[Martin Taylor 991219 20:53]
[From Rick Marken (991219.1200)] To Erling Jorgenson
Me to Martin Taylor (991216 0:43) --
> You're right.
A fascinating quotation! How about citing the context? Here it is.
MT
> Since the spreadsheet, used as directed, demonstrates exactly the
> opposite of the point you wanted to demonstrate, I fail to see how
> you can claim you did a "pretty good job" using the existing tool.
RM
You're right. It does a pretty good job of demonstrating my
point (that forcing a hierarchical control system to control a
perception at some arbitrarily selected fixed level is likely to
destroy the system's ability to control other perceptions)
_to me_ (and to some others).
B: You're right, 2+2=5, as I said before.
Why am I am disrupting your learning when I give up the
argument with Martin but Bill Powers isn't when he
[Bill Powers (991214.0841 MDT) -- it's in csgnet.log9912b]
does the same thing?
"Give up the argument" equals "assert the same again without answering
the argument" I guess.
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
......
"'Tis the voice of the Jubjub!" he suddenly cried.
(This man, that they used to call "Dunce.")
"As the Bellman would tell you," he added with pride,
"I have uttered that sentiment once.
"'Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
You will find I have told it you twice.
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
If only I've stated it thrice."
(Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark)
Maybe I should ask "What are you doing? What are the rules?"
Good question. Maybe you could suggest an answer?
Martin
···
A: 2+2=4
[From Rick Marken (991219.1840)]
Martin Taylor (991219 20:53)--
A fascinating quotation! How about citing the context?
Calm down, Martin. I'll say exactly what Bill said about
this topic:
I admit that I have lost this argument.
There. Feel better now?
Best
The Frumious Bandersnatch
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[Martin Taylor 991219 22:36]
[From Rick Marken (991219.1840)]
Calm down, Martin. I'll say exactly what Bill said about
this topic:
I admit that I have lost this argument.
There. Feel better now?
I haven't felt bad, but thanks for your solicitude. I have, however,
felt a bit disappointed that you preferred to argue rather than look
at the spreadsheet, since that was so much at variance with your ususal
approach.
However, if you admit you have lost this "argument", does that mean that
you understand the implications for the other discussion on negotiating
a committment with a child? Or does it just mean that you hold to your
earlier view and no longer wish to dispute the data overtly? I hope it
is that you understand what is happening in the spreadsheet and what
the implications of the spreadsheet are for the wider discussion.
As you have correctly said, the spreadsheet is a good tool for helping
one to understand multi-level control, especially with both analogue
and categorical variables. It's a lot of work to build such a thing,
so it's good to use it for what its worth.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (991219.2200)]
Martin Taylor (991219 22:36) --
if you admit you have lost this "argument", does that mean
that you understand the implications for the other discussion
on negotiating a committment with a child?
I still understand one major implication of my little demo for
that other discussion, which, in Bill Powers' (991212.0746 MDT)
words, was:
If you're going to set goals for another person according
to your own preferences, and enforce them, then to avoid
creating conflict inside the other person (and ultimately
with you) you will have to know his internal goal structure
well enough to predict what will and will not result in conflict.
Martin continue:
Or does it just mean that you hold to your earlier view and
no longer wish to dispute the data overtly?
That's what it means. Bill and I have gone over this a couple
times. It's really not that difficult. Bill has written numerous
papers on the subject. I recommend "Degrees of freedom in social
interactions" (LCS I p. 221). But our argument has not convinced
you at all; so we've lost the argument. I'm pretty used to losing
arguments based on PCT. Most people believe, along with you, that
it's just fine to force children to make commitments (calling it
"negotiation" of course). I'm sure most people will continue to
believe this well into the next millennium. So?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (991220.0939 EST)]
Rick Marken (991219.2200)
That's what it means. Bill and I have gone over this a couple
times. It's really not that difficult. Bill has written numerous
papers on the subject. I recommend "Degrees of freedom in social
interactions" (LCS I p. 221). But our argument has not convinced
you at all; so we've lost the argument. I'm pretty used to losing
arguments based on PCT. Most people believe, along with you, that
it's just fine to force children to make commitments (calling it
"negotiation" of course). I'm sure most people will continue to
believe this well into the next millennium. So?
Should we consider this statement ("Bill and I are right, but you are
too obtuse to realize it.") as a snide remark? As an insult? As a
version of, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"?
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (991220.0906 MDT)]
Rick Marken (991219.1840)--
Calm down, Martin. I'll say exactly what Bill said about
this topic:
I admit that I have lost this argument.
I think we need a little more than that to resolve this argument. Martin
appears to be saying that he can put fixed numbers in your spreadsheet
model (as many as 3 fixed reference signals at level 2, I take it) that
leave the highest (logical) level free to control all of its inputs. This,
of course, includes the ability to vary each highest-level reference signal
between "true" and "false" and observe that the corresponding perceptual
signal follows it, independently of what the other systems are doing. And
this control should remain intact no matter what the values of the three
fixed reference signals are.
The obvious solution is for Martin to communicate to you the numbers he
used, so you can check out the same model he is using, and either agree or
disagree with the results. If he can do this, he can do it; if he can't, he
can't. I don't see any room for clever verbal arguments or interpretations
here.
I would volunteer to do this, but I have never learned to operate a
spreadsheet, and of course never use one in my own C or Pascal programming.
Best,
Bill P.