those who speak

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin (2001.11.16 09:07 PST)]

My, my, what a tangled web!

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.14 0915 EST)--

>As an intended constructive suggestion, you as President could implore CSGNet
>participants to stay away from personally evaluating people based upon your
>own impressions.

When I was first nominated for President I was assured that the sole duty is to preside at the annual meeting. In the interest of continuing to have Presidents in the future I vote against expanding the role.

Wouldn't a moderator for CSGnet be in a double bind?. To do this imploring that someone refrain from mind reading one would have to first do some mind reading.

I think we're condemned to having to learn to moderate ourselves. More below.

Rick Marken (2001.11.14.0840) --
replying to Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.14 0915 EST)

>You are _praising_ Bruce Nevin for doing exactly what you _condemn_
>others for doing. Bruce is judging others (me in this case) as if he knew
>things about them (me) that (according to you) are probably unknowable.

I was reading Bruce Gregory's mind, not yours. You've said that you weren't making a gnomic comment that only the initiated can fully understand -- but I think this means you weren't intending that. You said (2001.11.14.1030) that your intention was "to point to the selective influence of agendas." Whether you intended to or not, the result, to me, was a gnomic comment that only the initiated, or perhaps only yourself, could understand. Recall the distinction between saying and telling. In communication, what others understand plays exactly as large a role as what you intend.

When I guessed Bruce Gregory's intention ("reading his mind" as I put it just now), it must have seemed to you that I was agreeing in that intention. Why else would you (reading my mind) attribute that intention to me?

All this flogging one another for not performing the Test before attributing intentions actually shows why we so frequently ignore the PCT admonition to perform the test when we are communicating with one another. It would bring communication to a standstill. It has almost done so here on a number of occasions.

But maybe the problem is not a failure to perform the Test, but a failure to recognize its performance. Consider: If I attribute an intention to you that is in fact not your intention, is that not a disturbance to a variable that you control?

In fact, this is how humans communicate all the time. (It gets slippery, 'cause sometimes we say "Oh, maybe that is what I was intending, and I didn't realize it." Sometimes we accept attributions without as much awareness even as that. But stick with the more obvious cases first.)

If this is true, then perhaps what we need to do is be more explicit about the intentions that we attribute to another ("I think this is what you mean. Is that right?") and to simply responsive rather than defensive when we reply "No, this is what I mean" or "Yeah, you're right (but also...)" and so on.

What do you think?

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:12 AM 11/14/2001 -0500, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.16.1315)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.16 09:07 PST)

All this flogging one another for not performing the Test before
attributing intentions actually shows why we so frequently ignore the PCT
admonition to perform the test when we are communicating with one another.
It would bring communication to a standstill. It has almost done so here on
a number of occasions.

I think communication always involves an attempt to understand intentions. We do
this explicitly, by asking questions (such as "Did you mean Q/t to represent a
rate of change in Q"? ) or implicitly (such as by making suggestions and seeing if
they are accepted: "If Q/t is meant to be a rate of change in Q then it should be
written dQ/dt").

But maybe the problem is not a failure to perform the Test, but a failure
to recognize its performance. Consider: If I attribute an intention to you
that is in fact not your intention, is that not a disturbance to a variable
that you control?

Possibly. Not necessarily. Sometimes I care about the intentions attributed to me;
sometimes I don't. It depends on whether the attribution disturbs something I'm
controlling for.

If this is true, then perhaps what we need to do is be more explicit about
the intentions that we attribute to another ("I think this is what you
mean. Is that right?") and to simply responsive rather than defensive when
we reply "No, this is what I mean" or "Yeah, you're right (but also...)"
and so on.

What do you think?

I agree completely. The problem is that there are people who, when offended by a
comment, simply cannot be made "unoffended" it, even when they learn that the
speaker's intent was inoffensive. It's only the overt behavior (words) that
matters to these "professional offendees" (or whatever Bill Powers called them),
not the intent behind the words. This is the reason for many of the altercations
that have occurred on CSGNet. I think there are people who are controlling with
very high gain for not being offended by what is said on CSGNet. They take overt
speech behavior far more seriously that the perception being controlled by that
speech. These are the people who remain offended by statements like "slavery is an
example of coercion by the credible threat of force" even when they learn that the
intent of the statement is to illumination, not character assassination.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Williams_UMKC]

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.16.1315)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.11.16 09:07 PST)

> All this flogging one another for not performing the Test before
> attributing intentions actually shows why we so frequently ignore the PCT
> admonition to perform the test when we are communicating with one another.
> It would bring communication to a standstill. It has almost done so here on
> a number of occasions.

I think communication always involves an attempt to understand intentions.

We do

this explicitly, by asking questions (such as "Did you mean Q/t to represent a
rate of change in Q"? ) or implicitly (such as by making suggestions and

seeing if

they are accepted: "If Q/t is meant to be a rate of change in Q then it

should be

written dQ/dt").

Rick is, I suppose, referring to my suggestion concerning economic modeling.
Now I was talking about transactions, and transactions in connection with
macro measures of Income (Y), Consumption (C) and Investment (I). Now
transactions take place instaneously. Transactions themselves are not
material or temporal in character. A transactions instead consists of two minds
coming to an aggreement-- the aggreement is not localized in space and time. It
is rather a condition that pervades all space, ( except for certain states in
which the offer does not apply ) but is localized in time. In modern market
terms this is usually a transfer of a good between two parties for the
consideration of a sum of money. But, again, it should be emphasized that the
transfer is not physical or temporal in character-- it is instead a legal
matter of the transfer of ownership of the good or service and the money.

Ordinarily, transactions take place at various times so that to obtain a useful
measure transactions are accumulated over a period of time and averaged So we
have

   ( H1 + H2 + H3 + H4 )/ time

You could think of a frog hopping down a path. While the frog is hopping it is
going comparatively fast. But it rests between hops. To get an average
measure of the frog speed down the path the distance covered in a number of
hops can be added together. Divided by the time which passes both during and
between jumps the result is an average speed for the frog. Distance covered
dvided by the time which has passed gives an average speed -- or D/t .

Rick's performed "the test" by suggesting that he thought I meant dQ/dt.
Economic transactions, however, happen instantaneously so that measuring
economic transactions in terms of dQ/dt does not connect to the phenomena
considered. Only averaging transactions over time generates a time rate--
like income, consumption and investment. Rick's choice of Q as the variable
might be interpreted as asserting that income is a quantity which it is
not it instead a time rate.

From_my vantage as an spectator of previous efforts to construct a PCT model of
the economy, it appeared to me that a failure to make consistent distinctions
between quantities ( or stocks ) and flows ( time rates ) may have been at the
bottom of the frustrations which have been experienced.

Rick's suggestion "That if Q/t is meant to be a rate of change in Q then it
should be written dQ/dt." seems to me to confuse matters. The variables
which I was considering are already rates of change-- the flow of goods and
money in transactions averaged over time. In my example of the frog it would
be miles per hour and D/t is what I meant to say. Now, I could also say dD/dt
by which I would mean the increase in the velocity, or acceleration, of
the frog's rate of travel. A faculty member here in economics looking at
Rick's suggestion said, "He's not an economist." by which I take it, although
I didn't perform "the test," that Rick's not thinking about Q as a macro
economic flow variable that is already a time rate.

So now Rick can, if he is not satisfied can probe my intensions further by
varying "the test." The dramatic appeal of the above may provide a convincing
answer to Chris Cherpas's question why do people on the net so often generate
the drivel that we do. Personal conflict appears to be inherently more
interesting both to observe and to engage in than defining fundamental economic
constructs.

But, I have a question for Rick who said:

I think there are people who are controlling with very high gain for not
being offended by what is said on CSGNet.

