Promulgating PCT (was For Those ...)

Re: Promulgating PCT (was For Those
…)
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.25.20.51]

[From Rick Marken
(2004.11.25.1000)]

Marc
Abrams (2004.11.25.0940)-

Why
can’t we look at the body of work in economics, political science,
history, and just about any other social science and interpret the
work with PCT glasses on.

Some of us are doing this. But you, among
others, don’t like what we see.

If you
EVER hope to communicate with ANYONE in another field you better
know where THEY are coming from and moire importantly where THEY
want to go

This assertion is demonstrably false, at
least from my own experience.

I don’t think it’s false in the sense that the converse is true.
It’s insufficient and unneccessary, though helpful.

But communicating in the sense of
getting people to look at their discipline from a totally new
perspective – that of PCT – requires a level of intellectual honesty
or courage on the part of the communicatee that is apparently quite
rare. The reason, of course, is that PCT can take one where one might
not want to go.

I don’t think the issue is that so much as that the educational
background that enables one immediately to understand the potential of
PCT is rare. I think of my own case. I had studied control engineering
as an undergraduate; I had published a multi-level (control-theoretic)
feedback explanation of why haptic (active) touch feels different from
passive touch; I had published several articles on Layered Protocol
Theory, which I found to be a specialized application of PCT; and it
still took me several months to understand what PCT was really
about.

How much harder must it be for a psychologist without that kind
of background, and who has a bunch of descriptive “theories”
that seem describe the data quite well within her individual
specialized area?

One of the problems in promulgating PCT is precisely its
generality. One runs quickly into the saying: “A theory that
explains everything explains nothing.” References to e = mc^2 or
Newton’s three laws don’t cut it. Psychologists are just used to
“theories” that explain little segregated chunks of
knowledge. An encompassing theory that needs lots of
boundary-condition settings to explain their little chunk is bound to
be less appealing, especially if they don’t understand why the
generality is essential, and don’t understand the difference between
modelling and curve-fitting.

Marc does have a point, as is often the case – hard as it may be
to detect among the rest of his output.

Martin

In a message dated 11/25/2004 8:55:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.25.20.51]

Thank you Martin. Your post helped clarify and solidify my own thinking about what was really bothering me about the PCT definition of a ‘perception.’

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.25.20.51) --

Rick Marken (2004.11.25.1000)

Marc Abrams (2004.11.25.0940)-

If you _EVER_ hope to communicate with _ANYONE_ in another field you better know where _THEY_ are coming from and moire importantly where _THEY_ want to go

This assertion is demonstrably false, at least from my own experience.

I don't think it's false in the sense that the converse is true. It's insufficient and unneccessary, though helpful.

Yes. What I saw as false was the (possibly imagined) implication that success at communicating PCT is guaranteed by knowing where your audience is coming from and where they want to go. I know where my audience is coming from and where they want to go and still have had only modest success at communicating PCT.

Marc does have a point, as is often the case -- hard as it may be to detect among the rest of his output.

What is his point?

It sounds to me like the sales department complaining to engineering about the product. I don't think of myself as an employee of PCT Inc.

Regards

RIck

···

---

Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.26.14.12]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.25.20.51) --
Marc does have a point, as is often the case -- hard as it may be
to detect among the rest of his output.

What is his point?

It sounds to me like the sales department complaining to engineering
about the product. I don't think of myself as an employee of PCT Inc.

I can't speak for marc, and wouldn't if I could. But what I thought
he was getting at was that if PCT were demonstrably better at
explaining the phenomena psychologists study, and yet it is not
readily accepted by those same psychologists, there must be a reason,
and that reason could come from any of a number of possible
directions.

At different times, he seems to concentrate on one or more of:

    (1) PCT is currently inadequate to explain most interesting phenomena;
    (2) Those who do understand both PCT and psychology don't do a
good job of explaining PCT to psychologists;
    (3) PCT really does have the potential to explain interesting
phenomena, but is held back by dogmatism on the part of those who do
understand it.

When I said that he had a point, I was thinking of the general
proposition in the paragraph above, not of any of the listed points.
My own view, if I can reiterate it, is that there are two issues that
work together to make the penetration of PCT into psychology
difficult: (1) few psychologists understand control in any depth, and
(2) because of its wide applicability, there are many steps, many
assumptions or measurements, to be made before PCT can make specific
predictions about most of the areas studied.

There's another point, too, which is that many psychologists study
what we would think of as being only one part of a control loop, such
as the perceptual function. PCT needs the results of those studies,
but quite often it is just as hard to apply the results to PCT as it
is to introduce control thinking into the mainstream studies.

Martin

PS. I'm hoping to continue the model-fitting thread, but that takes
more time than a message like this, and time is what I don't have
much of, these days.

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1210)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.14.12)

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)--

What is his [Marc's] point?

...what I thought he was getting at was that if PCT were demonstrably
better at explaining the phenomena psychologists study, and yet it is
not readily accepted by those same psychologists, there must be a
reason, and that reason could come from any of a number of possible
directions.

That's a point? That's not even a grammatical sentence. There is no
"then..." clause following the "if..." cluase. I think you are leaning
over backwards so far that you've fallen into the muck yourself.

It seems to me that if anyone thinks that its possible to do a better
job of communicating PCT than I or anyone else has done, then they
should just do the job themselves. I'm reasonably happy with the work
I've done (and am doing) on PCT and with the way I've communicated it.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1220)]

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1210)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.14.12)

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)--

What is his [Marc's] point?

...what I thought he was getting at was that if PCT were demonstrably
better at explaining the phenomena psychologists study, and yet it is
not readily accepted by those same psychologists, there must be a
reason, and that reason could come from any of a number of possible
directions.

I've read this a couple more times and it seems like the "then.." is
implicit before the "there must be a reason". So it is grammatical and
what is seems to be saying is that, if (PCT were better at explaining
the phenomena psychologists study) AND (PCT were still not accepted)
then (there must be a reason for this being true).

So Marc's point is that non-acceptance of PCT happens for a reason?

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.26.16.16]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1220)]

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1210)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.14.12)

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)--

What is his [Marc's] point?

...what I thought he was getting at was that if PCT were demonstrably
better at explaining the phenomena psychologists study, and yet it is
not readily accepted by those same psychologists, there must be a
reason, and that reason could come from any of a number of possible
directions.

I've read this a couple more times and it seems like the "then.." is
implicit before the "there must be a reason". So it is grammatical and
what is seems to be saying is that, if (PCT were better at explaining
the phenomena psychologists study) AND (PCT were still not accepted)
then (there must be a reason for this being true).

So Marc's point is that non-acceptance of PCT happens for a reason?

I think so, but to put it like that, dropping the following lines
from your quote, makes it seem silly. I think he suggested (on
different occasions) three possible reasons. And I think that the
possibilities I added are different again.

Of course, I could be wrong on all counts. It's often hard to get the
sense out of Marc's emotional outbursts, but I think that some sense
does lurk, if you strip off the capitals and the ad hominem
stretches. He just doesn't know how to express that sense.

I don't think it's just you. I haven't encountered anyone who
consistently can make sense of what he writes, and I get the
impression that this is frustrating to him, and he doesn't know how
to express that frustration, either.

Don't take it that I am defending Marc's ideas or methods in general,
please. But if you do have a reference to perceive PCT as being more
widely accepted than it is, it makes sense that you would want to
reorganize until your methods seem to be reducing the error in that
particular control system.

