From[Bill Williams 24 June 2004 12:50 PM CST]
[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0900)]
Bill Williams (23 June 2004 4:45 PM CST)
>Your approach to understanding phenomena involves telling stories that are
>convincing because they appeal to you rather than building models that are
>convincing because they account for the phenomena being modeled.
As you know I have done some modeling.
Your model was a model of nothing at all except, perhaps, an unnecessarily
complex two dimensional plotting routine. Simply writing programs with
statements like
o = o + (s * (g*(r-p)-o))*dt
does not a model make.
Perhaps rather than just asserting this in a one sentence you could provide a
manual that would explain just what is and is not a model from a "Bill Powers
way perspective.
I have over the years attempted to encourage Bill Powers to write up his
conception of modeling. In the past Bill Powers explained his not having
done so because he didn't feel sufficiently confident in his ability to
generate an adaquate explaination of control theory. I've been a bit
puzzled by this, and I have spent some time in search of such a manual.
In reply to my most recent repetition of this request Bill Powers explained
his not having published a seque to _B:CP_ as the result of his conception
of modeling being based as he said upon his "hunches." Now there is nothing
wrong with "hunches" especially when the quite often workout-- as they often
do for Bill Powers. However, in the absence of a text that we can consult
to determine what is and is not a model-- in Bill Powers' comprehension of
what is a model we are reduced to a reliance upon Bill Poewers' hunches.
As you know in commenting upon the Lattice program, Bill Powers first
pointed out to you that there was indeed a control loop in the program.
Then he seems to have changed his mind and now agrees with you that all
that is involvded is computation. Bill Powers' change of mind was not
accompanied by an explaination of why the change occured. This isn't the
way I thought science was supposed to be conducted, but then the PCT
silopcist sophistology is not science-- rather it is Bill Powers' way.
And, Bill Powers' definition of modeling is, at this point only specified
in terms of Bill Powers' hunches.
I have actually used control theory in an industrial setting. And, the
control systems that I built and maintained told their own story by having an
effect in the really real reality.
That's great. But you have demonstrated no understanding of how to implement
a model of behavior from a PCT perspective,
As I pointed out recently, given the absence of a seque to _B:CP_ no one,
not even Bill Powers knows what a PCT perspective actually is. Bill Powers'
hunches seem to change based on which side of the bed he wokeup on and what
the incoming CSGnet traffic has to say.
You have consistently exhibited a misunderstanding of how to use english.
In this post you conceed that I have "demonstrated no understanding...."
when I don't think there should be any question that I made some contribution
to a control theory analysis of the Giffen paradox. Bill Powers, I will say,
has been more generous than accurate in describing our collaboration.
There are many control engineers out there who can build
perfectly competent control devices who, nevertheless, do not understand how
to map a control organization onto the behavior of living systems.
This may be true, however, your pretentious phrase "map a control organization
onto the behavior of a living system" is only another way of saying "Bill Powers'
hunches." And, these "hunches" change with fluctuations in Bill Powers' feelings.
Your approach to understanding behavior is completely verbal and not particularly
coherent at that.
Again, take note of your used of "completely." I suppose my understanding of the
behavior of student pilots behavior -- their pilot induced oscilations -- was
completely verbal? At least when their "behavior" went beyond certain limits
I understand that it was necceary to physically assume control of the aircraft
and end the student's PIO.
For example, your "story" explaining why organisms can
know the world in other ways than via their perception was not an
explanation at all.
Agan you are misusing the language. It may have been a poor, or mistaken explaination
but I don't see why it wasn't an explaination.
This is what you said: " The other view, which I believe is a more congenial
one is that the delusion of individualist subjectivism is only a bad dream..."
Saying that a model of perception is a "bad dream" is not a convincing
explanation of what is wrong with it.
I guess the question is convincing to whom. Keep in mind that probably half the
people on the CSGnet think that you really did eat at least half of Lanna Turner.
You have probably heard the rejoinder to "Your argument is not convincing." The
explaination that "I can give you an arugment, but you will have to provide your
own understanding?" You see you don't get to decide the outcome of an argument,
except in regard to your perception, there are other participants, if only as
observers-- there is something here of a rudimentary community.
>I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates
Rick, you use the term _all_ in the above... but in the above sentence you
should change "all" to "some."
The "we" I was thinking of was those of use who like to do modeling and
research.
In the absence anything more than Bill Powers' statement that his conception
of modeling is based upon "hunches." the term modeling is as a practical
matter an undefined term.
That may be only Bill Powers and myself but I hope it includes
several others.
After 26 years there is only a "hope" that there are more than two of you?
As to my being "intoxicated." I have seen you in a state of intoxication.
I have been told that you are an alchololic.
I don't know about "alcoholic" (sounds like a dormative principle to me).
But it's true that I sure liked to drink a lot.
It seems to me that when you charge me with some defect, the solipcist that
you are, the most availible source for something to charge me with is a
trait that you are familiar with because you exhibit the trait. Thus I get
blamed for being Rick-- which let me tell you would be humiliating-- like
the time you undertook to rewrite the Giffen paper, if I took it to heart--
which I don't
I said that about you seeming to be intoxicated because your behavior on the
net reminds me of that of an abusive drunk who doesn't know when to quit.
But why should I quit just to endulge a couple of solipcists? You are a
cultural relatvist, it is all a matter of perception. Isn;t it. Or, is
there more to the story?
All you seem to do is yell and scream about what bad people Bill Powers and
I are (me being the worst) and what a terrible theory PCT is.
Well suppose I am right. There are a lot of people, besides myself, who think
that you are a psycopath. And, a lot of people are beginning to think that
Bill Powers has gone off the track. And, if you and Bill Powers don't appear
to have much respect for the truth, why not as you say "yell and scream."
At least some of your pub mates, who probably agree with you about me and
about PCT, are a bit more civil.
You may have heard of Mary Ellen Lease who at the turn of the century
encouraged the midwest farmers to "Raise more hell and less corn." In my
own way I have adopted some tactics to carry on a campagn of the CSGnet
against a confusion of science with Bill Powers' PCT sophistology. As you
have said the tactic has been effective. Why in the world would I want to
take your advice when in what seems to me to have been a candid moment you
admit that my tactics have worked? Does a boxer listen to and comply when
his oponate asks him to lower is left and expose his jaw? Have heard of the
good cop, bad cop teamwork?
Whether I am "disrupting" or whether you are "disrupting" is according to PCT
sophistology purely a matter of perception. Right?
Wrong. According to PCT "disrupting" is a matter of perception _and_
references.
So, it isn't really a matter of all "I can know is what I percieve." You see
this "All I can know is what I percieve." isn't a sufficient basis for a worth
while story.
"Disrupting" describes a discrepancy between what one wants
(reference) and what one sees (perception).
So when Bill Powers says one thing in public on the CSGnet and says quite a
different thing in private, who's doing the disrupting?
My guess is that we all perceive your behavior in nearly the same way.
You almost couldn't be wrong. I get fan mail.
For example, everyone would probably agree that you are constantly repeating
the claim that my economic model was a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Rick, have you been hitting the bottle again?
It was Bill Powers who described you program as a "giant leap in the wrong
direction."
After seeing the obvious mistakes in your (no I am not going to call it a
model-- I have standards you know.) I lost nearly all interest in examining
the program any further.
Those who see you as disrupting have a different reference for the kind
of behavior they would like to see on CSGNet than those who don't see you
as disrupting.
Yes. I notice that there are some people who don't see it as disrupting when
Bill Powers calls poor ole Ludwig von Mises an asshole. But they take offense
when I use similiar language. So, yes I would admit that different people
have a differnt reference for speech. If Bill Powers calls Ludwig an asshole
there must be good reason for it. So, I hold up a mirror and suddenly all
sorts of claims are bouncing about this person and that being assholes. And
eventually we get to "dog poop." You see what I do as disrupting, I see it
as getting into the CSGnet spirit. The funny part of it, again from my
perspective is that once the shit really hits the fan people start whining
about civlity. Like the guy who called Michelle, "an ignorant slut."
The difference is in our goals,
Yes, you want the CSGnet to run on a solipcistic basis and we wait upon
Bill Powers to show us the way using his "hunches" even if that way his
'hunches" today contradicts what he said yesterday. When Bill Powers was,
for some reason irritated by something you'd done my Lattice program had
a control loop in it. When he was irritated with me because he didn't
like me being, in his perception, unfair to you, he came up with a
contradictory opinion. But that is the nature of PCT sophisology.
I think that I have made a contribution to the CSGnet by prompting people to
remove the Economics thread from the section "The Best of the Net."
I think your singular contribution to PCT has been bringing the Giffen
effect to our attention. Other than that, I can't think of many positive
contributions at all that you have made to PCT or CSGNet.
Compared to whom? Why don't you create a score card of who has and who
hasn't made a contribution?
I think of a positive contribution to PCT as some kind of modeling or
research effort that tests the PCT model of behavior.
But, no one except Bill Powers knows what the Power Control Theory consists
of, and his perception of what it is chagnes from day to day as a result of
inter-personal political considerations.
Since you have been on CSGNet you have demonstrated that you don't know
how to write a control model (thanks for posting those programs),
Since you are not talking about PCT here, but rather control, you are
wrong. I can write control models, whether or not I can write PCT models
depends upon Bill Powers' "hunches."
that you are hostile to data analysis (I think you
referred to my analysis of some economic data as "masturbating")
Strangly enough it was Kenny that introduced the description of your's and
Bill Powers' approach to data analysis as "masturbation." Maybe Kenny can
confirm this for us.
and that you are against the idea of developing a model of economics
based on first principles.
This is a very pecular idea. Unless you define PCT as the only availible
"first principles." I am all in favor of reconstructing economics from
first principles-- the first principles being control theory rather than
PCT. What a strange accusation.
As far as "The Best of CSGNet" I see that the file ECONOMIC.S
is still there, thank goodness.
Thank goodness indeed. I hope you mean the thread where Bill Powers based upon
his dad's reading of Keynes provides a comically misunderstood description of
Keynes.
Sometimes a removal can be constructive.
I agree. As in RTP I think it is a good idea to remove disruptive students
from the classroom. But unlike the RTP teacher I have no control over who
can and can't be in the CSGNet classroom. I could say "I see you have chosen
to leave" which, according to an earlier version of RTP, always led
disruptive kids to leave class voluntarily. Let's see if it works here.
Sure, bye Rick. If you leave then it is working.
You see in my perception you are the one creating the disruption. You and Bill
Powers are presenting this PCT sophistology as if it were a science. So, you
are in effect disrupting the pursuit of science by presenting an ideology as
if it were a science.
Of course, you are more than welcome to stay in the class if you can
contribute something substantive in terms of modeling or data analysis.
Are you asking in terms of PCT sophistology, or in terms of control theory?
Criticisms of the PCT model would also be most welcome as long as they were
cast in the form of models and/or data analysis.
Well the PCT model is a sophistology. It doesn't have anything neccesarily to
do with control theory. So, I don't see how a model is going to defeat an
ideology. This is sort of like confusing a game of chess with a really real
reality of war.
Verbal abuse (saying that a model is a giant leap in the wrong direction
This is great Rick, as in the case of the masturbation which was Kenny's
description, the "giant leap in the wrong direction" was a phrase coined by
Bill Powers. To use another of Bill Powers' phrases, could I say it is a
"shocking stupidity" to blame me for what Kenny and Bill Powers said about
you?
or that a model is sophistical and so on) is not useful criticism.
How about my fable "Running Naked in the Forest?" The question, however,
might be framed in terms of "useful" to whom. Ordinarily the subject of
criticism is not the person one would ask how to conduct the criticism.
Just like the results don't turn out that well when a painter listens to
a person's instructions as to how to paint a likeness. What the subject of
criticism may want rather than criticism is fawning. Now maybe I could learn
to say "Great post Bill." but things have reached a state that if I really
did say "Great Post Bill." he might think I was being sarcastic and bite me
for being condecending.
What I am looking for is a detailed description, for example, of exactly
what is wrong with my economic model and how can it be fixed.
You might taking to heart whatever it was that Bill Powers said. I think
Bill may have provided all the criticism and suggestions required-- including
the comment that the model was "a giant leap in the wrong direction."
Saying that a model is "a giant leap in the wrong direction" may be enough
for you,
Actually you really are confused, I never said that your program (I am not
going to call it a model) was "a giant leap in the wrong direction" it was
Bill Powers who said that your model (Bill Powers can call it a PCT model
if he wants to) was "a giant leap in the wrong direction." I've never been
at all interested in your program, certainly not enough to make such severe,
and definitive judgment as its being "a giant leap in the wrong direction."
I did think that it was a very innovative proceedure to use a control loop
to make the two sides of an identity come into equation with each other.
but it's not enough for those of us on CSGNet who want to pursue knowledge
via Bill Powers' way.
Maybe I should start practicing nodding my head? Or, maybe as an approach to
truth in advertising (novel idea) the net ought to be labelled "Bill Powers'
way" rather than Control Study Group.
No wonder you have been cross with me. You've been blaming me for what Kenny
said, that you were masturbating with the data, and then also blaming me for
saying that your economic program (no I am still not going to call it a model)
was "a giant leap in the wrong direction." when it was really Bill Powers who
said that your economic model (Bill Powers can call it anything he likes)
including "a giant leap in the wrong direction." But, I would never, and
never have said, that your program is a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Now, I am sorry if I took what Bill Powers said, that your model was "a
giant leap in the wrong direction out of context. But, the only context that
I could see in his criticism of you program was a critical context, so maybe
Bill Powers can explain why my quoting him as saying that your model was "a
giant leap in the wrong direction." But, you will have to ask Bill Powers
to explain why my quoting him as saying that your program was "a giant leap
in the wrong direction." was taking what he said out of context. As you know
Bill Powers has found that credentialized experts in economics can be
difficult to deal with.
And, if you are willing to take down the spam blocker you placed on Kenny
then you could take up with him why he described your data analysis in terms
of masturbating with the data.
You see, despite this thread having started out with Bill Powers attempting
to create an atnosphere more like that of a peer reviewed journal, you are
misquoting me as having said something that I never said. That, of course,
is itsel a misquotion. What you should have taken me to task for is quoting
what Kenny and Bill Powers said.
I hope that eventually You will get this business concering the proper use of
quotations straight. Then when Bill Powers says that your (no I am not going
to call it a model) program is "a giant leap in the wrong direction." you can
say "Great post Bill!" rather than blamining me.
Bill Williams