I like to think of myself as one of these. But, I find Rick's assertion
puzzling. If you are controlling with "very high gain for not being offended"
and you are controlling your behavior successfully then as I understand control
theory you would would tend not to be offended by disturbing behavior on the
net. However, what I think Rick actually intended to say was that "

"I think there are people who are controlling with very high gain _for_being_
_offended_ by what is said on CSGNet."

And, that these people are likely to be offended because their purpose in life
on the CSGNet is to be offended. So, improving behavior on the net would be,
for these people, a disturbance-- a disturbance which they would resist by
efforts to continue to be offended. The implication which Rick draws from this
is, I think, that improving behavior on the net would not anything because
people are controlling for being offended.

Rick, is this what you meant?

If we practiced enough, maybe we could get really good at this. ANd, then as
BRuce Nevin says "Communication would be brought to a standstill." But, this
would have the beneficial effect of making C/t, or Ct and dC/dt equal both
to each other and simultaneously to zero. ANd, under such conditions
there would have been no need for Rick to have performed "the test." But,
would we then long for the days of trivial drivel? Well, then we could-- no
never mind.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.17.0915)]

William Williams wrote:

Rick's suggestion "That if Q/t is meant to be a rate of change in Q then it
should be written dQ/dt." seems to me to confuse matters...A faculty member
here in economics looking at Rick's suggestion said, "He's not an economist."
by which I take it, although I didn't perform "the test," that Rick's not
thinking about Q as a macro economic flow variable that is already a time rate.

Maybe we just have a notation problem. If Q is a flow (rate of change
with respect to time) then why divide by t (which usually denotes time,
not time _unit_)? If Q is a flow then Q/t is like dividing a car's speed
(Q in miles/hr) by the time since the start of the trip. So if Q/t were
plotted as a function of time (t), Q/t would fluctuate as the speed of
the car changes over time but it would also be getting generally smaller
as time goes on (as t, the numerator, increases). So Q/t (as I
understand that notation) is not a rate even if Q itself is a rate
(flow). And if Q is a rate in itself, I believe the convention is to put
a dot over it. This is hard to do in e-mail so I recommend the Liebnitz
notation, dQ/dt.

Me:

I think there are people who are controlling with very high gain for not
being offended by what is said on CSGNet.

Bill Williams:

I like to think of myself as one of these. But, I find Rick's assertion
puzzling. If you are controlling with "very high gain for not being offended"
and you are controlling your behavior successfully then as I understand control
theory you would would tend not to be offended by disturbing behavior on the
net.

That's true; you would protect yourself from disturbances to your
perception of not being offended. What I was thinking of were the means
such people (not you, of course) sometimes use to protect themselves
from offense. People who are controlling with very high gain for not
being offended will act to protect themselves from offense by attacking
the source of the disturbance (thus becoming fairly offensive
themselves) and/or by pouring out copious streams of righteousness
indignation. Finding that the offense was not intended does not seem
matter to these people; it's the offense (disturbance) that matters
(intended or not) and strong steps will be taken to remove the offensive
disturbance.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.17 1200 EST)]

<Bruce Nevin (2001.11.16 09:07 PST)>

>As an intended constructive suggestion, you as President could implore
CSGNet
>participants to stay away from personally evaluating people based upon your
>own impressions.

<When I was first nominated for President I was assured that the sole duty
is to preside at the annual meeting. In the interest of continuing to have
Presidents in the future I vote against expanding the role.>

I understand, but neither agree that the duty or role of President should be
so limited nor that the nomination list would definitely dry up. OTOH, there
is something PCTish and likable about self-control without a lot of leader
control.

<Wouldn't a moderator for CSGnet be in a double bind?. To do this imploring
that someone refrain from mind reading one would have to first do some mind
reading.

I think we're condemned to having to learn to moderate ourselves. More below.>

So, I withdraw my suggestion per se. And, below you offered as a participant
(not a President) exactly the kind of statements that might help net
relationships without imploring anyone to do what you think. Terrific.

Respectfully, Mr. President,

Kenny