Johnny and Peter

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.27. 1800 EST)

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.25.1820)]

I changed the name of this seeing as Bill Powers wanted the thread dropped,
however I am still interested in asking more questions about my example case
of Johnny and Peter.
I hope you don't mind.

Very good suggestion. Please tell me a little about yourself. What are
your interests? How did you learn about PCT?

I'm mainly interested in human behaviour. My main area is that of children.
I've been sitting in on this forum for about 6 years now (sorry to Peter
Small who seemed to think I am new to this.) I have always been intrigued
and fascinated with how people interact and the kinds of misinterpretations
that can happen with email forums.

If Johnny really put Peter up to it , taking advantage of
Peter's desire to be liked by Johnny, then Johnny should be dealt with
as an accessory to the crime. Peter should also be dealt with in this
case because he has committed a crime, unless it can be shown that
Peter did it under duress (with a gun to his head, for example).

How would you be able to decide if Johnny really was taking advantage of
Peter?
What sort of tests could you do to determine this? In this instance are you
saying that Peter isn't responsible for committing the crime?

If someone intended to do it or intended for an
accomplice to do it, then that person is guilty. If the accomplice
intended to do it and was not coerced into doing it, the accomplice is
guilty as well.

How can you prove intent?

It depends on how Johnny made him do it. If Johnny held a gun to
Peter's head and threatened to kill him if he didn't do it then,
although I wouldn't say that it was OK for Peter to steal, it was
certainly understandable.

OK, so it's NOT ok for Peter to do these things but you can understand his
reasons for doing it? Is that what you are saying?

If Johnny did it via a milder form of counter
control (Johnny tells Peter to steal or he won't be his friend, taking
advantage of knowing that Peter is desperate for Johnny's friendship)
then I would deal with Peter by suggesting that he re-evaluate his
priorities. Of course, I would also deal with Johnny severely in both
these cases, for being the mastermind of the crime

Would Peter still be held responsible for committing the crime? Or just
suggested that he re-evaluate his priorities?

In none of these cases is it OK for Peter to steal (from my
perspective). But in the first case (of coercion by Johnny) there are
extenuating circumstances that make Peter's stealing acceptable, but
still not OK.

Would it be fair to say then that Peter is responsible for his actions
because he is the one who controlled his perception (that of Johnny liking
him) and committed a crime in an attempt to reduce his perceptual error?

It seems to me that some form of coercion or counter-control by Johnny may
make the situation understandable but still not ok and by no means an excuse
for Peter. Is this a fair summary of what you've said?

Cheers
Michelle

2

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.27.0840)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.27. 1800 EST) --

If Johnny really put Peter up to it , taking advantage of
Peter's desire to be liked by Johnny, then Johnny should be dealt with
as an accessory to the crime. Peter should also be dealt with in this
case because he has committed a crime, unless it can be shown that
Peter did it under duress (with a gun to his head, for example).

How would you be able to decide if Johnny really was taking advantage
of
Peter?

That is a very good question. What is needed is evidence that Peter's
actions (stealing in the example) are a variable controlled by Johnny.
This is a job for the Test for the Controlled Variable. The easiest way
to do the Test in this case is to have Peter _not_ steal and watch to
see if Johnny does things to correct the situation (relative to his
assumed intention), by saying things like "I'm not going to be your
friend" or "I don't like wimps" , for example That is, you ask Peter
to act in a way that would be a disturbance if Johnny were actually
trying to control Peter's stealing.

Of course, this approach is usually not possible in real life
situations, since the stealing has already occurred. So what is done
(in courtrooms) is a search for evidence that Johnny was manipulating
Peter. This would be testimony from people who had observed a dependent
relationship between Johnny and Peter or had seen Johnny ask Peter to
steal, etc. This kind of evidence is not as satisfying as evidence from
the Test would be. In the example you gave, I was just considering the
case where Johnny _was_, in fact, controlling Peter's stealing by
taking advantage of Peter's known desire for approval from Johnny.

What sort of tests could you do to determine this? In this instance
are you
saying that Peter isn't responsible for committing the crime?

