopher, rather I want to know how and why things do as they do, because we need to know this, for obvious reasonsThen I'd surely be interested in it. Where can I read about it?Never mind, I found your “Motivational modeling, a systems thinking approach” and downloaded it. We have different ideas about what theory, model, and systems thinking are.
Best,
Bill P.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.14.17.46 NZ
What specifically do you think those
differences are?
Regards
Gavin
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
a.m.
important comment
[From Bill Powers
(2008.01.13.1000 MST)]
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.13.17.41 NZ
Does your “MM”
theory do that,It sure does, I would have developed it if it
didn’t, I’m not a philosopher, rather I want to know how and why
things do as they do, because we need to know this, for obvious reasons
Then I’d surely be interested in it. Where can I read about it?
Never mind, I found your “Motivational modeling, a systems thinking
approach” and downloaded it. We have different ideas about what theory,
model, and systems thinking are.
Best,
Bill P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2008 6:04
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: gavin’s singularly
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.14.1146 MST)]
ever mind, I found your
“Motivational modeling, a systems thinking approach” and
downloaded it. We have different ideas about what theory, model, and
systems thinking are.
Gavin Ritz
2008.01.14.17.46 NZWhat specifically do you think those differences
are?
I didn’t see any quantitative relationships defined in your paper. It’s
mostly a series of classifications, much like William Glasser’s
“theory” of basic needs. Have you see any of my models that run
on computers? You need a PC to do that, not a Mac. If you have one I can
send you a few of the programs to look at. You can draw your own
conclusions.
Best,
Bill P.
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.20.12.10 Australia
Ill discuss this when I get back from Australia, Ive a lot to say about quantity and quality, and the fact you can quantify something doesnt mean that it qualifies as a theory or model for that matter, in fact both quantity and quality is required for a robust model. But I will talk later about this.
Regards
Gavin
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 4:50:17 AM
Subject: Re: gavin’s singularly important comment
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.14.1146 MST)]
ever mind, I found your “Motivational modeling, a systems thinking approach” and downloaded it. We have different ideas about what theory, model, and systems thinking are.
Gavin Ritz 2008.01.14.17.46 NZ
What specifically do you think those differences are?
I didn’t see any quantitative relationships defined in your paper. It’s mostly a series of classifications, much like William Glasser’s “theory” of basic needs. Have you see any of my models that run on computers? You need a PC to do that, not a Mac. If you have one I can send you a few of the programs to look at. You can draw your own conclusions.
Best,
Bill P.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1223 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 8:23 PM