[From Rupert Young (2017.10.12 22.00)]
Just came across the attached, which mentions Powers. I believe the
authors were involved in a 1994 PCT workshop.
Rupert
Towards_cognitive_robotics.pdf (509 KB)
[From Dag Forssell (2017.10.12 18.00 PST)]
Marcos Rodrigues hosted a CSG conference in Wales in 1994.
I did not attend, but have the printed volume with the proceedings.
Someone, I think Rick, posted an article from that conference as a pdf some time ago. There are no doubt mentions of this in the CSGnet archive.
If relevant, ask away.
Best, Dag
···
[From Rupert Young (2017.10.12 22.00 GMT)]
Just came across the attached, which mentions Powers. I believe the authors were involved in a 1994 PCT workshop.
Rupert
[From Rick Marken (2017.10.12.0940)]
···
Dag Forssell (2017.10.12 18.00 PST) –
RY: Just came across the attached, which mentions Powers. I believe the authors were involved in a 1994 PCT workshop.
DF: Marcos Rodrigues hosted a CSG conference in Wales in 1994.
DF: I did not attend, but have the printed volume with the proceedings.
DF: Someone, I think Rick, posted an article from that conference as a pdf some time ago. There are no doubt mentions of this in the CSGnet archive.
RM: Yes, that was a wonderful conference, held well before I became the enemy of PCT. The paper I posted, which is based on the talk I gave at the conference, is here:Â
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyzx6vgddy6k1t6/ThermoPeople.doc?dl=0
RM: Since the paper was written before I became the enemy of PCT you can read it without fear of being contaminated with treasonous ideas.Â
RM: The conference was held in a beautiful manor house in the Welsh countryside. The presentations were very interesting and I found the tone of the meeting to be quite cordial and productive. But one of the best parts (since I had my opera loving wife along) was that there was an opera workshop going on concurrently at the same manor house. And one of the singers at the workshop – clearly the “star” though still a student – was this huge fellow who turned out to be the now famous (to opera fans) Welsh bass-baritone Sir Bryn Terfel. So Linda got to hear Bryn Terfel practice the Don Giovanni arias that would eventually lead him to get a knighthood while I presented some of my research on PCT that would eventually lead me to get attacked as the enemy of PCT. Ah, the irony.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rupert Young (2017.11.14 14.50)]
(Rick Marken (2017.10.12.0940)]
Thanks. Another amazing encounter; last time we spoke you said you'd
ran into the Queen, you do meet the best people don’t you? But I
don’t think any amount of name dropping is going to get you
rehabilitated from being the bad boy of PCT!
Rupert
···
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyzx6vgddy6k1t6/ThermoPeople.doc?dl=0
RM: Since the paper was written before
I became the enemy of PCT you can read it without fear of
being contaminated with treasonous ideas.
RM: The conference was held in a
beautiful manor house in the Welsh countryside. The
presentations were very interesting and I found the tone of
the meeting to be quite cordial and productive. But one of the
best parts (since I had my opera loving wife along) was that
there was an opera workshop going on concurrently at the same
manor house. And one of the singers at the workshop – clearly
the “star” though still a student – was this huge fellow who
turned out to be the now famous (to opera fans) Welsh
bass-baritone Sir Bryn Terfel. So Linda got to hear Bryn
Terfel practice the Don Giovanni arias that would eventually
lead him to get a knighthood while I presented some of my
research on PCT that would eventually lead me to get attacked
as the enemy of PCT. Ah, the irony.
[From Rick Marken (2017.11.15.2045)]
···
Rupert Young (2017.11.14 14.50)
(Rick Marken (2017.10.12.0940)]
RY: Thanks. Another amazing encounter; last time we spoke you said you'dran into the Queen, you do meet the best people don’t you? But I
don’t think any amount of name dropping is going to get you
rehabilitated from being the bad boy of PCT!
RM: Yes, I’ve even tried dropping “William T. Powers” and that doesn’t seem to work either. When Bill was around I was called the “PCT policeman”, which made me feel good, though I would have preferred “Powers’ bulldog”. But clearly I have not been as skillful at bulldogging as was Thomas Henry Huxley. But Huxley did have the advantage of opponents who were explicitly anti-Darwin. Powers had (and has) the problem that many of his most ardent opponents have ostensibly been his most enthusiastic acolytes. I think that would have been an insuperable disturbance to the efforts of even the marvelous Mr. Huxley.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyzx6vgddy6k1t6/ThermoPeople.doc?dl=0
RM: Since the paper was written before
I became the enemy of PCT you can read it without fear of
being contaminated with treasonous ideas.Â
RM: The conference was held in a
beautiful manor house in the Welsh countryside. The
presentations were very interesting and I found the tone of
the meeting to be quite cordial and productive. But one of the
best parts (since I had my opera loving wife along) was that
there was an opera workshop going on concurrently at the same
manor house. And one of the singers at the workshop – clearly
the “star” though still a student – was this huge fellow who
turned out to be the now famous (to opera fans) Welsh
bass-baritone Sir Bryn Terfel. So Linda got to hear Bryn
Terfel practice the Don Giovanni arias that would eventually
lead him to get a knighthood while I presented some of my
research on PCT that would eventually lead me to get attacked
as the enemy of PCT. Ah, the irony.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rupert Young (2017.11.16 10.35)]
(Rick Marken (2017.11.15.2045)]
Perhaps the difference is that those who are explicitly anti-PCT
agree with you (PCT) 1% and disagree 99% whereas the enthusiastic
acolytes agree 99% and disagree 1%. Among those enthusiastic
acolytes are many clever people who understand PCT very well and the
cantankerous arguments are about that 1% difference. My preference
would be that people take the very wise advice at the bottom of p99
of this excellent book I have, “Controlling People”. If participants
were able to lower the gain on their discussions and collaborate on
building models of PCT rather than bickering then I think we could
make substantial progress and the resolutions to the 1% difference
would be uncovered as a result of that modelling 
Rupert
···
RY: Thanks. Anotheramazing encounter; last time we spoke you said you’d ran
into the Queen, you do meet the best people don’t you?
But I don’t think any amount of name dropping is going
to get you rehabilitated from being the bad boy of PCT!
RM: Yes, I've even tried dropping "William T. Powers" and that
doesn’t seem to work either. When Bill was around I was called
the “PCT policeman”, which made me feel good, though I would
have preferred “Powers’ bulldog”. But clearly I have not been
as skillful at bulldogging as was Thomas Henry Huxley. But
Huxley did have the advantage of opponents who were explicitly
anti-Darwin. Powers had (and has) the problem that many of his
most ardent opponents have ostensibly been his most
enthusiastic acolytes. I think that would have been an
insuperable disturbance to the efforts of even the marvelous
Mr. Huxley.
I agree Rupert!
Warren
···
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2017.11.16 10.35)]
(Rick Marken (2017.11.15.2045)]
Perhaps the difference is that those who are explicitly anti-PCTagree with you (PCT) 1% and disagree 99% whereas the enthusiastic
acolytes agree 99% and disagree 1%. Among those enthusiastic
acolytes are many clever people who understand PCT very well and the
cantankerous arguments are about that 1% difference. My preference
would be that people take the very wise advice at the bottom of p99
of this excellent book I have, “Controlling People”. If participants
were able to lower the gain on their discussions and collaborate on
building models of PCT rather than bickering then I think we could
make substantial progress and the resolutions to the 1% difference
would be uncovered as a result of that modellingRupert
–
RY: Thanks. Anotheramazing encounter; last time we spoke you said you’d ran
into the Queen, you do meet the best people don’t you?
But I don’t think any amount of name dropping is going
to get you rehabilitated from being the bad boy of PCT!
RM: Yes, I've even tried dropping "William T. Powers" and that
doesn’t seem to work either. When Bill was around I was called
the “PCT policeman”, which made me feel good, though I would
have preferred “Powers’ bulldog”. But clearly I have not been
as skillful at bulldogging as was Thomas Henry Huxley. But
Huxley did have the advantage of opponents who were explicitly
anti-Darwin. Powers had (and has) the problem that many of his
most ardent opponents have ostensibly been his most
enthusiastic acolytes. I think that would have been an
insuperable disturbance to the efforts of even the marvelous
Mr. Huxley.
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach
Available Now
Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
[From Rick Marken (2017.11.17.1850)]
···
RY: Perhaps the difference is that those who are explicitly anti-PCTagree with you (PCT) 1% and disagree 99%Â whereas the enthusiastic
acolytes agree 99% and disagree 1%.Â
RM: I think a percentage gives a misleading impression of the degree to which people agree about PCT. It assumes that there are N equally important things to agree on about PCT and if we agree on M of them then our agreement level is M/N*100. By this measure, while I would probably agree only about 5% with most “conventional” psychologists, I would probably agree about 99% with psychologists who apply control theory to psychology in a non-PCT way; the psychologists who I refer to as “manual control theorists” in my “Of Thermostats and People” paper that I presented at what shall now be known as the Bryn Terfel conference:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyzx6vgddy6k1t6/ThermoPeople.doc?dl=0
RM: The people who I think are ostensibly (intentionally) Bill’s enthusiastic acolytes but are actually (unintentionally) his opponents would have an agreement score with Bill that is about the same as my agreement score with manual control theorists: 99%. But the 1% with which they disagree with Bill is what is most important about PCT because it is what distinguishes PCT from other forms of control theory that has been applied in psychology. And that small area of disagreement is all centered around the fact that Bill’s application of control theory – PCT-- is based on an understanding of the fact that behavior is a process of control. Other applications of control theory in psychology are based on the idea that behavior (such as movement trajectories) is output; the last step in a causal chain that begins in the environment or the brain.Â
RY: Among those enthusiasticacolytes are many clever people who understand PCT very well and the
cantankerous arguments are about that 1% difference.
