[From Kenny Kitzke (991209.1315EST)]
<Bill Powers (991209.0517 MDT)>
<What's "legitimate?" Who is this Third Party to whom you are presenting
your case?>
Rick already said its you that he presents his beliefs to: Bill Powers!
Makes you feel pretty powerful and important, I suppose?
< This is how people end up inventing God.>
This is your perception huh? Its funny because those who you think invent
God, perceive that God invented you! Someday, we will both find out whose
perception was accurate. 
This RTP thing and coercion is like a tar baby. It just sticks to you even
when you try to let it go. It is stuck on me too.
May you perceive a great day!
Kenny
[Norman Hovda (991209.1200 MST)]
[From Rick Marken (991208.2130)]
Not quite. I am saying that getting a child to keep a commitment
is likely to result in loss of control of _some_ perception that
was being controlled by varying the reference for the perception
to which the child is commited. The words may be convoluted but
you can understand it, I think, using my spreadsheet hierarchy
model.
Which "spreadsheet hierarchy model" and where?
nth
[From Bill Powers (991210.1431 MDT)]
The reason for saying it was because I understood you to say that the
intention of the RTP process is to impose the teacher's will on the
students, backed up by the threat of physical force. I believe this
misrepresents the intention of the program.
I never said that. I said the _effect_ of certain processes in RTP is to do
that. I'm sure nobody in RTP intends for that to happen; in fact it's the
resistance to the idea that such things happen in RTP that keeps people
from realizing that it does happen.
I'm very tired of this argument.
Best,
Bill P.
···
About the actual effects, neither of us has evidence that warrants us to
say anything.
The rest of this post I agreed with in a reply to Rick earlier today
(991209.1024 EST).
Bruce Nevin
from [ Marc Abrams (991209.1725) )
Rick, Could you please respond to Bruce Nevin's post (991209.1024 EST)]
and the points he raises about your spreadsheet model and the complexity of
what is trying to be described.and discussed?
Thanks
Marc
from [ Marc Abrams (991209.1809) ]
[From Rick Marken (991209.1450)]
What would be the point? Bruce didn't think much of
my point and I didn't think much of his. C'est la vie.
Because in my mind ihe invalidates your argument. Your spread sheetmodel
_does not_ purport to show what you says it does. I am asking you to clarify
this point.
Marc
from [ Marc Abrams (991209.1843) ]
[From Rick Marken (991209.1530)]
So, again, I ask "what would be the point"? He's invalidated
my argument for you. Do you really want me to invalidate
Bruce's invalidation for you?
What I asked for you are apparently unwilling or unable to give.
I think Bruce brought up some very important points. about the use of the
spreadsheet model in decsribing complex events I take your lack of response
to mean that you believe Bruce is correct in the way he described your use
of the spreadsheet model. If not what is your counter-argument?
I'll take a no answer to mean there is no counter-argument or you choiose
not to give one.
Marc
[From Rick Marken (991209.1840)]
Marc Abrams (991209.1843)
I think Bruce brought up some very important points. about
the use of the spreadsheet model in decsribing complex events
I take your lack of response to mean that you believe Bruce
is correct in the way he described your use of the spreadsheet
model. If not what is your counter-argument?
I will try to give a counter-argument if you will tell me what
argument you would like me to counter. I think it would be best
if you started by explaining what point you think I was trying
to make with the spreadsheet model. Then tell me what points
Bruce make that invalidated my point. Please try to be as
specific as possible.
Thanks
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
from [ Marc Abrams (991209.2203) ]
[From Rick Marken (991209.1840)]
I will try to give a counter-argument if you will tell me what
argument you would like me to counter.
Sorry, I thought it was apparent in the post.
You said in part iin post (991208.2130)
example, change the reference value in cell F7 to a constant,
like 50. This control system, at level two of the hierarchy model,
is now _commited_ to keeping the perception it is controlling
at 50; and you will see that the system will be able to do
this successfully; the perceptual variable (in cell F8) is
brought to and maintained at 50, protected from disturbance.
