[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,14:20 EUST)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0435)]
What I find interesting here is that both
‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’
essentially involve others without their direct input necessary.
If A tolerate
and respect B, it’s a perception (or two). If these perceptions don’t involve B,
it must be an imagination in A. Is that correct?
Bjorn
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,15:05 EUST)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0446)]
There will never be an end to
conflict
because there will never be an end to
controlling
I don’t agree with your last “stimulus
– response” sentence
I’m sorry Bjorn, what is there about my
last sentence that
leads you to believe it has something to do with S–>R?
Maybe I was wrong, but I understood your
sentence as if control entails conflict. Then control is a stimulus for
control, the response.
Bjorn, I agree that conflicts create
problems. I don’t
believe you can ever eliminate conflicts.
I think it is possible to eliminate the consequences
of conflict.
And how do you suggest you resolve the
conflict you
are
in with me right now without disconnecting
our conversation?
If you call this a conflict, it has no bad
consequences for me. If I feel bad consequence, I stop participating, I think. Is
that wrong?
If so, why not share it?
Do you suggest a conflict?
And if it is just as good as common sense why do I need chap 18?
Buy yourself BCP as a present for Christmas,
and you will see it.
And if it is just as good as common sense
why do I need chap 18?
See
above
For one, why does conflicts last so long? Two, why
can’t
we seem to avoid conflicts before they begin? That is, why
can’t we seem to avoid situations where conflicts are good
possibilities of happening?
For one, not all conflicts last long. Sometimes we can
avoid conflicts before they begin. We can avoid situations where conflicts are
good possibilities of happening.
No, Rick
and I do not agree on the nature of conflicts, ….
I didn’t say
that. I said I thing you and Rick agree about ” and when we feel threatened, we will react”,
or maybe it is Rick and you who agree.
Do you think
we have said what can be said about this thread now?
Bjorn
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0852)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0905)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 8:21:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,14:20 EUST)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0435)]
What I find interesting here is that both ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’
essentially involve others without their direct input necessary.
If A tolerate and respect B, it’s a perception (or two). If these perceptions don’t involve B, it must be an imagination in A. Is that correct?
Yep.
Regards,
Marc
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,14:20 EUST)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0435)]>What I find interesting here is that both 'tolerance' and 'respect'
essentially involve others without their direct input necessary.
If A tolerate and respect B, it's a perception (or two). If these perceptions don't involve B, it must be an imagination in A. Is that correct?
I think one might well look further at Rick's approach to the word "tolerate".
If we were dealing with engineering design, and specifying, say, the length of a metal strut, we might give it as 1.6m+-.05m. In that specification, "+-.05m" is called the "tolerance". If the strut is made and found to be 1.63m, it is OK and no corrective action is needed. If it is 1.67m, it is not OK, and some action must be taken, such as grinding a couple of cm off one end.
In the PCT context, I may be controlling my perception of some attribute of you. Maybe it's your skin colour. If your skin colour is close enough to my reference for it, I "tolerate" you. Your colour is within my (engineering usage) "tolerance" range. The _effective_ error in that control system is zero. But if your skin colour is outside my tolerance range (maybe you painted your face purple, and I don't like that), I will act. Perhaps I will walk away and not talk to you. Perhaps I will take you to the washbasin and wash the paint off. If itwon't come off, perhaps I will make YOU go away -- in the extreme case, kill you. Whatever it is, if I am _controlling_ some perception of an attribute of you, and that perception is close enough to its reference value, I tolerate you in respect of that particular perception. If it's outside my tolerance range, I will act.
Now consider "resepct". My take on that is that again I am perceiving some attribute of you, but I am NOT controlling for it. Whatever its value as I perceive it, I will not act to alter it.
Those rough statements seem to me to carry the PCT essence of "tolerance" and "respect", as I cited them in everyday language yesterday: "Tolerance" carries the connotation of "I'm right, but I'll allow you to go on pretending you are", whereas "respect" suggests "You have the same rights as I do; if we differ, either of us may be right, or both, or neither."
Notice that in this PCT approach, no "imagination" is involved. One perceives an attribute of the other person, using whatever data are available. Of course, those data may themselves involve imagination, but that's a quite independent issue, which may resolve differently in different cases.
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.00045 CST)]
Tolerance used to be a good word, but it had failings, which you are right to see. The next word to be used here is respect, but it has some failings that confuse mutual respect with loyalty. How about inclusion or equality? ... Tolerance is a give-up, and so is respect.
I think you may see from the above that I disagree with you in respect of that last comment, though I will tolerate it -- or in fact I clearly don't tolerate it, since I am acting in resepct of it 
Tolerance isn't a give-up at all, though it does suggest that we have a controlled perception about which we aren't at the moment acting. However, going beyond the control of perception of another person's attributes, at any one moment we simply have to "tolerate" many more perceptions that differ from their reference values than we act to control. We only have on the order of 100 muscular degrees of freedom for action, whereas we can perceive thousands or millions of difference input data combinations. Conflict can be avoided _only_ by failing to control some of those potentially controllable perceptions. One of the ways to not control, and thereby to avoid conflict, is to tolerate some level of error in most of the functioning control systems.
