PCT a Consistent Model

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

(Gavin Ritz 2008.01.06.16.50 NZ)

It took me three tries to look at PCT seriously and I think it was because I
erroneously lumped-it in with Stafford Beer's Viable Systems (VSM) model.
Not that VSM is a bad model it's just terrible to apply. Behavior the
Control of Perception sat on my bookshelf for 2 years. (Suffice to say I now
have Making Sense of Behavior which I immediately devoured and bisected)

My internal perception was that it was a typical cybernetic model, so the
very error propagated very time I tried to read it. I'm very pleased I did
finally get into it seriously some months ago.

But here again my internal perception changed only because it fitted so
neatly with my models of individual and organisational behaviour.

Have I been learning or reinforcing what I believe to be robust?

I had spent years looking seriously at a number of models of organization
namely Elliot Jaques Stratified System (SST) theory (now called Requisite
Organization), Wolfgang Mewes Engpass Konzentrierten Strategie EKS
(Bottleneck Concentration Strategy), Beers VSM, Miller's Living Systems,
Robert Rosen's Relational Biology, Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory,
Evolutionary Theory, and also developed my own model of Human Motivation
(Motivational Modelling MM).

So from my perspective PCT is consistent with, SST, EKS and Evolutionary
Theory and my model of human motivation MM, these are models that I favour
because I can apply them practically.

So in terms of PCT am I propagating another type of error? The error of bias
and myopia.

Regards
Gavin

2

It took me three tries to look
at PCT seriously and I think it was because I

erroneously lumped-it in with Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems (VSM)
model.

Not that VSM is a bad model it’s just terrible to apply.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.06.0107 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.01.06.16.50 NZ –

In my long series of efforts to infiltrate cybernetics, I met a lot of
the people and discussed PCT with them. They were generally friendly but
not very friendly, or impressed. Stafford Beer was one of them. I think
the problem was mainly that I was working at too detailed and practical a
level, whereas cyberneticians tended pretty strongly to think like
philosophers. There was very little interest in control theory per se –
learning how control systems actually work. In fact there were large
factions at some meetings that were very hostile to the concept of
control: they thought I was talking about how to control other people.
Larry Richards and Barry Clemson actually came to a couple of meetings of
the Control Systems Group, and bunches of us in the CSG (before and after
it existed) went to meetings of the American Society for Cybernetics,
with apparent acceptance from Heinz von Foerster, Varela, Maturana, and
at one time, Gordon Pask and Ranulf Gandolph. But at one point
Heinz stood up at a plenary session and started ranting about how
“some people” were talking about nonsense like “the
purrrpose of the purrrpose of the purrrrrpose,” at which point I got
up and left. There was never any direct confrontation, but interest on
both sides gradually petered out.

So from my
perspective PCT is consistent with, SST, EKS and Evolutionary

Theory and my model of human motivation MM, these are models that I
favour

because I can apply them practically.

“Consistent with” can mean “not contradictory as far as
they have anything to do with each other.” My view is that if
these are all theories about what human behavior is and how it works,
then they all should say the same things about it, or we should find out
why they don’t.

So in terms of PCT
am I propagating another type of error? The error of bias

and myopia.

I don’t know. Are there points where your theory contradicts PCT? If so,
can we find out what the contradictions are and why they exist, and fix
the problem? That would be useful all around. Just saying “I prefer
this theory” or “I disagree with that theory” doesn’t get
us very far.

Best,

Bill P.

3

( Gavin
Ritz 2008.01.10.15.40 NZ)

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2008 9:33
p.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT a Consistent
Model

[From Bill Powers
(2008.01.06.0107 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.01.06.16.50 NZ –

It took me three tries to
look at PCT seriously and I think it was because I

erroneously lumped-it in with Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems (VSM) model.

Not that VSM is a bad model it’s just terrible to apply.

In my long series of efforts to infiltrate cybernetics, I met a lot of the
people and discussed PCT with them. They were generally friendly but not very
friendly, or impressed. Stafford Beer was one of them.

I don’t know of any successful
application of Beer’s VSM.

I think the problem was
mainly that I was working at too detailed and practical a level, whereas
cyberneticians tended pretty strongly to think like philosophers.

I can’t see the point of any model
if it can’t be applied at some point or other. (Even if its 100 years
away).

There was very little
interest in control theory per se – learning how control systems actually
work. In fact there were large factions at some meetings that were very hostile
to the concept of control: they thought I was talking about how to control
other people.

Control is like talking about Power, lots
of people just don’t want to hear about it.

Larry Richards and Barry
Clemson actually came to a couple of meetings of the Control Systems Group, and
bunches of us in the CSG (before and after it existed) went to
meetings of the American Society for Cybernetics, with apparent acceptance from
Heinz von Foerster, Varela, Maturana, and at one time, Gordon Pask and Ranulf
Gandolph. But at one point Heinz stood up at a plenary session and
started ranting about how “some people” were talking about nonsense
like “the purrrpose of the purrrpose of the purrrrrpose,” at which
point I got up and left.

How did you know he was directing this at
you?

There was never any
direct confrontation, but interest on both sides gradually petered out.

I suppose each want to further their own
grounds, like power.

So from my perspective
PCT is consistent with, SST, EKS and Evolutionary

Theory and my model of human motivation MM, these are models that I favour

because I can apply them practically.

“Consistent with” can mean “not contradictory as far as they
have anything to do with each other.” My view is that if these are
all theories about what human behavior is and how it works, then they all
should say the same things about it, or we should find out why they don’t.

The key sameness is what I can the Fundamental
Formula, when I presented papers at the New Zealand Australian Systems Conference
on complexity it was accepted as soon as I moved slightly to the left on this Fundamental Formula concept
(which actually underpins the papers I presented) it was rejected by the
Society on some obscure grounds it had nothing to do with Systems Thinking,
when actually it has everything to do with systems theory and complexity.

Anyway the point is the Fundamental
Formula is a tension between reference points and just about every theory has
them in some form or other. In PCT it is the “error”. I just identify
variants and qualities of the Fundamental Formula and attempt to measure them.
In other theories like Evolution it’s the fundamental basis of the
subject.

So in terms of PCT am I
propagating another type of error? The error of bias

and myopia.

I don’t know. Are there points where your theory contradicts PCT?

No, it actually supports it or the other way
around. But as I said I’m very focused in this line of thinking now. Just
like in engineering (I’m an engineer too) when we go down one path with some
unknown design model it becomes increasing hard to change because of the mental
and physical investments into such a path.

Regards

Gavin