Powers, 2008 in LCS3: "just as raising the speed limit on signs usually results in cars going faster"

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
1

[From MK (2015.08.05.0340 CET)]

Powers, on page 31 in Living Control Systems III, wrote:

"Even though the reference signal alone is not sufficient to explain
any behavior, changing it will most definitely change the behavior of
the system, just as raising the the speed limit on signs usually
results in cars going faster."

The analogy between an internal reference signal and the printed speed
limit on a traffic sign is misleading. The former is always found
inside the controlling organism, while the latter is something that we
perceive as being "in the environment", external to the organism.

"Usually results"?

Powers is writing like a Psycho-logist in this section of the chapter.

M

2

Shame on Bill!
Warren
Cli-nic-al Psycho-logist

···

On 5 Aug 2015, at 02:43, MK (perceptualposts@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

[From MK (2015.08.05.0340 CET)]

Powers, on page 31 in Living Control Systems III, wrote:

"Even though the reference signal alone is not sufficient to explain
any behavior, changing it will most definitely change the behavior of
the system, just as raising the the speed limit on signs usually
results in cars going faster."

The analogy between an internal reference signal and the printed speed
limit on a traffic sign is misleading. The former is always found
inside the controlling organism, while the latter is something that we
perceive as being "in the environment", external to the organism.

"Usually results"?

Powers is writing like a Psycho-logist in this section of the chapter.

M

3

[From MK (2015.08.05.1050 CET)]

Shame on Bill!
Warren
Cli-nic-al Psycho-logist

M

4

Hi Matti,

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 work. That
would be unfair. As I see Bill's work I can tell that 99,99 % is
increadibley good done and he left so much to built upon.
As he said, he knew that he couldn't construct a completely correct model,
so he aimed instead at a model that would be as complete as possbible. It's
on us to finish his astonishing work. I don't say it will be easy rather
more difficult, but with putting piece after piece I think it can't fail.

He did a great job if we consider literature that was available in that
time. Beside great knowledge, there are some increadible intuitive parts of
theory, which I assume will be realized somewhere in the future. The bases
for exploring and ideas are so strong, that I don't doubt about success,
that organism (correct model) which will "Control perception" (not behavior
control), will one day be built in whole.

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: MK (perceptualposts@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:44 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Powers, 2008 in LCS3: "just as raising the speed limit on signs
usually results in cars going faster"

[From MK (2015.08.05.0340 CET)]

Powers, on page 31 in Living Control Systems III, wrote:

"Even though the reference signal alone is not sufficient to explain any
behavior, changing it will most definitely change the behavior of the
system, just as raising the the speed limit on signs usually results in cars
going faster."

The analogy between an internal reference signal and the printed speed limit
on a traffic sign is misleading. The former is always found inside the
controlling organism, while the latter is something that we perceive as
being "in the environment", external to the organism.

"Usually results"?

Powers is writing like a Psycho-logist in this section of the chapter.

M

5

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.05.0850)]

···

MK (2015.08.05.0340 CET)

MK: Powers, on page 31 in Living Control Systems III, wrote:

MK: "Even though the reference signal alone is not sufficient to explain

any behavior, changing it will most definitely change the behavior of

the system, just as raising the the speed limit on signs usually

results in cars going faster."

MK: The analogy between an internal reference signal and the printed speed

limit on a traffic sign is misleading. The former is always found

inside the controlling organism, while the latter is something that we

perceive as being “in the environment”, external to the organism.

RM: If you read it in context I think it makes sense. The sign, like the reference signal, doesn’t cause behavior on its own. The reference signal “causes” changes in the state of the controlled variable only if it is the input to a negative feedback loop; the sign causes “causes” cars to go faster only if drivers are controlling for keeping the speed of their car near the posted speed limit. I agree that Bill might have been able to find a better way to make this point but off hand I can’t think of a better way myself.

MK: “Usually results”?

MK: Powers is writing like a Psycho-logist in this section of the chapter.

RM: I presume you are saying that because “usually results” is a statistical statement. But in this case it is appropriate, I think, because he is talking about aggregates – aggregates of control systems and aggregates of drivers. This is, again, clear from context. The change in the reference signal “usually results” in a corresponding change in the state of controlled variable, but that is true only for those control systems (most of them) that have developed a well-functioning control loop that can bring the controlled variable into match with the reference (very low gain control systems can’t do this, for example). And the change in the sign “usually results” in cars going at the new speed limit, but this is true only for those drivers (most of them) that are controlling for driving at the posted speed limit.

RM: So, actually, reading all this in context, I would say Bill did (as usual:wink: a pretty darn good job of describing in words what is best understood in terms of a working control system model.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

6

[From MK (2015.08.08.1640 CET)]

Boris Hartman--

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.

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".

M

7

[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]

···

-----Original Message-----
From: MK (perceptualposts@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:43 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
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)]

Boris Hartman--

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.

HB :
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
work.

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
characterisation....

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".

HB :
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 ?

Best,

Boris

8

PY: This conversation got out of hand very quickly. I liked Warren’s business card tho. I noticed the code words “Cowan” and “Vancouver”. And I never understood who “Matti” was until now…

MK: The analogy between an internal reference signal and the printed speed limit on a traffic sign is misleading. The former is always found inside the controlling organism, while the latter is something that we perceive as being “in the environment”, external to the organism.

PY: I think the most important thing to realize about the speed limit is that it’s the reference value for cops. The cop is controlling for the speed of drivers (using an internal reference) and that’s what the speed limit represents. The fact that the speed limit is also posted in the environment is an extraneous detail. Increasing the speed limit will cause people to go faster because they’re thinking about cops. Nobody really cares how fast they’re going unless they might physically lose control of their car or unless there are cops around. But people don’t usually choose their speed because they’re controlling for maintaining car stability. A car will remain stable even if you double or triple the speed limit. People just don’t want to get tickets.