"Respect" isn't a give-up, either. It's a statement that the perception in question is not one we wish to control. In my language of yesterday, it's my recognition that you have a right to maintain that attribute at any level you wish. You have a right to be a purple follower of the great God Zamasti, who sits in a dark room 23 hours of the day. I respect that and don't try to persuade you to change. It simply doesn't matter to me. If it did matter to me, but I've decided to let it be, I would be tolerating, but not respecting, your beliefs and behaviour.
As for word usage, words do change their connotations, both secularly and in local dynamic contexts. It's futile to expect everyone in an extended community like this to use all words in the same way. I, for one, see no connection between "resepct" and loyalty. I'm sure Montgomery and Rommel felt great mutual respect for each other's abilities, but I sincerely doubt they had much loyalty to each other in 1941.
Martin
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0922)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 9:09:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,15:05 EUST)]
I’m sorry Bjorn, what is there about my last sentence that
leads you to believe it has something to do with S–>R?
Maybe I was wrong, but I understood your sentence as if control entails conflict. Then control is a stimulus for control, the response.
Have you ever met Yogi Berra? Yogi Berra is a beloved ex-pro baseball player who uses the English language in a sometimes curious way.
For instance, he has said of a baseball game; “It ain’t over until it’s over”
I tried saying that you cannot avoid conflict if you are a control system. In fact, that is precisely the reason for the existence of control systems. To encounter and stabilize conflicts.
Do you think we have said what can be said about this thread now?
Yes.
Regards,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.1025 CST)] Booooo!
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43]
[Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.00045 CST)]
Tolerance used to be... respect...
Hi Martin,
Ok, yeah, well, "give-up" was a phrase that I grabbed from the air when I should have thought more about it. I retract! 
As I think more, what I was reflecting was the incompleteness, which I think you may understand, of the notion behind tolerance, that it does, as you say, imply an existing, ongoing conflict that one is currently not acting on. So it's sitting there brewing, I guess. Those who would replace tolerance with inclusion or equality would recommend resolving the conflict somehow and progressing to a wider acceptance of differences.
Tolerance isn't a give-up at all, though it does suggest that we have a controlled perception about which we aren't at the moment acting. However, going beyond the control of perception of another person's attributes, at any one moment we simply have to "tolerate" many more perceptions that differ from their reference values than we act to control. We only have on the order of 100 muscular degrees of freedom for action, whereas we can perceive thousands or millions of difference input data combinations. Conflict can be avoided _only_ by failing to control some of those potentially controllable perceptions. One of the ways to not control, and thereby to avoid conflict, is to tolerate some level of error in most of the functioning control systems.
Likewise, I agree that "give-up" doesn't do well with respect. Here, as you point out, respect can be an allowance of someone to practice whatever belief so long as it doesn't bollix up one's own controlled perceptions, I guess. Also, as you point out, one can respect one's opponent.
"Respect" isn't a give-up, either. It's a statement that the perception in question is not one we wish to control. In my language of yesterday, it's my recognition that you have a right to maintain that attribute at any level you wish. You have a right to be a purple follower of the great God Zamasti, who sits in a dark room 23 hours of the day. I respect that and don't try to persuade you to change. It simply doesn't matter to me. If it did matter to me, but I've decided to let it be, I would be tolerating, but not respecting, your beliefs and behaviour.
There is an element of political correctness here in this word map (tolerance, respect, inclusion, equality, ally, compatriot, opponent, enemy...) and I think that I was taking the point of view that tolerance is an older social ethics (?) term for what many people are meaning when they say inclusion and equality.
As for word usage, words do change their connotations, both secularly and in local dynamic contexts. It's futile to expect everyone in an extended community like this to use all words in the same way. I, for one, see no connection between "resepct" and loyalty. I'm sure Montgomery and Rommel felt great mutual respect for each other's abilities, but I sincerely doubt they had much loyalty to each other in 1941.
Martin
Yes, nice discussion and all these things can have their own control systems at the program level (words), at the principle level (standards) and at the system level (who we are when we say or do them). Above that, we have no data for levels. Yep.
--Bry
[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,21:35 EUST)]
[Martin Taylor
2005.10.31.09.43
I
think one might well look further at Rick’s approach to the word
“tolerate”.
I
understand this as if you don’t tolerate Rick’s definition for ‘tolerance’. Am
I correct?
In
the PCT context, I may be controlling my perception of some
attribute
of you. Maybe it’s your skin colour. If your skin colour is
close
enough to my reference for it, I “tolerate” you. Your colour is
within
my (engineering usage) “tolerance” range. The effective
error
in that control system is zero. But if your skin colour is
outside
my tolerance range (maybe you painted your face purple, and I
don’t
like that), I will act. Perhaps I will walk away and not talk
to
you. Perhaps I will take you to the washbasin and wash the paint
off.