 RM: I agree that my differences (and Bill’s) were with very clever people and that they differ with me and Bill on only about 1% of PCT. But it’s the 1% that is what is most important about PCT.Â
RY: My preferencewould be that people take the very wise advice at the bottom of p99
of this excellent book I have, “Controlling People”. If participants
were able to lower the gain on their discussions and collaborate on
building models of PCT rather than bickering then I think we could
make substantial progress and the resolutions to the 1% difference
would be uncovered as a result of that modelling
RM: Science is a special kind of conflict situation; it is one that presumably can be arbitrated by empirical test. And the results of those tests eventually lead to one side of the conflict being shown to be right and the other wrong. But both sides presumably win because both sides get to see an advance in our understanding of the world (a higher level goal). Lowering the gain on a scientific conflict might lead to greater collaboration but it would require both sides to collaborate on research and/or modeling that both believe is misguided. But I am certainly open to lowering the gain. I think I did that by suggesting a way to do research that would be aimed at understanding what variables are controlled when people move through predetermined curved paths, like roads or embossed paths. I would love to collaborate on such a project. But I would be happy to hear about what other kind of collaborative projects people have in mind.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Rupert
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
RY: Thanks. Anotheramazing encounter; last time we spoke you said you’d ran
into the Queen, you do meet the best people don’t you?
But I don’t think any amount of name dropping is going
to get you rehabilitated from being the bad boy of PCT!
RM: Yes, I've even tried dropping "William T. Powers" and that
doesn’t seem to work either. When Bill was around I was called
the “PCT policeman”, which made me feel good, though I would
have preferred “Powers’ bulldog”. But clearly I have not been
as skillful at bulldogging as was Thomas Henry Huxley. But
Huxley did have the advantage of opponents who were explicitly
anti-Darwin. Powers had (and has) the problem that many of his
most ardent opponents have ostensibly been his most
enthusiastic acolytes. I think that would have been an
insuperable disturbance to the efforts of even the marvelous
Mr. Huxley.
[From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.50)]
(Rick Marken (2017.11.17.1850)]
I didn't intend, of course, to be particularly scientific in this
instance
Sure. The trouble is we seem to be going around in circles with the
same old discussions coming up time and again, and no progress is
made, over decades. Wouldn’t you rather be building more of your
great models that show the power of PCT? I’d certainly like to see
that rather than get bogged down in the groundhog day of PCT
esoteric minutiae.
Yes, it should be win-win. I would hope that within csgnet we could
come to some consensus about useful research topics to pursue, and
that disagreements would come out in the wash. I think everybody
would agree that controlled variables should be at the heart of any
PCT work. I will post about what I would like to collaborate on
(learning) and see if others are also interested.
Regards,
Rupert
···
RY: Perhaps thedifference is that those who are explicitly anti-PCT
agree with you (PCT) 1% and disagree 99% whereas the
enthusiastic acolytes agree 99% and disagree 1%.
RM: I think a percentage gives a misleading impression
of the degree to which people agree about PCT.
RY: Among those enthusiasticacolytes are many clever people who understand PCT very
well and the cantankerous arguments are about that 1%
difference.
RM: I agree that my differences (and Bill's) were with
very clever people and that they differ with me and Bill
on only about 1% of PCT. But it’s the 1% that is what is
most important about PCT.
RM: Science is a special kind of conflict situation; it
is one that presumably can be arbitrated by empirical
test. And the results of those tests eventually lead to
one side of the conflict being shown to be right and the
other wrong. But both sides presumably win because both
sides get to see an advance in our understanding of the
world (a higher level goal). Lowering the gain on a
scientific conflict might lead to greater collaboration
but it would require both sides to collaborate on research
and/or modeling that both believe is misguided. But I am
certainly open to lowering the gain. I think I did that by
suggesting a way to do research that would be aimed at
understanding what variables are controlled when people
move through predetermined curved paths, like roads or
embossed paths. I would love to collaborate on such a
project. But I would be happy to hear about what other
kind of collaborative projects people have in mind.
[From Rick Marken (2017.11.19.1100)]
···
Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.50)
RY: Yes, it should be win-win. I would hope that within csgnet we couldcome to some consensus about useful research topics to pursue, and
that disagreements would come out in the wash. I think everybody
would agree that controlled variables should be at the heart of any
PCT work. I will post about what I would like to collaborate on
(learning) and see if others are also interested.
RM: That sounds great Rupert! My proposal for research aimed at understanding the variable(s) controlled as organisms moved through curved path was not much of a hit. Maybe you’ll have better luck!
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
RM: Science is a special kind of conflict situation; it
is one that presumably can be arbitrated by empirical
test. And the results of those tests eventually lead to
one side of the conflict being shown to be right and the
other wrong. But both sides presumably win because both
sides get to see an advance in our understanding of the
world (a higher level goal). Lowering the gain on a
scientific conflict might lead to greater collaboration
but it would require both sides to collaborate on research
and/or modeling that both believe is misguided. But I am
certainly open to lowering the gain. I think I did that by
suggesting a way to do research that would be aimed at
understanding what variables are controlled when people
move through predetermined curved paths, like roads or
embossed paths. I would love to collaborate on such a
project. But I would be happy to hear about what other
kind of collaborative projects people have in mind.