What is CSG for?

From[Bill Williams 18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.18.0802 MST)]

Well it looks as if Rick's revival of his porposal for a moderated list
doesn't
have much more life this time than it did the previous time. I am
disapointed.
I had looked forward to seeing what would happen with Rick as moderator.
I would even have lent Rick a special pair of my Princess Lady Diana
sunglassess with which to read the posts.

In my view the economics threads will if they continue, continue to be a
problem. Bill Powers regards it as an insult for me to suggest that he
might benefit from a familiarty with the existing economic literature.
But, I fail to see, despite Martin's disagreement, the point to re-inventing
the wheel.

The Keynesian system represents a fundamental achivement in
understanding the macro-properties of a capitalist monetary economy.
I expect that in the future they Keynesian system will be the subject of a
very drastic revision-- revision in its mode of expression and exposition
rather than its content. The current version is far too difficult to
learn.

Unfortunately, Powers aspiration to revolutionize economic theory
enters into the problem of economic understanding from a very awkward
angle-- an angle that amounts to a cultural and intellectual delusion. The
delusion consists of a belief that it is possible to do meaningful work in
economics without an understanding of the Keynesian system.

As I see it this delusion has nothing to do with the genuine contribution
that control theory has to offer regarding a theory and practice of human
behavior. The economic threads however haven't been about control theory,
or even control theory applications in economics. Rather what they have
been occupied with is an attempt by Bill Powers to generate an
understanding of the economic process all by himself. In issolation I don't
believe he is up to it. He could prove me wrong, but then he isn't really
working entirely in complete issolation either.

I would suggest that CSGnet would be better off if the discusions returned
to questions much more directly related to applications of control theory
to human behavior. Disputes concerning theoretical economics are not
really of much interest to most of the people who make up the CSGnet
community.

Bill Williams

Rick Marken (2004.03.17.1620)--

> I know that there are problems with list moderation. >> Mainly, the

problem is that it's a job that someone

has to do.

That's a problem, all right -- someone has to read each > post, doing this
several times a day, and make a decision about whether to let each one
through, and carry out the decision.

But the biggest problem is electing someone to the position of moderator.
Who would you trust (other than yourself) to decide whether any of your
statements (for example, about the Pope, or about Bush) are offensive and
should be censored, or should cause your entire post to be rejected? What
if you, the originator of a post, or other people, don't agree with the
moderator? Do we set up an appeals committee? Do we assign attorneys for
prosecution and defense?

Or do we decide that the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the posts but in
ourselves? Judging from my own history, I think it is difficult not to
respond in kind when someone offers provocations. I also think that
learning how to avoid doing that is part of a growing-up process, a

process

in which we learn to identify our own true interests and our own natures,
so what someone else utters can't cause disturbances so threatening that

we

have to strike back.

I have had to protect myself by cutting off posts from specific
individuals. But that isn't how I want things to continue. I want to be
able to read anything from anyone, whether in good taste or bad, whether
friendly or hostile, and not feel called upon to imitate what I don't

like.

I don't want to be worried that others will believe untrue things said
about me, I don't want to be worried that perhaps scathing criticisms of

me

are really justified.In short, I don't want to let others, through what
they say, control my life.

Many of the problems on CSGnet have come from letting lower-order control
systems act before higher ones have had a chance to perceive, judge, and
adjust. In other words, from reacting to surface appearances without

taking

the trouble to work out what is wrong and what to do about it, if

anything.

If I feel anger about the content of a post and want to strike back (the
sequence is actually the other way around, of course), that alone should

be

a warning not to reply just yet. Striking back will not accomplish

anything

I want; just the opposite. There are really only two ways to handle such a
situation: delete the offending passages and ignore them, or search for
something in them that does call for a substantive reply and focus on

that.

I guess what I'm saying is that each of us needs to moderate his or her

own

traffic, the posts that show up on the computer screen as well as those
that are composed there. Perhaps others, like me, need to put up a filter
temporarily until they can figure out a better way of handing unwanted
inputs. But I think we all want to be able to handle difficulties in

better

ways than just avoiding having to deal with them.

We could do worse than looking to Martin Taylor as a role model here. I
have had disagreements with him, but he has never lost his cool even when

I

···

did. Quite remarkable.

Best,.

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1115)]

Bill Williams (18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST) --

Well it looks as if Rick's revival of his porposal for a moderated list
doesn't have much more life this time than it did the previous time.

I count 5 for (you, Bryan, David, Phil and myself) and 3 against (Bill P.,
Martin and Kenny), so far. So it may not be completely moribund. I like
Phil's suggestion of a 2 month trial period of moderation. If this is
acceptable to the group, then I would suggest starting with Gary Cziko as
the moderator because he is already one of the list owners. But I would
accept anyone as the moderator who volunteers for the job. Any volunteers?

I would suggest that CSGnet would be better off if the discusions returned
to questions much more directly related to applications of control theory
to human behavior. Disputes concerning theoretical economics are not
really of much interest to most of the people who make up the CSGnet
community.

I see economics as the study of control of input at the aggregate level. So
I think questions about economic behavior are as directly related to control
theory as are questions about how people catch fly balls (control their
optical input by producing running movements on the field) or do any other
kind of controlling. Those in the PCT community who really have no interest
in economic control behavior can ignore the discussions of economics, just
as those who have no interest in ball catching behavior can ignore the
discussions of fielding. It's possible, however, that if the discussions of
economics became more substantive and respectful, some of those who had no
interest in them might find that they are quite interesting after all.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.18.1331 CST)]

Let me clarify my "vote" that we should adopt a strategy that allows the
group to switch on moderation very quickly (and to do it selectively). Then,
when the disturbance stops, or the phenomenon goes away, we could turn that
modreation off again. The strategy is not unlike one used in a classroom
where, in order to permit the greatest number to successfully control their
perceptions for the intended aligned reference perceptions, one or two must
be counseled as to the manner and efficacy of their attempted controlling
behaviors, or suffer moderation.

I quote some help text from another type of discussion group regarding
selective moderation:

"How do I change membership settings for a member?
You can make one member's posts moderated without affecting the other
members' messages. You can alway change this setting once you feel the
moderated member deserves to be unmoderated again. File uploading: Prevent
an individual member from uploading files to the Files section of the
group."

Here then, is a neat solution to aforementioned concerns that removes the
need to moderate each and every contributor, yet to preserve CSGnet as a
"pleasant learning community."

Regards,

--Bryan

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:14 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [CSGNET] What is CSG for?

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1115)]

Bill Williams (18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST) --

Well it looks as if Rick's revival of his porposal for a moderated list
doesn't have much more life this time than it did the previous time.

I count 5 for (you, Bryan, David, Phil and myself) and 3 against (Bill P.,
Martin and Kenny), so far. So it may not be completely moribund. I like
Phil's suggestion of a 2 month trial period of moderation. If this is
acceptable to the group, then I would suggest starting with Gary Cziko as
the moderator because he is already one of the list owners. But I would
accept anyone as the moderator who volunteers for the job. Any volunteers?

I would suggest that CSGnet would be better off if the discusions returned
to questions much more directly related to applications of control theory
to human behavior. Disputes concerning theoretical economics are not
really of much interest to most of the people who make up the CSGnet
community.

I see economics as the study of control of input at the aggregate level. So
I think questions about economic behavior are as directly related to control
theory as are questions about how people catch fly balls (control their
optical input by producing running movements on the field) or do any other
kind of controlling. Those in the PCT community who really have no interest
in economic control behavior can ignore the discussions of economics, just
as those who have no interest in ball catching behavior can ignore the
discussions of fielding. It's possible, however, that if the discussions of
economics became more substantive and respectful, some of those who had no
interest in them might find that they are quite interesting after all.

RSM
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Samuel Saunders (2004.03.18.1225 MST)]

···

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:14:18AM -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1115)]

Bill Williams (18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST) --

> Well it looks as if Rick's revival of his porposal for a moderated list
> doesn't have much more life this time than it did the previous time.

I count 5 for (you, Bryan, David, Phil and myself) and 3 against (Bill P.,
Martin and Kenny), so far. So it may not be completely moribund. I like
Phil's suggestion of a 2 month trial period of moderation. If this is
acceptable to the group, then I would suggest starting with Gary Cziko as
the moderator because he is already one of the list owners. But I would
accept anyone as the moderator who volunteers for the job. Any volunteers?

Count me in the NO column.

Samuel
--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@gwtc.net
ssaunders@olc.edu

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1200)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.18.1225) --

BTW, could we codify the rules of the game?

How about this:

1. All ideas can be explored and criticized from a PCT perspective.

2. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

3. Arguments should be supported by evidence (models and data) as much as
possible.

Or simply:

4. Imitate Martin Taylor

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.18.1428 CST)]

Thank you Rick for that codification, very simple, very understandable:

1. All ideas can be explored and criticized from a PCT perspective.
2. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
3. Arguments should be supported by evidence (models and data) as much as
possible.
Or simply:
4. Imitate Martin Taylor

One further clarification of moderation. The choice is more than just a
simple Yes or No to moderate. We have a range of different strategies, and
we should know that any of these are within our grasp right now, with no
additional learning curve or monetary costs. Choices regarding moderation
are as follows:

1. All are moderated at all times.
2. No one is moderated at any time.
3. Moderation is turned on for a trial period to send a message.
4. Moderation is turned on for all temporarily when some contributors
violate the code.
5. Some contributors are temporarily moderated after two warnings for
flagrantly violated the code. The moderation is done by a rotating group of
moderators, themselves known for their understanding of the code and its
application. An appeal process is in place. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trdev/ for an example of 3161 members who
accept such a format. Contributors who promise to stop violating are removed
from moderation after several moderated posts are successfully received.
6. "Moderation" done independently by some or all members, using a filter in
their e-mail client that automatically sends past offenders to the trash.
7. "Moderation" done independently by some or all members manually, who
resist the urge to respond to offenders, and just click the Delete button
instead.
8. "Moderation" is done by former offenders, who simply stop offending (let
us not forget this possibility!).

Remember, if you cannot perceive something, you simply cannot control it. If
you remove an offender's posts one way or the other, that person's
disturbances no longer form your perception of your CSGnet mailbox.
Similarly, if bullies no longer perceive our valiant attempts to respond to
their "arms race," they will probably get bored and go find another
distribution list with "easier targets" to harass. Simple PCT.

Cheers,

--Bryan

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1326 MST)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.18.1331 CST)]

OK, let's try it for a few months, as Phil Runkel suggested. I have joined
the discussion list (but not the Yahoo group).

As to the criteria for being allowed in the discussion, let's start with no
moderation (everyone accepted), and introduce it as needed, perhaps after a
quick vote (sort of like Survivor (which I haven't seen)). This is
basically Bryan's suggestion. If someone clearly violates the boundaries of
the acceptable, objectors can post excerpts, explain why they object, and
ask the group for an opinion. Anyone want to propose a Yes/No margin (among
those who vote) to trigger exclusion?

I don't think that one person should be able to exclude anyone.

I hope everyone with reservations about this move will at least try it to
see how it works out.

Best,

Bill P.

From[Bill Williams 18 March 2004 2:30 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1115)]

Bill Williams (18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST) --

> Well it looks as if Rick's revival of his porposal for a moderated list
> doesn't have much more life this time than it did the previous time.

I count 5 for (you, Bryan, David, Phil and myself) and 3 against (Bill P.,
Martin and Kenny), so far. So it may not be completely moribund. I like
Phil's suggestion of a 2 month trial period of moderation. If this is
acceptable to the group, then I would suggest starting with Gary Cziko as
the moderator because he is already one of the list owners>

I think Gary would make a very good moderator.

However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"
seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality.
Your continued defense of your attacks upon the "idea" of religion it
seems to me to an indication that you didn't learn from the damage your
attacks upon an "idea" did.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1340)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1326 MST)--

OK, let's try it for a few months, as Phil Runkel suggested. I have joined
the discussion list (but not the Yahoo group).

Weren't you already in the discussion group? What Yahoo group?

As to the criteria for being allowed in the discussion, let's start with no
moderation (everyone accepted), and introduce it as needed, perhaps after a
quick vote (sort of like Survivor (which I haven't seen)). This is
basically Bryan's suggestion. If someone clearly violates the boundaries of
the acceptable, objectors can post excerpts, explain why they object, and
ask the group for an opinion. Anyone want to propose a Yes/No margin (among
those who vote) to trigger exclusion?

I'll buy this. As far as yes/no margin for exclusion, how about 10 yes to 1
no?

And I hearby nominate Bill Williams for exclusion based on the following
post: Bill Williams (18 March 2004 2:30 PM CST) --

The excepts that I find objectionable are the following:

However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"
seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality.

and

Your continued defense of your attacks upon the "idea" of religion it
seems to me to an indication that you didn't learn from the damage your
attacks upon an "idea" did.

I object to both because they are simply ad hominum attacks.

Other opinions from the group are welcome.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

From[Bill Williams 18 March 2004 4:00 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1115)]

Bill Williams (18 March 2004 11:30 AM CST) --

> I would suggest that CSGnet would be better off if the discusions

returned

> to questions much more directly related to applications of control

theory

> to human behavior. Disputes concerning theoretical economics are not
> really of much interest to most of the people who make up the CSGnet
> community.

I see economics as the study of control of input at the aggregate level.

So

I think questions about economic behavior are as directly related to

control

theory as are questions about how people catch fly balls (control their
optical input by producing running movements on the field) or do any other
kind of controlling. Those in the PCT community who really have no

interest

in economic control behavior can ignore the discussions of economics, just
as those who have no interest in ball catching behavior can ignore the
discussions of fielding. It's possible, however, that if the discussions

of

economics became more substantive and respectful, some of those who had no
interest in them might find that they are quite interesting after all.

Rick this is an example of how an inadaquate conceptualization makes for
difficulties. You have defined "economics" exclusively in terms of a
sub-field
within economics-- Macro economics important as it is, is not the whole of
economics. This is one more example in what could be a very extensive list
of how you have treated economic questions in a way that is careless.

Next, it isn't clear that either you or Bill Powers have understood what
an
"aggregate" is as an economic process. You have used three definitions of
profit without distinguishing between these uses. As long as definitions
are
shifting as the arguments go on, the results of the arguments are going to
vary
depending upon the particular shifts that have taken place.

I remain very doubtful about whether many people on the CSGnet are going to
find economic questions sufficiently interesting to be worth the effort to
comprehend the issues involved. Neither you nor Bill Powers have yet to
display sufficient interest to take the trouble to adequately apply
yourselves
to economic issues in a way that results in an attainment of the most basic
comprehension of the meaning of basic terms.

But, as far as I am aware no one on the CSGnet has taken the trouble to read
Bruun's dissertation. Your raising the questions regarding
"substansiveness"
and "respect" would not appear to be ones that would be advantageous
for your side of the contention about economics.

Bill Williams

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1340)]

And I hearby nominate Bill Williams for exclusion based on the following
post: Bill Williams (18 March 2004 2:30 PM CST) --

The excepts that I find objectionable are the following:

However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"
seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality.

and

Your continued defense of your attacks upon the "idea" of religion it
seems to me to an indication that you didn't learn from the damage your
attacks upon an "idea" did.

I object to both because they are simply ad hominum attacks.

Other opinions from the group are welcome.

Rick,
I joined this group because I believe in PCT. I believe that we are living
control systems who are designed to control perceptions rather than BE
controlled.
I'm not into economics so I have stayed out of the debate that's been going
on for the past few months.
I find it really hard to believe that people who supposedly subscribe to the
view that we are all control systems can then try to control what other
people say.

From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are only

his perceptions.

"> However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"

seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality."

In my position as chief lurker, it appears that you have a reference for how
other people should behave and act, and what they should say on this list.
Clearly that sets up a perfect opportunity for counter-control.
If you really want to discuss PCT, then do it. No-one is holding your
fingers to the keys and 'making' you respond to comments you class as "ad
hominem attacks". Could I suggest that if some comments, emails etc cause
you such a great disturbance that you change your references?

We teach children all the time that they can't change other people and what
they do - the only thing they can change is how it affects them. After all,
its all about controlling perceptions.

Regards,
Michelle.

From[Bill Williams 18 March 2004 4:20 PM CST]

Truth is usually a good defense.

The idea that a fox can not be an effective police officer for
the chickens is something that I thought was widely understood.

Rick, however, is of the opinion that "anyone" can be a good
police officer. Recent discussion in academic circles has
coined a new word for this sort of argument -- preposterism.
As Haack defines the terms it is a demand that the most
obvious nonsense be accepted with utter seriousness.
See Susan Haack's web page. I would think that from a control
theory standpoint that it would be entirely obvious that some
people are not fit to be police officers. In control theory language
some people don't have reference levels for various system level
concepts that are consistent with carrying out the police function.
Can someone with a basic level of understanding of control
theory assert what Rick argues is a basic reality of police work?
So, is Rick out of touch with reality or what?

Second, did Rick attack the Catholic Faith as an "idea" as a way
of attack ing Ed Ford?

People I regard as reasonable people are convinced that this is
what Rick did. Unfortunately in the past when Rick has done this
sort of thing people have stood by in silence. Sometimes it isn't
easy to know what to do in such situations. The argument that
Rick has recently made do not indicate a recognition that he did
something he shouldn't have done in attacking Ed Ford _by_way_
of_an_attack_upon_the_Catholic_Faith. Ed was interested in
applying control theory to rather immediate practical problems.
I don't think it is a good idea to assume that people like Ed come
to CSG in order to receive instruction in theology. There really is
a complex ethical issue involved here, and to perceived the
problem as "simple" is almost surely a profound mistake.
Again, in my view the new word-- "preposterism" provides an
anchor with which to resist being carried away by a rhetoric that
a reasonable person would recognize as an obvious absurdity.

So I stand by what I have said. If CSGnet is going to be a refuge
for preposterisms such as it won't cost "a damn thing to go to Mars"
and I wasn't attacking Ed Ford, I was engaged in scientific inquiry,
well then I will consider it an honor to be excluded.

Bill Williams

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: What is CSG for?

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1340)]

Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1326 MST)--

> OK, let's try it for a few months, as Phil Runkel suggested. I have

joined

> the discussion list (but not the Yahoo group).

Weren't you already in the discussion group? What Yahoo group?

> As to the criteria for being allowed in the discussion, let's start with

no

> moderation (everyone accepted), and introduce it as needed, perhaps

after a

> quick vote (sort of like Survivor (which I haven't seen)). This is
> basically Bryan's suggestion. If someone clearly violates the boundaries

of

> the acceptable, objectors can post excerpts, explain why they object,

and

> ask the group for an opinion. Anyone want to propose a Yes/No margin

(among

> those who vote) to trigger exclusion?

I'll buy this. As far as yes/no margin for exclusion, how about 10 yes to

1

no?

And I hearby nominate Bill Williams for exclusion based on the following
post: Bill Williams (18 March 2004 2:30 PM CST) --

The excepts that I find objectionable are the following:

> However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"
> seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality.

and

> Your continued defense of your attacks upon the "idea" of religion it
> seems to me to an indication that you didn't learn from the damage your
> attacks upon an "idea" did.

I object to both because they are simply ad hominum attacks.

Other opinions from the group are welcome.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1712 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1340) --

And I hearby nominate Bill Williams for exclusion based on the following
post: Bill Williams (18 March 2004 2:30 PM CST) --

The excepts that I find objectionable are the following:

> However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"
> seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality.

and

> Your continued defense of your attacks upon the "idea" of religion it
> seems to me to an indication that you didn't learn from the damage your
> attacks upon an "idea" did.

I object to both because they are simply ad hominum attacks.

They certainly don't indicate any change in Williams' approach, but I
suggest that you accumulate more examples. Obviously, Williams' opinion
that you have a poor connection with reality is irrelevant to any PCT
subject, as is his opinion that you haven't learned from "the damage your
attacks... did", which is unsubstantiated. It won't take much more of that
sort of thing to produce a vote against him from me. But not yet.

I can add a few examples of my own.

Neither you nor Bill Powers have yet to display sufficient interest to
take the trouble to adequately apply yourselves to economic issues in a
way that results in an attainment of the most basic comprehension of the
meaning of basic terms.

The problem with this kind of communication is that it alludes to a lack of
"basic comprehension of the meaning of basic terms" without offering
anything to correct the deficiency. A better approach would be to lay out
some of those basic terms and try to improve comprehension -- in other
words, to offer help rather than uninformative criticism. I think we
generally take this approach to people trying to learn PCT. Williams
alludes to defects in knowledge or understanding of the person being
scolded, but nothing of any substance is actually said: the aim is not to
enlighten, but to denigrate.

More:

But, as far as I am aware no one on the CSGnet has taken the trouble to read
Bruun's dissertation.

I have read it, although I don't understand everything in it yet. I have
the Pascal source code of her model and am working my way through it. I
wonder whether Williams is doing the same. Now that Williams is aware of
this, I trust that he will stop suggesting that no one on the CSGnet has
"taken the trouble" (a deliberately offensive way of putting it) to read
the Bruun thesis.

Your raising the questions regarding "substansiveness" and "respect" would
not appear to be ones that would be advantageous for your side of the
contention about economics.

It is a mistake to leap to conclusions based on assumptions that may prove
to be false, such as the one just preceding the above paragraph. Since I
have been reading Bruun's thesis, am studying her model, and continue to
have friendly communications with her, I think that this last paragraph is
simply irrelevant.

So I stand by what I have said. If CSGnet is going to be a refuge
for preposterisms such as it won't cost "a damn thing to go to Mars"
and I wasn't attacking Ed Ford, I was engaged in scientific inquiry,
well then I will consider it an honor to be excluded.

When quoting someone, one should be able to verify that the quote is
accurate. The above quote is not. I said that the cost of going to Mars
(said to be a trillion dollars over twenty years) would not be a loss to
the economy, since all that money would be spent in the economy and it
would all be income for employers and employees. If I had been thinking
faster, I would have pointed out that it seems rather odd for an economist
to argue against opening up a trillion-dollar market. I also might have
said that there are probably other things we spend money on that are more
frivolous than going to Mars, so it's not really fair to imply that the
only choice is between taking care of starving children and exploring the
solar system. That is certainly not the case.

But the point here is that the only argument offered against what I said
consisted of statements about how foolish the idea is, and now how
"preposterous" it is. Such an argument is without substance: it is a pure
expression of opinion with nothing to back it up. It conveys hostility and
ridicule, with no redeeming social purpose.

As to the honor of being excluded, it is always within Williams' power to
exclude himself, if honor is what he desires. I suggest we wait and see if
he chooses that option. I would be glad if he did.

Bill P.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.18.1912)]

Michelle,

I agree with your views for the most part. But alternatives do exist to
out-and-out raw moderation (see my prev note). The best moderation would be
done by each contributor, in essence, avoiding this problem. But since we
have to balance the mission and goal of the group and dealing with these
disturbances, then perhaps we need to teach what it means to be a
professional contributor in a scientific discussion forum. Again I quote the
Yahoo! group, trdev: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos (see way below
also):

"trdev is a place where training and development issues are discussed in a
professional, non-commercial, collegial forum."

Yes, I agree that it is wrong to attempt to control another's behavior. It
is frankly against the spirit of PCT. So given this supportive environment,
someone will inevitably try to post attacks veiled as opinions (either
unintentionally or purposely). It is not professional, and in every other
professional group that kind of behavior interferes with the group's mission
and goals. In CSGnet, we have had pitched battles about many topics,
including the core root of the argument behind banning, the so-called "I see
you have chosen...". As Martin Taylor has proven, one can contest vigorously
and rigorously without being vicious and ruthless. Yet, as several
individuals have succeeded in doing, it is possible here to post a vicious
and ruthless message. The response? What happens when a control system is
pushed? It pushes back with equal force. And we have an interpersonal
*positive feedback* loop. An "arms race." That is human nature, of course.
What can we do about that (see below Michelle's cited post)?

[Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)]

Rick,
I joined this group because I believe in PCT. I believe that we are living
control systems who are designed to control perceptions rather than BE
controlled.
I'm not into economics so I have stayed out of the debate that's been going
on for the past few months.
I find it really hard to believe that people who supposedly subscribe to

the

view that we are all control systems can then try to control what other
people say.

From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are
only his perceptions.

"> However, your assertion that anyone can be a "good police officer"

seems to me to be characteristic of your poor connection to reality."

In my position as chief lurker, it appears that you have a reference for
how other people should behave and act, and what they should say on this
list. Clearly that sets up a perfect opportunity for counter-control.
If you really want to discuss PCT, then do it. No-one is holding your
fingers to the keys and 'making' you respond to comments you class as
"ad hominem attacks". Could I suggest that if some comments, emails etc
cause you such a great disturbance that you change your references?

We teach children all the time that they can't change other people and what
they do - the only thing they can change is how it affects them. After

all,

its all about controlling perceptions.

Regards,
Michelle.

This is my suggestion:

The suggestion to moderate is really the introduction of a *negative
feedback loop* into the interactions. It is not an attempt to control other
people's behaviors, because you know that we simply cannot do that without
dropping into the use of force, physical or virtual. It is an attempt to
suggest, evangelize, and teach. Outright banning would be just that, the use
of force (not good). Moderation is a counseling, a dialog, and a way to help
the contributor undergo reorganization enough so that his/her attempts at
controling perceptions through the use of this discussion group will not
negatively impact other people's attempts. But in the end, if a contributor,
by his/her actions, starts to control others with ad hominem attacks and
foul language, then that person simply has to be removed, since those
actions eventually paralyze the actions of others. We only have limited
energy to deal with such people.

The moderation strategy is best done when formerly offending individual
contributors reorganize and act to create perceptions (on the net) of a
"professional, non-commercial, collegial forum." We respect the right of
free speech, but we also want to feel comfortable (even in heated debates)
that our right to express rigourous arguments will be respected and yet
rigourously tested scientifically. We do not think anyone has a right to
attack, snipe, flame, or publically humiliate. And the use of foul language
simply is not part of professional behavior.

So, what do we have to do to maintain a place where each of us can grow,
learn, and share insights about PCT? In effect, maintain a perception by
means of behavior. Here is a suggested list of references for the
perceptions we might act to maintain in the list:

[Rick Marken (2004.03.18.1200)]
1. All ideas can be explored and criticized from a PCT perspective.
2. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
3. Arguments should be supported by evidence (models and data) as much as
possible.
Or simply:
4. Imitate Martin Taylor

I really have no need or time to moderate anyone, and no one else really has
any time for that either. So I have individually moderated my perception of
CSGnet, by automatically deleting certain messages (I never see them you
see!). I have chosen to exclude the messages of Bill Williams recently,
since he really doesn't seem to contribute anything I can stand to read. I
remove it (actually Outlook does it for me) and my day is a lot better,
becuase my perception of the CSGnet folder is closer to my reference setting
for it, and closer to the list Rick supplied above. Simple as PCT.

Thank you Michelle for stepping forward from Lurkdom. I have had to do the
same thing in the last few days because I also have strong feelings about
PCT and I don't want anyone else to be chased off by behavior that is out of
place in a public, scientific forum. Simply, I would like to post, learn,
share and evangelize PCT in a more hospitable environment.

Cordially,

--Bryan

================== trdev example ============================

Here is a section of trdev rules (not that I advocate this here, but it is
good to have an example of well-attended group):

Welcome to trdev! We hope you find this to be a comfortable, useful
place for you to contribute to our ongoing discussion of matters
training and development related!

OUR HOME: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

OUR VISION: trdev is a place where training and development topics are
discussed in a professional, non-commercial, collegial forum.

The information that follows describes the trdev list and the courtesies
asked of all subscribers.

Please read this information. Contact the coordinators at
trdev-owner@yahoogroups.com if you have any questions regarding these
protocols.

[trdev:] A MODERATE PLACE

trdev is a mostly unmoderated list. You are automatically moderated when
you subscribe. Moderation is lifted when you demonstrate understanding
of trdev's protocols. The vast majority of our community post without
moderation.

Things that will get you moderated (after inital moderation period):

* Advertising except as specified below in the posting guidelines.
* Violating copyright rules if we believe it was only unintentional
* Saying the wrong thing when one of us coordinators is in a bad mood!
<grin>
* Flaming other members-A warning will be issued.
  FLAME is to direct hostile, argumentative, or offensive remarks
  toward others with the intent of insulting or provoking them.
All e-mail messages are "public" and all list subscribers will see
your post. Send only those things that you would not mind seeing on the
evening news.
Be professional and careful what you say about others. Use
sarcasm and humor carefully. Your e-mail text may hide your true meaning.

Things that will probably get you banned:

* Harvesting names and addresses
* Doing anything that got you moderated once, again
* Violating Yahoo's Terms of Service Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
* Reposting a member's post elsewhere without his or her permission
* Spamming the list
* Violating copyright rules intentionally
* Flaming a second time after your first warning and moderation

From[Bill Williams 18 March 2004 9:00 PM CST]

[ Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1712 MST)] says various things.

Among them he admitts to having read the Bruun dissertation.

I wonder do you after reading the dissertation and talking with Bruun
understand the role of the [I=S] identity in the Keynesian system?

Bill Williams

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.18.2041 MST)]

Bill Williams 18 March 2004 9:00 PM CST --

> [ Bill Powers (2004.03.18.1712 MST)] says various things.

Among them he admitts to having read the Bruun dissertation.

I wonder do you after reading the dissertation and talking with Bruun
understand the role of the [I=S] identity in the Keynesian system?

No. I plan to ask Bruun, but I would appreciate an explanation if you have one.

Best,

Bill P..

Great Post!

···

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)

If you really want to discuss PCT, then do it. No-one is holding your
fingers to the keys and 'making' you respond to comments you class as "ad
hominem attacks".

