System Dynamics & PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
21

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.02.13.1420)]

I no sooner send my quote of your pledge not to post ad hominems, and here you
go again. Will you be leaving...? I am merely quoting you.... Are you a mensch?

--B.

···

>[Marc Abrams 92005.02.13.1339)]
[Rick Marken (2005.02.13.1015)]
...You are the 'sponge' Bill likes to have around. That is someone,
who just 'soaks' up whatever it is he has to say and takes it to the bank.
You
are uncritical of him and always seem to defer to him. You also act as his
unofficial 'front man'. That is, you often will try to discredit someone who
Bill Powers does not have the stomach for. Bill Williams was a great
example
of this. Powers blocked his posts and you just kept on plugging. You are a
bulldog, but your fallacious arguments will no longer go unchallenged as
long as
I'm on line, but don't let that deter you. I'll be leaving when I stop
talking with folks

....

regards,

Marc

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

22

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.02.13.1435)]

Ad Hominem or insults. However you wish to address it. According to your
definition, then: No insults, no calling names, no embarrassing people with you
unprofessional and vile language. Stick to scientific arguments, research, and
straighforward replies. Now, ahh, these are recommendations on the record, and
certainly no attempt to force you to behave. You have to make the professional
and ethical decision to do that. Simple, eh?

Cheers,

--Bryan

>From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.13.1424)]
I'm afraid you and Brian do not know what an Ad hominem attack is.

It is _NOT_ an _insult_.

Too bad, your behaviors include personal insults, tantrums, and attacks on
people in ways that have nothing to do with their scientific arguments. This
should be simple.

···

It is when you deflect the argument and make in into a personal attack. I
was explaining _WHY_ I felt, that is giving evidence, that Rick, is Bill's
right hand man, and the _REASONS_ I felt that way.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

23

[From Brian D'Agostino (2005.02.13.1555 EST)]

[From Rick Marken (2005.02.13.1055)]

Brian said:

I should mention that some individual members of CSG found my work worthwhile, but you and Bill signaled unambiguously to the community that this work was not worthy of the group's attention, and it was thereafter excluded from CSG's agenda. That is not "critical discussion," it is authoritarian social behavior.

Rick said:

I don't know if you've noticed but what Bill or I "signal" has virtually no impact on what the "CSG community" thinks. There was a huge uproar over Bill's "signals" regarding the nature of coercion and our "signals" regarding the "universal error curve" and the "I see you have chosen" statement, and so on. Authoritarian social behavior should be made of sterner stuff.

Of course you can cite instances of conflict between the members of CSG and its leaders; such conflict occurs in every social group, no matter how authoritarian. There is no contradiction between this and my assertion that you and Bill attacked my work unfairly, did nothing to remedy the damage after I showed through critical discussion that your attacks were misguided, and that this conduct on your part very likely influenced others in the CSG not to take my work seriously. Except for my current interest in robotics, I would never have resubsubscribed to CSGnet. I am only revisiting this past situation because it continues to be relevant to CSG today as long as similar power dynamics continue to operate, which is apparently the case. So let's finally acknowledge the pattern and resolve to change it, assuming you agree that we don't want this kind of thing in CSG.

Brian

P.S. Thanks again for your advice about the Lego robotics kit, Rick; it is meeting my needs perfectly.

24

From [Marc Abrams
92005.02.13.1339)]

In a message dated 2/13/2005 1:13:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
i think the automatic delete is coming out for both marc and
richard, sorry if you have something useful to say

[From Rick Marken
(2005.02.13.1015)]

Marc Abrams (2004.02.13.1239)–

You often referred to yourself as
some ancient Greek companion to a
god, which I cannot recall the specific name of, because of
my lack of
knowledge about the classics, but the implications were
clear.

Then you should have no trouble finding several examples
(“often” is
more than once).

Yes, as a matter of fact I remember it occurring on at least two
separate occasions. I’ll get the cites for you.

I think I might have once compared my relationship to Bill to T.H.

Huxley’s relationship to Darwin. But that was just for fun.

How would anyone know this? You are both prideful and boastful that
you and Powers are the only ones, who truly understand PCT.

And in fact you may be absolutely correct in this assumption because it
seems we are all having a bit of trouble defining, exactly what PCT
represents. Is it MOL? Is it the hierarchy in B:CP? How about the dual
hierarchies in the ‘lost’ chapter of B:BP in Living Control
Systems?

Is Bill ready, after 35 years, to designate the ‘levels’ as he has seen
them to be? If not, why should I believe they exist? By what body of
evidence?
I do consider myself an ardent advocate of
Bill’s ideas.

Yes, with the key word here being advocate. You don’t question,
nor do you inquire. You are the ‘sponge’ Bill likes to have around. That
is someone, who just ‘soaks’ up whatever it is he has to say and takes it
to the bank. You are uncritical of him and always seem to defer to him.
You also act as his unofficial ‘front man’. That is, you often will try
to discredit someone who Bill Powers does not have the stomach for.
Bill Williams was a great example of this. Powers blocked his posts and
you just kept on plugging. You are a bulldog, but your fallacious
arguments will no longer go unchallenged as long as I’m on line, but
don’t let that deter you. I’ll be leaving when I stop talking with
folks

But certainly not his “right hand
man” and no more his “successor” than anyone else who can
do PCT - based modeling and research
competently.
And exactly who might that be?

regards,

Marc

Rohan Lulham
Ph.D. Student
Environment, Behaviour and Society Research Group
Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney
Australia

···

At 06:03 AM 14/02/2005, you wrote:

25

From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.13.1449)]

In a message dated 2/13/2005 2:46:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.02.13.1140)]

Marc Abrams 92005.02.13.1339)–

Rick Marken (2005.02.13.1015)

I do consider myself an ardent advocate of Bill’s ideas.

Yes, with the key word here being advocate. You don’t question, nor
do you inquire. You are the ‘sponge’ Bill likes to have around… You
are uncritical of him and always seem to defer to him.

I never realized that all the experiments I did were advocacy pieces.
Lucky they came out supporting PCT, I guess.
Although dripping with sarcasm, I’m going to show you why this is one of your more asute observations.

Once Powers worked out the mathematics in the tracking task, what he had was a series of equations that fit the data to the tracking task, and as long as you did a tracking task the equations worked well, and of course they should have. This is called ‘deductive’ reasoning. That is, the conclusion is already at least implicitly known from the premises. This is not some trick. Mathematical proof is based on this. So once the equations were found to correlate to the data, you could just about bet the house that any one doing a tracking task could and would ‘validate’ the model and the equations.

The real problem comes next.

What you have been ‘validating’ all these years is the mathematical model of a human doing a tracking task, not PCT per se, or that PCT exists as such in a living entity. What you have shown, is that there seems to be a process that includes negative feedback in a motor control system in humans. Well surprise, surprise; Graham Brown knew this in 1914.

Bill got published in Science & got rave reviews from people like George Richardson originally because of the HIERARCHY, NOT control. By 1973, control was a firmly established fact in physiology. But it seemed Powers had an answer for the connection between cognition and motor control IF his ideas about the hierarchy were right, and we still don’t have an answer to that question today.

So Rick, I don’t know exactly what you have been validating over these years, but it has not been a generalized theory of human behavior, and frankly I’m not really sure I know what PCT is, or is not at this point, or exactly what it is supposed to represent.

I don’t feel bad though because I seem to be in very good company. I hope you and Powers choose to share what PCT actually is someday with the rest of us. That is except for Martin Taylor. He already knows it as well. Not bad, 3 and counting, but you don’t like Martin’s take on a number of issues either, so I guess we are back down to two.

Rick, why do you think that after 35 years, only two people actually know the theory? Don’t you find that strange?

Maybe your models are not very convincing, or maybe PCT isn’t. Something sure as hell isn’t to a load of folks.

But I know that doesn’t really bother you, because the world just can’t recognize a good thing when it see’s it. Glad to know you think there are only two sighted people in the world.

regards,

Marc