Mumbo Jumbo Economics

[Peter_Small]

[Peter Small 7 March 2004]

I'm looking for examples of practical uses for PCT.

How would you use it to explain Bill's puerile behavior in discussion
forums?

···

From[Bill Williams 7 March 2004 3:45 AM CST]

Something Bill Powers said sometime about caught my attention--

[Bill Powers(2004.01.25.07:55 MST]

Nobody in this field [economics] apparently,

has any idea that people buy things because

they want things.

Bill's statement like his attribution of a "shocking stupidity" to people he
has offended is one that presents some difficulties of interpretation.

I am doing my best to figure out how I can incorporate this into my "Running
Naked in the Forest" fable, but the reality is outstrinpping the fantasy.

Bill's statement is akin in some ways to Rick Marken's self-description in
terms of either Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton.

In the past I've suggested that a comparison with the career of Ezra Pound
might be illuminating. Not because either Bill Powers

or Rick Marken are fascists (and the extent to which Pound was a fascist is
subject to interpretation) but rather because they are crazy.

The focus of their craziness is economics which compounds their
irrationality. Of course, economics is a subject-matter that can be
disturbing even to those who are otherwise entirely, or at least more or
less, and on the average, sane.

On the other hand, when I consider the standard texts that are routinely
used convey orthodox doctrine, the issue of sanity, or rather comparative
sanity, is not one that is so easily disposed of. Perhaps, what Bill Powers
ought to do is explain to Professor Bruun that he has a novel truth which is
bound to revolutionize economic theory-- "People buy things because they
want them." It really is an uncannily profound, and unexpectted, insight.

Unfortunately, while Bill's and Rick's zany antics are unlikely to disturb
the course of economic inquiry, it seems possible that what is proceeding
may have the effect of discrediting, or at least casting some doubt, upon
the advisability of attempting to apply control theory to problems of human
behavior and social

theory.

The results of such applications might be more discoveries such as the
insight-- "That people buy things because they want them."

Let me assure everyone that the conception that people buy things because
they want things is an idea that has for, all of it arcane difficulties,
been understood for quite some time-- like since the 17th century, or
perhaps even earlier.

As a picturesque example of a conventional economist who seems to have
understood the difficult and hard to grasp notion that

people buy things because they want them consider the following:

Marx, Karl. 1887 _Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capital Production_ London
: Swan Sonnenschein Lowrey & Company

"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that,
by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort, or another. The
nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or
from fancy, makes no difference. 2 ( p.35 )

And, note also his footnote to:

  2 "Desire implies want; it is the appetite of the mind, and as natural as
hunger to the body... The greatest number ( of things) have their value
from supplying wants of the mind."

Nicholas Barbon: "A Discourse Concerning Coining the New Money lighter In
Answer to Mr. Locke's Considerations." London 1696.

I hope I have removed any doubts that Bill's ranting may possibly created.
econmists some of them at least, do understand why eople buy things, and
have understood this for quite some time--like for a couple hundred years.

Sturgeon, I am sorry to say, has had relapse. When he heard of Bill Power's
discovery "That people buy things because they want things." he reverted to
his earlier laughing fits and had to be returned to the intensive care
facility.

Students have memorialized the discovery with a banner proclaiming,

  "People buy things because they want them."

Bill Williams

   Surette, Leon 1999 _Pound in Purgatory: From Economic

     Radicalism to Anti-Semitism_

  Banking and SocialCredit

  Economics and Mythopoeia

  Modernism and Fascism

  Social Credit and Fascism

  The Keynesian Revolution and Social Credit

  The ABC of Economics and the New Deal

  Modernism, Postmodernism, and Fascism

  Silvio Gesell and Irving Fisher

  An Increasing Eclecticism

  Arthur Kitson

  The Jewish Conspiracy

  From Rome to Washington

  Volitionist

--

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 7 March 2004 11:30 AM CST]

[Peter Small 7 March 2004]

I'm looking for examples of practical uses for PCT.

My experience has been that a control theory approach to teaching someone to
fly an airplane works quite well. By focusing the student's attention on
what the result should be rather than on what they are doing everything
seems to become much easier. And, the learning once habits have been
developed is I think, but this is a conjuecture, should be more resistant to
decay over time. If you include in the control theory approach an
explicitly hereichical organization of tasks -- that first fly the airplane,
then maintain situational awareness, then if time permits talk to people on
the radio-- priorities become established properly and more reliably.

And, there is the very interesting phemomena of Pilot induced oscilatiions.
If the instructor is aware of control theory issues, the possiblity of a PIO
is something they may think about. I would much rather a student experience
a PIO with an instructor, at least for the first time, than on their own.
Some otherwise quite good students when they inter a PIO generate rapidly
divergent, increasing amplitude oscilations. My experience has been that
with a little coaching the likelyhood of such behavior is very much reduced.

How would you use it to explain Bill's puerile behavior in discussion
forums?

First don't be offended by Bill's Powers' declining to continue a discussion
with you regarding economic issues. Bill currently is having about as much
fun with his effort to construct a Test Bed as he can stand.

Then too, your praise from the standpoint of a "practical man" of Keynesian
ideas is not what Bill Powers is eager to hear. BP somehow has gotten the
idea that Keynes was a representative of the business or capitalist class.
BP has also gotten the idea that _all_ economists are rightwing ideologs.

But, I think the explanation of Bill Powers' behavior traces back to his
never having been able to him self adopt a control theory point of view
himself. After all he has been busy, all his adult life, developing control
theory, And, he has done so under circumstances in which his efforts
haven't been supported, and he has had therefore to work a day job and then
develop control theory on his own.

So, while I can see that you might not be impressed with Powers dismissing
you and declining to continue a discussion, there is an extensive, and
unfortunate history involved that I at least believe ought to be part of
evaluation of who Bill Powers is and what he has contributed. I wouldn't
judge him just on his effort to apply control theory to economic issues.

Bill Williams

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.07.1130)]

Peter Small (7 March 2004) --

I'm looking for examples of practical uses for PCT.

How would you use it to explain Bill's puerile behavior in discussion
forums?

The first thing to understand, I think, is what behavior _is_ from a
PCT perspective. According to PCT, behavior _is_ control: the process
of bringing perceptual variables to their intended states and
maintaining them in these states, protected from disturbance. From
this point of view, people control what they _perceive_, not what they
_do_ to achieve this control. For example, when I run to catch a
baseball, I control the visual perception of the ball, not the running
movements I use to get that perception in the intended state (in my
glove)

An observer can easily see what another person _does_ (their actions)
but usually has a harder time seeing what perception(s) the person is
controlling by taking these actions. For example, it's easy to see
the actions (running movements) of a fielder catching a baseball but it
is very difficult to see the perceptual variables (optical velocity of
the ball, it turns out) that the fielder is controlling with these
actions.

We see people (including ourselves, sometimes, I'm afraid) doing some
pretty ugly things because people will do whatever it takes to bring
their perceptions to the intended state. People control their
perceptions, not their actions. (Well, in a hierarchical analysis they
can control actions as perceptions but we can ignore that complication
for now). And the actions people take under difficult conditions
(conditions that make it difficult for people to control their
perceptions) can be pretty extreme. For example, consider the person
who, like Jean Valjean, takes an extreme action (stealing bread to feed
his family) that he would not have taken under less difficult
conditions. Ugly behaviors like stealing are sometimes the actions
people must take to keep their perceptions under control.

I think the "puerile" behavior you see from Bill Williams consists of
actions aimed at controlling some perceptions that are very important
to him and that are being controlled under very difficult conditions.
The perception Bill W. is trying to control is not obvious but my my
guess is that it's his perception of himself as the sole authority on
economics in general and the PCT approach to economics in particular.
The difficult conditions are the posts that don't recognize Bill's
authority. Such posts will be a disturbance to Bill's perception of
people seeing him as an authority and will result in actions that
preserve this perception. These actions are what you (and I) see as
"puerile" behavior.

There is really no way to stop this behavior, other than by stopping
the disturbances that are influencing it; that is, by stopping any
discussion of economics on PCT that does not recognize Bill W. as the
economic authority. If you want to to do that, that's up to you. I
think the best way to deal with such behavior, from Bill W. or anyone
else (assuming we want to be able to talk about economics on CSGNet) is
to just ignore it. I have dealt with it by deleting posts from Bill W.
(and some others who can think of no way to discuss things except
though ad hominum attacks) without reading them. From what I can tell
(from the posts of those who persist in replying to Bill W. et al), you
will not be missing anything substantive by following suit.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Williams1]

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.07.1130)]

> Peter Small (7 March 2004) --
>
> I'm looking for examples of practical uses for PCT.
>
> How would you use it to explain Bill's puerile behavior in discussion
> forums?

I notice that Rick declined to provide any examples of practical uses for
PCT. I hope Peter found my example that you can teach someone to
fly an airplane more effciently using control theory helpful.

I assumed that when Peter mentioned puerile behavior he was refering
to Bill Powers becoming offened by Peter's characterization "left wing
thinkers."

  [From Bill Powers (2004.03.05.1210 MST)]

  Peter Small (2004.03.05)--

  >It is a common mistake of left wing thinkers to focus on working,
  >profitable situations. They then view the wealth created in terms of
  >the "tragedy of the commons". What is missing from your models is the
  >element of risk.

  It is amazing how quickly some organized systems of thought can reveal
  themselves to be uninteresting, just through casual comments dropped by
  their proponents. I appreciate the early opportunity to absent myself from
  this particular ad-hominem "discussion."

Bill Powers is amazed at his own perceptiveness, and how quickly he can
descern how "uninteresting" Peter is. I am amazed as well, but not by
quite the same thing as Bill Powers is amazed by. I think it is OK for
Powers
to "absent" himself. If Bill Powers' sensiblities are too tender to cope
with
being called "left wing." then CSGnet is probably not the place for him.
It is the place for him to launch ad-hominen attack upon others, but heaven
forbid that such attacks-- even so mild as Peter's charge " left wind" be
brought against him.

Now, Rick goes on to provide an explaination of what he sees as my
"puerile" behavior. Rick's explaination is however almost entirely lacking
in any detail. He attributes motives to me, but is there a history present
in Rick's explaination? No.

What Rick leaves out is his performance at Boston -- the performance that
even Bill Powers described as a "Giant leap in the wrong direction." This
description however had to wait three years before Bill Powers became
fedup with Rick's continual self-admiring comments on CSGnet.

Nor does Rick mention the continuing ignorant commentary on Keynes
which he and Bill Powers have been making for years.

Rick goes on to say,

There is really no way to stop this behavior, other than by stopping
the disturbances that are influencing it; that is, by stopping any
discussion of economics on PCT that does not recognize Bill W. as the
economic authority.

Rick fails to recognize that the discussion could go on. There isn't
anything
inherent in the situation that would compell Bill Powers and Rick to
recognize
that I know more about economics than they do. Nor, is there anything that
would stop them from continuing the discussion-- except that they find it
too painful. And, when they find it too painful then they say things that
they
are later ashamed of. Neither of them seem to be able to endure a hostile
discussion-- that is they can't endure a discussion in which their hostility
is
not effective. If there has been an exceptional episode of puerile behavior
I think it was Bill Powers' threat to "bite" me. That really was childish
and
silly on Bill Powers' part. The only person who ever bit me in anger was a
girl-- and welll that's another story. But, I at any rate found Bill
Powers'
threat to bite me to be an unexpected revelation of an approach to problems
I never would have immagined.

If you want to to do that, that's up to you. I

think the best way to deal with such behavior, from Bill W. or anyone
else (assuming we want to be able to talk about economics on CSGNet) is
to just ignore it.

On the contrary, I think what Peter needs to do is read my "Running Naked in
the Forest" fable.

CSGnet readers may be amazed that word of the "Running Naked" fable is
spreading. More amazing still my imaginative (thinly) fable has resulted in
a solicitation from a publisher-- I have decline for now. My self-identity
may
be a bit confused, but somehow I don't see myself as the next "L. Ron
Hubbard.

Bill Williams

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Mumbo Jumbo Economics