I also am trying to control that particular perception, and I do seem
to have some small successes from time to time, locally. But you
might not consider "success" in the same way I do. I consider it a
success when someone explicitly uses the control of perception as
either an analytical tool to design something or as an explanation
for some observation about behaviour. I don't require them to be
doing experiments aimed at demonstrating the power of PCT. So maybe I
am happy with only partial success, in your eyes. But it's at least
something. I guess I'm more inclined to encourage them when they seem
to be doing something right than I am to discourage them by saying
they aren't doing everything perfectly "PCT-kosher", as you seem to
prefer. I could be wrong in that, too.

Stripping off the elaborative logorrheic verbiage, I think Marc's
point might be: "If it ain't working, try summat else."

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1400)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.16.16) --

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1220)

So Marc's point is that non-acceptance of PCT happens for a reason?

I think so, but to put it like that, dropping the following lines
from your quote, makes it seem silly. I think he suggested (on
different occasions) three possible reasons. And I think that the
possibilities I added are different again.

But it's the silly point that you liked, Martin. At least, that seems
to be what you said in an earlier post on this topic:

When I said that he had a point, I was thinking of the general
proposition in the paragraph above, not of any of the listed points.

So the specific points were not why you thought Marc had a point. Are
they now?

Don't take it that I am defending Marc's ideas or methods in general,
please.

How can I do that when you are defending Marc's ideas, if not his
methods?

But if you do have a reference to perceive PCT as being more
widely accepted than it is, it makes sense that you would want to
reorganize until your methods seem to be reducing the error in that
particular control system.

I would like to see PCT more widely accepted. But I also understand PCT
well enough to know the problems that would result if I tried to
control perceptions, like other people's acceptance (let alone
understanding) of PCT, that are ultimately uncontrollable. As the sign
in Bill Powers' aunt's house said "He who is convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still."

Stripping off the elaborative logorrheic verbiage, I think Marc's
point might be: "If it ain't working, try summat else."

If that's his point, then he should be making it to someone (like
himself) who is trying to do "it" and for whom "it" ain't working (I
presume "it" is getting others to accept PCT). I am not trying to get
others to accept PCT. Or, at least, I'm trying not to try. I'm just
trying to do good work in PCT. And that's working pretty well for me.

Marc is a salesman so he evaluates ideas (like PCT) in terms of whether
or not people buy them. Demand is not my measure of the value of an
idea.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.26.17.48]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1400)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.16.16) --

Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1220)

So Marc's point is that non-acceptance of PCT happens for a reason?

I think so, but to put it like that, dropping the following lines
from your quote, makes it seem silly. I think he suggested (on
different occasions) three possible reasons. And I think that the
possibilities I added are different again.

But it's the silly point that you liked, Martin. At least, that seems
to be what you said in an earlier post on this topic:

When I said that he had a point, I was thinking of the general
proposition in the paragraph above, not of any of the listed points.

So the specific points were not why you thought Marc had a point. Are
they now?

The general proposition is silly when quoted without the individual
points; but the individual items were not what I thought of when I
suggested Marc might have a point.

Don't take it that I am defending Marc's ideas or methods in general,
please.

How can I do that when you are defending Marc's ideas, if not his
methods?

Idea singular, please. Not "ideas". If he has other ideas that I
think make sense, then I'll defend those, too.

I would like to see PCT more widely accepted. But I also understand PCT
well enough to know the problems that would result if I tried to
control perceptions, like other people's acceptance (let alone
understanding) of PCT, that are ultimately uncontrollable.

Are they uncontrollable? I seriously doubt it. If they were
uncontrollable, what would be the point of advertising or education?
Is it innate that some people accept creationism, or did other people
do something that led them to accept it, and was that acceptance not
what was probably a controlled perception in the teacher?

  As the sign
in Bill Powers' aunt's house said "He who is convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still."

A good saying, but do a PCT analysis of it. It's talking about the
resolution of a conflict by overwhelming force, isn't it?

Stripping off the elaborative logorrheic verbiage, I think Marc's
point might be: "If it ain't working, try summat else."

If that's his point, then he should be making it to someone (like
himself) who is trying to do "it" and for whom "it" ain't working (I
presume "it" is getting others to accept PCT). I am not trying to get
others to accept PCT. Or, at least, I'm trying not to try. I'm just
trying to do good work in PCT. And that's working pretty well for me.

I think you do do good work in PCT, lots of it. But it's hard for me
to read many of your postings without coming to believe that you are
often trying to get others to accept PCT, while at the same time I
feel that the way you write may well deter neophytes from doing just
that.

Marc is a salesman so he evaluates ideas (like PCT) in terms of whether
or not people buy them. Demand is not my measure of the value of an
idea.

Agreed on both counts. As witness his proof of the rightness of
Bush's policies (61 million Americans can't be wrong).

···

-----------------------------

I think this will probably be my last message in this thread. I'd
rather spend time on more technical matters, such as model-fitting.
But if disturbance persists, ....

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.2050)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.26.17.48) --

I would like to see PCT more widely accepted. But I also understand
PCT
well enough to know the problems that would result if I tried to
control perceptions, like other people's acceptance (let alone
understanding) of PCT, that are ultimately uncontrollable.

Are they uncontrollable?

Ultimately, yes. I think so. Because the reference that determines
whether or not an idea is acceptable or not is autonomously determined
by the person you are trying to get to accept the idea.

I think you do do good work in PCT, lots of it. But it's hard for me
to read many of your postings without coming to believe that you are
often trying to get others to accept PCT, while at the same time I
feel that the way you write may well deter neophytes from doing just
that.

I certainly try to convince people of the merits of PCT. But I also
try to do this with an attitude of not trying to force acceptance. So I
am trying (often vigorously) to present PCT and the evidential support
for it as clearly and convincingly as possible while, at the same time,
harboring as little hope as possible that my audience will be
convinced. So one part of me is controlling for gaining acceptance of
PCT while another is controlling for not trying too hard to gain
acceptance for it.

While I don't want to control people's acceptance of PCT neither do I
want to deter neophytes from accepting it. So please feel free to
point out to me whenever you see me writing things that you think may
deter neophytes (or anyone else, for that matter) from acceptance of
PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.26.1954)]

I saw a bunch of posts and read this one-first and decided to answer this post before looking at the prior ones.

I always find it interesting to see threads on CSGnet where people talk about what another person ‘means’ and intends and no ever try’s to ask the third party whether they are accurate or not in their assumptions.

In a message dated 11/26/2004 6:04:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.26.17.48]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1400)]

I would like to see PCT more widely accepted. But I also understand PCT
well enough to know the problems that would result if I tried to
control perceptions, like other people’s acceptance (let alone
understanding) of PCT, that are ultimately uncontrollable.

Are they uncontrollable? I seriously doubt it. If they were
uncontrollable, what would be the point of advertising or education?
Is it innate that some people accept creationism, or did other people
do something that led them to accept it, and was that acceptance not
what was probably a controlled perception in the teacher?

Rick, no one is asking you to ‘control’ for someone else’s reference’s. You can’t. What you can do is accept the validity that others have different ideas then you do and THEY ARE JUST AS VALID AS YOURS ARE, FOR THEIR PURPOSES.