If it won’t come off, perhaps I will make YOU go away – in the
extreme
case, kill you. Whatever it is, if I am controlling some
perception
of an attribute of you, and that perception is close
enough
to its reference value, I tolerate you in respect of that
particular
perception. If it’s outside my tolerance range, I will act.
If I read
you correct, you say that if error is zero or within tolerance range, there is tolerance and no actions.
You also
say that if error is great, outside tolerance range, there is maybe not tolerance and a lot of
actions.
I did not
read what Rick said in the same way you present.
He said
<From Rick Marken
(2005.10.27.0900)
The same as what it says about
the lack of tolerance you have.
Tolerance is
the degree to which one accepts
error in a control system: the more error
one accepts (without
reorganizing) the more tolerant one is.
What makes for
greater tolerance is not really
well understood. One thing that seems
to be
true is that tolerance is not
some general “personality trait”. A person can
be tolerant with respect to some
goals and intolerant with respect to
others. In PCT terms, this means
that a person controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with
high gain, respectively. I obviously
control for PCT with high gain; I
am intolerant of what I perceive to be
incorrect understandings of and
false conclusions derived from PCT. I
control for other things – like
the political opinions of some of my
friends (my racquetball partner
is a neocon) – with far lower gain.>
If I read Rick correct he says
the opposite of you. And if you don’t tolerate his definition, I agree.
Rick talks about the gain. When I
estimate his claims, I don’t become convinced.
Bjorn
Re: Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting
law)
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.15.55]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,21:35
EUST)]
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43I think one might well look further at Rick’s
approach to the word “tolerate”.
I understand this as if you don’t tolerate Rick’s
definition for ‘tolerance’. Am I correct?In the PCT context, I may be controlling my
perception of some
attribute of you. Maybe it’s your skin colour. If
your skin colour is
close enough to my reference for it, I
“tolerate” you. Your colour is
within my (engineering usage) “tolerance”
range. The effective
error in that control system is zero. But if your
skin colour is
outside my tolerance range (maybe you painted your
face purple, and I
don’t like that), I will act. Perhaps I will walk
away and not talk
to you. Perhaps I will take you to the washbasin
and wash the paint
off. If it won’t come off, perhaps I will make
YOU go away – in the
extreme case, kill you. Whatever it is, if I am
controlling some
perception of an attribute of you, and that
perception is close
enough to its reference value, I tolerate you in
respect of that
particular perception. If it’s outside my
tolerance range, I will act.If I read you correct, you say that if error is zero
or within tolerance range, there is tolerance and no
actions.
You also say that if error is great, outside tolerance
range, there is maybe not tolerance and a lot of
actions.I did not read what Rick said in the same way
you present.
If Rick had developed it as I did above, I wouldn’t have posted.
I thought I was simply amplifying 9and I hope clarifying) what he
said. What Rick said [From Rick Marken (2005.10.28.1440)] that I
picked up on was:
To me, tolerance just means putting up
with error in a control
system, whether that error is the result
of an active attempt by someone to
change the state of something you care
about or whether it is a passive
result of a disturbance.
and
You can also demonstrate tolerance with
the rubber bands. Just try to be a
little more easy-going about where the
knot is relative to your target.
You’ll find that you are still in
conflict with your friend but you’re
willing to put up with more error so that
the conflict doesn’t escalate.
He also talked about the gain, which I don’t disagree with,
except to point out that there is a continuum a degree of toleration.
One isn’t necessary either “tolerant” or
“intolerant”. Rather, one may be respectful (no control of
the perception in question), tolerant (not acting to change the
perception, but if the error were greater, one would act), mildly or
strongly intolerant (acting to control the perception with low or high
gain).
I think that what I wrote was completely compatible with what
Rick wrote.
Rick has a tendency to think just of gain, as if the systems were
linear. But the same kind of effect can be obtained by a non-linear
gain curve. In the past, Rick has discussed non-linear error
functions, but not in recent months. So it’s not as though he doesn’t
understand them. My take on tolerance is that the gain curve has a
flat portion near zero error, meaning zero gain for error in that
range. Rick’s is that the gain is low (mildly intolerant), and so
would mine be for errors just outside the flat zone, taking the error
function not to be discontinuous.
In fact, non-linear gain curves are the only way that direct
conflicts can be prevented from escalating to infinite energies (I
mean literally infinite; in a real physical system, the nonlinearity
would at the very least show up as an explosion!).
I also agreed, without explicitly saying so, with Rick’s
"A person can
be tolerant with respect to some goals and
intolerant with respect to
others. In PCT terms, this means that a
person controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high
gain, respectively." I called them “attributes”
of the person, and it is about them that one is respectful, tolerant,
or intolerant. Though I suspect that even for the so-called “high
gain” controlled perceptions there would be some tolerance range,
however small.
He said
<From Rick Marken
(2005.10.27.0900)
The same as what it says about the lack of tolerance
you have. Tolerance is
the degree to which one accepts error in a control
system: the more error
one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant
one is. What makes for
greater tolerance is not really well understood. One
thing that seems to be
true is that tolerance is not some general
“personality trait”. A person can
be tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant
with respect to
others. In PCT terms, this means that a person
controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high gain,
respectively. I obviously
control for PCT with high gain; I am intolerant of
what I perceive to be
incorrect understandings of and false conclusions
derived from PCT. I
control for other things – like the political
opinions of some of my
friends (my racquetball partner is a neocon) – with
far lower gain.>If I read Rick correct he says the opposite of
you.
Then one of us reads Rick incorrectly.
Martin
Re: Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting
law)
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.16.34]
From [Marc Abrams
(2005.10.31.1027)][Martin Taylor
2005.10.31.09.43]I think one might well look further at Rick’s approach to the word
“tolerate”.Martin, I was not
suggesting Rick was ‘wrong’ in his interpretation of tolerance. I just
don’t happen to agree with it. We are all entitled to our own value
systems.
Marc, I find your emssage is rather difficult to answer usefully.
It seems to contain some assumptions about the nature of control that
differ from mine in ways I don’t understand, even after having read
many volumes of your writing. But I’ll try.
My first problem comes with your introduction of the word
“value” above. If you disagree with Rick’s interpretation
(which is at least close to my own) of the word “tolerance”,
your disagreement must be based on something, but that something is
hardly a value. It could be a disagreemment about what the word
denotes, or about what it connotes, neither of which has been made
explicit. From something you say later, I think the disagreement may
be in your understanding or misunderstanding of the implications of
the proposed PCT mechanism.
You suggest connotations:
For me, tolerance
involves respect. A quick peek into a thesaurus on
tolerance;
broad-mindedness
broad-mindedness,
open-mindedness, lenience, acceptance, forbearance, charity,
patience
All of these seem to be subsumed under what Rick and I suggested
as PCT mechanisms underlying tolerance. If you don’t see that, then I
suggest we have rather different fundamental understandings of what
“control” means. It’s got nothing to do with
“levels”, “networks” or any of the things you rail
against.
I wouldn’t think
one would need ‘corrective’ action for any of the above, but each to
his or her own.
Precisely. Wherein is your comment relevant?
In the PCT context, I may be controlling my perception of some
attribute of you. Maybe it’s your skin colour. If your skin colour
isclose enough to my reference for it, I “tolerate”
you.If
you ‘accept’ my skin color there can be no error.
Not so. There can be error, but insufficient error to generate
any action output. I’m not sure that I accept your substitution of
“accept” for “tolerate”, but I’ll tolerate it for
now.
Your
colour iswithin my (engineering usage) “tolerance” range. The
effectiveerror in that control system is zero. But if your skin colour is
outside my tolerance range (maybe you painted your face purple, and
Idon’t like that), I will act.
Yes,
and then you would be intolerant.
As I said.
Perhaps I will walk away and not talk
to you. Perhaps I will take you to the washbasin and wash the
paintoff. If itwon’t come off, perhaps I will make YOU go away – in
theextreme case, kill you. Whatever it is, if I am controlling some
perception of an attribute of you, and that perception is close
enough to its reference value, I tolerate you in respect of that
particular perception. If it’s outside my tolerance range, I will
act.Yes, but you only
‘act’ when confronted by error. Tolerance in my book is not a cause
for error, intolerance is.
One is not “confronted” by error. Error is a difference
between the way the world is and the way you want it to be. You only
act if that difference is beyond your tolerance range.
I’m absolutely buffaloed by your second sentence. I can’t parse
it into anything meaningful.
Now
consider “resepct”. My take on that is that again I am
perceivingsome attribute of you, but I am NOT controlling for it. Whatever
itsvalue as I perceive it, I will not act to alter
it.Why not? If I cause
you error, regardless of how or why, you will act to reduce the
error.
Sure, but error can only exist if you have a desired state of the
world against which to compare the actual state. If I’m not
controlling a particular perception, then how can its state cause me
error?
Those
rough statements seem to me to carry the PCT essence
of
“tolerance” and “respect”, as I
cited them in everyday languageyesterday: “Tolerance” carries the connotation of "I’m
right, butI’ll allow you to go on pretending you are", whereas
“respect”suggests "You have the same rights as I do; if we differ, either
ofus may be right, or both, or neither."
I disagree with
this assessment. I have tolerance because of respect, and the inverse
is true as well. I am intolerant when I have no
respect.
Well, you mean different things by the words than I do. It’s
ridiculous to argue about PCT interpretations, if the things being
interpreted are different. I tolerate many things I don’t respect. I
have to, if I am to survive an imperfect world. I respect many things
and people about whom I am neither tolerant nor intolerant. I am
intolerant about some attributes of people I respect greatly.
Notice
that in this PCT approach, no “imagination” is involved.
