The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)]

Note that I changed the subject line. I was careless earlier and didn’t notice that SmartDraw had usurped the subject line.

Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

Fred Nickols

image00185.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

image00185.jpg

···

[ from Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

Â

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torqueâ€? equate to “forceâ€? as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nailâ€??

Â

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

Â

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

Â

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

Â

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plankâ€? or “not sticking up.â€?

Â

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

Â

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

Â

 RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

Â

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nailâ€?? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammerâ€??

Â

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Â

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

Â

RM: Â I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Â

Â

Regards,

Â

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Â

Â

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)]

I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

Behavior – (NNot sure what to put here)

Context –“ Inspecting and maintaining appearance of outside deck

Controlled Variable – Nail position

/p>

Reference State – Nail head flush with deck

Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out oof deck by about half an inch

Means (Actions) – Obtaining hammer and using it to drive nail back down into deckk

Disturbances – Humidity, outdoor ttemperature, expansion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

Type – Program ??

Comments – This is a real example froom my own experience.

Fred Nickols

image00185.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0802)]

In addition to the spreadsheet, I’d like to frame the hammer and nail example in terms of the formal model Franklin Lenk inquired about, a copy of which I included in my first post. I’ve taken a crack at fitting the example into that framework (see the table below).

p

Nail head sticking up from outside deck by half an inch

r

Nail head should be flush with deck

e

Nail head is half an inch too high

Qo

Obtain hammer, swing it, strike nail head with hammer

Qi

Nail head position

D

Resistance of plank to nail penetration, temperature, humidity, expansion and contraction of planks

Comparator

Me

Output Function

My visual and physical/tactile senses

Feedback Function

The physics of striking the nail head with a hammer with sufficient force to drive it back down into the plank

Input Function

My visual and physical/tactile senses

Comments? Corrections?

Fred Nickols

image00185.jpg

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 7:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)]

I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

Behavior – (Not sure what to putt here)

Context – Inspecting and maiintaining appearance of outside deck

Controlled Variable – Nail position

Reference State – Nail head flush with deck

Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about hallf an inch

Means (Actions) – Obtainiing hammer and using it to drive nail back down into deck

Disturbances – Humidity, outdoor temperature, expansiion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

Type – Program ??

Comments – This is a real example from my own experiencee.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Interesting analysis Fred.

Could you analyze also these behaviors and put it into spreadshit :

  1.   Standing and watching the sunset
    
  2.   Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street
    
  3.   Sitting in the park and observing (Martin's example)
    
  4.   Sleeping
    
  5.   ….
    

Best,

Boris

image00185.jpg

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 1:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)]

I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

Context – Inspecting and maintaining appearance of outside decck

Controlled Variable – Nail position

Reference State – Nail head flush with deck

Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by abbout half an inch

Means (Actions) – Obtaining hammer and using it to drive nail back down into decck

Disturbances – Humiddity, outdoor temperature, expansion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

Type – Program ??

Comments – This is a real example from my own experience.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1139)]

Sure, Boris. Try this for the one tied to crossing the street.

Context – Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

Controlled Variable – Level of traffic
<

Reference State – Level of traffic preseents no threat to crossing the street

Perceived State – Level of traffic is heavy, presenting a threat to crosssing the street

Means (Actions) – Moonitoring level of traffic by looking left and right

Disturbances – (these are possibilities) stop light malfunnctioning, homecoming game down the street, late for an appointment

Type – Program ??

Comments – This is a hypothetical example in response to Borris’ request. At higher levels it probably ties to staying alive, not getting hurt, etc.

Fred Nickols

image00185.jpg

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 11:07 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The Hammer and Nail Example

Interesting analysis Fred.

Could you analyze also these behaviors and put it into spreadshit :

  1.   Standing and watching the sunset
    
  2.   Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street
    
  3.   Sitting in the park and observing (Martin's example)
    
  4.   Sleeping
    
  5.   ….
    

Best,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 1:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)]

I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

Context – Inspecting and maintaining appearance of outside ddeck

Controlled Variable – Nail posiition

Reference State – Nail head fllush with deck

Perceived State – Naiil head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch

Means (Actions) – Obtaining hammer and using it to drive nail back down into deck

Disturbances – Humidity, outdoor temperature, expansion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

Type – Program ??

Comments – This is a real example from my own experience.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™¢

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1055)]

image00185.jpg

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)–

 FN: I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

 RM: Excellent job Fred! But I would leave “Perceived state” out because it is part of the theory and the aim of the spreadsheet is to describe the observable phenomenon of control as it is seen in various examples of behavior. That is, the aim of the spreadsheet is to describe the phenomenon (control) that the theory (PCT) explains.

RM: There seems to be a strong tendency to deal with PCT purely theoretically. The problem with this is that you lose contact with the reality that the theory is designed to explain. Â

RM: The importance of understanding the phenomenon that PCT explains before trying to understand how PCT explains it was mentioned by Bill Powers in a video that I stumbled upon yesterday (while searching pctweb for the diagram that Frank Lenk mentioned). The video is here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70399093/PCT-Part1_x264_002.mp4

In the first few seconds of the video Bill says that he is going to do a demonstration of the phenomenon that the theory is about. Bill says "You have to see the phenomenon and explain it, not the other way around." The phenomenon, of course, is control. He demonstrates the phenomenon using the rubber band demo. The behavior in the demo can be described as “keeping the knot over the dot”. That behavior can be seen to involve all the observable components of control that are listed in the columns of the “Behavior is Control” spreadsheet: Controlled Variable (position of knot), Reference State (over dot), Means (S pulling on his end of rubber band) and Disturbance (E pulling on the other end of rubber band).Â

RM: My hope is that by having people analyze many other everyday examples of behavior in terms of the components of control listed in the “Behavior is Control” spreadsheet I can get people to do what Bill tried to do at the beginning of all his major works describing PCT: understand the nature of behavior as control, the phenomenon that PCT explains.

RM: Now I will put your “hammering a nail” example into the spreadsheet with a few clarifications. Here they are

Â

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

 RM: How about “Hammering a nail into a plank”. That’s what I would say if someone asked me what you were doing.

Context – Inspecting and maintaining apppearance of outside deck

Controlled Variable – Nail position

Reference State – Nail head flush with deck

Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deckk by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.Â

Means (Actions) – Obtaining hammer and using it to drive nail back down into deck

RM: I think the only action relevant here is swinging the hammer.

Disturbances – Humidity, outdoor temperrature, expansion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

RM: Excellent!! These are great examples of disturbances.

Â

Type – Program ??

<

RM: I think “Type” should refer to the type of the variable that is controlled. So I would say that the “Type” is quite “low level” (by Powers’ tentative classification system); probably a configuration – the vertical height of the nail head above the plank.Â

RM: OK, I’ve entered it in the spreadsheet. Again, I’ll start going over all the example soon.

RM: Thanks for the contribution, Fred!

BestÂ

Rick

Comments – This is a real example from my own experience.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

Â

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

Â

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

Â

Â

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

Â

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

Â

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

Â

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

Â

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

Â

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

Â

 RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

Â

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

Â

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Â

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

Â

RM: Â I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, doownload a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Â

Â

Regards,

Â

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Â

Â

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)]

What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state? I can’t have anything to compare with the reference signal if I don’t have a perceived state. I understand you can’t observe my perception but we both see what it is I am perceiving.

Fred

image00185.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 1:55 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1055)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0721)–

FN: I think we might be able to fit the hammer and nail example into the spreadsheet. Here’s how I see it. I didn’t find Perceived State in the spreadsheet. Should it be added?

RM: Excellent job Fred! But I would leave “Perceived state” out because it is part of the theory and the aim of the spreadsheet is to describe the observable phenomenon of control as it is seen in various examples of behavior. That is, the aim of the spreadsheet is to describe the phenomenon (control) that the theory (PCT) explains.

RM: There seems to be a strong tendency to deal with PCT purely theoretically. The problem with this is that you lose contact with the reality that the theory is designed to explain.

RM: The importance of understanding the phenomenon that PCT explains before trying to understand how PCT explains it was mentioned by Bill Powers in a video that I stumbled upon yesterday (while searching pctweb for the diagram that Frank Lenk mentioned). The video is here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70399093/PCT-Part1_x264_002.mp4

In the first few seconds of the video Bill says that he is going to do a demonstration of the phenomenon that the theory is about. Bill says "You have to see the phenomenon and explain it, not the other way around." The phenomenon, of course, is control. He demonstrates the phenomenon using the rubber band demo. The behavior in the demo can be described as “keeping the knot over the dot”. That behavior can be seen to involve all the observable components of control that are listed in the columns of the “Behavior is Control” spreadsheet: Controlled Variable (position of knot), Reference State (over dot), Means (S pulling on his end of rubber band) and Disturbance (E pulling on the other end of rubber band).