‘Selling’ is NOT the ability to talk someone into something they had no desire to do. That is a SILLY (to use Martins vernacular) popular notion. You don’t make any more money spending loads of time with someone. You get paid, usually, by either the number of sales or the size. NOT by the difficulty. :slight_smile:

Good sales people (and the better con artists) find out very quickly WHAT people are looking for FIRST. Then they provide it. It’s really that simple AND that difficult. Many inexperience sales people are more interested in telling someone why they should buy something rather than asking them what the hell they want. Of course many poor sales people also think that others want what they want and think that what they value others do as well. These are all sales fallacies and get more people out of the business then poor products.

The difference between a good con artist and a good salesmen is the commission of FRAUD.

But then again, that is the difference between a responsible citizen and a crook isn’t it.

My main points are that others do not see 1) HOW PCT is more important to them then what they are currently using. That is, how PCT provides a better way to help them get what they want. In economics terms the ‘costs’ associated with learning and utilizing the theory are not outweighed by the ‘benefits’ and until this is reversed it will remain this way.

Something is terribly wrong when SD’ers think they are ‘doing’ PCT and PCter’s think they don’t have a clue.

But the question here Rick is NOT who is ‘right.’ The big question is why SD’ers’ believe they are ‘doing’ PCT and our inability to show them WHY they are not.

Bill Powers could not show Jay Forrester the difference. I find this incredible because I can see the differences clearly. But it is going to take an SD model to show the SD community WHY PCT is relevant for them.

This can be said for EVERY discipline as well. The reason you want to ‘sell’ PCT is that it needs a huge amount of development in many directions. The ONLY way others are going to pick up the ball is if THEY see VALUE and Benefit in doing so.

‘VALUE’ is an economic term that has HUGE behavioral consequences, ESPECIALLY when it comes to managing control systems and ‘error.’

As the sign
in Bill Powers’ aunt’s house said “He who is convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still.”

A good saying, but do a PCT analysis of it. It’s talking about the
resolution of a conflict by overwhelming force, isn’t it?

Yep!!! That is the ONLY way a PCT system can resolve conflict besides either avoidance (a Bill Powers favorite tactic) or giving up the same references.

But this is NOT the way it needs to be for a control system. Since you cannot eliminate error, you will always have some. The question then becomes what level is TOLERABLE. NOT what is avoidable. What kinds and types of ‘error’ become unmanageable and unworkable and which do?

Martin’s work with ‘Mutuality’ shows that error is as much a part of the control process as any of the other functions. That is how I see it. You cannot avoid it, we MUST learn to manage it, and so far we have done no investigative work in this important area. Who is supposed to do this? Bill Powers? Of course not, but we need others who see the value and benefit in spending THEIR time and resources on getting answers.

What Martin has not done is see what levels of error become ‘problematic’ for the control of other reference levels and how the interactions affect one another. Martin’s work shows the need for this type of research

Stripping off the elaborative logorrheic verbiage, I think Marc’s
point might be: “If it ain’t working, try summat else.”

Yes, that is ONE of my points. That is the second or third step. The first one is RECOGNIZING something is amiss.

If that’s his point, then he should be making it to someone (like
himself) who is trying to do “it” and for whom “it” ain’t working (I
presume “it” is getting others to accept PCT).

But it IS working Rick. You think I’m trying to convince you that you should think like me and I’M NOT_. There are others out there who I know are reading my posts and agree with my positions. That is one reason I persist. :slight_smile:

While you continue to try and convince me that you are ‘right,’ I continue to think that you don’t have a clue in the world. The more you talk the more clueless you seem. The reason for this is that you honestly believe you have a superior position and in fact you don’t. Never did and never will.

The reason you never will is because what Rick Marken thinks is right for Rick is one thing and fine, the problem starts when Rick thinks that what Rick thinks is important and is what EVERYONE else should consider to be important as well.

THAT Rick is just not going to happen and unfortunately Rick you think PCT has an answer to this question and I don’t.

PCT at this time, can’t tell the difference between a neural signal, a chemical reaction, a perception, a thought, a belief, a conviction, motivation, Widgets, snow or horsemeat.:slight_smile:

Its a control system that controls its input ANY freakin input.

Rick, you have a marvelous imagination and Martin is a wonderful abstract thinker. Not many are blessed with the talent of the former or the interest in the latter. So for the two of you, you guys ‘see’ PCT in places others don’t. It is quite a different matter to get others to ‘see’ the things you do or to get others to think they should care about them.

I believe Martin understands this. I don’t believe Rick does.

The reason that we have and use these different words (beliefs, ideas, thoughts) is because they represent different things and concepts. There is a commonality to them and a distinction all at the same time. With PCT these things are indistinguishable and most people who deal in human behavior are interested in understanding how these different concepts affect and are affected by human behavior.

Until you have the capability of telling someone how they can get from point ‘a’ to point ‘b,’ people are going to continue to do what THEY feel comfortable doing.

I am not trying to get
others to accept PCT. Or, at least, I’m trying not to try. I’m just
trying to do good work in PCT. And that’s working pretty well for me.

Why the trip to GB? Why are you talking with me? Why publish a paper?

In fact Rick, what is the purpose of ‘doing good work in PCT’ all about if no one else thinks your work is worth a darn?

I think you do do good work in PCT, lots of it. But it’s hard for me
to read many of your postings without coming to believe that you are
often trying to get others to accept PCT, while at the same time I
feel that the way you write may well deter neophytes from doing just
that.

Martin, it’s not just ‘neophytes’. Its all people who have slightly different ideas about how ECS’s are organized and structured and in finding out exactly what elements (feelings, thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc.) do and do not contain ECS’s.

Marc is a salesman so he evaluates ideas (like PCT) in terms of whether
or not people buy them. Demand is not my measure of the value of an
idea.

Agreed on both counts. As witness his proof of the rightness of
Bush’s policies (61 million Americans can’t be wrong).

I DISAGREE on BOTH counts :-)You are BOTH off base here. Martin, I DO NOT measure VALUE by DEMAND. Both ‘VALUE’ and ‘DEMAND’ are economic terms that are NOT well understood by both PCter’s and Economists and are two of many terms that need to be understood within the context of control.

'VALUE" is a notion that deals with incremental and not absolute and zero-sum results. Right now we have no idea with a PCT model, what effects incremental magnitudes of ‘error’ has, not so much on the ability of one control process on its ability to control, but also the effects on other interacting processes that are affected by the control system in error.

I do not believe human control error is corrected immediately. In fact, there can be control processes that are in ‘error’ for long periods of time without going into ‘reorganization.’ I believe people have looked at this kind of phenomena and even have given it a name; Allostasis

‘Value’ is also a concept that resides totally in an individual. It does not exist outside. There may be a group of people who think they agree on the ‘value’ of things, but as in any auction, we know that one person will usually value something’s differently then others.

If I judged the ‘value’ of PCT by the ‘demand’ I would have been LONG gone from CSGnet, LONG GONE.

I am here because I believe it holds the key to our understanding of human behavior. I simply do not believe we are in any where near that goal. As much as might like to pooh-pooh it Rick, we need others to get interested in this stuff if there is ever going to be a legacy for Bill Powers to leave.

‘DEMAND,’ Rick and Martin, is NOTHING more then the collective desires of individuals. It has NOTHING to do with ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’

And Rick, I don’t deal is ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ In our system it is NOT an elite board of intellectuals who decides what others should and should not have or think. In this country we decide things by debating the issues and then taking a vote. Sometimes you are in the ‘majority’ and sometimes you ain’t.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of this country, you would understand the total dislike most people had for democracies in the 17th century. The reason for this is that democracies were viewed by most as the rule by demagogic mobs and was not to be trusted.

THAT is why a FEDERAL Republic was CHOSEN as the government of choice after 10 years of assorted kinds of state governments, and why we had to REWRITE the original articles of Confederation of the Revolution and come up with the compromise we now call the US Constitution and it’s 27 amendments. SIXTEEN years after we declared our independence and 26 years after the stamp act and the ‘real’ beginning of our revolution.

And you think Iraq, going from 30 years of tyrannic rule to a democracy in 13 MONTHS is not an achievement IF it happens it would be nothing short of a miracle.

Your knowledge in political science is right up there with your knowledge of economics. Which is NO WHERE. :slight_smile:

I think this will probably be my last message in this thread. I’d
rather spend time on more technical matters, such as model-fitting.
But if disturbance persists, …

Martin, it’s interesting that you say this without hearing my response to your posts and exchange with Rick and your claims about how I think and what I ‘intended’. Why you continue to think you ‘know’ what I mean or intend without asking is beyond me.

I think you care otherwise you would not respond to my posts.

‘Disturbances’, like many things PCTish has a ‘negative’ connotation, hence the term ‘disturbance,’ but another way to think about a disturbance is that of an environmental variable that gets you to act. That definition brings it out of the realm of a disturbance always being something you don’t want because it interferes with control, and supposedly what you do want, to something that can get your attention for something either more important or just on a different, but not worse path.

Rick, I am talking to the same audience you are. I’m sure most folks on this list are very much in your corner. But if I reach even ONE person (and I think I have :-)) then I have been successful in my quest for getting someone other than myself to see the problems associated with getting PCT popularized.

I want to see others working with PCT because I firmly believe SCIENCE needs it badly. I have chosen, after some missteps, to focus my efforts on economics. I believe this is where I can get the biggest bang for the buck. I was into neuroscience and physiology for quite a while, but like Will Rogers, I stopped digging when I found myself in a hole.

The ‘hole’ was not because PCT was ‘bad’ or ‘useless’. I was in a hole because the necessary information needed at the INTERMEDIATE levels I was interested in and needed to understand control at the biological level with does not yet exist.

It will, but not right now

MUCH work is currently going on in Microbiology around the concept of control. It’s simply unavoidable. But we are a very long way from understanding and connecting level 1 with level 11 in PCT parlance.

On the other hand, concepts like value, price, cost, demand, and such can all be explained in a control model and what Micro economics lacks is a cohesive theory of human behavior to account for ‘Utility Theory.’

I believe control IS Utility theory. NOT a metaphor for it, but the real deal. Now, all that has to be done is to explain MICRO ECONOMICS and such concepts as ‘value,’ ‘demand,’ 'cost,'etc. as a function of a control system.

Not an easy task but certainly NOT insurmountable.

So Rick, you continue to play with your MACRO economic models. I found some very eager buyers for a micro model.

I don’t need to convince the world nor am I attempting to. I am looking to make ONE working model in a discipline I KNOW is interested in seeing one.

Do you see and understand the difference between what I am attempting to do and what you have done and are doing?

I happen to LOVE, history, economics, political science, and psychology.

I think I have found a home with this work.

My modeling effort will speak for itself and stand or fall on its merits. I can deal with that. :slight_smile: I am doing some very interesting model-fitting as well Martin I will let you know how that turns out.

Any desire to talk about these micro economic concepts in control terms on CSGnet?

Things like ‘Value,’ ‘Cost,’ ‘Demand,’ ‘Price,’ 'Worth or ‘Wealth.’ If so, why doesn’t someone reply with a ‘Economics’ header post and what you would like to address.

I’ll give it a couple of days and if on one responds by the end of business on Monday, I’ll begin an economics thread.

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.27.0039)]

In a message dated 11/26/2004 11:36:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.0830)]

I know where my
audience is coming from and where they want to go and still have had
only modest success at communicating PCT.

This is a blatant falsehood. IF this were true you would be able to provide what they were asking for and they would currently be interested in PCT.

If you could not immediately satisfy your potential customers you would know this (by your lack of sales) and you would then either find new customers who wanted what you have to sell or a new product you knew your potential customers were interested in.

You have been unable to either one. You have not been able to find a product others find interesting and you have not determined what any one segment might require. If you did you would be able to fill the need.

So one must assume you are not interested in ‘selling’ PCT, you don’t know what any one really wants, or not willing to do so.

I don’t think you have a clue as to what people really want. I say this because you have never asked me what I want or what might satisfy my needs. You could care less and this shows in any number of different ways

Marc does have a point, as is often the case – hard as it may be to
detect among the rest of his output.

What is his point?

The above is simply one of them. Why not ask?

It sounds to me like the sales department complaining to engineering
about the product. I don’t think of myself as an employee of PCT Inc.

And what might sales be ‘complaining’ about to in ‘engineering’?

That no one is interested in buying the product?

Maybe you should start thinking of yourself as an ‘employee’ of PCT.

We are all ambassadors every time we speak to someone about the subject.

I’m done. I’m not even going to bother reading any more of this thread between Rick and Martin. I really could care less at this point.

Rick really likes to hear himself talk and he has absolutely nothing to say

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.2230)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.26.1954) --

PCT at this time, can't tell the difference between a neural signal, a chemical reaction, a perception, a thought, a belief, a conviction, motivation, Widgets, snow or horsemeat.:slight_smile:

Are you sure it's PCT that can't tell these differences?

I am not trying to get others to accept PCT. Or, at least, I'm trying not to try. I'm just trying to do good work in PCT. And that's working pretty well for me.

Why the trip to GB? Why are you talking with me? Why publish a paper?

The trip to GB was because we love England and I had the opportunity to present my work to some colleagues. I'm talking with you to the extent that I reply by making what I think are useful points for those who are already interested in PCT. I publish papers for the same reason; to provide information for those who already find PCT interesting.

In fact Rick, what is the _purpose_ of 'doing good work in PCT' all about if no one else thinks your work is worth a darn?

Because I enjoy exploring, learning, discovering and creating for their own sake. But I have reason to believe that the number of people who think my work is worth a damn is somewhat greater than zero.

I'm sure most folks on this list are very much in your corner.

See, even you think so.

My modeling effort will speak for itself and stand or fall on its merits.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing all these models. I was expecting to see the model of perception by now. Can you give me an ETA on the economics model? I think we should postpone this discussion until you've posted one or all of your models.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

Re: Promulgating PCT (was For Those
…)
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.27.10.50]

From [Marc Abrams
(2004.11.26.1954)]

[Martin Taylor
2004.11.26.17.48]

I think this will probably be my
last message in this thread. I’d

rather spend time on more technical matters, such as
model-fitting.

But if disturbance persists, …

Martin, it’s interesting that you
say this without hearing my response to your posts and exchange with
Rick and your claims about how I think and what I ‘intended’. Why you
continue to think you ‘know’ what I mean or intend without asking is
beyond me.

All I can do is to try to interpret your messages as if they were
in English. I think I have been very careful to disclaim certainty
about what you mean. In fact, have I not expressly said that it is
extremely difficult to extract your meaning from your words?

I think you care otherwise you would
not respond to my posts.

‘Disturbances’, like many things
PCTish has a ‘negative’ connotation, hence the term ‘disturbance,’ but
another way to think about a disturbance is that of an environmental
variable that gets you to act. That definition brings it out of the
realm of a disturbance always being something you don’t want because
it interferes with control, and supposedly what you do want, to
something that can get your attention for something either more
important or just on a different, but not worse
path.

As this is a technical matter, I’ll
respond.

"…another
way to think about a disturbance is that of an environmental variable
that gets you to act. "

This is a simple S-R statement that
directly contradicts the central thesis of PCT. If you really believe
what you wrote here, and it isn’t a simple mis-statement, it’s no
wonder you run into trouble trying to develop PCT in the directions
that interest you. If you really mean it, you haven’t started to
understand what PCT is about.

A “disturbance” is so named
because, in the engineering sense of the term, it disturbs a
perception away from its reference value. A disturbance doesn’t
“get you to act”, and neither does the reference value in
itself. Nor, in PCT theory, does the difference between the disturbed
perception and the reference value. Only when that difference is
coupled into an output system that affects the outer world (in the
vernacular, the person “cares”), is a disturbance
accompanied by action.

“That
definition brings it out of the realm of a disturbance always being
something you don’t want because it interferes with
control”

A disturbance does not interfere with control. It does not affect
the ability to control, nor does it affect the manner of control. What
a disturbance does is dynamically to affect the error value of a
control system. But in no way does it interfere with control of the
disturbed perception, unless it is powerful enough to overwhelm the
output mechanism of the control system.

Now it may happen that the error dynamics of one control system
affects the error dynamics of another, but that’s a question of the
structure of the complex of control systems. It doesn’t mean that a
disturbance, in itself, interferes with control, even of the second
system.

[A disturbance is]
something that can get your attention for something either more
important or just on a different, but not worse
path.

That bears no relation to what is normally called a
“disturbance” in PCT. However, an input that has such an
effect may well have its effect because it disturbs a high-level (in
HPCT) controlled perception for which the output uses control of
lower-level perceptions not disturbed by the initial input. Remember
that in HPCT, high-level perceptions are functions of many lower-level
perceptions, and the outputs of high-level control systems influence
the reference values of many lower-level control systems. So control
of the high-level perception may be done by acting in a variety of
different ways (it’s why the Method of Levels has a chance of
working).

···

“I think you care otherwise you
would not respond to my posts.”

Your posts often disturb quite a few controlled
perceptions.

My comment about “my last message in this thread”
referred to my decision to cease controlling some of those
perceptions. However, I still intend to continue controlling some
perceptions relating to technical aspects of PCT.

Martin

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.26.0955)]

I believe this is the final post in this thread unless Rick has any departing words.

In a message dated 11/27/2004 1:39:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.2230)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.26.1954) –

PCT at this time, can’t tell the difference between a neural signal, a
chemical reaction, a perception, a thought, a belief, a conviction,
motivation, Widgets, snow or horsemeat.:slight_smile:

Are you sure it’s PCT that can’t tell these differences?

Rick, please try and understand what I am attempting to say here. With your wonderful imagination (and I DO NOT mean either fantasy or delusion) you are capable of ‘seeing’ how PCT and control can fit into just about every behavioral situation and develop a nice story to go along with it. So can I, or at least some of the times. :slight_smile:

The problem arises in the generality of what is going through a PCT ‘loop.’ Currently, it is a neural signal; in PCT speak that is a ‘perception.’ Powers has theorized through introspection alone at this point that our thoughts are ‘constructed’ by a hierarchy of combined neural signals. Each level devoted to a singular aspect of a ‘thought’ or ‘idea.’ This sounds wonderful. I originally thought that this organization actually ‘solved’ the sensory binding problem that has existed in neuroscience since the crack of dawn.

The ‘sensory binding problem’ being the issue of how our sensory is combined and utilized to form ‘perceptions’ or ideas and thoughts.

In my research I discovered that our ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ were largely chemically based reactions and not neural in the sense that we had thought of in the past.

Research also showed that our ‘imagination’ played a much larger role in what we actually perceived (in the PCT sense) then what we thought we perceived (in the PCT sense) then what we were actually aware of.

Rodolpho Llinas book; i of the vortex was able to combine all the elements in an elegant explanation of how control (and PCT) might have a physiological basis. Llinas has spent the past 30 years studying neural communications and as the chair of the Neuroscience and Physiology Department at the Einstein Medical School here at NYU has some pretty impressive credentials.

What he doesn’t have is PCT and I think if you plug Bill’s input controlling loop into Llinas structure you have a physiological model that works.

The problem is that Llinas model, or at least the entire model, is not currently a ‘computational’ model. There are aspects of it, such as neural communication that are, but the entire effort is not.

I realized though that even with Llinas physiological insights there was just not enough data available to make a working model of his ideas. Oh, a model could be made, you just could not test it against anything known to man, so it would be like writing a science fiction novel. A just so story that sounds great but has no justification for its existence except in my own head. I still feel the same way. I believe Llinas has the ‘right’ physiological’ model. I believe Powers has the ‘right’ functional one.

What happened next was amazing. Bill Williams turned me on to an economics book and as I do 98 out of 100 times I read it and looked for a few contrary views to what was expressed in this book. I do this with everything I research, everything.

I help keep Amazon in business. My wife thinks we should move into the main NY public library, we’d have more room. :slight_smile: to live there among my beloved books.

Anyway, I stumbled across Dr. Thomas Sowell and read every one of his books TWICE. The man is incredible and I was hooked on economics.

Now, Sowell, and most economists, including the large contingent of folks associated with SD do not know of or understand the concept of the controlled input model of Powers. One reason, among a few, is that an individual view, that is a view of a single individual is rarely necessary in either an SD or Macro econom ic model.

SD’ers often scoff at the econometric crowd for having milk production models that do not include the cows themselves.

SD’ers though should not laugh at people who live in glass houses. SD’ers believe the environment ‘causes’ behavior. They are the ultimate Skinnarians. :slight_smile: and the reason they can get away with this for the most part, is that their models do not involve the understanding of the behavior of any one individual.

When this does happen, or if an SD model is used to attempt a ‘behavioral’ change at the individual level it usually fails, and this is because SD’ers, with all their knowledge of feedback and systems, do not understand that humans are not widgets, and that humans represent a very special kind and type of feedback system. This was my personal experience with using SD in my consulting days.

Fred Nichols has had some personal experience with using SD in a large organization. What was your experience with it Fred?

The trip to GB was because we love England and I had the opportunity to
present my work to some colleagues.

Off of one of your last posts, why bother. Your not a PCT ‘employee.’ Enjoy the sights and sounds and why exasperate yourself with possible rejection.

I don’t know why you are in denial. I don’t know of anyone who does not want to be accepted for the work they do and what they feel they contribute.

Like Powers you seem to think the best strategy for dealing with rejection is avoidance.

Well, I disagree. In my line of work, that was a fatal flaw because no matter how good your product is, and no matter good you are, there are going to be a great deal more people who say NO THANK YOU, or words to that effect :-), than will embrace either you or your product.

Like a very good ball player. You are only going to be successful 30 to 40% of the time. Actually in sales, what you strive for is a high closing ratio. That is, the number of sales Vs the number of people seen. The higher the better. But THAT requires a great deal of prep work, and you need to ‘qualify’ possible customers BEFORE you spend expensive time chasing after them. That is, you really want to spend your time going after people who are more than not likely to be interested in what you have to offer. Depending on what you are attempting to sell, qualifying can or cannot be done to good effect. The better you qualify and the better you can qualify, the more successful you will be as a salesperson, all things being equal.

Trying to sell retirement plans in a hospice will not make you a lot of money, but you’d be surprised how many people attempt to do this type of thing.

That is whole lot of rejection. It takes a special breed to deal with that and survive. Some unfortunately turn to fraud, but most just find other lines of work

I’m talking with you to the extent
that I reply by making what I think are useful points for those who are
already interested in PCT. I publish papers for the same reason; to
provide information for those who already find PCT interesting.

Yes, this is the great academic fantasy. The wonderful delusion most academics have. The ‘goodness’ of their work will speak for itself and any one with any brains will be able to see this immediately if not sooner and if they don’t, it’s their problem. If they can’t or won’t they must be deficient in some mortal way and maybe if I push a little bit harder or try to ‘guide’ them a bit more they just might come around. But when you do that without understanding where people actually want to go you are pissing in the wind.

What eventually happens with this strategy is that after a length of time and getting rejected by a huge majority of folks you are attempting to ‘sell’ without qualifying (that means without understanding if these people may be interested i what you have to sell in the first place, and that is NOT as obvious as you think), you retreat into a bunker and either avoid the pain of rejection or defend to the death and cut off any one who might threaten your position

Two LOSING strategies.

In fact Rick, what is the purpose of ‘doing good work in PCT’ all
about if no one else thinks your work is worth a darn?

Because I enjoy exploring, learning, discovering and creating for their
own sake. But I have reason to believe that the number of people who
think my work is worth a damn is somewhat greater than zero.

Not much, and I’m sure you wish it were greater. We all do. All I’m saying is admit you don’t know how to sell and you wish you did. :slight_smile:

I’m sure most folks on this list are very much in your corner.

See, even you think so.

On THIS list. But I KNOW politically that 4+ MILLION more Americans agree with ME politically then agree with you and as for ‘PCT’ people on this list have not seen my model, so you can’t say that they will agree with you after they have seen it.

In fact I’m not sure YOU will disagree with my model after you see it. :slight_smile:

My modeling effort will speak for itself and stand or fall on its
merits.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing all these models. I was
expecting to see the model of perception by now. Can you give me an ETA
on the economics model? I think we should postpone this discussion
until you’ve posted one or all of your models.

First, I’m not doing an ‘economic’ model. I will be modeling Micro economic phenomenon. You just don’t understand the scope of what you think you can do economically. The SD folks have been at it for decades and have NOT been able to model the ‘economy.’

I am in the CLD phase of my modeling efforts. That, is Causal loop diagrams in SD parlance. I also have a scaling tool that I am using for developing time series data plots on ‘feelings’ and thought processes and emotions. Things are going EXTREMELY well here and I’m very pleased with what is happening.

No, I don’t have an ETA and I have no reason to have one. This is not a two week project. This is going to consume me for the rest of my life.

I expect my preliminary model on perception to be out in the next 30 - 60 days _if _ my health and stamina hold up. My health is the key here, not the lack of either ideas or skill. I unfortunately, have little control over how I feel on a day to day basis. There are days I just can’t function properly and there are days I can work for 15 hours. Most fall somewhere in the middle.

You’ll see my work, AFTER I take to the people who actually WANT to see it.

It’s a shame I can’t discuss this stuff on CSGnet and its a shame I need to ‘present’ my model for crucifixion here. Do you think I believe I will get a ‘fair’ hearing on CSGnet? Are you serious. Most on this list hate my communication methods and probably wish I would just go away. But there are a precious few who do read what I say and have similar thoughts.

My work by and large is NOT for the consumption of the CSGnet crowd. I have much more attractive avenues to both present my work and talk with people who are actually interested in going where I want to go and where I want to help them get to. I really wish it were different. But I like dealing in the real world.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.26.0955)--

In fact I'm not sure _YOU_ will disagree with my model after you see it. :slight_smile:

I not sure either. It just doesn't seem like I'm ever going to see it. You've promised models for years but, thus far, nada.

First, I'm _not_ doing an 'economic' model. I will be modeling Micro economic phenomenon.

I'd be happy to see whatever model you've got.

I am in the CLD phase of my modeling efforts. That, is Causal loop diagrams in SD parlance.

That would count as a model.

You'll see my work, _AFTER_ I take to the people who actually _WANT_ to see it.

I want to see it.

It's a shame I can't discuss this stuff on CSGnet

But you are discussing this stuff on CSGNet.

and its a shame I need to 'present' my model for crucifixion here.

Why do you "need to". And why assume that you will be crucified?

Do you think I believe I will get a 'fair' hearing on CSGnet?

No. I think you believe that you will not get a fair hearing on CSGNet. But you will. And you always do.

My work by and large is _NOT_ for the consumption of the CSGnet crowd.

So why keep posting here?

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.27.1236)]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 11:28:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.27.10.50]

All I can do is to try to interpret your messages as if they were in English.

NO, this not all you can do. That is what you WANT to do. If it weren’t for your ego you might even try ASKING me to clarify a point or two BEFORE commenting RATHER then you INTERPRETING (that is, assigning the meanings you feel are warranted) to what I either intend, or mean to say.

You should take a VERY long and hard look at the ‘history’ stuff you sent me Martin. Do you think that stuff was well organized and well thought out? Should I post it to the net for a general consensus on it? Would you like an English professor to analyze YOUR work I DOUBT it VERY much.

I do business differently then you and most on this list. I don’t mind getting my lumps in the public. That is how I learn. My sales background tells me that if I DON’T fail, I can’t possibly succeed, because I will NEVER know WHY people dislike either WHAT I’m DOING or WHAT I’m offering. Knowing WHY I was rejected might be painful but it gives me the opportunity to turn that into future success IF I choose to, and I have done that at an alarming rate. On BOTH counts. < big laugh> I have ‘failed’ a great deal more than I have 'succeeded in life, but the ‘failures’ have not come close to putting a dent in my ‘successes’ and ‘failure’ always seems to precede any success I have enjoyed, so I’m right on target.

You can bet I won’t make the same mistakes again, in either presenting my ideas or finding out which audience is interested in which ideas

I think I have been very careful to disclaim certainty about what you mean. In fact, >have I not expressly said that it is extremely difficult to extract your meaning from >your words?

Please, who the hell is asking you to ‘extract’ anything. If you don’t understand it, DON’T respond or ask for clarification. My writing is not THAT bad.

>>"...another way to think about a disturbance is that of an >>environmental variable that gets you to act. "

This is a simple S-R statement that directly contradicts the central thesis of >PCT. If you really believe what you wrote here, and it isn’t a simple mis->statement, it’s no wonder you run into trouble trying to develop PCT in the >directions that interest you. If you really mean it, you haven’t started to >understand what PCT is about.

And THIS response my friends is the reason PCT is in the tank. Do you see what Martin quoted? What is SIGNIFICANT is what he did NOT include. With his following statement being another one of Martins ‘INTERPRETATIONS’.

Here is the full paragraph that I wrote;

‘Disturbances’, like many things PCTish has a ‘negative’ connotation, hence the >>term ‘disturbance,’ but another way to think about a disturbance is that of an >>environmental variable that gets you to act. That definition brings it out of the >>realm of a disturbance always being something you don’t want because it >>interferes with control, and supposedly what you do want, to something that can >>get your attention for something either more important or just on a different, but >>not worse path.

