The Flaw in the Behaviorists' Research

[FredNickols]

The behaviorists I know proudly point to what they call “mounds of respectable research” supporting reinforcement theory (meaning said research was conducted mainly by academics and made its way through the peer review process). If you had to point to a single, critical flaw in that research, what would it be and how would you present the case that the research is flawed? If someone has already written this up, simply point me to it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshcoton Avenue - Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

( Gavin
Ritz 2011.05.09.10.26NZT)

Fred

This is what I think. Why do PCTers even
bother with what other theories say?

Provide the evidence of PCT in an effective
way to convince others and let other theories do what other theories do. Who
cares?

PCT is not the whole picture so it battles
to stand against other theories of mind. They have more research they have more
resources they have more people. They have more energetic memory.

Let me share with you it’s not fair
fight and not a good one either. PCT losses each time easily.

Did you read my Free Energy email to Adam Matic?

I have been looking at mapping the entire
PCT model using Mathematical Category Theory and some interesting things have
been coming out.

When I map out the “set of all HPCT”
and the “set of all Comparators” there’s a problem.

Which I encountered right at the beginning
when I first encountered PCT about 10 years ago. That’s why I never took
much notice of it for so many years.

My main concern is keeping the PCT control
system Map (ie the block diagram) but it runs into logical problems. Which I am
sure can be sorted out.

I just have to create a set of all possible
internal standards, but this is a problem too. So I think the set of a set of
its own qualitative elements might be the answer and it takes me back right to the
start when I proposed HPCT is really a qualitative version of the seven
Mathematical Category Theory axioms.

Focusing on the flaws of other will not do
the trick.

In fact it makes it worse, they will only
harden their resolve.

Regards

Gavin

The behaviorists I know proudly point to what they
call “mounds of respectable research” supporting reinforcement
theory (meaning said research was conducted mainly by academics and made its
way through the peer review process). If you had to point to a single,
critical flaw in that research, what would it be and how would you present the
case that the research is flawed? If someone has already written this up,
simply point me to it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing
Partner

Distance
Consulting LLC

1558 Coshcoton
Avenue - Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416

www.nickols.us |
fred@nickols.us

“Assistance
at a Distance”

···

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers ()2011.05.08.1920 MDTY)]

FN: The behaviorists I know
proudly point to what they call “mounds of respectable
research” supporting reinforcement theory (meaning said research was
conducted mainly by academics and made its way through the peer review
process). If you had to point to a single, critical flaw in that
research, what would it be and how would you present the case that the
research is flawed? If someone has already written this up, simply
point me to it.

The critical flaw is in substituting an imagined effect for a directly
observable effect. What we observe is that a behavior causes a reward,
either through some apparatus designed to convert, automatically, actions
of a certain pattern into delivery of rewards, or because of a rule or
policy being carried out by someone who gives rewards whenever the
subject performs some behavior. That clear causal relationship, however,
is converted into an imagined effect whereby the reward somehow alters
the probability that the same behavior will occur again. That is how the
behaviorist comes to say that behavior is controlled by its consequences.
The implied causal link and the imagined probability are
unobservable.
An equally important, or perhaps even more important, flaw is the idea
that operant conditioning works by rewarding specific behaviors. If a
disturbance is introduced that changes the way reward depends on
behavior, an organism will alter its behavior to restore the reward to
its previous condition. It’s easy to show that increasing the reward will
decrease, not increase, the amount of behavior, provided only that
the behavior can provide as much of the reward as the organism
wants.

Henry Yin, our neuroscientist friend at Duke University, will report at
the CSG meeting in July on his experiment with mice illustrating this
effect. He first set up the situation so the mice got all their food by
pressing a lever on a simple fixed-ratio schedule, so many presses per
pellet of food. The experimenter did not interfere by trying to keep the
weight of the mice at some low level by varying feedings outside the
experimental cage. The mice provided, through lever-pressing, all of
their own food, as much as they wanted.

After the mice had settled down to feeding themselves this way, Henry
increased and decreased the amount of food being obtained; he added or
subtracted pellets independently, superimposing the disturbances on the
rate of pellet delivery produced by the behavior of the mice.

As PCT predicts, increasing the food reward rate resulted in a decrease
in the rate of lever-pressing by the mice; decreasing the reward rate
resulted in an increase of lever-pressing. The mice kept the net delivery
and consumption of food near a specific reference level.