RM: My hope is that by having people analyze many other everyday examples of behavior in terms of the components of control listed in the “Behavior is Control” spreadsheet I can get people to do what Bill tried to do at the beginning of all his major works describing PCT: understand the nature of behavior as control, the phenomenon that PCT explains.

RM: Now I will put your “hammering a nail” example into the spreadsheet with a few clarifications. Here they are

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

RM: How about “Hammering a nail into a plank”. That’s what I would say if someone asked me what you were doing.

Context – Inspecting and maintaining appearance of outside deck

Controlled Variable – Nail positiion

Reference State – Nail head flush with deck

Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deckk by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

Means (Actions) – Obtaining hammer and using iit to drive nail back down into deck

RM: I think the only action relevant here is swinging the hammer.

Disturbances – Humiidity, outdoor temperature, expansion and contraction of planks, resistance of plank to nail penetration

RM: Excellent!! These are great examples of disturbances.

Type – Program ??

RM: I think “Type” should refer to the type of the variable that is controlled. So I would say that the “Type” is quite “low level” (by Powers’ tentative classification system); probably a configuration – the vertical height of the nail head above the plank.

RM: OK, I’ve entered it in the spreadsheet. Again, I’ll start going over all the example soon.

RM: Thanks for the contribution, Fred!

Best

Rick

Comments – This is a real example from my own experience.

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 8:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[ From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1705)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1605)

FN: Thanks, Rick. Very helpful. Does “torque� equate to “force� as in “the force with which the hammer strikes the nail�?

RM: Yes, torque is a force. In your example. it is your output – the force exerted by you (your muscles) on the hammer. The force with which the hammer strikes the nail depends on how much torque force you exert on the hammer as well as on the mass of the hammer head. But that force could be called your output as well.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 3:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: SmartDraw File PCT Formal Model.SDR

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.07.1250)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.07.1405)–

FN: Franklin Lenk’s inquiry prompts a question on my pertaining to the diagram below (a copy I made for my own use, not for publication).

FN: Let’s take a simple live example. I was out on my back deck and noticed a nail sticking up from one of the planks. I got a hammer and pounded it back down.

FN: The controlled variable was the nail. My reference signal for it was “flush with the plank� or “not sticking up.�

RM: Remember, a controlled variable is a variable. So the controlled variable in this situation has to be something like “distance of nail head from top of plank”. The reference is “zero distance” which is the same as “flush with plank”. So your description of the reference is correct.

FN: The output quantity was getting and then swinging a hammer so that it struck the nail on the head and drove it down flush with the plank.

RM: Your output is really just the torque you applied to the hammer. That’s basically the same as “swinging the hammer” so you could verbally describe your output that way.

FN: Now if Qi is the controlled variable, the nail, and Qo is my behavior, I’m left wondering about the box labeled Feedback Function. What are the “physical properties that converted my action or behavior in effect on the nail�? Is it simply “striking the nail with a hammer�?

RM: The feedback function is the “laws of physics” that relate the torque you apply to the hammer, Qo, to the amount of change in the position of the nail, Qi, with each swing. This function depends on the mass of the hammer head, M, and the resistance of the wood, R. So the feedback function will be a physical function, g(), that relates Qo to Qi, taking M and R (at least) into account. So the feedback function is:

Qi = g(Qo,M, R)

RM: I think M and R can be considered disturbances to the state of the controlled variable since their contribution to changes in the value of Qi is independent of yours (Qo). But they are basically constant disturbances.

Best

Rick

cid:image001.jpg@01D11965.2E9BD190

The attached visual was created with SmartDraw, The World’s First Visual Processor™

To edit this file, download a free SmartDraw trial at www.smartdraw.com

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

DISTANCE ** CONSULTING**

“Assistance at a Distance�

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

···

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?Â

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.Â

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.Â

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)]

Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch<

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

Â

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I Â think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.Â

Â

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?Â

Â

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.Â

Â

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.Â

Â

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[John Kirkland 2015.11.09 0910 Oztime]

J: “Hey Fred.”

F: Yep."

J: “Ive got a small job for you?”

F: “Oh, yeah?”

J: “Get Rick to run his eye over the back deck to find any nails sticking up more than 5mm? I’m sick of tripping on them.”

F: “Sure.”

