[From Bill Williams UMKC 7 November 2002 6:15 AM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.0817 MST)]
[From Rick Marken (2002.11.04.0950)
THere are many things in Bill Powers' comment, with which I do not agree.
Powers, however, does confirm my understanding that the paper contains an error
in regard to a claim it makes regarding the behavior of goods when the budget
is above the point at which the budget for meat and for bread more that
provides enough purchasing power to satisfy the reference levels. There are
other errors in the paper which are not mine, but this claim regarding what
happens when the budget exceeds the point of satiation is the most important
mistake of which I was not the source.
There are many things in Rick's reply which I do not find at all satisfactory.
The one which I will reply to here is Rick's suggestion that I might have been
"somewhat dishonest" when I published a paper when Powers had done the work.
Several kinds of "work" went into the paper. I wrote about the Giffen paradox
in a dissertation completed in 1972. But I didn't have a method which would
generate a solution to the paradox. It took me 13 years to find Powers work.
Then Powers and I collaborated in finding a solution. Since I didn't know
anything about programing at that time Powers wrote the code. I had, however
had the experience of designing the electronics for control units to be
installed on agricultural machinery. So, I did know something about control
theory. And, at one point in Bill Powers' effort to get a simulation running a
seemingly intractible problem developed. Looking at the code I saw that the
price of calories obtained by meat and bread had been set to the same value.
Given this specification, of course, the program couldn't run properly. So, I
did contribute not only the problem, but also a small portion of the work that
went into the initial giffen program. But, your complaint whatever the
distribution of effort within the colaboration and proper distribution of
credit is not with me. It was Powers who told me he didn't want his name to go
on the paper. (Now after Bill's recent disclosure, it can be inferred that he
did so as a result of a reaction to his experience with senior researchers
hogging the credit.) I would have been more than happy to have Bill Powers'
and my name appear on a paper as co-authors. I still would be. (But, I wouldn't
expect this is a likely prospect regarding a paper on "leakages.") So, my
answer would be no. If I made an ethical mistake it was in not arguing with
Powers and emphatically insisting that he sign onto the paper. In my upbring,
however youngsters were not encouraged to argue with the adults. So, If the
paper was going to be published, it was Powers' wish that his name not appear
on it.
You didn't respond to my charge that you "induced" me to republish the Giffen
paper, and then were heard complaining about my wanting to publish it. This
for me was equally as serious as your behavior as editor.
However, in contrast to my objection of much of what you have to say, I agree
with you when you say,
"it's possible that I did not show you the final version that I sent to the
printer."
OK. This has always been my understanding of what happened. I would be
satisfied if you would send me a letter stating that you introduced changes in
substance into the paper and that I did not approve of these changes. As a
"factual matter" I don't think there is any question that this happend. By
stating that this is what happened you would free me from responsiblity for a
paper, substansively significant parts of which which I did not write.
You argue at one point, that the printed version isn't all that bad. I
disagree. What it does is, ... well, it makes me sound like you. And, that is
just unbearable.
If you'll agree to release me from responsiblity for the paper, there will be
some issues to consider about the specific language. I don't intend to be
difficult this. But, there's a guy on campus who serves as an "ethicist"
resource, and I'll want to optain his advice concerning language the letter
should contain-- things like being signed in blue ink and other such strange
details.
Bill Williams
First I will reply to Rick's comment that "...is it not somewhat dishonest
to write a paper describing work carried out by someone else as though
it were done by you?" First the solution to the problem of the Giffen
paradox was achieved as a result of a colaboration between Powers and I.
I had writen about the paradox as a part of a dissertation completed in
1972. But, I didn't then have the methods required to solve it. It took me 13
years to find Powers' work. And even then I couldn't see a way to apply control
theory. I had experience developing control systems for agricultural machinery,
but that's quite different than models where control systems are in conflict.
For your information its not like I presented Powers with the problem and Bill
then solved it all by himself. It was quite a bit more difficult to think about
what was going on before I got the idea that the caloric and budget functions
could be depicted graphically. At one point the attempt to get the computer
model to work was stuck until I realized that the price of the meat and bread
had by accident be specified, so that the price per calorie was the same-- you
don't get the Giffen effect if this is the case. So, I was able to make
something of a contribution to the development of the model. Second, it was
Bill Powers who said not to put his name on the paper. I would have been more
than happy then to have had my name associated with POwers as co-author of a
paper. And, I told Powers this. ANd, I continue to be of this inclination. When
I eventually get the book completed, it will contain a generous acknowledgement
of Powers' contribution-- not only to the initial solution of the Giffen
effect, but as having supplied the method used throughout the volume. Third, if
this is so obvious to you now, why did you publish a paper which you now
describe as "somewhat dishonestd?"
You did not respond to my complaint that when you requested that I submit a
paper you demanded the Giffen paper rather than the one I wished to publish.
THen you c
···
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/