Learning

[From Rupert Young (2016.01.11 21.30)]

Martin, from http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/learning.vectors.1.html I am interested in this paragraph,

"In the vector representation of the perceptual function and the influences of the output signal in the Outer World, the appropriateness of the control action is represented by the relative orientations of the two vectors. The closer the orientation, the fewer side-effects and the more of the output energy is going into controlling the perception. In this representation, "learning" consists of bringing the vectors representing the perceptual function and the output influences into closer alignment. "

Would you clarify what you mean by these vectors? Do you mean the perceptual inputs and the behavioural outputs? And that learning consists of changing these vectors until they match each other? Would that mean that learning is driven by the difference between these vectors?

How would that work given that the perceptual inputs and behavioural outputs are of very different domains and dimensionalities?

Rupert

[Martin Taylor 2017.11.11.23.19]

  [From Rupert Young (2016.01.11 21.30)]




  Martin, from

I am
interested in this paragraph,
"In the vector representation of the perceptual function and the
influences of the output signal in the Outer World, the
appropriateness of the control action is represented by the
relative orientations of the two vectors. The closer the
orientation, the fewer side-effects and the more of the output
energy is going into controlling the perception. In this
representation, “learning” consists of bringing the vectors
representing the perceptual function and the output influences
into closer alignment. "
Would you clarify what you mean by these vectors? Do you mean the
perceptual inputs and the behavioural outputs? And that learning
consists of changing these vectors until they match each other?
Would that mean that learning is driven by the difference between
these vectors?
How would that work given that the perceptual inputs and
behavioural outputs are of very different domains and
dimensionalities?
I think this would be easier to answer if we use one of the relevant
vector diagrams with the accompanying explanatory text.
vector.2.gif Of the many Outer World dimensions, the
sensors sense dimensions 1,…,.k., producing sensory inputs s1,
…,sk to the perceptual function. We can set the perceptual
function to be

p=f(c1s1+…+cksk),

  where the squares of the coefficients ci that define the Complex

Environmental Variable sum to unity.

  The disturbance (d) also influences dimensions 1,...,k. The

output (o) of the control unit affects dimensions 1,…,k in
opposing the disturbance, but additionally it affects other
dimensions (m,…,n). We assume additivity between the output
signal and the disturbance along dimensions 1,…k, so that
si=o*ai+di. The coefficients ai represent the strength of the
output influence on dimension i of the Controlled Environmental
Variable.

  The output affects not only dimensions 1,...,k, but also other

aspects of the world represented by dimensions m, …n. So when we
scale the weights of the output influences on the different
dimensions by setting the sum of aj^2 to unity, we have to sum
over all dimensions, 1, …,n, rather than over 1,…,k.

  These relations are shown in the circular figure. The vector

representing the ci is the blue arrow.The vector representing the
ai is the green arrow point leftward. The part of the output that
affects the controlled perception (ai,…al) is shown by the green
bar laid along the blue arrow, and the wasted output that affects
the rest of the Outer World (am,…an) is the red bar orthogonal
to the blue arrow. The red bar represents the side-effects.
Optimally, all the am,…an are zero–that is, there are no side
effects and all the energy of the output (represented by
a1,…,ak) is used to oppose the disturbance.

···

http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/learning.vectors.1.html

[From Rupert Young (2017.01.14 17.30)]

(Martin Taylor 2017.11.11.23.19]

[From Rupert Young (2016.01.11 21.30)]

    Martin, from I am interested in this paragraph, "In the vector representation of the perceptual function and the

influences of the output signal in the Outer World, the
appropriateness of the control action is represented by the
relative orientations of the two vectors. The closer the
orientation, the fewer side-effects and the more of the output
energy is going into controlling the perception. In this
representation, “learning” consists of bringing the vectors
representing the perceptual function and the output influences
into closer alignment. " Would you clarify what you mean by these vectors? Do you mean
the perceptual inputs and the behavioural outputs? And that
learning consists of changing these vectors until they match
each other? Would that mean that learning is driven by the
difference between these vectors? How would that work given that the perceptual inputs and
behavioural outputs are of very different domains and
dimensionalities?
I think this would be easier to answer if we use one of the
relevant vector diagrams with the accompanying explanatory text.

Not really. I already read that and didn't find it clear; you really

like to make things complicated ;-(. You are using terminology
which is not part of PCT, e.g. Complex Environmental Variable and
Controlled Environmental Variable. It would be useful, as this is a
PCT forum, if you could stick to PCT language. Also remember that
others are not quite as clever as you so it would be good to try and
explain things in plain, simple English. Be like Bill :slight_smile:

![ifaegcebcggallka.png|400x397](upload://scIpuHJ7whlP8hhee0TLMBDeCbO.png)
  The vector variables all are in the environment where

the output and disturbance both act together on the properties
that contribute to the CEV, not at the output of the ECU or at its
perceptual input. There is therefore no issue of domain or
dimensionality differences.

  The vector is defined, as always, by the perceptual function. In

real life, the perceptual function is never so simple as a linear
vector, but I think it’s OK to use a simple unit-length vector for
didactic purposes. The principles are the same no matter the form
of the perceptual function that defines the CEV.

How can the vector be in the environment if it is defined by the

perceptual function?

  Learning, as defined here, means producing outputs

that increasingly approach a condition where they influence the
CEV and only the CEV, with no side-effects. In the vector
representation, that means aligning the perceptual and output
vectors.

So they're not in the environment (perceptions being internal)?
  That's the most effective use of the energy supplied

to the output. Learning is driven by the quality of control, which
comes to the same thing, aligning your output with the perception
you are trying to control rather than with something that is only
correlated with what you are trying to control (the correlation
between two vectors is the cosine of the angle between them). So
you don’t minimize the difference between the perceptual and
output vectors, you minimize the angle between them.

But quality of control is about minimising the difference between

the goal and the perception not about aligning your output with the
perception. Anyway how would you align things of different domains?

  Take a cooking analogy. If the recipe calls for 1 tsp

of salt and 2 tsp of sugar, you are more likely to get what you
want if you use those measures rather than 2 tsp of salt and 1 tsp
of sugar. The {2, 1} is a vector that is correlated with, but not
aligned with the vector {1,2}.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this as both the vectors mentioned

are input vectors as far as I can see.

I'm afraid having read your response that I am none the wiser with

regards to my questions. I’ll give it one more go and try and
explain my understanding, hopefully in everyday terms.

The other day I saw a nature program about a crow in some snowy

wilderness. It came across a dead deer and wanted to feed on it.
However, the deer was buried in the snow (only the antlers were
showing) and the crow couldn’t access the deer, at first. But it was
able to physically raise the dead deer out of the frozen ground
simply by squawking! How was it able to do that? Well, it flew off
until it found a wandering wolverine. It continued squawking and
flew back to the deer as the wolverine followed the squawking. Then
the wolverine dug the deer up from the ground so that it could feed
on it, which also enabled the crow to get its dinner too.

So, the crow controlled its visual perception of the deer being

exposed by the behavioural outputs of squawking. I do not see that
there is anything meaningful that could be said about the alignment
of the vectors of a visual perception and a squawking output, they
are very different things; different domains.

Similarly, with controlling the velocity of a car by varying the

angle of your foot on the throttle. Or with a very simple single
control system controlling velocity by varying position. The
perceptions and outputs are of different domains.

Rupert
···

http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/learning.vectors.1.html

[From Rick Marken (990701.1050)]

Marc Abrams (990701.1248) --

Rick, instead of attacking or defending ( depending on your
view point) Why not ask Bruce to clarify his statement. I am
not saying you were wrong in assuming a dig from Bruce, I am
saying you can't tell, simply by observing his actions ( his
words ), what his intent was./is You assume to much, without
doing the most superficial of tests to see if your assumptions
have any basis in fact.

I think this is excellent advice. But don't you think it applies
to you and Bruce as well? Try substituting "Marc" (or "Bruce")
for "Rick" and "Rick" for "Bruce" in the paragraph above. It
still works, doesn't it?

How do you expect to improve your "People skills" when others
think you don't give a damn what they think.

If I didn't give a damn about what people think I wouldn't
respond to what they say. I care what people think to the
extent that what they say has an effect on variables I'm
controlling. Why do you think that I don't give a damn
about what others think? Because I disagree with them? Is
the only way to "give a damn" about what people think to
agree with them?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (990701.1448) ]

[From Rick Marken (990701.1050)]

Marc Abrams (990701.1248) --

> Rick, instead of attacking or defending ( depending on your
> view point) Why not ask Bruce to clarify his statement. I am
> not saying you were wrong in assuming a dig from Bruce, I am
> saying you can't tell, simply by observing his actions ( his
> words ), what his intent was./is You assume to much, without
> doing the most superficial of tests to see if your assumptions
> have any basis in fact.

I think this is excellent advice. But don't you think it applies
to you and Bruce as well? Try substituting "Marc" (or "Bruce")
for "Rick" and "Rick" for "Bruce" in the paragraph above. It
still works, doesn't it?

Absolutely. Can you point me to the post or posts where I did not ask you to
clarify your position for me. Did you think all of my questions were
rhetorical? They weren't, and you never addressed them. Instead you came
back with a post [From Rick Marken (990630.0830)] where you tried to justify
and defend your position, rather then talk about the specifics of what I
said that you were reacting to. I felt you were more interested in
furthering your agenda then you were in some reasonable discourse.

Rick, it's not always easy stopping and asking _yourself_ ( I include myself
here ) "Hey. what am I really angry about". Then testing to see if in fact
your ( again, I include myself ) _assumptions_ are in fact based on reality
or imagination. You also happen to be right about the issue of "winning" or
"losing". When it's about winning or losing it's _not_ about _learning_. We
all need to try harder in this area. It takes lots of practice ( like any
skill ).

On this net I hear a lot of "Oh, we tried that in the past and it failed. It
will surely fail if we try it again in the future".

This statement has _Two_ embedded assumptions. The first is: What has failed
once will fail again. This may or may not be true. But in order for this to
be true a second assumption has to be held, and that is: What I did the
first time _was_ effective. _I_ was not, or had no part in it's failure.
That is ever rarely the case. The point is a simple one. I think we need to
reflect more on things that matter to us and try to understand how we
contribute to what is happening. If your desire is to help others learn PCT
you can do a wonderful job. Your writing is clear ( Mind Readings ) and your
modeling is "par excellance". You need to begin to understand that
discarding the necessary baggage ( which i agree _needs_ to take place )
takes different people through different paths and through different
experiences, and where they are coming from _matters_.

> How do you expect to improve your "People skills" when others
> think you don't give a damn what they think.

If I didn't give a damn about what people think I wouldn't
respond to what they say. I care what people think to the
extent that what they say has an effect on variables I'm
controlling.

Precisely my point. You respond to others based on _your_ concerns, not
theirs. How about what others might be controlling for? Why not try and
respond to what someone else might be controlling for. You usually respond
to issues rather then people. Try responding to people more. When you do,
your as good as it gets. Unfortuneatly ( for me :slight_smile: ) it doesn't happen
enough.

Why do you think that I don't give a damn
about what others think? Because I disagree with them? Is
the only way to "give a damn" about what people think to
agree with them?

No, It's not about agreements or disagreements ( i.e. winning or losing )
It's about understanding that others have ideas and thoughts that might not
necessarily be PCT "correct" but are valid. You can "see" why someone might
feel the way they do ( by knowing their background, training, etc. ) and try
to explain ( without the sarcasm, anger and other BS ) to them that although
you understand why they might feel a certain way ( i.e. your not
invalidating what they know ), _You_ feel this way _because_ of ...., and
spell out your logic.

It's not as if you have never done this. You ( we all ) don't do it enough.

Marc

[From Kenny Kitzke (990701.1600EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990701.0915)>

<So I will have to keep varying my approach to "talking about
PCT without pissing people off", sticking longer with those
approaches that keep this variable under control and abandoning
approaches that result in too much error (lack of control).>

Learning can take place in living things by trial and error. My guess is
that this is the main way that dogs learn. Asses too. :sunglasses: It seems, as
usual, you assumed he meant a part of your anatomy rather than meaning
stubborn as a mule like I did. 8=)

But, humans have other ways to learn. Humans are inherently and
demonstratively superior to animals in mental and/or spiritual abilities not
even evident in the animal world.

The problem with T&E for humans is that the errors can be costly to limb and
life. Also, too often, it takes a whole lot of time (even a lifetime) to
learn some very important things about what leads to contentment and what
leads to agony. I do hope you can use some of those other methods of
learning to improve your "people skills." To not do so would be as[s]inine.
:sunglasses:

Your friend on a slow, hot and humid summer day,

Kenny

from [ Marc Abrams (990701.1720) ]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990701.1600EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990701.0915)>

<So I will have to keep varying my approach to "talking about
PCT without pissing people off", sticking longer with those
approaches that keep this variable under control and abandoning
approaches that result in too much error (lack of control).>

Learning can take place in living things by trial and error. My guess is
that this is the main way that dogs learn. Asses too. :sunglasses: It seems, as
usual, you assumed he meant a part of your anatomy rather than meaning
stubborn as a mule like I did. 8=)

I think Rick had it right :slight_smile:

But, humans have other ways to learn. Humans are inherently and
demonstratively superior to animals in mental and/or spiritual abilities

not

even evident in the animal world.

Yes, But this might limit _what_ they might be able to learn, Not
necessarily _how_ they learn

Marc

from [ Kenny Kitzke (990701.1800EDT) ]

<Marc Abrams (990701.1720) >

<Yes, But this might limit _what_ they might be able to learn, Not
necessarily _how_ they learn>

You didn't think those Planet of the Apes movies were documentaries, did you?

Last night, our dog was watching the World Dog Show from Mexico on TV along
with us. Who knows what he might have learned? Or why he was watching?

Good luck with your MOL approach. You have made some pertinent comments that
have made me think. There are times I sense that due to the simplicity of
the PCT model and experiments conducted so far, behavioral scientists dismiss
it as too simplistic to explain the complexity of the brain and how
consciousness and human behavior really work. The funny thing for me is, as
deficient as PCT might be as a theory, it seems to produce far better results
than what the Ph.D. psychologists can produce.

You coming to Vancouver? Can you lead a session on your MOL approach? I'll
need lots of paper. :sunglasses:

Best wishes,

Kenny

[From Rick Marken (990701.1630)]

Marc Abrams (990701.1448) --

Did you think all of my questions were rhetorical? They
weren't, and you never addressed them.

You're right. Sorry. I'll get to them tonight if you'll
re-post them.

Rick, it's not always easy stopping and asking _yourself_
( I include myself here ) "Hey. what am I really angry about".

Tell me about it! It's hard to do that even when you're not
angry (which I'm not).

It's about understanding that others have ideas and thoughts
that might not necessarily be PCT "correct" but are valid.

I think you're right; I will try to be more polite about dis-
agreeing with other people's ideas about PCT when I think those
ideas are wrong. But there's enough Republican in me to assume
that people can take _some_ responsibility for their own
perceptual experience. It wasn't fun having Bill Powers
[(990701.1313 MDT), (990701.1628 MDT)] correct and re-correct me.
But I listened to what he said. I re-read (and re-thought) my
computer code for an integrating output function and understood
what Bill was saying. I learned something. I didn't blame Bill
for whatever error I experienced; I acted to correct the error
by checking my knowledge and correcting _it_.

I admit that it's unpleasant to have people teach you stuff --
heck, they do it by producing a disturbance to at least one
variable you are controlling; the one being corrected --
especially when you think you already know it (and I should
certainly already know how integral control systems work).
But I assumed that Bill was trying to teach me something; so
I was willing to learn. It might have turned out that Bill
was wrong and that he was trying to teach me the wrong thing;
it has happened. But this time it turns out that I was trying
to teach you the wrong thing (that zero error can cause non-zero
action when what I should have been pointing out is that zero
error can be _associated_ with constant action; this is important
because it means that you can't assume that there is error in
a control system just because it is acting).

We are here (I hope) to validate each other's teachings by
_testing_ it against experimental data and working models. We're
not in a contest to prove that one of us is smarter than the
other. We are here (or should be, I think) to validate each
other's knowledge of control theory: a mutual validation society.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (990701.2123) ]

From [ Kenny Kitzke (990701.1800EDT) ]

You didn't think those Planet of the Apes movies were documentaries, did

you?

Ya never know :-).

Last night, our dog was watching the World Dog Show from Mexico on TV

along

with us. Who knows what he might have learned? Or why he was watching?

Remember, I said _how_ an animal learns may be very similar to how we learn
( at least some things ) not _what_ they can learn. But if your dog starts
smiling while he's watching TV, let me know. :slight_smile:

The funny thing for me is, as
deficient as PCT might be as a theory, it seems to produce far better

results

than what the Ph.D. psychologists can produce.

I don't think PCT is deficient as a theory. As a theory it's rock solid. I
think we need to try and understand how PCT informs some of the behavioral
phenomenon we see. Most of which happens _between_ people. ( i.e. what we
usually _observe_ ) As Bill pointed out yesterday, we can _infer_ some of
this, but have no way of _directly_ experiencing it ( except by our
perceptions ).

You coming to Vancouver? Can you lead a session on your MOL approach?

I'll

need lots of paper. :sunglasses:

Unfortunately not this year. I hope to make it next year. Maybe by that time
I'll be in a position to present a paper on it. Are you going to give it a
shot?

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (990701.2142) ]

[From Rick Marken (990701.1630)]

You're right. Sorry. I'll get to them tonight if you'll
re-post them.

Thank you. I'll repost them to you privately. You can answer them on the net

> Rick, it's not always easy stopping and asking _yourself_
> ( I include myself here ) "Hey. what am I really angry about".

Tell me about it! It's hard to do that even when you're not
angry (which I'm not).

I was not suggesting you were. I was using it as an example of stopping to
reflect when your first inclination is to strike out.

I think you're right; I will try to be more polite about dis-
agreeing with other people's ideas about PCT when I think those
ideas are wrong.

Rick, it's not about being polite. it's about _actually_ respecting anothers
view point. If you do that everything else will follow. I'll send you some
posts where you did just that. Print 'em out and hang them on the wall as a
reminder :slight_smile:

But there's enough Republican in me to assume
that people can take _some_ responsibility for their own
perceptual experience.

Absolutely. If we all take responsibilty for our perceptual experience then
we will all be better off. But as I said before it ain't easy. We always
_think_ that what we observe and initially interpret _is_ in fact what is.
PCT says that is not necessarily so. If we stopped to reflect on everything
we did we would be totally paralyzed. So we have to pick our spots.
Fortuneately most of what we perceive has nothing to do with us, so is
really imaterial ( usually ) to what we are controlling for.

It wasn't fun having Bill Powers
[(990701.1313 MDT), (990701.1628 MDT)] correct and re-correct me.

Personally, I sorta got a kick out of it. :slight_smile:

But I listened to what he said. I re-read (and re-thought) my
computer code for an integrating output function and understood
what Bill was saying. I learned something. I didn't blame Bill
for whatever error I experienced; I acted to correct the error
by checking my knowledge and correcting _it_.

Yes Rick, that's how you handled it from _Bill_. You don't always handle it
that way from everyone. I think that's largely due to the respect you have
for Bill and not necessarily for others. I am not trying to single you out
here. That goes for _all_ of us. As I said before, it ain't easy. :slight_smile:

I admit that it's unpleasant to have people teach you stuff --
heck,

Rick, I think we have pretty much repudiated the idea that people can in
fact "teach" anyone anything. We all have the capacity to _learn_, But that
is strictly up to us as individuals. You "learned" not _only_ because Bill
corrected you ( that simply provided a disturbance ). You learned because
you took responsibility for your perceptual experiences. But I think if it
were someone other then Bill, you would not have been so quick to reflect on
it ( probably with some justification ).

>they do it by producing a disturbance to at least one

variable you are controlling; the one being corrected --
especially when you think you already know it (and I should
certainly already know how integral control systems work).

Great point. I think we ( and I do mean _we_ :slight_smile: ) Often think that what we
know is somehow chisled in granite. Our control systems work _very_ well
usually ) in protecting what we control for from disturbances :-). Gee,
where have I heard that before :-). I think sometimes you forget what it
_actually_ took for you to get to this point in your understanding of PCT
:slight_smile:

But I assumed that Bill was trying to teach me something;

I don't think so :-). I think Bill was simply pointing out an error in your
thinking

so I was willing to learn.

That, I think, is the more accurate statement

It might have turned out that Bill
was wrong and that he was trying to teach me the wrong thing;
it has happened. But this time it turns out that I was trying
to teach you the wrong thing (that zero error can cause non-zero
action when what I should have been pointing out is that zero
error can be _associated_ with constant action; this is important
because it means that you can't assume that there is error in
a control system just because it is acting).

Rick, I don't mean this disrespectfully. I don't think you were trying to
"teach me". I think you _rightfully_ were trying to point out an error in my
thinking. What you didn't do was to see if in fact what you were correcting
_was_ something I was actually advocating. ( I wasn't )

We are here (I hope) to validate each other's teachings by
_testing_ it against experimental data and working models.

Rick, again, I don't believe anyone can "teach" anyone anything ( we can
help others learn ). I do think we can all _learn_ a lot from each other,
but only if we are willing to listen and reflect on what others say as well
as advocating our own positions. If we don't, can't, or won't communicate,
we can't learn. Sometimes we don't have useful data or a good working model.
Never the less I think we can all continue to learn by exploring
discussing ) aspects of PCT that interest each of us. But the what- if's
should be tied to the PCT model ( or an alternative that is presented ) so
we don't fly off to Mars. The ultimate aim should be scientific discourse.
Sometimes you just don't initially have, ( the testable data ) what is
needed. But I think to limit the discussion to those things we can only test
_quantitatively_, is to restrict us and to in effect paralyze us,

We're not in a contest to prove that one of us is smarter than the
other. We are here (or should be, I think) to validate each
other's knowledge of control theory: a mutual validation society.

Amen. Couldn't agree with you more.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. This is the Rick that I wish we see more
of.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990702.0845)]

Bruce Abbott (990701.2145 EST)

If it had been anyone else but Bill, you would have acted to
correct the error by implying that the other person was an
idiot who didn't really understand PCT and was persisting in
attempting to apply an inappropriate S-R analysis.

Me:

Actually, I believe that just about a year ago you corrected
me when I went into a big spiel about control of behavior
being illusory.

Bruce Abbott (990702.0745 EST) --

Your memory is self-serving. Your _first_ reply was as I
indicated. Only when I continued to argue the point vigorously
did you finally get around to testing my claim.

So now it's not that I won't be corrected by anyone but Bill.
It's that I won't be corrected by anyone quickly enough. You
guys are sure a tough audience.

Me:

But now that you mention it, I can't remember you ever
acknowledging (or correcting) any error on your part.

Bruce:

Evidently you have a selective memory.

Could you refresh it for me, please.

But how did this discussion suddenly become about me? I thought
we were talking about you.

We were talking about me. But we should be talking about all
of us. I admit that I lose it sometimes and post in a way
that might be offensive. But I care deeply about these ideas
and I am controlling for them with high gain. I have tried
to avoid ad hominum arguments but I'm sure I have failed
sometimes. I'm also sure that some of my non ad hominum
arguments have been heard as ad hominum simply because I was
arguing against ideas that are important to the hominums
arguing for them.

I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.
The ideas we are discussing are often mutually exclusive; if
PCT is right, reinforcement theory is wrong, for example. This
is bound to lead to escalating verbal battles.

You (and Marc and Bruce G. and perhaps many others) may think
I am the most tactless of arguers on the net. But I've re-read
the posts from many of our most contentious debates of the past
and, frankly, mine didn't stand out (to me) as being particularly
tactless. Actually, (though pride is a sin) I thought my posts
seemed rather reassuringly tactful compared to those of many
of many of the others involved in these discussions.

I want this discussion to be about you (and Marc, and Bruce G.
and me and anyone else who gets involved in discussions on the
net) because I want you guys to consider the fact that your
posts often seem just as tactless, ad hominum and and nasty to
me as mine apparently seem to you. I'm listening when you complain
about the tone of my posts and I will keep trying to be more
civil. But believe me, from over here (in my brain) your posts
often sound just as nasty as mine apparently sound to you.

I don't complain much about the tone of your posts because I
know that you are people (just like me) and I respect your
humanity which means that I respect the fact that you care about
what you _perceive_ (controlled perceptions), not what you _do_
(the actions used to control these perceptions). I've never
asked you (as you so often ask me) to stop offending me because
I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.

I see that Bruce Gregory (990702.0957 EDT) has come to basically
the same conclusion:

You cannot communicate successfully with someone whom you do
not respect and admire.

This is right. We have to respect and admire the fact that
we are all perceptual control systems trying to control perceptions
we care about. In the process of doing this we will occasionally
say things that turn out to be wrong, embarrassing or hurtful.
I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
despite these "failings"; indeed, I believe a person who
understands PCT will see these "failings" as the expected
side effects of being an input control system and silently
forgive them (and hope for forgiveness for one's own "failings").

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (990702.1314) ]

[From Rick Marken (990702.0845)]

Bruce Abbott:

> Evidently you have a selective memory.

We _all_ do.

Rick:

Could you refresh it for me, please.

A reasonable request, if in fact we are interested in learning and not in
chastising.

Bruce Abbott:

> But how did this discussion suddenly become about me? I thought
> we were talking about you.

A nice side step, but Bruce hasn't helped Rick understand why he said what
he said. No learning will take place. Instead you can expect Rick to
become/remain both defensive and frustrated. Nobody learns, _everyone_
loses.

Rick

We were talking about me. But we should be talking about all
of us.

Absolutely.

I admit that I lose it sometimes and post in a way
that might be offensive.

Rick, I think _ineffective_ should replace "offensive". Speaking for myself
here, I have no problem dealing with most of your "offensive" remarks. I do
care when they make you ineffective in presenting your ideas.

But I care deeply about these ideas
and I am controlling for them with high gain.

No question. But if you are as interested in _advocating_ these ideas as you
seem to be, you will be forever ineffective without an equal ability to
_inquire_ and respect the views of others. For instance, I just couldn't
envision you giving a talk about PCT to Ed Ford's Group. Am I off base here?

I have tried to avoid ad hominum arguments but I'm sure I have failed
sometimes.

I think your focusing in on the wrong variable. The problem is not the "ad
hominum" arguments. The problem, in my opinion is the win/lose position you
put yourself into. When the discussion is or becomes a win/lose, I am right,
you are wrong argument, _no one_ learns. Everyone loses when nobody learns
at least on this list ). Sometimes these things are unavoidable in life. I
think we might have some better control on this list if we all wanted it.

I'm also sure that some of my non ad hominum
arguments have been heard as ad hominum simply because I was
arguing against ideas that are important to the hominums
arguing for them.

Irrelevant, _If_ your as equally open to inquiry as you are to advocacy.
That goes for _everyone_ not just to one party in a conversation.

I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.

Tactful, Schmactful. This is up there with being "offensive". The real goal
here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about. This takes some
questions, because the actions you see ( the posts and words people use ) do
not always ( in my case, usually :slight_smile: ) reflect the _intentions_ of the
writer. Add to this, your interpretation of what you are reading and things
can get pretty ugly pretty quickly. Secondly, we need to express _our_ logic
in the statements we make. Most of us think that what we say is _self
evident_ or should be, and it ain't :-).

The ideas we are discussing are often mutually exclusive; if
PCT is right, reinforcement theory is wrong, for example. This
is bound to lead to escalating verbal battles.

Only when the _exchange_ of ideas stop. It's unfortunate you view this as a
right/wrong, win/lose issue. This might be one of the reasons PCT has had a
hard time being embraced. The _only_ person who can _effectively_ tell me
that I am wrong, and that I _must_ change my thinking is _ME_. When you tell
me that _my_ ideas are invalid you _LOSE_. When you _show_ me your ideas,
and reasoning from a perspective _I_ can grasp, you have done just about
_ALL_ you can do to help me reach an understanding of PCT. If you are really
exceptional, you would need a lot of patience and help me navigate the
course _MY_ way. ( not an easy thing to do ). These "verbal battles" serve
no purpose for learning, because these battles are not about learning. They
are about _IMAGINED_ victories and defeats.

You (and Marc and Bruce G. and perhaps many others) may think
I am the most tactless of arguers on the net. But I've re-read
the posts from many of our most contentious debates of the past
and, frankly, mine didn't stand out (to me) as being particularly
tactless. Actually, (though pride is a sin) I thought my posts
seemed rather reassuringly tactful compared to those of many
of many of the others involved in these discussions.

See my statements above.

I want this discussion to be about you (and Marc, and Bruce G.
and me and anyone else who gets involved in discussions on the
net) because I want you guys to consider the fact that your
posts often seem just as tactless, ad hominum and and nasty to
me as mine apparently seem to you. I'm listening when you complain
about the tone of my posts and I will keep trying to be more
civil. But believe me, from over here (in my brain) your posts
often sound just as nasty as mine apparently sound to you.

If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the future, you will
_show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_ and hopefully understand and
learn from them. How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
said or b) imagining it. Back up your claims with data that will help us
_both_ learn. This is _not_ about shoving something under somebodies nose
and saying "Gotcha". I will try my damnest to do the same.

I don't complain much about the tone of your posts because I
know that you are people (just like me) and I respect your
humanity which means that I respect the fact that you care about
what you _perceive_ (controlled perceptions), not what you _do_
(the actions used to control these perceptions).

Complaining doesn't help learning. Pointing out mistakes, backing them up
with data, and being open enough to look at and discuss the data and
situation does. I don't care about your respect for "humanity" I care about
your respect for _my ideas_. I am not asking you to _agree_ with all of
them. I _am_ asking you to _respect_ them and to help me ( i.e. do things
that _I_ need help with, so I can possibly reach an understanding of PCT ).
I need to take responsabilty ( and I think I have ) for my own learning of
PCT.

I've never asked you (as you so often ask me) to stop offending me because
I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.

The problem here is not in the intentions. The problem is in the assuming.
Why assume anything?

I see that Bruce Gregory (990702.0957 EDT) has come to basically
the same conclusion:

> You cannot communicate successfully with someone whom you do
> not respect and admire.

This is right. We have to respect and admire the fact that
we are all perceptual control systems trying to control perceptions
we care about. In the process of doing this we will occasionally
say things that turn out to be wrong, embarrassing or hurtful.

Yes, and if we can't learn from these experiences we are all the worst off.

I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
despite these "failings";

I don't think so. The evidence from this net says otherwise. This goes
beyond an understanding of PCT. You might _intellectually_ understand that
people are control systems, but dealing practically with any _one_ person
can be problematic.

indeed, I believe a person who
understands PCT will see these "failings" as the expected
side effects of being an input control system and silently
forgive them (and hope for forgiveness for one's own "failings").

Cope out. Sounds a lot like god will ultimately forgive you of all your
sins, so it's ok to go out and murder someone. We all need to take
responsability for our "failings" and try to work through them rather then
blowing them of as being "inevitable"

For all you folks in the US, enjoy the long holiday weekend. For all you
folks not in the US, have a great weekend anyway :-).

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990702.1400)]

Marc Abrams (990702.1314)--

When the discussion is or becomes a win/lose, I am right,
you are wrong argument, _no one_ learns.

I think the key is understanding the difference between
"right/wrong" and "win/lose". Galileo was right; Aristotle was
wrong. The Church won (but was still wrong); Galileo lost
(but was still right). Right/wrong is decided by data and
models; win/lose is decided by force. I think we should
have "right/wrong" discussions on CSGNet and stop the
"win/lose" ones.

Me:

I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.

Marc:

The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.

I was referring to _interpersonal_ conflict. I think it's usually
pretty obvious what these conflicts are about.

These "verbal battles" serve no purpose for learning, because
these battles are not about learning. They are about _IMAGINED_
victories and defeats.

I agree that these verbal battles can be about imagined victories
and defeats, and this is unfortunate. But I think these battles
can serve the purpose of learning. For example, we just had a
battle over whether the action of a control system depends on
error. You and Bruce Gregory said "no error, no action". I said
"zero error can cause action in an integral controller". This
turned into an unnecessary win/lose battle. It turned out we
were all wrong; Bill explained that zero error _causes_ no action
but there can be action when there is no error. I don't feel like
I won or lost anything in this discussion; I feel like I learned.
What I learned was that you can't tell whether or not a control
system is experiencing error simply by looking to see whether or
not it is acting.

Me:

I'm listening when you complain about the tone of my posts
and I will keep trying to be more civil. But believe me, from
over here (in my brain) your posts often sound just as nasty
as mine apparently sound to you.

Marc:

If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the
future, you will _show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_
and hopefully understand and learn from them.

Why? It doesn't bother me that much. And I'm not interested in
trying to turn you (or anyone else) into a non-offensive poster
(I don't really think it's possible for anyone to be reliably
non-offensive all the time to all people, anyway).

How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
said or b) imagining it.

That will always be a problem in interpersonal interactions.
I don't think there is any solution except the one proposed
by Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT):

In any relationship, it's not what the other person does that's
important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have
control over

Marc:

Complaining doesn't help learning. Pointing out mistakes,
backing them up with data, and being open enough to look at
and discuss the data and situation does.

I agree completely. When I point out what I think are mistakes
I try to back up my assertions with data and models. That's one
reason for the demos at my website. One reason I fight so
little with Bill Powers (and we have had disagreements) is
because we typically settle our disputes with data or (more often)
models. I really think we could move our net discussions away
from hostile and snarling "win/lose" toward adversarial but
friendly "right/wrong" if the participants in these discussions
(myself included) would more often resort to "arbitration" by
data and models.

Me:

I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.

Marc:

The problem here is not in the intentions. The problem is in
the assuming. Why assume anything?

Because it's such a waste of time to do otherwise. These are
such trivial "offenses" (imagined or real). I say just try to
ignore them and deal with what matters: how living systems work.

Me:

I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
despite these "failings";

Marc:

I don't think so.

You're right. I should have said "a person who understands
PCT _can_ respect people despite these "failings". Some
people (Hitler, Stalin and Milosovic come to mind) just
aren't really worth trying to respect.

So, nu? Where are those questions about control theory?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Rick Marken (970703.0840)]

I posted this yesterday but it didn't make it to CSGNet. In
case the problem was on my end I'm posting it again. I hope
this doesn't end up being a repeat.

···

---
[From Rick Marken (990702.1400)]

Marc Abrams (990702.1314)--

When the discussion is or becomes a win/lose, I am right,
you are wrong argument, _no one_ learns.

I think the key is understanding the difference between
"right/wrong" and "win/lose". Galileo was right; Aristotle was
wrong. The Church won (but was still wrong); Galileo lost
(but was still right). Right/wrong is decided by data and
models; win/lose is decided by force. I think we should
have "right/wrong" discussions on CSGNet and stop the
"win/lose" ones.

Me:

I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.

Marc:

The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.

I was referring to _interpersonal_ conflict. I think it's usually
pretty obvious what these conflicts are about.

These "verbal battles" serve no purpose for learning, because
these battles are not about learning. They are about _IMAGINED_
victories and defeats.

I agree that these verbal battles can be about imagined victories
and defeats, and this is unfortunate. But I think these battles
can serve the purpose of learning. For example, we just had a
battle over whether the action of a control system depends on
error. You and Bruce Gregory said "no error, no action". I said
"zero error can cause action in an integral controller". This
turned into an unnecessary win/lose battle. It turned out we
were all wrong; Bill explained that zero error _causes_ no action
but there can be action when there is no error. I don't feel like
I won or lost anything in this discussion; I feel like I learned.
What I learned was that you can't tell whether or not a control
system is experiencing error simply by looking to see whether or
not it is acting.

Me:

I'm listening when you complain about the tone of my posts
and I will keep trying to be more civil. But believe me, from
over here (in my brain) your posts often sound just as nasty
as mine apparently sound to you.

Marc:

If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the
future, you will _show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_
and hopefully understand and learn from them.

Why? It doesn't bother me that much. And I'm not interested in
trying to turn you (or anyone else) into a non-offensive poster
(I don't really think it's possible for anyone to be reliably
non-offensive all the time to all people, anyway).

How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
said or b) imagining it.

That will always be a problem in interpersonal interactions.
I don't think there is any solution except the one proposed
by Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT):

In any relationship, it's not what the other person does that's
important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have
control over

Marc:

Complaining doesn't help learning. Pointing out mistakes,
backing them up with data, and being open enough to look at
and discuss the data and situation does.

I agree completely. When I point out what I think are mistakes
I try to back up my assertions with data and models. That's one
reason for the demos at my website. One reason I fight so
little with Bill Powers (and we have had disagreements) is
because we typically settle our disputes with data or (more often)
models. I really think we could move our net discussions away
from hostile and snarling "win/lose" toward adversarial but
friendly "right/wrong" if the participants in these discussions
(myself included) would more often resort to "arbitration" by
data and models.

Me:

I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.

Marc:

The problem here is not in the intentions. The problem is in
the assuming. Why assume anything?

Because it's such a waste of time to do otherwise. These are
such trivial "offenses" (imagined or real). I say just try to
ignore them and deal with what matters: how living systems work.

Me:

I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
despite these "failings";

Marc:

I don't think so.

You're right. I should have said "a person who understands
PCT _can_ respect people despite these "failings". Some
people (Hitler, Stalin and Milosovic come to mind) just
aren't really worth trying to respect.

So, nu? Where are those questions about control theory?

Best

Rick
--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990703.2201) ]

I did not get this post yesterday as well as a post from Bill. Maybe the
server was down?

Update :-). I just got this post and Bill's from yesterday.

[From Rick Marken (970703.0840)]

I posted this yesterday but it didn't make it to CSGNet. In
case the problem was on my end I'm posting it again. I hope
this doesn't end up being a repeat.
---
[From Rick Marken (990702.1400)]

I think the key is understanding the difference between
"right/wrong" and "win/lose". Galileo was right; Aristotle was
wrong. The Church won (but was still wrong); Galileo lost
(but was still right). Right/wrong is decided by data and
models; win/lose is decided by force. I think we should
have "right/wrong" discussions on CSGNet and stop the
"win/lose" ones.

_Scientific_ right/wrong arguments are what this list should be about. But
there are in my opinion, effective and ineffective ways of doing this. If we
restrict our arguments on this list purely to models and data, as Bruce
Nevin suggests, then I completely agree with you. If we allow ourselves to
move away from the data/experimentation mode of scientific inquiry
modeling )then we need some other rules to keep the discourse "fair" and in
my mind useful.

Me:

> I think we all succumb to making less than tactful statements
> when we are arguing about ideas. After all, we are in conflict.

Marc:

> The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.

I was referring to _interpersonal_ conflict. I think it's usually
pretty obvious what these conflicts are about.

So was I. That's the reason why assumptions should be checked ( tested ) Too
many of them (i.e. our assumptions ) turn out to be either wrong or slightly
askew. It really doesn't take much.

> These "verbal battles" serve no purpose for learning, because
> these battles are not about learning. They are about _IMAGINED_
> victories and defeats.

I agree that these verbal battles can be about imagined victories
and defeats, and this is unfortunate. But I think these battles
can serve the purpose of learning. For example, we just had a
battle over whether the action of a control system depends on
error. You and Bruce Gregory said "no error, no action". I said
"zero error can cause action in an integral controller". This
turned into an unnecessary win/lose battle. It turned out we
were all wrong; Bill explained that zero error _causes_ no action
but there can be action when there is no error. I don't feel like
I won or lost anything in this discussion; I feel like I learned.
What I learned was that you can't tell whether or not a control
system is experiencing error simply by looking to see whether or
not it is acting.

When I say "imagined", thats exactly what I meant. Not every argument on
this list is about "imagined" "right/wrongs". Bill's post was an example of
someone pointing out a mistake and then explaining _his_ logic and reasoning
behind it. If there was anything there I disagreed with I could have pointed
directly to the reasoning and logic I didn't understand or disagreed with
and inquired about it.

Beginning of selective framing

Marc:

> If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the
> future, you will _show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_
> and hopefully understand and learn from them.

Rick

Why? It doesn't bother me that much. And I'm not interested in
trying to turn you (or anyone else) into a non-offensive poster
(I don't really think it's possible for anyone to be reliably
non-offensive all the time to all people, anyway).

Marc:

> How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
> said or b) imagining it.

Rick:

That will always be a problem in interpersonal interactions.
I don't think there is any solution except the one proposed
by Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT):

This is a _beautiful_ example of your _selective_ attention to something and
not to others, and the reason why I said what I did about showing the data
and reflecting on it. You took this from:

from [ Marc Abrams (990702.1314) ]

If you are sincere about what you just said, then, in the future, you will
_show_ examples of this kind so I can _see_ and hopefully understand and
learn from them. How do I know you are not a) misinterpreting something I
said or b) imagining it. Back up your claims with data that will help us
_both_ learn. This is _not_ about shoving something under somebodies nose
and saying "Gotcha". I will try my damnest to do the same.

What happened to the "Back up your claims with data that will help us

_both_ learn. This is _not_ about shoving something under somebodies nose
and saying "Gotcha". I will try my damnest to do the same."

I guess it just was not worth commenting on, huh?

Rick, this is getting to be tiresome for me. You're don't seem to be willing
to reflect on what _others_ deem important nor do you seem open to possibly
trying new ways to communicate.
If my two assumptions are accurate, this thread is history :slight_smile:

Btw, that wasn't an original Bill comment Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT): It
was from Bruce Gregory. Bill was simply commenting on it.
If that is truely the way you feel, you should be posting _very_ rarely on
this net :slight_smile:

> In any relationship, it's not what the other person does that's
> important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have
> control over

Yes, but _what_ you do does or can effect others. It might also be
"important".

Marc:

> Complaining doesn't help learning. Pointing out mistakes,
> backing them up with data, and being open enough to look at
> and discuss the data and situation does.

I agree completely. When I point out what I think are mistakes
I try to back up my assertions with data and models. That's one
reason for the demos at my website.

But what happens when models don't exist, and the only "data" you have are
the words you and others exchange?

One reason I fight so little with Bill Powers (and we have had

disagreements) is

because we typically settle our disputes with data or (more often)
models.

Yes, but it is my contention ( along with those of Abbott and Gregory, I
believe ) That it is your respect for Bill that allows you to reflect on
Bill's critisims rather then lashing out at him. You do not perceive Bill to
be a "threat" to your beliefs about PCT, and you do not perceive Bill as
wanting
you to change your position about PCT. ( Both, probably true ) I don't think
there is anyone else on the net ( except for Mary ) where this holds true
for you. I thinks this creates problems because sooner or later the
discussions always seem to out grow the explanatory power of the models.
Then the "data" changes. Then it becomes a matter of conjecturing from our
knowledge of the model and trying to extrapolate and generalize from it The
only thing that can be tested in these cases is the reasoning and logic we
use in the conjecturing process. I think that this logic and reasoning could
be an important source for learning. Then again it just might be BS. How do
we seperate the chaff from the wheat?

I really think we could move our net discussions away
from hostile and snarling "win/lose" toward adversarial but
friendly "right/wrong" if the participants in these discussions
(myself included) would more often resort to "arbitration" by
data and models.

I couldn't agree more. Data not only being of the kind used in models, but
also of the kind used in interpreting what someone is trying to say.

Me:

> I assume that your offenses are unintentional. I wish you would
> assume the same about my offenses, but that's up to you.

Marc:

> The problem here is not in the intentions. The problem is in
> the assuming. Why assume anything?

Rick:

Because it's such a waste of time to do otherwise. These are
such trivial "offenses" (imagined or real). I say just try to
ignore them and deal with what matters: how living systems work.

Right, and spending 3 days throwing BS back and forth isn't a waste of time
and bandwidth. I am not suggesting that _everything_ be reflected on. I am
suggesting that when something is important to someone and an opportunity is
present for someone to learn. _If_ the people involved agree, then
reflection could be a useful tool.

Me:

> I believe a person who understands PCT will respect people
> despite these "failings";

Marc:

> I don't think so.

Rick:

You're right. I should have said "a person who understands
PCT _can_ respect people despite these "failings". Some
people (Hitler, Stalin and Milosovic come to mind) just
aren't really worth trying to respect.

Let me rephrase this.
"A person can respect other _individuals_ inspite of any "failings" another
person might have. and Regardless of they're theoretical Psychological
background. :slight_smile:

So, nu? Where are those questions about control theory?

I'll resend the entire post to you privately.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (990704.1828)]

Rick Marken (990702.1400)

I agree that these verbal battles can be about imagined victories
and defeats, and this is unfortunate. But I think these battles
can serve the purpose of learning.

I'm sure you are right. Doubtless Milosevic learned something from the NATO
bombing. Of course, it might also be true that he could have learned this
just as well had NATO pursued a less destructive course of action. We'll
never know, will we?

For example, we just had a
battle over whether the action of a control system depends on
error.

You and Bruce Gregory said "no error, no action". I said
"zero error can cause action in an integral controller". This
turned into an unnecessary win/lose battle. It turned out we
were all wrong; Bill explained that zero error _causes_ no action
but there can be action when there is no error. I don't feel like
I won or lost anything in this discussion; I feel like I learned.
What I learned was that you can't tell whether or not a control
system is experiencing error simply by looking to see whether or
not it is acting.

When you are controlling a sequence of perceptions, what causes you to move
from one perception to the next? Are you experiencing no error but
nevertheless acting? Is this an example of an integral controller acting in
the absence of error?

Bruce Gregory

from [ Marc Abrams (990705.0055) ]

[From Rick Marken (990704.2110)]

Bruce Gregory (990704.1828)

> When you are controlling a sequence of perceptions, what causes
> you to move from one perception to the next?

If you are controlling a sequence of perceptions you don't
necessarily have to take action to move from one perception
to the next. In the "Hierarchy of perception and control" demo
at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

you can control a sequence (of different sized objects) without
taking any action to move from one perception to the next; the
"movement" from one perception to the next is caused by the
computer program. All you have to do to control the sequence is
press a button to change the computer generated sequence.

Isn't pressing a button taking action? What causes you to press the button?

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990704.2110)]

Bruce Gregory (990704.1828)

When you are controlling a sequence of perceptions, what causes
you to move from one perception to the next?

If you are controlling a sequence of perceptions you don't
necessarily have to take action to move from one perception
to the next. In the "Hierarchy of perception and control" demo
at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

you can control a sequence (of different sized objects) without
taking any action to move from one perception to the next; the
"movement" from one perception to the next is caused by the
computer program. All you have to do to control the sequence is
press a button to change the computer generated sequence.

Is this an example of an integral controller acting in the
absence of error?

No, not really. If you want to see action in the absense of error
look at the plots of data from a tracking experiment (like the
first two at my demos site). You will see brief periods during
which the error (cursor position as deviation from target) is
zero but the mouse is moving (there is "action")

The important point to understand is that any particular action
you see a control system performing is not _necessarily_
evidence that the system is experiencing error.

Best

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Rick Marken (990704.2355)]

Marc Abrams --

The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.

Me:

I was referring to _interpersonal_ conflict. I think it's usually
pretty obvious what these conflicts are about.

Marc Abrams (990703.2201)

So was I. That's the reason why assumptions should be checked
( tested )

In a conflict, the same controlled variable is being pushed in
opposite directions by different people. So when you are in
a conflict it's not hard to tell what it's about (what the common
controlled variable is). Trying to become consciously aware of
what this variable is may end the conflict (by getting one
party to go "up a level"); but it won't solve the basis of
the conflict. When I become aware of the fact that I am in an
interpersonal conflict, I might stop fighting about it but
the disagreement will persist.

Bill's post [on error and eaction, I presume] was an example
of someone pointing out a mistake and then explaining _his_
logic and reasoning behind it. If there was anything there I
disagreed with I could have pointed directly to the reasoning
and logic I didn't understand or disagreed with and inquired
about it.

Great. Then I presume that you now understand that it is not
true that, in a control system, no error means no action (and
vice versa).

_what_ you do does or can effect others. It might also be
"important".

Of course it is. What _we_ do will often be a disturbance to
perceptions other people control. And the perceptions people
control are _very_ important to them. I (like you) make every
reasonable effort to keep from disturbing other people's
perceptions. But, ultimately, the control of perception is
each person's individual responsibility; it is not (and really
_cannot_ be) your responsibility or mine. This, I believe, is
what Bill meant when he said:

In any relationship, it's not what the other person does that's
important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have
control over

Look at it this way: you don't want to take responsibility for
my perceptions, do you? That is, you don't want to try to adjust
your behavior so that my perception of _you_ is what _I_ want,
do you? So why ask me to take responsibility for your (or Bruce
G.'s or Bruce A.'s) perception of me? If you don't like what I
say, you can either ignore it, answer it do whatever you want
with it; you are in control!

Yes, but it is my contention ( along with those of Abbott and
Gregory, I believe ) That it is your respect for Bill that
allows you to reflect on Bill's critisims rather then lashing
out at him.

I gave you data on this (that I corrected myself when Bruce A.
pointed out an error of mine). But if you want to continue to
believe this there is nothing I can do about it.

Me:

I admit that I lose it sometimes and post in a way that might be
offensive.

Marc Abrams (990702.1314) --

Rick, I think _ineffective_ should replace "offensive".

What are your thoughts on this?

What's effectiveness? .

I just couldn't envision you giving a talk about PCT to
Ed Ford's Group. Am I off base here?

I don't know. If, indeed, you can't envision it then you are
on base. But I can envision it easily; the vision is very pleasnat.

The problem is not the "ad hominum" arguments. The problem, in
my opinion is the win/lose position you put yourself into...

What about this one. Do you agree, disagree, some combination :slight_smile:

I suppose it may seem like win/lose to you. It seems like
right/wrong to me. For example, I wasn't trying to win
anything when I responded to your "no error, no action" comment.
I think it is basically wrong to view visible control system
behavior as a reaction to error. So I pointed out that there are
situations where we can see a control system acting (moving,
say) even though there is no error in the control system. Maybe
it wasn't important. But I was really not trying to "win"
anything by pointing it out. I was trying to explain something
about living control systems that I though was right -- and
important.

Me:

I'm also sure that some of my non ad hominum arguments have
been heard as ad hominum simply because I was arguing against
ideas that are important to the hominums arguing for them.

Marc:

Irrelevant, _If_ your as equally open to inquiry as you are
to advocacy. That goes for _everyone_ not just to one party
in a conversation.

What about this statement.

I don't understand it. What I meant was that some of what seems
like ad hominum is just criticism of an idea that a person
holds dear. If I said "behaviorism is stupid" Bruce A.
might hear this as "Bruce A. is stupid" because Bruce still
thinks highly of behaviorism. I should avoid criticizing ideas
this way; it's not ad hominum but I agree that it can feel
like it.

The real goal here is to find out _what_ your in conflict about.
This takes some questions, because the actions you see (the
posts and words people use ) do not always ( in my case,
usually :slight_smile: ) reflect the _intentions_ of the writer.

I don't know how you got, what you got, in [From Rick Marken
(990702.1400)] from this statement. can you please explain
your thinking and reasoning about that post?

I guess I just don't see why you think it's important to determine
the other person's intentions. The basis of the conflicts we have
on this net are pretty obvious. Maybe you can tell me how knowing
another's intentions might help reduce net conflicts. How, for
example, would it help to know the intentions of a person who
says that "consequences select actions"?

When you tell me that _my_ ideas are invalid you _LOSE_.

I don't know if I've said your ideas were invalid. I think
some are wrong. So?

Again, you did not address _my_ concerns in this statement.

Sorry. I just don't know what to do about it. Maybe we could
just put some biolerplate at the top of each post (along with
the date) that says something like: I am about to disagree
with something you said in your post of [..]. This disagreement
is not to be construed as in an attack on you personally. You are
swell; the idea you expressed seems incorrect.

You say that I ask you to stop offending me. My statement was
in part asking you to please _show_ me where this is true. In
what posts? What did I say?

Well, right in this statement here, for one. You are questioning
the validity of my perceptions. I believe you when you say
that I offend you; I feel offended by your lack of respect for
the validity of my perception of offense by you.

This is why I don't care much about this stuff, Marc. I'm sure
you are not trying to insult me on purpose (indeed, you may not
even believe that you have ever offended me) so I don't get all
upset about it.

I think we will all be happier if we worry less about _how_
people present their ideas (whether they are being nice or
effective or thoughtful or stubborn or whatever) and more
about the ideas themselves.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/