From: MK (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Powers, 2008 in LCS3: "just as raising the speed limit on signs
usually results in cars going faster"
[From MK (2015.08.08.1640 CET)]
but I hope we agree that we can'f act like Rick
I disagree with your characterization of Rick so, no, we can't agree.
I think that here is not problem just misunderstanding, as you arranged
sentence as you wished to suit your purpose. I'm wondering what was your
real goal for doing this ?
My initial statement was :
HB earlier :
....interesting finding, but I hope we agree that we can'f act like Rick,
and on the bases of 0,01 % of "event occurance", conclude on his general
So the theme was about GENERALIZATION. You took my thought out of context
and arrange it suitable for your own discussion. And that's what people
usually do to achieve what they want. PCT explain this very good.
I was talking about problem of generalizing and I asked you for an oppinion
about whether it is right if we generalize on the bases of 1 % or 0,001 % of
"event occurance". I wasn't talking about generalizing Rick's
Do we understand ?
MK : > That would be unfair.
If a Vancouver had conflated the internal reference signal with a "reference
value" on a traffic sign you would have criticized him. If a Cowan had
committed the same mistake -- and it is a mistake -- Rick would have railed
against it. Powers or a possible co-author messed up on page thirty-one in
Living Control Systems III. I am pointing that out. To not do so would be
unfair against all the scientists who have been criticized here on CSGnet,
sometimes very harshly, for "not getting it".
It's again out of context. With unfairness I didn't mean critics of others
as you wrongly shaped my thought, but critics of generalizing on so low
occurance of some event. Do we understand what was my point ?
By the way Vancouver didn't only conflated, but he turned Bill's diagram and
theory into his own selfregulation. So it's not only conflation but
manipulaton ot whatever. I did generalize on quite amount of articles he
sent to me to read them. So I didin't use 1% of his statementds to talk
generaly about his work, but quite amount of his articles.
People can manipulate to achieve what they want. They can even kill, steal,
threat, show violence, etc., whatever is needed to achieve what they are up
to. PCT is superb theory to expalin such a life events. Is there anything
else what is bodering you ?