New version of Beginners paper

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.20.0858 MDT)]

Attached is what I think will be the final verion of PCT for the
Beginner. It is basically Fred Nickols' new edit with a few added
changes (there is never an end to the last little tweaks). I hope the
new changes haven't added any bugs. A copy is going to Ed Ford (Ed,
this is the one to use on your web page: permission hereby given).

Note that the length is now a hair under two pages, 1400 words in
12-point type. I think that, miraculously, it says almost everything
important that was in the first six-page version. A diagram with a
complete caption might make it better, but whoever uses it can add their own.

Best,

Bill P.

PCTForTheBeginnerV2 - FWN.doc (25 KB)

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0830)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.20.0858 MDT)--

Attached is what I think will be the final verion of PCT for the
Beginner.

Very nice. Still not perfect, of course (I am pretty sick of the car
driving example; how about something more eco-friendly, like driving
neocons out of the government;-)) but the inclusion of the conflict
example is very good.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

Bill Powers (2007.06.20.0858
MDT)–

Attached is what I think will be the final verion of PCT for the

Beginner.

Very nice. Still not perfect, of course (I am pretty sick of the car

driving example; how about something more eco-friendly, like driving

neocons out of the government;-)) but the inclusion of the conflict

example is very good.
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1005) MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0830)–

Thanks. I don’t suppose it will be perfect for everybody. However,
beginners will not be sick of the car-driving example (yet) so I think
that part is safe.

As to driving the neo-cons out, an equally valid example would be driving
the tax-and-spend democrats out. I think it’s best not to give political
opinions a free ride on an exposition of PCT – it reduces the scientific
material to merely an excuse for expressing a personal opinion about
something else. I prefer to keep PCT in the center position. Not that I
disagree with your opinions, but they are your own and have no scientific
justification. It’s a bit like taking a group picture only to find that
someone was grinning at the camera and holding up his latest book for
everyone to see.

Best.

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0940)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1005) MDT)

Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0830)--

Very nice.

Thanks. I don't suppose it will be perfect for everybody. However,
beginners will not be sick of the car-driving example (yet) so I think that
part is safe.

Of course, I agree.

As to driving the neo-cons out, an equally valid example would be driving
the tax-and-spend democrats out. I think it's best not to give political
opinions a free ride on an exposition of PCT -- it reduces the scientific
material to merely an excuse for expressing a personal opinion about
something else. I prefer to keep PCT in the center position. Not that I
disagree with your opinions, but they are your own and have no scientific
justification. It's a bit like taking a group picture only to find that
someone was grinning at the camera and holding up his latest book for
everyone to see.

Of course. I was kidding. I agree that PCT is politically neutral.
But I am a control system and it's hard to keep those little political
outputs from popping out when the discrepancy between my system level
references and my perception of the system are as discrepant as they
have become thanks to the greedy, demagogic reactionaries who have
dominated the government for the last 6+ years.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Erling Jorgensen (2007.06.20 1305 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.20.0858 MDT)]

Attached is what I think will be the final verion of PCT for the
Beginner.

This really is a clear, concise exposition, Bill, with all the basic
essentials made very accessible.

I was recently looking again at your Preface to Living Control Systems, I.
I appreciated what you were saying about the need for perceptions at the
system concept level to change, for PCT to gain more acceptance. I
regularly find that it is hard to get across the import of PCT, because
the listener seems to see things so differently. I like what this short
essay does to keep it simple, (in what I consider a self-evident way).
I'll see if it can help some of my co-workers understand where I am coming
from any better. Thanks.

All the best,
Erling

[from Gary Cziko 2007.06.20 13:42 CDT]

[From Rick Marken (
2007.06.20.0830)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.20.0858 MDT)–

Attached is what I think will be the final verion of PCT for the
Beginner.

Very nice. Still not perfect, of course (I am pretty sick of the car

driving example; how about something more eco-friendly, like driving
neocons out of the government;

Or something both eco-friendly and less political, like riding a bicycle (as in the example I used in my presentation in China last year). Bicycles are much more interesting to control than cars because you have to control both your travel direction and your balance, and both of these are interconnected in a non-intuitive way. To turn right you have to first turn slightly left in order to get the bike to lean to the right (counter-steering). This is explicitly taught in motorcycle training courses because on a heavy motorcycle if you don’t first push on the right hand grip to turn the wheel to the left and lean the motorcycle to the right, you will not be able turn right at all. On a light bicycle, the counter-steering needed is so slight that most bicyclists don’t even know they do it. It is also counter-intuitive that if you start to fall to the right you need to turn the handlebars to the right. This is something that training wheels do not help a child to learn.

This week I have been observing a bicycle camp designed to teach developmentally challenged children (cerebral palsy, autism, Downs syndrome, etc.) to ride a bicycle. It is called Lose the Training Wheels and has been designed by former University of Illinois engineering professor Richard Klein <
http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org>.

Dr. Klein’s method involves using a series of ingeniously modified
bikes having either rollers of varying tapers in place of rear wheels or weighted front wheels (16 lbs. pounds of lead in
the
front tire–no flats!) so that each child can practice bicycle riding
with success at various levels of difficulty. After five 75-minute
sessions over five days 80% of them can ride a regular bike. I think this is a wonderful example of how knowledge of physics and engineering can be used to help children ride a bicycle who wouldn’t normally be able to do so by creating a “bridge” between an easily ridable bike and a regular bike and keeping the learning task always moderately challenging to maximize the chances of successful reorganization of control systems.

···

====================================

Back to the PCT for Beginners:

I like this very much and want to be able to share it with others as soon as Bill gives permission to do so. I could easily modify the car driving to bicycle riding, but I suspect that many more people who read this will be car drivers rather than bike riders, althought that wouldn’t be the case in China (yet).

I would like ot see this part highlighted and changed a little bit to make it less dependent on the preceding sentence (so it could be used as alone as a quote), because it make PCT immediately appealing and sensible:

Instead of:

The difference between these theories is a matter of which is in control: the organism or the world outside the organism. According to PCT, the organism is the controller. It controls what happens to itself, by affecting the external world.

I suggest:

The difference between traditional theories of behavior and PCT is a matter of which is in control: the organism or the world outside the organism. According to PCT, the organism is the controller. It controls what happens to itself, by acting on the external world.

Later:

This arrangement of simple cause-effect components keeps the perception closely matching the reference signal, even a changing reference signal, and the overall effect is no longer simple causation.

How about adding the word “circular”?

This circular arrangement of simple cause-effect components keeps the perception closely matching the reference signal, even a changing reference signal, and the overall effect is no longer simple causation.

For:

. . . unless some teacher makes him stop to be scolded for running

How about:

. . . unless some teacher stops and scolds him for running in the hallway.

–Gary

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1515 MDT)]

Gary Cziko 2007.06.20 13:42 CDT –

Thanks for the comments. Your suggestions are fine but I think they come
under the heading of fine tuning now, which I’ve terminated by telling Ed
to go ahead and send this to his webmaster, which he has done. You have
my permission to use the piece with or without your changes, although the
third one has a problem:

For:

. . . unless some teacher
makes him stop to be scolded for running

How about:

. . . unless some teacher stops and scolds him for running in the
hallway.

You’d at least have to say “unless some teacher stops him and
scolds him …” to show that it isn’t some teacher passing by who
stops.

Best,

Bill P.

But I am a control system and
it’s hard to keep those little political

outputs from popping out when the discrepancy between my system
level

references and my perception of the system are as discrepant as they

have become
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1528 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0940) –

Not, it’m not hard to keep those outputs from popping out, unless there
is a second control process going on that wants them to pop out. You’re
describing a conflict: for one set of reasons, say it; for another set of
reasons, don’t. It this were really, objectively, hard, everybody would
be doing the same thing. Wouldn’t they?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.20.2210)]

  Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1528 MDT)

> Rick Marken (2007.06.20.0940) --

But I am a control system and it's hard to keep those little political
outputs from popping out when the discrepancy between my system level

> references and my perception of the system are as discrepant as they

have become

Not, it'm not hard to keep those outputs from popping out, unless there is
a second control process going on that wants them to pop out. You're
describing a conflict: for one set of reasons, say it; for another set of
reasons, don't. It this were really, objectively, hard, everybody would be
doing the same thing. Wouldn't they?

Yes, it's a conflict. Though not much of one because, truth be told,
the system that doesn't want to say it is pretty weak.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com