Starting Over

[Marc_Abrams1]

Blank
From[Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1941)]

Purpose: In B. Gregory’s posts I realized that I better consolidate my ideas from the 3 different threads over the past 48 hrs.I will discuss, The Lexicon and my Technical -> “normative” “modes”. If anyone does not “understand” what I am trying to convey, please ask to clarify. If you disagree with my interpretation, please post and explain your reasoning behind the disagreement. If you don’t respond at all, nobody learns.I want to learn, badly, on my terms :-), That means to me; exchanging ideas and opinions ( aren’t they the same, really ) and learning the “facts”. Telling me I am “wrong” without explaining why is of no use to me so don’t waste your or my time. I benefited greatly from my conversations with Bruce Nevin, Dick Robertson, and Rick Marken. I have gained new insight into PCT/HPCT and more importantly into myself and my own “understanding” of the PCT/HPCT model. Not from anything anyone told me, but from my need to think about and answer all those questions. It has been an exhilarating ride. For the first time in 8 years I have warm fuzzy feelings for Rick and a new found respect. He tried real hard to dialogue with me and I appreciate that. I still disagree with him, but he is truly a PCT master, King of the demo’s. A judgment on HPCT will have to wait. LOL. Bruce Nevin was the first to try the conventions I suggested, thank you Bruce, I don’t know how you feel about it at this point, but I felt it worked. What do you think?, and finally dear Dick, 77 years young. God bless you. I hope I get to that age and then we can both celebrate it together. I hope I started rather then ended a dialogue with you. Maybe this post will help to get you thinking I only covered the Technical vs. “normative” in this post. I tried talking about HPCT but it just became to big. Another time.

1. Technical vs. “normative”

I believe this to be one of the biggest problems we face on CSGnet. How do we “communicate” our ideas and exchange ideas on the PCT/HPCT model with a set of common words that have different “normative” meanings and model ones. That is, normative( i.e. standard, or common ) dictionary word meanings might have 2-9 “definitions”. Which one do we use? Well, Bill has a glossary in the back of PCT. These words and phrases are defined by Bill and have specific meaning for the PCT/HPCT model. Those definitions are the only legitimate definition (“meaning”) that word or phrase can have with regard to the PCT/HPCT model. No other, no questions. These words and phrases that are defined in the glossary are what I call the “Technical” words. Technical words have only one specific meaning and that applies to the model.When on CSGnet and using Technical words we are talking about a definition as it exists in the glossary ( hopefully a lexicon ). This glossary is subject to revision. By whom?, Well, since Bill wrote the theory, using his words and his definitions, who better then to know what he meant by those words. So Bill has to be the final arbiter on what words mean vies a vie the PCT/HPCT model. I would expect as new knowledge is gained and new words are added to the Lexicon Bill would like the job to be done by everyone. But we know what happens when a committee designs a horse? In a post I nominated our resident Linguist Dr. Bruce Nevin as PCT/HPCT lexiconographer ( sic?) with Bill as the “overseer” What do you say Bruce, Bill?

Anyway, I am putting together a glossary from B:CP and the 5 papers I suggested as a beginning to the lexicon/glossary. I would like to see this lexicon on the web site and required reading along with B:CP

In my posts I will signal the use of a Technical word or phrase by using a capital letter and no quotes around the word or phrase.

In talking about the model, especially HPCT. There are concepts, words and phrases that currently have no Technical definition or who have definitions that represent two things. Learning/“learning” comes to mind. Learning has a specific meaning in PCT/HPCT science. It has other meanings outside that express idea the Technical one does not. Both are “valid” uses for the word. It’s like finding a word in the dictionary with 5 definitions. Which one is used depends upon the context of the use. Hopefully one day the PCT/HPCT lexicon will be adding another definition to the words we use. In the mean time we must deal in the real world. The trick will be as it always has been to get people to “accept” the additional definitions. They do not as Rick thinks need to do away with all other definitions. They simply need to use the “proper” one in the “proper” context. Telling people they don’t “know” what Control “means” does not win many friends. Words like “thought”, “idea”, have no Technical meaning at all currently in PCT/HPCT. That will change. :-). “Normative” words will always be quoted. That means, the intended definition is something other then the one used for the model. The " " should be followed by ( i.e. … ) often. This is too help define the word or phrase in the context it was used. “normative” words should only be used if necessary or deemed useful in conveying an idea, thought or concept

It is important when introducing people to PCT/HPCT that they are aware that a lexicon exists, and is extremely important in acquiring an understanding of PCT/HPCT. The lexicon will be a helpful “bridge” for people to begin to “understand” the model. Unless they can distinguish between Error and “error”, Goal and “goal” Conflict and “conflict” we will be helplessly mired in word games.