J: “Yeah, then get Rick to mark their tops with a felt-tip pen”.

F: “Why?”

J: “So you can then follow with the hammer and drive them in so they are flush like the others. And, don’t bruise the wood. OK?”

F: “No problem. First off I’ve gotta find Rick and get him to help. This is a 2-person job.”

J: “I’ll leave that for you kids to work out. And, get it done before lunch today.”

I C, you C and we all C

···

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Nice one, John.

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

···

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an iinch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

P.S. WIFM?

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

···

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch>

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[john kirkland 2015.11.09 1550 Oz time]

Fred: you to know and me to find out.

Howzatt?

···

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

P.S. WIFM?

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 8, 2015, at 6:30 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:

[John Kirkland 2015.11.09 0910 Oztime]

J: “Hey Fred.”

F: Yep."

J: “Ive got a small job for you?”

F: “Oh, yeah?”

J: “Get Rick to run his eye over the back deck to find any nails sticking up more than 5mm? I’m sick of tripping on them.”

F: “Sure.”

J: “Yeah, then get Rick to mark their tops with a felt-tip pen”.

F: “Why?”

J: “So you can then follow with the hammer and drive them in so they are flush like the others. And, don’t bruise the wood. OK?”

F: “No problem. First off I’ve gotta find Rick and get him to help. This is a 2-person job.”

J: “I’ll leave that for you kids to work out. And, get it done before lunch today.”

I C, you C and we all C

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

Â

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I Â think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out oof deck by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.Â

Â

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?Â

Â

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.Â

Â

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.Â

Â

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0528)]

Aye, there’s the rub. Knowledge is power. If I let you in on what I’m up to then I’m giving you power over me. Hmm.

Fred Nickols

···

From: John Kirkland [mailto:johnkirkland@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 9:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[john kirkland 2015.11.09 1550 Oz time]

Fred: you to know and me to find out.

Howzatt?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

P.S. WIFM?

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 8, 2015, at 6:30 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:

[John Kirkland 2015.11.09 0910 Oztime]

J: “Hey Fred.”

F: Yep."

J: “Ive got a small job for you?”

F: “Oh, yeah?”

J: “Get Rick to run his eye over the back deck to find any nails sticking up more than 5mm? I’m sick of tripping on them.”

F: “Sure.”

J: “Yeah, then get Rick to mark their tops with a felt-tip pen”.

F: “Why?”

J: “So you can then follow with the hammer and drive them in so they are flush like the others. And, don’t bruise the wood. OK?”

F: “No problem. First off I’ve gotta find Rick and get him to help. This is a 2-person job.”

J: “I’ll leave that for you kids to work out. And, get it done before lunch today.”

I C, you C and we all C

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about hhalf an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

bob hintz 2015.11.9

I also give you power to help me. If we both share information we can join together to control variables that neither one of us can control alone.Â

bob

···

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0528)]

Â

Aye, there’s the rub. Knowledge is power. If I let you in on what I’m up to then I’m giving you power over me. Hmm.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: John Kirkland [mailto:johnkirkland@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 9:50 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

Â

[john kirkland 2015.11.09 1550 Oz time]

Â

Fred: you to know and me to find out.

Â

Howzatt?

Â

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

P.S. WIFM?

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Â

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 8, 2015, at 6:30 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:

[John Kirkland 2015.11.09 0910 Oztime]

J: “Hey Fred.”

F: Yep."

J: “Ive got a small job for you?”

F: “Oh, yeah?”

J: “Get Rick to run his eye over the back deck to find any nails sticking up more than 5mm? I’m sick of tripping on them.”

F: “Sure.”

J: “Yeah, then get Rick to mark their tops with a felt-tip pen”.

F: “Why?”

J: “So you can then follow with the hammer and drive them in so they are flush like the others. And, don’t bruise the wood. OK?”

F: “No problem. First off I’ve gotta find Rick and get him to help. This is a 2-person job.”

J: “I’ll leave that for you kids to work out. And, get it done before lunch today.”

I C, you C and we all C

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

Â

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

Â

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I Â think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail heaad sticking up out of deck by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.Â

Â

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?Â

Â

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.Â

Â

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.Â

Â

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

Â

Context
– Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street

        Behavior

– (Not sure what to put here)

        Controlled

Variable – Level of traffic

        Reference

State – Level of traffic presents no threat to crossing the
street

        Perceived

State – Level of traffic is heavy, presenting a threat to
crossing the street

        Means

(Actions) – Monitoring level of traffic by looking left and
right

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1052)]

Good point, Rupert.

