# Promulgating PCT (was For Those ...)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198>\
**Category:** CSG2004\
**Created:** [November 26, 2004, 1:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198 "2004-11-26T01:51:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 19\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 3:33am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/21 "2004-11-28T03:33:13Z")

</div>

From {Marc Abrams (2003.11.27.1542)]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 3:24:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, [mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM](mailto:mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2004.11.27.14.43]
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Yes, my friend, and _THAT_ is my point. We have different learning styles. I learn by throwing things out there and seeing who and what bites and I try to figure out why.
> 
> > We come from two different worlds. Two worlds, with all your ‘sophistication’ and education cannot even see.
> 
> > I am not saying you were wrong, or you were not smart in doing what you did. I would hardly expect anything different from you. That is your style and I have no problem with it. My point was only that your ‘rough’ drafts’ are no better than mine.
> 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> > I disagree. I think it opens up the door, not closes it. I can start a conversation and ask if you think the environment ‘causes’ behavior. If you say yes, I would then say; OK, what if I showed you that the environment doesn’t _cause_ it, but simply _influences_ it?
> 
> > Do you still think this approach would _preclude_ you from talking about PCT?
> 
> > It’s worked wonders for me. The main problem I walk into is what I have been trying to say for the last two days and you yourself addressed.
> 
> > The generality of PCT makes it almost useless in a general sense and almost impossible to apply in a specific one. What I continue to wind up with are just-so story’s that frankly can have _many_ different interpretation of how they happened. Nothing that points specifically at the control mechanism as the focus of importance. It is not until you tear apart the tracking task do you begin to see this, but when you try to apply it to more complex tasks you wind up with just-so story’s.
> 
> > I think much more progress can be made by sticking with and applying the control paradigm at a higher not lower level. I know I am in the minority in this view, but as a good salesman Martin I _KNOW_ what my customers are looking for. I _have_ to see if I can deliver it to them or if I have to walk away or recommend another way of getting what they want. I’m not a con artist, and I try not to sell bullshit.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Martin, I was addressing the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are arbitrary cultural constructs. Science is _NOT_ about right or wrong. It is about _WHAT IS_, or at least that’s the premise.
> 
> > It is _VERY_ difficult to be a _GOOD_ scientist when you are unwilling to explore ideas you do not _‘LIKE’_ or think that one set of ‘VALUES’ is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ then another. Rick Marken for all his fluff is _NO_ scientist. You strive to be. But it is not easy. It is _very_ difficult not allowing your personal feelings to get in the way of ‘objectively’ looking at a situation.
> 
> > ‘Objectivity’ in my mind is the ability to view something from a number different angles and by looking at the _DATA_ behind those views. The problem is that while this is taking place, your imagination, emotions, and experience are all ‘fighting’ for the limited space you have.
> 
> > Marken’s approach to economics is a great example of an ideologue and not a scientist in trying to investigate a phenomenon.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > >>>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?
> 
> > Sure, glad you asked, _THANK YOU_.
> 
> > I was actually responding to this; which followed what you quoted above.
> 
> > This seems to contradict your initial criticism
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > >>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.
> 
> > _NO_, its not a one level model. It’s a multilevel networked model. Martin, I am interested in interacting ECU’s. The organization and structure _MUST_ be dictated by either function or physiology and hopefully one day both. My approach has been functional because I’m more interested in trying to understand such things as ‘value’ than I am in getting the ‘wiring’ right.
> 
> > In PCT parlance; just like Powers and others have made a good case for _some_ initial lower three levels, I believe we can _ALSO_ play with the _UPPER_ three. Its the middle set of ‘levels’ that are a bitch, as well as an ultimate connection between the two extremes.
> 
> > > Good luck, anyway. It will be a real tour de force if you pull it off.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Thanks Martin, I know that is a sincere wish and it means a lot
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > > > Utter nonsense. There are at least thousand…
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > You were doing so well. <real big laugh>. My fault, Sorry, I used _MY_ definition of a 'perception' here _NOT_ Pct's.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Thank you for the apology, but you are not above the personal insult when it suits your purposes. I do not have an exclusive on CSGnet for insults.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Interesting. Sort of like trying to understand human behavior using PCT and not acknowledging that emotions and imagination play a huge role in how we perceive (my definition) the world, construct those perceptions or thoughts if you prefer, and how we interact in it. Martin, you cannot understand human behavior as a whole by looking at the pieces. You might be able to look at the pieces and understand them, but human behavior is the _sum_ of it all.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Martin, this is not true. Why do you think I am pounding away now? Why do you think I asked for the economic questions?
> 
> > Why do you think I’ve been trying to get Rick to think about different ways of talking about PCT?
> 
> > On ECAC’s when I came back and went to the economic thread and saw you post on ‘values’ I agreed with and found it to be wonderful and insightful and _fully_ in line with where I was going. I posted as such and got nothing back.
> 
> > Apparently the thread had already run its course. I don’t think you were ignoring me.
> 
> > Does anything I say on the ‘selling’ of PCT make any sense to anyone reading this? Does it matter to anyone else?
> 
> > > We have done that because the hints you give are often very tantalizing.
> 
> > WHERE? WHEN? What ‘tantalizing’ ideas do you think I have? I don’t have a clue. I’ve only been told I can’t write and I don’t know PCT, Control, or anything else I post about
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Really? Lets see how the economics thread goes. What are your ideas on ‘price’ from a PCT perspective?
> 
> > 
> 
> > > As with my ancient history sequence, writing more about something often helps \>clarify the ideas, and if people criticize, 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.
> 
> > No, its a value judgment I made about you, _JUST_ like the one you made about _ME_ and my ‘chauvinistic’ views.
> 
> > If you can dish it my friend, you gotta be able to take it. Your insults might be fancier, mine are more blunt. That sorta reflects who we are as people.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > Unfortunately Martin human behavior is not so cut and dry. Imagination and emotion play in huge part in why we do what we do and why we _WANT_ to do what we do. You can’t ‘cut out’ either one _WITHOUT_ eliminating what makes us human. Until PCT can show _HOW_ this all happens it’s just a nice little just-so story machine.
> 
> > Hasn’t this thread exposed you to any of this? Of course you ‘react’ emotionally to any disturbances. We all do. The only way to eliminate them is the Bill Powers method. Don’t ever expose yourself to any of it. His ‘avoidance’ technique is probably more useful then his 'level technique 🙂
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > I’m glad you did respond. Sometimes it takes awhile and a few bumps and bruises to work through some issues. I hope these last few days has given you a little better insight into me as a person. I know I feel I know you a bit better. I think we may be on our way to doing just that, at least I hope so. I value your opinion, insight and seek you council, even with your big ego . I think you are forthright and honest, I believe I can work with you.
> 
> > I don’t make idle promises. My health has been an issue for close to 8 years now. (God, I can’t believe its been that long.) I work as hard and long as I can. The model _WILL_ be done and as I told Rick, I really do believe it will happen in the next 30 -60 days
> 
> > I posed an ‘economic’ question to Rick and I posed one to you.
> 
> > Lets see how ‘interested’ you guys are in my ideas 🙂
> 
> > Marc
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/22 "2004-11-28T16:30:31Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.28.0830)]