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2004.03.19.09:36 CST)]

I am for unmoderated discussion and the kind of "consensual anarchy"
that characterizes the structure and governance of the internet as many
people experience it (Who knows what conspirators comprise its
"physiology and behavior"?).

We are dealing here with a problem that no society (meaning individuals
sharing (illusion? or just perception?) a set of perceptions, including
the group of individuals self-definition as society) that I'm aware of
has ever solved. Total freedom = anarchy = not total freedom. So we keep
on in this dance of life, our organism dynamically balancing with our
environment (in this case, CSGnet, ours and others' posts), our internal
group relations, and our group's well-being in relation to the world at
large, mostly the internet community in the case of CSGnet.

Then there�s the question of �moderation�. I will do my dance with this:
using the Aristotelian step of �moderation in all things� but performing
it in the PCT style of control, self-moderation ( as in Brian�s listing,
numbers 6. "Moderation" done independently by some or all members, using
a filter in their e-mail client that automatically sends past offenders
to the trash. 7. "Moderation" done independently by some or all members
manually, who resist the urge to respond to offenders, and just click
the Delete button instead.) To be on the receiving end of a moderated
list seems like �coercion� to me (to bring up reference to another
hotspot in our group). I won�t belabor this moderation issue with a
further comment on its operation being managed by a �moderator�.

Thanks to each of you for the allowed rights on this list to post my
message.

···

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lloyd Klinedinst - Barbara A. Bollmann
10 Dover Lane - Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232 - FAX: (636) 451-3232
Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571 - Bobbie Mobile: (314)-799-3323
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com
website: http://www.klinedinst.com
email: bbollmann@bbollmann.com
website: http://www.bbollmann.com

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.19.0821 MST)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)

[to Rick, but it applies to me as well]

In my position as chief lurker, it appears that you have a reference for how
other people should behave and act, and what they should say on this list.
Clearly that sets up a perfect opportunity for counter-control.
If you really want to discuss PCT, then do it. No-one is holding your
fingers to the keys and 'making' you respond to comments you class as "ad
hominem attacks". Could I suggest that if some comments, emails etc cause
you such a great disturbance that you change your references?

This is, of course, excellent advice, although it's hard to follow (for
example, Michelle, you seem to be acting against your own advice by trying
to control someone's behavior here). It's particularly hard to follow when
someone is saying personal things about you that you really would not want
others to believe. One either has to be issuing a continuous stream of
denials and corrections (which have no discernible effect and sound weak
anyway), or you have to somehow terminate communications with the offender.
Since I don't want to abandon CSGnet, the alternative seems to be to focus
on the offender and keep him from spreading lies, half-truths, distortions,
and exaggerations of minor problems ("if you believe that, you're a little
bent" is converted into an accusation of insanity, for one recurrent example).

However, to shut off one person from the group goes against the grain for
me, and my solution has been to erect my own barrier, since I don't want to
impose my problems on others like you. I wouldn't have to filter out such
communications if I didn't feel a strong desire to defend myself and even
strike back (though I have never used any of my personal knowledge about
the offender as a weapon with which to get even). When I do succumb to the
temptation to retaliate, I find myself thinking and saying things that I
later regret, so until I can improve my character in that regard, it would
be best not to let the interaction start in the first place.

But hope springs eternal, and everyone deserves that one last chance, or
two or three, so it's hard to remain adamant about anything. If I can't
stand the garbage, I will stay out of the kitchen at least long enough to
grab a few breaths of fresh air before trying again.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin Taylor 2004.03.19.1445]

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.19.0821 MST)]

... when
someone is saying personal things about you that you really would not want
others to believe. One either has to be issuing a continuous stream of
denials and corrections (which have no discernible effect and sound weak
anyway), or you have to somehow terminate communications with the offender.

There's another possible choice, which is not to respond directly to
the slur, but to act in such a way that its falsity is or becomes
apparent to reasonable readers. Politicians (usually) know that to
deny a slander is often to give it both publicity and credibility. In
other words, deny or oppose only that for which you have credible
evidence on your side, as opposed to simple assertion.

That goes for the technical discussion, too.

Of course, it's worse if you yourself believe the truth of what was
intended as an insult :slight_smile: The it's hard to refrain from denial and
the display of annoyance.

As the recently certified (and blushing) authority on CSGnet
e-dealings, I assert my _ex cathedra_ opinion here without evidence.

Martin