Lets take a look at what I said. I said it is ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. In fact Martin, MOST everyone I know thinks of it this way. But to YOU and RICK this is a PROBLEM. To ME it is an OPPORTUNITY. Why? Because I have some idea of why others think PCT is mundane and not important.

By me telling them that they are not thinking ‘properly’ about it is both self-defeating and WRONG. You don’t influence people and make friends by telling them they are wrong minded. If you happen to show in a way that does NOT demean them and let THEM come to the conclusion that what you are saying is valid, you have made a sale. OTHERWISE, hit the road pal.

Viewing a disturbance as an influence on action is not WRONG. It is misplaced to think that that is the CAUSE of behavior. It is NOT wrong to think it INFLUENCES it. And to what degree this is so is STILL open to debate.

So AGREEING with someone that the environment plays a role in determining our behavior is a HELPFUL idea. Disturbances exist ONLY in the environment and can only affect what is in it

You see Martin, the ‘trick’ is to use AS MUCH, of what a person ALREADY believes and knows to be TRUE so as to ACCEPT what YOU have to offer as being in the BEST interests of the individual wants. This presents one of three and _ONLY three SUCCESSFUL choices and conclusions. Either you find out what the person wants and provide it to them at a mutually accepted price. Leave the person alone or recommend an alternative you can’t provide yourself, OR try to BULLSHIT, LIE or CON your way through it by saying whatever you think others want to hear, like John Kerry. Yes, Martin, walking away from a sale can be extremely successful strategy. Not only that, I have made a ton of money AND friends by recommending COMPETING products to what I was selling at the time. I made many more future sales by ‘losing’ in the short run. It really pays to be both honest and diligent.

A “disturbance” is so named because, in the engineering sense of the term, it >disturbs a perception away from its reference value.

HOW?

A disturbance doesn’t “get you to act,” and neither does the reference value in >itself. Nor, in PCT theory, does the difference between the disturbed perception >and the reference value.

I used it as a metaphor not as a literal description. Your ‘interpretations’ are woeful

I did not say disturbances acted ALONE in ‘causing’ behavior. Disturbances most certainly INFLUENCE behavior, as you yourself in a very much more long winded way said.

Only when that difference is coupled into an output system that affects the outer >world (in the vernacular, the person “cares”), is a disturbance accompanied by >action.

So? What are the control ‘discussions’ on CSGnet about? How is PCT introduced to anyone if not by talking about things people ‘care’ about?

A disturbance does not interfere with control. It does not affect the ability to >control, nor does it affect the manner of control. What a disturbance does is >dynamically to affect the error value of a control system. But in no way does it >interfere with control of the disturbed perception, unless it is powerful enough to >overwhelm the output mechanism of the control system.

How the hell does it affect the ‘error’ WITHOUT affecting a perception?

A ‘disturbance’ affects an ENVIRONMENTAL variable. A disturbance exists outside of the ORGANISM not just a control system. It affects what we perceive.

[A disturbance is] something that can get your attention for something either >>more important or just on a different, but not worse path.

That bears no relation to what is normally called a “disturbance” in PCT.

However, an input that has such an effect may well have its effect because it >disturbs a high-level (in HPCT) controlled perception for which the output uses >control of lower-level perceptions not disturbed by the initial input.

So what is the difference between my view and that of Pct’s?

Remember that in HPCT, high-level perceptions are functions of many lower-level perceptions, …

Forget HPCT, I’m NOT interested in it.

I am interested in a ONE LEVEL PCT model.

  >"My comment about "my last message in this >thread" referred to my decision to cease controlling >some of those perceptions. However, I still intend to >continue controlling some perceptions relating to >technical aspects of PCT.
Sorry Martin, you can't stop 'controlling' for them. You can avoid them, ignore them, or act on them. But you CANNOT stop _REACTING_ (controlling) to them as long as you read (perceive)them.
'Controlling' is not limited to muscular movements. You can 'control' yourself into a mental disorder without moving a single muscle.
Try telling someone with a panic disorder that they are not controlling 'real' fears.

Maybe one day PCT or something else will be able to help us all out

In understanding why.

This exchange with you and Rick has been _EXTREMELY_ helpful to me. You and Rick have confirmed _MANY_ ideas I have and solidified my feelings about many others.
Thanks, even though both you and Rick would probably turn green if you knew _HOW_ you have helped me.
Martin, in closing I just want to tell you that I think you have some wonderful ideas and if you weren't so full of yourself you might even be likable. :-)
BTW Bryan, if your reading this? GO FUCK YOURSELF <biggest laugh>

Marc

Re: Promulgating PCT (was For Those
…)
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.27.14.43]

From
[Marc Abrams (2004.11.27.1236)]

In a
message dated 11/27/2004 11:28:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

[Martin Taylor
2004.11.27.10.50]
You should take a
VERY long and hard look at the ‘history’ stuff you sent me Martin.
Do you think that stuff was well organized and well thought
out?

No, I told you it wasn’t, before I ever started sending those
messages. But sending the messages helped me to organize my thoughts,
and even you agreed that the last one was the best. And I posted them
only to people who had expressed an interest in getting them, not to a
broadcast mailing list.

"…another way to think about a
disturbance is that of an >>environmental variable that gets you
to act. "

This is a simple
S-R statement that directly contradicts the central thesis of >PCT.
If you really believe what you wrote here, and it isn’t a simple
mis->statement, it’s no wonder you run into trouble trying to
develop PCT in the >directions that interest you. If you really
mean it, you haven’t started to >understand what PCT is
about.

And THIS response my
friends is the reason PCT is in the tank. Do you see what Martin
quoted? What is SIGNIFICANT is what he did NOT include. With his
following statement being another one
of Martins ‘INTERPRETATIONS’.

Here is the full
paragraph that I wrote;

‘Disturbances’,
like many things PCTish has a ‘negative’ connotation, hence the
term ‘disturbance,’ but another way to think about a
disturbance is that of an >>environmental variable that gets you
to act. That definition brings it out of the >>realm of a
disturbance always being something you don’t want because it
interferes with control, and supposedly what you do want, to
something that can >>get your attention for something
either more important or just on a different, but >>not worse
path.

Lets take a look at
what I said. I said it is ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. In fact
Martin, MOST everyone I know thinks of it this
way.

Yes, we do realize that most of the world thinks S-R is the
correct fundamental approach. And when you “define” a
disturbance that way, it precludes talking about behaviour from a PCT
viewpoint. It asserts that PCT is fundamentally wrong, and not a basis
for further development. How does presenting the full paragraph
change that?

But to YOU and RICK
this is a PROBLEM. To ME it is an OPPORTUNITY. Why? Because I
have some idea of why others think PCT is mundane and not
important.

By me telling them
that they are not thinking ‘properly’ about it is both
self-defeating and WRONG.

Actually, I was reminding YOU that you were staking out the
majority viewpoint, a viewpoint totally incompatible with PCT. I know
you have asserted that you don’t think “majority rule” is
the way to decide scientific questions, but your writing, which is all
I have to go on when trying to discover what you think, suggests
otherwise.

A
“disturbance” is so named because, in the engineering sense
of the term, it >disturbs a perception away from its reference
value.

HOW?

What a funny question! Could you explain what you mean by asking
it?

Remember that in
HPCT, high-level perceptions are functions of many lower-level
perceptions, …

Forget HPCT, I’m NOT
interested in it.

I am interested in a
ONE LEVEL PCT model.

Aha. A hint of the model, at last. But I’m sceptical about the
viability of a one-level model. Lots of people have tried that without
success, which doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Some have even thought
they proved it to be mathematically impossible in principle, but such
theorems are usually found to have holes, eventually.

Good luck, anyway. It will be a real tour de force if you pull it
off.

"My comment
about “my last message in this >thread” referred to my
decision to cease controlling >some of those perceptions. However,
I still intend to >continue controlling some perceptions relating
to >technical aspects of PCT.

Sorry Martin, you can’t
stop ‘controlling’ for them. You can avoid them, ignore them, or act
on them. But you CANNOT stop REACTING (controlling) to them as long
as you read (perceive)them.

Utter nonsense. There are at least thousands, and perhaps
millions, of times more perceptions that are not controlled than are
controlled at any one moment. A simple look at the degrees of freedom
available to the senses and to the output sustems (basically muscles)
proves that.

‘Controlling’ is not
limited to muscular movements. You can ‘control’ yourself into a
mental disorder without moving a single muscle.

Try telling someone
with a panic disorder that they are not controlling ‘real’
fears.

You do have a point here, in that not all control necessarily
results in overt action in the environment. However, your example
doesn’t cut it, because not all feedback loops represent control, and
in particular, locked-up (i.e. limiting-value) positive feedback
loops, such as in your example, don’t.

Please, who the hell is asking you to ‘extract’
anything. If you don’t understand it, DON’T respond or ask for
clarification. My writing is not THAT bad.

No, at the level of sentence structure, it isn’t. The grammar and
the use of words conform to reasonable standards. I shouldn’t have
been so dismissive as to suggest it wasn’t English, and I apologise
for that. I should have left the insults to you, as being your special
interest. The problem of “extraction” is to try to get the
technical sense out of the screeds of emotional and personal material.
Once one does that, which is the hard job I referred to, understanding
what you say technically is often quite illuminating.

If you remember, several people, including me, have tried hard
for a long time to get you to go deeper into your ideas than you have
been willing to do. We have done that because the hints you give are
often very tantalizing. They suggest that there is probably something
real behind them. It’s very frustrating to think that, and to be
denied for months and years a look at what that “something real”
might be. I think most of us have more or less given up hope. But, as
Rick says, if you ever let us know your real technical thoughts, we’ll
be open to trying to understand and to offer substantive critiques
that might help you to develop them.

As with my ancient history sequence, writing more about something
often helps clarify the ideas, and if people criticise, those
criticisms give one an opportunity to revisit the background to see
whether the ideas might be right or wrong. Telling me I have a big ego
doesn’t qualify as a critique that would help me revise questionable
ideas. Telling me that the decorations on Maltese Megaliths differ
from the Vinca in some general characteristic would qualify as such a
critique, were you to make such an observation. It would be a critique
whose validity could be addressed by reference to the data, or to the
method of analysis, rather than by reference to the personality of the
observer.

I had initially intended not to respond. You’ll note that I
didn’t respond to your chauvinistic views on modern history, and I
won’t. I’ll try to follow your advice in future, and make no further
responses to your postings (at least until you present something
substantive that relates to perceptual control.

Martin

From {Marc Abrams (2004.11.27.1426)]

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1040)]

I not sure either. It just doesn’t seem like I’m ever going to see it.
You’ve promised models for years but, thus far, nada.

You’re a much bigger asshole then I thought or just dumber than a door knob. In 1997 I suffered a major heart attack. Between 1997 and 2002 I was hospitalized 25 times for Congestive heart failure. In November of 2002 I had a triple by-pass operation.

I have other medical issues as well. I do what I can, when I can. I don’t owe you shit pal.

You knew all of this as well, I guess this is part of your ‘liberal caring’ side right? You’re as phony as a 3 dollar bill. You don’t ‘care’ about anything or anyone other than yourself and you use the PCT moniker to excuse your behavior; after all we are only ‘controlling’ for our own reference levels. What utter horseshit.

I am in the CLD phase of my modeling efforts. That, is Causal loop
diagrams in SD parlance.

That would count as a model.

Good, I’m glad you understand that. But it is the beginning of the thought process not the final stages of it.

You’ll see my work, AFTER I take to the people who actually WANT
to see it.

I want to see it.

Too bad.

It’s a shame I can’t discuss this stuff on CSGnet

But you are discussing this stuff on CSGNet.

No, Rick, I’m discussing what I can or cannot discuss on CSGnet and we are not even doing that. I asked what the limits of discussion might be here and you have NOT responded. I asked for anyone who might be interested in economics to post, you have NOT done so and neither has anyone else. Save me from your nonsense.

It’s really very simple so let me spell it out for you. You want to see my CLD’s so you can rip apart the work I’m doing. I will not allow that to happen. Not for you and not for this list. You have no more interest in helping me reach my goal than I have in helping you reach yours.

If I felt you would be constructive you would have seen my stuff a long time ago. But every time I tried to introduce it, I got pounded. Why bother.

You’ll see it when and if I say so, or not at all. I could care less if you see it or not. You are NOT my intended audience and you are NOT a potential customer of my model. Given my background and what I have been telling you over the last few days and your responses, what in the world makes you think I would try to show you ANYTHING I do? For what purpose?

and its a shame I need to ‘present’ my model for crucifixion here.

Why do you “need to.”

I don’t ‘need’ too. There are some on this list who I know ARE interested in what I’m doing and so I stay and post.

And why assume that you will be crucified?

Because you have to much invested in your research and work. That in and of itself would not be a problem. What IS a problem and one I have seen accentuated in this thread, is your inability and unwillingness to try and understand new ideas.

Your crack about not being a PCT employee was very telling Rick. I did not see your answer to my question about what happens when that situation arises? Did I miss it?

No, Rick, I’m not here for your amusement.

Do you think I believe I will get a ‘fair’ hearing on CSGnet?

No. I think you believe that you will not get a fair hearing on CSGNet.

Why do you think I feel that way? Like I’ll ever get an answer to this question.

But you will. And you always do.

Bullshit. I have a couple of bridges here that just went up for sale if you really believe this nonsense

My work by and large is NOT for the consumption of the CSGnet crowd.

So why keep posting here?

I said “by and large.” There are some people who are interested, but like Martin Taylor, when he seemed to ‘agree’ with something I said, you came charging at him demanding to know why he did and how he could. People read, they don’t often respond.

I post here to basically counter your posts when they entail nonsense and bullshit that cause disturbances to me and I hang around hoping beyond hope that someone new will show up and have some interests in the areas I’m interested in.

You want to talk economics? Lets see how ‘interested’ you are in talking about what I’m interested in. Great, how do you see PCT addressing the concept of ‘value’?

What is VALUE? Why do we ‘value’ something’s more than others?

Lets start off real simple. Or is it? I’m ALL ears.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1436)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.27.1426)

You want to talk economics? Lets see how 'interested' you are in talking about what _I'm_ interested in. Great, how do you see PCT addressing the concept of 'value'?

With the reference signal. Perceptions that match reference signals appear to be "valued". People act (by paying money, for example) to produce valued perceptions (the ones that match reference signals) and not others (the one's that don't match reference signals).

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400