Marc Abrams (2003.11.27.1542) to Martin Taylor--

I posed an 'economic' question to Rick and I posed one to you.

And I answered it.

How'd I do?

RSM

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken  
> [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)  
> Home 310 474-0313  
> Cell 310 729-1400

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/23 "2004-11-28T18:03:19Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1244)]

In a message dated 11/26/2004 2:26:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM](mailto:mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2004.11.26.14.12]
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> > _THANK YOU_, _THANK YOU_, _THANK YOU_ Martin. Absolutely _OUTSTANDING_. THIS is _PRECISELY_ the message I was sending.
> 
> > So it seems Martin my ‘English’ is _NOT_ as intolerable as you alluded too.
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> > _YES_. _THIS_, Martin is the reason I used the disturbance example. When trying to explain something new to someone it is a very well known fact that learning anything becomes a great deal easier when a person can tie it to something they already know.
> 
> > As an aside; this phenomena cannot be explained by PCT currently as well.
> 
> > This is _NOT_ a condemnation of the current theory folks. This is an _OPPORTUNITY_ to try and bring people in who are interested in this question and provide them with _SOME_ of the tools of exploration they will need
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > _AMEN_.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > So, what’s news here \< big laugh\> I for one am very much looking forward to your resumption.
> 
> > I have many questions about it and being a relative newbie at it I am hoping you can shed some light on some important issues for me.
> 
> > Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/24 "2004-11-28T19:07:02Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1402)]

In a message dated 11/26/2004 3:17:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > [From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1210)]
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> > ‘Explain’ what?
> 
> > Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/25 "2004-11-28T19:12:26Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1408)]

