I’ll start with your last question: “Whaddaya think?”
So methinks:
So many thinks, such little time - think is long; life is short.
In light of the recent discussion under the topic of “More Questions” I can’t begin to imagine (one kind/mode of my behavioral range) what people will make of my thinking/expressing on this post topic.
Now from the top of your considerations, the ones I copied:
RE: your 1st ¶:
On the two kinds of feedback - two kinds in the context of this discussion - who knows how many feedback types we might slice and dice.
The ‘Harnessing’ article uses the pop usage of feedback: positiveâgood; negativeâbad.
I've been much more interested in the positive-negative feedback as described in PCT. I've also thought much about their mechanism(s).
Two different loops or one loop behaving differently?
Addictive behavior or regulative behavior? "Out of" control behavior or "in control behavior - though the later is somewhat tautologous.
If two: the RS of the control loop might be so out of range of any of the possible Ps which one can act to affect/effect such that no number or magnitude of actions will get behavior in a control state.
If one: perhaps something about the incoming P is so appealing and perhaps more satisfying to what the RS was set-pointing that the RS ratchets higher, thus setting a new RS value. I would love to know the electro-chemical micro-cellular (the neuroscience) interaction of this phenomenon.
But leading into your next ¶ and anticipating my reference to LCSIII, Bill addresses this issue of multiple negative feedback systems:
This is the general problem of multidimensional control. What seem to be independent dimensions of change are actually coupled to each other, sometimes only loosely but sometimes very strongly, through pathways that are not obvious. This means when a control system is used to alter the object in one dimension, doing so creates disturbances of one or more of the other dimensions. The opposing actions taken by the other control systems can in turn disturb the first control system, so an unintended feedback loop can be created. When systems become coupled together through these accidental interactions, the most common result is instability, because two symmetrically interacting negative feedback systems form a positive feedback loopan error*-increasing* loop. p 98
RE: your 2nd ¶:
Now for the knotty economics instantiation: I propose (safely, from my RS, or else I wouldn't propose it) that conservatives and liberals (as two grossly defined categories - see just one sample reference to this distinction by George Lakoff: [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html) ) have distinctly different RSs. Conservative/ strict father:The rich can never get rich enough; the poor never poor enough. And you can replace 'rich' with 'dominant' 'powerful', 'authoritarian'
in contrast to
¦ Conservative/nurturing family: All humans are created relatively equal and live best within a moderate range of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Moving closer to your 'US economy' RS/P/CV (I use this term as a relationship term of three elements in the control loop) - as a CV, I think proximately of Bill's recent post [From Bill Powers (2011.06.21.2140 MDT)] in which he says, "Now there is no little circle in the environment -- the subtraction happens inside the input function."
In the case of the 'US economy' RS/P/CV there is NO BIG CIRCLE, no CV called the 'US economy'. It's all Ps related to our RSs. (
and so one of our slogans: It's all perception.)
So the RS of the ‘US economy’ may be a positive feedback loop for the conservatives and a negative feedback loop for the liberals OR just two different PCT negative feedback loops. Either way, there are two distinctly different ‘feedback regime’(s) as you call it.
In preparing to reply to this paragraph I also looked at Bill's Ch 6: Multidimensional Control of Living Control Systems III: The Fact of Control and his last words in the concluding section, 'Freedom and Dignity' of his original (pun emphatically intended) Behavior: The Control of Perception. I come away from both readings, nearly speechlessly impressed with their wisdom. In the original work, Bill concludes:
In order to avoid self-destruction, I think that all we need do is consider openly and very carefully the implications of this basic concept of human nature. That one concept, so antithetical in its implications to the ways in which people have always thought about each other and themselves, gives us a place to stand from which we can move the world.
RE: your 3rd ¶:
I see a conflation here between lag in one feedback loop and simply a conflict between two feedback loops/regimes.
RE: your 4th ¶:
In this paragraph about the size (implicit) of the CV, and the 'lag' and the 'vested interest' - I think of Kent McClelland's 'collective control of perception' series of papers; and why it's so hard to move 'city hall'. The scenario I use is one wherein in order to start something new, to get the 'change we need', it is better to break new ground rather than rearrange the graves in a cemetery because there are too many vested interests to unearth, uncover, expose. The change we need is some mew kind of preferably peaceful American revolution.
So much for now. I look forward to any continuing discussion of these issues.
Lloyd
[From Rick Marken (2011.06.25.1000)]
¶ 1
…As you know there are two kinds of feedback; positive, which is bad, and negative, which is good. Positive feedback exists when error drives outputs that increase error; in this case there is no control. Negative feedback exists when error drives outputs that reduce error: in this case there is control.
¶ 2
It looks to me like the US economy is currently in a positive feedback regime; increases in error (reflected at the aggregate level in terms of high unemployment, stagnant wages, poverty and bankruptcies due to healthcare costs) has led to a demand for a continuation and/or accentuation of the outputs (policies) that have increased this error (reduced taxes on the wealthy, tax policies that encourage off-shoring of manufacturing, reduced regulation of financial institutions and the continuation of a for-profit healthcare industry). I think the gain of this positive feedback loop is fairly weak so the system may stabilize at what might be called “third world” status (perhaps it already has). I think that may be the best we can hope for.
¶ 3
But I’m wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to change the polarity of this loop. Actually, the polarity may be negative but, due to lags in the system, this negative feedback loop just acts like a positive feedback loop. The lags I’m talking about are those the exist between different policy regimes. For example, the Republican regime, which implemented the policies that increased error, was followed by a Democratic regime that tried to implement policies that would reduce the error. But since the error continued (or decreased only slightly) when the correct actions were taken, the public who was experiencing the error blamed that error on current policies. So they demand a change back to the old policies that created the error in the first place. It’s like being in a tracking task where there is a long lag between input and the effect of output on input.
¶ 4
Even if the feedback in the loop is negative – such that outputs do have effects in inputs that would reduce error --a lag will make it difficult or impossible for the controller to vary outputs properly in order to maintain control. I think these kinds of time lags in an economy make it very difficult to implement policies that keep the error in the economy low. This is a particular problem when you have people with a vested interest (because it makes them rich or because it is consistent with their ideological goals) in maintaining the policies that have created the error in the first place.
Whaddaya think?
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Lloyd Klinedinst - lloydk@klinedinst.com
http://www.klinedinst.com
10 Dover Lane - Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
Home: (636) 451-3232 FAX: (636)451-3232 Mobile: (314)-609-5571
···
On Jun 25, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Richard Marken wrote: