On slamming doors

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

From Michelle Ivers (2004.04.16.0900EST)

If a child
had the wrong idea that 2 + 2 = 5, wouldn’t you try to change his ideas

to 2 + 2 =

4. ?? I would say that we can hypothesize for as long as we like

about what
people are attempting to do, however it remains that written

communication
such as an email discussion forum is difficult at the best of times.

Bill
Williams may have been, in his own way, trying to teach Rick something

about
Economics. Enough said

In defiance “Enough said.” And Pardon me for interfering.

I would not change, but I would try to change the child’s
idea. I would use a method that
made the conflict between the child and myself striking. I am quite sure I
would not tell the child that his/her idea was wrong. I would
not have used the word “wrong”. But my purpose would be to perceive the child
changing his/her idea.

If the child was my own and the idea was that “to run front
of a coming car”, then I would use force to prevent her controlling her
perceptions. But in that situation
there wouldn’t be a conflict. This time we would control perceptions on
different levels.

I’d be
interested in hearing your views on current research that indicates that

behaviour
is affected by chemical releases in the brain. How would these fit

into a PCT
loop? I have a quote here that is part of an article I’ve been

instructed
to read (that’s a different story).

I am sure you will hear from Bill. But let
me participate. I look forward to your comments about Emotions.

I guess you define Behavior being the
control of perception. Many researchers
define Behavior being the control of actions and they have a problem.

Recently some list mates have emphasized that
current research about chemical releases in the brain (and current research about
emotions) don’t harmonize with PCT. I haven’t participated because detailed
knowledge about the brain isn’t my strong expertise. But at the same time I am satisfied
with the way PCT describes the brain function. And I still think that BCP (1973)
describes and explains very much the same that current research describes in
the 90s and in 200X.

I think as Martin [Martin Taylor 20040415.2250] when he writes,
“My take on it is that a lot of what the different brain chemicals do is to
modulate the behaviour of the control systems”. And I will add that this modulation is within the HPCT
(especially the lowest levels).

All
these articles about recent research are disturbances when I control my
understanding of PCT. And when I read the articles and other articles I don’t
find anything new relative to PCT.
That is my problem.

Peter Small referred 2004.04.16
to http://www.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainFacts/index.html

This is a primer on
the brain; it is not a research document. I am unsure when I read books like this without references.
But I searched for the concepts “chemical released” and “chemical” in the
book and I read the segments around.

I
am sorry I can’t cite and compare with PCT because:”All rights reserved.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise without permission of the The Society for
Neuroscience.”

But you can do the same yourself. I found about 50 segments describing
chemical relations (of course the whole book is about (bio) chemistry), but all
the segments strengthened PCT. None of them contradicted PCT the way I
understand PCT.

Please find a concrete segment there or
other places which is current research, and then we can talk.

PS. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t
perceive that you argue against PCT. I perceive that you ask a question.

bjorn

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 13 March 2004 1:20 PM CST]

[Rick Marken (2004.04.11.1030)]

begins his post with my statement

Bill Williams (10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST)–

And, I’d sure rather see kids learn to read and right than see

the money spent teaching psychology, when all the psychologists

are all going to end up arguing about economics anyway.

I thought my comment was funny. There really is something comic about

People attacking a problem for which their training and experience

Have not equipped them. I had a friend who was rewiring his house. He

Was going about it in what seemed to be a rather random way. I ended

Up standing by the circuit breaker so after each test I could reset

The fuses. He eventually got his house wired. And, we remained good

Friends. I exerted all of the discipline at my command. I never

Smirked. For that matter I never as much as smiled. If what he wanted

To wire his house at random, after all it was his house.

Rick may have been offended, by my pointed out what I perceive as a

Comic incongruity. From my standpoint the treatment of economic issues

On the CSGnet has been characterized by a unparallel display of sheer

Ignorance. And, this ignorance is not only about economic subject-matter

Which is only to be expected. It is also a display of ignorance regarding

Some very basic principles of modeling. Rick’s assertion recently about

prior savings generating subsequent investment is an example. It seems

that no matter how many times I explain that a macro analysis ought to

begin with the characteristics of a transaction, Rick pays no attention

and keeps on thinking about the economy in ways that are completely and

obviously ( should be obvious anyway ) impossible.

Rick says, that

One of the many things I like about PCT is that it transcends the

artificial boundaries that currently exist between disciplines,

Rick has problems when other people lie. So do I, so I want to point out

That,

Rick in the above statement is not telling the truth.

The current representatives of PCT who have attempted to apply

PCT to economics have not as Rick says “transcended” boundaries.

Rick for instance can not yet understand the language the people

on the other side of the fence are talking. One of the reasons

for this is that Rick is of the opinion that the people on the

other side of the fence have nothing meaningful to say.

This is transcending boundaries?

When Kenny came to the conclusion that Rick’s attempt to apply

PCT to economics was deficient, what did Rick do. He blocked

further email from Kenny. Now, Kenny minored in economics–

it was years ago-- but he may have retained something from the

instruction that he received. And, Kenny is one of the few people

who have posted to the economics thread.

Is blocking Kenney’s postings what Rick means by "transcending the

boundaries?" Rick, by blocking Kenny’s posts is the one who has

overtly slammed the door. I don’t always read what Rick or Bill

Powers post, but I am not frightened by words. And, I don’t have

A magical belief that someone else’s words have the power to make

Me do things that I don’t want to do. It seems to me that there are

Some people about who are attempting to reconstruct another discipline

When they have not yet understood how to apply the principles they

Espouse in their own field.

Now, I wouldn’t call an offer by blind men who don’t under

Stand their own field with any consistency to tell me as Rick has

That I don’t understand anything about anything within economics an

Exercise in transcending disciplinary boundaries.

When Rick talks about economics what he is saying amounts to a

word salad. If there is any doubt take a look at what Rick has said

about investment. How many different ways has he defined it?

But the problem isn’t limited to Rick incomprehension of economics.

As Bill Powers recently said, he doesn’t understand the argument that

makes up a central portion of the Bruun dissertation. Now, whether or

not Bill Powers understands the Bruun dissertation, he does seem to

me to making some progress with his effort to model the economy in

his own distinctive way.

I however would argue that to transcend, that is to rise above, in

the sense that Rick is talking about, you first have to understand

what it is that is being transcended. Else you are likely to fall

inadvertently into repeating what has already done. And, a large

part of Ricks efforts to apply PCT to economics amount to reinventing

a flat tire. Such as his recent remarks on “prior investment.” The

principles of modeling ought to have ruled this out, let alone any

resort to modern economic theory.

And, to “transcend” a boundary you have to comprehend the other

discipline. And, neither Bill Powers nor Rick Marken have yet

manage to acquire a sufficient understanding of economics to be

in a position to apply PCT to the problems of economic theory in

a manner that could remotely be said to “transcend.”

Rick says,

There are currently intellectual and/or bureaucratic boundaries

between clinical and experimental psychology, biology and psychology,

psychology and sociology, sociology and political science, economics

and everything else, and so on.

And, I would agree. Rick’s approach, however, makes it more difficult

to cope with the boundaries issue by demonstrating how chaotic the

results can be due to less the competent inter-disciplinary efforts.

For Rick’s information Sturgeon is director of the inter-disciplinary

graduate level social science program here. I am of the opinion that

control theory may eventually provide theoretical basis for a unified

theory of economic and cultural phenomena. Rick’s approach to the

issue of inter-disciplinary social theory just gets in the way. Bill

Powers in the past has attributed the disturbance that Rick generates

to sheer hatred on Rick’s part. I think there is a sense in which

Bill Powers is mistaken. But, the fact that Bill Powers came to the

conclusion that Rick’s behavior on the CSGnet and in CSG was the

result of hatred is, whether or not it is correct, an interesting datum.

Rick goes on to say,

PCT transcends all these divisions because it is about living

systems at all levels of organization: biological, behavioral

and social.

This is again a case of Rick hating to be lied to, yet his feeling

Comfortable not telling the truth.

Rick is making a claim in the above that is contradicted by a

sad history-- the leaps in the wrong direction-- giant leaps.

The absurdities that have taken place when Rick has attempted to

apply his conception of PCT to economic and social issues provides

lots of evidence that this claim is absurd. If PCT “transcends”

how does Rick explain his proposal that Pedophiles would make good

police officers? I wish it were otherwise but when Rick attempts

to apply PCT, even Bill Powers eventually comes to the conclusion

that what is taking place is a “giant leap in the wrong direction.”

Is this what Rick is describing as “transcendence?”

PCT control theorists are as comfortable,

Correction Rick is comfortable. What Rick does doesn’t seem to

cause Rick any error. However, what Rick does makes lots of other

people acutely “uncomfortable.”

Bill Powers, is more than a bit embarrassed, and describes Rick’s

efforts as, and I know this is tiresome, but it is important to keep

in mind, that what Rick is doing has been "a giant leap in the wrong

direction. And, that Rick’s behavior is motivated by hatred.

And, Powers explicitly disassociated himself from Rick’s attack

upon RTP.

Bruce Nevin, in a very through analysis described Rick’s method

in terms of an exercise in equivocation. Now, equivocation is not

the same thing as lying. But, equivocation can involved conscious

efforts to be deceptive. And, disingenuous conduct is while not

precisely the same thing as lying is sometimes resented, in the

same way that lying is resented.

Rick goes on to talk about a PCT theorist,

"…, talking with experimental psychologists about research on

hierarchical relationships between biological control systems as

they are talking with clinical psychologists talking about therapies

isnvolving the method of levels. A control theorist, whether trained

as an engineer, sociologist, clinical psychologist,

Rick includes in this list, talking with an economist,

As far as I know the only economists that Rick has talked to quickly

came to the conclusion that Rick was a crackpot.

experimental psychologist or political scientist, develops models

of food intake control, eye movement control, crowd behavior,

broom balancing, cooperative control or demand curve aberrations

without worrying whether these models fit their original field of

training.

Now, Rick here is accusing me of “worrying” about whether PCT fits

my “original field of training.” This is utter and complete nonsense.

See Nevin criticism of Rick’s procedure when he used this sort of

oblique attack against the RTP folks. Rick systematically goes out

of his way, well no, correct that, this is where Rick is determined

to go-- create a misimpression. Is it lying. Well is Michelle an

“ignorant slut.”

In my case what Rick is saying, that people (Williams) are too hung

up on their disciplinary training, has no application to me-- none.

Rick is incredibly careless in attributing defects to other people

without bothering himself concerning whether the charge is correct

or not. On the whole Ricks is an incredibly careless person.

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to describe Rick as a sociopath.

In conclusion Rick says,

I think that PCT would incline one to open the doors between

disciplines - or, better yet, to ignore them - rather than to

slam them shut.

There are things, and persons too, that is right an proper to slam

the door on. Consistently untruthful behavior troubles some people.

Rick a short time ago asked “Can’t we be friends?” I would not

wish to have as a “friend” a person who I believe is pathologically

dishonest. Rick and I do not, as both of us perceive the other

share common values.

Maybe Rick should think about the question of how you open doors.

Does making an unqualified accusation against an entire discipline

as Rick has done regarding the economic profession amount to

opening a door?

Are the charges that Rick has made against the entire profession

of economics true. Bill Powers explicitly disassociated himself

from Rick’s position in this regard recently.

Rick has expressed the opinion that a PCT analysis of the economy

didn’t really need any advice from economists.

I think the evidence indicates otherwise. When Powers asked for

comment on the current version of his economic model, Rick said

how much he liked the model and expressed his hopes for the

future progress of the model. Rick offered nothing in the way

of constructive criticism. I however found the display that

Powers provided did not allow me to track interaction between

the variables. One of the things that economists develop is

a capacity to interpret visual presentations of data. Over

the years I have noticed that Rick is comparatively lacking

in an ability to interpret visual presentations of data. If

I had considerable difficulty in interpreting the display that

Powers originally provided, Rick wasn’t going to be able to

make any sense at all of the presentation. The conclusion that

I drew from Rick not commenting on the display was that Rick

hadn’t made any attempt to test the function of Bill’s model.

And, then "How does an unqualified expression of contempt

contribute to ‘opening doors.’"

Although Rick does not explicitly say so, he is obviously charging

me with “slamming a door shut” when I criticize the absurd things

that have happened when PCT theorists have attempted to apply their

methods to economics. At one time the collection title "The Best of

the Net" included a CSGnet post by Bill Powers that repeated a

claim by his dad T.C. Powers that Keynes’ conception of an economy

was an expanded version of a family. When I initially pointed out

to Bill Powers that his dad was completely mistaken, Bill Powers

argued that his dad had demonstrated this, but the paper was stored

someplace inaccessible. I thought this was a rather strange mode

of argumentation. In my view what Keynes wrote could be better

determined by reading Keynes than by consulting a retired

physical chemist-- however proficient Bill’s dad was as a

physical chemist.

Now, I am prepared to slam the door shut on this sort of argument.

And, I plan to go on doing so.

I found it significant that after I pointed out TCP’s mistake

concerning Keynes, that the Best of CSGnet featuring of this

posting vanished.

I listened to Rick Marken’s presentation at the Boston Meeting.

The night before I attempted to explain to Rick what was wrong

with what he called a model. Rick flippantly dismissed what I

had to say. Three years later Bill Powers finally explained to

Rick what was wrong with the H Econimus paper. Rick wasn’t in

the slightest prepared to pay any attention at all to me when

I pointed out problems in the way he approached his effort to

model the economic process.

What is more surprising is that Rick wasn’t inclined to listen

to Bill Powers attempted to explain why what Rick had done

was poorly done. Eventually in exasperation, Bill Powers

describe Rick’s efforts as “a giant leap in the wrong direction.”

And, astonishing, this didn’t change Rick’s opinion that what he

had done was really pretty good.

Rick appears sometimes to be completely resistant to criticism.

Was Bill Powers’ remark-- that Rick’s efforts have been "a giant

leap in the wrong direction" an effort to "Slam the door on applying

control theory to economic questions.

I will repeat something I said near the beginning of this post.

Rick has expressed how much he dislikes people lying to him.

Rick, however, isn’t telling the truth.

But, it can be fun when Rick doesn’t tell the truth.

And, when Rick doesn’t tell the truth he does so in a way that

is so exuberant and so florid it is a challenge to correct him.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Powers]

From Bill Powers (2004.04.13.1642 MST)]

Bill Williams 13 March
2004 1:20 PM CST –

Do you recall what Rick actually said that you have been reporting as his
favoring the appointment of criminals and psychopaths and other unsavory
characters as policemen, babysitters, and so on? Those reports appear to
be based on his answer to the question of who on CSGnet might be
qualified to act as a monitor. He said, “Just about anyone,”
meaning, of course, that he would trust most people on CSGnet to carry
out that function honestly. Apparently you took that statement as the
basis for imagining people who would fit the unqualified category
“just about anyone.” That seems to have led you to think of
psychopaths and sex offenders and murderers, and after that you were led
from “monitor for CSGnet” into thinking of any position of
trust, such as policeman, child-care provider, and so on. Thus you are
representing Rick’s expression of trust as something completely different
from what he intended, and what others understood him to mean. In this
post you ask “how does Rick explain his proposal that Pedophiles
would make good
police officers?” I
hope you can see the discrepancy between your rendition of his proposal
and what he actually said. To say that he made such a proposal is
slander.

Rick did not claim that investment has nothing to do with growth. He
simply did a lagged correlation study (replicated by others) that showed
beyond doubt that changes in gross investment lag behind changes in
growth rate. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with this mathematical technique,
which determines the correlations between two data sets that are shifted
in time relative to each other. By looking for the time-shift that gives
the maximum correlation, it is possible to learn something about causal
ordering. In this case it turned out that gross investment rate showed
the highest correlation with the growth rate several quarters earlier,
implying that it is the growth that leads to investment rather than the
other way around. This result has been reported by others, including
economists. This finding apparently conflicts with what you think the
data should show theoretically. I look forward to your discussion of this
discrepancy.

Do you recall just what it was about Rick’s model that I said was a
“giant leap in the wrong direction”? Are you sure I was talking
about some aspect of his model, or some other idea? Was it his entire
model I spoke of, or just some particular assumption in it? That
catch-phrase certainly does not represent my considered opinion of Rick’s
work. I hope you will do me the courtesy of ceasing to imply that I have
made such a blanket judgement.

I am also concerned with your reports about my opinions of my father’s
economic analysis, and of his own statements regarding economics. Your
opinions, as you have told me, are based on a brief meeting with him and
reading a few preliminary papers he wrote – all of this happening about
15 years before he published his book, which by now is 8 years ago. And
you also informed me that you have never read what he ended up actually
publishing, so I wonder how you formed your opinions of him and his
book.

His comment about extrapolating from a family to the whole population was
made, as I told you, about some neo-Keynsians, and he had a number of
direct citatations of exactly who they were and what they said. He never
said that Keynes himself supported this view. You have not, apparently,
read that old paper about the neo-Keynsians. I’ll try to put my hands on
it. He deleted all reference to this subject from the book, feeling that
it was a digression.

As to my own opinion of my father’s economic analysis (he objected
strongly to calling it a “theory”), my review is mixed. I don’t
think he ended up with a very convincing model (he wouldn’t have called
it that), and his recommendations for what to do about the problems he
saw were not what I would recommend. He made several interesting factual
observations based on the statistical record, which deserve a serious
look and at least a competent rebuttal if they are misleading. He does
not deserve dismissal as an amateur and a nut, especially since he spent
at least as much time on studying economics as you did in in getting your
degree, if not considerably more. You may value your own opinions more
than his, but that is hardly a rebuttal or a refutation.

It would be much easier to figure out what your real objections to
various ideas are if you would simply state them, perhaps explaining any
alternatives you find preferable. When you let your personal antipathies
show, everything you say is weakened, because it can be written off as
based on nothing more substantial than subjective bias, which has no
standing in this kind of discussion. Also, when you offer blatant
misrepresentations of what others have said, this greatly lowers your
credibility as one who supposedly can read the literature of a science
and intepret it in a rational way. Whatever image of yourself as an
economist you wish to project, this sort of thing does not work in your
favor. It exposes modes of reasoning that would lead to distrust of what
you say about any subject at all – including economics. I would guess
that this is not the outcome you would want.

Bill P.

[Bill_Williams1]

                            [CITES][Image]

From[Bill Williams 13 March 2004 8:00 AM CST]

From Bill Powers (2004.04.13.1642 MST)]

Bill Williams 13 March 2004 1:20 PM CST –

Do you recall what Rick actually said that you have been reporting as his

favoring the appointment of criminals and psychopaths and other unsavory

characters as policemen, babysitters, and so on? Those reports appear to be

based on his answer to the question of who on CSGnet might be qualified to

act as a monitor. He said, “Just about anyone,” meaning, of course, that he

would trust most people on CSGnet to carry out that function honestly.

So? You should remember the CSGnet is an open site. Anyone can belong.

Anyone. Absolutely Anyone at least for the time being.

Apparently you took that statement as the basis for imagining people who

would fit the unqualified category “just about anyone.”

I do. And, as I will repeat, CSGnet membership includes potentially anyone

who can access the site.

That seems to have led you to think of psychopaths and sex offenders

and murderers, and after that you were led from “monitor for CSGnet”

into thinking of any position of trust, such as policeman, child-care

provider, and so on.

I object to the use of “led.” What I did was to examine the logical

implications of Rick’s statement. That and his misconception about the

nature and demands of the police function.

Thus you are representing Rick’s expression of trust as something

completely different from what he intended,

Who knows what Rick intended? If what he intended was to find a way to

counter my statement that care should be exercised in the choice of a

moderator, then he did not take the time to do a reality check upon the

implications of what he said.

So, what ever what Rick meant, what we know is what Rick wrote.

and what others understood him to mean.

Which ever others are you talking about? If you are going to open

the issue of what “other understand” Rick to mean, then this could

be a vry lively discussion. The “take” that people have on Rick-- now

there is really a topic.

Now, Rick always enjoys talking about Rick. But, this isn’t likely to

be a discussion that Rick would enjoy.

But, Again, Who knows what Rick meant? What we know is what he wrote.

In this post you ask "how does Rick explain his proposal that

Pedophiles would make good police officers?" I hope you can see

the discrepancy between your rendition of his proposal and what

he actually said.

In this last section you make a shift, that is you equivocate the

argument. Thank God for Bruce Nevin, without the concept of equvocation

I don’t think that I would be in a position to cope with these sly

shifts.

First you were talking about what Rick meant. Now, you are shifting

the consideration to what “he actually said.”

What Rick said was that anyone could serve as good policeman. That

it didn’t matter what they did in their off time. Now, Rick I am

confident didn’t consider the implication when he wrote what he

did. But, that isn’t my fault.

There is as a result a logical disconnect

No. Not at all. You are they one who isn’t following the logic, and

by the use of equvocation has introduced a logical disconnect.

therefore between this statement and your

previous statements that spoke to what Rick meant.

Again, the question is not a matter of what Rick meant. However, if

you want to widen the context, I will supply it. I made an argument

that if the CSGnet was to become a moderated site-- and if you will

remember I voted in favor of this. Then I thought that it would be

prudent to carefully choose a person for moderator who had the

wisdom and judgment to exercise the function properly. Rick then

constructed a counter argument that the moderator function didn’t

require any special “wisdom and judgment.” Anyone he said could

do it. Just like anyone could be a police officer. Now, if you

want to we can go back and check. Did Rick impose any restrictions

upon who he said could make a good police officer or not? He did

not. Therefore, I can test his exercise in public policy making

regarding the selection of police officers. Suppose we try out,

pedophiles? Suppose we try out serial killers? Rick said “Anyone.”

You are stuck with defending the indefensible. You’ve used the

phrase “shocking stupidity.” Rick obviously wasn’t thinking

about the implications. You don’t seem to be thinking very

clearly either.

To say that he made such a proposal is slander.

I guess we could check the archive as see what Rick said.

I guess we cold check the dictionary and see what is the

usually accepted meaning of “slander.”

So, lets take a trip down memory lane and see what Rick

said. I have enclosed the full text from the CSGnet

Archive. After the text I will extract some remarks and

make some more comments.

View:

Next message | Previous message

Next in topic | Previous in topic

Next by same author | Previous by same author

Previous page (March 2004, week 3) | Back to main CSGNET page

Join or leave CSGNET

Reply | Post a new message

Search

Options:

Chronologically | Most recent first

Proportional font | Non-proportional font

···

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:10:16 -0800

Reply-To: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

          <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>

Sender: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

          <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>

From: Richard Marken marken@MINDREADINGS.COM

Subject: Re: Why?

In-Reply-To: 6.0.0.22.1.20040318080237.025728d0@mail.earthlink.net

Content-type: text/plain; charset=“US-ASCII”

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.08.1010)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.18.0802 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.17.1620)–

I know that there are problems with list moderation. Mainly, the

problem is

that it’s a job that someone has to do.

But the biggest problem is electing someone to the position of moderator.

Who would you trust (other than yourself) to decide whether any of your

statements (for example, about the Pope, or about Bush) are offensive and

should be censored, or should cause your entire post to be rejected?