Remember. Anyone new to PCT/HPCT will be bringing with them some baggage. That baggage is the meaning of words and phrases the have been using for a lifetime in defining their worlds. If you think you are going to be able to validate PCT/HPCT by invalidating the way they currently define the world your nuts. It is so much easier to simply add another meaning on rather then eliminating all others. This holds even truer for professionals who have very specific meanings for words they use in their professions. A lexicon becomes important.

I will be following this convention for the rest of this post as an example of what I mean.

Does this make sense? Any suggestions, corrections, ideas?

Marc

[David_Goldstein1]

Blank

[From David
Goldstein (2003.05.05.616 ET)]

From[Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1941)]

Marc,

Whatever happened to the research that you were going to do on
stress and PCT?

Does your focus on all the things in the posts mean that you are
giving up on that?

David

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0700)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1941)

I will be following this convention for the rest of this post as an
example of what I mean.

Does this make sense? Any suggestions, corrections, ideas?

A cautionary note. There is no need for Bill or anyone else to serve as
"keeper of the lexicon" so long as the PCT model exists. (Much as there
was no need for Newton to serve such a role once his laws of motion were
explicitly formulated. In fact, by analogy, the laws were found to be
valid in domains Newton never even considered (electricity and
magnetism.)) The real question, from my perspective, is how do we model
a phenomenon? All you have to do is refer your usage of a term to the
corresponding element in the model.

That said, I think I understand what you are trying to do. Here is what
I believe to be an alternative way to approach the problem. Identifying
"r" with a goal can be misleading because we often think of goals as
something in the future that we are striving to attain. It may be
clearer to identify "r" with a state we are maintaining (I believe you
suggested this a while back). The problem with emphasizing "e" is that
"e" is normally small so long as control is being maintained. So instead
of saying that we spend the day dealing with errors, it might be
preferable to say that we spend the day maintaining a series of states
(r1, r2, r3,...).

My goals might be to make a living and a contribution to society but to
achieve these I need to go to work more or less regularly. During my
morning commute I am normally not "concerned" with the higher-level
goals, but rather I am successfully maintain the state of being "on the
way to work" and, in the process "serving" the higher level goals.

p.s. I hope those aspirins did the trick

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.0940)]

Fred Nickols (2003.05.05.1132 EDT) --

Where that takes me, then, is I see the sense of your statement
below about spending the day maintaining a series of r states and I also
see the sense of what Marc says about spending the day dealing with
errors. ...We could also say that we spend the day varying our behavior
so as to keep things under control ... In short, I'm of the
opinion that you are both saying the same thing using different words and
from a different angle with respect to the basic PCT model.

But it seems to me that this doesn't explain why Marc says that people are often
correcting errors _rather than_ maintaining control (reaching goals). I kind of
like the explanation of this that I gave in my last post (Rick Marken
(2003.05.04.2215)). What Marc seems to be describing when he says that people are
correcting errors rather than reaching goals is the experience one has when one is
in conflict. When one is in conflict one actually _does not_ have control of the
perceptions involved in the conflict. So it _feels like_ one is not reaching
goals. What one does notice is that sometimes one's actions combine with
circumstances to produce one of the perceptions involved in the conflict (food or
the inability to get at food). So it _feels like_ there has been error correction
(even though error remains in the system controlling for the other perceptions).
Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1130)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1248) ]

>Rick Marken (2003.05.05.0940)

> Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

Why not ask Marc? LOL, LOL

I think I did in my earlier post [Rick Marken (2003.05.04.2215)] but you didn't
reply to it.

>...When one is in conflict one actually _does not_ have control of the
> perceptions involved in the conflict. So it _feels like_ one is not
> reaching goals. What one does notice is that sometimes one's actions
> combine with circumstances to produce one of the perceptions
> involved in the conflict... So it _feels like_ there has been error
> correction...
> Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

Yes Rick, that is another "good" interpretation of what I "mean". Now the
question is asked. Do we need to differentiate between these "processes" for
purposes of "communication" and model clarity?

If you agree that this is what you are describing -- the lack of control and
occasional feelings of relief (error reduction) one feels when in when in a
conflict -- then we've communicated. The PCT model is already as clear as it can
be about what's going on in a conflict. And it's pretty easy to relate the
behavior of the model to the experiences you describe of being in a conflict (as
we are when we go on a diet).

If so, do we use different
words to represent those "different" "processes"( which I favor ),?