I am watching/monitoring the traffic but that’s not the variable I’m controlling. I am controlling for it being safe to cross the street. When the traffic poses no risk I’ll cross.  I guess I am controlling for not being struck by a car. So how would you describe the controlled variable? Is it perceived safety? Is it perceived risk? What I’m waiting to do is cross the street. Doing so changes my physical location. Am I controlling for location? I will cross when I decide it’s safe to do so. Maybe I am controlling my decision to cross.

Good question, Rupert.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Rupert Young [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 10:27 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rupert Young (2015.11.09 15.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1139)]

Context – Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the sstreet

Behavior – (Not sure what to put here)

Controlled Variable – Level of traffic

Reference State – Level of traffic presents no threat to crossiing the street

Perceived State – Level of traffic is heavy, presenting a threat to crossing the street

Means (Actions) – Monitoring level of traffic by looking left and rightt

Hi Fred,

How does your means affect your controlled variable?

Rupert

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1100)]

True enough, Bob, true enough.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 10:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

bob hintz 2015.11.9

I also give you power to help me. If we both share information we can join together to control variables that neither one of us can control alone.

bob

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.0528)]

Aye, there’s the rub. Knowledge is power. If I let you in on what I’m up to then I’m giving you power over me. Hmm.

Fred Nickols

From: John Kirkland [mailto:johnkirkland@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 9:50 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[john kirkland 2015.11.09 1550 Oz time]

Fred: you to know and me to find out.

Howzatt?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

P.S. WIFM?

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 8, 2015, at 6:30 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:

[John Kirkland 2015.11.09 0910 Oztime]

J: “Hey Fred.”

F: Yep."

J: “Ive got a small job for you?”

F: “Oh, yeah?”

J: “Get Rick to run his eye over the back deck to find any nails sticking up more than 5mm? I’m sick of tripping on them.”

F: “Sure.”

J: “Yeah, then get Rick to mark their tops with a felt-tip pen”.

F: “Why?”

J: “So you can then follow with the hammer and drive them in so they are flush like the others. And, don’t bruise the wood. OK?”

F: “No problem. First off I’ve gotta find Rick and get him to help. This is a 2-person job.”

J: “I’ll leave that for you kids to work out. And, get it done before lunch today.”

I C, you C and we all C

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08. 1245)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1505)

FN: Understood but to illustrate the control loop in action you need to include p. I think.

RM: Of course. And r and the output and input functions. That is, you have to include everything above the line that separates system from environment in the control diagram; that’s the theory part. But I’m trying to get people to understand the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explained. I think it is important to get a good understanding of the phenomenon to be explained before trying to explain it. Remember, non-PCT versions of control theory was (and still is) used incorrectly as a model of behavior. The reason it is used incorrectly is because those using it do not understand that behavior is control; they think it’s a different phenomenon. So if you want to get PCT right you first have to understand that the “behavior” that PCT seeks to explain IS the phenomenon of control.

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 2:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Hammer and Nail Example

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.1155)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1412)

FN: Perceived State – Nail head sticking up out of deck by about half an inch

RM: Again, this is not something you see so it wouldn’t be one of the variables involved in the observable behavior. It’s part of the explanation of the phenomenon, not part of phenomenon itself.

FN: What do you mean I can’t see the nail head sticking up? Explain again why leave out the perceived state?

RM: Sorry, what I meant is that an observer can’t see what you are perceiving. My goal is to give an objective description of behaviors – that is, a description from the point of view of the observer of the behavior. So what an observer sees when they see you hammering a nail into a plank is a variable (the height of the head of the nail above the plank) that is being brought to a reference state (flush with the plank) by means of swinging a hammer that hits the nail and brings it to the reference state while compensating for disturbances, such as variations in the density of the plank.

RM: We explain this controlling by assuming that you are perceiving the height of the nail above the plank and acting to bring that perception into a match with a reference signal that species that this perception be in the state “0 height above plank”; and that any discrepancy between perception and reference drives outputs that cause a hammer to be swung into contact with the nail head.

RM: I’m trying to get people to realize that there is a phenomenon out there – the phenomenon of control, which when seen in living systems is called their “behavior”-- and that is the phenomenon that is explained by PCT.

Best

Rick

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble