Greetings from Boston...

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.09280]

Bill Powers (2000.08.02.1352 MDT)

I don't see the parallel with Rick's comment. Freud, according to your
post, used one of his own theoretical concepts ("resistance") to explain
the defections of the others. Rick said only that some people come to PCT
to justify existing beliefs, and leave when they find no support (or
something like that). You don't need any PCT concepts to understand what he
means, do you?

If you read Rick's most recent post, you will see that he explicitly uses HPCT to
support his analysis. You apparently believe this approach is unnecessary.
Perhaps you are correct.

BG

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.02.0800)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.09280)--

If you read Rick's most recent post, you will see that he
explicitly uses HPCT to support his analysis. You apparently
believe this approach is unnecessary. Perhaps you are correct.

I was just suggesting an explanation for CSG attrition. My
explanation was that people leave CSG when PCT starts to
conflict with pre-existing beliefs, including beliefs in
the merits of specific applications. It seems to me that
you don't care for my explanation, which suggests that you
have one you like better. So what is you explanation for
CSG attrition? What is your take on why people don't return
to CSG (or don't show up in the first place)? I think you
are in the best position to tell us since you have first
hand experience.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.08.03.1236 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.08.01.1900)--

an aggregate economic control
system can explain (as disturbance resistance) the puzzling
observed relationship between discount rate (leakage) and
inflation rate.

One thing I learned at the conference, to my surprise, is that "leakage" is an undefined term. It "explains" a discrepancy where aggregate demand (money spent by the aggregate consumer) is less than the aggregate cost of goods and services (money which, by being spent, is available to the aggregate consumer for purchases). However, it is nothing more than a label for that discrepancy, reified as an explanatory principle. In particular, we can't legitimately say that the discount rate *is* leakage.

This is a problem because leakage is such a central concept to TCP's analysis and RSM's model derived from it.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:57 PM 08/01/2000, Rick Marken wrote:

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,000803.1335CDT]

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.02.2000)]

Dick Robertson (000802.1515CDT) --

> don't forget the "non-scientific" needs of people who aren't
> necessarily espoused to a different basic paradigm, but none
> in particular.

Yes. I agree. People who are not wedded to a particular paradigm
must be among those who return to CSG. Still, precious few do
return so some of the non-wedded might have been in some kind of
committed relationship with a conflicting paradigm and not known it.
Of course, it's also possible that some of the "paradigm virgins"
really are virgins but don't return to CSG because PCT just doesn't
pluck their magic twanger.

> These are the people who are looking to the latest developments
> in science for _usefull_ applications in their lives. So far,
> PCT is in too early its scientific development to have many
> such, as I believe Bruce Gregory was pointing out in his post
> on thia subject.

I agree that people (like you, for example) who are looking to PCT
for useful applications are, indeed, the people who return to CSG.
But my experience is that such people are rare birds. Most people
come to CSG with an application (a particular process) that they
want to have validated by PCT. I certainly don't object to people
looking to PCT for validation of their applications. All I'm
saying is that my experience is that people who approach PCT this
way (Glasser, for example) are the one's who tend not to return
to CSG meetings (Glasser came before CSG meetings so he didn't stop
attending meetings; but he did stop meeting with Bill P.). And I
kind of like my HPCT-based explanation of why this happens. It's
because the application is the high level reference and PCT is the
_means_ by which the perception of the applicatoin is kept under
control. Given this relationhship between application and PCT, it
would not be surprising to see the tenets of PCT varied as necessary
to protect the application from disturbance (a disturbance to an
application, of course, is any suggestion that the application could
be changed or improved).

The people who stick with CSG are also willing to vary the tenets of
PCT, if necessary. But I think you will agree (because I know you
are one who shares this attitude with me ) that, for those of us who
stick with CSG, the only thing that can necessitate a change in PCT
tenets is observations that differ from prediction, not protection of
a particular application of PCT.

Agreed. I was mainly drawing attention to what I belive is the case that
most people nowadays (and maybe as long as we have had science) don't
stay with any particular paradigm beyond whatever practical tools they
can draw from it, unless they perceive themselves as theoreticians
interested in the basis of knowledge. Then what you say surely seems
true. Only a rare few can actually let go of firmly held systems
concepts in the face of contradictory evidence.

