[From David Goldstein (2011.09.01.1248 EDT)]
Some additional thoughts.
Tennis from a PCT View
· Get to ball so that you can hit it on the fly or before it bounces twice.
· Hit a forehand or backhand over the net within the bounds of the other person’s court.
· Place the ball as far from where the other person is as possible.
· Hit the ball flat, slice or topspin.
· Anticipate where the other person is likely to hit the ball and start to move in that direction.
· Repeat all of the above until the point is won.
···
From: Bob Hintz
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:37 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
bob hintz - 2011.08.31
I believe that each hit is organized not only to get the ball over the net and in bounds, but also to make it as difficult as possible for the other player to return the ball over the net and in bounds. If one has no awareness of where the other player is on the court, it becomes more difficult to achieve this second part of the reference goal. Each player is simultaneously taking the other player’s observable behavior into account as each continuously organizes his own. I have no idea how this could be included in a spreadsheet.
bob
On , Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1615)
David Goldstein (2011.08.31.1614 EDT)
DG: The idea of making it sequential makes it more realistic.
Yes, of course. I guess I’ll give it a try. It will require a major
rewrite, I think. But maybe it’s worth it. Why don’t you try it, too?
Also, I was thinking that the biggest disturbance is where the other
person hits the ball, how far it is from you, whether you are fast enough to
reach the ball, what kind of spin the person puts on the ball (flat, topspin,
slice). Each person is a disturbance for the other person.
Yes, this is true in all interpersonal conflicts (and, of course, it’s
true in my little simulation). The other person’s output joins with
any other prevailing environmental disturbances (like the wind) to
disturb the perception controlled by the other person. The other
person’s output in a conflict is, by definition, a disturbance because
it is an effect on a controlled variable that is independent of the
actions of the controller. But whereas environmental disturbances are
random and unsystematic; the disturbance created by an opponent is
systematic – it is actively working against your efforts to work
against it (and prevent it from affecting the state of the variable
you are controlling).
This is not taking away from the fact that we have an interpersonal conflict
going with one person winning and the other person losing a point.
It’s not only not taking away from the fact that there is a conflict;
it is the essence of the conflict.
Best
Rick
David
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:20 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
[From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1120)]
2011/8/31 Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net>:
BH: I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of
tennis
game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the
essence
of it.
It seems to me I’m capturing the essence but not the “frills” (the
higher level goals like strategy and reasons for playing at all).
BH: And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn’t
understand quite well. You know my American …:))
BH: Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is
conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?
Yes, everything is happening at the same time, in the sense that both
players have opposing references for the state of the ball and are
acting at the same time to bring the ball’s perceived position to the
intended state. What is incorrect about the simulation is that both
players affect the ball’s position simultaneously. In real tennis, of
course, one person hits the ball and then the other does. I could make
the simulation act this way; maybe I should since it may be confusing
people the way it is. But even when there is alternation in the shots,
both players are controlling for ball position at the same time, they
just can’t have an effect on the ball at the same time (as in the
present simulation).
I’m beginning to think that maybe a simulation of a more realistic
tennis dual may be in order. This would mean putting physics into the
simulation, which will be a pain for a soft-headed psychologist like
me. But it may be worth the effort.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
–
Richard S. Marken PhD