Powers and HisPet Monkey

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST]

Due to a failure of my email service the following post did not arrive.
I saw it only when reading the archive to recover the thread.

[From Billo Powers (2002.10.28.1704 MST)]

This aspect of the conversation is leading steadily downward. The
next stage is to object to the thought police. Let's try to stick
to the point.

Oh, and what is the "point." While we considere what is the "point" let me
remind you of some things: Just in case the point somehow has gotten lost.

You are the guy who once told Bob Clark in a meeting, "Shut up Bob, no body
wants to here what you have to say." No real harm, I suppose, resulted. But,
it is an interesting way to adress a former colleague. You're also the guy who
used the argument about the gulag to ambush Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon. There
were, no doubt, some flaws in the program they were attempting to develop. But,
the use of such an argument as a part of a critique is extra ordinarily
offensive. Quite interestingly when you recently attempted to assess what had
happend you expressed a resentment that _you_ had been badly used. And then
there is your acceptance of Rick's insistent fawning behavior. And the way Rick
takes in upon himself to be the PCT thought police. This creates an atmosphere
that many people have found very deeply replusive. Rick argues that these
people didn't have anything to contribute anyway so they are no loss. I'm of a
different opinion. I could go on at length, but the conclusion I come to is
that for whatever reasons there are situations in which you appear not to be
capable of, or choose not to, exercise what is ordinarily considered good
common sense.

In the past I've said that it might be better if people in CSG not make
a demon out of Rick. Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth
and a lie and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't
find intelligible. The best thing to do, it has seemd to me, is simply keep
this in mind and carry on. And, I've pointed out that there have been
situations in which people have criticized Rick because they were reluctant
to criticise you. There have clearly been some situations in which you've
felt that you could use Rick as your pet monkey. And, in these situations
there's a sense in which the responsiblity for what Rick has done and continues
to do is yours. I've argued that people ought not to avoid CSG simply because
of Rick. But, I find myself reluctant to recommend CSG sources to students and
associates. One of the features of the recent Post-Autistic movement in
economics has been an insistence upon what is described as the "quality of
discourse" or of "communicative interaction." Not neccesarily as a means to
some end but as a goal in and for itself. If you adopt this point of view, then
it eventually requires changes inorder to make it effective. One of the
obvious changes involves attitudes and behaviors such as contempt and
dishonesty that make for bad communications. Sounds naive and somewhat quaint.
BUt the French students apparently became fed up with their situation, and
there was a sufficient critical mass availible so that they were able to
initiate a movement to reform economics. whether it will succeed, or to what
extent it will suceed no one can tell. I've had extensive communication with
people from Italy, France, Germany and Great Britian. Enough to satisfy me that
there will be a serious effort made to destroy the exclusive dominance of
orthodox economics and replace it with a pluralistic community of inquiry.
There's going to be a conference here in Kansas City next fall as a planning
session of the future of this effort. Partly this effort is anti-American in
character. But, it also quite surprizingly to me, has a genuine appreciation
for American Heterodox thought-- of which I'm a representative-- one of the
last surviving representatives. THe other development is that Jim STurgeon who
was responsible for my obtaining a research fellowship here at UMKC is going to
become the chair of the department. As a result of this change I have been
asked if I would be willing to take up some of Sturgeon's courses when he
becomes chair. My place in this is directly due to applications I've developed
using control theory. The initial one involving the Giffen Effect was carried
out with Bill Powers years and years ago. I sorry the collaboration with
Powers didn't develop as it had the potential. But, Bill was more interested in
his Dad's idea about "Leakages." When I first saw a preliminary draft of
Powers Seniors book, it was immeadiately apparent that he had without knowning
it recreated a version of Macro theory popular in the 1920 and 30's. Some quite
conventional economists still use the nominclature Powers senior adopted, but
it is now used in a metaphorical rather than a literal sense. The assertations
that Powers senior had some new and original insight can be refuted by
consulting a text on economic doctrines or business cycle theory and scaning
the section concered with "Under consumption Theories." I may have made a
serious error by not emphatically dismissing Powers seniors efforts as a wasted
effort which faithfully but I'm sure unconsciously reproduced what was once a
very extensive body of literature that grew up outside the formal and orthodox
version of academic economics.

Its sad now to see Bill still attempting to vindicate his father's efforts.
But, nothing I've said has had much effect. Whatever I've been able to persuade
Bill of in one session, he's always eventually gone back to his effort to
complete his Dad's "Leakages" model. After a decade and half, although it
seeems much longer, I've had enough. Approached logically the problem is quite
simple, but it took more than a century for economists to solve the problem.
There's no point now ignoring that experience and going back and attempting to
solve it again starting from bare ground. To suggest as Rick does that this
effort should be awarded a Nobel prize, if it is sincere, is one of the most
florid instances of paranoia I've ever encountered. Its like expecting to be
awarded a prize for squaring a circle, or trisecting an angle. I've avoided
such terms myself but, the one guy with a Ph.D. in economics besides myself
who's look at the "Leakages" argument said it was "sheer crackpot nonsense."

Years ago Bill Powers and I had something very like this argument and couldn't
reach an agreement. At that time Bill Powers told me he'd get Rick to get his
Dad's model straightened out. My attitudes was be my guest, and Rots of Ruck.
Rick seems to have learned since then to steer clear of such misadventures.

But, I'm tired of this its gone on way too long, So Bill prove me wrong and
make your dad's "Leakages" Model? work. I don't plan to hold my breath.

My suggestion would be for you to step back from this situation and give it
some thought. There surely are more productive things you could do with your
time. In the larger scheme of things it probably won't matter all that much,
but pursuing the quest for the "leakages" model is futile and will be an
embarassment.

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson, 2002.10.30.1152CST]

William Williams wrote:

[From Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST]

RE:
[From Billo Powers (2002.10.28.1704 MST)]

>This aspect of the conversation is leading steadily downward. The
>next stage is to object to the thought police. Let's try to stick
>to the point.

Oh, and what is the "point." While we considere what is the "point" let me
remind you of some things: Just in case the point somehow has gotten lost.

You are the guy who once told Bob Clark in a meeting, "Shut up Bob, no body
wants to here what you have to say." No real harm, I suppose, resulted.

Well, let me say that maybe there was a little harm, about which I've always felt a
bit sad. Apparently I was not at that particular meeting, so I was somewhat
puzzled when Bob Clark told me in the Christmas greeting a couple years before he
died that he "felt bad" about "getting kicked out of CSG." I was sorry to hear
that and felt there had probably been a misunderstanding, but since I hadn't
observed the original event I didn't know what I could do much about it in
retrospect.

I want to say in Bill's defense that I knew what he was talking about when he
mentioned his sometimes impatience with Bob in his rather frank eulogy after I
reported Bob's death on CSGnet. Bob did have a rather pedantic way of expressing
many of his ideas that could try one's patience. I could tolerate it better than
most, perhaps, as a result of my therapist years of sitting still and listening to
people obsess about their concerns.

I felt worst about this break of what I perceived as a partnership ever since my
first contact with "the gang of three" in 1957. Even given that Bill's
contribution was central, I experienced the two Bobs' contributions as more than
trivial. It was the two Bobs who set me to work with the experiment that
ultimately resulted in my Perceptual and Motor Skills paper that showed for the
first time (I think) the evidence for the levels of reaction time in hierarchical
control that has come up again recently as a topic on CSGnet. Bill helped me
computerize the program for running the later versions of the experiment.
....

  And then there is your acceptance of Rick's insistent fawning behavior. And the
way Rick takes in upon himself to be the PCT thought police. This creates an
atmosphere that many people have found very deeply replusive.

I'd like to try to intervene a little here to call for more tolerance of all of our
humanesses. I know what you mean about what I see as occasionally excessive hero
worship on Rick's part, but I have to add that I think a great deal of tribute is
warranted--by all of us. I have also sometimes been alternately annoyed and amused
by Rick's seemingly harsh language toward some of his erstwhile debate opponents,
and have commented about the peculiar atmosphere of email in which people who are
teddy bears in the flesh can come off as beasts on the net. But, I have to say
that in most instances where I could understand the argument it seemed to me that
Rick had it right more often than his opposite and it could be frustrating to hear
someone go on and on without thinking through refuted points. Also I note that
Rick has not hesitated to acknowledge his error and give credit in substantive
matters as with Bruce Abbot recently.

Most of the really disagreeable scenes on the net have seemed to me to revolve
around semantic issues like the foolish "you have chosen to..." disputes where
words became objects of scholastic analysis without reference to the larger
picture of experiential definitions.

