Letting Disturbances Prevail

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
1

[Fred Nickols (2015.11.19.1408)]

On my way into town a while ago I was going around a curve to my left. Naturally, momentum moved my car to the right. I did not compensate for it right away. I was close to the center line when the car began to swing out to the right and I let it go until the car was where I wanted it, then I corrected for it. I guess there are times when we use disturbances to our advantage.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE CONSULTING

“Assistance at a Distance”

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

2

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.20.1020)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.19.1408)

FN: On my way into town a while ago I was going around a curve to my left. Naturally, momentum moved my car to the right. I did not compensate for it right away. I was close to the center line when the car began to swing out to the right and I let it go until the car was where I wanted it, then I corrected for it. I guess there are times when we use disturbances to our advantage.

RM: Great observation Freed. But I wouldn’t say that you were letting disturbances “prevail”. Disturbances (despite the name) are not really forces that are only acting against goal achievement. They are simply effects on a controlled variable that are independent of the controller’s effects on that variable. So it might be better to call them “independent variables” rather than “disturbances” since, as in your example, they cannot always be seen as “disturbing” to the state of the controlled variable.

RM: When we are controlling (behaving purposefully) we are adding our effects on the variables we are controlling to those produced by independent variables in the environment in order to keep the controlled variables at their references. This is another good reason why its better to say that a control system acts to “protect” a variable from the effects of disturbances rather than that it acts to “counter” the effects of disturbances. When actions join with disturbances to keep a controlled variable in a reference state they just as often do it by not countering the disturbances (letting them “prevail”,as was the case in your example) as by countering them.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

3

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.20.1020)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.19.1408)

FN: On my way into town a while ago I was going around a curve to my left. Naturally, momentum moved my car to the right. I did not compensate for it right away. I was close to the center line when the car began to swing out to the right and I let it go until the car was where I wanted it, then I corrected for it. I guess there are times when we use disturbances to our advantage.

RM: Great observation Freed. But I wouldn’t say that you were letting disturbances “prevail”. Disturbances (despite the name) are not really forces that are only acting against goal achievement. They are simply effects on a controlled variable that are independent of the controller’s effects on that variable.

HB : And what was the »effect« on a controlled variable that was »independent of the controller’s effects on that variable« ?

RM : So it might be better to call them “independent variables” rather than “disturbances” since, as in your example, they cannot always be seen as “disturbing” to the state of the controlled variable.

HB : And which are those »independent variables« which are not seen as “disturbing” to the state of the controlled variable ???

RM: When we are controlling (behaving purposefully) we are adding our effects on the variables we are controlling

HB : All you can do is adding effects to immediate environment of the system. There is no controlling (behaving purposefully) or adding our effects on the variables we are controlling in outer environment….

RM : ….to those produced by indeependent variables in the environment in order to keep the controlled variables at their references. This is another good reason why its better to say that a control system acts to “protect” a variable from the effects of disturbances rather than that it acts to “counter” the effects of disturbances. When actions join with disturbances to keep a controlled variable in a reference state they just as often do it by not countering the disturbances (letting them “prevail”,as was the case in your example) as by countering them.

HB -: What a construct is this ? Again your »protection of variables« as 1% of Bill’s work. I would rather say that in this case you should use »compensation« or better »adjusting« as the expression used mostly in Bill’s work. And they more correspond to what happened on the road. Bill usually used »adjusting« when mentioned the driver. Find me where he used »protection« in such a cases. »Protection« was used only in very rare cases. So it’s far from being general term in PCT.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 7:24 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Letting Disturbances Prevail

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble