MOL - 3D PCT reorganization, awareness and attention

Mark Lazare 2005.01.20.2005

http://www.compassmentalhealth.com/Cube

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0820)]

RICK: Yes. But the aim of the reorganizing system is to organize a system so that it can keep error close to zero. The goal is zero even though the actual error is rarely actually zero.

Mark: The goal is zero… Sez you. But it is a program you wrote; it is not a model if it does not act and behave like a real person.

Mark: A real HPCT model would allow for a greater “acceptable error” “intrinsic error” or larger integration factors as one goes up the hierarchy. Just as do real people.

A living control system hierarchy starts with the 4 building blocks of DNA under very “tight� control and then has ever increasing levels of control from the concrete to greater levels of abstraction.

The shorter amount of time a system takes to complete the feedback loop, the less error is inherent in the system. Conversely, the more time it takes to complete the feedback loop, the greater the inherent error in the system. A real model would address this issue as it relates to “acceptable error” “intrinsic error” or larger integration factors.

RICK: You could have the reference be non-zero but then what value do you choose? The ambient level of error in a control system depends on the gain of the control system.

Mark: I think the gain is a function of the integration factors

RICK: So a system with high gain may be able to keep the absolute level of error close to .001 error units. Such a system would actually be doing poorly if the ambient error went to .01. But .01 might reflect quite good control in a low gain system. From a modeling standpoint, it seems simplest to design the reorganizing system so that the reference for error in all systems is zero.

Mark: This is my point, the “simplest to design� approach to error you have taken is intellectually dishonest, and model ceases to be a model. It is like throwing a block of wood in a lake and calling it a model boat. Sure it floats, but in all other dimensions it fails to be a model.

Rick: I’ll answer some points now. You said:

Mark:

As you go up the hierarchy you must build in greater level of ³acceptable
error across a level² (X) or you would be in constant reorganization
(crisis).

Rick : This is not true. There is no concept of “acceptable error” in PCT and
certainly no requirement of a greater level of it as you go up the
hierarchy.

Mark: That is a failing of or a shortcoming of PCT – that is what I am addressing.

Rick: In fact, the ambient level of error at higher levels of my spreadsheet hierarchy is actually less than that at the lower levels.

Mark: Which is again intellectually dishonest, and the spreadsheet hierarchy model ceases to be a model.

Rick: Acceptability of error implies some threshold level of error, above which reorganization starts. This is not the way reorganization is conceived of in PCT

Mark: That is exactly my point. “Peopleâ€? have “threshold levels” of error, both in a controlled process and along each level of control in hierarchy. Spreadsheets may not have threshold levels of error, but people do. Therefore the conception of reorganization in PCT needs work!!!

The model of reorganization in PCT assumes that the rate of reorganization (changes/unit time) is proportional to the size of the perceived error in the control system being reorganized.

I believe that is a false assumption. There are so ways to prove that statement false in just every day experiences. For example the sudden death of a spouse or child = large perceived error. According to your statement and your spreadsheet a person would quickly get over that loss because a control system would quickly compensate for such a great and sudden error. Additionally a 20-year alcoholic wakes up after 4 failed marriages, the loss of many friends and untold number of jobs and says I am going to stop drinking today (again), but this time he actually does.

My point is PCT does not have a working model of reorganization, awareness or attention.

I humbly think my way of looking at reorganization more closely resembles the way people deal with error as a part of reorganization, awareness and attention.

image00214.jpg

Sincerely,

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/

HIPAA Confidentiality Notice

The documents inside this electronic transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled, unless otherwise required by law.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return.

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.20.1120)]

Mark Lazare (2005.01.20.2005) --

This is my point, the �simplest to design� approach to error you have
taken is intellectually dishonest

It's not just wrong?

Which is again intellectually dishonest, and the spreadsheet hierarchy
model ceases to be a model.

Gee, I'm quite a sleezebag, aren't I? Thanks for letting me know. I'm going
to stop listening to myself immediately. It's all just lies, lies, lies.

I humbly think my way of looking at reorganization more closely resembles the
way people deal with error as a part of reorganization, awareness and
attention.

Mazel tov.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

In a message dated 1/20/2005 12:26:06 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

Gee, I’m quite a sleezebag, aren’t I? Thanks for letting me know. I’m going
to stop listening to myself immediately. It’s all just lies, lies, lies.

MARK: I am not commenting on you or your personality (I like both just fine), just your Spreadsheet hierarchy model and your concept of reorganization.

I showed you how and why I think your attempt at a “model” was wrong and intellectually dishonest for whitewashing the issue as it relates to “acceptable error” or “intrinsic error” simply by building in zero error as the goal on all levels and all processes.

I am sorry if the words "intellectually dishonest " cause an error signal outside your acceptable level of tolerance. But it did cause you to respond quickly, but at last there was not enough cumulative error on the subject to cause you to reorganize the way you see reorganization, awareness and attention.

I will keep trying. :)~

image00214.jpg

Sincerely,

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/

HIPAA Confidentiality Notice

The documents inside this electronic transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled, unless otherwise required by law.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return.

[From Bill Powers n(2005.01.20.1415 MST]

Mark
Lazare 2005.01.20.2005

Mark: The goal is zero… Sez you. But it is a program you wrote;
it is not a model if it does not act and behave like a real
person.

The error signal is not a goal: the reference signal is the goal. If the
gain of the output function is high, and the loop remains stable, the
error will be small even for large disturbances. If the gain is low, the
same disturbance will produce a larger error signal.

It is possible that some higher-order systems in addition to adjusting
the value of the reference signal can also adjust the output gain of the
lower system. This would have the effect of changing the amount of action
that would result from a given amount of error. With the gain set low,
the lower system would be “laid back” – it would allow
detectable error to exist.

Mark:
A real HPCT model would allow for a greater “acceptable error”
“intrinsic error” or larger integration factors as one
goes up the hierarchy. Just as do real
people.

How do you know that? Isn’t that your model for how people are organized?
Have you shown that this model is correct?

A
living control system hierarchy starts with the 4 building blocks of DNA
under very “tightâ€? control and then has ever increasing levels of
control from the concrete to greater levels of
abstraction.

Again, how do you know that?

The
shorter amount of time a system takes to complete the feedback loop, the
less error is inherent in the system.

The system could have zero time delay and still control only weakly. The
tightness of control depends primarily on the gain in the output
function. Of course, the longer the delay, the lower the gain has to be
at high frequencies (it can still be very large for slowly changing
disturbances).

Conversely, the more time it takes to complete the feedback loop, the
greater the inherent error in the system. A real model would
address this issue as it relates to “acceptable error”
“intrinsic error” or larger integration
factors.

Of course the HPCT model does address that issue in some
detail.

Mark:
I think the gain is a function of the integration
factors

True, but no natural integrators are perfect. A perfect integrator with a
zero input would maintain its output constant. Real integrators, however,
“leak”. With zero input, the output slowly decays toward zero.
The result is that the integrator acts like a high-gain amplifier with a
long time constant. At very low frequencies, the ouput is a constant
times the input, as if the gain were a multiplying factor instead of an
integrator.

In a control system with a leaky integrator output function, the error at
low frequencies does not go to zero, but approaches a value (with no
disturbance) equal to the reference signal divided by (1 +
gain).

Mark:
This is my point, the “simplest to designâ€? approach to error you have
taken is intellectually dishonest, and model ceases to be a
model. It is like throwing a block of wood in a lake and
calling it a model boat. Sure it floats, but in all other
dimensions it fails to be a model.

You’re throwing some pretty nasty accusations around. I’d rather see a
reasoned argument and some experimental demonstrations, if you don’t
mind. You’ve made some proposals, but so far I don’t see any reason to
accept them as true. You haven’t offered anything yet but disagreement
with Rick. Is that all you have?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.20.1400)]

Mark Lazare (earlier today)

I am not commenting on you or your personality (I like both just fine),
just your Spreadsheet hierarchy model and your concept of reorganization.

Mark, when you say a person is "intellectually dishonest" you are commenting
on _them_, not on their work.

I showed you how and why I think your attempt at a "model" was wrong and
intellectually dishonest for whitewashing the issue as it relates to
"acceptable error" or "intrinsic error" simply by building in zero error as
the goal on all levels and all processes.

There you go again. My attempt at a "model" was "intellectually dishonest"
because I was "whitewashing" an issue. Do you really think that is
appropriate?

What you showed me, by the way, was some anecdotal evidence that was
supposed to prove that there is greater tolerance for error at higher rather
than lower levels of the hierarchy. You did not show me how or why I was
being intellectually dishonest. To show that, you would have to show that I
was not being honest about what you think I was being dishonest about: my
understanding of "acceptable error" and "intrinsic error".

I am sorry if the words "intellectually dishonest " cause an error signal
outside your acceptable level of tolerance.

I think the decent thing to do is to apologize for saying that my work is
"intellectually dishonest ". Unless, of course, you think I shouldn't be
offended by that.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.20.1400)]

Rick: I think the decent thing to do is to apologize for saying that my work is
"intellectually dishonest ". Unless, of course, you think I shouldn’t be
offended by that.

Rick,

I didn’t mean to take so long to say this, but my daughter had a birthday (complete with party) over the weekend. I hope the delay won’t diminish the meaning. I don’t believe you, or your intellect, are dishonest. I chose my words poorly and I am truly sorry if I offended you. Please forgive me.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/

HIPAA Confidentiality Notice

The documents inside this electronic transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled, unless otherwise required by law.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return.

image00214.jpg

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.25.0810)]

Mark Lazare (2005.01.24) --

I didn�t mean to take so long to say this, but my daughter had a birthday
(complete with party) over the weekend. I hope the delay won�t diminish the
meaning. I don�t believe you, or your intellect, are dishonest. I chose my
words poorly and I am truly sorry if I offended you. Please forgive me.

Thanks for the apology. Of course I forgive you. I'm a bleeding heart
liberal, after all;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.