No, Peter is responsible for committing the crime, for sure. But Johnny
is also responsible for Peter committing the crime. The law would see
it this way and I agree with the law on this. Charles Manson didn't
murder anyone but he did manipulate his accomplices into murder. So
they are all serving life sentences for murder because they were all
responsible for the murders.

If someone intended to do it or intended for an
accomplice to do it, then that person is guilty. If the accomplice
intended to do it and was not coerced into doing it, the accomplice is
guilty as well.

How can you prove intent?

Again, proving intent is the job of the Test for the Controlled
Variable. See my "Mind Reading" demo at
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ThreeTrack.html to see how the
Test can be used to detect intentions. Though you can't "prove" that a
person has a particular intention in the way you can prove a
mathematical theorem, you can get a pretty good idea of what their
intention is.

It depends on how Johnny made him do it. If Johnny held a gun to
Peter's head and threatened to kill him if he didn't do it then,
although I wouldn't say that it was OK for Peter to steal, it was
certainly understandable.

OK, so it's NOT ok for Peter to do these things but you can understand
his
reasons for doing it? Is that what you are saying?

Yes. It's like Jean Valjean in "Les Miserables". It was wrong for him
to steal the bread but there were extenuating circumstances. So
Javert's pursuit of him seems a little overdone, I think, to those of
us who take more nuanced approach to evaluating the goodness and
badness of actions.

If Johnny did it via a milder form of counter
control (Johnny tells Peter to steal or he won't be his friend, taking
advantage of knowing that Peter is desperate for Johnny's friendship)
then I would deal with Peter by suggesting that he re-evaluate his
priorities. Of course, I would also deal with Johnny severely in both
these cases, for being the mastermind of the crime

Would Peter still be held responsible for committing the crime? Or just
suggested that he re-evaluate his priorities?

I would say "both".

In none of these cases is it OK for Peter to steal (from my
perspective). But in the first case (of coercion by Johnny) there are
extenuating circumstances that make Peter's stealing acceptable, but
still not OK.

Would it be fair to say then that Peter is responsible for his actions
because he is the one who controlled his perception (that of Johnny
liking
him) and committed a crime in an attempt to reduce his perceptual
error?

Sure. Peter is unquestionably responsible for stealing. But Johnny is
_also_ responsible for stealing, using Peter as the means to that end.
I guess I just don't want Johnny's responsibility for the crime to be
ignored. Indeed, I rank Johnny as the far worse criminal. Johnny is
like Hitler, who never actually killed anyone. Peter is like Hitler's
admirer's who killed at his behest to control for his approval. Sure,
the killers are responsible for the killing. But so is Hitler, at least
in my ethics.

It seems to me that some form of coercion or counter-control by Johnny
may
make the situation understandable but still not ok and by no means an
excuse
for Peter. Is this a fair summary of what you've said?

Yes. Though I count Johnny's use of coercion or counter-control to
manipulate bad behavior out of Peter as far more reprehensible than the
bad behavior that Peter gets manipulated into.

But, again, that's just my values. The relative "badness" of Johnny's
and Peter's behavior is certainly not something that can be deduced
from PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

3

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1133 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.0840) --

That is a very good question. What is needed is evidence that Peter's
actions (stealing in the example) are a variable controlled by Johnny.
This is a job for the Test for the Controlled Variable. The easiest way
to do the Test in this case is to have Peter _not_ steal and watch to
see if Johnny does things to correct the situation (relative to his
assumed intention), by saying things like "I'm not going to be your
friend" or "I don't like wimps" , for example That is, you ask Peter
to act in a way that would be a disturbance if Johnny were actually
trying to control Peter's stealing.

If Peter is really controlling Johnny's stealing, then how can you have
Johnny "not steal"? If Peter is controlling, Johnny has nothing to say
about whether he steals or not. He can try not to steal, but Peter will
make him steal anyway. In that unlikely case we could really lay it all on
Peter.

Excuse me for butting in, I'm just winding down from a morning of typing.