Why. We're already communicating. Now I know what you mean (in terms of my own
experiences) when you talk about people spending more time reducing errors than
reaching goals. I now know what perceptions you were trying to point to with your
words; you were pointing to the perceptions of lack of control (not reaching
goals) and occasional relief (error reduction) that one feels when in conflict. I
think this has been a very successful communication, based on our mutual
familiarity with the english language.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Fred_Nickols2]

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.05.1132 EDT)] --

Speaking personally, I've never had any difficulty equating r (reference
state) with g (goal state). Setting that aside, I think you draw attention
to a potential source of confusion below and you also do a nice job of
clearing it up. Still, as I understand it ("it" being PCT), e (error) = r
- p (the difference between the reference state for some variable we wish
to control and our perceived value of that variable). Error leads to o
(output or action) and, assuming no overwhelming disturbance (d), the
controlled variable changes state and so does our perception of it,
leading, hopefully, to an e of zero (+ or - whatever the tolerance for
error might be). I would hazard a guess that d, even if not overwhelming,
is rarely zero, so that some portion of output is necessary only because d
does not equal zero. If we assume that d has some value and if we assume
that the value of d might also vary with other factors contributing to
whatever it is that is disturbing the variable we seek to control,
this ever changing, ever present value of d would seem to me to be
introducing a continuously varying value of e which requires of us that we
produce an appropriate and corresponding value of o so as to counter or
offset d. Where that takes me, then, is I see the sense of your statement
below about spending the day maintaining a series of r states and I also
see the sense of what Marc says about spending the day dealing with
errors. To these two we could also say that we spend the day dealing with
disturbances (which "resonates" with me as my research colleagues are fond
of saying). We could also say that we spend the day varying our behavior
so as to keep things under control (which is what I think you are saying,
Bruce, and what you seem to be saying, too, Marc). In short, I'm of the
opinion that you are both saying the same thing using different words and
from a different angle with respect to the basic PCT model.

Do I have this right or am I missing something?

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

···

From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0700)]

That said, I think I understand what you are trying to do. Here is what
I believe to be an alternative way to approach the problem. Identifying
"r" with a goal can be misleading because we often think of goals as
something in the future that we are striving to attain. It may be
clearer to identify "r" with a state we are maintaining (I believe you
suggested this a while back). The problem with emphasizing "e" is that
"e" is normally small so long as control is being maintained. So instead
of saying that we spend the day dealing with errors, it might be
preferable to say that we spend the day maintaining a series of states
(r1, r2, r3,...).

My goals might be to make a living and a contribution to society but to
achieve these I need to go to work more or less regularly. During my
morning commute I am normally not "concerned" with the higher-level
goals, but rather I am successfully maintain the state of being "on the
way to work" and, in the process "serving" the higher level goals.

[Marc_Abrams1]

BlankFrom [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.0844) ]

Purpose: Clarification

[From David Goldstein (2003.05.05.616 ET)]

Marc,
Whatever happened to the research that you were going to do on stress and

PCT?

Does your focus on all the things in the posts mean that you are giving up

on that?

David

_ABSOLUTELY NOT_ :-). Let me explain. What I have come to "understand", is
that in order to do any kind of legitamite "research" you need to know, I
mean _really_ know, a; what kind of data you are looking for ( as B. Gregory
pointed out on Friday ) and how to both, b; set up experiments to gather
that data and, c: to construct/run/validate models/simulations to utilize
the data and validate the results. ( as Rick points out ).

As in my post to Fred earlier. I will address this question (of "stress") in
my subsequent posts today and tommorrow. I will specifically include this in
my 2nd post on HPCT. I will also e-mail you off-line about seting up a
meeting with you for the purposes of discussing the use and data gathering
of the biofeedback equipment and setting up some possible experiments. But
toward that end ;

We need going into these experiments, _clear_ ( or at least as clear as we
can possibly make it. ) Technical definitions of "cognitive concepts",
vis a vies the HPCT model, such as "stress", which we are hoping _to_
define. _Many_ "cognitive concepts" (i.e. words and phrases) do not
currently have Technical HPCT meanings( not in a PCT/HPCT glossary or
lexicon ). We need to make explicit which ones do have Technical meanings,
which don't, which ones we can currently define, and which ones we hope to
come up with definitions for. Isn't part of the effort of "research" to be
able to "discover" new "meaning" or new "paradigms"?

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1345)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503) ]

There has to be a better way. It took 3 days to communicate a realtively
minor point. I think it prove useful to have a "tighter" reign on our
"definitons". It's not required but merely helpful. Do you disagree with
this?

Kinda. I actually think we did pretty well. I think there is a school of thought
that believes that communications can be solved -- or, at least, improved
substantially -- through strictly standardized definition. I don't believe it.
Obviously we have to have some common understanding of the definitions --
perceptual referents -- of the words we use. But there will still be confusions
and disagreements, even when there is a standard dictionary available for one to
point to official meanings of words. This is partly because meaning comes from
more than just words but from the structure of sentences, colloquialisms,
phrasings, etc. I think we generally do a very good job with the language tools we
have of expressing our meanings. That's why poetry is so cool. It's just a bunch
of words, all of which have standard definitions, but a good poem can mean so much
more than one could ever predict from knowing just the dictionary definitions.

I think we discussed this "tighter definition" approach to improving communication
some years ago on CSGNet – like maybe within the first year of its existence. I
think the upshot was that definitions are important – it's certainly important to
know what we mean, in terms of the PCT model, when we talk about "perception",
"reference", "controlled quantity", "disturbance" and so on – but tightening
definitions will not solve the communication problem. We just have to solve it
the old fashioned way – through clear expression and patient discussion. Three
days doesn't seem that long to me to figure out what another person might be
thinking. It took me 4 years to figure out what Bill Powers was talking about
after I first discovered PCT.

> I think this has been a very successful communication, based on our mutual
> familiarity with the english language.

I agree. But it should happen more often on the net. We used a lot of energy
and time in "resollving" this issue. Others have not been as patient as you
and I were. It takes work to communicate effectively and is not always easy.
A good lexicon can only help.

Yes. A good lexicon can help. But I think we already have a fine lexicon: the
dictionary, our own cultural familiarity with English and, for PCT, the glossary
in B:CP (and in my ABS article). Communication like this should happen more often
on the net. But I think it does happens fairly often as is. As you say, a lot of
it depends on the patience and attitude of those involved in the communication.
But I think that we generally end up communicating just fine on CSGNet. I think
that most of the heat you see in exchanges on CSGNet is not the result of
communication failure but of communication success. The people involved in the
communication know perfectly well what each other are talking about, each just
thinks that the other is wrong.

I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
sufficent enough answer.

Yes, I agree that a good lexicon can help. But I think we already have a good
lexicon: Webster's dictionary and the OED cover the word thing nicely, I think.
And Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ covers the sentence and higher level
nicely. We also have the B:CP glossary and the glossary at the end of the ABS
issue I edited. Commuication is a very complicated process. It takes great skill
to do it well. I think learning the skill of communication -- how to write clearly
-- would make a far greater contribution to effective communication on CSGNet than
would developing a tighter lexicon.

Perhaps we should require that people prove that they have taken (and passed with
a B or better) a writing course before they start trying to communicate on
CSGNet. I prefer that solution to a tight lexicon.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.05.0931) ]

Purpose: I read this post with a great sense of relief. _This_ is the kind
of post I expect, want, and need from people like Bruce G. I agree on one
point and disagree on another. I will attempt to address these differences
with the same clarity I have received them. This reply will negate the need
for one of my subsequent posts as well.

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0700)]

A cautionary note. There is no need for Bill or anyone else to serve as
"keeper of the lexicon" so long as the PCT model exists.

I disagree and CSGnet is living "proof" of this. The part about Bill might
be true, but we _do_ need a lexicon. Actually, I should say _I_ need a
lexicon. Apparently my Physics -> Chemistry metaphor did not strike
home.( Oh well ) _Many_ "cognitive" concepts currently have no meaning
in the HPCT model. Lets talk about one example, the "cognitive concept" of
Learning/ "learning", to show why a lexicon is important to HPCT, and the
study of "cognition" vis a vies the HPCT model, and the importance for
newbies ( and oldies ) to have a "bridge" from their current "normative"
understandings of certain words and phrases to a PCT/HPCT Technical one.

Learning, as defined by BP in B:CP glossary, This being the "Technical"
definition. ( Technical as I defined it in my *Starting Over* post ).

"A loose term covering memory, programmed problem solving, and
reorganization".

To me this is a very "loose" definition and really doesn't convey to me a
very good sense of how this concept (i.e. Learning) is defined by any
specific process or element in the HPCT model. For instance, what is
"programmed problem solving" and how would I "see" it in the model. Is
Memory and Learning ( as used in the above definition ) synonyms? If we take
a look at Argyris and Schon's definition we can see why we have a problem.
As I attempted to show in;

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1547) ]

"Learning" in a "normative" sense is also a useful concept. One provided by
Argyris and Schon is one of my favorites; This is gotten from
;_Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice_ Pg. 3 I will
produce it as printed, quotes, italics included. None are added by me.

"Learning" may signify either a product (something learned) or the process
that yields such a product. In the first sense, we might ask, "What have we
learned?" referring to an accumulation of information in the form of
knowledge or skill; in the second sense, "How do we learn?" referring to a
learning activity that may be well or badly performed. When we speak of
"drawing lessons from experience," for example, we implicitly treat
"lessons" as learning product and "lesson drawing" as learning process. The
product/process ambiguity, which cuts across the many different meanings
scholars and practitioners give to learning in general, is important to
every other question ....."

This makes 3 different "definitions" for Learning/"learning". All with
distinct meanings. The Technical one dealing directly with the HPCT model
and the two presented by the authors. As the authors pointed out the two
"meanings" they present are in fact ambiguous and represent 2 distinct
things. One a process, the other a "product". Does the Technical definition
in the glossary represent one, the other, or a distinct new meaning? I
believe Learning sounds more like the "process". If true, we would need, or
should have a Technical concept/word to represent the "product" "learning".
Chap. 14 in B:CP try's to deal with this ambiguity. Does Learning mean
Reorganization? If so, how do we convey those other "ideas"?

This is all I mean by a lexicon. The lexicon does not define the model. The
model defines the lexicon. Both help others "understand" the model, which is
the primary reason for doing it in the first place.

If Bruce N. does not want to be the "keeper of the lexicon" and no one else
wants it. I will appoint myself. :-). I will work with Bill, with him doing
the defining and me bothering the hell out of him to tighten his definitions
LOL. I will have a lexicon of PCT/HPCT. Even if it's one of my own invention
for my own use.

(Much as there
was no need for Newton to serve such a role once his laws of motion were
explicitly formulated. In fact, by analogy, the laws were found to be
valid in domains Newton never even considered (electricity and
magnetism.))

Yes, but we found, as you so eloquently put it in your book _Inventing
Reality_, that we develop "vocabulary's" to talk about what we "know" about.
These "'vocabulary's" are more then simply mouthed words. They represent
"ideas", "thoughts", "concepts", etc. Which help explain other "ideas",
"thoughts', "concepts, etc. ad nauseum :-), until we are left with nothing,
but our Perceptions, of what something "really" means. When Physisists could
not "talk" and describe certain observed things Quantum Mechanics came into
being. Two things took place, new words were needed to descibe new entities
and these new entites brought some new meanings to old words. The
"definition" of an "atom" changes by the day ( or seems that way :-)) or at
least at some "level" it does. I am not a Phycsist, nor a chemist, but I
would like to know how or if our new found "knowledge" about the atom or
matter have any current effecton the usefulness and viabilty of chemistry.
If so, to what extent and how?

The real question, from my perspective, is how do we model
a phenomenon?

Yes, I agree. But in order to "model" anything you need "data". "Data" comes
in the form of numbers and words. "Words", "concepts", "ideas" are
represented by letters in mathematics. The "definition" of what those
letters "represent" are left to whatever spoken language one happens to be
using. In theoritizing it is often _not_ neccessary to clearly "define"
the "concepts" in any other "language" besides mathematics, just as long as
the relationships hold after transformations of and between concepts
everything is usually pretty cool. A problem usually arises when you try to
"explain" the "primitives" or "utilize" the mathematics. Any theoretical
mathematician worth his salt will tell you that any resemblance mathematics
has to the real world is purely a coincidence. That is not to say that
mathematics has not found important and meaningful uses. It suggests that
everything is in the end Perception.

All you have to do is refer your usage of a term to the
corresponding element in the model.

Any "phenomenon" can be "described" by a letter. That "letter" in turn can
be represented by a number. Both of which can be transformed using
mathematical operations. Now whether those "letters", or numbers represent
the words, "concepts", "ideas", etc._accurately_ is a whole other ball game.
Words are a neccessary evil. We need to use them in order to convey our
"ideas", "notions", and "needs" to the rest of the world. They are also
useful to help us "picture" those same "ideas" and "concepts". At some point
words are needed to make something "useful" and "understandable" to an
individual in order to be able to coomunicate an idea. Mathematics is never
sufficent for certain "levels" of 'understanding".

That said, I think I understand what you are trying to do. Here is what
I believe to be an alternative way to approach the problem. Identifying
"r" with a goal can be misleading because we often think of goals as
something in the future that we are striving to attain. It may be
clearer to identify "r" with a state we are maintaining (I believe you
suggested this a while back).

Yes, and I am suggesting we set up a lexicon for this very purpose. A"goal"
is not a Reference Condition, and should not be used as synonyms for one
another, period. They are confusing to those both those familiar with the
theory, as evedenced by the use on this net over the years, and for those
who _do_ think it represents the same "normative" "concept"

The problem with emphasizing "e" is that
"e" is normally small so long as control is being maintained.

Please see my post and reply to Rick last night. I will maintain the
position I took in the post.

So instead
of saying that we spend the day dealing with errors, it might be
preferable to say that we spend the day maintaining a series of states
(r1, r2, r3,...)

Yes, and you could also say you are "adjusting for error". But you don't
seem to understand that we are talking about two different things. Again,
reread my reply to Rick for clarification.You are talking about model
behavior. I speak of a more abstract idea.

My goals might be to make a living and a contribution to society but to
achieve these I need to go to work more or less regularly. During my
morning commute I am normally not "concerned" with the higher-level
goals, but rather I am successfully maintain the state of being "on the
way to work" and, in the process "serving" the higher level goals.

Either you wrote this without seeing my post to Rick, or did not understand
it. I covered this in that post. I agree with your assessment and I stated
why in that post to Rick. From [Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.2103)], Subject Re:
Correcting Errors/Reaching Goals...

p.s. I hope those aspirins did the trick

Touch� ! LOL Did yours? LOL

Marc

···

Subject: Re: HPCT and "Human Cognition" & Happy Birthday To Dick Robertson

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1212)]

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.05.1132 EDT)] --

Speaking personally, I've never had any difficulty equating r (reference
state) with g (goal state). Setting that aside, I think you draw

attention

to a potential source of confusion below and you also do a nice job of
clearing it up. Still, as I understand it ("it" being PCT), e (error) = r
- p (the difference between the reference state for some variable we wish
to control and our perceived value of that variable). Error leads to o
(output or action) and, assuming no overwhelming disturbance (d), the
controlled variable changes state and so does our perception of it,
leading, hopefully, to an e of zero (+ or - whatever the tolerance for
error might be). I would hazard a guess that d, even if not overwhelming,
is rarely zero, so that some portion of output is necessary only because d
does not equal zero. If we assume that d has some value and if we assume
that the value of d might also vary with other factors contributing to
whatever it is that is disturbing the variable we seek to control,
this ever changing, ever present value of d would seem to me to be
introducing a continuously varying value of e which requires of us that we
produce an appropriate and corresponding value of o so as to counter or
offset d.

Beautiful.

Where that takes me, then, is I see the sense of your statement
below about spending the day maintaining a series of r states and I also
see the sense of what Marc says about spending the day dealing with
errors. To these two we could also say that we spend the day dealing with
disturbances (which "resonates" with me as my research colleagues are fond
of saying). We could also say that we spend the day varying our behavior
so as to keep things under control (which is what I think you are saying,
Bruce, and what you seem to be saying, too, Marc). In short, I'm of the
opinion that you are both saying the same thing using different words and
from a different angle with respect to the basic PCT model.

Do I have this right or am I missing something?

Not from my perspective. You _nailed_ it.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1248) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.0940)]

Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

Why not ask Marc? LOL, LOL

But it seems to me that this doesn't explain why Marc says that people are

often

correcting errors _rather than_ maintaining control (reaching goals). I

kind of

like the explanation of this that I gave in my last post (Rick Marken
(2003.05.04.2215)). What Marc seems to be describing when he says that

people are

correcting errors rather than reaching goals is the experience one has

when one is

in conflict. When one is in conflict one actually _does not_ have control

of the

perceptions involved in the conflict. So it _feels like_ one is not

reaching

goals. What one does notice is that sometimes one's actions combine with
circumstances to produce one of the perceptions involved in the conflict

(food or

the inability to get at food). So it _feels like_ there has been error

correction

(even though error remains in the system controlling for the other

perceptions).

Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

Yes Rick, that is another "good" interpretation of what I "mean". Now the
question is asked. Do we need to differentiate between these "processes" for
purposes of "communication" and model clarity? If so, do we use different
words to represent those "different" "processes"( which I favor ),? What
would we call them and more importantly, how would we define them in terms
of other model entities and processes, which is the key to a "good"
definition.

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.1647)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503)]

There has to be a better way. It took 3 days to communicate a realtively
minor point. I think it prove useful to have a "tighter" reign on our
"definitons". It's not required but merely helpful. Do you disagree with
this?

It doesn't seem to me that definitions played much of a role in your exchange
with Rick. Is it fair to say that your point was that much of the time most
people are experiencing the effects of internal conflict?

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1700)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1845)--

Both Rick and Bill and probably others on this net
think they have been "successful" in "communicating" PCT to others to them
and all others I ask; Where is the data to support your statement.

I think I am one data point for Bill. I wouldn't know anything about PCT if Bill
had not successfully communicated it to me, in his book, in his articles, in his
net postings and in our personal exchanges, which used to go on using this ancient
medium called letters. I don't know of any data in my favor though I have had one
or two people write and tell me that they learned a lot about PCT from my books
and postings.

I think another piece of data regarding Bill's success in communicating PCT has
been the overwhelmingly negative reaction PCT has received from the academic
social and life science community. If Bill had not been successfully
communicating PCT, far more than the few academics we know of would have
mistakenly thought that PCT was perfectly compatible with their existing views of
behavior.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1409 MDT)]

Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.05.0931)--

Learning, as defined by BP in B:CP glossary, This being the "Technical"
definition. ( Technical as I defined it in my *Starting Over* post ).

"A loose term covering memory, programmed problem solving, and
reorganization".

To me this is a very "loose" definition and really doesn't convey to me a
very good sense of how this concept (i.e. Learning) is defined by any
specific process or element in the HPCT model.

It was meant to say that "learning" is not a very useful term, because it can mean such very different things. "Learning" is not a PCT term and is unlikely to become one, since its informal usages refer to at least three totally different processes that have nothing to do with each other. When I say "learning," you have no way of knowing whether I'm referring to applying a method for solving a problem (using the programmed method of long division to learn the answer to 34567 divided by 47 = ?),discovering a fact that I didn't know before (learning -- memorizing -- someone telephone number), or acquiring a skill I didn't have before (learning to knit -- reorganizing a motor skill).

For instance, what is "programmed problem solving" and how would I "see" it in the >model.

Programmed problem solving is executing an already-acquired program for solving a problem. The result of applying the program is not known in advance, so we say we have "learned" the answer, meaning only that we have obtained it. Nothing new has actually been memorized (not necessarily), and no new skill has appeared.

Is Memory and Learning ( as used in the above definition ) synonyms?

No, because learning is a garbage-can term that includes not only memory but reorganization and programmed problem-solving, and probably other ideas too. I suspect that this term simply indicates that there seems to be something common to all processes that result in something new in experience or behavior, but I maintain that this is a false impression.

If we take a look at Argyris and Schon's definition we can see why we have a problem.

I can see that they have a problem if they intended their comments to be a definition of learning. They never do define it, except by using different forms of "learn" and synonyms for the same word. If I tell you there is a product called "mashed potatoes", and that there is a process called "mashing potatoes," does this define the word "mash?"

Best,

Bill P.

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1130)]

There has to be a better way. It took 3 days to communicate a realtively
minor point. I think it prove useful to have a "tighter" reign on our
"definitons". It's not required but merely helpful. Do you disagree with
this?

I think this has been a very successful communication, based on our mutual
familiarity with the english language.

I agree. But it should happen more often on the net. We used a lot of energy
and time in "resollving" this issue. Others have not been as patient as you
and I were. It takes work to communicate effectively and is not always easy.
A good lexicon can only help.

I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
sufficent enough answer.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1653) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.1647)]

It doesn't seem to me that definitions played much of a role in your

exchange

with Rick.

To what do you attribute our "understanding" to?

Through the use of words we were able to find out that we both had the same
PCT model "in mind" and that I was using some of the words to mean something
different then what Rick had in mind. It certainly created "conflict", but
by PCT standards this was not a "conflict". We had different "goals" and
different Perceptions. Rick wanted me to perceive the model in a certain way
and perceived my view as "invalid". I had the goal of showing Rick I was not
talking about the model and perceived Rick as being unwilling to
"understand" my view. It turned out we were both "wrong".

That is not PCT "conflict" as I understand it. btw, Bill did not define
"conflict" in the B:CP glossary.

Is it fair to say that your point was that much of the time most

people are experiencing the effects of internal conflict?

Yes. A very interesting question. With "most" and "much" being the
qualifying words. An interesting research problem I will keep this one in
mind, thanks.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1715)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1345)]

Kinda. I actually think we did pretty well. I think there is a school of

thought

that believes that communications can be solved -- or, at least, improved
substantially -- through strictly standardized definition.

This is not what I meant. I did not mean to "standardize" the
"communication". Our exchange and net result showed that. I may not be a
good writer but I have been a very successful communicator ( salesman ) my
entire life. I talk a great deal better then I write. But the principle is
exactly the same, you need to understand and "speak" the other persons
"lingo". "Communication" begins and ends with a common "understanding" of
words and concepts. Again I think this net speaks for itself.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

No problem, I will use and develop a lexicon for my own use and with others
I intend to try and communicate to about PCT and HPCT off this list. I see
no one has "responded" to my request. Oh well. life moves on

Frankly, your way hasn't been to successful. I would suggest trying
something different. We are down to 99 paid on this list. There is a reason
for that and it's not the occasional incendiary post. I am on an Early
American history list that has grown from 50 to 350 in 4 years, and it's not
because we have "world class" writers on that list either. It is a very
"easy" list to convey ideas on. No special lexicon required.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1845)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1409 MDT)]

It was meant to say that "learning" is not a very useful term, because it

can mean such very different things.

Yes, I sort of got that from the "loose term" part. But that is not the
reason it is not useful. It is not useful because it does not define
something specific in the model, with other words used to define other
meanings.

"Learning" is not a PCT term and is unlikely to become one, since its
informal usages refer to at least three totally different processes that
have nothing to do with each other.

So then the glossary in B:CP is _not_ a lexicon for terms in the PCT model.
I thought it was. Sorry. What is the purpose of the glossary, if not to
attach specific meanings to words used to describe your theory? I had the
mistaken notion that the words that you described and defined had specific
meanings for the model and you did not want someone to misinterpet one of
those words. I was wondering why words like conflict, level, system, etc.
were not in there.

When I say "learning," you have no way of knowing whether I'm referring to

applying a method for solving a problem (using the programmed >method of
long division to learn the answer to 34567 divided by 47 = ?),discovering a
fact that I didn't know before (learning -- memorizing -- >someone telephone
number), or acquiring a skill I didn't have before (learning to knit --
reorganizing a motor skill).

I can see that they have a problem if they intended their comments to be a

definition of learning. They never do define it, except by using different

forms of "learn" and synonyms for the same word. If I tell you there is a

product called "mashed potatoes", and that there is a process called

"mashing potatoes," does this define the word "mash?"

You misinterpreted. They spoke of the process of learning ( aquiring a skill
or knowledge ) and the "product" of that learning as in ; I Know how to ...
or I can do ...., which is a product of learning. In your example of
learning to mash potatoes as the process and being able to mash potatoes as
the product. They talk about the ambiguity of having to deal with those two
definitions among others. They were simply noting the distinction, not
trying to define the term. Nothing more, nothing less.

On closing;
It's unfortunate that someone can be so right about one thing and so wrong
about something else. Both Rick and Bill and probably others on this net
think they have been "successful" in "communicating" PCT to others to them
and all others I ask; Where is the data to support your statement. Fred
Nichols felt it necessary to write his own paper for his own audience and I
applaud him for it.

I will ask all on the net, how many people have you been able to communicate
PCT to. I can't even explain it to my wife. Error, Perception, Reference,
etc. has very distinct meaning to her. I just throw up my hands and say,
forget it.

So I am going to develop a lexicon and I will define it myself, for my own
use, with people I know, lets see if that makes a difference. Then we can
compare data. I'm done with the arm waving.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.2008) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1700)]

I think I am one data point for Bill. I wouldn't know anything about PCT

if Bill

had not successfully communicated it to me, in his book, in his articles,

in his

net postings and in our personal exchanges, which used to go on using this

ancient

medium called letters. I don't know of any data in my favor though I have

had one

or two people write and tell me that they learned a lot about PCT from my

books

and postings.

_2_ data points. In 13 years, you have been able to communicate his theory
to _2_ data points and you think that is "successful"? How many have you
"communicated" with? I got to tell you Rick, as a salesmen, your "closing"
ratio is pretty bad

I think another piece of data regarding Bill's success in communicating

PCT has

been the overwhelmingly negative reaction PCT has received from the

academic

social and life science community. If Bill had not been successfully
communicating PCT, far more than the few academics we know of would have
mistakenly thought that PCT was perfectly compatible with their existing

views of

behavior.

This my friend is one _very_ twisted view of the world. This post is self-
evident of what I have been saying and I will repeat what I closed with in
my reply to Bill. I just don't know how two people could be so right about
one thing and so wrong about so many other things.

Hey, as long as your happy. I would never recommend anyone to this net with
your attitude. No one. I'd keep that person as far away from you as I could
for as long as I could and that is a shame, because your not a bad guy. You
really know your PCT. You just don't know people.

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.05.2230)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.2008)

Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1700)

> I think I am one data point for Bill... I have had one or two people
> write and tell me that they learned a lot about PCT from my
> books and postings.

_2_ data points. In 13 years, you have been able to communicate his theory
to _2_ data points and you think that is "successful"? How many have you
"communicated" with? I got to tell you Rick, as a salesmen, your "closing"
ratio is pretty bad

That's because you measure success in terms of how many people buy what you're
selling. You didn't ask to how many people we had successfully communicated.
You simply asked for the data showing that we had successfully communicated
PCT. I don't think it's possible to know to how many people we have
successfully communicated PCT. I suspect it's a fairly large number. Just
because you successfully communicate something to someone doesn't mean that it
will be automatically accepted. Bush has successfully communicated his policies
to me and I still don't accept them.

> I think another piece of data regarding Bill's success in communicating PCT
has
> been the overwhelmingly negative reaction PCT has received from the
academic
> social and life science community.

This my friend is one _very_ twisted view of the world.

It is, I suppose, if you think of PCT as being like a brand of toothpaste and
that that it is important to sell it to as many people as possible. In fact,
PCT is a scientific theory, not toothpaste. It would not make me happy to see
anyone to buy the theory without knowing what it is they were buying, without
knowing how to use it or without having convinced themselves by critical
analysis that it's the best theory for the job (of understanding human nature).

You really know your PCT. You just don't know people.

That's impossible, from my point of view. But I can see how it might seem that
way to you. The person who can sell people anything is often considered the one
who really knows people. I think the person who really knows people is the one
who will offer but will not sell.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313