I would trust virtually anyone to do this. All the moderator would have to

do is keep out personal attacks and ugly sarcasm. If the person selected as

moderator really couldn’t distinguish criticisms of ideas (like religious or

economic ideas) from personal attacks and ugly sarcasm then I would probably

stop contributing to CSGNet. But I think this will be a non-problem. I

think almost anyone could do the moderation, just as almost anyone can be a

policeman. The person doesn’t have to be what I consider a good person to do

either job. They just have to be able to distinguish “legal” behavior

(criticisms of ideas) from “illegal” behavior (personal attacks and ugly

sarcasm). Whether or not the policeman (moderator) ever indulges in

“illegal” behavior on their own time is somewhat irrelevant. As long as, in

his job as policeman, he collars the crooks and lets the law abiding types

alone he’s OK with me (as policeman or moderator).

What if you, the originator of a post, or other people, don’t agree with the

moderator? Do we set up an appeals committee? Do we assign attorneys for

prosecution and defense?

No. We just accept it. My guess is that almost anyone who became moderator

would end up acting in a reasonable way. If I seriously disagreed with the

moderator I might bring it up with him or her. But I just don’t think it’s a

big deal. If, for example, I said something about the disastrous policies of

the Bush administration and the moderator thought that was inappropriate, I

might argue about it but I might end up agreeing or thinking it wasn’t worth

arguing about.

But I really think that if we had a moderator the job of the moderator would

end up (after a couple of days, probably) being like that of the Maytag

repair man. With a moderator I predict that CSGNet will go back to the way

it was a few years ago – with spirited discussions of PCT and everything to

which it applies (which is virtually everything human – religion, politics,

economics, neurophysiology, etc) – without all the personal attacks and

ugly sarcasm.

Or do we decide that the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the posts but in

ourselves?

I’ve never thought that the fault lies in the posts. As I said to Martin,

the posts don’t bother me personally. I’m suggesting moderation only because

I think such posts make CSGNet an inhospitable place for people with a

serious interest in (and a background that allows them to understand) PCT

science and also because I think this persistent vituperation (even if it is

ignored) chills the flow of conversation on CSGNet.

I have had to protect myself by cutting off posts from specific

individuals. But that isn’t how I want things to continue. I want to be

able to read anything from anyone, whether in good taste or bad, whether

friendly or hostile, and not feel called upon to imitate what I don’t like.

I think that’s admirable. But I think one result has been to cut off your

posting as well as that of others. Why post even wonderful substantive posts

when the result will be an inevitable flurry of epithets?

I guess what I’m saying is that each of us needs to moderate his or her own

traffic

Just as drivers have to regulate their own driving in traffic. But we still

have police to regulate the disturbances to safe traffic flow that is

produced by the occasional violator. Sometimes we ourselves are the

violators but we accept the regulations for the good of the community. I

think we have some chronic speeders and red light runners here on CSGNet who

are wrecking things for the community. I would rather put up with the

possible inconveniences of a police force (moderator) than deal daily with

the real inconveniences of trying to get to work on roadways where some

“free spirits” are running red lights regularly. I think that most everyone

does regulate their posting quite well. But I also see that there are some

chronic violators on CSGNet and I think it’s time for Jimmy Stewart/John

Wayne to kick these Liberty Valences out of town.

We could do worse than looking to Martin Taylor as a role model here. I

have had disagreements with him, but he has never lost his cool even when I

did. Quite remarkable.

Martin is, indeed, a role model. I have always loved dealing with Martin. He

knows how to have a knock-down, drag out intellectual argument without

getting resorting to personal attacks. (Of course, it doesn’t hurt that he’s

brilliant, too). But I think you and others on the net (Bruce Abbott, also

brilliant, comes to mind) do a great job of this as well. But I’m not

calling for a moderator to protect myself from being driven to bad behavior

by the bad actors. I am suggesting it so that people who come to CSGNet will

find a pleasant learning community rather than snarling, ignorant anarchy.

All I am saying is give civilization a chance.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

MindReadings.com

Home: 310 474 0313

Cell: 310 729 1400

Rick says,

“All I am saying is give civilization a chance.”

Is this so that Rick can make more giant leaps in the wrong direction?

“I would trust virtually anyone to do this.” That is be the moderator.

"I think almost anyone could do the moderation, just as almost anyone

can be a policeman.

I would suppose the quadraplegetics might have difficulties with being a

police officer, but obvious difficulties aside, “almost anyone” will do.

Even apparently people known to be engaging in illegal activities-- if

only on their own time.

"The person doesn’t have to be what I consider a good person to do

either job. They just have to be able to distinguish “legal” behavior

(criticisms of ideas) from “illegal” behavior (personal attacks and ugly

sarcasm). Whether or not the policeman (moderator) ever indulges in

“illegal” behavior on their own time is somewhat irrelevant. As long as, in

his job as policeman, he collars the crooks and lets the law abiding types

alone he’s OK with me (as policeman or moderator).

Rick explicitly asserts that whether a policeman (for Rick’s information

woman are now sometimes selected to be police officers) engages in illegal

behavior is not an issue. The phrase Rick uses “on their own time” displays

Rick’s being poorly informed, or “ignorant” to use one of Rick’s words,

concerning police responsibilities. There is a sense in which once you

take the oath-- then you are on the job.

No community that I know of tolerates police officers who engage in

illegal activities in, as Rick says, there “off time.”

Is Rick displaying a poor connection to reality or what?

Is Bill Powers displaying “shocking stupidity” in defending Rick?

Truth is a defense against a charge of slander. So is an absence

of malice. Your charge that I was engaging in slander is therefore

defective.

Rick did say, “I would trust virtually anyone to do this.”

You go on to say,

Rick did not claim that investment has nothing to do with growth. He simply

did a lagged correlation study (replicated by others) that showed beyond

doubt

Ah, I will admit to having encountered the concept of proven “beyond doubt”

a time or two before. I did not however expect that you would ever resort

to dear old Ludwig’s favorite argument-- that there are truths the certainty

of which further evidence and reasoning can not shake.

that changes in gross investment lag behind changes in growth rate.

Now, you insert “gross” which changes the assertion. The constant

equivocation certainly becomes tiresome.

Then you resort to an unfortunate argument.

Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with this mathematical technique, which

determines the correlations between two data sets that are shifted

in time relative to each other.

Nonsense. And, perhaps you were born in a barn and fuck pigs. This was

the sort of thing that hurt Marc Abrams very deeply. This was something

that was a very effective thing to do to Marc. Marc was extremely

conscious of his lack of a formal education-- he was also working hard

to repair his lack of formal training by taking math and chemistry

courses. For me this sort of comment reminds me of how unprincipled

and vicious you can be. And, also of how sometimes how shallow is

your understanding of the methods you sometimes have used with

considerable success other than in economics. In economics when you

stray from modeling, you exhibit a lack of transfer of training.

By looking for the time-shift that gives the maximum correlation, it is

possible to learn something about causal ordering.

This is nonsense as well. You should know better, but apparently you

don’t. The data mining exercises using this technique have been the

source of endless confusion-- in physics this confusion got sorted

out between Descartes and Newton. I hope that the confusion will

eventually be sorted out in economics. I thought we’d thrashed this

out in regard to psychology. The sequence causation notion has been

extremely troublesome.

In this case it turned out that gross investment rate showed the

highest correlation with the growth rate several quarters earlier,

implying that it is the growth that leads to investment rather than

the other way around.

You are resorting, again, to a time sequence notion of causation

here. There are some very good reasons to abandon the time-sequence

conception of causation. I thought you were aware of these reasons.

But, apparently not. If the time-sequence notion was workable then

Descartes’ physics, and Watson’s psychology ought to be perfectly OK.

This result has been reported by others, including economists. This

finding apparently conflicts with what you think the data should show

theoretically. I look forward to your discussion of this discrepancy.

I have already provided it. You weren’t paying attention. But, you

don’t have to wait on me. There is no reason at all to wait. It is

in Bruun’s dissertation. It is in the argument that leads to the

conclusion presented on page 87. I’ve told you this stuff for years.

All you do is tell me that I am incompetent. Recently, however, I

sense that you are perplexed that the same argument shows up in

Bruun’s dissertation. All you have to do is start with the notion of

a transaction and work from there.

Do you recall just what it was about Rick’s model that I said was a "giant

leap in the wrong direction"? Are you sure I was talking about some aspect

of his model, or some other idea?

I like to be sure. Why don’t you get out what you said? I think everyone

would benefit from a detailed inspection of what it was about (I am not

going to call it a model) this effort that had gone so wrong that you were

concerned that if Rick didn’t understand his mistake he would go on

repeating it. Since, Rick never apparently understood what the problem

was, I think this would be a valuable exercise. And, I’ll have to admit

I was never that interested in precisely what Rick was doing after I

experienced the presentation at Boston. But, I did like your phrase,

“a giant leap in the wrong direction.” So, yes by all means explain

what you meant. BTW, if you don’t like what you say being repeated,

don’t say it.

Was it his entire model I spoke of, or

just some particular assumption in it?

As I said, I don’t really care. There were so many errors in Rick’s

(I am not going to call it a model) stuff that it was clear to me that

it was time wasted remembering which error was which. For other

people who find hopeless causes appealing, a more detailed explication

of precisely where Rick went wrong, might be welcome. Don’t bother on

my account. Contrary to Rick, I am not really very interested in Rick.

That catch-phrase certainly does not

represent my considered opinion of Rick’s work.

By all means, then, let’s have your “considered opinion.” The more

detailed the better. But, I am not really that interested in precisely

where the “giant leap” originated. As long as I know it had something

to do with Rick, I am content.

I hope you will do me the

courtesy of ceasing to imply that I have made such

a blanket judgment.

Did I ever say that you had made a “blanket judgment” upon Rick?

When you said that Rick’s stuff, (I will insert a qualifier,) in

someways somehow represents “a giant leap in the wrong direction”

that you were making a blanket judgment? Does the insertion

“in someways” make it sufficiently clear that I am not implying that

the “giant leap in the wrong direction.” statement is not intended

to represent either a “blanket judgment” or necessarily your final

and carefully “considered judgment?”

All I have to go by is what you said. Who knows what you meant. Or,

especially what Rick meant. But, I thought you made a very through

criticism of Rick’s effort. If you wish to extend and elaborate

your criticism that is OK with me. Personally I never thought

it was worth my time.

I am also concerned with your reports about my opinions of my father’s

economic analysis,

Do you meant your statement that by the time he finished the Leakages

book that he was in a senile decline in which he couldn’t remember from

one day to the next what he had written on a previous day? I am in your

debt for telling me this before I spent time reading his book. Ordinarily

what you report is not condusive to confidence that the author, espeically

without any formal training, is going to write a worthwhile tract on

theoretical economics.

and of his own statements regarding economics. Your

opinions, as you have told me, are based on a brief meeting with him

Brief? I guess it only seemed like it went on forever.

reading a few preliminary papers he wrote – all of this happening about 15

years before he published his book, which by now is 8 years ago.

Amazing how the years fly by isn’t it? At this rate, pretty soon nobody around

is ever going to have heard of this little tempest are they?

And you also informed me that you have never read what he ended up actually

publishing,

That’s right, and you know, I don’t seem to have missed anything. At least nobody

I know can tell that I am missing in a vital bit of essential knowledge.

so I wonder how you formed your opinions of him and his book.

As you say, the “brief meeting and preliminary papers” provided more than

enough basis upon which to form the conclusion that he was hopelessly

confused. ANd, he was so pleased with his state of confusion, that it seemed

to me that it would have been cruel to have disturbed his contentment. I was

genuinely under the mistaken impression that no one took his effort to figure

out economics with any seriousness. It didn’t occur to me until years later

that anyone actually did take this stuff seriously.

You are the one who, and this is a part of the CSGnet record,

said that by the time the book was published your dad was unable to

remember from day to day what he had written the previous day. I trusted

your assessment in this regard. Why would I need to know more about

your dad’s economics-- as they say-- enough already.

His comment about extrapolating from a family to the whole population was

made, as I told you,

I warn you, Rick doesn’t like liars. All I will say is that this isn’t true.

You never told me this verbally. Can you show me where you stated this in

writing?

about some neo-Keynsians, and he had a number of

direct citatations of exactly who they were and what they said.

What you are saying directly contradicts what you told me during a telephone

conversation. The coversation was memorable because it was one of the times

when I refused to work at furthering the start that your dad thought he had

made. At that point you said that you would get Rick to do it. To which I

said OK.

You made something similar to this claim approximately a decade ago.

However, I was at that point attempting to explain to you, that

Keynes actually did have a macro analysis. You, based upon your

dad’s authority were not inclined to accept what I said about Keynes

actually having a macro analysis. The proof you said was in some

basement somewhere.

He never

said that Keynes himself supported this view.

Maybe your dad never actually said this, but you said that he did.

You have not, apparently, read that old paper about the neo-Keynsians.

What is the point? We are talking about an old duffer who never got

to the point that he understood Keynes. Why at this point in my

life is there any point in my bothering with this stuff? What is it

really worth? I’ll tell you what. Convince professor Bruun that there

is something to this stuff, and maybe I’ll take it a bit more seriously.

Right now, from where I stand, what you’ve got is an interesting

bit of family history-- and that is absolutely all that it is.

I’ll try to put my hands on it. He deleted all reference to this

subject from the book, feeling that it was a digression.

This really isn’t worth pursuing.

As to my own opinion of my father’s economic analysis (he objected strongly

to calling it a “theory”), my review is mixed.

This is like saying that the holes in the boat aren’t too big. The question is

too big for what? And, “mixed” is a nice way of describing you dad’s stuff.

I don’t think he ended up

with a very convincing model (he wouldn’t have called it that), and his

recommendations for what to do about the problems he saw were not what I

would recommend.

Me either.

He made several interesting factual observations based on

the statistical record, which deserve a serious look and at least a

competent rebuttal if they are misleading.

He does not deserve dismissal

It isn’t a question of whether or not he “deserves dismissal.” Rather it

is a matter of does he merit any consideration at all? And, why should your

dad’s efforts take-up my time? Why should his efforts take-up anyone’s

time for that matter? What does your dad’s economics have to do with PCT ?

He certainly did think it had anything to do with PCT. As I understand it

he said sovery plainly.

As far as I can tell the only reason you dad’s economics is an issue on a

forum otherwise devoted to control theory applications to human problems

is that he was your dad. As far as I am concerned that isn’t a good reason.

an amateur and a nut, especially since he spent at least as much time on

studying economics as you did in in getting your degree, if not

considerably more.

Time doesn’t count for anything one way or the other. What counts is

the question of comprehension. And, your dad approached economics from a

standpoint that apparently none of it made sense-- to him.

You may value your own opinions more than his,

Let’s ask ourselves a question. Who values your dad’s work?

As far as I can tell no one except for you and Rick have a

vital interest in it. And, neither you nor Rick know enough

economics to make a competent comparison between your dad’s

work and what is otherwise available. Because, neither of

you knows nearly enough about the varieties of economic

thought to make such an assessment. All this thing about

your dad’s economics amounts to is a narcistic self-delusion.

Oh, and I forgot Rick-- so it is “a follie a deux.”

but that is hardly a rebuttal or a refutation.

To deserve a “rebuttal” or “refutation” work must first pass the

“why bother” test. As best I can tell you dad’s work hasn’t be

all that successful. It was clear that even the guy who reviewed

it wasn’t sufficiently interested in it to have actually read it.

Well, unless you can find someone else to impose this stuff

on, it mine is the only informed judgment you are going to get.

Why don’t you give it your best shot and see what professor

Bruun has to say? What do you think? Is she going to find your

dad’s economics worth her time?

but that is hardly a rebuttal or a refutation.

On the contrary. There dis-interest is an extremely effective

“rebuttal” and/or “refutation.” The silence is absolutely

unanswerable. What’s there to say? And, that is the point.

Nor, is the opinion of a son, engaged in a ghost dance combat

with his departed dad, necessarily a dependable source of

information. You have mixed family politics into economics

and the result is unfortunate.

It would be much easier to figure out what your real objections

to various ideas are if you would simply state them,

Bill, it would also be “much easier” if you weren’t caught

up in paranoid delusions so that you are searching for the

“real” reasons.

You remind me of a guy, I encountered who was determined to beat

me up to find out why I didn’t like him. I’ve been tellling it

to you straight-- the inside poop on economics. But, you want

the “real stuff.” Your statement that I sometime ago described

in terms of crack pot and crankishness – the one about Keynes

having written the chapter on User cost so that businessmen

could have a bigger depreciation write-off is characteristic

of how a paranoid mind-set creates difficulties. It is obivous

to anyone who knows anything at all about Keynes as a historical

figure, that your suspicions have nothing to do with Keynes,

and everything to do with you.

perhaps explaining any alternatives you find preferable.

I have in the past done so. Your reaction has been to

characterize me as an “incompetent.” I’ve been so extremely

succesful in avoiding providing “explainations” because I

have tricked you into talking all the time. Thus, I escape

with my secrets intact.

When you let your personal antipathies show, everything you

say is weakened, because it can be written off as

based on nothing more substantial than subjective bias,

It is a bit strange when you, representing a trinity of you,

your dad, and Rick, a follie of three, or I guess there is

a sister as well? charge me with subjective bias-- when I

point out elementary principles in contemporary economic

theory. These principles aren’t merely my subjective

opinions. These principles aren’t a matter of "personal

antipathies" or “subjective bias.” Go ahead, try and set

professor Bruun straight and see what happens. I really

enjoyed your complaint that you were finding ,

“credentialized experts in economics being difficult.”

I had the post up on the wall here for a while. It encouraged

the grad students to adopt the proper attitude-- being

difficult that is.

Yours is a novel argument-- you are the one that is writing

a whole profession off. And, I am the one guilty of

subjective bias.

which has no standing in this kind of discussion.

I beg your pardon. Who the fuck are you to determine what has

standing in this discussion as long as I am a part of it. Try

and come to grips with the idea that in a discussion there are

two sides. I will determine for myself, what it is that I

consider to have as you say “standing.”

Also, when you offer blatant misrepresentations of what others

have said, this greatly lowers your credibility

“Greatly lowers my creditability,” my ass. Just because you say that

I am engaging in “blatantly misrepresenting” doesn’t make it so.

Check what Rick wrote.

“I would trust virtually anyone to do this.”

Compare you dad’s claims when you fill in the hole during which

the depression and WWII took place.

as one who supposedly can read the literature of a science

More than you claim to be able to do. You really don’t understand

Bruun’s dissertation. And, you know it.

and interpret it in a rational way. Whatever image of yourself as

an economist you wish to project, this sort of thing does not work

in your favor.

I will be the judge of this. And, so will be the people I work

with. Actually, as a results of the struggle with you and Rick

have been greatly worthwhile.

Contrary to what you say,

" this sort of thing does not work in your favor.

it actually has worked very much in my favor.

It exposes modes of reasoning that would lead to distrust of what

you say about any subject at all – including economics.

Again. I will be the judge of this. There is also a wider audience.

And, this wider audience has been coming to a very different

opinion than the one you express above.

Unfortunately, as the various discussion of economics on the CSGnet

indicate, it would be of enormous help if people would first learn

enough economics to be able to carry on a coherent discussion.

When definitions are in process of constant shifting the conclusions

reached can be expected to incoherent.

…

I would guess that this is not the outcome you would want.

And, this is not the “outcome,” as you call it, to which this

discussion is progressing.

I think you may misunderstand the context in which this discussion

is being carried on. Well, of course, you misunderstand it. The

angle from which your dad, and you in tern have approached the

problems of economics has been one which is so dysfunctional that

it has prevented you from recognizing that there is a large body

of work with which you both would have found valuable, if

only the subject had not been approached from paranoid stance

that no one else in human experience had been able to make any

sense at all of the economic process. You, your dad, and Rick

all to various extents, not that the range of variation makes

any significant difference, have slammed the door to understanding

on yourselves. Paranoia tends, among other things, to do this.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.14.1141 MST)]

Bill Williams 13 March
2004 8:00 AM CST –

Bill, I just knew that I would regret my attempt to reply to your
scurrilous post to Rick. You are a hopeless case, and this time I am
making the break permanent. No possible fruits of collaboration with you
could compensate for your limitless egotism, hostility, and sophistry.
You are simply too unpleasant to associate with.

Bill P.

]

From
Bill Powers (2004.04.13.1642 MST)]

Bill
Williams 13 March 2004 1:20 PM CST –

Do you recall
what Rick actually said that you have been reporting as his

favoring the
appointment of criminals and psychopaths and other unsavory

characters as
policemen, babysitters, and so on? Those reports appear to be

based on his
answer to the question of who on CSGnet might be qualified to

act as a
monitor. He said, “Just about anyone,” meaning, of course, that
he

would trust
most people on CSGnet to carry out that function honestly.

So? You should remember
the CSGnet is an open site. Anyone can belong.

Anyone. Absolutely
Anyone at least for the time being.

Apparently you
took that statement as the basis for imagining people who

would fit the
unqualified category “just about anyone.”

I do. And, as I
will repeat, CSGnet membership includes potentially anyone

who can access the site.

That seems to
have led you to think of psychopaths and sex offenders

and murderers, and
after that you were led from “monitor for CSGnet”

into thinking of any
position of trust, such as policeman, child-care

provider, and so
on.

I object to the use of
“led.” What I did was to examine the logical

implications of Rick’s
statement. That and his misconception about the

nature and demands of the
police function.

Thus you are
representing Rick’s expression of trust as something

completely different
from what he intended,

Who knows what Rick
intended? If what he intended was to find a way to

counter my statement that
care should be exercised in the choice of a

moderator, then he did
not take the time to do a reality check upon the

implications of what he
said.

So, what ever what Rick
meant, what we know is what Rick wrote.

and what others
understood him to mean.

Which ever others are you
talking about? If you are going to open

the issue of what
“other understand” Rick to mean, then this could

be a vry lively
discussion. The “take” that people have on Rick-- now

there is really a
topic.

Now, Rick always enjoys
talking about Rick. But, this isn’t likely to

be a discussion that Rick
would enjoy.

But, Again, Who knows
what Rick meant? What we know is what he wrote.

In this post you ask
"how does Rick explain his proposal that

Pedophiles would
make good police officers?" I hope you can see

the discrepancy
between your rendition of his proposal and what

he actually
said.

In this last section you
make a shift, that is you equivocate the

argument. Thank God for
Bruce Nevin, without the concept of equvocation

I don’t think that I
would be in a position to cope with these sly

shifts.

First you were talking
about what Rick meant. Now, you are shifting

the consideration to what
“he actually said.”

What Rick said was that
anyone could serve as good policeman. That

it didn’t matter what
they did in their off time. Now, Rick I am

confident didn’t consider
the implication when he wrote what he

did. But, that
isn’t my fault.

There is as a result
a logical disconnect

No. Not at all. You are
they one who isn’t following the logic, and

by the use of equvocation
has introduced a logical disconnect.

therefore between
this statement and your

previous statements
that spoke to what Rick meant.

Again, the question is
not a matter of what Rick meant. However, if

you want to widen the
context, I will supply it. I made an argument

that if the CSGnet was to
become a moderated site-- and if you will

remember I voted in favor
of this. Then I thought that it would be

prudent to carefully
choose a person for moderator who had the

wisdom and judgment to
exercise the function properly. Rick then

constructed a counter
argument that the moderator function didn’t

require any special
“wisdom and judgment.” Anyone he said could

do it. Just like anyone
could be a police officer. Now, if you

want to we can go back
and check. Did Rick impose any restrictions

upon who he said could
make a good police officer or not? He did

not. Therefore, I can
test his exercise in public policy making

regarding the selection
of police officers. Suppose we try out,

pedophiles? Suppose we
try out serial killers? Rick said “Anyone.”

You are stuck with
defending the indefensible. You’ve used the

phrase “shocking
stupidity.” Rick obviously wasn’t thinking

about the implications.
You don’t seem to be thinking very

clearly either.

To say that he made
such a proposal is slander.

I guess we could check
the archive as see what Rick said.

I guess we cold check the
dictionary and see what is the

usually accepted meaning
of “slander.”

So, lets take a trip down
memory lane and see what Rick

said. I have
enclosed the full text from the CSGnet

Archive. After the text I
will extract some remarks and

make some more
comments.

View:

Next message | Previous
message

Next in topic | Previous
in topic

Next by same author |
Previous by same author

Previous page (March
2004, week 3) | Back to main CSGNET page

Join or leave
CSGNET

Reply | Post a new
message

Search

Options:

Chronologically | Most
recent first

Proportional font |
Non-proportional font

Date:
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:10:16 -0800

Reply-To:
“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

Sender:
“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)”

CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

From:
Richard Marken marken@MINDREADINGS.COM

Subject:
Re: Why?

In-Reply-To:
6.0.0.22.1.20040318080237.025728d0@mail.earthlink.net

Content-type: text/plain;
charset=“US-ASCII”

[From Rick Marken
(2004.03.08.1010)]

Bill Powers
(2004.03.18.0802 MST)]

Rick Marken
(2004.03.17.1620)–

I know that
there are problems with list moderation. Mainly, the

problem is

that it’s a job
that someone has to do.

But the biggest
problem is electing someone to the position of moderator.

Who would you trust
(other than yourself) to decide whether any of your

statements (for
example, about the Pope, or about Bush) are offensive and

should be censored,
or should cause your entire post to be rejected?

I would trust virtually
anyone to do this. All the moderator would have to

do is keep out personal
attacks and ugly sarcasm. If the person selected as

moderator really couldn’t
distinguish criticisms of ideas (like religious or

economic ideas) from
personal attacks and ugly sarcasm then I would probably

stop contributing to
CSGNet. But I think this will be a non-problem. I

think almost anyone could
do the moderation, just as almost anyone can be a

policeman. The person
doesn’t have to be what I consider a good person to do

either job. They just
have to be able to distinguish “legal” behavior

(criticisms of ideas)
from “illegal” behavior (personal attacks and ugly

sarcasm). Whether or not
the policeman (moderator) ever indulges in

“illegal”
behavior on their own time is somewhat irrelevant. As long as, in

his job as policeman, he
collars the crooks and lets the law abiding types

alone he’s OK with me (as
policeman or moderator).

What if you, the
originator of a post, or other people, don’t agree with the

moderator? Do we set
up an appeals committee? Do we assign attorneys for

prosecution and
defense?

No. We just accept it. My
guess is that almost anyone who became moderator

would end up acting in a
reasonable way. If I seriously disagreed with the

moderator I might bring
it up with him or her. But I just don’t think it’s a

big deal. If, for
example, I said something about the disastrous policies of

the Bush administration
and the moderator thought that was inappropriate, I

might argue about it but
I might end up agreeing or thinking it wasn’t worth

arguing about.

But I really think that
if we had a moderator the job of the moderator would

end up (after a couple of
days, probably) being like that of the Maytag

repair man. With a
moderator I predict that CSGNet will go back to the way

it was a few years ago –
with spirited discussions of PCT and everything to

which it applies (which
is virtually everything human – religion, politics,

economics,
neurophysiology, etc) – without all the personal attacks and

ugly sarcasm.

Or do we decide that
the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the posts but in

ourselves?

I’ve never thought that
the fault lies in the posts. As I said to Martin,

the posts don’t bother me
personally. I’m suggesting moderation only because

I think such posts make
CSGNet an inhospitable place for people with a

serious interest in (and
a background that allows them to understand) PCT

science and also because
I think this persistent vituperation (even if it is

ignored) chills the flow
of conversation on CSGNet.

I have had to
protect myself by cutting off posts from specific

individuals. But
that isn’t how I want things to continue. I want to be

able to read
anything from anyone, whether in good taste or bad, whether

friendly or hostile,
and not feel called upon to imitate what I don’t like.

I think that’s admirable.
But I think one result has been to cut off your

posting as well as that
of others. Why post even wonderful substantive posts

when the result will be
an inevitable flurry of epithets?

I guess what I’m
saying is that each of us needs to moderate his or her own

traffic

Just as drivers have to
regulate their own driving in traffic. But we still

have police to regulate
the disturbances to safe traffic flow that is

produced by the
occasional violator. Sometimes we ourselves are the

violators but we accept
the regulations for the good of the community. I

think we have some
chronic speeders and red light runners here on CSGNet who

are wrecking things for
the community. I would rather put up with the

possible inconveniences
of a police force (moderator) than deal daily with

the real inconveniences
of trying to get to work on roadways where some

“free spirits”
are running red lights regularly. I think that most everyone

does regulate their
posting quite well. But I also see that there are some

chronic violators on
CSGNet and I think it’s time for Jimmy Stewart/John

Wayne to kick these
Liberty Valences out of town.

We could do worse
than looking to Martin Taylor as a role model here. I

have had
disagreements with him, but he has never lost his cool even when I

did. Quite
remarkable.

Martin is, indeed, a role
model. I have always loved dealing with Martin. He

knows how to have a
knock-down, drag out intellectual argument without

getting resorting to
personal attacks. (Of course, it doesn’t hurt that he’s

brilliant, too). But I
think you and others on the net (Bruce Abbott, also

brilliant, comes to mind)
do a great job of this as well. But I’m not

calling for a moderator
to protect myself from being driven to bad behavior

by the bad actors. I am
suggesting it so that people who come to CSGNet will

find a pleasant learning
community rather than snarling, ignorant anarchy.

All I am saying is give
civilization a chance.

Best

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken

MindReadings.com

Home: 310 474 0313

Cell: 310 729 1400

Rick says,

“All I am saying is give civilization a
chance.”

Is this so that Rick can make more giant leaps in the wrong
direction?

“I would trust
virtually anyone to do this.” That is be the moderator.

"I think almost
anyone could do the moderation, just as almost anyone

can be a
policeman.

I would suppose the
quadraplegetics might have difficulties with being a

police officer, but
obvious difficulties aside, “almost anyone” will do.

Even apparently people
known to be engaging in illegal activities-- if

only on their own time.

"The person
doesn’t have to be what I consider a good person to do

either job. They
just have to be able to distinguish “legal” behavior

(criticisms of ideas)
from “illegal” behavior (personal attacks and ugly

sarcasm). Whether or
not the policeman (moderator) ever indulges in

“illegal”
behavior on their own time is somewhat irrelevant. As long as, in

his job as
policeman, he collars the crooks and lets the law abiding types

alone he’s OK with
me (as policeman or moderator).

Rick explicitly asserts
that whether a policeman (for Rick’s information

woman are now sometimes
selected to be police officers) engages in illegal

behavior is not an
issue. The phrase Rick uses “on their own time” displays

Rick’s being poorly
informed, or “ignorant” to use one of Rick’s words,

concerning police
responsibilities. There is a sense in which once you

take the oath-- then you
are on the job.

No community that I
know of tolerates police officers who engage in

illegal activities in, as
Rick says, there “off time.”

Is Rick displaying a poor
connection to reality or what?

Is Bill Powers displaying
“shocking stupidity” in defending Rick?

Truth is a defense
against a charge of slander. So is an absence

of malice. Your charge
that I was engaging in slander is therefore

defective.

Rick did say, “I
would trust virtually anyone to do this.”

You go on to say,

Rick did not
claim that investment has nothing to do with growth. He simply

did a lagged
correlation study (replicated by others) that showed beyond

doubt

Ah, I will admit to
having encountered the concept of proven “beyond doubt”

a time or two before. I
did not however expect that you would ever resort

to dear old Ludwig’s
favorite argument-- that there are truths the certainty

of which further evidence
and reasoning can not shake.

that changes in
gross investment lag behind changes in growth rate.

Now, you insert
“gross” which changes the assertion. The constant

equivocation certainly
becomes tiresome.

Then you resort to an
unfortunate argument.

Perhaps you’re
unfamiliar with this mathematical technique, which

determines the
correlations between two data sets that are shifted

in time
relative to each other.

Nonsense. And, perhaps
you were born in a barn and fuck pigs. This was

the sort of thing that
hurt Marc Abrams very deeply. This was something

that was a very effective
thing to do to Marc. Marc was extremely

conscious of his lack of
a formal education-- he was also working hard

to repair his lack of
formal training by taking math and chemistry

courses. For me
this sort of comment reminds me of how unprincipled

and vicious you can be.
And, also of how sometimes how shallow is

your understanding of the
methods you sometimes have used with

considerable success
other than in economics. In economics when you

stray from modeling, you
exhibit a lack of transfer of training.

By looking for the
time-shift that gives the maximum correlation, it is

possible to
learn something about causal ordering.

This is nonsense as well.
You should know better, but apparently you

don’t. The data mining
exercises using this technique have been the

source of endless
confusion-- in physics this confusion got sorted

out between Descartes and
Newton. I hope that the confusion will

eventually be sorted out
in economics. I thought we’d thrashed this

out in regard to
psychology. The sequence causation notion has been

extremely troublesome.

In this case
it turned out that gross investment rate showed the

highest correlation
with the growth rate several quarters earlier,

implying that
it is the growth that leads to investment rather than

the other way
around.

You are resorting, again,
to a time sequence notion of causation

here. There are some very
good reasons to abandon the time-sequence

conception of
causation. I thought you were aware of these reasons.

But, apparently not. If
the time-sequence notion was workable then

Descartes’ physics, and
Watson’s psychology ought to be perfectly OK.

This result has been
reported by others, including economists. This

finding
apparently conflicts with what you think the data should show

theoretically.
I look forward to your discussion of this discrepancy.

I have already provided
it. You weren’t paying attention. But, you

don’t have to wait on me.
There is no reason at all to wait. It is

in Bruun’s dissertation.
It is in the argument that leads to the

conclusion presented on
page 87. I’ve told you this stuff for years.

All you do is tell me
that I am incompetent. Recently, however, I

sense that you are
perplexed that the same argument shows up in

Bruun’s dissertation. All
you have to do is start with the notion of

a transaction and work
from there.

Do you recall
just what it was about Rick’s model that I said was a "giant

leap in the
wrong direction"? Are you sure I was talking about some aspect

of his model,
or some other idea?

I like to be sure. Why
don’t you get out what you said? I think everyone

would benefit from a
detailed inspection of what it was about (I am not

going to call it a model)
this effort that had gone so wrong that you were

concerned that if Rick
didn’t understand his mistake he would go on

repeating it.
Since, Rick never apparently understood what the problem

was, I think this would
be a valuable exercise. And, I’ll have to admit

I was never that
interested in precisely what Rick was doing after I

experienced the
presentation at Boston. But, I did like your phrase,

“a giant leap
in the wrong direction.” So, yes by all means explain

what you meant.
BTW, if you don’t like what you say being repeated,

don’t say it.

Was it his entire
model I spoke of, or

just some
particular assumption in it?

As I said, I don’t really
care. There were so many errors in Rick’s

(I am not going to call
it a model) stuff that it was clear to me that

it was time wasted
remembering which error was which. For other

people who find hopeless
causes appealing, a more detailed explication

of precisely where Rick
went wrong, might be welcome. Don’t bother on

my account. Contrary to
Rick, I am not really very interested in Rick.

That catch-phrase
certainly does not

represent my
considered opinion of Rick’s work.

By all means, then,
let’s have your “considered opinion.” The more

detailed the better. But,
I am not really that interested in precisely

where the “giant
leap” originated. As long as I know it had something

to do with Rick, I am
content.

I hope you will do
me the

courtesy of
ceasing to imply that I have made such

a blanket
judgment.

Did I ever say that you
had made a “blanket judgment” upon Rick?

When you said that Rick’s
stuff, (I will insert a qualifier,) in

someways somehow
represents “a giant leap in the wrong direction”

that you were making a
blanket judgment? Does the insertion

“in someways”
make it sufficiently clear that I am not implying that

the “giant leap in
the wrong direction.” statement is not intended

to represent either a
“blanket judgment” or necessarily your final

and carefully
“considered judgment?”

All I have to go by is
what you said. Who knows what you meant. Or,

especially what Rick
meant. But, I thought you made a very through

criticism of Rick’s
effort. If you wish to extend and elaborate

your criticism that is OK
with me. Personally I never thought

it was worth my
time.

I am also concerned
with your reports about my opinions of my father’s

economic
analysis,

Do you meant your
statement that by the time he finished the Leakages

book that he was in a
senile decline in which he couldn’t remember from

one day to the next what
he had written on a previous day? I am in your

debt for telling me this
before I spent time reading his book. Ordinarily

what you report is not
condusive to confidence that the author, espeically

without any formal
training, is going to write a worthwhile tract on

theoretical economics.

and of his own
statements regarding economics. Your

opinions, as
you have told me, are based on a brief meeting with him

Brief? I guess it only
seemed like it went on forever.

reading a few
preliminary papers he wrote – all of this happening about 15

years before
he published his book, which by now is 8 years ago.

Amazing how the years fly
by isn’t it? At this rate, pretty soon nobody around

is ever going to have
heard of this little tempest are they?

And you
also informed me that you have never read what he ended up actually

publishing,

That’s right, and you
know, I don’t seem to have missed anything. At least nobody

I know can tell that I am
missing in a vital bit of essential knowledge.

so I wonder how you
formed your opinions of him and his book.

As you say, the
“brief meeting and preliminary papers” provided more than

enough basis upon which
to form the conclusion that he was hopelessly

confused. ANd, he was so
pleased with his state of confusion, that it seemed

to me that it would have
been cruel to have disturbed his contentment. I was

genuinely under the
mistaken impression that no one took his effort to figure

out economics with any
seriousness. It didn’t occur to me until years later

that anyone actually did
take this stuff seriously.

You are the one who, and
this is a part of the CSGnet record,

said that by the time the
book was published your dad was unable to

remember from day to day
what he had written the previous day. I trusted

your assessment in this
regard. Why would I need to know more about

your dad’s economics-- as
they say-- enough already.

His comment
about extrapolating from a family to the whole population was

made, as I
told you,

I warn you, Rick doesn’t
like liars. All I will say is that this isn’t true.

You never told me this
verbally. Can you show me where you stated this in

writing?

about some
neo-Keynsians, and he had a number of

direct citatations
of exactly who they were and what they said.

What you are saying
directly contradicts what you told me during a telephone

conversation. The
coversation was memorable because it was one of the times

when I refused to work at
furthering the start that your dad thought he had

made. At that point
you said that you would get Rick to do it. To which I

said OK.

You made something
similar to this claim approximately a decade ago.

However, I was at that
point attempting to explain to you, that

Keynes actually did have
a macro analysis. You, based upon your

dad’s authority were not
inclined to accept what I said about Keynes

actually having a macro
analysis. The proof you said was in some

basement somewhere.

He never

said that
Keynes himself supported this view.

Maybe your dad never
actually said this, but you said that he did.

You have not,
apparently, read that old paper about the neo-Keynsians.

What is the point? We are
talking about an old duffer who never got

to the point that he
understood Keynes. Why at this point in my

life is there any point
in my bothering with this stuff? What is it

really worth? I’ll tell
you what. Convince professor Bruun that there

is something to this
stuff, and maybe I’ll take it a bit more seriously.

Right now, from where I
stand, what you’ve got is an interesting

bit of family history–
and that is absolutely all that it is.

I’ll try to put my
hands on it. He deleted all reference to this

subject from the
book, feeling that it was a digression.

This really isn’t worth
pursuing.

As to my own
opinion of my father’s economic analysis (he objected strongly

to calling it
a “theory”), my review is mixed.

This is like saying that
the holes in the boat aren’t too big. The question is

too big for what?
And, “mixed” is a nice way of describing you dad’s stuff.

I don’t think he ended
up

with a very
convincing model (he wouldn’t have called it that), and his

recommendations for what to do about the problems he saw were not what
I

would
recommend.

Me either.

He made several
interesting factual observations based on

the
statistical record, which deserve a serious look and at least a

competent
rebuttal if they are misleading.

He does not deserve
dismissal

It isn’t a question of
whether or not he “deserves dismissal.” Rather it

is a matter of does he
merit any consideration at all? And, why should your

dad’s efforts take-up my
time? Why should his efforts take-up anyone’s

time for that
matter? What does your dad’s economics have to do with PCT
?

He certainly did think it
had anything to do with PCT. As I understand it

he said sovery
plainly.

As far as I can tell the
only reason you dad’s economics is an issue on a

forum otherwise devoted
to control theory applications to human problems

is that he was your
dad. As far as I am concerned that isn’t a good reason.

an amateur and
a nut, especially since he spent at least as much time on

studying
economics as you did in in getting your degree, if not

considerably
more.

Time doesn’t count for
anything one way or the other. What counts is

the question of
comprehension. And, your dad approached economics from a

standpoint that
apparently none of it made sense-- to him.

You may value your
own opinions more than his,

Let’s ask ourselves a
question. Who values your dad’s work?

As far as I can tell no
one except for you and Rick have a

vital interest in it.
And, neither you nor Rick know enough

economics to make a
competent comparison between your dad’s

work and what is
otherwise available. Because, neither of

you knows nearly enough
about the varieties of economic

thought to make such an
assessment. All this thing about

your dad’s economics
amounts to is a narcistic self-delusion.

Oh, and I forgot Rick–
so it is “a follie a deux.”

but that is hardly a
rebuttal or a refutation.

To deserve a
“rebuttal” or “refutation” work must first pass
the

“why bother”
test. As best I can tell you dad’s work hasn’t be

all that
successful. It was clear that even the guy who reviewed

it wasn’t sufficiently
interested in it to have actually read it.

Well, unless you can find
someone else to impose this stuff

on, it mine is the only
informed judgment you are going to get.

Why don’t you give it
your best shot and see what professor

Bruun has to say?
What do you think? Is she going to find your

dad’s economics worth her
time?

but that is hardly a
rebuttal or a refutation.

On the contrary. There
dis-interest is an extremely effective

“rebuttal”
and/or “refutation.” The silence is absolutely

unanswerable. What’s
there to say? And, that is the point.

Nor, is the opinion of a
son, engaged in a ghost dance combat

with his departed dad,
necessarily a dependable source of

information. You
have mixed family politics into economics

and the result is
unfortunate.

It would be much
easier to figure out what your real objections

to various ideas are
if you would simply state them,

Bill, it would also be
“much easier” if you weren’t caught

up in paranoid delusions
so that you are searching for the

“real” reasons.

You remind me of a guy, I
encountered who was determined to beat

me up to find out why I
didn’t like him. I’ve been tellling it

to you straight-- the
inside poop on economics. But, you want

the “real
stuff.” Your statement that I sometime ago
described

in terms of crack pot and
crankishness – the one about Keynes

having written the
chapter on User cost so that businessmen

could have a bigger
depreciation write-off is characteristic

of how a paranoid
mind-set creates difficulties. It is obivous

to anyone who knows
anything at all about Keynes as a historical

figure, that your
suspicions have nothing to do with Keynes,

and everything to do with
you.

perhaps explaining
any alternatives you find preferable.

I have in the past done
so. Your reaction has been to

characterize me as an
“incompetent.” I’ve been so extremely

succesful in avoiding
providing “explainations” because I

have tricked you into
talking all the time. Thus, I escape

with my secrets intact.

When you let your
personal antipathies show, everything you

say is weakened,
because it can be written off as

based on
nothing more substantial than subjective bias,

It is a bit strange when
you, representing a trinity of you,

your dad, and Rick, a
follie of three, or I guess there is

a sister as well? charge
me with subjective bias-- when I

point out elementary
principles in contemporary economic

theory. These principles
aren’t merely my subjective

opinions. These
principles aren’t a matter of "personal

antipathies" or
“subjective bias.” Go ahead, try and set

professor Bruun straight
and see what happens. I really

enjoyed your complaint
that you were finding ,

“credentialized
experts in economics being difficult.”

I had the post up on the
wall here for a while. It encouraged

the grad students to
adopt the proper attitude-- being

difficult that is.

Yours is a novel
argument-- you are the one that is writing

a whole profession
off. And, I am the one guilty of

subjective bias.

which has no
standing in this kind of discussion.

I beg your pardon. Who
the fuck are you to determine what has

standing in this
discussion as long as I am a part of it. Try

and come to grips with
the idea that in a discussion there are

two sides. I will
determine for myself, what it is that I

consider to have as you
say “standing.”

Also, when you
offer blatant misrepresentations of what others

have said, this
greatly lowers your credibility

“Greatly lowers my
creditability,” my ass. Just because you say that

I am engaging in
“blatantly misrepresenting” doesn’t make it so.

Check what Rick
wrote.

“I would trust
virtually anyone to do this.”

Compare you dad’s claims
when you fill in the hole during which

the depression and WWII
took place.

as one who
supposedly can read the literature of a science

More than you claim to be
able to do. You really don’t understand

Bruun’s dissertation.
And, you know it.

and interpret it in
a rational way. Whatever image of yourself as

an economist you
wish to project, this sort of thing does not work

in your favor.

I will be the judge of
this. And, so will be the people I work

with. Actually, as a
results of the struggle with you and Rick

have been greatly
worthwhile.

Contrary to what you
say,

" this sort of thing
does not work in your favor.

it actually has worked
very much in my favor.

It exposes modes of
reasoning that would lead to distrust of what

you say about any
subject at all – including economics.

Again. I will be the
judge of this. There is also a wider audience.

And, this wider audience
has been coming to a very different

opinion than the one you
express above.

Unfortunately, as the
various discussion of economics on the CSGnet

indicate, it would be of
enormous help if people would first learn

enough economics to be
able to carry on a coherent discussion.

When definitions are in
process of constant shifting the conclusions

reached can be expected
to incoherent.

…

I would guess that
this is not the outcome you would want.

And, this is not the
“outcome,” as you call it, to which this

discussion is
progressing.

I think you may
misunderstand the context in which this discussion

is being carried on.
Well, of course, you misunderstand it. The

angle from which your
dad, and you in tern have approached the

problems of economics has
been one which is so dysfunctional that

it has prevented you from
recognizing that there is a large body

of work with which you
both would have found valuable, if

only the subject had not
been approached from paranoid stance

that no one else in human
experience had been able to make any

sense at all of the
economic process. You, your dad, and Rick

all to various extents,
not that the range of variation makes

any significant
difference, have slammed the door to understanding

on yourselves. Paranoia
tends, among other things, to do this.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 14 March 2004 1:50 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.14.1141 MST)]

Bill Williams 13 March 2004 8:00 AM CST --

Bill, I just knew that I would regret my attempt to reply to your scurrilous >post to Rick.

You seem conflicted. If you genuinely knew that you would "regret" attempting to reply to my post to Rick, then why didn't you just stay out of the way?

You are a hopeless case,

I wasn't aware that you have a clinical certificate, or took "cases." Actually, I think we might get along much better, if you would try thinking of me as a person rather than a "case." But, then you seem to like these melodramas.

and this time I am making the break permanent.

Until you are bored. Boredom can overcome nearly anything.

Humilation is temorary, boredome is forever, at least it seem like it.

No possible fruits of collaboration with you could compensate for your limitless >egotism, hostility, and sophistry.

You know, I remember Mother telling me as I was leaving for a race, "Don't try and win by too much." But, you know, I'm never sure how much is going to be enough.

And, as I told you, you really don't need to pick fights me.

You are simply too unpleasant to associate with.

Ever since Bruce Nevin taught me how to watch for equvocation in the oppoosing argument, I seem to be unbeatable.

That's the trick, watch for the equivocation.

Bill Williiams

[Michelle_Ivers]

[From Michelle Ivers (2004.04.15.0920 EST)]

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.14.1141 MST)]

Bill Williams 13 March 2004 8:00 AM CST –

Bill, I just knew that I would regret my attempt to reply to your scurrilous post to Rick. >You are a hopeless case, and this time I am making the break permanent. No possible fruits >of collaboration with you could compensate for your limitless egotism, hostility, and >sophistry. You are simply too unpleasant to associate with.

Bill P.

Would that be like when you told me to write something ‘interesting’ if I wanted your attention.

How is it that you are entitled to your own opinions and yet seemingly, others are not?

Michelle

···

[Bill_Powers]

Would that be like when you told me
to write something ‘interesting’ if I wanted your attention.
[From Bill Powers (2004.04.15.0749 MST)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.04.15.0920 EST)

···

–

How is it that you are entitled to your own
opinions and yet seemingly, others are not?

I’m sorry I said that to you; I was angry and replied too quickly. I was
tired of the long argument between you and Rick, which it seemed to me
was just pettiness on both sides; two dogs unwilling to let go of the
bone. And your remarks about being a downtrodden female were pure
self-pity as far as I could see, I don’t care whether you spell your name
Michelle or Michael. It’s what you say that matters.

Opinions about subjects having to do with modeling, economics, PCT, or
any other topic of intellectual interest are welcome to me. Even friendly
interchanges on no topic of importance are pleasant. What has been going
on with Bill Williams is not only unpleasant for me, but contributes
nothing to anything of interest or importance (on any side of the
interchanges). Garbage begets garbage. Picking on Rick for his flaws is
simply mean and petty. If the criticism is correct, then it’s like
kicking a cripple’s legs out from under him. If it’s incorrect, it’s just
nastiness and sadism for the enjoyment of it, or an attempt to puff
oneself up by demeaning someone else.

There are many things I could have said to Williams along the same lines
as what he has said to and about Rick and me. But in my concept of social
life, such things are out of bounds; you don’t mock a person for defects
he can’t help having, and of course you don’t mock the person for defects
he doesn’t have, either. So tit-for-tat retaliation is out, for me. That
leaves me with no way of countering the attacks, and I can only retire
from the field and stop trying to deal with them. As soon as I start
trying to defend myself I can feel myself adopting the very tactics that
I detest, and that’s the main reason I don’t want to go on with it. I
lose my self-respect. Apparently Bill Williams doesn’t have any to lose,
so he sees nothing wrong with his approach.

Anyway, enough of that, and more than enough. I hope you do have things
to say about subjects that interest you. We’re all adults here with equal
rights and equal responsibilities. Or at least that’s what I hope we are
trying to be.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 15 March 2004 2:00 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.15.0749 MST)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.04.15.0920 EST) – says,

Would that be like when you told me to write something ‘interesting’

if I wanted your attention.

How is it that you are entitled to your own opinions and yet

seemingly, others are not?

To which Bill Powers says to excuse his bad behavior,

I’m sorry I said that to you; I was angry and replied too quickly.

I was tired of the long argument between you and Rick,

So, what. Does this gives Bill Powers the right to disrupt Michelle’s

demonstration that Rick is almost totally clueless?

Michelle was conducting a test. Rick is always arguing that he is

a PCT expert. Michelle was going to find out if Rick was able to

perceive that he was being “controlled.” What she was going to

get Rick to do next, well maybe best not get into that.

Now Bill Powers says that,

it seemed to me was just pettiness on both sides;

I don’t think that this is what Bill Powers truly thought about

what was going on. It certainly appeared to me that Bill Powers

understood that Rick was in over his head. So, he broke up the test.

Bill Powers says that he perceived the situation in terms of

two dogs unwilling to let go of the bone.

I doubt that this is why Bill Powers exposed the trap that Michelle

was leading Rick into. Rick is a high maintaince type guy. It

really wasn’t a situation in which "two dogs were unwilling to let

go of a bone." Rick didn’t have much of a grip on anything, that

was pretty obvious. And, from the roadside, it was clear to me that

Michelle was going to run Rick into a real deep hole. So, Bill

Powers exposed it to avoid some high maintaince sessions putting

Rick back on the road.

Bill Powers go on to say,

And your remarks about being a downtrodden female were pure

self-pity as far as I could see,

This indicates some severe limits in Bill Powers’ comprehension

about Michelle. " Self-Pity." I don’t hardly think so. Now,

I wouldn’t necessarily want to question Michelle’s candor, but

it looked like it might be bait to me.

I don’t care whether you spell your name Michelle or Michael.

And, I guess that it has never occurred to Bill Powers that half

of the human race, more than half actually, never posts to CSGnet.

I wonder why that is? Do you suppose that it is because people

like poor gentle Rick is likely to refer to them as "ignorant

sluts." Would anyone mind _if were to say that I think that

Bill Powers has shit for brains when it comes to reasoning about

ethical issues?

It’s what you say that matters.

Actually, it isn’t “what you say that matters.” it is who you agree

with that matter. If you go back through the CSGnet archive it is

possible to see that one year it is the PCT line that if you do

like what pops up on the CSGnet well-- go away. Or, short of that

hit the delete button. ( See Rick to Kenny ) Then when Rick is

taking a beating-- mostly self inflicted when attempting to counter

control me, the PCT line switches. Suddenly, civilization it-self

is at stake, if measures aren’t taken to protect Rick from what

Rick might do to Rick if Rick’s self-concept isn’t protected from

the effect of what Bill Willilams might say about Rick.

I would recommend to Michelle that she try saying “Great post Bill.”

This is a phrase that Rick has used to great effect for years.

Somehow though I don’t think that if Michelle were to say this, not

that I am anticipating that she would, but if she were it probably

wouldn’t sound or have the same effect it does when Rick says it.

Bill Powers goes on to say that,

Opinions about subjects having to do with modeling, economics, PCT,

or any other topic of intellectual interest are welcome to me.

But, not probably not including an opinion that, TCP was a crank.

All opinions? how about that little pesky question of the

[savings = investment] identity p. 87. in Bruun’s dissertation?

I’ve been waiting for months it seems to have a discussion, actually

another discussion about this. Why don’t we involve professor Bruun?

What has been going on with Bill Williams is not only unpleasant

for me,

If you are a sore loser, losing can be a real bitch. But, this is a

wound that is self-inflicted. You are doing it to yourself. How can

I tapping away on a keyboard make life miserable for you? Tell me that.

Bill goes on to say that since he is losing, the score isn’t of any

importance. I have seen Bill do this lots of times before.

but contributes nothing to anything of interest or importance

(on any side of the interchanges).

What Bill is saying is don’t pay any attention when I lose control of

myself and begin saying stuff that is really silly. Like his threat

to bite me. Now, this, contrary to Bill I found interesting, weird

but interesting. I understand that when people got in fights in the

18th and 19th century they would sometimes bite off each others

earlobes and noses. But, as a social custom, I have never heard

of this in the 20th century. Family tradition maybe?

The assertion that,

but contributes nothing to anything of interest or importance

(on any side of the interchanges).

Bill Powers’ judgment based on how he sees the exchanges and how

he wishes other would perceive the exchanges.

I can understand why Bill Powers might find the exchanges “unpleasant.”

Bill Powers is caught up in this approach to issues in which he has

great difficulty seeing that there can be any merit to something that

he didn’t think up.

And, Bill has even greater difficulty in tolerating a situation in

which the ideas weren’t ones that he thought up, but much worse they

are ideas that he doesn’t understand. Look back in the archive a bit.

Bill explicitly says that he doesn’t understand Bruun’s dissertation.

(Portions of it anyway-- big portions.)

Thus Bill Powers has been unable to cope gracefully with economics.

And, I get a real laugh of his characterization of Ph.D. economists

as “credentialized experts who are difficult to deal with.” One thing

that maybe distinctive about economist is that after they have been

around a bit most of them have been involved in bitter disputes about

lots of money. And, once you have been through one or two such

disputes you become better at finding weak spots in arguments.

Keynes looks to Bill Powers like some evil servant of a corporate

power elite. Why? One part of it has to do with Bill Powers not having

been able to understand Keynes. And, therefore Keynes is a nasty

son-of-a-bitch. Has to be. It is obvious-- at least to Bill Powers.

Part of this argument has to do with Bill Powers being back to his

old ploy of charging that I have nothing to contribute, which is

obviously not true. Remember Rick hates being lied to.

Whether Bill Powers can put-up with my being Bill Williams, is a

quite different issue than whether I have anything at all to

contribute.

Garbage begets garbage.

Is Bill Powers ripping off Gertrude STein?

Or did Stein say, A Rose is a Rose.

What is Bill Powers talking about? And, who is Bill Powers to be

talking about garbage? There is a cycle involved here in which

Bill Powers says stuff-- like he is going to bite me. Then he

realizes that this not only is loathsome, but it makes him look

silly. So, he realizes that he has made and mistake, and he

blames what he said on me. But, he has a really short memory and

poor self control. So, he repeats this shit. Over and Over and

over.

Then he goes back to wet-nursing poor Rick.

Picking on Rick for his flaws is simply mean and petty.

But, Bill Powers probably doesn’t understand how much fun it can be.

Rick can be such an amazing, and amusing larger version of a wind-up

toy. And, actually when Rich finally goes in the ditch, and he has

kept on doing this, for years and years, again and again, we are

going to be laughing so hard it isn’t going to hurt much. We’ve

seen it all before seemingly thousands of times. Rick always climbs

out. This last time it took him nearly a week-- which wasn’t nearly

long enough. Not the way I perceive things.

Bill Powers goes on to say,

If the criticism is correct,

But, it is really just a matter of perceptions. What does “correct”

have to do with it? And, who determines if it is correct? Surely

not you. Oh, no, no way it is going to be you that makes such a

determination.

then it’s like kicking a cripple’s legs out from under him.

No, it is not all the same. It is really lots better than that!!!

Rick goes through those, you remember them, the “giant leaps?”

And they are great fun to watch. Sometimes there is a brick wall

in the way. But, just like the wind-up toys, Rick doesn’t seem

to be watching where he is going.

But, usually it is Rick who in effect loose all connection with

reality and in an effort to counter control generates these

gratuitous howlers-- like the pedophile policemen. But, Rick

always comes back for more-- at least so far. Some of us have

had the fond hope that we could find a really deep ditch that

Rick wouldn’t want to climb out of. Michelle had a brilliant

plan-- it frightened even me. This wasn’t going to be just a

ditch, it was a god dam mineshaft. Bill Powers has no

appreciation for great art, it was going to be, at least it was

intended to be, the end of an era. Rick wasn’t going to come

back from this “giant leap.” On, well.

If it’s incorrect,

Bill this isn’t rocket science. “If it is incorrect.” Give us a

break

If it’s incorrect, it’s just nastiness and sadism

Well, maybe so. Maybe Rick can’t take a joke. Maybe he could go

away. Maybe he could hit the delete button. Maybe he could suck

the muzzle.

it’s just nastiness and sadism

But, that doesn’t mean that it is a lot of fun. And, it is an

engagement that takes place between, as they say, consenting

adults. That is at least until Bill Powers steps in and spoils

the fun.

Maybe Bill Powers does recognize that, a part of really is a lot

of fun when he comments on its being just

for the enjoyment of it,

What Bill Powers fails to realize is that if a sociopath, scratch

that, I will take the time required to say this in PCT correct

lingo-- a person with systems level social constructs, does things

like recommend that pedophiles will make good police officers, then

there isn’t anything at all wrong with having a good laugh about it.

Bill talks about people who

attempt[s] to puff oneself up by demeaning someone else.

What comes to mind for me are statements like the one that

Rick made when he called Micelle an “ignorant slut.”

But, back to poor ole Rick for a bit.

I would maintain that Rick has a choice. For one thing, as he

has told other people, he could just “go away.” Another thing

he could do, well maybe not, … I was thinking that he could

choose to learn from his mistakes. But, that may not be

possible-- for Rick. And, like Rick told Kenny, Rick could

just hit the delete key. If it is good enough for Kenny, why

isn’t it good enough for Rick? Or, for that matter for you?

Bill Powers goes on to say,

There are many things I could have said to Williams

If that is, and this is a big if you had thought of them in

time.

It is easy to say after time has run out to say what a great

game you could have played. But, the score card is added up

the basis of how you played the game while the game was

going on, not on the basis of how great an idea you got later.

There are many things I could have said to Williams

Last time you really got rolling the results were laughable.

Even Snips got a big grin out of it. Sturgeon is doing nicely

in recovery. We expect him to come back to work any day now.

along the same lines as what he has said to and about Rick and me.

Yeah, right! After the play is over, it is possible to think of

brilliant stuff one might have said. Bill is just making excuses

for his really lame attempts to talk trash.

But, talking trash isn’t the only side of playing the dozens.

Having a good attitude is also important-- and Bill Powers has

problems with his attitude. He could really use an attitude

adjustment. And, there is evidence that he is in a process of

attitude adjustment, but it sure is taking a while.

In the meantime he does erratic stuff-- like threatening to

bite me.

The only effect that threatening to bite people is going to

have is waste their time. There isn’t much that is useful that

you can do while you are laughing. But, laughing is so useful

all by itself that maybe it isn’t such a waste of time after

all.

Bill goes on to say that his is a civilized heritage

But in my concept of social life, such things are out of bounds;

But, biting people isn’t apparently one of those things that

is "out of bounds.

And, where does losing come into Bill Powers’ concept of

“social life?” He really ought to give serious reflection

to this question.

On, and On, Bill Powers says,

you don’t mock a person for defects he can’t help having,

In case Bill Powers hadn’t noticed, Bill Williams is capable

of deciding for him self what and who he will laugh at.

I will repeat myself, who the fuck is Bill Powers to tell me

I can’t laugh at Rick, or at Bill Powers, or anyone else that

I choose to for that matter.

Besides, are you saying that Rick’s difficulties are congenital?

Some of us have suspected this. Is it true?

and of course you don’t mock the person for defects he doesn’t have,

And, I guess we can’t fuck anymore pigs. What are we going to do for fun?

So tit-for-tat retaliation is out, for me.

Aside that is from the nice bit about “Garbage begets Garbage” ???

Bill seems to be getting more confused.

So tit-for-tat retaliation is out, for me.

Well, then how about, hitting back first then?

So tit-for-tat retaliation is out, for me.

But, you see this discussion is intended to convince people that

Powers is the innocent victim of an attack. But, there are no grownups

around to spoil the fun. Unlike Rick, Bill Powers doesn’t have anyone

to protect him by telling him that he is being baited, and that he

should watch out!

Still he seems to expect that there is someone who is going to take

pity on and protect him. And, he says,

That leaves me with no way of countering the attacks,

Except that is by calling people “garbage.” But, this is rather lame.

and I can only retire from the field and stop trying to deal with them.

Why don’t you take Rick with you when you go. It would save us the trouble

of running him off.

As soon as I start trying to defend myself I can feel myself

adopting the very tactics that I detest,

I find this really strange. Bill Powers starts off by accusing me and

the entire economics profession of dishonesty. And, then he wonders,

“Why is this shit suddenly flying in my face?” The problem with being

a paranoid is that you can do stuff that people really don’t like–

such as call them dishonest, and garbage, and people without any concept

of self worth… etc etc,

And, then they stomp your ass.

And, then because as a paranoid you have so little awareness of the fact

of the existence of wills other than your own, that you can wonder, why

is this all happening? And, unfortunately you are too crazy to figure

out why all this shit is flying about seeming for no reason at all.

Suddenly you find your self, at least in terms of a paranoid perception

as being under attack. Why, well there is obviously no reasons at all.

Bill Powers goes on to say, that

and that’s the main reason I don’t want to go on with it.

I think the main reason Bill Powers doesn’t want to go on with it is that

he is getting the shit kicked out of him. This is always a good “main reason.”

and that’s the main reason I don’t want to go on with it.

If Bill Powers really doesn’t want to go on with it, he shouldn’t

be making remarks about “Garbage begetting Garbage.”

But there is more, Bill Powers says,

I lose my self-respect.

Bill Powers has some really deep unresolved conflicts. He is doing

stuff he says he doesn’t want to do.

But, he goes on to say,

Apparently Bill Williams doesn’t have any to lose,

Here is another example of how Powers seems conflicted. One post

he is complaining about by limitless egotism, then in the next

post he is complaining about my “lack of self-respect.” Actually

I think I have a rather robust self-concept that includes a

reflective sort of self-respect that actively seeks candid

inter-personal criticism, and a capacity to learn as well.

In these dominance contests taking place on the CSGnet I think

that I have demonstrated a capacity to defend that self-concept,

and also a perceptiveness that has allowed me to prevail over

Rick and Bill. I have done so, primarily by luring them into as

even they say, doing stuff that is silly. Like Rick’s arguing

that Pedophiles would make good police officers. And, Bill

Powers’ threatening to bite me. Now Snips has a bite, Bill Powers

I don’t worry about. And, as result their exposing their ineptness

in public, as they report it, they are suffering. But, I am in

contrast not experiencing pain as a result of what they have to

say.

It would appear to me that I am controlling more successfully

than they are. If because of things I have said, they have

in their own eyes said things that damaged their self-respect

then, what does that say? It seems to me that this indicates

that they are approaching the fights they pick, in an inadequate

way.

So, they pick fights, then they complain that mysteriously that

they have a bloody nose. Where is the mystery?

Now, Bill Powers goes on to say that because, Williams has been

fucking pigs and in addition has no self-respect, that Williams

"… sees nothing wrong with his approach.

But, of course not. It is all a test. A test of who understands

control theory. Bill Powers is claiming that I can make him do

things. And, that when I make him do things that he feels bad.

So, by tapping away on a computer in Kansas City I can

make you feel bad, and that in turn causes you to do things

that make Bill Powers lose his self-respect, and feel even worse.

All because I am tapping away on a keyboard in Kansas City.

Control Theory is wonderful.

Bill Williams

···

[Michelle_Ivers]

[From Michelle Ivers (2004.04.16.0900EST)]

From Bill Powers (2004.04.15.0749 MST)

I’m sorry I said that to you; I was angry and replied too quickly. I was tired of the long argument between you and Rick, which it seemed to me was just pettiness on both sides; two dogs unwilling to let go of the bone. And your remarks about being a downtrodden female were pure self-pity as far as I could see, I don’t care whether you spell your name Michelle or Michael. It’s what you say that matters.

Thank you Bill. I appreciate the apology but it wasn’t a necessity for me to continue posting here. The remark about feminism was just testing out some controlled variables.

Opinions about subjects having to do with modeling, economics, PCT, or any other topic of intellectual interest are welcome to me. Even friendly interchanges on no topic of importance are pleasant. What has been going on with Bill Williams is not only unpleasant for me, but contributes nothing to anything of interest or importance (on any side of the interchanges). Garbage begets garbage. Picking on Rick for his flaws is simply mean and petty. If the criticism is correct, then it’s like kicking a cripple’s legs out from under him. If it’s incorrect, it’s just nastiness and sadism for the enjoyment of it, or an attempt to puff oneself up by demeaning someone else.

I have a couple of questions I’d like to ask and guage some opinions about. I’ll get to those in a minute. Something that occurred to me is “how come you are so disturbed by people saying something about Rick”? (I don’t want an answer here, it was just something I’ve been wondering about)

If a child had the wrong idea that 2 + 2 = 5, wouldn’t you try to change his ideas to 2 + 2 = 4. ?? I would say that we can hypothesize for as long as we like about what people are attempting to do, however it remains that written communication such as an email discussion forum is difficult at the best of times. Bill Williams may have been, in his own way, trying to teach Rick something about Economics. Enough said.

I’d be interested in hearing your views on current research that indicates that behaviour is affected by chemical releases in the brain. How would these fit into a PCT loop? I have a quote here that is part of an article I’ve been instructed to read (that’s a different story).

"Human behaviour is complex and the subject of hotly contested oppositional views. We

take the view that all behaviour is learnt, and through consistent use, eventually committed

to long-term memory to be drawn on in times of crisis. Behaviour is purposeful. It is

employed to respond to current scenarios. What may appear as a poor choice to one person

may also appear as the only solution to another. Another major factor emerges when

considering behaviour - that of the current chemical mix in the brain. Behaviour may move

rapidly from logically sequenced steps to irrational, impulsive actions. When the human

brain needs to react emotionally to a crisis situation it finds it difficult to engage the rational

mind at the same moment. Hence behaviour has a duality:

Past experience in solving a particular problem

The current mix of chemicals in the brain

···

---

Students may be unwilling to change patterns of behaviour simply because it does not fit

with a teacher’s view of appropriateness. Further, those who develop patterns of disruptive

behaviour may

want to change their response but be trapped in negative chemical mixes that
only allow them access to past experience when facing new crisis. This helps us to explain

why some people are able to clearly articulate better responses when they are being

counselled, but move back into old patterns when the real crisis emerges again."

This article is an excerpt from the book

Starting Out, The Beginning Teacher’s Companion

© Focus Education, 2001.

This is from a guy called John Joseph, who calls himself the ‘brain man’.

He also goes on to discuss ‘emotional rooms’ but I’d like to get into that one later on. I’d like to know your views on the part about students being trapped in negative chemical mixes.

There are many things I could have said to Williams along the same lines as what he has said to and about Rick and me. But in my concept of social life, such things are out of bounds; you don’t mock a person for defects he can’t help having, and of course you don’t mock the person for defects he doesn’t have, either. So tit-for-tat retaliation is out, for me. That leaves me with no way of countering the attacks, and I can only retire from the field and stop trying to deal with them. As soon as I start trying to defend myself I can feel myself adopting the very tactics that I detest, and that’s the main reason I don’t want to go on with it. I lose my self-respect. Apparently Bill Williams doesn’t have any to lose, so he sees nothing wrong with his approach.

Bill you did a great job of countering me when I suggested that CSG is an old boys club and that PCT is going to die with you all - I believe you ignored me.

Anyway, enough of that, and more than enough. I hope you do have things to say about subjects that interest you. We’re all adults here with equal rights and equal responsibilities. Or at least that’s what I hope we are trying to be.

I’d like to hear your views on chemical mixes in the brain.

Cheers

Michelle

[Martin_Taylor2]

Re: On slamming doors
[Martin Taylor 20040415.2250]

[From Michelle Ivers
(2004.04.16.0900EST)]

I’d like to hear your
views on chemical mixes in the brain.

I know you are asking Bill P., but I hope you
don’t mind a (possibly) different opinion. I’m leaving for a
week almost immediately, so I don’t have time to wait to see what Bill
has to say.

My take on it is that a lot of what the different brain chemicals
do is to modulate the behaviour of the control systems. They may alter
system gain, for example. They could, by changing the responsiveness
of cross-coupled systems, completely change their dynamics–forcing
choice rather than continuous control, for another example. Changing
thresholds is another possibility – in other words, altering when a
particular level of error is worth doing something about (I’ve been
modelling tracking behaviour with a threshold on the error, and I
think the fits are better than without a threshold).

In the absence of any experimental evidence, my guess is that the
biochemical mix acts to modulate and to change the dynamics of the
control systems–and that may have something to do with
reorganization, too. It almost certainly has to do with emotion.

No time for more, even if I could say anything more coherent.
When I get back, I’ll be interested to know what Bill P had to
say.

Martin