The system keeps its commitment.<
Bruce says in part;
<n your spreadsheet, the level-2 reference is a constant that you set to 50
from the outside. In the kid, the reference is a variable that is output by
another control loop. That control loop in turn may come in conflict with
another, or it may vary its output (the reference for the commitment) in
order to control its input.>
There can be a conflict between "no distraction while learning" and some
principle that can be controlled in your example by shouting a warning.
(There could also be conflict with a principle of not snitching, or with
imagined retaliation from the violent
Is this clearer?
Thanks
Marc
[From Rick Marken (991209.1735)]
Marc Abrams (991209.2203)
You said in part iin post (991208.2130)
> example, change the reference value in cell F7 to a constant,
like 50. This control system, at level two of the hierarchy model,
is now _commited_ to keeping the perception it is controlling
at 50; and you will see that the system will be able to do
this successfully; the perceptual variable (in cell F8) is
brought to and maintained at 50, protected from disturbance.
The system keeps its commitment.<
Bruce says in part;
<n your spreadsheet, the level-2 reference is a constant that
you set to 50 from the outside. In the kid, the reference is a
variable that is output by another control loop. That control
loop in turn may come in conflict with another, or it may vary
its output (the reference for the commitment) in order to
control its input.>
There can be a conflict between "no distraction while learning"
and some principle that can be controlled in your example by
shouting a warning. (There could also be conflict with a
principle of not snitching, or with imagined retaliation
from the violent
Is this clearer?
Not really. Why don't you tell me in your own words: what
point do you think I was trying to make by setting a cell
in my spreadsheet to 50? What does what Bruce says above
have to do with that point? Why does it invalidate that
point in your mind?
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 [ Marc Abrams (991209.2251) ]
[From Rick Marken (991209.1735)]
I think Bruce Nevin did a wonderful job of explaining what he meant. It
doesn't need to be further translated by me. I see you have nothing to say
about the exchange. That's ok. I got my answer. Thanks
Marc
···
Marc Abrams (991209.2203)
> You said in part iin post (991208.2130)
>
> > example, change the reference value in cell F7 to a constant,
> like 50. This control system, at level two of the hierarchy model,
> is now _commited_ to keeping the perception it is controlling
> at 50; and you will see that the system will be able to do
> this successfully; the perceptual variable (in cell F8) is
> brought to and maintained at 50, protected from disturbance.
> The system keeps its commitment.<
>
> Bruce says in part;
> <n your spreadsheet, the level-2 reference is a constant that
> you set to 50 from the outside. In the kid, the reference is a
> variable that is output by another control loop. That control
> loop in turn may come in conflict with another, or it may vary
> its output (the reference for the commitment) in order to
> control its input.>
>
> There can be a conflict between "no distraction while learning"
> and some principle that can be controlled in your example by
> shouting a warning. (There could also be conflict with a
> principle of not snitching, or with imagined retaliation
> from the violent
>
> Is this clearer?
Not really. Why don't you tell me in your own words: what
point do you think I was trying to make by setting a cell
in my spreadsheet to 50? What does what Bruce says above
have to do with that point? Why does it invalidate that
point in your mind?
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 Rick Marken (991209.2050)]
Marc Abrams (991209.2251) --
I think Bruce Nevin did a wonderful job of explaining
what he meant. It doesn't need to be further translated
by me. I see you have nothing to say about the exchange.
That's ok. I got my answer. Thanks
And I got mine. Thank _you_.
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 Rick Marken (991210.0830)]
Marc Abrams (991210.0858)--
Actually Bruce, I had this really bizarre idea that maybe we
could start talking about moving the _static_ spreadsheet model
to a more dynamic, variable and _possibly_ more realistic platform.
The spreadsheet model is dynamic; press function key F9 (on Mac or
PC) to start the iterations. Note how all variables change over time.
Where we _might_ have been able to show what actually happens
when gain varies among variables and levels.
You can use the spreadsheet to show what happens when gain varies
at each level. The numbers in column B (1000, 500, 50) are the
gain factors for the systems at levels 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
You can change these numbers and see the effect of changing the
gain for all systems at a particular level when dynamic slowing
(the numbers in column A) is held constant. To maintain stability
you will find that you must make the slowing number smaller (slow
the system) when you make the corresponding gain larger. This is
all described in the _Mind Readings_ paper describing the spreadsheet
model.
If you want to change gain and slowing for individual systems,
then you have to go into the output (O(j,i)) equation for the
system and enter explicit values into the equations. For example,
the output part of the equation for the first system (on the left)
at level 1(cell D13) is =D13+$A$13*($B$13*(D11-D12)-D13). This
is a leaky integration of error (D11-D12) into the current output
(D13).
You can change the gain of this system by entering an explicit
value to replace $B$13; you can change the slowing of this system
by entering an explicit value to replace $A$13.
I agree that this is a very simple version of a hierarchical
control model; in particular, the physical connections between
system and variables (the equations for qi in row 15) are very
simple linear connections. But the spreadsheet was designed as
a learning tool; not as a model of a real organism. I think
there is a lot you can learn about hierarchical control by
examining this model carefully. Even this very simple
hierarchical control model is fairly complex and it reveals
some fundamental properties of a hierarchical control
organization, such as what would happen to the system's ability
to control higher level perception if a lower level reference
signal were set to a constant value.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991210.0900)]
Bruce Abbott (991210.1020 EST)
The problem with applying this [hierarchical control spreadsheet]
model to the RTP situation is that the spreadsheet has only one set
of means for controlling its higher-level variables (via fixed
connections to lower-level systems) whereas the child is able to
vary the means so as to remove the conflict, either by selecting
other means that are already known to the child or by randomly
reorganizing until such means are discovered.
You will have to show me your model of the child. In the
hierarchical control organization I describe the child is not
able to vary the means (lower level reference) so as to remove
the loss of control created by holding a reference steady at
some value.
It is true that a fixed reference will create no problem if the
system with the fixed reference is not used by any higher level
system as the means of controlling its perception. And it is,
indeed, possible to remove the problem by reorganization. But the
reorganization is not guaranteed to work (the conflict may persist)
and if it does work, it might solve the problem by "unfixing" the
reference (removing the commitment), which would not be an
appropriate solution form the point of view of the person
trying to get the kid to keep a commitment.
I think what's interesting about your reply is that you assume
that getting a child to keep a commitment must be OK. If the
HPCT model suggests that there might be a problem with getting
a child to keep a commitment, then the model must be wrong
(too simple, not an accurate representation of the situation,
etc); it can't be getting a kid to keep a commitment that is
wrong. Since RTP is presumably based on PCT, I wonder if anyone
can explain to me what it was about the PCT model that led the
developers of RTP to decide that an important part of the
program would be getting a child to keep a commitment?
Are we deriving applications from the model or are we
deriving the model from applications?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991210.1030)]
Bill Powers (991210.1039 MDT) re: Rick Marken (991210.0830)--
Still want to play in this game?
I like to teach PCT and I continue to imagine that there may
be _someone_ out there who wants to learn this stuff. I post
for that imagined someone. I also enjoy getting constructive
criticisms of my posts (usually from you). I'm teaching _and_
learning. I'm happy.
Don't worry. I'm not flustered by the gaming. I enjoy teaching
to my imaginary audience and I get all my other work done too.
Love
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991210.1110)]
Me:
You can use the spreadsheet to show what happens when gain varies
at each level.
Marc Abrams (991210.1250)
Not when a level is constant. it freszes the control loop, doesn't it?
Why not try it?
Rick, this is all very cumbersome. Why not throw this into a Stella or
Vensim model?
It's not cumbersome for me. If you think it would be less cumbersome,
then you are more than welcome to "throw it" into Stella or Vensim.
Me:
But the spreadsheet was designed as a learning tool;
Marc:
No question. And it does it very well. But when you try to put
explanatory powers behind it you diminish the real value it holds.
I don't understand what you mean. Have you ever seen those little
mechanical models of the solar system. Are they only OK as long
as you don't put any explanatory power (like the power to explain
our observations of the changing positions of the sun, moon and
planets) behind them? If so, why invent models at all?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (991210.0649 EST)]
Marc Abrams (991209.2251)
I think Bruce Nevin did a wonderful job of explaining what he meant. It
doesn't need to be further translated by me. I see you have nothing to say
about the exchange. That's ok. I got my answer. Thanks
Marc, have you never heard the expression, "When the only tool you have is a
hammer, soon everything begins to look like a nail"? When the only tool you
have is a three-level spreadsheet, what do you think the world looks like?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (991210.1230)]
Bruce Abbott (991210.1450 EST)--
I haven't created a formal model, but I don't forsee any
difficulties in doing so.
Does this mean you will actually show me your model so I
can see how it obviates the problem of a fixed reference?
"The" HPCT model does not "suggest" that there might be a
problem with getting a child to keep a commitment, "your"
model, loosely based on HPCT
What's loose about it?
Me:
Since RTP is presumably based on PCT, I wonder if anyone
can explain to me what it was about the PCT model that led the
developers of RTP to decide that an important part of the
program would be getting a child to keep a commitment?
Bruce:
I can guess, but that's all it would be. If you really
want to know, you will have to ask its developers.
I would like to hear from the RTP developers about
this. But I would also like to hear what your guess is.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991210.1300)]
Bill Powers (991210.1020 MDT)--
The message they're sending is that you can't get there from
here -- either you come up with the full-blown model of an
entire human being, right now, or you fold your tent and slink
away, leaving the field to them.
Yes. Bruce Abbott (991210.1450 EST) was probably writing the
the following as you typed:
The question then becomes whether the proposed model is
elaborate enough to perform like the real child in the RTP
situation. I certainly don't believe that your 3-level fixed
hierarchical spreadsheet model is up to the task.
Bill:
They have come to hate you so much that all they want to do is
grind you into the ground.
Why do you want to be part of this?
I don't really want to be part of the "being hated" and
"getting ground up" stuff. But I do think that some good
ideas can come out of this if I (we?) can manage to stay on
message (about the model and the research). And I was
gratified to learn (just a few minutes ago by private e-mail)
that my imaginary audience really exists. So there is at least
one person out there who welcomes my (and your) contributions
to CSGNet.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
from [ Marc Abrams (991210.0858) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (991210.0649 EST)]
Actually Bruce, I had this really bizarre idea that maybe we could start
talking about moving the _static_ spreadsheet model to a more dynamic,
variable and _possibly_ more realistic platform. Where we _might_ have been
able to show what actually happens when gain varies among variables and
levels.
Thanks for setting me straight. I'll try to control such silly thoughts in
the future. 
Marc
[From Bruce Abbott (991210.1020 EST)]
Rick Marken (991208.2130) --
But you will also find that some of the level three systems
(the ones in rows 3 through 5) can no longer keep the perceptual
variables they control (the values in row 4) matching the
references for these perceptions (the values in row 5). So the
commitment to a particular reference for a perceptual variable
in a system at level two in the hierarchy destroys the ability
of some level three systems (the ones that control their
perceptions by varying the reference for the now committed
level two system) to control.
The problem with applying this model to the RTP situation is that the
spreadsheet has only one set of means for controlling its higher-level
variables (via fixed connections to lower-level systems) whereas the child
is able to vary the means so as to remove the conflict, either by selecting
other means that are already known to the child or by randomly reorganizing
until such means are discovered. When the spreadsheet model "makes a
committment" (holds a reference steady that is normally varied as part of
the means of controlling a higher-level variable), the spreadsheet model's
ability to control those higher-level variables is compromised. This is
unlikely to be true of the child, who can find ways to maintain control over
those variables other than doing things that disrupt an ongoing class.
Regards,
Bruce A.
