HPCT another Approach

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
21

[From Bill Powers (2010.09.11.1538 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.09.11.0920) --

> Gavin Ritz (2010.09.11.11.18) --

RM:

I'm writing this to let you know that I'm not going to continue
discussing your suggestions about how to "improve" PCT until you 1)
describe implementations of you ideas in the form of working models
(preferably as computer programs) and 2) describe observations that
would test these models. . It's nothing personal. But I really can't
see wasting any more time on this until you start doing this.

BP: I've stayed out of this discussion for essentially the same reasons you cite. Gavin is not offering a scientific model subject to demonstration or testing. It's a different way of approaching the whole subject, and while I hestitate to discourage original thinking, I have to conclude that this way doesn't interest me -- I don't have the bandwidth needed to deal with his ideas and at the same time develop my own.

Best,

Bill P.

22

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.12.11.02)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.09.11.0920)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.09.11.11.18) –

Rick Marken
(2010.09.10.0740)–

RM: How does this alleged improvement over
PCT account for the

ability to control sequences.

GR: You haven’t answered the question
because honesty is a

controlled variable of great importance in PCT.

No, the reason I haven’t answered the question [about
what honesty is]

is because I already answered it. I also think you ask
such questions

because you are just avoiding answering my questions.

No Rick, You
haven’t begun answering the question about honesty as a controlled variable.

You are selecting for the
same “controlled variable” over and over and I’m refusing to
go there.

Everything is a “Controlled
variable” PCT in its entirety can be placed in the bubble of a Controlled
Variable. That’s the very nature of feedback systems, nesting and Natural
Selection.

If you choose to select
the Controlled Variable you are choosing that’s fine.

Then the game cannot be
played.

Regards

Gavin

23

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.12.19.38NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.09.11.1538 MDT)]

Rick Marken
(2010.09.11.0920) –

Gavin Ritz (2010.09.11.11.18) –

BP-- I don’t have

the bandwidth needed to deal with his ideas and at the
same time

develop my own.

That seems like an honest
comment to me and far enough. And I’m not asking you to deal with my
ideas.

You and others have written
the books for just this purpose, I have taken
the time and energy spending
my time on this. I’m not interested
in looking at what you guys have already achieved there is no creativity in
that for me.

I don’t need your
or Rick’s approval to develop PCT as long as I’m honest cite the appropriate
references and acknowledge the authors works in the appropriate way then I’m
free to pursue my own paths.

I believe that PCT shows
some incredible fundamentals but is lacking deeply in higher abstractions where
others have spent decades testing measuring other models that are more suited
to these types of abstractions.

I know this because I
have used these models for many years in very practical situations have read
and used the research. Some of these models have been tested with high level
mathematics for example the 7E’s has been tested with Topoi Logic
(Category Theory) the very basis of mathematics itself. Further LOW
Elliot Jaques work has been tested and retested with years of data at the most prestigious
Universities, plus many doctoral theses have been done on this work. My own
personal work I have thousands of profiles with test re-test profiles, plus years
of Action Research data.

So Rick’s
comments about no data or no scientific model rings hollow. He should read
Runkel’s book on Testing Specimens and Casting Nets.

If he wanted the research
I would happily send it or steer him to the appropriate texts. But he doesn’t.

Now I have your work with
over 50+ years of combined work, plus 3 other peoples work with over 150 years
of work.

I have two hundred years worth
of models all with a piece; it’s like a gigantic network ready to be put together.
Things couldn’t be more exciting.

Isn’t this what you
wanted?

Regards

Gavin

···

Subject: Re: HPCT another Approach

24

[from Dick Robertson.2010.09.12.0825CDT]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.12.19.38NZT)

Subject: Re: HPCT another Approach

I believe that PCT shows some incredible fundamentals but is lacking deeply in higher abstractions where others have spent decades testing measuring other models that are more suited to these types of abstractions.

Have you previously listed these scientists? If so I’m sorry to have missed them. I’ve tried to follow this conversation for quite a while, but haver not caught all the citations If you wouldn’t mind listing them again, I’d like to see for myself the models you are talking about.

I know this because I have used these models for many years in very practical situations have read and used the research. Some of these models have been tested with high level mathematics for example the 7E’s

What are E7s?

Thank you

Best,

dick r

···
25

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.13.11.12.NZT)

[from Dick Robertson.2010.09.12.0825CDT]

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.09.12.19.38NZT)

Dick

For LOW (Levels
of Work or Requisite Organization) it’s Elliot Jaques. If
you want to start getting to grips with this yourself read Human Capability
(publisher Cason Hall). Otherwise just ask me questions about it.

For the 7 Essentialities of Creativity is AM De Lange, I
have his full publication and research which I can email to you.

My stuff is all available on Scribed.

Regards

Gavin

I believe that PCT shows
some incredible fundamentals but is lacking deeply in higher abstractions where
others have spent decades testing measuring other models that are more suited
to these types of abstractions.

Have you previously listed these scientists? If so I’m sorry to
have missed them. I’ve tried to follow this conversation for quite a while, but
haver not caught all the citations If you wouldn’t mind listing them again, I’d
like to see for myself the models you are talking about.

I know this because I have used these models for many years in very
practical situations have read and used the research. Some of these models have
been tested with high level mathematics for example the 7E’s

What are E7s?

Thank you

Best,

dick r

···
26

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.13.16.16NZT)

[David Goldstein (2010.
09.10.21:36EDT)]

Gavin Ritz
2010.09.11.1050NZT)

What is a
“frozen control system?”

David

I was
looking through some of my books on Fractals and came across a great pictorial
note on this. The book is Introducing Fractals, page 56 on Video Feedback. It
describes really well what I’m talking about in terms of frozen CS
systems.

Attached,
plus I have attached the other picture I sent this morning. So even without my
entire CIAM model it should make sense. And it should be so. My model really
does not change the nature of PCT, it adds complexity.

I
mentioned in another thread that it was an attractor point of Perceptual
Controlled Variable’s (PCV).

In
feedback this picture in the above book shows the attractor as the vanishing
point.

This
point (s) in the mental abstract world has an**
Identity** that is what a therapist has to find. All the other
PCV’s ultimately converge to this point (s). In other words all
PCV’s are derivates of this point (s).

So to
say this is the “Key Perceptual Controlled Variable” that a patient
is “selecting for”. The patient’s ultimate blockage,
constraint, dis-ease, dis-harmony.

Regards

Gavin

Hand Drawn Pic of PCV1.pdf (837 KB)

Fractal Video Feedback.pdf (447 KB)

27

(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.19.13.59NZT)

[David Goldstein (2010.
09.10.21:36EDT)]

Gavin Ritz
2010.09.11.1050NZT)

What is a
“frozen control system?”

How do these
ideas help me find it?

How do these
ideas help me to “unfreeze” the block?

David

I have been trying to find a metaphor for
the alcohol issue. And I think this is as close as I can get to a temperature control
system.

The ‘abstracted controlled variable”
that is the main attractor state of a person with these types of problems is
like an open window bringing in a very cold chill. So instead of the control
unit actual slightly aiding in closing the window it opens the window a little more,
further bringing in more chill, then the more chill brings the control unit back
to opening the window even more and so on. The end result is that the chill is
so much the system freezes over.

In all feedback systems small variations
can have massive consequences. (aka Lorenz’s comment a butterfly flapping its wings causing a storm in Brazil)

So the solution is this, the system needs
to close the window each round slightly, if the window is shut closed too fast I
think there will be no result and possibly as bad as the system freezing over.

There requires to be a Goldilocks
situation. That is bringing the system slowing to the dynamic equilibrium. This
could take days, months even years.

Regards

Gavin

···