In a message dated 11/26/2004 3:26:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > > [From Rick Marken (2004.11.26.1220)]
> > 
> > > So Marc’s point is that non-acceptance of PCT happens for a reason?
> 
> > 
> 
> > You bet.
> 
> > And BTW English professor, there is no hyphen in nonacceptance.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/26 "2004-11-28T19:30:45Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1415)]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 5:42:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > > [From Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1436)]
> > 
> > > 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).
> 
> > Is this your best shot? How do we know which 'perceptions ‘appear to be “valued”’?
> 
> > Is this your idea of starting a ‘discussion’? Is this your idea of a ‘PCT’ answer?
> 
> > If I were an economist, how would this definition help me understand the concept of ‘value’ as it relates to why a person may or may not do something, and why would I want to spend the necessary time to learn PCT for this?
> 
> > _THIS_ is another example of the dogma and intractable nature of your ideas. Why not just say that PCT does not currently have a useful definition for economists. Isn’t that the honest thing to do and understand, accept, and try to come up with something a bit more useful, or do you like being a carny man?
> 
> > How am I supposed to respond to this? Present a ‘model’ of my ideas? Why? You have given me the ‘PCT’ definition and unless I have a different idea (model) what is there to discuss?
> 
> > Marc
> 
> > Marc
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/27 "2004-11-28T19:39:06Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1431)]

In a message dated 11/28/2004 11:35:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > > [From Rick Marken (2004.11.28.0830)]
> > 
> > > How’d I do?
> 
> > You got my last post.
> 
> > Rick, this is _NOT_ a contest. I did not ask the question to “challenge” you, and test your knowledge about PCT.
> 
> > If you honestly believe that your answer is a good and useful one then we have nothing further to discuss.
> 
> > Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/28 "2004-11-28T20:11:21Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.28.1210)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1415)--

Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1436)]

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).

Is this your best shot?

Yes.

How do we know which 'perceptions 'appear to be "valued"'?

We know from the marketplace. Products (perceptions) that are bought are the one's that are valued (the one's for which people have references) and the one's that are not bought are the ones that are not valued.

Is this your idea of starting a 'discussion'? Is this your idea of a 'PCT' answer?

Yes to both.

If I were an economist, how would this definition help me understand the concept of 'value' as it relates to why a person may or may not do something

This definition helps because it provides a mechanistic model that explains why people will work to purchase a certain amount (the reference amount) of some things and not others.

and why would I want to spend the necessary time to learn PCT for this?

In order to understand how the explanation (model) works.

\_THIS\_ is another example of the dogma and intractable nature of your ideas. Why not just say that PCT does not currently have a useful definition for economists.

Because that would not be true, at least from my point of view.

Isn't that the honest thing to do

No. The honest thing to do is what I did: show that the reference signal in a control loop can be seen to correspond to what economists mean by "value".

How am I supposed to respond to this?

I would prefer that you respond intelligently. But politely would do.

RSM

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken  
> [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)  
> Home 310 474-0313  
> Cell 310 729-1400

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/29 "2004-11-28T21:59:00Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1642)]

In a message dated 11/28/2004 3:16:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> **···**
>
> > > [From Rick Marken (2004.11.28.1210)]
> > 
> > > > How do we know which 'perceptions ‘appear to be “valued”’?
> > 
> > > We know from the marketplace. Products (perceptions) that are bought  
> > > are the one’s that are valued (the one’s for which people have  
> > > references) and the one’s that are not bought are the ones that are not  
> > > valued.
> 
> > So I guess you can tell by our actions what are reference levels are huh?
> 
> > Thanks for the insight. What does PCT add to that concept?
> 
> > > > Is this your idea of starting a ‘discussion’? Is this your idea of a  
> > > > ‘PCT’ answer?
> > 
> > > Yes to both.
> 
> > Figures.
> > 
> > > > If I were an economist, how would this definition help me understand  
> > > > the concept of ‘value’ as it relates to why a person may or may not do  
> > > > something
> > 
> > > This definition helps because it provides a mechanistic model that  
> > > explains why people will work to purchase a certain amount (the  
> > > reference amount) of some things and not others.
> 
> > Why would I have a ‘preference’ for one thing over another? Where does that come from? What is in the top level of your model that is not in the next to the top, or the third from the top that provides for this discrimination?
> 
> > Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between throwing to second base or home?
> > 
> > > > and why would I want to spend the necessary time to learn PCT for this?
> > 
> > > In order to understand how the explanation (model) works.
> 
> > _WHOSE_?, _YOURS_? Keep dreaming pal.
> > 
> > > > _THIS_ is another example of the dogma and intractable nature of your  
> > > > ideas. Why not just say that PCT does not currently have a useful  
> > > > definition for economists.
> > 
> > > Because that would not be true, at least from my point of view.
> 
> > Of course not. Why not try ‘selling’ your ‘economic’ ideas at Rand? I’m sure they would be just as wildly accepted as the mountain of work on PCT you have done there.
> > 
> > > > Isn’t that the honest thing to do
> > 
> > > No. The honest thing to do is what I did: show that the reference  
> > > signal in a control loop can be seen to correspond to what economists  
> > > mean by “value”.
> 
> > Go ahead, give it your best shot. 🙂 and the best of luck to you. I would keep your Macro model to yourself though. That would kill any chance you might have of convincing someone you had any knowledge of economics.
> > 
> > Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/30 "2004-11-29T17:50:09Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.29.0930)]

> Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1642)--

> So I guess you can tell by our actions what are reference levels are huh?

Not just from actions but from seeing the effects of these actions of  
controlled variables that are under disturbance.

> Thanks for the insight. What does PCT add to that concept?

What concept? The concept of determining reference levels of controlled  
perceptions? If so, what PCT adds to that concept is the concept itself.

> Why would I have a 'preference' for one thing over another? Where does that  
> come from? What is in the top level of your model that is not in the next to  
> the top, or the third from the top that provides for this discrimination?

Why are you asking these silly questions? You should know the answers by  
now, after years on CSGNet and after attending a couple of CSG conferences.

> Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between throwing  
> to second base or home?

Please show me any model at all. I've shown you many models. You've shown me  
nothing.

> Why not try 'selling' your 'economic' ideas at Rand?

I'm not working on any economics projects at the moment. However, I have  
"sold" my PCT based model of medical error in a talk I gave here last  
January, which was rather well received, and in two publications so far, one  
being the 2003 Ergonomics paper:

Marken, R. S. (in press) A model-based approach to prioritizing medical  
safety practice, in K. Henriksen, J. Battles, E. Marks & D. Lewin (Eds)  
Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation, Rockville, MD:  
Westat

I'm sure

> **···**
>
> > > they would be just as wildly accepted as the mountain of work on PCT you  
> > > have done there.
> > > 
> > > > > Isn't that the honest thing to do
> > > 
> > > > No. The honest thing to do is what I did: show that the reference  
> > > > signal in a control loop can be seen to correspond to what economists  
> > > > mean by "value".
> > > 
> > > Go ahead, give it your best shot. 🙂 and the best of luck to you. I would  
> > > keep your Macro model to yourself though. That would kill any chance you  
> > > might have of convincing someone you had any knowledge of economics.
> > > 
> > > Marc
> 
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/31 "2004-11-29T18:02:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.29.1000)]

Oops. Pushed the send button before completing this.

> Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.1642)--

> So I guess you can tell by our actions what are reference levels are huh?

Not just from actions but from seeing the effects of these actions of  
controlled variables that are under disturbance.

> Thanks for the insight. What does PCT add to that concept?

What concept? The concept of determining reference levels of controlled  
perceptions? If so, what PCT adds to that concept is the concept itself.

> Why would I have a 'preference' for one thing over another? Where does that  
> come from? What is in the top level of your model that is not in the next to  
> the top, or the third from the top that provides for this discrimination?

Why are you asking these silly questions? You should know the answers by  
now, after years on CSGNet and after attending a couple of CSG conferences.

> Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between throwing  
> to second base or home?

Please show me any model at all. I've shown you many models. You've shown me  
nothing.

> Why not try 'selling' your 'economic' ideas at Rand?

I'm not working on any economics projects at the moment. However, I have  
"sold" my PCT based model of medical error in a talk I gave here last  
January, which was rather well received, and in two publications so far,  
one being the 2003 Ergonomics paper:

Marken, R. S. (2003) Error In Skilled Performance: A Control Model Of  
Prescribing, Ergonomics, 46(12), 1200-1214.

And another paper that will come out in a volume on patient safety in  
February 2005:

Marken, R. S. (in press) A model-based approach to prioritizing medical  
safety practice, in K. Henriksen, J. Battles, E. Marks & D. Lewin (Eds)  
Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation, Rockville, MD:  
Westat

Both papers are based on work I'm doing here at Rand on patient safety.

> Go ahead, give it your best shot. 🙂 and the best of luck to you. I would  
> keep your Macro model to yourself though. That would kill any chance you  
> might have of convincing someone you had any knowledge of economics.

Thanks for the advice. But I probably won't take it. I've been invited to  
give a talk on TCP's model of economics at the Socio-Economics section of  
the American Association of Law Schools conference in San Francisco this  
January. And if I'm asked about my model efforts I'll probably tell them  
about it.

RSM

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 7:54am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/32 "2004-12-02T07:54:16Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.0214)]

In a message dated 11/29/2004 4:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> [From Rick Marken (2004.11.29.1000)]
> 
> Oops. Pushed the send button before completing this.  
> 40 lashes.

> Not just from actions but from seeing the effects of these actions of  
> controlled variables that are under disturbance.  
> How do you know all the affects? How do you ‘see’ into someone’s mind?

> What concept? The concept of determining reference levels of controlled  
> perceptions? If so, what PCT adds to that concept is the concept itself.  
> How is the highest reference level determined?

> > Why would I have a ‘preference’ for one thing over another? Where does that  
> > come from? What is in the top level of your model that is not in the next to  
> > the top, or the third from the top that provides for this discrimination?
> 
> Why are you asking these silly questions? You should know the answers by  
> now, after years on CSGNet and after attending a couple of CSG conferences.  
> I should, but everytime I ask this question I get this same exact answer. It’s not very helpful

> > Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between throwing  
> > to second base or home?

> Please show me any model at all. I’ve shown you many models. You’ve shown me  
> nothing.

Perfect strategy. When someone asks you a question you can’t possibly answer, you change the subject and attack the questionnaire. Wonderful way of influencing people.

Is this the type of answer you talked about in a prior post? You know, the reason you respond to me is to keep your adoring fans and those interested in PCT _CLARITY_ informed?

Nice job.

> Thanks for the advice. But I probably won’t take it. I’ve been invited to  
> give a talk on TCP’s model of economics at the Socio-Economics section of  
> the American Association of Law Schools conference in San Francisco this  
> January. And if I’m asked about my model efforts I’ll probably tell them  
> about it.

No comment

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/33 "2004-12-02T18:17:23Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1010)]

> Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.0214)--

> > Rick Marken (2004.11.29.1000)--

> > Not just from actions but from seeing the effects of these actions of  
> > controlled variables that are under disturbance.

> How do you know all the affects? How do you 'see' into someone's mind?

You don't have to know all the effects. Actually, to determine the reference  
state of a controlled variables you don't really look for the effect of  
actions but for \_lack of effect\_ of disturbances. Once you have discovered  
the intended state of a controlled variable you are "seeing" into someone's  
mind in the sense that you know what they \_intend\_. An intention is a mental  
state which, in PCT, corresponds to the reference signal. See the discussion  
and demo of The Test at www.mindreadings.com

> How is the highest reference level determined?

In the model, it is determined by reorganization.

> > > Why would I have a 'preference' for one thing over another? Where does that  
> > > come from? What is in the top level of your model that is not in the next  
> > > to the top, or the third from the top that provides for this  
> > > discrimination?
> > 
> > Why are you asking these silly questions?

> I should, but everytime I ask this question I get this same exact answer. It's  
> not very helpful

What's wrong with that? If you always ask what is 3 + 5 you will always get  
the same answer: 8. When you ask the questions above I presume you always  
get the following answers:

You have a preference for one thing (perception) over another because higher  
level systems requires (in order to control it's own perceptions) that you  
prefer that the lower level perception be in that particular (preferred)  
state. The preference comes from the output of higher level systems. The top  
level of the model contains perceptual functions that produce perceptions of  
system concepts. These perceptual functions do not exist at the next lower  
level, where the perceptual function presumably produce perceptions of  
principles, from which the higher level system concept perceptions are  
constructed.

> > > Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between  
> > > throwing to second base or home?
> 
> > Please show me any model at all. I've shown you many models. You've shown me  
> > nothing.
> 
> Perfect strategy. When someone asks you a question you can't possibly answer,  
> you change the subject and attack the questionnaire. Wonderful way of  
> influencing people.

I can't answer the question because it's not a question. It's a demand for  
something that I haven't done. I have not built the model you request. I  
never said I had nor did I say I thought such a model should be built. You  
could just as well have asked me to show you my model of Glenn Gould playing  
the Goldberg Variations. I haven't done that either. Nor have I suggested  
that it should be done.

You, on the other hand, have talked about things that you think should be  
modeled, like emotion and the contribution of imagination to perception. So  
my request to you was, I think, a more reasonable one than yours of me, and  
it was appropriate, given your expressed interest in modeling emotion and  
perception.

> Is this the type of answer you talked about in a prior post? You know, the  
> reason you respond to me is to keep your adoring fans and those interested in  
> PCT \_CLARITY\_ informed?

No. There was no question to be answered. And I thought my reply was  
informative, for the reasons I give above.