This effect has been observed before in rats and other animals but has
never been completely clear because of the customary “establishing
condition” which requires that the weight of the animal be
maintained at 80% or 85% of its free-feeding body weight. To establish
that condition, the experimenter’s actions must come into conflict with
those of the animal, and the animal is never permitted to correct the
nutritional or appetitive errors caused by food deprivation. When the
animal is allowed to control the reward rate successfully, the effect
predicted by PCT is clearly seen. The observed relationship of behavior
rate to reward rate is exactly opposite to that assumed in interpreting
operant conditioning data.

At the meeting, I will follow up Yin’s report by showing the set of
demonstrations called “Demo3”, which I have distributed before,
in which disturbances are used in a similar way to require variations in
behavior in order to maintain control. These demos show that control is
learned rather than behavior patterns. There is no one behavior pattern
that can be learned because the disturbances are regenerated at random
every time a demonstration is repeated. The behavior pattern is different
on every trial, yet it can be seen that control is improving from run to
run.

Behavioristic experiments are not designed to challenge the assumptions
of behaviorism; their results are interpreted as if the assumptions of
“analysis of behavior” are unquestionably correct. When real
challenges are presented, the assumptions of behaviorism collapse
immediately. They are based on untested misinterpretations.
“Mounds” of them. The correct interpretation might have been
discovered if disturbances had ever been used as they are in PCT
experiments. But they weren’t.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 11:51 AM 5/8/2011 -0700, Fred Nickols wrote:

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2011.05.090534)]

Thanks, Gavin. I wasn’t looking to “attack” the behaviorists or their research; I was simply looking for their Achilles heel in case I ever need to send an arrow their way in response to an attack on PCT. From time to time I am chided for (a) being a well-known figure in the field of human performance technology (HPT), (b) being an avowed skeptic regarding reinforcement theory and © being a public advocate for PCT. I usually avoid direct confrontations and shrug off the chiding. Bill’s response gives me a rather nice bomb that I might someday drop into the midst of that chiding. Sorry for mixing up my weapons metaphors (bombs and arrows). I was a career Navy man so perhaps I should say “torpedo those conversations” or “send a missile their way.”

Anyway, FWIW, the reason Bill’s response is so useful is that my behaviorist friend regularly chastise others for focusing on the unobservable. One of them recently suggested that the thinking of many non-behaviorists falls prey to category errors (a la Gilbert Ryle in The Concept of Mind). One suggested that many matters people grapple with (e.g., motivation and creativity) are words that don’t relate to a concrete phenomenon and thus don’t stand up to a basic test of observability; namely, they can’t be photographed. In other words, such matters are imagined. It would seem, according to Bill, that the notion that reinforcement increases the probability of a certain behavior is also imagined.

At this point, I’d like to hear from Bruce Abbott – and Rick Marken – and Richard Kennaway – and Martin Taylor – and anyone else for that matter. I’d really like to hear from Phil but, alas, he’s no longer with us – and genuinely missed. I suspect there’s a fly in the behaviorists’ statistical ointment as well.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 3:50 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: The Flaw in the Behaviorists’ Research

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.09.10.26NZT)

Fred

This is what I think. Why do PCTers even bother with what other theories say?

Provide the evidence of PCT in an effective way to convince others and let other theories do what other theories do. Who cares?

PCT is not the whole picture so it battles to stand against other theories of mind. They have more research they have more resources they have more people. They have more energetic memory.

Let me share with you it’s not fair fight and not a good one either. PCT losses each time easily.

Did you read my Free Energy email to Adam Matic?

I have been looking at mapping the entire PCT model using Mathematical Category Theory and some interesting things have been coming out.

When I map out the “set of all HPCT” and the “set of all Comparators” there’s a problem.

Which I encountered right at the beginning when I first encountered PCT about 10 years ago. That’s why I never took much notice of it for so many years.

My main concern is keeping the PCT control system Map (ie the block diagram) but it runs into logical problems. Which I am sure can be sorted out.

I just have to create a set of all possible internal standards, but this is a problem too. So I think the set of a set of its own qualitative elements might be the answer and it takes me back right to the start when I proposed HPCT is really a qualitative version of the seven Mathematical Category Theory axioms.

Focusing on the flaws of other will not do the trick.

In fact it makes it worse, they will only harden their resolve.

Regards

Gavin

The behaviorists I know proudly point to what they call “mounds of respectable research” supporting reinforcement theory (meaning said research was conducted mainly by academics and made its way through the peer review process). If you had to point to a single, critical flaw in that research, what would it be and how would you present the case that the research is flawed? If someone has already written this up, simply point me to it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshcoton Avenue - Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2011.05.09.0532 MST)]

Many thanks for this, Bill. It’s just what I was looking for.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:08 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: The Flaw in the Behaviorists’ Research

[From Bill Powers ()2011.05.08.1920 MDTY)]

At 11:51 AM 5/8/2011 -0700, Fred Nickols wrote:

FN: The behaviorists I know proudly point to what they call “mounds of respectable research” supporting reinforcement theory (meaning said research was conducted mainly by academics and made its way through the peer review process). If you had to point to a single, critical flaw in that research, what would it be and how would you present the case that the research is flawed? If someone has already written this up, simply point me to it.

The critical flaw is in substituting an imagined effect for a directly observable effect. What we observe is that a behavior causes a reward, either through some apparatus designed to convert, automatically, actions of a certain pattern into delivery of rewards, or because of a rule or policy being carried out by someone who gives rewards whenever the subject performs some behavior. That clear causal relationship, however, is converted into an imagined effect whereby the reward somehow alters the probability that the same behavior will occur again. That is how the behaviorist comes to say that behavior is controlled by its consequences. The implied causal link and the imagined probability are unobservable.
An equally important, or perhaps even more important, flaw is the idea that operant conditioning works by rewarding specific behaviors. If a disturbance is introduced that changes the way reward depends on behavior, an organism will alter its behavior to restore the reward to its previous condition. It’s easy to show that increasing the reward will decrease, not increase, the amount of behavior, provided only that the behavior can provide as much of the reward as the organism wants.

Henry Yin, our neuroscientist friend at Duke University, will report at the CSG meeting in July on his experiment with mice illustrating this effect. He first set up the situation so the mice got all their food by pressing a lever on a simple fixed-ratio schedule, so many presses per pellet of food. The experimenter did not interfere by trying to keep the weight of the mice at some low level by varying feedings outside the experimental cage. The mice provided, through lever-pressing, all of their own food, as much as they wanted.

After the mice had settled down to feeding themselves this way, Henry increased and decreased the amount of food being obtained; he added or subtracted pellets independently, superimposing the disturbances on the rate of pellet delivery produced by the behavior of the mice.

As PCT predicts, increasing the food reward rate resulted in a decrease in the rate of lever-pressing by the mice; decreasing the reward rate resulted in an increase of lever-pressing. The mice kept the net delivery and consumption of food near a specific reference level.

This effect has been observed before in rats and other animals but has never been completely clear because of the customary “establishing condition” which requires that the weight of the animal be maintained at 80% or 85% of its free-feeding body weight. To establish that condition, the experimenter’s actions must come into conflict with those of the animal, and the animal is never permitted to correct the nutritional or appetitive errors caused by food deprivation. When the animal is allowed to control the reward rate successfully, the effect predicted by PCT is clearly seen. The observed relationship of behavior rate to reward rate is exactly opposite to that assumed in interpreting operant conditioning data.

At the meeting, I will follow up Yin’s report by showing the set of demonstrations called “Demo3”, which I have distributed before, in which disturbances are used in a similar way to require variations in behavior in order to maintain control. These demos show that control is learned rather than behavior patterns. There is no one behavior pattern that can be learned because the disturbances are regenerated at random every time a demonstration is repeated. The behavior pattern is different on every trial, yet it can be seen that control is improving from run to run.

Behavioristic experiments are not designed to challenge the assumptions of behaviorism; their results are interpreted as if the assumptions of “analysis of behavior” are unquestionably correct. When real challenges are presented, the assumptions of behaviorism collapse immediately. They are based on untested misinterpretations. “Mounds” of them. The correct interpretation might have been discovered if disturbances had ever been used as they are in PCT experiments. But they weren’t.

Best,

Bill P.

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.10.10.20NZT)

[From Fred Nickols (2011.05.090534)]

Thanks, Gavin.
I wasn’t looking to “attack” the behaviorists or their
research; I was simply looking for their Achilles heel in case I ever need to
send an arrow their way in response to an attack on PCT

But that’s exactly what you are
doing trying to find a weak spot and shoot. You even say so in your statements
above.

. From time to
time I am chided for (a) being a well-known figure in the field of human
performance technology (HPT), (b) being an avowed skeptic regarding
reinforcement theory and © being a public advocate for PCT.

Who cares what others say, if you know you
are on the right track ignore it.

I usually avoid
direct confrontations and shrug off the chiding. Bill’s response gives me a rather
nice bomb that I might someday drop into the midst of that chiding. Sorry
for mixing up my weapons metaphors (bombs and arrows). I was a career
Navy man so perhaps I should say “torpedo those conversations” or
“send a missile their way.”

It shows you just want to shoot.

Don’t worry a time will come when attacking
the weakest link of the behaviorists model will present it self.

But that time is not now, the PCT
folk are too divided and some of the spokespersons of PCT are too emotionally attached
to PCT to make sound moves.

Anyway, FWIW, the
reason Bill’s response is so useful is
that my behaviorist friend regularly chastise others for focusing on the
unobservable.

Of-course it’s a useful and necessary
note, sufficient?

One of them recently
suggested that the thinking of many non-behaviorists falls prey to category
errors (a la Gilbert Ryle in The Concept of Mind).

PCT falls to Category errors too. The main
problem is the “set of all hierarchies”.

One suggested that
many matters people grapple with (e.g., motivation and creativity) are words
that don’t relate to a concrete phenomenon and thus don’t stand up
to a basic test of observability; namely, they can’t be
photographed. In other words, such matters are imagined. It would
seem, according to Bill, that the notion that reinforcement increases the
probability of a certain behavior is also imagined.

At this point,
I’d like to hear from Bruce Abbott – and Rick Marken – and Richard Kennaway
– and Martin
Taylor –
and anyone else for that matter. I’d really like to hear from Phil
but, alas, he’s no longer with us – and genuinely missed. I
suspect there’s a fly in the behaviorists’ statistical ointment as
well.

You sound defeated looking for someone to
help you on your way.

Before PCT becomes an accepted model of behavior
it has a lot more to do. I guess it will probably be a stage theory of mind,
one of many that will unlock the secrets so many desire.

Regards

Gavin

Fred Nickols

Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz

···

From: Control
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 3:50 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: The Flaw in the
Behaviorists’ Research

(Gavin
Ritz 2011.05.09.10.26NZT)

Fred

This is
what I think. Why do PCTers even bother with what other theories say?

Provide
the evidence of PCT in an effective way to convince others and let other
theories do what other theories do. Who cares?

PCT is
not the whole picture so it battles to stand against other theories of mind.
They have more research they have more resources they have more people. They
have more energetic memory.

Let me
share with you it’s not fair fight and not a good one either. PCT
losses each time easily.

Did you
read my Free Energy email to Adam Matic?

I have
been looking at mapping the entire PCT model using Mathematical Category Theory
and some interesting things have been coming out.

When I
map out the “set of all HPCT” and the “set of all
Comparators” there’s a problem.

Which I
encountered right at the beginning when I first encountered PCT about 10 years
ago. That’s why I never took much notice of it for so many years.

My main
concern is keeping the PCT control system Map (ie the block diagram) but it
runs into logical problems. Which I am sure can be sorted out.

I just
have to create a set of all possible internal standards, but this is a problem
too. So I think the set of a set of its own qualitative elements might be the
answer and it takes me back right to the start when I proposed HPCT is really a
qualitative version of the seven Mathematical Category Theory axioms.

Focusing
on the flaws of other will not do the trick.

In fact
it makes it worse, they will only harden their resolve.

Regards

Gavin

The behaviorists I know proudly point to what they
call “mounds of respectable research” supporting reinforcement
theory (meaning said research was conducted mainly by academics and made its
way through the peer review process). If you had to point to a single,
critical flaw in that research, what would it be and how would you present the
case that the research is flawed? If someone has already written this up,
simply point me to it.

Regards,

Fred
Nickols

Managing
Partner

Distance
Consulting LLC

1558 Coshcoton Avenue

• Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH
43050-5416

www.nickols.us |
fred@nickols.us

“Assistance
at a Distance”

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.10.17.18NZT)

Hi Fred

I have been looking at
PCT and Mathematical Category theory (MCT) for many months and it’s not easy
to make a MCT representation.

However I think I’m
getting there. The great part is, aspects of the MCT representation I can get
back to normal algebra. I managed to go from the MCT Maps to the output
function q_o= (k_or-k_o.k_i.d)/(1+k_o.k_i).
So that’s a start.
I’m having a slight logic problem because the “Set of all Reference
Signals” must map to the “set of all comparators”. That is
the map of both must be logical.

Now as the reference
signal set is a command signal, it must meet all the Imperative logical
outcomes. (Ie the logical command outcomes). This has been calculated by de Lange to be the very foundation of MCT itself, the map, that is the objects
and the arrows of MCT. The sets and the transformations. Simply the maps
themselves.

This too me is an
exciting find because I’m getting back to some of my earlier statements
saying that HPCT is really a qualitative description of energy and HPCT should
be the axioms of MCT itself. And it seems that it is. Our science is actually
built on the logics of MCT, Energy (objects) and Entropy (arrows) and Limits of
a Topos (ie quantities).

I have a long way to go
still because I have not described the Truth Value object (called the subobject
classifier) of the set of Reference signals and I don’t know how to do
it. But this I think lies at the heart of the human condition, the search for
Truth. (Not that we do it well). It may even be the well spring of what we call
knowledge.

Hopefully when I have
finally put this all together there won’t be a need to worry about what the
behaviourists say because PCT will be able to answer any question about the psychological
condition. From a mathematical foundation.

There are only seven qualitative
aspects of MCT, the combinations are what I think are the “sets of all possible
reference signals.” So it’s 7 factorial.

Regards

Gavin

···

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.10.1222)

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.10.17.18NZT)

I managed to go from the
MCT Maps to the output function qo= (kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki). So that�s a
start.

That is not the output function of a control system.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.11.9.58NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.05.10.1222)

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.10.17.18NZT)

I managed to go from the

MCT Maps to the output function qo=
(kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki). So that’s a

start.

That is not the output function of a control system.

You’re right it should
read output quantity. Not sure how the word function got in there. I was probably
thinking of the formula as a function.

Anyway you know what I am
talking about, that formula could only be one thing.

···

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.10.1710)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.11.9.58NZT)

Rick Marken (2011.05.10.1222)

�>GR: I managed to go from the

MCT Maps to the output function qo= (kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki). So that�s a
start.

RM: That is not the output function of a control system.

GR: You're right it should read output quantity.

No, the equation is not the output quantity. The equation is the
solution (for qo, the output variable) of the linear forms to the
simultaneous equations that define a closed-loop negative feedback
control organization. The output function in that equation is actually
the linear coefficient, ko. It's the function that converts error to
output:

qo = ko (r-p)

The equation you show

(qo= (kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki)

is neither the output quantity or the output function. This equation
shows the relationship between the output variable, qo, and a
disturbance, d, to the controlled variable, qi (also called the input
quantity). Your formula is basically Eq 9, p. 289 in B:CP (2nd ed):

qo= (ko r-ko ki kd d)/(1+ko.ki ke) (9)

Note that you left out kd and ke; kd is the linear version of the
function relating d to qi and ke is the linear version of the function
relating qo to qi. If we assume that ko is very large relative to ki
(which is reasonable since ko typically converts a very small neural
signal into very large muscle forces) and we assume that kd and ke are
1.0 (which they are in a simple tracking task) then equation (9) can
be simplified to:

qo = r - d (9a)

which shows that, with a relatively constant reference, a control
system will appear to act like an S-R system when a disturbance, d, is
applied to the controlled variable, qi. The output of a control
system, qo, (which looks like the response, R) will be equal and
opposite to the disturbance, d (which looks like the stimulus, S). An
observer is likely to see d as causing qo via the organism S-R
causality); in fact, d causes qo only via it's effect on the
controlled variable, qi. This is called "the behavioral illusion".

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.11.13.08NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.05.10.1710)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.11.9.58NZT)

Rick Marken
(2011.05.10.1222)

Yes, so I agree with what
you say below, what’s your real point here.

It’s not my formulas;
I use the formulas from BCP
and The Fact of Control. (Track analyse Appendix).

I’m mapping the
entire Control System with Mathematical category Theory. So the functions from
MCT can reduce to the algebra used in PCP
and Fact of Control. They are required to reduce with any sets and maps.

GR: I managed to go from the

MCT Maps to the output function qo=
(kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki). So that’s a

start.

RM: That is not the output function of a
control system.

GR: You’re right it should read output quantity.

No, the equation is not the output quantity. The
equation is the

solution (for qo, the output variable) of the
linear forms to the

simultaneous equations that define a closed-loop
negative feedback

control organization. The output function in that
equation is actually

the linear coefficient, ko. It’s the function that
converts error to

output:

qo = ko (r-p)

The equation you show

(qo= (kor-ko.ki.d)/(1+ko.ki)

is neither the output quantity or the output function.
This equation

shows the relationship between the output variable,
qo, and a

disturbance, d, to the controlled variable, qi (also
called the input

quantity). Your formula is basically Eq 9, p. 289 in
B:CP (2nd ed):

qo= (ko r-ko ki kd d)/(1+ko.ki
ke)
(9)

Note that you left out kd and ke; kd is the linear
version of the

function relating d to qi and ke is the linear version
of the function

relating qo to qi. If we assume that ko is very large
relative to ki

(which is reasonable since ko typically converts a
very small neural

signal into very large muscle forces) and we assume
that kd and ke are

1.0 (which they are in a simple tracking task) then
equation (9) can

be simplified to:

qo = r -
d
(9a)

which shows that, with a relatively constant
reference, a control

system will appear to act like an S-R system when a
disturbance, d, is

applied to the controlled variable, qi. The
output of a control

system, qo, (which looks like the response, R) will be
equal and

opposite to the disturbance, d (which looks like the
stimulus, S). An

observer is likely to see d as causing qo via the
organism S-R

causality); in fact, d causes qo only via it’s effect
on the

controlled variable, qi. This is called “the
behavioral illusion”.

Best

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.11.0800)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.11.13.08NZT)

>Rick Marken (2011.05.10.1710)]

RM: No, the equation is not the output quantity. The equation is the

solution (for qo, the output variable) of the linear forms to the
simultaneous equations that define a closed-loop negative feedback
control organization.

GR: Yes, so I agree with what you say below, what�s your real point here.

I presume by "real" point you mean the higher level goal I am
controlling for which led me to set a reference for explaining the
equation that you mistakenly referred to as the "output function" or
"output quantity". I would say my higher level goal is to try make
sure people understand PCT before they start telling other people what
it's about and what it "needs": we should know our song well before we
start singin', and it's a hard, hard, hard, hard, it's a hard rain's a
gonna fall.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.05.12.10.14NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.05.11.0800)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.11.13.08NZT)

Rick Marken
(2011.05.10.1710)]

I would say my higher level goal is to try make

sure people understand PCT before they start telling
other people what

it’s about and what it “needs”:

I would say then this is
hardly an area (teaching- a noble profession) you can claim magnanimity in considering
your behaviour and responses over the years. Just like your statement below. If
that is one of your higher goal statements we are all in big trouble.

we should know our song well before we

start singin’, and it’s a hard, hard, hard, hard, it’s
a hard rain’s a

gonna fall.

I assume this is telling
me I should not be teaching PCT, yes you are correct, I have no interest here
what so ever. I would love to say Rick
that’s your domain. Help us all add value to the wider community with
PCT.

But you reveal your
intentions in the most obvious ways. Your honest desire to teach and help other
with PCT falls far short of your purported higher goal, as you have never shown
true interest in developing and increasing the PCT community and taking it to
the wider community.

Your responses are not to
be trusted. You just don’t show any honest intent here. Your personal
goals are something quite different. You are seeking something quite different,
whatever it is I really don’t care that much. But it doesn’t seem
to include anything higher at all.

You just seem unable to
communicate in an open honest manner requisitely required by someone in the teaching
profession.

Very sad really.

PCT is such a wonderful
concept.

I love to partake, I
enjoy the concepts and I believe I have something to contribute.

Regards

Gavin

···

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.11.2130)

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.12.10.14NZT)

Rick Marken (2011.05.11.0800)]

RM: I would say my higher level goal is to try make
sure people understand PCT before they start telling other people what
it's about and what it "needs":

GR: I would say then this is hardly an area (teaching- a noble profession) you
can claim magnanimity in considering your behaviour and responses over the
years.

OK. I won't claim magnanimity.

GR: Just like your statement below. If that is one of your higher goal
statements we are all in big trouble.

What do you mean "we"?

GR: But you reveal your intentions in the most obvious ways.

Thanks, I try to.

GR: Your honest desire
to teach and help other with PCT falls far short of your purported higher
goal, as you have never shown true interest in developing and increasing the
PCT community and taking it to the wider community.

I think you are conflating teaching and selling. I like to teach and I
don't like to sell.

GR: Your responses are not to be trusted.

Of course not. We encourage people to test these ideas themselves.
Question authority!

GR: You just don�t show any honest intent here.

How can you tell? What is a "dishonest" intention?

GR: Your personal goals are something quite different. You are seeking
something quite different, whatever it is I really don�t care that much. But
it doesn�t seem to include anything higher at all.

I think you just don't like to have your errors pointed out to you.
But who does, really?

GR: PCT is such a wonderful concept.

It's a scientific theory.

GR: I love to partake, I enjoy the concepts and I believe I have something to
contribute.

So do we have to just accept your contributions without question
because you think they are worthwhile? Even if you contribute
misrepresentations of PCT? I think you might do well to rethink your
intentions yourself.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com