Oneperceives an attribute of the other person, using whatever data
areavailable.
If imagination is
not involved, where do you get the characteristics from? Such as a
past history of lying, or better yet, rumors that he/she has lied in
the past.Of
course, those data may themselves involve imagination,but that’s a quite independent issue, which may resolve
differentlyin different cases.
I’m a bit confused
here. You say above that no imagination need be involved, and here you
say the data itself may be imagination.What am I missing
here?
The words “need be”. The content of your comment on the
previous quote. That it doesn’t matter whether the data that
contribute to your perception come from imagination. Those data (past
history of lying, for example) may come from imagination, or they may
come from immediate sensory input. Either way, you have a
perception.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.31.1340)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,21:35 EUST)]
Martin Taylor (2005.10.31.09.43)
if I am _controlling_ some
perception of an attribute of you, and that perception is close
enough to its reference value, I tolerate you in respect of that
particular perception. If it's outside my tolerance range, I will act.I did _not_ read what Rick said in the same way you present.
I think Martin did an excellent job of explaining what I think tolerance is
in terms of control theory. It's tolerating error. Martin describes this in
terms of engineering tolerance, which is brilliant. That's exactly the right
way to look at tolerance, from my point of view. Tolerance is the acceptable
size of the deviation between a perception (such as the length of a mental
strut, as in Martin's example) and its reference (the specified length of
the strut). How closely the perception (strut length) matches the reference
(specified strut length) depends on the gain of the strut length control
system. Presumably, a "tolerance control system" (one that is perceiving and
controlling the size of the error in the strut length control system)
adjusts this gain depending on the size of the error (difference between
actual and reference strut length) it will accept (tolerate).
If the tolerance control system will accept an error proportional to .05 m,
say, then the gain of the strut length control system will be set to one
value; if the tolerance control system will accept a much larger error, say
one proportional to .5 m, making it a much more tolerant tolerance control
system, the tolerance control system will _reduce_ the gain of the strut
length control system accordingly.
If I read Rick correct he says the opposite of you. And if you don�t tolerate
his definition, I agree.
Martin and I seem to be on same page on this; at least I think we are. I'm
sure Martin will set me straight.
Rick talks about the gain. When I estimate his claims, I don�t become
convinced.
And I can tolerate that;-)
What do you think tolerance is, in control theory terms, Bjorn?
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.1728)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 5:03:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.16.34]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.1027)][Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43] I think one might well look further at Rick's approach to the word "tolerate".Martin, I was not suggesting Rick was 'wrong' in his interpretation of tolerance. I just don't happen to agree with it. We are all entitled to our own value systems.
Marc, I find your emssage is rather difficult to answer usefully.
How did you think I was going to react to this statement? Do you think this was a useful opening line to facilitate some discussion between us? If so, I’m afraid you made a very bad mistake
It seems to contain some assumptions about the nature of control that differ from mine in ways I don’t understand, even after having read many volumes of your writing. But I’ll try.
So why bother? Why not try to clarify before you make assumptions that may or may not be correct. Granted doing so might extend the thread a bit, but doesn’t that beat the inevitable misunderstandings and misperceptions?
Also, what does my past writings have to do with my current ones? Could I not have had a change of opinion since we last discussed any of this, if we ever did discuss this material before?
Martin, I’m looking to avoid getting enmeshed in ‘win’/‘lose’ arguments.
So instead of clarifying, you decided the best defense is a good offense and instead of clarification you chose to attack me and my position.
Thank you for your reply, but I found it very unhelpful.
If this is going to be the type of responses to me please don’t bother in the future.
You also threw in an ad hominem attack along with your strawmen and red herrings. My past ‘railings’ have nothing to do with this post.
If your intent was to try and make me look foolish I’m afraid you shot yourself in the foot, because I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with anyone.
If your intent was to clarify, and possibly understand a different perspective you failed miserably, and if your intent was to get me to see things differently, you also failed miserably. So, on the whole I think you wasted your time with this post.
But you did provide me with an extremely rich learning experience for myself none the less. As a controller it is evident from this post that you look to unilaterally control your environment. You did it with Bjorn, by trying to tell him how to think, and with me.
You, like Bill, Rick, and every other controller looks to ‘win’ and not ‘lose’. You can interpret that anyway you like, but in attempting to exert control over others, you do so by advocating your positions while stifling the inquiry others have about your views.
Check out your thread with Bjorn. It’s as predictable as the sun coming up every morning.
This is not a personal attack on you Martin. I have a great deal of respect for the work you do. I just wish you had an equal amount of respect for people who may not meet your standards.
When I talk about ‘value’, my friend, that is what I am talking about. The standards we apply to others and ourselves.
You think it has nothing to do with control and human behavior? Suit yourself. It may not fit into PCT but I am not interested in ‘fitting into’ PCT. I’m interested in understanding what kind of influence control has on human cognition.
Regards,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.1740 CST)]
Marc you are again starting to spew and rant. You not only admit you rail (see below), but you've started in with the swearing again. If indeed you are not interested in fitting in, I would suggest that you reduce your inner conflict and seek elsewhere.
Marc wrote:
"...what [do] my past writings have to do with my current ones?"
"My past 'railings' have nothing to do with this post."
"I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot, because I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with anyone."
"If your intent was to clarify...you failed miserably, and if your intent was to get me to see things differently, you also failed miserably. So, on the whole I think you wasted your time with this post."
"...You can interpret that anyway you like..."
"Suit yourself. [Value] may not fit into PCT but I am not interested in 'fitting into' PCT."
Marc, I am confused with the object of your posts. When you post here, someone is going to shoot you down occasionally. And the first thing you do is rip into them. You have to exert some constraint, I would think. Martin said he did not understand. That, to me, means please re-phrase, re-edit. Writing is re-writing, you know. You need to have a better attitude or you will make more enemies than there are subscribers on this site.
You have me confused, sorry...
--Bryan
[Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.1728)]
Regards,
Marc
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.23.07]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.1740 CST)]
Marc you are again starting to spew and rant. You not only admit you rail (see below), but you've started in with the swearing again. If indeed you are not interested in fitting in, I would suggest that you reduce your inner conflict and seek elsewhere.
Bryan,
I apologise for having taken Marc seriously, and having tried to provide as best I could serious technical answers to his questions. I should have known better, and will try not to make that mistake again.
But I do think that the questions themselves, so far as I understood them, deserved proper answers, which I tried to give. So that's my only excuse. Sorry.
Martin
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.2324)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 11:11:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.23.07]
I apologise for having taken Marc seriously, and having tried to
provide as best I could serious technical answers to his questions.
My questions were;
If imagination is not involved, where do you get the characteristics from? Such as a past history of lying, or better yet, rumors that he/she has lied in the past.
Of course, those data may themselves involve imagination,
but that’s a quite independent issue, which may resolve differently
in different cases.
I’m a bit confused here. You say above that no imagination need be involved, and here you say the data itself may be imagination.
What am I missing here?
Your response:
Marc, I find your emssage is rather difficult to answer usefully. It seems to contain some assumptions about the nature of control that differ from mine in ways I don’t understand, even after having read many volumes of your writing. But I’ll try.
Which one of my questions threw you for a loop? My questions had nothing to do with the ‘nature’ of control.
What your post was all about is what your posts are usually about. Martin Taylor and his views of the world. You probably have more web sites advocating your world views than the AP.
One thing you don’t lack is hubris. Your ‘standards’ are not ‘technical answers’. They are value judgements you hold.
So Martin, the mistake was mine. I asked you two questions at the very end of my post, expecting you might give me a short straight answer to clarify what you said. Instead you took the opportunity to tell me why I have a ‘problem’.
But you were much more concerned with advocating your position then you were in my inquiries into yours.
I did not ask you to review my position with regard to control, and like your other post this one starts off with a strawman.
I should have known better, and will try not to make that mistake again.
But I do think that the questions themselves, so far as I understood
them,
Your words below;
Marc, I find your emssage is rather difficult to answer usefully. It seems to contain some assumptions about the nature of control that differ from mine in ways I don’t understand, even after having read many volumes of your writing. But I’ll try.
So, this;
deserved proper answers, which I tried to give. So that’s my
only excuse. Sorry.Do you often give technical answers to questions you don’t understand? How does that usually work out for you? Probably like it did with me.
Yes, I seem to have this memorizing effect. Bryan simply cannot not read my posts. But I suckered you right into my trap, didn’t I?
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.01,12:20 EUST)]
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.31.1340)]
>Rick talks about the gain. When I estimate his claims, I don't become
>convinced.
And I can tolerate that;-)
I like that and perceive it in my way.
What do you think tolerance is, in control theory terms, Bjorn?
Let me reflect.
I think 'tolerance' is two concepts, the one is a noun and the other is an
adjective.
When I talked about 'tolerance' I used the noun. When you talked about
'tolerance', you used the adjective.
My noun described a goal, a purpose. Your adjective described the quality of
another noun, the error.
If I go to a seminar and talk about 'tolerance', I will talk about the
principle 'tolerance' and tell what I try to maintain when I carry out one
of two specific logical programs. These programs are: IF some relationships
exist, don't act;ELSE act. There are lot of relationships I would name, e.g.
Jesus is a Savior or Jesus is not a Savior. They could also be Skin Color is
white or Skin Color is not white.
I would continue and say that Jesus and Skin Color was just examples from a
world of Categories and Sensations. Jesus could be Bush II and the color
could be brown.
Now I would make a Stop and explain that different people have different
'tolerance' principles. Somebody tolerate judges moving the court to the
right, somebody tolerate other relationships, categories and sensations.
I also think I will say that no 'tolerances' are correct and no are wrong.
Tolerances are different perceptions of different structures of matrices of
perceptual signals in different brains. I will emphasize that Tolerances are
perceptions, the only thing people are conscious about and the only thing
people know.
I will call attention to the goal or purpose I mentioned above. And I will
point out that the goal and the purposes exist, but nobody ever perceive
them. The only thing we perceive is our perceptions. But the goals/purposes
are compared with our perceptions and the difference is called an error.
Neither this error can any people perceive. They don't know anything about
the error. But the error exists.
Of course I will say that if the error is zero we perceive what we intend to
perceive and we do nothing.
And if the error is great, there is a great difference between the
goal/purpose and the perception. Then people do a lot. Somebody kills.
The last part of my introduction will be:
I know another guy who thinks otherwise. He talks about 'tolerant' as an
adjective.
He indicates that nobody can perceive the error, but he prefer to talk about
what he think happens. And I think he also is correct. This is what he says:
Tolerance is the degree to which one accepts error in a control system: the
more error
one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is. Quite OK.
There are of course a lot of different perceptions that make a 'great' error
with the reference. So if he tolerate the 'great' error he tolerate many
different perceptions. That is tolerance. Quite OK.
But he also says that "In PCT terms, this means that a person controls for
some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high gain."
I have some problems when he says this. And that's because it sounds like he
know how to lower the gain. And I don't know anything about that. We can't
perceive the error, we can't neither perceive the gain. And when we can't
perceive something, I don't know how to change it.
But it's correct what he says. I would prefer to say it other ways.
Some Christian people tolerate Jews. If we could study their tolerance
system loops we would find that the error at the principle level had a
certain value and one of the parameters, called the gain had a sign and
value that preserved negative feedback, but not so much.
He himself doesn't tolerate people who have an incorrect understanding of
PCT. If we studied his tolerance system loops when he discussed with people
who don't understand PCT, we would find an error at the principle level and
we would find a high valued gain.
This high valued gain would provoke plenty of actions. I am anxious when he
reads this mail.
I see what he says about the gain. And that is OK. But I would like him to
explain what he thinks with perceivable concepts. Moreover there are a wide
range of values for the gain that give equally good fit to each subject's
data (Perceptual Organization of Behavior: A Hierarchical Control Model of
Coordinated Action, Richard S Marken).
Let me say something more about the gain. The gain of the system determines
its sensitivity to error; the higher the value in the Gain, the greater the
output per unit error. High gain means precise control,
...................... .(Spreadsheet analysis of a hierarchical control
system model of behavior)
I like what he says about the gain and I will do some experiments with a
control loop ( a collection of many loops). You find the experiment as a
Word document enclosed (Change of Gain.doc)
Her you see that the Reference = 3, The Disturbance = 5 and The Gain Changes
from 10 to 50 and to 100.
According to Rick this means more and more precise control, greater Output
signal and more actions.
Formally he is correct. The output signal goes from - 1.818 to - 1.961 and
to - 1.980.
If I now go back to what Rick said above: "there are a wide range of values
for the gain that give equally good fit to each subject's data", then I
would say that these output signals don't tell us about much different
actions. And if there is not much different actions|, he tolerates the guy
just as much when the gain is 1o or the gain is 100.
Let me go back to the noun 'tolerance'. I think the reference value tells us
what to perceive and the greater the reference signal, the more difficult it
is to perceive what we want to perceive.
If the reference value for the principle 'tolerance' is high, it is less
possible to perceive what we want to perceive. We demand very special
qualities if we shall tolerate a person.
Let me do some experiments where I change the reference value. You find the
experiment as a word document enclosed (Change of reference.doc)
Her you see that the Disturbance = 5 and The Gain Changes = 50 and the
reference value changes from 3 to 7 to 10.
Now you see change in the Output quantity value, indicating plenty of
action. Trying to perceive a person he tolerates.
I am quite sure someone will comment my experiment with changing reference
value. I feel I should have said something different. But now it's done
Bjorn
Change of Gain.doc (599 KB)
Change of Referenc.doc (605 KB)
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.01,14:45 EUST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.15.55
Then one of us reads Rick incorrectly.
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43
If your skin color is close enough to my reference for it, I "tolerate"
you.
If you are disturbed by man with skin color close to your reference, error
is small, near zero. And you tolerate.
From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900
Tolerance is the degree to which one accepts error in a control system:
the
more error one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is.
Rick accepts a great error when he meet a man with skin different from his
reference, error is great. He tolerates.
You tolerate if error is small. He tolerates if error is great.
Do I read the bible as .......?
bjorn
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.01,15:10EUST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.15.55
My take on tolerance is that the gain curve has a flat portion
near zero error, meaning zero gain for error in that range.
Rick's is that the gain is low (mildly intolerant), and so would
mine be for errors just outside the flat zone, taking the error
function not to be discontinuous.
You have commented some mails from me regarding conflict earlier. Your
answers included non-linear parameters and I think you mentioned a
logarithmic parameter.
I didn't really understand what you said, despite my acceptance of non
linear parameters.
The way I understand you today is, if I think upon Gain.
