[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1100 MDT)]
I’m getting ready to put a PCT 101 paper up on my web
site and would like anyone who is interested to read and comment first. I’m
particularly interested in comments related to whether or not I’ve got it
(PCT) right and additions to the suggested reading list at the end of the
paper.
Thanks in advance to any who take the time and trouble to
read and comment.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
PCT101 Rev 2.doc (242 KB)
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1256 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1100 MDT) --
Not a single complaint, Fred, except that there's no Black Dot in fig. 1. The text says there is one.
Minor point. In your initial description, can you get across the idea that the opposing action keeps the disturbance from having more than a small and temporary effect? The reaction starts before the gust of wind is half-finished, and the car doesn't drift more than a small fraction of the amount that would have happened if the reaction hadn't started immediately. You don't want newcomers to think right away that there's a sequence of actions one after the other, each one waiting until the previous one is finished.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1430 MDT)]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1256 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1100 MDT) --
Not a single complaint, Fred, except that there's no Black Dot in
fig. 1. The text says there is one.Minor point. In your initial description, can you get across the idea
that the opposing action keeps the disturbance from having more than
a small and temporary effect? The reaction starts before the gust of
wind is half-finished, and the car doesn't drift more than a small
fraction of the amount that would have happened if the reaction
hadn't started immediately. You don't want newcomers to think right
away that there's a sequence of actions one after the other, each one
waiting until the previous one is finished.
Thanks, Bill. I used to show Behavior (B) and Disturbances (D) coming together at a black dot and then another arrow going to the controlled variable (V). Hence the statement in the text. I took out the black dot because I think it was Rick Marken who pointed out to me that B and D affect V independently; and, so, although the state of V is the sum of B and D, they don't actually merge. But, as you noticed, I forgot to take out the text. It's been fixed.
I've also modified the text to emphasize the immediacy of the reaction to drift. When I round out the recommended readings list I'll send along a revised version.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1430 MDT)]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1256 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2008.09.07…1100 MDT) –
Fred
I liked your article, but to me reading this takes me back to my first readings on PCT I just didn’t realise that there was a whole hierarchy of Control Systems.
This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control of perception) doesn’t make this clear. As I have spent some time on cybernetic models (Beer’s VSM) I inititially saw PCT as only the inside explanation of the black box concept, Ie a singular feedback system.This image does not make the actual “power” (that’s for me) of PCT clear. In fact I didn’t realise this until I watched Ted Cloak’s Power Point Presentation. I think the power of PCT lies in the hierarchy because once I realised this the complexity of the human behavioural problem becomes very clear.
Regards
Gavin
Not a single complaint, Fred, except that there’s no Black Dot in
fig. 1. The text says there is one.Minor point. In your initial description, can you get across the idea
that the opposing action keeps the disturbance from having more than
a small and temporary effect? The reaction starts before the gust of
wind is half-finished, and the car doesn’t drift more than a small
fraction of the amount that would have happened if the reaction
hadn’t started immediately. You don’t want newcomers to think right
away that there’s a sequence of actions one after the other, each one
waiting until the previous one is finished.
Thanks, Bill. I used to show Behavior (B) and Disturbances (D) coming together at a black dot and then another arrow going to the controlled variable
(V). Hence the statement in the text. I took out the black dot because I think it was Rick Marken who pointed out to me that B and D affect V independently; and, so, although the state of V is the sum of B and D, they don’t actually merge. But, as you noticed, I forgot to take out the text. It’s been fixed.
I’ve also modified the text to emphasize the immediacy of the reaction to drift. When I round out the recommended readings list I’ll send along a revised version.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
–
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
“Assistance at A Distance”
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1730 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
Fred
I liked your article, but to me reading this takes me back to my first readings
on PCT I just didn't realise that there was a whole hierarchy of Control
Systems.
This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control of
perception) doesn't make this clear. As I have spent some time on cybernetic
models (Beer's VSM) I inititially saw PCT as only the inside explanation of the
black box concept, Ie a singular feedback system.This image does not make the
actual "power" (that's for me) of PCT clear. In fact I didn't realise this
until I watched Ted Cloak's Power Point Presentation. I think the power of PCT
lies in the hierarchy because once I realised this the complexity of the human
behavioural problem becomes very clear.
Thanks for the comments, Gavin. I think they're well-taken. As a result, I've modified the closing paragraph to allude to that complexity. The modified paragraph appears immediately below. Let me know what you think. Also, I'm not sure I've got the current hierarchy right in my listing. Please feel free to correct.
**** modified closing paragraph ***
Are there other matters we could discuss? Sure; lots of them. For example, we could delve into the difference between positive and negative feedback, why that difference is important in a control system, and the fact that negative feedback is what makes control work. We could explore a much more complex, hierarchical view of the many levels of control systems that govern human behavior, what is known as “hierarchical PCT or HPCT.�? (Even that seemingly simple, long-ago-mastered driving behavior of ours has many layers of complexity; for example, intensities, sensations, configurations, transitions, sequences, relationships, events, categories, programs, principles and systems concepts.) We could examine and critique competing theories of human behavior and show where, how and why they are dead wrong. We could even dig into why PCT hasn’t yet come to dominate thinking about human behavior and performance. But those are all matters for another time and place. This is a PCT primer, not an exhaustive explication of the theory and all related matters. So, that’s it for now � except for the recommended readings below.
*** end modified closing paragraph ***
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1748 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control of perception) doesn't make this clear.
I recommend looking up Chapter 6, "Hierarchy of Control Systems." Some people, returning to B:CP after a period of some months or years, have asked me when (and how) I managed to add all that new material to the book while it sat on their shelves. We see what we are prepared to recognize.
Best,
Bill P.
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.13.27NZT)
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1748 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control
of perception) doesn’t make this clear.
I recommend looking up Chapter 6, “Hierarchy of Control Systems.”
Some people, returning to B:CP after a period of some months or
years, have asked me when (and how) I managed to add all that new
material to the book while it sat on their shelves.
We see what we are prepared to recognize.
My point exactly.
I think Bill you are part of the problem, people need to be encouraged, helped, persuaded, interested, made curious, excited (attraction strategies) about PCT but none of that is the order with you. Why you don’t use the theory to spread the theory beats me. PCT is a theory of control (is it not?) that fact is not used to spread its message.
Which you seem to miss my point. This has been what I have tried to explain but no one listens and the stock standard answer (from PCTers) is either I don’t understand or I am unable to recognise what’s in front of me. Until PCT is presented in a better form and more encouraging manner most people are just going to be driven away.
Why you use only repulsion strategies (conflict strategies) in your language instead of attraction strategies just beats the hell out of me?
The fact is the whole (PCT structure) has never been made clear, one needs to work top down and bottom up. It seems to me that it is always presented bottom up, why I can’t say. Do I care (not really)?
regards
Gavin
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.14.00NZT)
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.07.1730 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
Fred
This is my opinion only, (for what its worth) there should be another section to your article about the overall structure of HPCT, as the CS control module needs to be put into a perspective of the whole. Include a diagram of the CS hierarchy. Then a person reading this article is made aware of the “part” (CS module) and the “whole” (the entire hierarchy).
I would have a diagram with concentric rings showing the CS modules (how they interconnect) and the hierarchy.
This has never been made patently clear in any writings, that I have.
Regards
Gavin
Fred
I liked your article, but to me reading this takes me back to my first readings
on PCT I just didn’t realise that there was a whole hierarchy of Control
Systems.
This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control of
perception) doesn’t make this clear. As I have spent some time on cybernetic
models (Beer’s VSM) I inititially saw PCT as only the inside explanation of the
black box concept, Ie a singular feedback system.This image does not make the
actual “power” (that’s for me) of PCT clear. In fact I didn’t realise this
until I watched Ted Cloak’s Power Point Presentation. I think the power of PCT
lies in the hierarchy because once I realised this the complexity of the human
behavioural problem becomes very clear.
Thanks for the comments, Gavin. I think
they’re well-taken. As a result, I’ve modified the closing paragraph to allude to that complexity. The modified paragraph appears immediately below. Let me know what you think. Also, I’m not sure I’ve got the current hierarchy right in my listing. Please feel free to correct.
**** modified closing paragraph ***
Are there other matters we could discuss? Sure; lots of them. For example, we could delve into the difference between positive and negative feedback, why that difference is important in a control system, and the fact that negative feedback is what makes control work. We could explore a much more complex, hierarchical view of the many levels of control systems that govern human behavior, what is known as âhierarchical PCT or HPCT.â? (Even that seemingly simple, long-ago-mastered driving behavior of ours has many layers of complexity; for example, intensities, sensations,
configurations, transitions, sequences, relationships, events, categories, programs, principles and systems concepts.) We could examine and critique competing theories of human behavior and show where, how and why they are dead wrong. We could even dig into why PCT hasnât yet come to dominate thinking about human behavior and performance. But those are all matters for another time and place. This is a PCT primer, not an exhaustive explication of the theory and all related matters. So, thatâs it for now except for the recommended readingss below.
*** end modified closing paragraph ***
–
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
“Assistance at A Distance”
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.08.0702 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.14.00NZT)
Fred
This is my opinion only, (for what its worth) there should be another section
to your article about the overall structure of HPCT, as the CS control module
needs to be put into a perspective of the whole. Include a diagram of the CS
hierarchy. Then a person reading this article is made aware of the "part" (CS
module) and the "whole" (the entire hierarchy).
I would have a diagram with concentric rings showing the CS modules (how they
interconnect) and the hierarchy.
This has never been made patently clear in any writings, that I have.
I'll tinker with the diagram to see how it turns out, Gavin, but it will be for PCT 301, not PCT 101. Right now I'm at a disadvantage because my wife and I are on the road in our motor home and I don't have access to my library. I also don't have the latest version of Bill's book yet so I'll wait until I get that before trying to diagram anything.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.08.0712)]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1748 MDT)]
>(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.08.9.11NZT)
>This reading like the state of the art book (Behaviour: The Control
>of perception) doesn't make this clear.I recommend looking up Chapter 6, "Hierarchy of Control Systems."
Some people, returning to B:CP after a period of some months or
years, have asked me when (and how) I managed to add all that new
material to the book while it sat on their shelves. We see what we
are prepared to recognize.
Hmm. I apologize if I'm behind the times but is the new, revised version of B:CP out yet? I went to Amazon and found a paperback edition that appears to be a reprint of the 1973 book, which I have. I don't want to buy what I already have.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.08.0815 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2008.09.08.0712) –
Hmm. I apologize if I’m
behind the times but is the new, revised version of B:CP out yet? I
went to Amazon and found a paperback edition that appears to be a reprint
of the 1973 book, which I have.
That’s it, the only reprint of B:CP there will be. It has a chapter on
emotion that was omitted from the original, and some additional
end-papers, blurbs about the book. Otherwise it’s the same as B:CP
including the figures (though Dag did a nice redrawing of the figure
showing the relationship of reorganization to the hierarchy).
The new new book, Living Control Systems III: The Fact of Control,
is being preprinted for reviewers today. The index will then be done,
last-second corrections and blurbs added, the CD with programs sent for
duplication, and the book will go to the printer.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Chris Cherpas (951027.1626 PT)]
[re: > Bill Powers (951027.0830 MDT) re: >> Chris Cherpas (951026.1026 PT)]
cc:
Thanks for the PCT 101. I just wanted mention something about the
matching law...
bp:
When you try to get more out of a system of equations than there is in
it, you start committing mathematical blunders. Herrnstein's matching
law for two simple ratio schedules saysb1/(b1 + b2) = r1/(r1 + r2)
cc:
Matching is based on interval schedules. With concurrent ratios, you usually
just get exclusive responding on the smaller ratio, which, of course,
still yields the matching law, since it's based on obtained, not
programmed, rates of reinforcement. If b1/r1 is the smaller ratio, you
get: b1/(b1 + 0) = r1/(r1 + 0) ==> 1 = 1. Of course, the matching law
itself doesn't tell you if the exclusive preference would be for the
smaller or the larger ratio!
bp:
This informative-looking expression reduces to
b1/r1 = b2/r2
But b1/r1 is simply m1, the ratio set by the apparatus for schedule 1,
and b2/r2 = m2 for the other schedule. Thus we conclude,m1 = m2.
Therefore Herrnstein's matching law for this case says that the two
ratios are identical.
cc:
Viewed this way, matching is impossible in concurrent ratios unless
the ratios programmed are identical. If one alternative is FR10
(10/1) and the other is FR20 (20/1), can 10/1 = 20/1?
bp:
That is all it means: a tautology. If there is
matching, there is matching, and the matching is strictly of one
schedule to another. The organism's behavior is irrelevant.
cc:
The matching law is a tautology (e.g., see Rachlin, 1971). What
matches is local reinforcement rates (at steady state); matching
theory requires "melioration" theory to explain why you get it. As
for matching, per se, Rachlin (1982) has said:
"...it is only a small step to argue that animals match when
asleep in the chamber, or, for that matter, when dead." (p551)
However, as Rachlin (1973) points out, if the first law of
thermodynamics were found to be violated, one would assume
something wrong with the procedure or measurement, not the
(tautological) law.
By the way, in my post of (951026.1026), I erroneously referenced
Commons, Herrnstein, and Rachlin (1987) when it should have been
(1982).
Regards,
cc