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.
···
[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. 
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.
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.
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.
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. 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