IF(0 < error <0,05; 2;IF( 0.05<=
error<0,1;4;IF(............;IF(0.8<=error<1.0;50;100))))
Am I correct? Or how would you program the Gain in a simulation?
Bjorn
[Martin Taylor 2005.11.01.09.14]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.01,14:45 EUST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.15.55Then one of us reads Rick incorrectly.
Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.09.43
If your skin color is close enough to my reference for it, I "tolerate"
you.
If you are disturbed by man with skin color close to your reference, error
is small, near zero. And you tolerate.From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900
Tolerance is the degree to which one accepts error in a control system:
the
more error one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is.
Rick accepts a great error when he meet a man with skin different from his
reference, error is great. He tolerates.You tolerate if error is small. He tolerates if error is great.
Do I read the bible as .......?
Subtle!
I still think Rick and I are saying the same thing, though we approach it from different linguistic angles. Both are saying that the more error one can accept without doing anything about it, the more tolerant one is with respect to that controlled perception.
My way of writing it starts by saying "here is the limit on the error I will accept without attempting to act to improve matters; is the current difference between the desired situation and the actual situation within that limit?". Rick's way starts by saying "here is the current difference between my desired state and the actual state; is the tolerance boundary greater or less than that difference?". It's a _linguistic_ difference in which element is considered to be fixed and which to be variable, not, if I read Rick correctly, a difference in the relation between "tolerance" and PCT mechanism.
We both tolerate if the error is smaller than the tolerance bound. Or if the tolerance bound is larger than the error.
Which bible do you read? There are lots to choose from, especially if you read languages other than English, but you have a lot of choice even if you don't.
Martin
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.01,15:45 EUST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.11.01.09.14]
It's a _linguistic_ difference in which element is considered to be
fixed and which to be variable, not, if I read Rick correctly, a
difference in the relation between "tolerance" and PCT mechanism.
The main point is that we agree.
I still have some problems with Rick's Gain. But I stop here.
Bjorn
Re: Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting
law)
[Martin Taylor 2005.11.01.10.11]
[From Bjorn Simonsen
(2005.11.01,15:10EUST)]Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.15.55
My take on tolerance is that the gain curve has a flat portion
near zero error, meaning zero gain for error in that range.
Rick’s is that the gain is low (mildly intolerant), and so
wouldmine be for errors just outside the flat zone, taking the
errorfunction not to be discontinuous.
You have commented some mails from me regarding conflict earlier.
Youranswers included non-linear parameters and I think you mentioned a
logarithmic parameter.
I didn’t really understand what you said, despite my acceptance of
nonlinear parameters.
The way I understand you today is, if I think upon Gain.
IF(0 < error <0,05; 2;IF( 0.05<=
error<0,1;4;IF(…;IF(0.8<=error<1.0;50;100))))
Am I correct? Or how would you program the Gain in a simulation?
Bjorn
I think I probably didn’t state it properly. Too colloquial and
sloppy.
If we take the canonical form of the control loop as it is often
drawn,
the top and right sides of the drawing consist of a comparator
and an output function. The output function is usually an integrator
(probably leaky). We talk of “Gain” as if it were a simple
multiplier, but really it isn’t. It represents how fast the
integrator’s output changes for a given value of the error. It’s a
rate multiplier rather than an error multiplier.
The comparator, likewise, is ordinarily taken to be a simple
subtractor. That’s a linear function (as is a leaky integrator). When
I talk about non-linear gain, I really mean that the comparator is a
non-linear function. The output function may still be the (linear)
leaky integrator. So I’ve been unnecessarily confusing.
In the “tolerance” discussion, if I wanted to make a
simulation I would describe the comparator function something like: E
= If(abs(R-P)<tol, 0, (some function of R-P, tol)), where
“tol” is the tolerance limit, and the portion after the
second comma is the “else” clause.
One possibility is to make the “some function” be:
if(R>P, R-P-tol, R-P+tol). The whole function would then look
something like this:
*
E
*
*
-----------******************---------------
>
(R-P)
tol
|
The lower the slope of the line from the origin to the point
{(R-P), E}, the lower the effective gain rate of the whole system, and
if |(R-P)|< tol, the effective gain is zero.
As a side note, in my tracking simulations, I’ve found a
different function to fit better: E = if(|R-P| < tol, 0,
(R-P)).
*
E
*
*
*
----------**************--------------
|
(R-P)
| tol
|
|
Probably there are lots of better functions, but the one graphed
first above is easy to talk about.
The output function could also be nonlinear. But that’s a
different matter. It has to be nonlinear in that any physical system
will have a maximum possible output value. But most control systems
don’t get into that range very often. When they do, it’s often because
of conflict. As many demonstrations have shown, conflict between two
control systems escalates until one has reached its maximum output.
However, if either of the two control systems has a tolerance zone
such that the reference of value of the other is within the tolerance
zone, the conflict will not be manifest, and both will maintain their
effective error signal “E” at zero.
Does this make sense?
Martin