Best, Dick R.

···

Best

Rick
---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.1711)]

Rick Marken (2000.08.02.0800)

I was just suggesting an explanation for CSG attrition. My
explanation was that people leave CSG when PCT starts to
conflict with pre-existing beliefs, including beliefs in
the merits of specific applications. It seems to me that
you don't care for my explanation, which suggests that you
have one you like better. So what is you explanation for
CSG attrition? What is your take on why people don't return
to CSG (or don't show up in the first place)? I think you
are in the best position to tell us since you have first
hand experience.

First hand experience of what? As far as I know, I'm still here.

BG

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.03.1530)]

Me:

I was just suggesting an explanation for CSG attrition. My
explanation was that people leave CSG when PCT starts to
conflict with pre-existing beliefs, including beliefs in
the merits of specific applications. It seems to me that
you don't care for my explanation, which suggests that you
have one you like better. So what is you explanation for
CSG attrition? What is your take on why people don't return
to CSG (or don't show up in the first place)? I think you
are in the best position to tell us since you have first
hand experience.

Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.1711) --

First hand experience of what?

Of not showing up at a CSG meeting. But that's beside the point.
This all started when you said that my explanation of CSG
defections was similar to Freud's explanation of the "defections
of Adler, Jung, et al from the true science of psychoanalysis".
I would like to know what your non-Freud-like explanation of
CSG defections is?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.1940)]

Rick Marken (2000.08.03.1530)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.1711) --

First hand experience of what?

Of not showing up at a CSG meeting. But that's beside the point.

I believed the posted agenda. Sessions were only scheduled at times I could not
attend. I guess this makes me a "defector."

This all started when you said that my explanation of CSG
defections was similar to Freud's explanation of the "defections
of Adler, Jung, et al from the true science of psychoanalysis".
I would like to know what your non-Freud-like explanation of
CSG defections is?

Let's start with the term "defections". I've never heard it applied in a
scientific context. It suggests to me a political party or a religious cult.
Perhaps this is part of the problem. Perhaps it is _all_ of the problem. I guess
I am a defector, after all.

BG

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.03.1940)]

Me:

This all started when you said that my explanation of CSG
defections was similar to Freud's explanation of the "defections
of Adler, Jung, et al from the true science of psychoanalysis".
I would like to know what your non-Freud-like explanation of
CSG defections is?

Bruce Gregory (2000.0803.1940)--

Let's start with the term "defections". I've never heard it
applied in a scientific context. It suggests to me a political
party or a religious cult. Perhaps this is part of the problem.

Very clever. You're the one who talks about the "defections
of Adler, Jung, et al...". I quote you in my answer and now you
suggest that I think of people who leave CSG as "defectors".

I have been suggesting exlanations for CSG _attrition_, not
defection. I was talking about attrition because no one is
assumed to have a duty to be loyal to CSG (or PCT). So when
people leave CSG it's more appropriate to call it "dropping
out" or "attrition" rather than "defection".

So now that that's all cleared up, perhaps you would be willing
to share your non-Freud-like explanation of CSG attrition.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0804.0510)]

Rick Marken (2000.08.03.1940)

Very clever.

Thanks. I learned it from you.

So now that that's all cleared up, perhaps you would be willing
to share your non-Freud-like explanation of CSG attrition.

In my experience, a theory is primarily a tool. If it helps you solve problems
that you are interested in, you use it. If not, you don't. For example, for some
fifty years General Relativity was largely ignored by physicists and
astrophysicists. No one questioned its likely validity, but no one was working on
problems that required the mathematical apparatus of the theory. Thus there was
no attrition from GR, but very few users or developers of the theory.

One interpretation of the lack of interest in PCT is that few see how to use the
theory to solve the problems they are interested in. You might argue that this is
remarkably short-sighted of researchers, and I would agree. But constantly
telling people that they lack vision does not seem to improve their eyesight. In
astrophysics, at least, you have have to tackle a problem they find important and
do a better job solving it than they have done. When this happens the field moves
in a new direction, but often the practioners change in the process. A new guard
emerges that is comfortable with the new theory (String Theory, for example) and
the old guard continues to work with familiar tools (Quantum Field Theory)
avoiding territories where the new tool is clearly superior..

BG

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.04.0900)]

Me:

So now that that's all cleared up, perhaps you would be willing
to share your non-Freud-like explanation of CSG attrition.

Bruce Gregory (2000.0804.0510)--

In my experience, a theory is primarily a tool...

One interpretation of the lack of interest in PCT is that few see
how to use the theory to solve the problems they are interested in...

Yes. I think this explains the lack of interest in PCT. Conventional
psychologists aren't interested in PCT because they don't see how it
can solve their problems (which involve explaining causal relationships
that PCT shows to be illusory). Applied psychologists aren't
interested in PCT because they don't see how it can be used to
solve people's problems.

But this doesn't really explain CSG attrition, does it? The fact that
"few see how to use the theory to solve the problems they are
interested in" explains why people don't show up at CSG meetings
in the frist place. But it doesn't explain why people who have come
to CSG meetings (sometimes several times in a row, and with great
enthusiasm) don't return. Of course, some people don't return
because they become ill or because PCT is was not a particularly
high priority for them. But most have simply drifted away, in
perfect health and, in many cases, still enthusiatically devoted
to PCT.

I was trying to explain this kind of CSG attrition (not lack of
interest) when I suggested that people leave CSG when something
about the PCT model conflicts with one of their existing beliefs:
beliefs that often brought them to PCT in the first place. You didn't
seem to like this explanation of CSG attrition so I was hoping to
find out what you think is happening.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (2000.08.04.1300)

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.04.0900)]

But this doesn't really explain CSG attrition, does it? The fact that
"few see how to use the theory to solve the problems they are
interested in" explains why people don't show up at CSG meetings
in the frist place. But it doesn't explain why people who have come
to CSG meetings (sometimes several times in a row, and with great
enthusiasm) don't return. Of course, some people don't return
because they become ill or because PCT is was not a particularly
high priority for them. But most have simply drifted away, in
perfect health and, in many cases, still enthusiatically devoted
to PCT.

One reason, for some persons, is interpersonal conflict. They remain
interested in the ideas but simply do not like some of the people in CSG.

i.

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2000.08.04.1200)]

<Bruce Gregory (2000.0804.0510)>

<One interpretation of the lack of interest in PCT is that few see how to use
the
theory to solve the problems they are interested in.>

I made, or tried to make, this point at the conference and in my post after
returning home. Without notable examples of how PCT has helped man perceive
that living can feel better because of PCT than with the classic (erroneous)
theories of behavior, I don't think it will catch on beyond a curiosity to a
few psychology theorists and experimental modelers.

Bill's "Little Man," Richard's bug and Rick's fly ball models/demos are
amazing. And this is great and necessary work to demonstrate the theory.
Unfortunately, not many people, and certainly not many managers whom I
interact with as a market for understanding human behavior better, care one
iota of how arms move, bugs navigate their unknown environment or what
fielder's control in order to catch fly balls.

What I hoped to do with the "teambuilding" engagement at the major company
was to show some starkly contrasting results for PCT compared to
interventions based on behavioral or cognitive theories. And, I hoped to use
data along the way to try to have more than an anecdotal success story.
Disappointingly, that application "experiment" has now been deferred. I
experience error and feel frustrated.

Life does not feel good when there is no teamwork among a group of human
controllers. Life does not feel good when others reject your ideas or treat
you with ridicule. Our hearts yearn every day for better feelings about
ourselves and our relations with others. Until PCT can prove it matters
regarding the perceived spirit of humanity as they live and act and control
and perceive themselves day to day, all the time, then PCT will most likely
remain a curiosity to only a few people.

But, I also think Rick is right regarding how a number of investigators of
PCT have left the community of "believers" (Dag's admonishment not
withstanding) when in the end of their association and study, accepting PCT
meant abandoning their pet belief about the nature of behavior. The issue of
a lack of widespread interest in PCT seems fundamentally different from why
those with interest slip away.

As most on this forum know, if PCT conflicts with what the Bible says about
humans and their nature, I will have an internal conflict that would force a
restructuring of my beliefs. So far, I find them not in conflict. I trudge
on, a believer in both, and wishing I understood both a bit better.

Kenny

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.04.1045)]

i.kurtzer (2000.08.04.1300)--

One reason [for CSG attrition], for some persons, is interpersonal
conflict. They remain interested in the ideas but simply do not
like some of the people in CSG.

Yes, that certainly would explain some of the attrition. Too bad.
There's really not much we can do about having unlikeable people
in CSG.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.08.03.1500)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.08.03.1236 EDT)--

One thing I learned at the conference, to my surprise, is
that "leakage" is an undefined term.

I think leakage is quite well defined. Leakage (as I said on
the net and at the meeting) is the proportion of income being
received by the aggregate consumer that is _not_ being
returned to the aggregate producer as payment for Q' (the
goods and services being produced).

It "explains" a discrepancy where aggregate demand (money
spent by the aggregate consumer) is less than the aggregate
cost of goods and services (money which, by being spent, is
available to the aggregate consumer for purchases).

It doesn't really "explain" this discrepancy. I'd say leakage
_is_ this discrepancy.

However, it is nothing more than a label for that
discrepancy, reified as an explanatory principle.

Now you're talkin'. Leakage is a label for the discrepancy
between aggregate consumer income and aggregate consumer
outflow (purchase of Q'). The concept of leakage is "reified"
as a variable in the model; it is a disturbance to the money
available to the aggregate consumer (P'Q') for purchase of Q'.

The model doesn't specify the measurable causes of this
disturbance but TCP suggests two possibilities. One, called
"alpha leakage", is identified with the "personal savings"
and "undistributed corporate profits" measures in the
_Statistical Index_. The cause of alpha leakage is assumed to
be maldistribution of income. The other, called rho leakage,
is identified with the monetary policies of the Fed. It's
hard to find measures of how much money the Fed has in it's
vaults so the best available measure of rho leakage is
the discount rate, which is supposed to be (according to
the Fed itself) proportional to the amount of consumer
income being taken out of circulation.

In particular, we can't legitimately say that the discount
rate *is* leakage.

The discount rate is one cause of leakage; it is not the
leakage itself.

This is a problem because leakage is such a central concept
to TCP's analysis and RSM's model derived from it.

I don't see what the problem is. I agree that leakage is hard
to measure. To measure it we would have to identify the money
that is being received as income (wages and profits) and is
never being spent on goods and services. Most of this money
is probably going into stocks and bonds (such as the bonds
the Fed sells to take money out of the economy). But it's hard
to tell which money is being "parked" in these instruments and
which is being left there to be drawn down for future consumption.

Anyway, what I wanted to get at the meeting (but never got) was
suggestions for improving the model, including pointers to sources
of data that might be associated with variables in the model. All
I got, however, was told that the model had problems. No one said
what the problems were or, more importantly, explained how these
problems might be fixed.

What I really wanted (and still want) to know is how any economic
model can explain the data attached below as a GIF. The data show
the incredibly strong _positive_ relationship between discount rate
and inflation rate over time. My H. economicus model accounts for
these results; the model corrects for a leakage disturbance to the
variables it is controlling (PQ'-P'Q' and P'Q') by decreasing
production of Q' _and_ by increasing the price of goods and
services (P'). If it is assumed that discount rate causes leakage
(the higher the discount rate the greater the leakage as consumer
income is moved into bonds) then the model accounts for the
positive relationship beteen discount rate and inflation. The
fact that H. economicus predicts this surprising result while
conventional economic theories (as far as I know) predict the
_opposite_ (and, thus, deny the data itself!) seems like pretty
strong evidence that the H. economicus model is on the right
track. But if it's not, I would sure like to know _why_ it's
not and get pointers to the existing economic models that make
the right predictions.

Best

Rick

(Attachment data.GIF is missing)

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com