RSM

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/34 "2004-12-02T21:05:58Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1518)

In a message dated 12/2/2004 1:22:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> [From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1010)]
> 
> What’s wrong with that? If you always ask what is 3 + 5 you will always get  
> the same answer: 8.  
> I’ll tell you what is ‘wrong’ with that. Your statement _ONLY_ holds true for people who have learned what you and I know to be _BOTH_ mathematics _AND_ a base 10 number system. There are cultures that would _NOT_ have known what you were talking about even if you repeated it 1,000 times. Its not just mathematics Rick. There were cultures that used base 16, 12 and 32 systems. Thankfully today, we have some world wide standards for those who have access to them. I wonder how many aborigines around the world today can currently understand the concept of 5 + 3 = 8. This of course has nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with what the cultural norms and needs are.

> When you ask the questions above I presume you always  
> get the following answers:

Depends on who I ask and what my purpose is. When I ask if 5 tomatoes and 3 pickles added together equal a submarine the answer is no. What answer would you get to that question. The truth of ‘5’ + ‘3’ = ‘8’ _DEPENDS_ on what you are adding and you don’t understand this _VERY_ basic fact.

> You have a preference for one thing (perception) over another because higher  
> level systems requires (in order to control it’s own perceptions) that you  
> prefer that the lower level perception be in that particular (preferred)  
> state. The preference comes from the output of higher level systems. The top  
> level of the model contains perceptual functions that produce perceptions of  
> system concepts. These perceptual functions do not exist at the next lower  
> level, where the perceptual function presumably produce perceptions of  
> principles, from which the higher level system concept perceptions are  
> constructed.

So you say and think. I don’t know if this is an accurate account. No one to date has been able to verify this and no one has been able to test this. This could be true and it may not be. I have not been able to figure out a way of testing this speculation. Have you?

> I can’t answer the question because it’s not a question. It’s a demand for  
> something that I haven’t done.

No Rick, it is a question for data you don not have, not a ‘demand.’ And a more accurate and honest answer might have been “We don’t know that yet, the model cannot currently answer that question.” Instead you chose to attack me for having the audacity to ask you a question you do not have a ready made answer for.

> I have not built the model you request. I  
> never said I had nor did I say I thought such a model should be built. You  
> could just as well have asked me to show you my model of Glenn Gould playing  
> the Goldberg Variations. I haven’t done that either. Nor have I suggested  
> that it should be done.

Thank you. You might also add that you don’t have the knowledge to build such a model now _EVEN_ if you wanted too, and HPCT as it is currently configured will not be able to give it too you. Not now, and not in the next thousand years. I think an HPCT vs. a PCT should address it and someday it or some facsimile will.

> You, on the other hand, have talked about things that you think should be  
> modeled, like emotion and the contribution of imagination to perception. So  
> my request to you was, I think, a more reasonable one than yours of me, and  
> it was appropriate, given your expressed interest in modeling emotion and  
> perception.

Rick, the main reason I am on CSGnet is _NOT_ to present a model of my theory to you, Bill or anyone else. It is to hopefully exchange ideas and gain the necessary info so as to learn how to build a model I envision as being the ‘right’ one for _MY_ needs and purposes.  
_NOT_ yours and Bill’s, and like _EVERYONE_ else on this list and on the face of this earth. I will take from this list and give to this list exactly what I want.

Why should I spend the time trying to explain ideas you have no interest in and share something you are not only unwilling to help with, but would actually sabotage if you had the chance? In reality I am _NOT_ threatening you or your work, but you feel I am and _THAT_ is what counts.

I see nothing but verbiage coming from almost everyone on this list. I would like to see Kitzke’s 12th level. How about Nevin producing a model of his very informative and long exposes. How about David Goldstein producing a model of how the method of levels works in his practice?

Why focus on me? Why don’t you ask anyone that posts to CSGnet to post a model of their ideas _first_ and then we can talk about them?

> No. There was no question to be answered. And I thought my reply was  
> informative, for the reasons I give above.

Yes, there was and it _STILL_ exists _GET THE HELL OVER IT_, it’s not going away.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/35 "2004-12-02T22:57:51Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1500)

> Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1518)

> > Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1010)--
> 
> > You have a preference for one thing (perception) over another because higher  
> > level systems requires (in order to control it's own perceptions) that you  
> > prefer that the lower level perception be in that particular (preferred)  
> > state....

> So you say and think. I don't know if this is an accurate account. No one to  
> date has been able to verify this and no one has been able to test this.

It's an accurate account of the model. Whether or not this is an accurate  
account of human behavior can be answered only by experimental test. To  
date, tests suggest that the model is accurate.

> > I can't answer the question because it's not a question. It's a demand for  
> > something that I haven't done.
> 
> No Rick, it is a question for data you don not have, not a 'demand.'