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.27.1640)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1133 MST)--

If Peter is really controlling Johnny's stealing, then how can you have
Johnny "not steal"? If Peter is controlling, Johnny has nothing to say
about whether he steals or not. He can try not to steal, but Peter will
make him steal anyway. In that unlikely case we could really lay it
all on
Peter.

I think you may have the name associations reversed. I thought the
situation was that Johnny (from now on J) was controlling Peter's (P's)
stealing. So I think your point may be that if J is controlling P's
stealing then P has no say about whether he (P) steals or not. If this
is your point, the reason I don't necessarily agree with it is because
I assume that we are dealing with hierarchical control systems. J may
be able to control P's stealing by counter controlling P, taking
advantage of the fact that P is controlling for J's approbation. But P
is (or should be, from my point of view) also controlling for other
perceptions, such as the perception of the ethicality of stealing.

I was imagining a situation where P would be in a conflict when he is
counter-controlled by J. P wants to steal in order to get J's
approbation but P also doesn't want to steal because stealing would
violate his own ethical standards. If P steals to get J's approval it
is because the system in P that is controlling for approval from J has
higher gain that the system in P that is controlling for not violating
P's own ethical standards. When I said I would ask P to reevaluate his
priorities, I meant that I would talk with P about the possibility of
him turning up the gain on (treat as more important) the system
controlling for what he thinks is right and turning down the gain on
getting approval from J.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1751 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.1640)--

When I said I would ask P to reevaluate his priorities, I meant that I
would talk with P about the possibility of him turning up the gain on
(treat as more important) the system controlling for what he thinks is
right and turning down the gain on getting approval from J.

I see. I wasn't minding my P's and J's correctly. So it's P who has to
decide whether to be controlled by J (to get J's approval or any other
reason). If P can decide this, then he never was controlled by J, was he?
Looks as if the only way J can actually control P is by applying a
disturbance without J's realizing that he is being manipulated. As soon as
J sees he is being manipulated, he can stop treating P's words as anything
but noises.

Now I've totally forgotten -- which one was you and which one was Bill W.?
Or are we talking about Rick and Michelle? Or me?

Tune in again tomorrow for the next thrilling, although regrettably
similar, installment of "As the Loop Closes."

Best,

Bill P.

6

From[Bill Williams 27 March 2004 730 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1751 MST)]

For your information I regard criminal irony as my turf. And your recent
post makes deep erouchments upon what I regard as my speciality.

In addition, at least in my perception, it is unforgivably rude for you as
a kibitzer to give away a carefully set up strategem in a game of Gotcha.
In all likelyhood you have deprived us of weeks of much need amusement. And,
also perhaps a record setting score card. And, for what. So you could pull a
quick stunt?

How is Rick ever going to learn if you keep interferring in our efforts to
teach him how to use control theory?

When I first read your post I wondered "What the hell is going on?" Part of
it was a genuine concern for you-- had you experienced a minor cerebrual
event? The other posts however didn't display any indication that would
confirm this. And, I then I reread the post more carefully, and I said to
myself, "Its bait. It's gotta be bait!"

Bill Powers recomends that,

Tune in again tomorrow for the next thrilling, although
regrettably similar, installment of "As the Loop
Closes."

But, Bill this is the nature of drama. Remer "Gun Smoke?" It played for
years and years. Maybe more like decades and decades. When it ended, they
were rolling around in wheelchairs shooting each other. And, there were only
really two plots. In one Marshall Dillon shot someone, and in the other one
he didn't. And, everyone found this consistency very comforting. In your
version, you introduce a disturbing innovation-- Marshall Dillon shoots
Chester in the foot.

Bill Williams

7

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.27.1751 PST)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1751 MST)--

I see. I wasn't minding my P's and J's correctly. So it's P who has to
decide whether to be controlled by J (to get J's approval or any other
reason). If P can decide this, then he never was controlled by J, was
he?

I think P choses to get J's approval in the same way that the S in the
rubber band demo decides to keep the knot, which S can see is also
influenced by E, on the dot. Once P has chosen to get J's approval, J
can control the actions P takes to get that approval. Similarly, once
S has chosen to keep the knot on the dot, E can control the actions S
takes to keep the knot on the dot. In neither case has P or S chosen to
get controlled.

You'll have to explain to me why you think the fact that P and S can
decide whether or not to control the variable that makes them
controllable (J's approval or the knot) means that they were never
controlled. In the rubber band demo, for example, S's finger position
is unquestionably controlled by E and the fact that S chose to control
the knot, making this possible, doesn't mean that E is not controlling
S. The same is true, I believe, in the analogous situation of P and J.
The only way to make counter-control impossible in both situations, as
far as I can see, is to give up control of the variable that makes one
counter controllable. My "Control of behavior" demo shows that changing
one's reference for the variable that makes one counter controllable
won't do it. In the rubber band demo, to deprive E of the ability to
control you finger position you have to just stop controlling the knot,
period. This is easy to do with rubber band knots but I think it might
be more difficult to do for other variables that matter more to the
individual.

Looks as if the only way J can actually control P is by applying a
disturbance without J's realizing that he is being manipulated.

That doesn't seem to be the case with S and E. The E can tell S that he
is being manipulated and, nevertheless, the manipulation can continue
as long as S continues to control the knot. I don't think awareness
that one is being controlled makes any difference in terms of whether
or not one is being controlled. The realization that one is being
controlled might lead one to stop controlling the variable that makes
one controllable, but sometimes abandoning control of this variable can
be tough, such as when the variable is food or water.

As soon as
J sees he is being manipulated, he can stop treating P's words as
anything
but noises.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. In order for this to be
true, J would not only have to see that he is being manipulated but he
would also have to give up control of the variable that is making this
control possible. This seems to be true with S and E in the rubber band
demo, anyway. When I, as the subject, become aware that my finger
position is being controlled, I can treat E's disturbances to knot
position as "nothing but tugs" only if I abandon control of the knot.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

8

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1956 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.1751 PST)--

As soon as J sees he is being manipulated, he can stop treating P's words as
anything but noises.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. In order for this to be
true, J would not only have to see that he is being manipulated but he
would also have to give up control of the variable that is making this
control possible.

Precisely. As soon as J stops trying to control, he becomes uncontrollable.
So when he perceives he is being manipulated (assuming he understands PCT)
he asks himself, "Which is more important to me: to continue controlling
what I was controlling for [winning] or to stop reacting automatically to
manipulative disturbances?" If J decides he doesn't mind being manipulated
he can simply choose to go on controlling for winning. Of course then he
shares at least equal responsibility for the actions he takes, since they
are a function of both the reference setting and the disturbances, and he
knows that.

Another factor is that when the disturbances are statements in words, their
manipulative effectiveness drops sharply when it is realized that the
implied communication is _only_ for the purpose of manipulation, and has
its effects _only_ when taken at face value (as if meant seriously). The
manipulator, of course, runs a risk in that statements which are meant only
to evoke a defense might be interpreted by others as his true opinions and
as if he considered them a normal way to communicate. This can damage his
reputation if the pretense is allowed to go on too long.

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.27.2355)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.27.1956 MST)--

Precisely. As soon as J stops trying to control, he becomes
uncontrollable.

Yes.

So when he perceives he is being manipulated (assuming he understands
PCT)
he asks himself, "Which is more important to me: to continue
controlling
what I was controlling for [winning] or to stop reacting automatically
to
manipulative disturbances?"

Ah. I see. You had a particular scenario in mind where A is in
competition with B regarding the state of some variable (might as well
trot out some new letters to keep things interesting). But it's really
a pseudo-competition because B doesn't really care about the state of
that variable. B is just pushing on that variable to manipulate A's
actions. If A sees that he is being manipulated he can stop the
manipulation by giving up control of the variable in pseudo-contention,
if doing so is more important to A that being manipulated. The problem
is that sometimes _not_ giving up control of the variable in contention
is far more important than being manipulated. An example of such a
variable is the number of times A gets shot in the foot by B. If the
contention is over that variable then its unlikely that A will give up
control of that variable in order to avoid being manipulated (into
dancing).

But I suppose all this is supposed to be analogy to my interaction with
Bill Williams, where I am A and Bill is (appropriately) B. I guess I'm
the only one who doesn't think I'm being manipulated by Bill Williams.
I've been trashing his posts without reading them for weeks. The post
net, only because he seems like such an obvious source noise that will
drive new people off of CSGNet . I'm certainly not trying to win any
arguments with Bill Williams. I know that he has no serious interest in
arguing substantive issues.

I was at a concert tonight (at Disney Hall, a really great venue) and a
couple near us brought their 5 year old. The kid made quite a ruckus
and ruined the first movement of the Shostokovitch for everyone nearby,
until his father took him into the lobby. Several people complained
when they brought him back after the intermission and I thought the
complainers were right; they paid good money to hear a concert and the
kid was going to ruin it (we came as guests of friends so we were more
complacent). But the father said to those complaining "he's my son so
don't tell me what to do: deal with it".

That 5 year old reminded me of Bill Williams. Just shouting and
stomping on seats inappropriately and ruining the concert for innocent
bystanders. I'm sure that Bill Williams' tantrums will continue
whether I respond to his posts or ignore them (which I plan to
continue) Whatever I say on CSGnet and to whomever I say it Bill
Williams will yell and scream his inanities at and about me. My
position on CSGNet is like that of the people who had the misfortune to
get seats near the obstreperous kid. You (Bill Powers) and others on
CSGNet who are telling me to "deal with it" sound to me like the
father in the situation. Bill Williams, like the kid at the Disney, is
probably not a bad person. He just doesn't know how to behave properly
in this venue.

But since nobody seems to want to remove the kid from the theater I
guess I'll have to do what we did at the Disney; sit and try to enjoy
the concert as best as we could until the parents finally couldn't take
it anymore themselves and took the kid away.

Best

Rick

···

from my friend led me to make a plea for getting Bill Williams off the
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

10

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.0716 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.2355) --

OK, we've settled that one.

Have you had a chance to run the (very slightly) new version of Econ005 and
try the experiments suggested at the end of the writeup?

Same question to anybody else who has a copy.

Best,

Bill P.

11

From[Bill Williams 27 march 2004 11:20 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.0716 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.2355) --

OK, we've settled that one.

See below.

Have you had a chance to run the (very slightly) new version of Econ005

and

try the experiments suggested at the end of the writeup?

Same question to anybody else who has a copy.

I looked at the files you sent but, I didn't get an EXE file-- as far as
I know, and I don't have a Delphi compiler, so I haven't run the program.
The university seems to have install reasonably effect traps blocking EXE
files-- both incoming and outgoing. So, do you want to try the File
Transfer Program, or if you would be more inclined snail mail? I think you
have my UMKC address.

Now, moving on to another issue. As far as I know you hold no ill will
towards me? Or at least lets put it this way. Currently you are not
interested in either in continuing a past conflict or starting a new
conflict between us? I don't like the term "professionalism" and I don't
like many of the ways that the term is used. But, lets say instead that we
have for a short time been engaged in a mutually respectful and constructive
engagement in constructing an economic model.

From my side, while I have learned things about you that I will not forget,

I do not suspect you of harboring plans to treat me disrespectfully, or put
me at a disadvantage in anyway. Like I said not long ago, I basically view
you as a guy who likes to figure things out. And, I think you've figured
out that I may be the best help you are going to find in building an
economic model. And, based upon communications so far, it seems that you
may
think my suggestions from the economic side may allow you to proceed with
construction of the test bed model. As a think you are aware, the way you
are going about this is not the way that I would do this. It isn't
necessarily, in my view impossible, but there are alternative ways that I
think might proceed much faster. At this point it would be a matter of
conjecture, but I would think that it might be possible to build a rather
slender test for functionality to somewhere near where you wish to go, and
then build a more comprehensive model in a sense backward from that
prototype. But, like I say, at this point it is a conjecture. But, it
seems possible to me that a day or two of discussion might sort out issues
that might, and I say might, result in a more effective use of the effort
that is going to be expended in this effort. Sturgeon and I discussed the
plans you had for a model, how you planned to go about it, how the results
of the model could be communicated, and what the prospects for further
development might be over a year ago. Sturgeon had a computer science minor
as a student. He hasn't coded anything for quite a while, probably since
even before he became an administrator. We were in agreement that it was
possible to do the model the way you are approaching the task. However, both
of us had, and have questions concerning how the model is going to be
communicated, how it is intended to be used, how it is intended to be
maintained, and how you see it having a developmental future. Since looking
at the Bruun model, there appears that the concerns Sturgeon and I had more
than a year ago may have been born out by Bruun's experience. I say _may_.
I decided that for me to communication might, under the circumstances, be
interpreted as interference, so after obtaining her email address, I didn't
proceed further.

We can proceed by your querying me about particular issues if that is what
you wish to do. It might work. However, I've done some work myself. Some
of it might have application. So, you tell me. How do you want to
proceed?

Now, if possible I would like to create a division between some issues.

First: We are working, and working together on an economics model. This
project may not necessarily proceed in the direction that I would take it,
but if you want to do it according to your preconceptions, I'll see if I can
help. However, I am not your employ. You've gotten in a habit of telling
Rick to do stuff, and for the most part he does it. Don't get Johnny and
Peter confused.

Second: Recently Rick attempted to get me thrown out of the CSGnet. That
effort failed. But, Rick hasn't abandoned that effort, and he said so in a
recent post. So, I am completely at a loss as to what "OK, we've settled
that one." could mean in terms of Rick's intensions.

12

[From Bill Powers (23004.03.28.1344 MST)]

Bill Williams 27 march 2004 11:20 AM CST --

I looked at the files you sent but, I didn't get an EXE file-- as far as
I know, and I don't have a Delphi compiler, so I haven't run the program.

If you unzip the ec005.zip file, you should find PEcon005.exe among the
results. However, I'm happy to try the FTP route, as I have a good FTP
program. All I need is the FTP address, and if required, a username and
password, and a recommendation as to what directory to put the file in.

Now, moving on to another issue. As far as I know you hold no ill will
towards me? Or at least lets put it this way. Currently you are not
interested in either in continuing a past conflict or starting a new
conflict between us?

Perfectly right, put either way..

As a think you are aware, the way you are going about this is not the way
that I would do this.

Right. I'm trying to work at as low a level as possible, without any
economic abstractions. Those can be added later, as another layer of the
model, if desired -- concepts like "wealth" and technical uses of other
terms like "investment" and "savings." There's no reason you couldn't add
such things if you deem it appropriate.

Before drawing any conclusions about the present form of the model, I think
it would be a very good idea to become at least somewhat familiar with it
and see what can be done with it. Then, if course, if deficiencies show up
(as they inevitably will), we can build on it from there, or talk about a
different approach.

Since looking at the Bruun model, there appears that the concerns Sturgeon
and I had more than a year ago may have been born out by Bruun's
experience. I say _may_. I decided that for me to communication might,
under the circumstances, be interpreted as interference, so after
obtaining her email address, I didn't proceed further.

One of the big problems Bruun had was that Turbo Pascal 7.0 refused to work
on newer and faster machines her department got, so she couldn't go on with
that program. I sent her the fix for the "Divide by zero" error, and she
was delighted, but it's still impossible to do graphics with Windows 2000
and later operating systems, and I don't think she wants to go that way --
we haven't discussed this much, as she's been finishing up a paper for an
editor somewhere.

After her program stopped working on new machines, she took up "Swarm," a
modeling language that is object-oriented and looks very hard to learn (for
me). I haven't run any of her stuff in that language, though I did download
and install the program (it's free). I'm stymied as to how to use it.

I don't know what other problems you're referring to.

Bruun's program is considerably more ambitious than mine, involving things
like people tracking securities and trying to make money in the financial
market. Also, her model of consumption is the basic Keynes cause-effect
model in which consumption is driven by income, and also (in her version)
by the average consumption of neighbors in geographical regions nearby. No
control systems, of course. One day I expect to hear her comments on my
program, but
there's been nothing yet.

We can proceed by your querying me about particular issues if that is what
you wish to do. It might work. However, I've done some work myself. Some
of it might have application. So, you tell me. How do you want to
proceed?

The first step is to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Check
out PEcon005.exe. Then tell me what needs changing, modifying, adding, or
deleting. And I'll be glad to see what you've done (I still have one
computer that will run Turbo Pascal 7.0 programs). I want to try to
implement the suggestions you made about growing technology, and also to
add a growing population, followed, again at your suggestion, by a banking
function and some government functions. Also there are details of the model
that require critical examination, such as what agents make decisions and
how they make them. You can help with all that or not, as you please.

I seriously recommend that you obtain Delphi 7.0 (6.0 is no longer
available), which is not expensive with an educational discount from
Borland. I can help you set up a foundation program (I almost said "basic
program") that will let you do almost all of your programming in the form
you've become familiar with in TP 7.0. There are some tricks for using the
Windows features like buttons and other things, but as in the case of other
programs like word-processors, you don't need to learn a tenth of the
things that are possible to do. I have confidence, after seeing how you
managed to get that "interlocking directorates" program running in that
wierd language, that you can master Delphi without much trouble, to the
extent needed. It allows full object-oriented programming, but if you're
like me and have no intention of doing that, it also works in the same
procedural way as good old Turbo Pascal.

The advantage of Delphi is that it will run on any PC, and is likely to
continue doing that for some years to come. And you'll see from my program
that it lets you do some things very neatly in a user-friendly way.

All that said, I can still do Turbo Pascal and am willing to work with it,
but my own main programming effort will be in Delphi for one very good
reason: I want to try to expand the model to include multiple agents and
multiple products, and Delphi allows arrays as large as memory can contain,
meaning many megabytes. Turbo Pascal can't manipulate more than about half
a megabyte of variables and data altogether..

First: We are working, and working together on an economics model. This
project may not necessarily proceed in the direction that I would take it,
but if you want to do it according to your preconceptions, I'll see if I can
help. However, I am not your employ. You've gotten in a habit of telling
Rick to do stuff, and for the most part he does it. Don't get Johnny and
Peter confused.

Right. Suggestions only, with the understanding that they can be rejected
with no hard feelings. That actually has always applied to Rick, too, and
anyone else who has contributed programming.

Second: Recently Rick attempted to get me thrown out of the CSGnet. That
effort failed. But, Rick hasn't abandoned that effort, and he said so in a
recent post. So, I am completely at a loss as to what "OK, we've settled
that one." could mean in terms of Rick's intensions.

It means that as far as I'm concerned I want to drop that subject and get
on to other things. I am not interested in his justifications. My present
relationship with you is fine with me, and I am very poor at holding
grudges, much as I would like to. Without my support, Rick is not going to
get very far with his vendetta against you. Same goes for your vendetta
against him, which I also refuse to support. Might as well just let it die;
for me, it is dead.

If you'll send me the FTP instructions, I can get that program to you in a
matter of hours.

Best,

Bill P.

13

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.29 0730)

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.0716 MST)]

OK, we've settled that one.

What the? Who settled what one?
I am off this forum for one day (a weekend mind you) and you two run off on
some tangent that is completely opposite to the questions I wanted to ask.

I think its very arrogant of you to assume that I was speaking about Rick
and Bill Williams - please show me where I said that that was who I was
talking about? And now you close my topic because you are satisfied that
you've worked out your own perverted little version of it???

In my opinion this is just another example of the "closed-shop, boys club"
that is CSGNet and PCT as a whole. I wonder if a man would have received
the same arrogance from you? Or maybe its because I'm a woman AND from
Australia?

So does the "old-boys" club have the final say on all topics?

Michelle.

14

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.1449 MST)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.29 0730) --

So does the "old-boys" club have the final say on all topics?

In case you haven't noticed, this List is not moderated. You can write
anything you want any time you want. I have no control over it. Nobody has
to do anything I say they should do, which I normally avoid anyway.

What I meant is that I have lost interest in the squabbles on CSGnet and
want to get to topics I find interesting. I am old enough (77) not to want
to devote more of my remaining functional time to dealing with bruised egos
and holding hands of people who are supposed to be adults.

What others do is up to them. If you want my attention, say something
interesting.

Best,

Bill P.

15

Bill,

with your permition I will send FTP information directly to you. As a
student explained it to me I need to send my email password for you to make
the transfer.by FTP. So, it doesn't seem like a good idea to a public site.

Bill williams

16

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.29 0815)

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.1449 MST)]

What others do is up to them. If you want my attention, say something
interesting.

Thanks Bill, however my questions were for Rick Marken.

I'll keep this in mind for future reference if ever I want your attention.
Just a quick question though, would that be interesting by your standards??
For example, the economics thread bores me to tears.

Cheers
Michelle

17

[From David Goldstein (2004.03.28.1754 EST)]
[Bill Powers (2004.03.28.0716 MST)]

I ran it.
If one changes the display to 800 by 600, one can see the five controllers.
Can one use the model as it exists to test an idea?
President Bush believes that putting more money in the hands of people, via
tax cuts, is a way to stimulate the economy. The idea is that people will
spend the money and this will stimulate the economy, I think.
David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <powers_w@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Johnny and Peter

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.0716 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.27.2355) --

OK, we've settled that one.

Have you had a chance to run the (very slightly) new version of Econ005

and

try the experiments suggested at the end of the writeup?

Same question to anybody else who has a copy.

Best,

Bill P.

18

From[Bill Williams 29 March 2004 5:20 PM CST]

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.29 0815)

> [From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.1449 MST)]
>
> What others do is up to them. If you want my

attention, say something interesting.

Bill P for your information, there should be no doubt that Michelle capable
of saying some interesting things. So, watch out!

Thanks Bill, however my questions were for Rick Marken.

I'll keep this in mind for future reference if ever I want your attention.

I think there is a message between the lines here that she could get along
just as well without your attention-- and thank you very much.

Just a quick question though, would that be interesting by your

standards??

For example, the economics thread bores me to tears.

See! She really knows how to hurt a guy.

Bill Williams

19

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.1645 MST)]

Bill Williams 29 March 2004 5:20 PM CST --

Bill P for your information, there should be no doubt that Michelle capable
of saying some interesting things. So, watch out!

I'm sure she is. I just don't want to watch the wrangling, so I will ignore
it. Equal rights for all.

Michelle asked:

> Just a quick question though, would that be interesting by your
standards?? For example, the economics thread bores me to tears.

I think those communications are usually labeled pretty clearly. I will try
to be sure mine are, so you can delete before reading. Perhaps you and Rick
could also label your communications, perhaps as "More quibbling over who
is right."

I am interested in most things that test or further PCT ideas. It's easier,
however, to say what things I'm not interested in. People endlessly trying
to prove how right they are are not interesting to me.

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.28.1657 MST)]

David Goldstein (2004.03.28.1754 EST)--

If one changes the display to 800 by 600, one can see the five controllers.

Good. Those whose screens won't show that much resolution (I'm not sure who
that would be) can use the scroll bars to view different portions of the
display.

Can one use the model as it exists to test an idea?
President Bush believes that putting more money in the hands of people, via
tax cuts, is a way to stimulate the economy. The idea is that people will
spend the money and this will stimulate the economy, I think.

The present model has no provision for spending money on improving the
machinery of production (though you can manually alter productivity), and
the modeled economy doesn't grow. So there.s no direct test possible yet. A
somewhat meaningless test is to lower the reference level for the plant's
cash Reserve. As you do this you will see that cash reserve dwindle, and at
the same time the k-consumer's cash reserve increases by the same amount.
Nothing else changes: not income or consumption or inventories of goods.
But this doesn't mean much since there is no bargaining over wages, no
investment, no borrowing, and no interest to be paid. Patience.

You have the source code, if you want to try changing things.

Best,

Bill P.