From[Bill Williams 17 March 2004 10:30 PM CST]
[From Rick Marken (2004.03.17.1620)]
Why has such a pleasant theory (PCT) attracted such unpleasant people?
Rick, this seems like such a naive and un-PCT way to approach what you
perceive to be a problem. And, significantly in my opinion, you do not
answer the question which you raise. I'll try and help you out.
A more sophisticated and more PCT like way of considering the question
might be for you to ask, is why are you so "disturbed." The only place
the "unpleasantness" has any reality is in your head. But, you don't
explain why you find people talking back to you "unpleasant." And,
in your reply to Martin you go on to charge people with "unpleasant
intensions." This it seems to me is a mode of thought that is
contrary to a control theory standpoint. You have no way of knowing,
according to control theory what a person's intension actually are.
All that you know is your perception, right? So your question to
Martin is rather pointless. When you say,
"unpleasant" behavior can be the result of unpleasant intensions. no?"
the answer is that you've gone completely off the track. Intensions
are just intensions. If you find someone "unpleasant" well fuck
you.
If you were thinking you would recognize that you have placed
yourself on the other side of the "I see you have chosen... "
argument. Only now you are the one who is doing the "mind reading."
Martin Taylor in a reply to your "Why" post says in response to your
statement that,
CSGNet should be a place where we can point people who are interested
in PCT and not be afraid that what they will find will be mainly ugly
personal attacks.
Martin says,
Yes, but Rick, I think you have to acknowledge that some of these
attacks have come from you--provoked or otherwise. I don't think I
have to point out than in an escalating conflict situation, BOTH
control systems increase their output.
No, Martin, I think this does require pointing out. And, Rick doesn't
see your point. In a later post Rick denies that he has any of the
dreaded "unpleasant" motivations that he attributes to others.
Rick's posts, "only seem to be" personal attacks. I guess Rick's
attacks upon the Catholic faith were a matter of purely disinterested
scientific inquiry. Or, at least Rick sees it that way.
Some time ago I had the insight that both Rick and also, though less
frequently Bill Powers dominated discussions by resort to what are
ordinarily considered disrespectful and/or abusive remarks. Like Bill
Powers telling me "to stuff it." or his threat to bite me. Or, what
obviously wasn't true his claim that I had never contributed anything
substantial to CSGnet.
When I realized that Powers was willing to resort to such tactics
in the hope that by doing so he could "win" an argument, I lost
the respect that I once had for Powers. And, this realization freed
me from any inclination to take this and similarly abusive and
disrespectful treatment seriously. When Powers failed in his effort
to apply modern control theory methods, and thought he should find
an "easier" field in which to apply his efforts -- that is to
economics -- I was embarrassed by his crude and ignorant remarks.
His attack upon Keynes is, using Powers' phrase an example of
"shocking stupidity." As Martin points out in regard to the nature
of conflict, my decision to match, or exceed, you and Powers when
you attempted to use a resort to abusive and disrespectful statements
to win arguments has caused both you and Powers a measure of
disturbance. It has been as you both have said, "unpleasant."
But, neither of you have, apparently found a successful way of
coping with a situation in which I have been willing to match or
exceed your resort to "unpleasantness." Considered from a control
theory standpoint, all that is happening, at least so far, is a
matter of people talking trash at each other. But, neither you nor
Bill Powers apparently has the emotional maturity of a football
lineman. You or Bill Powers can say nasty things, but you find that
hearing nasty things said about you is "unpleasant." This leads
me to wonder why can't you and Bill Powers apply control theory
to this situation and adjust your own reference levels so that
hearing nasty things said about you ceases to be a disturbance.
In my experience it isn't that hard to come to a realization that
when Bill Powers or you says something that is untrue or nasty
about me, you are attempting to use abusive speech to win in a
situation in which you don't have an effective argument. Recently
Bill Powers has been more flagrant in resort to such tactics.
His claim that I have never made a substantive contribution to
CSGnet discussions is easily refuted by checking the CSGnet
record.
As an example Powers' claim that I am stuck in my fascination
with Op-Amps, would seem to me to be an extremely precarious
argument. Most people lurking on the CSGnet are primarily
interested in applying control theory in interpersonal
situations. They aren't all that interested in theoretical
disputes. But, I would suspect that they recognize that I know
a lot more about the theoretical aspects of control theory than
do most of the participants, lurkers included, on CSGnet. After
all I've been paid to design industrial control equipment. So,
when Bill Powers attempts to argue that I've never made a
contribution to CSGnet, he has to eat some of the fulsome things
he's said in the past-- concerning brilliant insights. I would
think that this obviously inconsistent behavior would create a
measure of dubiousness among many participants, and lurkers
about their role in a CSGnet community. I'd rather that Bill
Powers not call me "garbage" but I count it up to his having
run out of the emotional stamina to generate a more substantive
argument. And, I had to laugh when you blocked Kenny's postings.
If you can't tolerate Kenny's mildly expressed but unfavorable
assessment of your intellectual attainments-- even when Kenny
expresses himself in the moderate language Kenny thinks is fit
for use in public discussion, then for me that indicates that
you haven't yet attained the sort of maturity that most males
in our society acquire early on as a result of competitive
sports or military service.
If you had reflected on why you find it difficult to tolerate
someone talking trash back to you, then you might understand
what is happening better. Approaching the question "Why" in this
way might have led you into reflection concerning your own
reference levels and how you treat people. Neither, you nor Bill
Powers, nor David Goldstein despite some random remarks has
engaged in a sustained consideration of why there are a number of
people, Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, Greg Williams and others who are now
unwilling to participate in situations in which you are involved.
But lets consider the economic threads.
For more than a decade you have thought of your self as an economic
expert-- this despite your obviously having had less exposure to
economic subject-matter than an intelligent and energetic freshman
student. When you edited the American Behavioral Science issue you
took it upon yourself to change the paper I submitted in ways that
fundamentally altered the argument and made no sense in terms of a
control theory analysis. You still owe me a written acknowledgement
that you did so.
And, more recently you have explicitly claimed to having been
engaged in doing high level work-- like Newton's or Einstein's
that will revolutionize economics based upon Bill Powers' dad's
Leakages thesis. Now, I don't find this necessarily unpleasant,
a bit strange and it is revealing of a mind set that is more
than a little bit out of touch with reality.
Powers' has repeatedly repudiated your assertions concerning
economics. His most vivid repudiation was a part of his very nice
review and critique of your H Econoimus program ( I refuse to
call it a model) where he described what you were, and continue
to do, in terms of a "giant leap in the wrong direction." I am
sure this must have been, as you say "unpleasant", "unpleasant"
for you. However, does this mean that Bill Powers is an
"unpleasant" person? But, why not? Why not block what Powers
has to say? Is a "giant leap in the wrong direction" different
in substance from what Kenny is saying? Aside that is from the
very significant question of who is saying it?
What Powers' assessment means is that your attempts to think about
economics have not approached the standard of work that Bill Powers'
is inclined to think would make a positive contribution to economic
thought. I am sure it is a disappointment to you that Bill Power
has been so severely critical, but Bill does have his standards. My
suggestion to you would be to avoid attempting to think about
economics. It is highly unlikely, based upon my observation of more
than a decade of failure, that what you come up with is going to
meet with Bill Powers' approval.
An acquaintance of mine from graduate school, who developed an
abiding interest in PCT,
"Abiding?" Now that is a nice word for it.
[He] contacted me recently to ask me to give a talk on PCT.
He mentioned that he had been subscribed to CSGNet recently but left
when it became difficult to detect much signal in the noise.
Rick we are at least in agreement about this, your acquaintance and I.
Even with as you say, an "abiding interest in PCT." it would be, in
the discussion of economics for the last three months difficult for
anyone to discern anything of value. You ought to recognize that the
Imps training program not only enables an Imp to withhold information
that is hidden in any small college library, but in addition equips
them to prevent anything that can be remotely considered thinking.
As evidence of this I ask you, has there been anything contributed
by you or Bill Powers recently that makes any sense?
"Going to Mars isn't going to cost a damn thing?" H. Econoimicus is
anything other than "a giant leap in the wrong direction?" And, Bill
Powers after giving notice that he intended to straighten Professor
Bruun out regarding her preference for Keynes' system. Strangely we
haven't yet heard the results. I guess in Bill Powers' view,
professor Bruun was "bent" and he perceived here as badly needing
"straightening out." Oh how I wish I could have been there!
So, how did this unfortunate trend in the economics thread start?
I would say that it was the result of the unfortunate failure of
Bill Powers' attempting to apply contemporary methods of control theory.
When that effort collapsed and Powers thought he would try something
easier-- like economics I think anyone modestly informed about
economics might have predicted an unfortunate result. Powers _may_
eventually get his test bed working. But, the results are not likely
to ones that he initially anticipated.
If the economic project were making progress it seems to me that
what would be happening now would be a discussion of progress
rather than the re-emergence of your proposal to moderate the
list.
Your prospective CSGnet participant
"... asked if there was
any other forum for discussion of PCT and I had to say no.
Not, necessarily. It isn't clear why you would know whether or
not there is any other forum for discussion of PCT or not.
I mention this only as another piece of evidence that it might be
beneficial, for the sake of promoting interest in and understanding of
PCT, to make CSGNet (which is the only place I know of where PCT
is actively being taught) into a moderated list.
Martin Taylor denies that PCT is being taught on the CSGnet. What
evidence is there that the CSGnet is teaching anything in particular?
People may, and probably are learning things by participating and
lurking on the CSGnet, but teaching? This seems very doubtful.
Martin also disputes that the argument which you refer to as
"evidence" amounts to a valid argument.
Particularly in regard to economic issues, the things you say are
very dubious.
As you say, "CSGnet [is] the only place [that Rick knows of] where
PCT is actively being taught. I wouldn't call the yours and Bill
Powers' discussions of economics "teaching" PCT. Especially since
Bill Powers describes your attempt to apply control theory to
economics in terms of a "giant leap in the wrong direction." And,
many people might view Bill Powers' assertion that sending people
to Mars won't cost a damn thing, with a measure of skepticism as an
exemplarily economic analysis.
CSGNet should be a place where we can
point people who are interested in PCT and not be afraid that what they
will find will be mainly ugly personal attacks.
From my point of view I thought Bill Powers' threat to bite me was
particularly unfortunate-- of course Snips looks forward to such
threats.
Rick, it might interest you to know that I get email from people who are
unwilling to participate actively on CSGnet because they say they are
unwilling to expose themselves to a possible attack by you. And, I am
not talking just about people I have named in the past , some of whom
very actively hate your guts. But, rather from people that I know nothing
other than that they view yours and Bill Powers' too, conduct as
silly. As an example, I quote, an email I received that in part says,
" I want to congratulate you for finally telling Rick Marken to
'fuck off' as you so eloquently put it."
"Keep up the great work Bill."
"I truly believe that there are a lot of subscribers who won't
post to CSGnet because of Rick and the how he replies to
people."
I think the "so eloquently put it" part adds a nice touch.
I would not have known about this aspect of the CSGnet had I not
received indications of approval for my opposing yours and Bill
Powers' effort to dominate CSGnet-- especially in areas, in which
after reflection you have acknowledged you have not known what you
are talking about.
I know that there are problems with list moderation. Mainly, the
problem is that it's a job that someone has to do.
I hope that you enjoy it.
> But I think this could be worked out.
Given your definition of a "working model" I wonder what this means.
Will it involved extending the block that you have placed on Kenny?
Right now, I wonder (if anyone is still reading CSGNet)
Given that not many people seem interested in Bill Powers'
economic Test Bed, why would you expect that anyone at all
is reading the CSGnet?
could get a show of hands regarding list moderation.
Rick, if you want an fair ballot, you obviously shouldn't be
the one counting the votes.
But, I'll vote for it. And, I'll vote for you as moderator.
How many of you who are still on CSGNet are for moderation, how many
are against it and why?
Now, "moderation" isn't a quality, a process, or an office that I would
ordinarily associate with RIck Marken.
However, I would like to see Rick use the power that moderation would
give him and I look forward to observing the result.
Bill Williams
To refresh reader's of this list's memory I have copied a posting made
by Bill Powers the last time Rick brought up this issue. Powers suggests
the possibility that Bruce Gegory should be moderator.
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.09.1307 MST)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)--
So I propose that we make CSGNet a moderated list as soon as possible. I
think Bill Powers should be or should appoint the moderator(s). I believe
that as a list owner I can change the list to be moderated but I won't
take that step unless there is some general level of agreement about it.
I'm trying to think of someone I would like to pass on my posts before they
are put on the list, and I can't think of anybody. I don't think I'd even
let Mary do that. I never joined the BBS list because it's moderated.
Perhaps another answer would be to have those who are offended by someone's
post to describe what was in the post that they didn't like and why they
didn't like it, and request that the author of the post either withdraw the
remark or find a less offensive way to say the same thing. Don't answer
back or get even: simply go up a level. For example, Rick's gloating post
to Bruce Gregory might have had some message in it that could be expressed
without gloating, and Bruce Gs criticisms of HPCT might have been put in a
way that doesn't make the whole thing seem simpleminded and worthless.
I think Bill Williams suggested that communications should be
straightforward and to the point, with no hidden agendas.
### I was being sarcastic, and Bill Powers didn't get it. ###
One way to
achieve this grade of communication might be for everyone to resolve never
to write a message while feeling an emotion. If somebody says something
horrible, wait until your pulse is normal, your adrenaline level is
undetectable, and you have forgotten the first retort that came to mind.
Then, just before you send the post, delete the first paragraph entirely.
The first paragraph I wrote for this post nominated Bruce Gregory as
moderator and requested that my name be taken off the list. See how much
better it is without the first reaction?
Best,
Bill