In the past I've said that it might be better if people in CSG not make
a demon out of Rick. Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth
and a lie and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't
find intelligible.

Well, that second sentence seems to contravert the first--in the sense of forgiving
the demon as being, rather, a fool. I wonder if this isn't an example on your
part, Bill, of the type of dialogue against which you are remonstrating? I do like
it that you have begun to confront Rick on his sometimes too exuberant enthusiasm
for no holds barred debate where perfectly fine people have chosen to retreat from
CSGnet because they allowed themselves to perceive themselves as injured by words,
and I like it that Rick has mellowed his choice of language in many instances
recently.

I wonder if what we have here is a situation resembling election campaigns where it
seems anything goes to win the field and after words the message has been "I hope
you didn't take the personal attacks personally."

I think the prize is equally important. Have any of you considered that what is
going on here in the long run is that people are playing king of the hill to
position their reputations in history in a movement that however seemingly minor
now will one day be recognized as a major revolution in science?
....

I've argued that people ought not to avoid CSG simply because
of Rick.

Or, any other reason, for that matter.

But, I find myself reluctant to recommend CSG sources to students and
associates. One of the features of the recent Post-Autistic movement in
economics has been an insistence upon what is described as the "quality of
discourse" or of "communicative interaction." Not neccesarily as a means to
some end but as a goal in and for itself. If you adopt this point of view, then
it eventually requires changes inorder to make it effective. One of the
obvious changes involves attitudes and behaviors such as contempt and
dishonesty that make for bad communications. Sounds naive and somewhat quaint.

Not to me, I say Right On. But I think there is a lot of responsibility on
individuals to say, "Ouch, that hurt," when it is the case. Then the interlocutor
has the opportunity to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean it that way," if That is the
case.

Best, Dick R.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2002.10.30.0836 MDT)]

Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST

Due to a failure of my email service the following post did not arrive.
I saw it only when reading the archive to recover the thread.

[From Billo Powers (2002.10.28.1704 MST)]

>This aspect of the conversation is leading steadily downward. The
>next stage is to object to the thought police. Let's try to stick
>to the point.

Oh, and what is the "point." While we considere what is the "point" let me
remind you of some things:

I think you misread my post, It said that the next stage is to object to
the thought police police -- that is, for someone (i.e., Rick) to object to
people who appoint themselves as policemen (i.e., you) to prosecute others
(Rick) whom they call thought police: hence, thought police police, I
thought it would be better to get back to the subject we had been talking
about and steer clear of ad-hominem attacks.

I can't think of anything I have ever said to anyone on the net that was as
cruel and hurtful as the things you have said to and about me both in
public and behind my back (word does come back to me, you know). You seem
to belong to the school of human relations in which a person who has made a
mistake (in your opinion) becomes fair game for the release of all one's
pent-up venom, hatred, and spite, whatever its cause or origin, and however
garbled and misattributed your memory of wrongs done.

What is the most hurtful is that you are inviting me to cease thinking of
you as a friend, something I have been very reluctant to do and still do
not want to do. You have never heard a criticism from me that has to do
with anything but specific ideas you have offered, and I have never tried
to cram my opinions down your throat with the claim that your ideas are
worthless compared with mine (as you continuously do with me and others
concerning economics). .

Just in case the point somehow has gotten lost.

You are the guy who once told Bob Clark in a meeting, "Shut up Bob, no body
wants to here what you have to say." No real harm, I suppose, resulted. But,
it is an interesting way to adress a former colleague.

I doubt that that is a quote, though I freely admit that my exasperation
with Bob Clark did once or twice overflow into regrettable public remarks.
It was at the same meeting to which you refer (I think) that others said to
me or Mary that they would not come to the next meeting if Bob Clark was
going to be there. Maybe you don't recognize an attitude of contemptuous
superiority when you see it (or have it), but others do.

You're also the guy who
used the argument about the gulag to ambush Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon. There
were, no doubt, some flaws in the program they were attempting to develop.
But, the use of such an argument as a part of a critique is extra ordinarily
offensive.

That wasn't me: your memory is faulty. I was the one who pointed out that
terrorists often use the argument that if you don't do what they demand,
any consequences of their actions are your fault, not theirs. This was my
attempt to make clear what is wrong with attributing choice to others when
you have really given them no free choice. The reaction shocked me, which
only shows that I have a lot to learn.

Quite interestingly when you recently attempted to assess what had
happend you expressed a resentment that _you_ had been badly used.

Well, don't you think that being accused of egotism, self-delusion,
ignorance, jealousy, favoritism, fanaticism, and paranoia could be
experienced as being badly used? People have said far worse things about me
than anything I have ever said about them. YOU have said far worse things
about me than I have ever said about you (so far), in public or behind your
back.

  And then
there is your acceptance of Rick's insistent fawning behavior.

Are you sure that's the problem? I think that others will attest that I
have often rejected being put on a pedestal by Rick or others. Some people
evidently want me to be as vicious, vengeful, and unforgiving about Rick's
mistakes (many of which I have publicly commented on, to Rick's dismay) as
they are. I refuse to do that, although my silence does not constitute
either endorsement or its opposite. My defenses of Rick have almost always
concerned ideas of his that I agree with or appreciate, while other people
have ignored his ideas and focused on his manner of delivery or side remarks.

And the way Rick takes in upon himself to be the PCT thought police. This
creates an atmosphere that many people have found very deeply replusive.

...,

Rick argues that these people didn't have anything to contribute anyway
so they are no loss. I'm of a different opinion. I could go on at length,
but the conclusion I come to is that for whatever reasons there are
situations in which you appear not to be capable of, or choose not to,
exercise what is ordinarily considered good common sense.

Wait a minute. Rick does these bad things, so I don't have good common
sense? Is that your version of good common sense? You don't want Rick to be
a thought policeman, but it's OK if I am? Or if you are?

In the past I've said that it might be better if people in CSG not make
a demon out of Rick. Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth
and a lie and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't
find intelligible.

I see. This is what you say about people you _don't_ demonize. I don't
recall having heard Rick tell any outright lies, though I have disagreed
with some of his metaphors.I don't think he has EVER said, about someone
else on the net, that he can't distinguish between the truth and a lie. Is
there some rule that says you can say things like that about someone, but
he can't say things that are far less offensive? (well, somewhat less
offensive).

And, I've pointed out that there have been
situations in which people have criticized Rick because they were reluctant
to criticise you.

Do you recall my agreeing with that? I did, on the Net. You seem to blame
Rick for this misdirection, but I don't. I object to hero-worshipers for
acting cowardly and having no minds of their own. I have said over and over
that I am not a guru, and while I don't hestitate to state what I think, I
have never put anyone down personally for thinking differently, not have I
tried to whip up mob action against them.

There have clearly been some situations in which you've
felt that you could use Rick as your pet monkey. And, in these situations
there's a sense in which the responsiblity for what Rick has done and
continues to do is yours.

Yeah, I get the message. If Rick does something you disapprove of, it's my
fault for not correcting him. If I do something you disapprove of and you
blame Rick for it because you're too chicken to argue with me, that's
Rick's fault, and hence it's my fault for letting you do it, or for not
_also_ blaming Rick (for what I did). Brilliant reasoning, Bill.

I've argued that people ought not to avoid CSG simply because
of Rick. But, I find myself reluctant to recommend CSG sources to students
and associates. One of the features of the recent Post-Autistic movement in
economics has been an insistence upon what is described as the "quality of
discourse" or of "communicative interaction." Not neccesarily as a means to
some end but as a goal in and for itself. If you adopt this point of view,
then it eventually requires changes inorder to make it effective. One of the
obvious changes involves attitudes and behaviors such as contempt and
dishonesty that make for bad communications.

Then I heartily recommend that you give up these bad habits. Man, you are
simply not listening to yourself. Before you complain about the mote in
your neighbor's eye, take care of the plank in your own eye first.

>My place in this is directly due to applications I've developed

using control theory. The initial one involving the Giffen Effect was carried
out with Bill Powers years and years ago. I sorry the collaboration with
Powers didn't develop as it had the potential. But, Bill was more
interested in his Dad's idea about "Leakages."

Bill, wasn't that visit to my house in the late 70's or early 80's? That
was years before I got involved with my Dad's ideas (1990 or thereabouts --
I can't recall exactly). I don't think I started talking about "leakage"
until after the book was published (1996) or maybe a year or two before
that when I had access to the manuscript. I was quite interested in the
Giffen paradox when you visited me all those years ago and said you wanted
my help in working out a control-system program to model this effect, which
up to then you had handled only with graphs.

  When I first saw a preliminary draft of Powers Seniors book, it was
immeadiately apparent that he had without knowning it recreated a version
of Macro theory popular in the 1920 and 30's. Some quite conventional
economists still use the nominclature Powers senior adopted, but it is
now used in a metaphorical rather than a literal sense.

Funny you could see so quickly that he didn't know it. TCP gave full credit
for the ideas of economists that he had used as a starting point -- as I
have pointed out before, he spent longer in reading what economists had to
say, over 20 years, than you spent getting your PhD. He did not use those
ideas "without knowing it." And isn't creating a "version" of an older
theory also known as modifying and improving on it? Many people have said
that PCT is a "version" of behaviorism. Does that mean there's nothing new
in it?

The assertations that Powers senior had some new and original insight can
be refuted by consulting a text on economic doctrines or business cycle
theory and scaning the section concered with "Under consumption Theories."

Your resentment is showing. I do not believe all economists would agree
with you. I think you are bugged by the idea that someone from outside the
field of economics could come up with anything new -- in Boston, you quite
clearly said that such an idea was insulting. Find the spot on the tape
before you deny it.

I may have made a serious error by not emphatically dismissing Powers
seniors efforts as a wasted effort which faithfully but I'm sure
unconsciously reproduced what was once a very extensive body of literature
that grew up outside the formal and orthodox version of academic economics.

Not so serious, Bill. The more I hear of your comments on this subject, the
less I am concerned that your opinions will matter one way or the other.
They are too transparently self-serving to fool many people.

Its sad now to see Bill still attempting to vindicate his father's efforts.
But, nothing I've said has had much effect.

The first part is false, the second is true. I pointed out on the net that
part of TCP's model of the economy came down to curve-fitting, because he
simply assumed exponential growth in productivity and population, then
plugged those relationships into an equation for economic growth which of
course then turned out to be exponential. So what appeared at first to be a
development from first principles proved not to be. If you had said that,
it might have had some effect, but you didn't catch that point. Making
false statements about how much TCP knew about past economic theories, of
course, does not do much to persuade others to pay attention to your
opinions, or to admire your respect for the truth.

Whatever I've been able to persuade Bill of in one session, he's always
eventually gone back to his effort to complete his Dad's "Leakages"
model. After a decade and half, although it seeems much longer, I've had
enough.

Well, Bill, so have I had enough. I have not gone back to completing the
"Leakage" model. For some time I have been proposing a test-bed model in
which all the main economic interactions are represented, so we can try out
different theories about how the human agents work instead of just reading
glib babble from economists who are far too full of themselves. I started
work on that model, but you violently rejected participating, probably
because I had just revealed that I was less than maximally impressed by
your own efforts at setting up control-system models. Maybe what you wanted
from me was some of that insistent fawning behavior you say Rick gives me.

Approached logically the problem is quite simple, but it took more than
a century for economists to solve the problem. There's no point now
ignoring that experience and going back and attempting to solve it again
starting from bare ground.

Oh, they've solved it? Great! We should expect to see big changes any day
now, right? This is pure hogwash.

I've avoided
such terms myself but, the one guy with a Ph.D. in economics besides myself
who's look at the "Leakages" argument said it was "sheer crackpot nonsense."

And now you _haven't_ avoided it. What about the other economists with PhDs
who consider it a very important piece of work? I guess if you shop around,
you can always find someone who has an opinion that agrees with yours.

But, I'm tired of this its gone on way too long, So Bill prove me wrong and
make your dad's "Leakages" Model? work. I don't plan to hold my breath.

Once you get a notion in your head, however wrong, you just can't let go of
it, can you? I am not working on the Leakage model and never was. I am
working on a control system model in which there is a place for individual
agents to operate, despite my father's contemptuous insistence that
individual characteristics have nothing to do with economics. I will
certainly try out the leakage concept in such a model, but I have no idea
whether the effects would be those my father suggested, nor do I care one
way or the other. Without your help, or the help of some experience
economist, of course, it's going to be hard to develop a convincing model.

My suggestion would be for you to step back from this situation and give it
some thought. There surely are more productive things you could do with your
time. In the larger scheme of things it probably won't matter all that much,
but pursuing the quest for the "leakages" model is futile and will be an
embarassment.

You haven't any idea how I am spending my time, nor have you earned any say
in how I do anything. It's really kind of strange that at the end of a post
like this, you could still think that I would be thanking you for helpful
suggestions about how to run my life.

Bill, this just doesn't sound like you. I'm not going to sit still and take
whatever brand of horse manure you want to hand out in public, but at the
same time I can't help thinking that you're in the grip of some hate
fantasy that is not directed at me at all, or indeed at anyone now present.
It will take a lot to convince me that our friendship of 20 years was a
sham on your part all along. But you have gone a long way toward convincing
me this is the truth. Is this really how you want our relationship to end?
Or was there ever really any relationship?

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.30.1450)]

Dick Robertson (2002.10.30.1152CST) --

I know what you mean about what I see as occasionally excessive hero
worship on Rick's part, but I have to add that I think a great deal of tribute is
warranted--by all of us.

It's not really hero worship so much as hero appreciation. I suppose it is excessive -
and I know that Bill Powers doesn't need or want such effusive praise, from me or
anyone. But it's not done to curry Bill's favor, if that's any help. It's done to fill
in what I perceive to be a huge gap in appreciation of Bill's work that should have
been filled by many life scientists besides myself over the last 30 or so years. I'm
producing for _myself_ the praise of PCT that I wish I had been hearing from many
other sources. It's sort of like talking to fill up the lulls in a conversation.

I think the prize is equally important. Have any of you considered that what is
going on here in the long run is that people are playing king of the hill to
position their reputations in history in a movement that however seemingly minor
now will one day be recognized as a major revolution in science?

This could be happening to some extent. But I've never been much interested in this
aspect of PCT. I got into PCT to do the science. And I have tried (within the
constraints of my abilities and temperament) to contribute to the scientific
foundation of PCT by doing the things I think I do best: experiment, model and write.
For the first few years that I was involved with PCT I found only one or two people,
other than Bill Powers, who was doing work on PCT. So I worked pretty much alone.
When CSG and CSGNet were formed I attended CSG meetings and participated in CSGNet in
the hopes that I would met others, more skilled than I, who I could work with in
building the scientific foundation for PCT. And I have met some, so CSG and CSGNet
have been worth it, from my perspective. But there are so few people involved in the
science of PCT that it's never seemed all that important to to me worry about
"positioning" myself for anything with respect to CSG-- other than getting good
reviews of my papers.

Best regards

Rick

PS. I sure hope you can make it to the meeting this year, Dick.

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 2:15 PM CST]

[From Dick Robertson, 2002.10.30.1152CST]

I want to say in Bill's defense that I knew what he was talking about when he
mentioned his sometimes impatience with Bob in his rather frank eulogy

From_what little I know of Bob Clark I would agree that he could be tiresome.
And, I would also think his perception of having been "kicked out of CSG" may
have been a misperception. But, contrary to what I thought evidently Bob did
experience Bill's behavior as injurious.

I wonder if this isn't an example on your
part, Bill, of the type of dialogue against which you are remonstrating?

There is a factual basis for what I said. And, while different people have had
their own experiences, the conclusion which I have come to is similiar to the
conclusions which other people have reached independently regarding Rick. At
one point in my life I spent quite a bit of time developing cases for a state
atorney general's office. Spending time in the witness chair may result in
one's taking more than ordinary care about sticking to truth of a matter. Dven
if the guy caught in a lie on the witness stand is from the other side, it can
be an unhappy experience watching him sweat and squirm. I wouldn't have said
what I did about Rick in the absence of factual- that is documents which I can
point to if neccesary. Perhaps I should have said so initially.

I do like

it that you have begun to confront Rick on his sometimes too exuberant

enthusiasm

for no holds barred debate where perfectly fine people have chosen to retreat

from

CSGnet because they allowed themselves to perceive themselves as injured by

words,

and I like it that Rick has mellowed his choice of language in many instances
recently.

I'm pleased to hear you say this. And, I would agree that Rick has moderated
his language. But, my complaint, as I've said isn't about Rick. I think Rick
has too many times been blamed unfairly for stuff that Bill Powers was
responsible.

I wonder if what we have here is a situation resembling election campaigns

where it

seems anything goes to win the field and after words the message has been "I

hope

you didn't take the personal attacks personally."

I think the prize is equally important. Have any of you considered that

what is

going on here in the long run is that people are playing king of the hill to
position their reputations in history in a movement that however seemingly

minor

now will one day be recognized as a major revolution in science?

No, I can say that I have. I've listened to other people especially Dag talk
about the future in terms of the CSG being the locus at which a revolution is
taking place, but I don't find anticipating posterity that appealing. Do you
think this sort of thinking explains the disfunctional or non- performance of
CSG?

....

> I've argued that people ought not to avoid CSG simply because
> of Rick.

Or, any other reason, for that matter.

> But, I find myself reluctant to recommend CSG sources to students and
> associates. One of the features of the recent Post-Autistic movement in
> economics has been an insistence upon what is described as the "quality of
> discourse" or of "communicative interaction." Not neccesarily as a means to
> some end but as a goal in and for itself. If you adopt this point of view,

then

> it eventually requires changes inorder to make it effective. One of the
> obvious changes involves attitudes and behaviors such as contempt and
> dishonesty that make for bad communications. Sounds naive and somewhat

quaint.

Not to me, I say Right On. But I think there is a lot of responsibility on
individuals to say, "Ouch, that hurt," when it is the case. Then the

interlocutor

has the opportunity to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean it that way," if That is

the

case.

YOu may have a good point here. Unfortunately, I think many people consider
an admission that they have been hurt to be a further humiliation. It hadn't
occurred to me, but now that you mention this in terms of a "responsiblity" it
begins to look like a mistake.

I may not have responded fully to your comunication, but I do very much
appreciate what you've said and how you've said it.

cordially yours

  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.0840)]

Bill Williams (UMKC 30 October 2002 2:15 PM CST) --

There is a factual basis for what I said. And, while different people have had
their own experiences, the conclusion which I have come to is similiar to the
conclusions which other people have reached independently regarding Rick. At
one point in my life I spent quite a bit of time developing cases for a state
atorney general's office. Spending time in the witness chair may result in
one's taking more than ordinary care about sticking to truth of a matter. Dven
if the guy caught in a lie on the witness stand is from the other side, it can
be an unhappy experience watching him sweat and squirm. I wouldn't have said
what I did about Rick in the absence of factual- that is documents which I can
point to if neccesary. Perhaps I should have said so initially.

What you said was "Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth and a lie
and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't find
intelligible". I'd sure like to see the factual "documents" which support this.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2002.10.30.0836 MDT)]

Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST

>Due to a failure of my email service the following post did not arrive.
>I saw it only when reading the archive to recover the thread.
>

My email continues to be erratic and sometimes it is very slow in arriving, if
it does at all.

In responding to Bill Powers' post, I would first say that I find it a
difficult, painful document to read. I am sorry that my posting which provoked
Bill was not better expressed. I wrote it somewhat hurriedly-- in part because
it was a painful message to write. It did, however, effectively initiate a
discussion of many of the issues with which I have for a long time been
concerned. The issues involved I am convinced will have a significant effect in
the short-term on how rapidly control theory comes to be applied to what
Kenneth Boulding described as the "betterment of the human condition." In the
long-run I can't see any viable alternative to the adoption of a control theory
point of view. However, how matters within the CSG community are conducted, I
am convinced, will have a profound effect upon just how long it takes to
persuade the rest of the world's population that it makes sense to think about
life and especially human relations in terms of a control theory point of view.

I would assume that no one partisipating in CSG is satisfied with the rate of
progress that has been made thus far in persuading the rest of the world that
the application of control theory is worthwhile because it has the capacity to
provide the solution to at least some of our most urgent problems. The recent
thread concerned with "emotions" it seems to me suggested there maybe an
agreement that conflict between incompatible goals is the source of a great
deal of human misery. The exercise of reorganization by changing goals by the
method of MOL, or values clarification or some other method, it seems to me,
provides an effective solution to the problems many people encounter, or rather
create for themselves by inadvertantly adopting goals which generate conflict.
So, far, so good-- perhaps!

But, personalities either with contradictory goals, or perhaps inept ways of
approaching issues and other people are involved. Issues of mistrust, hatred,
and loathing are either involved or imputed to be involved. Acusations are made
and soon excretia is being flung about-- at least metaphorically. Is there a
constructive solution-- hard to say at this point.

In addressing the problem I would like as a preliminary to defend myself
against a charge made by Bill Powers that I am inclined to think that only
academic economists ought to be allowed to think and speak about economic
questions. In evidence I would submit an email I sent to Bruce Nevin more than
a year ago regarding a book written by Z. Harris _The Transformation of
Capitalism_. In the email I express my admiration for the insightful way in
which Harris considers the question of how the econonomic institutions that
make up capitalism can be adjusted so that the future can be more livable.
{I've forwarded the email concerning Harris's book to the net.) At various
times I've been described me as a conventional econmist, an insider in
economics, or too impressed by authority. I don't find such descriptions
remotely plausible.

So, I would ask Bill: Does my discussion in the email to Bruce Nevin
concerning Z. Harris' _The Transformation of American Capitalism_ weight
against your accusation that I resent persons outside the economics profession
taking it upon themselves to think, and write about economic questions? (Harris
I ought to say is a linguist.) Given my deep admiration for Harris' book, it
seems to me that you are compelled to answer Yes.

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams 1 November 2002 4:30 AM CST]

Ok. If you did it on purpose then I am mistken.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.0840)]

> Bill Williams (UMKC 30 October 2002 2:15 PM CST) --
>
> There is a factual basis for what I said. And, while different people have

had

> their own experiences, the conclusion which I have come to is similiar to

the

> conclusions which other people have reached independently regarding Rick. At
> one point in my life I spent quite a bit of time developing cases for a

state

> atorney general's office. Spending time in the witness chair may result in
> one's taking more than ordinary care about sticking to truth of a matter.

Dven

> if the guy caught in a lie on the witness stand is from the other side, it

can

> be an unhappy experience watching him sweat and squirm. I wouldn't have said
> what I did about Rick in the absence of factual- that is documents which I

can

> point to if neccesary. Perhaps I should have said so initially.

What you said was "Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth and a

lie

and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't find
intelligible". I'd sure like to see the factual "documents" which support

this.

···

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.01.0830)]

Bill Williams (UMKC 30 October 2002 2:15 PM CST) said:

> There is a factual basis for what I said. And, while different people have
had
> their own experiences, the conclusion which I have come to is similiar to
the
> conclusions which other people have reached independently regarding Rick. At
> one point in my life I spent quite a bit of time developing cases for a
state
> atorney general's office. Spending time in the witness chair may result in
> one's taking more than ordinary care about sticking to truth of a matter.
Dven
> if the guy caught in a lie on the witness stand is from the other side, it
can
> be an unhappy experience watching him sweat and squirm. I wouldn't have said
> > what I did about Rick in the absence of factual- that is documents which I
can
> point to if neccesary. Perhaps I should have said so initially.

Rick Marken (2002.10.31.0840) asked:

> What you said was "Rick apparently can't distinguish between the truth and a
lie
> and there is no point holding him to a standard which he doesn't find
> intelligible". I'd sure like to see the factual "documents" which support
this.

And Bill Williams (1 November 2002 4:30 AM CST) replies:

Ok. If you did it on purpose then I am mistken.

I have no idea what this means. How is this related to the "documentation" you have
showing that I can't distinguish between the truth and a lie?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0756)]

Bill Williams 1 November 2002 4:30 AM CST --
writing to Rick Marken:

Ok. If you did it on purpose then I am mistken.

Perhaps you were mistaken not only about Rick's alleged inability to
distiguish truth from lies, but also about your assertion that he lied
about something.

You're going to have to prove your allegation if you want it taken seriously.

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0759 MST)]

Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST --

>So, I would ask Bill: Does my discussion in the email to Bruce Nevin

concerning Z. Harris' _The Transformation of American Capitalism_ weight
against your accusation that I resent persons outside the economics
profession taking it upon themselves to think, and write about economic
questions? (Harris I ought to say is a linguist.) Given my deep admiration
for Harris' book, it seems to me that you are compelled to answer Yes.

All right. Yes. I will agree that you do not resent persons outside the
economics profession thinking and writing about economic questions, as long
as you admire what they say. Where you disagree (for example, about profit
maximization), they are, or course, wrong or at best mistaken. And someone
like T.C. Powers who reaches conclusions you strongly disagree with is
simply a crackpot.

Bill P.

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 2 November 2002 12:05 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0756)]

Bill Williams 1 November 2002 4:30 AM CST --
writing to Rick Marken:

>Ok. If you did it on purpose then I am mistken.

Perhaps you were mistaken not only about Rick's alleged inability to
distiguish truth from lies, but also about your assertion that he lied
about something.

You're going to have to prove your allegation if you want it taken seriously.

But of course. CSGnet email is arriving in my box very slowly-- which may be
just as well. I'll get to Rick, but first I'll reply to your following post.\\

Bill williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 2 November 2002 12:25 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0759 MST)]

Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST --

>So, I would ask Bill: Does my discussion in the email to Bruce Nevin
>concerning Z. Harris' _The Transformation of American Capitalism_ weight
>against your accusation that I resent persons outside the economics
>profession taking it upon themselves to think, and write about economic
>questions? (Harris I ought to say is a linguist.) Given my deep admiration
>for Harris' book, it seems to me that you are compelled to answer Yes.

All right. Yes. I will agree that you do not resent persons outside the
economics profession thinking and writing about economic questions, as long
as you admire what they say.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am not entirely chavinistic regarding non-
economists reaching and expressing opinions about economic questions. But, your
agreement is qualified when you add "as long as you admire what they say." I
don't think would be entirely accurate to say that I neccesarily resent people
with whom I do not aggree. Or, that my pointing out what I perceive to be error
or errors is an indication of animus on my part-- let alone resentment.

Where you disagree (for example, about profit

maximization), they are, or course, wrong or at best mistaken.

The orthodox conception of the market is based upon a formal model. If this
model is examined closely it appears that it only applies to a very restricted
set of conditions. The conditions are so extremely restricted-- a market in
which there is only one good, and there is no change (effectively no time) that
the concept of maximization ought not ( many people think ) be applied in
discussions that are intended to apply to actual historical economic processes.
These limitations are now rather widely recognized-- even in orthdox circles in
economics. One of the results has been the development of "hybrid" or "mixed"
models of the economy combining maximization and control theory. I however
don't think such models can be considered internally consistent. So, there is I
think a background to the the theory of maximization of which Harris was not
aware. I don't see that pointing this out was just a matter of me being snotty.
I think I had something useful to say. If Harris and I could have discussed it
it seems possible he might have accepted my argument. Doing so wouldn't have
in any way weakened the larger argument he was developing.

And someone

like T.C. Powers who reaches conclusions you strongly disagree with is
simply a crackpot.

I've read T.C. Powers papers on the stucture of cement crystals (I don't recall
the proper titles). No reasonable person would regard him as "simply a
crackpot." For the record, I've never described him as a "simply a crackpot."
I ordinarily regard the use of such terms as meanspirited and to be avoided.
And, I've never thought of him in such terms. He was, however, a man of great
pride and confidence in his own capacities. In his professional role as a
structural chemist this self assessment may well have been justified. The one
time we met I found what he had to say about cement genuinely interesting.
However, he was not at all equiped to pursue the question in economics which he
attempted. For example he confused the accounting of capital in a way that
mixed up depreciation and other write offs (the sinking funds) with capital
purchases. Because the capital purchases are very much more variable
than "capital expenses" he came to conclusions that were both internally
inconsistent and mistaken substansively. I'm not aware of having at any time
resented him for attempting what he did in his effort to prove the economics
profesion wrong. If anything I think I've been fairer to what T.C. Powers
attempted than the two people who reviewed his book in glowing terms, but quite
obviously had not read it carefully. Had they read it with any throughalness
they would have found mistakes and/or gaps in his argument. So, While I could
have done better in handling the issue, I don't on the whole believe that my
conduct in regard to T.C. Powers and his "Leakages" concept amounts to
something I should be ashamed of.

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.02.1554 MST)]

Bill Williams UMKC 2 November 2002 12:25 AM CST --

BP::

> Where you disagree (for example, about profit
> maximization), they are, or course, wrong or at best mistaken.

You:

The orthodox conception of the market is based upon a formal model. If this
model is examined closely it appears that it only applies to a very restricted
set of conditions. The conditions are so extremely restricted-- a market in
which there is only one good, and there is no change (effectively no time)
that
the concept of maximization ought not ( many people think ) be applied in
discussions that are intended to apply to actual historical economic
processes.

Is this sort of thing seriously considered to be a model in economics?

These limitations are now rather widely recognized-- even in orthdox
circles in
economics. One of the results has been the development of "hybrid" or "mixed"
models of the economy combining maximization and control theory. I however
don't think such models can be considered internally consistent. So, there
is I
think a background to the the theory of maximization of which Harris was not
aware. I don't see that pointing this out was just a matter of me being
snotty.
I think I had something useful to say. If Harris and I could have
discussed it
it seems possible he might have accepted my argument. Doing so wouldn't have
in any way weakened the larger argument he was developing.

The problem here is that for you, such questions as these always occur
within the context of the community of economists rather than standing on
their own. Harris may not have meant profit maximization in the same
technical sense to which you refer; I suspect he would have rejected the
grounds you give above as irrelevant, though of course I have no solid
justification for thinking that. It is possible to think about profit
maximization as a goal without tying the concept to any oversimplied model.

And someone
> like T.C. Powers who reaches conclusions you strongly disagree with is
> simply a crackpot.

I've read T.C. Powers papers on the stucture of cement crystals (I don't
recall
the proper titles). No reasonable person would regard him as "simply a
crackpot."

Well, a couple of posts ago you cited with apparent approval the only other
person with a PhD you know who had read the book as calling it "sheer
crackpot nonsense." Make up your mind.

>..for example he confused the accounting of capital in a way that

mixed up depreciation and other write offs (the sinking funds) with capital
purchases.

I don't think so.On page 6 he says this:

"The costs of national production of goods and services are of two kinds:
(1) the costs of producing capital goods and services, and (2) the costs of
producing consumer goods and services. The first kind includes the costs of
depreciation and and replacement of existing equipment, the costs of new
and improved equipment expected to increase output per capita, and capital
income for owners of property and the means of production; that is, profit.
the second kind includes the costs of wages, salaries, and fees."

Is that what you're referring to? When he speaks of "depreciation" here, he
is clearly speaking about the costs incurred when machinery depreciates
(wears out) and must be repaired or replaced, not about accounting. Of
course to an accountant, "depreciation" is a bookkeeping term, but that is
clearly not its meaning here. TCP is speaking only of interactions and
money flow between producer and consumer, not about internal bookkeeping
conventions or tax accounting.

Because the capital purchases are very much more variable
than "capital expenses" he came to conclusions that were both internally
inconsistent and mistaken substansively.

So you say, but you have given only your conclusion with nothing but your
authority as an economist behind it. Some reasons for saying these things
would be more convincing, perhaps, than simply handing them down _ex cathedra_.

In TCP's view, capital purchases are simply washed out when one speaks of
the Composite Producer, much as Keynes says in, I believe, chapter 6 of
That Book. The composite producer sells only to the composite consumer, not
to itself, since there is only one composite producer. The only part of
capital expenses that involves the composite consumer is the part called
"capital income" paid to individuals. Total expenses include, of course
expenditures on capital equipment in the form of capital income or wages,
paid out in the course of manufacturing such equipment for internal use.
But the composite producer pays nothing to itself.

If that's not the passage in question, where is the problem of which you speak?

I'm not aware of having at any time
resented him for attempting what he did in his effort to prove the economics
profesion wrong.

Resentment is, of course, an internal state and is conjectural for everyone
but the one said to be experiencing it. So I retract the term. It's your
dismissal of his work to which I can legitimately object. I hasten to add
that I do not, in general, find "Leakage" to be a well-developed theory of
economics _or_ human nature, though it contains some extremely important
concepts and approaches. However, if one is going to criticize it, the
criticisms ought at least have to do with what is in the book. I am not yet
convinced that your criticisms are relevant to what he actually said.

If anything I think I've been fairer to what T.C. Powers
attempted than the two people who reviewed his book in glowing terms, but
quite
obviously had not read it carefully. Had they read it with any throughalness
they would have found mistakes and/or gaps in his argument. So, While I could
have done better in handling the issue, I don't on the whole believe that my
conduct in regard to T.C. Powers and his "Leakages" concept amounts to
something I should be ashamed of.

I'm not asking for a pound of flesh. Feel as you wish. I think you are
guilty of misreading and misinterpreting, coupled with a bit of Not
Invented Here syndrome, but as far as I am concerned that is moot. That
argument is over.

Bill P.

P.S. If you will send me a street address, I will ship your oscilloscope to
you. It's not likely that I will be using it.

[Bill_Williams]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST]

Rick Marken: The question of dishonesty.

Rick Marken edited a set of papers by members of the Control Systems
group which appeared in "The American Behavioral Scientist volume 34
number 1 September/October 1990 under the caption "Purposeful Behavior
The Control Theory approach" A paper that is attributed to me appears
in the issue under the title "The Giffen Effect: A Note on Economic
Purposes." The paper however is not the one I wrote for this issue. When
I saw the published version it was immeadiately apparent that the paper
had been cut without my permission to about half of the length of the
paper I submitted. And, Rick in additon had made changes in substance.
For instance, on page 108 Rick says "Increase the budget and the _same_
model behaves as classical economics predicts-- an increase in the price
of bread leads to a decrease in the reference level (and hence the demand)
for bread."

However, if one examines figure 1 it should be clear that when the budget
is increased so as to clear point "S" then the consumer will become
completely indifferent to price changes in either meat or bread. Meat
and bread will be completely inelastic (or indifferent) with respect
to price changes that do not reduce the consumer's real income so as
to cause the budget function to come into conflict with the caloric
requirement. But, bread the Giffen good in the model as depicted in
Figure 1 _does not_ behave at any point on the surface as neo-classical
economic theory predicts. Rick makes the same point on page 109. where
he says "Control theory, which explains the "upward sloping" demand
curve of the Giffen effect as well as the "downward sloping" demand
curve of classical economics, seems to offer a potentially fruitful
alternative to classical economic models based on behavioristic
conceptions of human nature." There are several confusions here.
First there is a quite distinct break in economic thought between the
"classical" and the "neo-classical" conceptions of the economic process.
The Giffen case does not occur in the "classical" pattern of economic
thought as Rick mistaken wrote. The paradox which the Giffen phenomena is
concerned is an exclusively "neo-classical" problem. It can not be a
problem in the classical version of economics where a labor theory of value
is used. It is only a problem in the _Neo-Classical_ system used by orthodoxy.
Second neither the "classical" nor the ordinary mainstream version of "neo-
classical" pattern of economic thought is based upon a "behavioristic
conception of human nature." Many neo-classical economists were very much
opposed to psychological behaviorism because it would have undermined their
entire system by disolving the supposed independence of the preference
functions of economic agents.

The neo-classical era began in the late 19th century. Alfred Marshall's
_Principles of Economics_ 1890 is commonly regarded as the initial textual
exposition of neo-classical economic theory. The theory of human behavior
underlying this system was utilitarian in character. Behaviorism was then
24 some years in the future, so behavioristic psychology was not in existence
at the time that Marshall recognized the possiblity of a Giffen effect.
I suppose Rick thought he was helping me out by improving my paper. Perhaps he
thought his terminology was superior. However, what he did was make me look as
if I wasn't sufficiently familiar with the basic structure and nominclature of
theoretical economics to be able to employ the proper concepts and terms. Its
as if I edited one of Ricks papers and had the idea that what he said about B.
F. Skinner could be improved by casting Rick's criticism of Skinner's
conception of behaviorism in terms of the language of phrenology.

When I discovered what Rick had done I was furious. First I talked to
Greg Williams and Tom Bourbon. I pointed out that the paper as published
misrepresented my thinking, and they agreed that this was so. We examined
what Rick had said and it was apparent to them that there was a lack of
correspondence between figure 1 and the narrative. While they
were sympathetic, they were of the opinion that nothing could be done about
what Rick had done. I also talked to Bill Powers who was indifferent. Mary
Powers told me, You're an economist, why did you want to publish in a
psychology journal anyway?" The thing was, it was Rick who had asked of me
that I submit a paper. I initially proposed the topic of the
Veblen/Duessenberry effect. But Rick said, No, no, no, I want the Giffen
paper. Since I had already had the Giffen paper published twice, I really
wanted to do something new. But, it was Rick's issue to edit. And, the
Veblen/Duessenberry paper would have been more complicated. Then, later at a
CSG party I overheard Rick complaining that I had already published the Giffen
paper twice and now I was pestering him to publish it again. What was it with
williams, couldn't he develop any new stuff? First it was never a question of
me pestering Rick to publish in the issue, Rick approached me. ANd, second it
was not my choice to republish the Giffen paper. So, why was Rick claiming that
I was pestering him to publish the Giffen paper again? I can see the mistakes
that Rick made in editing the paper might have occured as a result of his
arrogance in thinking that he could improve it. But, Rick didn't understand the
basic meaning of some of the terms which he misused. Ethically, however, it was
a very serious lapse to sign my name to a paper to which he had made changes
not only in expression but also in substance.

When it was clear that there was nothing that I could do about what
Rick had done, I decided that I did not wish to be a part of an organization
in which this sort of misbehavior was allowed to take place. Bjorn Simonsen has
mentioned the concept of "rules." What Rick did violated the usual expectation
which most people have with regard to ethical conduct. It is ordinarily not
expected that an editor should publish his own view under another person's
name. Neither is slandering a person by lying in a way that discredits their
reputation. As I have come to learn, however, it is difficult to defend one's
self against such behavior however clearly it is perceived that conduct
violates ordinary ethical expectations.

In the larger scheme of things, eventually I realized that nobody that I knew
ever read the American Behavioral Scientist. And, it became an issue that
involved things over time came to be events that happened long ago and far
away. But, the memory of the incident has prompted me to think in a sustained
way about the effect of attitudes of arrogance and contempt can have in the
geneation of sociopathic behavior.

One of the elements in the present situation which has also prompted my
thinking in this direction has been rise of the Post-Autistic movement in
econmics. The euphoria associated with the success the movement has had in
gaining serious public attention ( at least in France ) may be naive, but
I've been increasingly convinced that the movement may be on to something
with its insistence upon qualities of tolerance, honesty, pluralism, mutual
respect, and other social virtues as a foundation for the sort of solidarity
requred to successfully confront the dominant orthodoxy in economics. I'm not
sure at this point whether they are going to be able to muster what is required
to overthrow orthodoxy, but they seem to be committed to giving it a shot.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, people associated with CSG have often
criticized Rick when it would have been less politic to express an equally
justified criticism of Bill Powers. This note on a situation in which Rick
behaved dishonestly may be a distraction from a concern with more inclusive
issues. There's a very real sense in which I feel a responsiblity in some
of the things that have happened. When Bill Powers bellowed at Bob Clark,
"SHutup Bob." I could have said, "THat's no way to treat people Bill." But,
I didn't. Some people have point out that, "You ( bill Williams ) have also
made mistakes." It doesn't hurt to be reminded of this. And, while I've done
the best I could to be accurate here in what I say, I may have made still
further mistakes. But, opinions differ concerning who has been responsible for
the most seriously injurious conduct. Since gratuitous nasty stuff happened
when I wasn't actively involved in CSG, I don't think I can be blamed for all
that has gone wrong. And, conversely I want to say again that I don't think
demonizing other people is a good idea. And, flinging excrement about, even if
figuratively, isn't so appealing either.

If one takes a look at "The Purposeful Behavior" issue of the ABS journal,
there is an enthusiastic comment by Philip Runkel that the last decades
expereince with CSG has given an ironic cast. Runkel says,

   "The possible avenues for research have barely been touched.
   .....
    "Much exhilarating work waits waits to challenge our ingenuity.
    ....
    "I think ... control theory ... will bring researchers to a happy
    camaraderie not seen before now." p. 23.

Little did Runkel know what was afoot even as he spoke those optimistic words.
Contemporary secular culture including its scientific aspects such as control
theory has eroded the traditional authority in which religious culture once
supplied a restraint over sociopathic conduct. One among other reasons many
people loath science is that has sometimes been used as an excuse for behavior
that is arrogant, irresponsible and injurious. In popular verse there is the
ditty "I am Werner Von Braun, I send the rockets up, who cares where they come
down. I regard the conceptions of science that can be twisted to justify such
behavior as bogus. But, there has yet to be developed a sufficiently adaquate
conceptions which will serve as scientificly based formulations of
responsiblity, reality, and morality to guide our behavior effectively. Not all
behavior deserves our respect, or ought to be tolerated. But, at present there
is an absence of agreement upon words to use in a discussion of such problems.
In the absence of such a new nominclature, despite my not being a conventional
believer, I will resort in all earnestness to what is said to be the shortest
verse in the New Testament:

                         "Jesus wept."

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.04.0950)

Bill Williams (UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST)

Rick Marken: The question of dishonesty.

Rick Marken edited a set of papers by members of the Control Systems
group which appeared in "The American Behavioral Scientist volume 34
number 1 September/October 1990 under the caption "Purposeful Behavior
The Control Theory approach" A paper that is attributed to me appears
in the issue under the title "The Giffen Effect: A Note on Economic
Purposes." The paper however is not the one I wrote for this issue.

I'm glad you finally got this off your chest, Bill. I don't have any serious
disagreements with your memory of events. I think the events you describe speak
more to my being a poor editor than to my being dishonest. It would have been
dishonest to tell you that I was going to publish exactly what you wrote and then
publish my rewrite. But even you don't claim that I did that. What you say I did
was rewrite your paper (with your permission) and then publish it without having
obtained your sign off on the final version. I think something like this may have
happened. I'm sure that I got your permission to edit the paper. But it's possible
that I did not show you the final version that I sent to the printer. If that is
the case (and I can't remember how I communicated with authors back in those days
before e-mail), it was for logistical rather then nefarious reasons. I had (and
still have) no interest in rewriting other people's articles to my taste and then
publishing them under their name without them knowing it.

I can't believe I didn't show you the edited version of your paper before it was
submitted. But if you say I didn't then I guess I didn't. I edited several other
papers in that issue, some just as or more heavily than yours. For example, I
remember cutting Wayne Hershberger's paper nearly in half. I remember that Wayne
was not happy about it, so I must have shown him the edited version. I don't know
why I would have been willing to show Wayne the edited version of his paper and
not shown you the edited version of yours. Wayne finally came around when I
explained why it as necessary to make the cuts (so that I could fit all the papers
into the issue). If I didn't check with you before publishing my edited version of
your paper then I made a bad mistake and I am very sorry.

I will admit that I probably could have done a better job as editor of the ABS
issue. But it was not a role I chose; it was kind of thrust upon me (though, of
course, I did chose it after it was thrust). What happened was that the editor of
my textbook (_Methods in Experimental Psychology_), who knew of my interest in
control theory, had just gotten a job at Sage. She asked me if I would like to
edit an issue of Sage's _American Behavioral Scientist_, a journal that only
publishes theme issues, on the theme of PCT. I said yes, thinking it was a nice
opportunity for PCT. So I solicited papers from those who I knew who were doing
research on PCT (I think I solicited the papers at the 1989 meeting). I got back
_too much_ material given the page limit. At first I considered (very reluctantly)
dealing with this problem by not publishing some papers. I remember calling Clark
McPhail and asking if it would be OK to leave out his paper because it was on the
same general topic as Bourbon's (social application of PCT). Clark said it was OK
but I could tell he felt bad (that was probably the beginning of the end of my
relationship with Clark). It's hard to tell someone you are considering not
publishing their paper and not have them think it's because you think their paper
is not up to par. So, after consulting with Bill Powers (I felt terrible after the
conversation with Clark) I decided to publish all the papers I had received (I
even added a paper from Ed Ford that he submitted at the last minute) but edited
to fit in the page limit.

Of course, what got edited was decided by me. I cut and changed selectively. But
I was the editor and it was my judgment that determined what was cut or changed
and what was not. As far as I can recall I either got carte blanche from authors
to make edits at my discretion or (especially when the edits were significant)
permission from the authors to publish as edited. If people didn't like my edits
they were free to say "don't publish it". No one said that.

What Rick did violated the usual expectation
which most people have with regard to ethical conduct.

If I did what you say (which is possible) -- that is, if I failed to get
permission from you to publish my edited version of your paper -- then that was a
violation of ethics. I wish you had called me on it back then. Perhaps we could
have discussed it and maybe worked it out. I was trying to improve your paper by
rewriting. I think I did improve it. But if the result was reprehensible to _you_
then I wish you would have told me after it was published or, better, _before_ it
was published.

It is ordinarily not
expected that an editor should publish his own view under another person's
name. Neither is slandering a person by lying in a way that discredits their
reputation.

To the extent that I did the former, it was not intended. My rewrites were based
on what you said. I just tried to clarify things for a psychological audience (the
audience of ABS). I don't believe I slandered you or lied in a way that
discredits your reputation. I may have made mistakes in my edits. For example, I
agree that the following is technically wrong:

"Increase the budget and the _same_ model behaves as classical economics
predicts-- an increase in the price of bread leads to a decrease in the reference
level (and hence the demand)
for bread."

But it's not all _that_ wrong. The fact is that a control model can be built that
acts this way. And I think that was an important point of the modeling exercise
(which was carried out by Bill Powers, by the way; is it not somewhat dishonest to
write a paper describing work carried out by someone else as though it were done
by you?): the same control model can predict both the upward and downward sloping
demand curves that have been observed. The shape of the demand curves depends on
the goals of the consumer, not on causal aspects of the environment.

But, again, if you didn't like my edits I wish you had confronted me with this
back then.

This note on a situation in which Rick
behaved dishonestly may be a distraction from a concern with more inclusive
issues.

I grant you that you describe a situation in which I might have behaved
improperly. And if so, I very humbly apologize if I caused you any grief. It was
not my intent to do so, nor was it my intent to publish my ideas under you name.

But I will agree that I have been dishonest in my life. Honesty is a variable and
always controlling for total honesty can be as hurtful as always controlling for
dishonesty. For example, I was not completely honest with everyone who contributed
papers to the ABS issue regarding what I thought of the merits of their work. I
do try to be honest when discussing substantive issues regarding PCT for which I
have been rewarded with being called the "thought police". But I think it's
better to be honest about substance than to be honest regarding qualitative
evaluations. So I'll admit to being dishonest, to some extent. But I was not
dishonest in the case you mention. I did not lie and say I would publish what you
wrote and then publish something else. I told you I would edit the paper and I'm
sure I got your approval either on the editing or on the result. I had no
interest in deceiving you; if you had not wanted it published as I had edited it,
that would just have worked in my favor because I could have published more of
what others had submitted.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me about the ABS issue. It was a great learning
experience. I think I could do a much better if I had the chance to do it again.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.0817 MST)]

Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST --

Rick Marken: The question of dishonesty.

Rick Marken edited a set of papers by members of the Control Systems
group which appeared in "The American Behavioral Scientist volume 34
number 1 September/October 1990 under the caption "Purposeful Behavior
The Control Theory approach" A paper that is attributed to me appears
in the issue under the title "The Giffen Effect: A Note on Economic
Purposes." The paper however is not the one I wrote for this issue. When
I saw the published version it was immeadiately apparent that the paper
had been cut without my permission to about half of the length of the
paper I submitted. And, Rick in additon had made changes in substance.

I checked my recollection of this with Rick, We both think that if
substantive changes were made in the paper without your permission, that
was a serious mistake. Rick will address that point, and others, himself.

The cut in length was no more than the rest of us who contributed were
required to do. I shortened my paper; Wayne Hershberger had a large section
of his paper dropped. Ed Ford's paper was drastically edited by Rick in
consultation with Ed over the phone. I don't know about the others, but I'm
sure everyone had to cut the length, because the journal's editor said that
the issue was much too large and had to be cut to be published. I recall,
not very clearly, a general notice send out to all authors by Rick warning
that the journal issue was too large. I do not know the circumstances
regarding your particular paper, but it's hard for me to believe that Rick
would single you out as the one person whose paper would be reduced in size
and edited without notification or getting permission to make editorial
changes. Could it be that you were unavailable at the critical time?

I agree with you that the diagram as shown in Fig. 1 does not allow
concluding that if the budget is large enough, the "normal" demand curve
will be seen, with the consumption of bread decreasing when the price
rises. Rick was simply mistaken in adding that sentence on p. 108 to the
paper. On the other hand, the Figure by itself does not allow concluding
that consumption of bread will rise when the price increases, either. As
you may remember from the development of the Basic program, it is necessary
to add a preference for meat over bread (you suggested calling this
preference "prestige") in order for that effect to appear, and this
preference is not indicated in Fig. 1, though it is mentioned in the text
and it does appear in the Basic program cited just prior to that part of
your paper. According to Fig. 1, if the person prefers a (vegetarian) diet
consisting mostly or wholly of bread, the Giffen paradox will not occur.
The diagram does not show any reference levels, so these effects have to be
added, as it were, offstage.

I'm not sure -- you may want to investigate this -- but in the original
Basic program, a moderate preference for meat will, I think, lead to a diet
consisting partly of meat and partly of bread, in the absence of any
budgetary constraint. If the price of bread then increases, the calorie
requirement will demand that the sum of meat and bread calories remain the
same, so the relative gains of the meat, prestige, and bread control
systems will determine whether the consumption of bread will increase or
decrease.

Also, I point out that control theory _in general_, if not Figure 1 in your
paper, requires that as the obtained amount of a good increases, the effort
to obtain more of it (i.e., and amount of money that will be spent) will
decrease, as the discrepancy between the amount obtained and the amount
wanted decreases. So the downward-sloping demand curve is an inherent
prediction of control theory, and of the Basic model of the Giffen effect.
Technically, therefore, the second mention of this effect (p. 109) is
correct, though it may not have been part of the original paper. In terms
of the intent of the paper, of course, it is simply a repeat of the first
mistake.

Grievances seem to grow in proportion to the time they are nurtured. Twelve
years is a long time to wait before confronting the source of this
grievance. If I appeared indifferent at the time (to what?) it may be
because of your habit of letting your complaints leak out only in the most
indirect and allusive way, until the internal pressure makes you blow your
stack completely. It may not have struck me that having a second paper on
the Giffen effect published only a year after the first appearance of this
model in print was a big deal to you, so any minor changes in it, while
annoying, were certainly not a big problem for you -- I probably thought.
Hard to remember what I _really_ thought that long ago.

For instance, on page 108 Rick says "Increase the budget and the _same_
model behaves as classical economics predicts-- an increase in the price
of bread leads to a decrease in the reference level (and hence the demand)
for bread."

Not having your original paper, I can't be sure what was and was not
changed, but it strikes me that your "for instance" might not be just one
of many such additions by Rick as the above implies, but in fact the _only_
such change (repeated a page later in the summing-up paragraph). I hope you
realize, Bill, that in 1990 your writing was not up to your present
standards and it was often very hard to figure out what you meant. What you
see as changes could, in some cases, be nothing more than an editor's
attempt to clarify (erroneously) what you wrote. Like the commentator who
changed "Behavior: the control of perception" to "Perception: the control
of behavior," kindly correcting my slip of the pen.

Is it possible that, on this occasion and perhaps during a later argument,
Rick said some things that were a bit dishonest? Sure. Same goes for me and
you. Does this mean Rick is a Dishonest Person? To quote a local authority,
"Jesus wept." Or more plainly, hell no. Are you a Trait Psychologist?

Bill P.

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 4 November 2002 11:48 AM CST]

In reply to

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.0817 MST)]

I thank you for what I regard as a very reasonable "response." There are
details about which I think we would disagree in regard to this issue, but a
quarrel over details doesn't seem to me to be worthwhile, if there is a measure
of agrement in regard to substance. I've got things to do here at the moment
that prevent me from "responding" at length right now. But, I plan to get back
to you in this regard later.

cordially yours

Bill Williams

A post script on communicative discourse.

    Newpaper clipping no date, no publisher

                      Aldrin Escapes Charges

Beverly Hills, Calif. -- No charges will be filed against Buzx Aldrin for
allegedly punching a man who called him liar and demanded that the former
astronaut swear on the Bible that he had been to the moon.
  Bart Sibrel 37, alleged that Aldrin 72 hit him in the face Sept 9 outside the
Luxe Hotel in Beverly Hills after sibrel called him "a coward, a liar and a
thief." The Los Angeles County district attorney's office announced Friday
that it had declined to file a misdemeanor battery count. It was unlikely that
a jurry would have convicted Aldrin, Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth
Ratinoff said.

···

Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST --

>Rick Marken: The question of dishonesty.
>
>Rick Marken edited a set of papers by members of the Control Systems
>group which appeared in "The American Behavioral Scientist volume 34
>number 1 September/October 1990 under the caption "Purposeful Behavior
>The Control Theory approach" A paper that is attributed to me appears
>in the issue under the title "The Giffen Effect: A Note on Economic
>Purposes." The paper however is not the one I wrote for this issue. When
>I saw the published version it was immeadiately apparent that the paper
>had been cut without my permission to about half of the length of the
>paper I submitted. And, Rick in additon had made changes in substance.

I checked my recollection of this with Rick, We both think that if
substantive changes were made in the paper without your permission, that
was a serious mistake. Rick will address that point, and others, himself.

The cut in length was no more than the rest of us who contributed were
required to do. I shortened my paper; Wayne Hershberger had a large section
of his paper dropped. Ed Ford's paper was drastically edited by Rick in
consultation with Ed over the phone. I don't know about the others, but I'm
sure everyone had to cut the length, because the journal's editor said that
the issue was much too large and had to be cut to be published. I recall,
not very clearly, a general notice send out to all authors by Rick warning
that the journal issue was too large. I do not know the circumstances
regarding your particular paper, but it's hard for me to believe that Rick
would single you out as the one person whose paper would be reduced in size
and edited without notification or getting permission to make editorial
changes. Could it be that you were unavailable at the critical time?

I agree with you that the diagram as shown in Fig. 1 does not allow
concluding that if the budget is large enough, the "normal" demand curve
will be seen, with the consumption of bread decreasing when the price
rises. Rick was simply mistaken in adding that sentence on p. 108 to the
paper. On the other hand, the Figure by itself does not allow concluding
that consumption of bread will rise when the price increases, either. As
you may remember from the development of the Basic program, it is necessary
to add a preference for meat over bread (you suggested calling this
preference "prestige") in order for that effect to appear, and this
preference is not indicated in Fig. 1, though it is mentioned in the text
and it does appear in the Basic program cited just prior to that part of
your paper. According to Fig. 1, if the person prefers a (vegetarian) diet
consisting mostly or wholly of bread, the Giffen paradox will not occur.
The diagram does not show any reference levels, so these effects have to be
added, as it were, offstage.

I'm not sure -- you may want to investigate this -- but in the original
Basic program, a moderate preference for meat will, I think, lead to a diet
consisting partly of meat and partly of bread, in the absence of any
budgetary constraint. If the price of bread then increases, the calorie
requirement will demand that the sum of meat and bread calories remain the
same, so the relative gains of the meat, prestige, and bread control
systems will determine whether the consumption of bread will increase or
decrease.

Also, I point out that control theory _in general_, if not Figure 1 in your
paper, requires that as the obtained amount of a good increases, the effort
to obtain more of it (i.e., and amount of money that will be spent) will
decrease, as the discrepancy between the amount obtained and the amount
wanted decreases. So the downward-sloping demand curve is an inherent
prediction of control theory, and of the Basic model of the Giffen effect.
Technically, therefore, the second mention of this effect (p. 109) is
correct, though it may not have been part of the original paper. In terms
of the intent of the paper, of course, it is simply a repeat of the first
mistake.

Grievances seem to grow in proportion to the time they are nurtured. Twelve
years is a long time to wait before confronting the source of this
grievance. If I appeared indifferent at the time (to what?) it may be
because of your habit of letting your complaints leak out only in the most
indirect and allusive way, until the internal pressure makes you blow your
stack completely. It may not have struck me that having a second paper on
the Giffen effect published only a year after the first appearance of this
model in print was a big deal to you, so any minor changes in it, while
annoying, were certainly not a big problem for you -- I probably thought.
Hard to remember what I _really_ thought that long ago.

>For instance, on page 108 Rick says "Increase the budget and the _same_
>model behaves as classical economics predicts-- an increase in the price
>of bread leads to a decrease in the reference level (and hence the demand)
>for bread."

Not having your original paper, I can't be sure what was and was not
changed, but it strikes me that your "for instance" might not be just one
of many such additions by Rick as the above implies, but in fact the _only_
such change (repeated a page later in the summing-up paragraph). I hope you
realize, Bill, that in 1990 your writing was not up to your present
standards and it was often very hard to figure out what you meant. What you
see as changes could, in some cases, be nothing more than an editor's
attempt to clarify (erroneously) what you wrote. Like the commentator who
changed "Behavior: the control of perception" to "Perception: the control
of behavior," kindly correcting my slip of the pen.

Is it possible that, on this occasion and perhaps during a later argument,
Rick said some things that were a bit dishonest? Sure. Same goes for me and
you. Does this mean Rick is a Dishonest Person? To quote a local authority,
"Jesus wept." Or more plainly, hell no. Are you a Trait Psychologist?

Bill P.

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 6 NOvember 2002 7:15 PM CST]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST]

Rick,

I still haven't received your reply to my 3 November posting I'm not sure
what is the problem. But, postings to the CSGnet are often delayed, and
sometimes don't seem to be distributed at all. I'd like to wrap this up.
If you could email me a copy of your reply directly then I will "respond."

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.06.1940)]

[From Bill Williams UMKC 6 NOvember 2002 7:15 PM CST]

> [From Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 3:00 PM CST]
>
> Rick,

I still haven't received your reply to my 3 November posting I'm not sure
what is the problem. But, postings to the CSGnet are often delayed, and
sometimes don't seem to be distributed at all. I'd like to wrap this up.
If you could email me a copy of your reply directly then I will "respond."

I don't save copies of my posts anymore since they are nicely archived now in
the CSGNet archives. The post you want is at:

http://listserv.uiuc.edu/wa.cgi?A2=ind0211a&L=csgnet&O=D&P=5677

Best regards

Rick

PS. I'm copying this to your address this in case this is not distributed to
you quickly by the listserver.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313