What you said to me was:

> > Please show me the model of an outfielder who has to decide between  
> > throwing to second base or home?

That is not a question, even though there is a question mark at the end. A  
question goes like this:

> Is there a model of an outfielder deciding between throwing  
> to second and home?

The answer to this would have been "no".

> > I have not built the model you request. I  
> > never said I had nor did I say I thought such a model should be built. You  
> > could just as well have asked me to show you my model of Glenn Gould playing  
> > the Goldberg Variations. I haven't done that either. Nor have I suggested  
> > that it should be done.
> 
> Thank you. You might also add that you don't have the knowledge to build such  
> a model now \_EVEN\_ if you wanted too, and HPCT as it is currently configured  
> will not be able to give it too you.

I agree that I don't (and may never) have the knowledge to build either  
model (though I think the baseball throw choice model might be easier than  
the piano artistry one). But I see no reason to think that HPCT cannot, in  
principle, be the basis for either model. Why do you think HPCT can't help?  
Are you sure you understand how the HPCT model works?

> Not now, and not in the next thousand years. I think an HPCT vs. a PCT  
> should address it and someday it or some facsimile will.

I believe that HPCT does address issues involving both models. The  
outfielder's choice model involves control of several variables, such as  
getting the ball to second or home before the runner, whether the runner is  
going to second and/or home, the relative cost of missing the out at second  
or home, etc. HPCT provides a framework for developing the kind of model  
that chooses to throw to second or home as the fielder would in the same  
circumstances (inning, outs, caliber of throwing arm, etc). Same for the  
piano playing model.

> I see nothing but verbiage coming from almost everyone on this list.

Almost everyone. But there are some nice exceptions that make it all  
worthwhile.

> Why focus on me?

Because I am replying to your posts. But I do ask for models and/or data  
from others when that's relevant.

RSM

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 1:29am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/36 "2004-12-03T01:29:53Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1942)]

In a message dated 12/2/2004 6:03:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> [From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1500)
> 
> It’s an accurate account of the model. Whether or not this is an accurate  
> account of human behavior can be answered only by experimental test. To  
> date, tests suggest that the model is accurate.  
> I don’t agree with you. I think that there is gobs of data out there that can be used to validate a model. SD people do this all the time. That is the essence of SD. Get the time series data and match the model to the data.

The trick here is in getting time series data on the stuff I’m interested in and I believe I can do this. Not only can I do this but I believe I might have some revolutionary methods as well. This is one reason I am interested in hearing what Martin Taylor has to say about model fitting. I would also like to discuss this on CSGnet but that is not currently possible because of the lack of interest.

I might form a Yahoo Group of interested people if it doesn’t work out here or on ECAC’s. If your interested I’d love to see you as part of either group.

> I agree that I don’t (and may never) have the knowledge to build either  
> model (though I think the baseball throw choice model might be easier than  
> the piano artistry one). But I see no reason to think that HPCT cannot, in  
> principle, be the basis for either model. Why do you think HPCT can’t help?  
> Are you sure you understand how the HPCT model works?  
> I think so. I _NEVER_ said HPCT can’t help. I have said and will continue to say that the HPCT model is a model that looks at the cognitive processes from the level of a neural signal. This is impractical for my purposes.

This is like asking a microbiologist to be concerned about ecology. On some level they _are_ concerned, but they study and view different things.

My purpose is _NOT_ to figure out the wiring of the system. Although extremely interesting my view is _NOT_ at the level of microbiology. It was, but not any more. HPCT as outlined in B:CP needs to validated by microbiologists _NOT_ Psychologists.

It is the social sciences that provide us with what I believe we need. Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Organizational Development, Social Psych, etc.

It is at this level that I think we have our best shot at introducing ‘PCT.,’ or at least an input control model. So the question becomes, What ‘behavior’ are these people interested in.

Well, again its not any specific behavior, like your outfielder model, that would interest anyone in any of these fields. It would be the ability to understand _WHY_ any particular behavior might take place. That is, what specific cognitive & non cognitive processes where involved in producing the behavior. Not at the level of the neural signal, but at the level of ‘perceptions’.

> I believe that HPCT does address issues involving both models. The  
> outfielder’s choice model involves control of several variables, such as  
> getting the ball to second or home before the runner, whether the runner is  
> going to second and/or home, the relative cost of missing the out at second  
> or home, etc.

Yes Rick, the concept of ‘COST.’ A very interesting concept. An economic concept. What does PCT or HPCT have to say about ‘cost?’ How would you differentiate the concepts of ‘Price,’ ‘Cost,’ and ‘Value’ using HPCT?

I asked this before and Martin responded you didn’t.

> HPCT provides a framework for developing the kind of model  
> that chooses to throw to second or home as the fielder would in the same  
> circumstances (inning, outs, caliber of throwing arm, etc.). Same for the  
> piano playing model.

Yes, a framework I disagree with _AT THE LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION I AM INTERESTED IN_. This should not be a big deal. If no one is interested in this level of abstraction, _NO PROBLEM_. As I said, I’ll just shut up and listen

> Almost everyone. But there are some nice exceptions that make it all  
> worthwhile.

You missed my point. I _like_ the verbiage and I believe it is essential to get where you want to go. On the other hand if you feel you are already there you certainly don’t want to waste a whole bunch of time on verbiage when you can be making models that \_CAN ULTIMATELY COLLABORATE with existing data.

Otherwise, a model is _USELESS_ and provides just another way of telling a story. A story that can be perfectly logical with consistent relationships that represent _NOTHING_ in the real world. Mathematics is _FULL_ of such constructs.

> Why focus on me?

> Because I am replying to your posts. But I do ask for models and/or data  
> from others when that’s relevant.

When is it relevant and when is it not and who gets to decide each?

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/37 "2004-12-03T17:54:30Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0955)]

> Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1942)--

> > Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1500)
> > 
> > It's an accurate account of the model. Whether or not this is an accurate  
> > account of human behavior can be answered only by experimental test. To  
> > date, tests suggest that the model is accurate.

> I don't agree with you. I think that there is gobs of data out there that can  
> be used to validate a model.

I didn't say anything about whether or not there is data available to test  
the model so you are not disagreeing with me.

> What does PCT or HPCT have to say about 'cost?' How would you  
> differentiate the concepts of 'Price,' 'Cost,' and 'Value' using HPCT?

> I asked this before and Martin responded you didn't.

You asked specifically how the concept of "value" could be handled by PCT. I  
told you and you didn't like it. So you probably won't like the PCT take on  
price and cost either. But "price" is how much you have to pay to consume a  
good or service and "cost" is the amount by which your resources are  
depleted once you have paid the price to get what you value.

RSM

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bozo\_the\_Clown](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bozo_the_Clown)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/38 "2004-12-03T19:40:10Z")

</div>

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.03.1614)]

n a message dated 12/3/2004 12:55:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [marken@MINDREADINGS.COM](mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM) writes:

> [From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0955)]
> 
> I didn’t say anything about whether or not there is data available to test  
> the model so you are not disagreeing with me.  
> No, I’m not. I thought your position was that it could _ONLY_ be done through experimentation. Using a model to reproduce time series data is what SD is all about

> You asked specifically how the concept of “value” could be handled by PCT. I  
> told you and you didn’t like it. So you probably won’t like the PCT take on  
> price and cost either. But “price” is how much you have to pay to consume a  
> good or service and “cost” is the amount by which your resources are  
> depleted once you have paid the price to get what you value.  
> Your right, I don’t agree, but not for the reasons you give. If you want to continue this discussion we can do it on ECAC’s I’m done with my ideas on CSGnet.

Anyone else who might be interested in this kind of work you are welcome to join ECAC’s. ECAC’s is _NOT_ a replacement for CSGnet. It serves an entirely different purpose. We deal with the same phenomenon with a different goal in mind.

And, NO Bryan, I’m _NOT_ leaving CSGnet. I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction. 🙂

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198/39 "2004-12-03T22:09:56Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.1410)]

> Marc Abrams (2004.12.03.1614)]
> 
> > Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0955)]

> > You asked specifically how the concept of "value" could be handled by PCT. I  
> > told you and you didn't like it. So you probably won't like the PCT take on  
> > price and cost either. But "price" is how much you have to pay to consume a  
> > good or service and "cost" is the amount by which your resources are  
> > depleted once you have paid the price to get what you value.

> Your right, I don't agree, but not for the reasons you give.

I didn't give any reasons for why you disagree because I don't know why you  
disagree. All I said was that you didn't like my explanation of the PCT  
concept of value. What are your reasons for not liking it?

> If you want to continue this discussion we can do it on ECAC's I'm done with  
> my ideas on CSGnet.

I won't like your ideas any better on ECACs than I do here. And I don't  
imagine that you'll like mine any more there than you do here. So I'll just  
stay here.

RSM

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400
> 
> --------------------
> 
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,  
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended  
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies  
> of the original message.

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/promulgating-pct-was-for-those/9198.md?page=1)