Withdrawing from LCS IV

rsmarken · August 18, 2016, 7:55pm

To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

I will continue to honor Bill’s legacy the same way I did when Bill was alive; by trying to do quality research and publishing quality papers and books on Perceptual Control Theory. The two collections of papers I published before Bill passed away – MIND READINGS and MORE MIND READINGS – were my way of honoring Bill’s legacy while he was still with us. And I was honored to know that he was grateful for my work (as can be seen in his Foreword to MIND READINGS). My next two books – DOING RESEARCH ON PURPOSE and, withTim Carey, CONTROLLING PEOPLE – can be considered my first efforts to honor Bill’s legacy since he passed away. But I will always try to honor Bill’s legacy with my work on PCT; and the next step in that process will be trying to get the paper I wrote for LCS IV published in a reasonably high impact journal.

Bill Powers knew that PCT was revolutionary and would become the basis for understanding living systems only when there was a true revolution in the way life scientists understood the nature of behavior itself; once they understood “the fact of control” (the subtitle of Bill’s last book). Powers worked hard to get this revolution to happen but he was frustrated at every turn by life scientists who were adamantly defending the status quo. I think a book honoring Bill’s legacy should articulate and defend the revolutionary vision Bill worked for rather than the status quo vision of his adversaries.

Just sayin’.

Best regards

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

rsmarken · August 19, 2016, 12:58am

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.18.1800)]

Henry Yin pointed out to me that the authors included in LCS IV were selected by Bill Powers. I will certainly not violate one of Bill’s last requests so I am withdrawing my withdrawal from LCS IV.

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

I will continue to honor Bill’s legacy the same way I did when Bill was alive; by trying to do quality research and publishing quality papers and books on Perceptual Control Theory. The two collections of papers I published before Bill passed away – MIND READINGS and MORE MIND READINGS – were my way of honoring Bill’s legacy while he was still with us. And I was honored to know that he was grateful for my work (as can be seen in his Foreword to MIND READINGS). My next two books – DOING RESEARCH ON PURPOSE and, withTim Carey, CONTROLLING PEOPLE – can be considered my first efforts to honor Bill’s legacy since he passed away. But I will always try to honor Bill’s legacy with my work on PCT; and the next step in that process will be trying to get the paper I wrote for LCS IV published in a reasonably high impact journal.

Bill Powers knew that PCT was revolutionary and would become the basis for understanding living systems only when there was a true revolution in the way life scientists understood the nature of behavior itself; once they understood “the fact of control” (the subtitle of Bill’s last book). Powers worked hard to get this revolution to happen but he was frustrated at every turn by life scientists who were adamantly defending the status quo. I think a book honoring Bill’s legacy should articulate and defend the revolutionary vision Bill worked for rather than the status quo vision of his adversaries.

Just sayin’.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

_Erling_Jorgensen · August 19, 2016, 12:22pm

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.08.19 0820 EDT)]

I am glad to hear this, Rick.

All the best,

Erling

Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 8/18/2016 8:58 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.18.1800)]

Henry Yin pointed out to me that the authors included in LCS IV were selected by Bill Powers. I will certainly not violate one of Bill’s last requests so I am withdrawing my withdrawal from LCS IV.

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

I will continue to honor Bill’s legacy the same way I did when Bill was alive; by trying to do quality research and publishing quality papers and books on Perceptual Control Theory. The two collections of papers I published before Bill passed away – MIND READINGS and MORE MIND READINGS – were my way of honoring Bill’s legacy while he was still with us. And I was honored to know that he was grateful for my work (as can be seen in his Foreword to MIND READINGS). My next two books – DOING RESEARCH ON PURPOSE and, withTim Carey, CONTROLLING PEOPLE – can be considered my first efforts to honor Bill’s legacy since he passed away. But I will always try to honor Bill’s legacy with my work on PCT; and the next step in that process will be trying to get the paper I wrote for LCS IV published in a reasonably high impact journal.

Bill Powers knew that PCT was revolutionary and would become the basis for understanding living systems only when there was a true revolution in the way life scientists understood the nature of behavior itself; once they understood “the fact of control” (the subtitle of Bill’s last book). Powers worked hard to get this revolution to happen but he was frustrated at every turn by life scientists who were adamantly defending the status quo. I think a book honoring Bill’s legacy should articulate and defend the revolutionary vision Bill worked for rather than the status quo vision of his adversaries.

Just sayin’.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

chadtgreen · August 19, 2016, 2:01pm

Thank you, Bill!

Folks, what if the current impasse on CSGNET had a resolution after all? Iâm reminded of this video on systems thinking:
https://youtu.be/rDxOyJxgJeA .

From a systems perspective I see only win-win and lose-lose outcomes. The former will benefit PCT researchers as a whole, the latter, no one. Rick, you have
the power to create that desired future now.

Best,

Chad

Chad T. Green, PMP

Research Office

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1575

âWe are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.â? - Mary Catherine Bateson

···

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.18.1800)]

Henry Yin pointed out to me that the authors included in LCS IV were selected by Bill Powers. I will certainly not violate one of Bill’s last requests so I am withdrawing my withdrawal from LCS IV.

Best

Rick

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in
Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV)
be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that
LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on
the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not
be associated with it.

I will continue to honor Bill’s legacy the same way I did when Bill was alive; by trying to do quality research and publishing quality papers and books on Perceptual Control Theory. The two collections of papers I published before Bill
passed away – MIND READINGS and MORE MIND READINGS – were my way of honoring Bill’s legacy while he was still with us. And I was honored to know that he was grateful for my work (as can be seen in his Foreword to MIND READINGS). My next two books – DOING
RESEARCH ON PURPOSE and, withTim Carey, CONTROLLING PEOPLE – can be considered my first efforts to honor Bill’s legacy since he passed away. But I will always try to honor Bill’s legacy with my work on PCT; and the next step in that process will be trying
to get the paper I wrote for LCS IV published in a reasonably high impact journal.

Bill Powers knew that PCT was revolutionary and would become the basis for understanding living systems only when there was a true revolution in the way life scientists understood the nature of behavior itself; once they understood “the
fact of control” (the subtitle of Bill’s last book). Powers worked hard to get this revolution to happen but he was frustrated at every turn by life scientists who were adamantly defending the status quo. I think a book honoring Bill’s legacy should articulate
and defend the revolutionary vision Bill worked for rather than the status quo vision of his adversaries.

Just sayin’.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T.
Powers

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

_bara0361 · August 19, 2016, 2:20pm

I know this email conversation can be hugely frustrating at times.Â It’s an awkward way to have these very involved and complicated discussions.Â I would venture to guess that each of you has realized in some way the enormous patience and tenacity Dad had to have, while working his way through exactly these sorts of challenging exchanges. Â

Now, more than ever, I feel it’s important to gather together for that long-overdue conference.Â We have finally secured a very nice space at Northwestern U (after much sweating!), sponsored by the chair of their Psychology Dept.Â Now can really move forward with the CSG board to work out the details.Â This room is reserved for Aug 2-6, 2017, although we may start on the 3rd and utilize hotel or other space on the 2nd…

Please mark your calendars, and come prepared for lively, productive (and probably some heated) interactions!Â I’m holding out hope that a few days spent face-to-face will help move this study of PCT forward dramatically.

signed,

your hopeless (hopeful) optimist,

Â *bara

···

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Chad T. Green Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:

Thank you, Bill!

Â

Folks, what if the current impasse on CSGNET had a resolution after all?Â Iâ€™m reminded of this video on systems thinking:
https://youtu.be/rDxOyJxgJeA .Â

Â

From a systems perspective I see only win-win and lose-lose outcomes.Â The former will benefit PCT researchers as a whole, the latter, no one.Â Rick, you have
the power to create that desired future now.

Â

Best,

Chad

Â

Chad T. Green, PMP

Research Office

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1575

Â

â€œWe are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.â€? - Mary Catherine Bateson

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com
]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:59 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Withdrawing from LCS IV

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.18.1800)]

Â

Henry Yin pointed out to me that the authors included in LCS IV were selected by Bill Powers. I will certainly not violate one of Bill’s last requests so I am withdrawing my withdrawal from LCS IV.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

Â

I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in
Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV)
Â be withdrawn.Â Â I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, Â But I now believe that
LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on
the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not
be associated with it.

Â

I will continue to honor Bill’s legacy the same way I did when Bill was alive; by trying to do quality research and publishing quality papers and books on Perceptual Control Theory. The two collections of papers I published before Bill
passed away – MIND READINGS and MORE MIND READINGS – were my way of honoring Bill’s legacy while he was still with us. And I was honored to know that he was grateful for my work (as can be seen in his Foreword to MIND READINGS). My next two books --Â DOING
RESEARCH ON PURPOSE and, withTim Carey,Â CONTROLLING PEOPLE – can be considered my first efforts to honor Bill’s legacy since he passed away. But I will always try to honor Bill’s legacy with my work on PCT; and the next step in that process will be trying
to get the paper I wrote for LCS IV published in a reasonably high impact journal.

Â

Bill Powers knew that PCT was revolutionary and would become the basis for understanding living systems only when there was a true revolution in the way life scientists understood the nature of behavior itself; once they understood “the
fact of control” (the subtitle of Bill’s last book). Powers worked hard to get this revolution to happen but he was frustrated at every turn by life scientists who were adamantly defending the status quo. I think a book honoring Bill’s legacy should articulate
and defend the revolutionary vision Bill worked for rather than the status quo vision of his adversaries.

Â

Just sayin’.

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T.
Powers

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

MartinT · August 19, 2016, 4:38pm

[Martin Taylor 2016.08.19.12.28]

I know this email conversation can be hugely frustrating at times. It's an awkward way to have these very involved and complicated discussions. I would venture to guess that each of you has realized in some way the enormous patience and tenacity Dad had to have, while working his way through exactly these sorts of challenging exchanges.

The difference between then and now is that your Dad was able to address criticisms very effectively, both by analysis and by example, but often even more effectively by the Socratic method of asking leading questions that helped the critic to find the right answer as often as not, without actually having been told. The current "frustrating discussion" is frustrating (for me) because so far as I am aware, Rick's only two answers to any of the many different problems various people have raised with his "model" have been to repeat the same claims and to say that the questioners are enemies of PCT. Very un-Bill-like. It's certainly frustrating for this critic. You can't have a "challenging exchange" when every challenge is ignored.

Now, more than ever, I feel it's important to gather together for that long-overdue conference. We have finally secured a very nice space at Northwestern U (after much sweating!), sponsored by the chair of their Psychology Dept. Now can really move forward with the CSG board to work out the details. This room is reserved for Aug 2-6, 2017, although we may start on the 3rd and utilize hotel or other space on the 2nd..

Please mark your calendars, and come prepared for lively, productive (and probably some heated) interactions! I'm holding out hope that a few days spent face-to-face will help move this study of PCT forward dramatically.

I hope I will be able to attend, but at this remove it's far to early to be able to commit, even tentatively.

Martin

···

On 2016/08/19 10:20 AM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

Abbott · August 20, 2016, 3:30pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis.Â Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model.Â For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration.Â From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€?Â I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playful jab rather than a serioous charge – and consequently ignored them.Â But Rickâ€™ss tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those who are engaged in doing rreal science from a PCT perspective.

BA:Â When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution.Â Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers.Â It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate. Â I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration. Â I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.Â So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – how else can one explain why he asks for explanations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant?Â Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT.Â Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it.Â Thatâ€™s a great strategy Â – if you are trying to make political points.Â But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

BA:Â If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing. Â That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.Â My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

BA:Â This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

BA:Â In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.Â It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data.Â Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

BA:Â If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.Â Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Bruce

John_Caines · August 20, 2016, 4:11pm

I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are probably all PhD’s,â€‹and yet you have polar opposite theories or beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years.Â I might have to email him about this thread,Â as if there is a God in mathematics, calculus,â€‹then he is surely it.Â Just can’t believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has to be wrong!!Â I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! ðŸ˜‰, really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong and needs correcting.Â Either way,Â a great thread,Â please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer.Â Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of you can set the betting odds correctly??? ðŸ˜‰
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!

···

On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

Â

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

Â

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV)Â be withdrawn.Â Â I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, Â But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

Â

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis.Â Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model.Â For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration.Â From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€?Â I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playful jab rather than aa serious charge – and consequently ignored them.Â But Rickââ€™s tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those who are engaged in doing real science from a PCT perspective.

Â

BA:Â When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution.Â Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers.Â It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate.Â I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.Â I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

Â

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.Â So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – how else can one explain why he asks for explanaations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant?Â Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT.Â Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it.Â Thatâ€™s a great strategy Â – if you are trying to make political points.Â But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

Â

BA:Â If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.Â That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.Â My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

Â

BA:Â This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

Â

BA:Â In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.Â It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data.Â Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

Â

BA:Â If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.Â Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

Â

BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Â

Bruce

Â

_bara0361 · August 20, 2016, 4:41pm

I found not too long ago a rather scathing, page-long dissertation by Mary Powers, written at least two decades ago, lamenting exactly these types of exchanges in this forum.

I’ll refrain from doing the same, and simply request a return to a professional discussion.

Thank you,

Â *barb

Â Â Â

···

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:11 AM, John Caines johncaines@gmail.com wrote:

I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are probably all PhD’s,â€‹and yet you have polar opposite theories or beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years.Â I might have to email him about this thread,Â as if there is a God in mathematics, calculus,â€‹then he is surely it.Â Just can’t believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has to be wrong!!Â I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! ðŸ˜‰, really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong and needs correcting.Â Either way,Â a great thread,Â please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer.Â Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of you can set the betting odds correctly??? ðŸ˜‰
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!

On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

Â

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

Â

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV)Â be withdrawn.Â Â I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, Â But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

Â

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis.Â Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model.Â For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration.Â From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€?Â I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playfull jab rather than a serious charge – and consequently ignored them…Â But Rickâ€™s tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those wwho are engaged in doing real science from a PCT perspective.

Â

BA:Â When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution.Â Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers.Â It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate.Â I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.Â I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

Â

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.Â So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – how else can one explain why hhe asks for explanations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant?Â Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT.Â Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it.Â Thatâ€™s a great strategy Â – if you are trying to make political points.Â But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

Â

BA:Â If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.Â That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.Â My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

Â

BA:Â This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

Â

BA:Â In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.Â It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data.Â Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

Â

BA:Â If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.Â Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

Â

BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Â

Bruce

Â

FredNickols · August 20, 2016, 5:20pm

Iâ€™d really like to read Maryâ€™s dissertation.

Fred Nickols

···

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Withdrawing from LCS IV

I found not too long ago a rather scathing, page-long dissertation by Mary Powers, written at least two decades ago, lamenting exactly these types of exchanges in this forum.

I’ll refrain from doing the same, and simply request a return to a professional discussion.

Thank you,

*barb

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:11 AM, John Caines johncaines@gmail.com wrote:

I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are probably all PhD’s,â€‹and yet you have polar opposite theories or beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years. I might have to email him about this thread, as if there is a God in mathematics, calculus,â€‹then he is surely it. Just can’t believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has to be wrong!! I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! , really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong and needs correcting. Either way, a great thread, please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer. Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of you can set the betting odds correctly???
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!

On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis. Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model. For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration. From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€? I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playful jab rather than a serious charge – an and consequently ignored them. But Rickâ€™s tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those who are engaged in doing real science from a PCT perspective.

BA: When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution. Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does. Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers. It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate. I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration. I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error. Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility. So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – hhow else can one explain why he asks for explanations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant? Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT. Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it. Thatâ€™s a great strategy – if you are trying to make political points. But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

BA: If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing. That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature. My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

BA: This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law. (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

BA: In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data. Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

BA: If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics. Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

BA: It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise. At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it. By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Bruce

FredNickols · August 20, 2016, 5:20pm

[Fred Nickols (2016.08.20.1316 ET)]

I find it fascinating, too.Â I try to follow it as best I can but my math is way too weak to dive in to the arguments but I vaguely grasp the logic.Â My sense of it is that there is indeed something very, very important at the heart of this discussion and whether Rick or the others turn out to be â€œrightâ€? (whatever that means), the resolution will indeed prove important and all involved will merit kudos.Â So, like John, I hopeÂ yâ€™all continue the discussion.

Fred Nickols

···

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 12:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Withdrawing from LCS IV

I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are probably all PhD’s,â€‹and yet you have polar opposite theories or beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years. I might have to email him about this thread, as if there is a God in mathematics, calculus,â€‹then he is surely it. Just can’t believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has to be wrong!! I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! , really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong and needs correcting. Either way, a great thread, please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer. Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of you can set the betting odds correctly???
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!

On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis. Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model. For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration. From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€? I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playful jab rather than a serioous charge – and consequently ignored them. But Rickâ€™ss tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those who are engaged in doing rreal science from a PCT perspective.

BA: When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution. Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does. Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers. It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate. I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration. I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error. Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility. So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – how else can one explain why he asks for explanations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant? Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT. Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it. Thatâ€™s a great strategy – if you are trying to make political points. But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

BA: If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing. That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature. My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

BA: This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law. (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

BA: In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data. Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

BA: If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics. Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

BA: It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise. At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it. By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Bruce

FredNickols · August 20, 2016, 5:25pm

[From Fred Nickols (2016.08.20.1325 ET)]

P.S.

From time to time my reaction to the discussion is that the parties to it seem to be talking past one another.Â That in turn reminds me of Strother Martinâ€™s famous line from the movie Cool Hand Luke: â€œWhat weâ€™ve got here is failure to communicate.â€?

Fred Nickols

···

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 12:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Withdrawing from LCS IV

I am actually finding this thread compulsive reading,
By far the best thread of the year! Knowing that you guys are probably all PhD’s,â€‹and yet you have polar opposite theories or beliefs, mathematical assumptions, it’s way way better than watching big brother here in the UK on TV!!!
I remember watching on TV some years ago a small documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh, Great video on YouTube about it by the way… Anyway Andrew Wiles solved it after 358 years. I might have to email him about this thread, as if there is a God in mathematics, calculus,â€‹then he is surely it. Just can’t believe you PhD’s have such strong beliefs as to being right when 1 has to be wrong!! I might just give Professor Wiles the call!! , really want to know, if Rick really has found a new way or is on track with his spreadsheet, and everyone else is wrong, or if Rick is wrong and needs correcting. Either way, a great thread, please keep up the this tennis rally a while longer. Regards
John C
Maybe we can set up a little sweepstake on this, but which one of you can set the betting odds correctly???
I might have to get Prof Wiles to do this as well!!!

On 20 Aug 2016 4:31 p.m., “Bruce Abbott” bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis. Consequently I tried in several ways to demonstrate those deficiencies and to explain why they are fatal to his model. For me it has always been about offering constructive criticism that one would want from a colleague, supported by mathematical analysis, logic, and empirical demonstration. From time to time Rick would make some comment to the effect that my efforts were aimed at â€œopposing PCTâ€? or â€œdefending the status quo.â€? I always thought these were offered with a smile and a wink – a playful jab ratther than a serious charge – and consequently ignored them. Buut Rickâ€™s tirade above leaves no doubt about his real feelings, and not just toward me but apparently toward everyone who was invited to contribute a chapter to LCS IV – in other words, most of those who are enngaged in doing real science from a PCT perspective.

BA: When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution. Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does. Alexâ€™s point-by-point critique of Rickâ€™s proposal was met with denial by Rick and the assertion that he had discovered a new version of the â€œbehavioral illusion,â€? which he now believes has been misleading all prior power-law researchers. It was at this point that Martin Taylor and I attempted to convince Rick that Alexâ€™s critique was accurate. I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration. I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error. Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility. So attractive to Rick is the idea that he has discovered a new form of the behavioral illusion, that he has refused even to listen to his critics – how else can one explain why he asks foor explanations already given and fails to acknowledge them as even relevant? Instead of seeing his critics as trying to help him understand the flaws in his reasoning, he has come to believe that â€œtheyâ€? are only interested in opposing the advancement of PCT. Apparently Rick thinks that science is advanced, not by carefully examining challenges to oneâ€™s analysis, but by ignoring them and instead, attempting to undermine the credibility of those who see flaws in it. Thatâ€™s a great strategy – if you are trying to make political points. But itâ€™s the antithesis of good science.

BA: If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing. That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature. My â€œparable of the rectanglesâ€? shows that this is indeed the case for a similar (but easier to understand) example.

BA: This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law. (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

BA: In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It seems to have something to do with his derivation of V from D and R, which I guess is supposed to enforce a power-law relation regardless of how velocity is related to the sharpness of a curve in the data. Rick has never made that clear to me, and I may have misunderstood.

BA: If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics. Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

BA: It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise. At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it. By now it must seem to most like philosophers arguing incessantly about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin . . .

Bruce

rsmarken · August 20, 2016, 9:00pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.20.1400)]

···

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)

Â

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis…

Â

BA:Â When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least a start toward a solution.Â Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â

RM: Alex is a very nice guy. I like him very much. I had a very cordial email (and Skype) exchange with Alex before the power law explosion.Â Â I knew that the PCT explanation of the power law would be very controversial. So before I posted about it to CSGNet I wrote to Alex privately saying that I did have the PCT explanation of the power law and that it would be very disturbing to the power law community So I asked Alex if it would it be ok with him if I posted it to CSGNet anyway and he said yes. I didn’t go into details about what the PCT explanation was but I thought Alex might be Â excited by it and I invited him to be co-author on the paper I would write describing it. I assumed that a young, smart and ambitious researcher like Alex would jump at the chance to show that 40+ years of research on movement control was based on an illusion.Â

RM: But obviously my assumption was all wrong. Alex didn’t get excited about the PCT explanation of the power law – not in a good way, anyway;-) – and I don’t blame him. Alex is just starting his career and success in that career will not be achieved by basically insulting those who can promote that career.Â

RM: Bill Powers often said that PCT is revolutionary. He meant that it is theoretically revolutionary because it explains behavior in a way that is the exact opposite of the way it is explained by conventional psychology: as control of input rather than control of output. But he also meant that it is practically revolutionary because it challenges those in positions of power in the academic establishment, particularly those in the psychology/ neuroscience establishment. If PCT is right, then many of the textbooks and the leading scientists in the field are all wrong.Â

RM: The practical consequences of a PCT revolution are similar to those of any social revolution; it will cost careers, status, and (most importantly) money. This is why the PCT revolution has not happened and will not happen for quite some time. It will have to be a PCT evolution, as more people like Henry Yin navigate their way through the conventional programs of academia, get “certified” by the establishment (with tenure, for example) and then start doing and publishing research based on PCT.Â

BA: I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.Â

RM: I listened and I never withdrew from the CSGNet discussion. I withdrew (and then un-withdrew) from LCS IV, not CSGNet. I withdrew from LCS IV for the reasons given in my post; I didn’t want to be associated with a work on PCT that would contain many articles that areÂ based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior that Bill Â spent his entire professional career trying to dispel.Â I un-withdrew because Henry YinÂ pointed out that the contributors to LCS IV were selected by Bill. So apparently Bill was willing to have non-PCT stuff published in the volume honoring him since he knew that many of the people he wanted as contributors were still mired in an S-R view of behavior.Â

Â

BA: I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

RM: The problem Alex had asked for help with was a PCT explanation of the power law. I have provided it. I believe you don’t accept it for the reasons I gave at the end of my last post to Martin. I think you believe that the power law describes a stimulus-response relationship between curvature (measured as R or C) Â and velocity (measured as V or A). All of your “explaining” of why my PCT explanation of the power law is wrong has been aimed at showing that measures of curvature and velocity are two independent measures of the trajectory of a movement. these measures would have to be independent order for curvature to be considered an independent variable that is the cause of (or “constraint” on) the dependent variable, velocity. My analysis is based on the observation that curvature and velocity are not independent measures of movement trajectory. This drives you nuts because it blows your S-R view of the power law out of the water.Â

RM: All of your efforts to cast the power law in S-R terms has obscured the fact that power law research is aimed at understanding how organisms make voluntary movements. And we already have a model of how organisms do that; it’s called PCT. It explains voluntary movement as the control of perception. The model of voluntary movement that I posted (and post again, correcting a couple of little errors) is the PCT model of how people produce voluntary movement trajectories.Â

RM: So when Alex asked for a PCT explanation of the power law, this model should have popped into your mind. And then you would ask yourself (as I asked myself) where would the power law fit into this model. It doesn’t fit in with the output functions (o.x and o.y) since the power law is only based on measures of the controlled variable (the movement trajectory, which is temporal variations in qi.x, qi.y). And, for the same reason, it doesn’t fit in with the feedback functions, kf.x, kf.y. So then you would realize (as I did) that the power law is an observed relationship between two different variable characteristics of the controlled variable (the movement trajectory) itself!!Â

RM: So without the need for any mathematics, a knowledge of the PCT model of voluntary movement would lead you to see that the relationship between curvature and velocity that is observed in power law research has nothing to do with what power law researchers think it’s about – Â how movement trajectories are produced. The relationship between measures of curvature and velocity that is observed in power law research can depend only on the nature of the movement trajectory that is produced, not on how it is produced.Â

RM: But then why is the observed relationship between curvature and velocity so often close to a 1/3 or 2/3 power relationship? That question might lead you (as it led me) to look at the equations that define the two measures of the controlled variable – curvature and velocity – that are used in the study of movement control by power law researchers. And what I saw is that these equations do not measure independent aspects of the controlled variable; they measure aspects of the controlled variable that are mathematically dependent. And the dependence is expressed this way:Â

V = D^1/3Â*R^{1/3 Â Â Â}

and

A = D^1/3Â*C^{2/3 Â Â Â Â}

Â

where Â D = Â |dXd²Y-d²XdY|Â

RM: This was a stunning discovery since the power coefficient of R is 1/3 and the power coefficient of C is 2/3, the very power coefficients that are typically found for these variables in power law research. This seemed like more than a coincidence. And it’s not. Since the power law is determined using linear regression of log(R) on log(V) and log(C) on log (A) I realized that researchers would find a power coefficient close of 1/3 when regressing Â log(R) on log(V) and 2/3 Â when regressing log(C) on log(A) to the extent that the variance in log (D) for a particular movement trajectory is close to being constant.Â

Â

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.Â

RM: It’s futile, Bruce, because you think movement trajectories are generated by an S-R process (curvature constrains velocity) and I think they are the result of the control of perception (making perception match a possibly varying internal reference for the state of that perception). As I said above, you could have made the same discovery I did about the power law (that it says nothing about how movement trajectories are generated), without even having to do any math, if you had just understood that voluntarily produced movement trajectories are the control of perception (per the PCT model above).Â

Â BA:Â If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.Â

RM: That’s great. I’ll go at this as long as you want. And it seems that others are interested in this too. So let’s keep at it. I agree that my finding about the power law is a pretty awful one from the point of view of a conventional psychologist. So I expect you and Martin to fight it tooth and nail. But there may be some out there who are willing to see the PCT perspective and are not afraid of the revolutionary conclusions that come from looking at behavior through control theory glasses.

Â

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.Â

RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here is a fair way of describing what including log D in the regression does. The only reason I include the regressions with log (D) in my spreadsheet analysis is to show that when you leave it out your estimate of the power coefficient will deviate from 1/3 (or 2/3) depending on how much log(D) deviates from a constant in the particular movement trajectory that you are analyzing. But this is something that could only be appreciated my multiple regression mavens.Â

Â

BA:Â This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

Â RM: I already answered this in my reply to Martin in another thread. But here we go again: The idea that an elliptical trajectory “enforces” the 1/3 power relationship between R and V (and 2/3 between C and A) is exactly what my analysis of the situation predicts.Indeed, the more perfectly your cursor tracks the ellipse, the closer the estimate of beta will be to .33 (for V vs R) or .67 (for C vs A).Â What is interesting about the demo is that these elliptical movement trajectories are produced by outputs (mouse movements) that are not very elliptical (due to the disturbances), which is just another proof that the Â power law that is found for voluntarily produced movement trajectories says nothing about how these trajectories are produced; PCT explains how they are produced: it’s control of perception.

BA:Â In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.

RM: I never said that the tangential velocity (V) with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It obviously is relevant. It’s the dependent variable in the power law relationship.Â

Â

BA:Â If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.Â

RM: I think I answered your challenge. Now how about answering mine: how do you explain the power law?

BA: Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

RM: So I’m unresponsive if I show that my model accounts for the data? Seems kind of unscientific. Anyway, the fact that the model fits the data doesn’t “prove” that the model is correct. It just increases one’s confidence in the model. If you don’t think my model is correct I believe it now behooves you to describe a test that would lead to rejection of the model. And it would help a lot if you would show me your model of the power law so that I can see what you think is going on. I’ve asked you and Martin to tell me what you think the power law shows – which is basically asking for your mental model of why there is a power relationship between the velocity and curvature of a movement trajectory – but I still have gotten no response. So apparently unresponsiveness is not unique to me;-)

Â BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â

RM: On this, I heartily agree. But we do know that there are apparently a couple others who are very interested in this discussion but don’t feel like joining in. But it would be nice to hear what others think is going on.Â

BestÂ

RickÂ

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

MartinT · August 20, 2016, 9:28pm

[Martin Taylor 2016.08.20.17.26]

···

Â Rick’s answer to Bruce is very
interesting in light of my message
[Martin Taylor 2016.08.19.12.28]
in which I said: "
so far as I am aware, Rick’s only two answers to any of the many
different problems various people have raised with his “model”
have been to repeat the same claims and to say that the
questioners are enemies of PCT."

  Rick's new message illustrates the point beautifully.

  Martin

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.20.1400)]

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)

Â

                  BA: Throughout my recent
exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have
assumed that Rick simply did not understand the
serious deficiencies in his analysis…

Â

                  BA:Â  When Alex Gomez-Marin came
to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here
was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist
(a physicist with training in neuroscience no
less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution
or at least a start toward a solution.Â Rick
quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex
immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is
based on a misconception of what the equation for
computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â

          RM: Alex is a very nice guy. I like him very much. I
had a very cordial email (and Skype) exchange with Alex
before the power law explosion.Â Â I knew that the PCT
explanation of the power law would be very controversial.
So before I posted about it to CSGNet I wrote to Alex
privately saying that I did have the PCT explanation of
the power law and that it would be very disturbing to the
power law community So I asked Alex if it would it be ok
with him if I posted it to CSGNet anyway and he said yes.
I didn’t go into details about what the PCT explanation
was but I thought Alex might be Â excited by it and I
invited him to be co-author on the paper I would write
describing it. I assumed that a young, smart and ambitious
researcher like Alex would jump at the chance to show that
40+ years of research on movement control was based on an
illusion.Â

          RM: But obviously my assumption was all wrong. Alex
didn’t get excited about the PCT explanation of the power
law – not in a good way, anyway;-) – and I don’t blame
him. Alex is just starting his career and success in that
career will not be achieved by basically insulting those
who can promote that career.Â

          RM: Bill Powers often said that PCT is revolutionary.
He meant that it is theoretically revolutionary
because it explains behavior in a way that is the exact
opposite of the way it is explained by conventional
psychology: as control of input rather than control of
output. But he also meant that it is practically revolutionary
because it challenges those in positions of power in the
academic establishment, particularly those in the
psychology/ neuroscience establishment. If PCT is right,
then many of the textbooks and the leading scientists in
the field are all wrong.Â

          RM: The practical consequences of a PCT revolution are
similar to those of any social revolution; it will cost
careers, status, and (most importantly) money. This is why
the PCT revolution has not happened and will not happen
for quite some time. It will have to be a PCT evolution,
as more people like Henry Yin navigate their way through
the conventional programs of academia, get “certified” by
the establishment (with tenure, for example) and then
start doing and publishing research based on PCT.Â

                  BA: I canâ€™t speak for Martin,
but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully
angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and
withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.Â

          RM: I listened and I never withdrew from the CSGNet
discussion. I withdrew (and then un-withdrew) from LCS IV,
not CSGNet. I withdrew from LCS IV for the reasons given
in my post; I didn’t want to be associated with a work on
PCT that would contain many articles that are Â based on the very
misconceptions about the nature of the behavior that
Bill Â spent his entire professional career trying to
dispel.Â I un-withdrew because Henry YinÂ pointed
out that the contributors to LCS IV were selected by Bill.
So apparently Bill was willing to have non-PCT stuff
published in the volume honoring him since he knew that
many of the people he wanted as contributors were still
mired in an S-R view of behavior.Â

Â

                  BA: I hoped that if I could
explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he
would finally see that he was committing a serious
error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the
problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

          RM: The problem Alex had asked for help with was a PCT
explanation of the power law. I have provided it. I
believe you don’t accept it for the reasons I gave at the
end of my last post to Martin. I think you believe that
the power law describes a stimulus-response relationship
between curvature (measured as R or C) Â and velocity
(measured as V or A). All of your “explaining” of why my
PCT explanation of the power law is wrong has been aimed
at showing that measures of curvature and velocity are two
independent measures of the trajectory of a movement.
these measures would have to be independent order for
curvature to be considered an independent variable that is
the cause of (or “constraint” on) the dependent variable,
velocity. My analysis is based on the observation that
curvature and velocity are not independent measures of
movement trajectory. This drives you nuts because it blows
your S-R view of the power law out of the water.Â

          RM: All of your efforts to cast the power law in S-R
terms has obscured the fact that power law research is
aimed at understanding how organisms make voluntary
movements. And we already have a model of how organisms do
that; it’s called PCT. It explains voluntary movement as
the control of perception. The model of voluntary movement
that I posted (and post again, correcting a couple of
little errors) is the PCT model of how people produce
voluntary movement trajectories.Â

          RM: So when Alex asked for a PCT explanation of the
power law, this model should have popped into your mind.
And then you would ask yourself (as I asked myself) where
would the power law fit into this model. It doesn’t fit in
with the output functions (o.x and o.y) since the power
law is only based on measures of the controlled variable
(the movement trajectory, which is temporal variations in
qi.x, qi.y). And, for the same reason, it doesn’t fit in
with the feedback functions, kf.x, kf.y. So then you would
realize (as I did) that the power law is an observed
relationship between two different variable
characteristics of the controlled variable (the movement
trajectory) itself!!Â

          RM: So without the need for any mathematics, a
knowledge of the PCT model of voluntary movement would
lead you to see that the relationship between curvature
and velocity that is observed in power law research has
nothing to do with what power law researchers think it’s
about – Â how movement trajectories are produced. The
relationship between measures of curvature and velocity
that is observed in power law research can depend only on
the nature of the movement trajectory that is produced,
not on how it is produced.Â

          RM: But then why is the observed relationship between
curvature and velocity so often close to a 1/3 or 2/3
power relationship? That question might lead you (as it
led me) to look at the equations that define the two
measures of the controlled variable – curvature and
velocity – that are used in the study of movement control
by power law researchers. And what I saw is that these
equations do not measure independent aspects of the
controlled variable; they measure aspects of the
controlled variable that are mathematically dependent. And
the dependence is expressed this way:Â

V =

D^1/3Â*R^{1/3 Â Â Â}

and

A =

D^1/3Â*C^{2/3

Â Â Â Â}

              </sup>

Â

where Â D
= Â |dXd²Y-d²XdY|Â

          RM: This was a stunning discovery since the power
coefficient of R is 1/3 and the power coefficient of C is
2/3, the very power coefficients that are typically found
for these variables in power law research. This seemed
like more than a coincidence. And it’s not. Since the
power law is determined using linear regression of log(R)
on log(V) and log(C) on log (A) I realized that
researchers would find a power coefficient close of 1/3
when regressing Â log(R) on log(V) and 2/3 Â when regressing
log(C) on log(A) to the extent that the variance in log
(D) for a particular movement trajectory is close to being
constant.Â

Â

                  BA: It has turned out to be an

exercise in futility.Â

          RM: It's futile, Bruce, because you think movement
trajectories are generated by an S-R process (curvature
constrains velocity) and I think they are the result of
the control of perception (making perception match a
possibly varying internal reference for the state of that
perception). As I said above, you could have made the same
discovery I did about the power law (that it says nothing
about how movement trajectories are generated), without
even having to do any math, if you had just understood
that voluntarily produced movement trajectories are the
control of perception (per the PCT model above).Â

              Â BA:Â  If Rick wants to have an
honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific
point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.Â

          RM: That's great. I'll go at this as long as you want.
And it seems that others are interested in this too. So
let’s keep at it. I agree that my finding about the power
law is a pretty awful one from the point of view of a
conventional psychologist. So I expect you and Martin to
fight it tooth and nail. But there may be some out there
who are willing to see the PCT perspective and are not
afraid of the revolutionary conclusions that come from
looking at behavior through control theory glasses.

Â

                  BA: That discussion would begin
by addressing the criticism that including log D
in the regression does nothing more than reveal
the equation by which V and D are used to compute
the radius of curvature.Â

          RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here
is a fair way of describing what including log D in the
regression does. The only reason I include the regressions
with log (D) in my spreadsheet analysis is to show that
when you leave it out your estimate of the power
coefficient will deviate from 1/3 (or 2/3) depending on
how much log(D) deviates from a constant in the particular
movement trajectory that you are analyzing. But this is
something that could only be appreciated my multiple
regression mavens.Â

Â

              BA:Â  This exchange might be
followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why
using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces
movements in which tangential velocity of the point
around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter
sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus
necessarily producing a relationship between log
velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â
(Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to
keep a small circle inside a larger one that is
tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this
relationship in the motion of the target and, to the
extent that the small circle stays within the larger
one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

          Â RM: I already answered this in my reply to Martin in
another thread. But here we go again: The idea that an
elliptical trajectory “enforces” the 1/3 power
relationship between R and V (and 2/3 between C and A) is
exactly what my analysis of the situation predicts.Indeed,
the more perfectly your cursor tracks the ellipse, the
closer the estimate of beta will be to .33 (for V vs R) or
.67 (for C vs A).Â What is interesting about the demo is
that these elliptical movement trajectories are produced
by outputs (mouse movements) that are not very elliptical
(due to the disturbances), which is just another proof
that the Â power law that is found for voluntarily produced
movement trajectories says nothing about how these
trajectories are produced; PCT explains how they are
produced: it’s control of perception.

              BA:Â  In fact, it would be nice if
Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he
believes that the tangential velocity with which a
path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding
a power-law relation.

          RM: I never said that the tangential velocity (V) with
which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to
finding a power-law relation. It obviously is relevant.
It’s the dependent variable in the power law
relationship.Â

Â

              BA:Â  If Rick refuses this
challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in
understanding his critics.Â

          RM: I think I answered your challenge. Now how about
answering mine: how do you explain the power law?

              BA: Repeating the mantra that the
data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€?
and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no
such thing, for reasons already explained) will be
counted as unresponsive.

          RM: So I'm unresponsive if I show that my model
accounts for the data? Seems kind of unscientific. Anyway,
the fact that the model fits the data doesn’t “prove” that
the model is correct. It just increases one’s confidence
in the model. If you don’t think my model is correct I
believe it now behooves you to describe a test that would
lead to rejection of the model. And it would help a lot if
you would show me your model of the power law so that I
can see what you think is going on. I’ve asked you and
Martin to tell me what you think the power law shows –
which is basically asking for your mental model of why
there is a power relationship between the velocity and
curvature of a movement trajectory – but I still have
gotten no response. So apparently unresponsiveness is not
unique to me;-)

              Â BA:Â  It would also be nice to hear
from anyone else who has been attempting to follow
along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet
or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether
anyone is even interested in having this discussion
continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an
opinion based on it.Â

          RM: On this, I heartily agree. But we do know that
there are apparently a couple others who are very
interested in this discussion but don’t feel like joining
in. But it would be nice to hear what others think is
going on.Â

BestÂ

RickÂ

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                                    "The childhood of the human
race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before
most people will understand that
what they do for
others is just as important to
their well-being as what they do
for
themselves." – William T.
Powers

_Boris_Hartman · August 21, 2016, 5:08am

RM: To the editors of LCS IV (cc CSGNet)

RM: I am asking that the paper and the Preface that I submitted for publication in Living Control Systems IV (LCS IV) be withdrawn. I do this reluctantly because LCS IV is to be a collection of papers honoring the scientific legacy of Bill Powers and I certainly want to participate in honoring that legacy, But I now believe that LCS IV is not the appropriate forum in which to do that honoring. Recent discussions on CSGNet with people who will be contributors to LCS IV have convinced me that many-- probably most – of the papers that will be included in that volume will be based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior of living systems that Bill Powers spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. So, from my perspective, LCS IV will be more of an insult than an honor to Bill’s legacy and I would rather not be associated with it.

HB : If anyone here is â€œoff lineâ€? with PCT is you. You are proposing â€œBehavior Control Theoryâ€? (RCT) and William T. Powers proposed â€œPerceptual Control Theoryâ€? (PCT). As from Titles you can see these are orthogonal concepts.

If you want really to honor the scientific legacy of Bill Powers you will start with citations of Billâ€™s work and interpretations. Write a simple â€œseminar workâ€? about his work where it will be obvious that we are talking about his theory not yours.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Withdrawing from LCS IV

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)]

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu; Alice Mcelhone apmcelhone@aol.com; Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Cc: Tim Carey Tim.Carey@flinders.edu.au; Henry Yin hy43@duke.edu; Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Withdrawing from LCS IV

Abbott · August 21, 2016, 2:13pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.21.1010 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.20.1400) –

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)

BA:Â Cutting to the chaseÂ . . .

BA: If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.

RM: That’s great. I’ll go at this as long as you want. And it seems that others are interested in this too. So let’s keep at it. I agree that my finding about the power law is a pretty awful one from the point of view of a conventional psychologist. So I expect you and Martin to fight it tooth and nail. But there may be some out there who are willing to see the PCT perspective and are not afraid of the revolutionary conclusions that come from looking at behavior through control theory glasses.

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.

RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here is a fair way of describing what including log D in the regression does. The only reason I include the regressions with log (D) in my spreadsheet analysis is to show that when you leave it out your estimate of the power coefficient will deviate from 1/3 (or 2/3) depending on how much log(D) deviates from a constant in the particular movement trajectory that you are analyzing. But this is something that could only be appreciated my multiple regression mavens.

BA:Â O.K., so you agree.Â When you include log D in the regression, you have

Log V = a log D + beta log R.Â The variables a and beta both turn out to be 1/3.

Taking the antilogs on both sides, this result is equivalent to saying that

V = D^1/3R^1/3, or V³ = DR.Â Rearranging, we recover the formula for computing R:

R = V³/D.

BA: So this exercise only reveals the formula that is used to compute R.Â It tells you nothing about the relation between V and R in the data!

BA: Rick, do you agree?

Letâ€™s say that you are analyzing the motion of a car rounding a bend in the road.Â V(t) is the observed speed of the car at any given moment t and R(t) is the radius of curvature of the path of the car at that same moment.Â It is clear that V at any moment could be any non-zero speed that the car is capable of and R can be any value within the limits of the carâ€™s ability to turn, given the geometry of its steering system and the limits of adhesion of its tires to the road.Â These two numbers are free to vary independently or not – the car may speed up or slow down, whether it is navigaating a sharp bend in the road or a gentle curve.Â So when you plot V as a function of R, you may observe any number of relationships between the two – V increasing with R,Â V decreasing as R increases, V connstant while R varies, V varying while R is constant, both V and R constant, and so on.Â There is no mathematical necessity why V should have any particular relation to R.

BA: Rick, do you agree?

BA: I donâ€™t know about you, but when I perform a regression analysis, I find it a good idea to create a scatterplot and eyeball the data before doing the analysis.Â If the data do not appear to follow a straight line, then obviously linear regression on the original variables is not appropriate.Â In that case one might try various transformations of one or both variables, to see whether these transformations â€œlinearizeâ€? the relationship.Â For example, I might plot V against log R, or log V against R (both being logarithmic relationships).Â If the data still followed a curve, I might then try log V against log R.Â A straight-line fit here indicates a power relationship.Â It seems that in many cases, researchers have discovered the relationship to follow a power law.Â But itâ€™s still worthwhile to look at the relationship between the original variables in order to get a good feel for what the power law implies about the curve, given the power exponent that was obtained in the regression.Â What does a curve look like in which the power exponent is 1/3, or Â¼?Â Seeing that relationship graphically might provide some insight into what variables the driver was controlling as she rounded that curve.Â Was she slowing as she entered the curve?Â Perhaps she sensed that, at her current rate of speed, she was in danger of losing traction and sliding off the road, or maybe itâ€™s just a matter of comfort:Â from experience she has learned that rounding a curve this tight at that speed is going to produce a good deal of lateral acceleration, pushing her body strongly left or right.Â She controls to reduce to an acceptable level the discomfort produced by this effect.Â A PCT explanation for the observed power-law coefficient would hypothesize and test for variables like this to explain the observed relationship between V and R.

Rick, do you agree?

BA: This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law. (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

RM: I already answered this in my reply to Martin in another thread. But here we go again: The idea that an elliptical trajectory “enforces” the 1/3 power relationship between R and V (and 2/3 between C and A) is exactly what my analysis of the situation predicts.Indeed, the more perfectly your cursor tracks the ellipse, the closer the estimate of beta will be to .33 (for V vs R) or .67 (for C vs A). What is interesting about the demo is that these elliptical movement trajectories are produced by outputs (mouse movements) that are not very elliptical (due to the disturbances), which is just another proof that the power law that is found for voluntarily produced movement trajectories says nothing about how these trajectories are produced; PCT explains how they are produced: it’s control of perception.

BA:Â No, I donâ€™t want you to explain what you think your analysis predicts.Â I want you to demonstrate that you understand why moving a target point along an ellipse by incrementing theta at a constant rate is guaranteed to produce a power-law relationship between the velocity of the target point and the curvature of the ellipse, one in which the target slows as the curve tightens and speeds up as the curve straightens.

BA: In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.

RM: I never said that the tangential velocity (V) with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It obviously is relevant. It’s the dependent variable in the power law relationship.

BA:Â Perhaps I did not make myself clear.Â I am talking about the observed velocity V, which as I noted above with the car example, can have just about any relation with observed R.Â Why do you think the observed relationship is irrelevant?Â You claim that only the V you derive from the equation for R is relevant.Â Or at least thatâ€™s how Iâ€™ve understood you.Â Your claim seems to be that using the formula to compute R from V (and D) somehow forces the regression result to conform to a power law relationship.Â Please note that power-law researchers do not compute V from R; rather, they observe it in the data.Â They do compute R from V (and), but this computation eliminates time from R, leaving only a length – the radius of curvature.

BA: If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.

RM: I think I answered your challenge. Now how about answering mine: how do you explain the power law?

BA:Â Well, you think wrong.Â Please review my replies above and try again in those replies in mind.

BA: Also, repeatedly asking me for my own explanation is a red herring, designed to distract us from the current rather uncomfortable discussion of your model.Â I have some ideas, and my intuition says that the reasons why the data so often conform to the power law will vary with the circumstances.Â (For example, during a race, a race-car driver probably controls for different variables while navigating turns of different radius than the same driver might control for while taking the family on an outing, and skilled drivers might control for somewhat different variables, according to different reference values, than unskilled drivers do.Â Thus there may be no general PCT explanation for the ubiquity of the power-law finding.Â It probably will require specific models involving different controlled variables to correctly understand why a power-law relationship emerges, when it does, in each specific case.

Bruce

Abbott · August 21, 2016, 5:06pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.21.1305 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.20.1400) –

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)

BA: I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.

RM: I listened and I never withdrew from the CSGNet discussion. I withdrew (and then un-withdrew) from LCS IV, not CSGNet. I withdrew from LCS IV for the reasons given in my post; I didn’t want to be associated with a work on PCT that would contain many articles that are based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior that Bill spent his entire professional career trying to dispel. I un-withdrew because Henry Yin pointed out that the contributors to LCS IV were selected by Bill. So apparently Bill was willing to have non-PCT stuff published in the volume honoring him since he knew that many of the people he wanted as contributors were still mired in an S-R view of behavior.

BA:Â A small clarification of my statement: â€œappalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered . . . and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.â€?Â That refers to Alex, not to you, Rick.

BA:Â As for Billâ€™s selection of contributors to LCS IV, thatâ€™s a strange attitude to attribute to Bill.Â It strikes me as far more likely that he would select contributors whom he felt confident would submit chapters that showcase Â research or applied work based on perceptual control theory.Â In fact, I canâ€™t imagine the Bill Powers I knew doing otherwise.

Bruce

rsmarken · August 21, 2016, 11:24pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.21.1620)]

···

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.21.1010 EDT)

BA: Cutting to the chase .

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.

RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here is a fair way of describing what including log D in the regression does…

BA: O.K., so you agree. When you include log D in the regression, you have…

R = V³/D.

BA: So this exercise only reveals the formula that is used to compute R. It tells you nothing about the relation between V and R in the data!

BA: Rick, do you agree?

RM: No. It will tell you everything about the relation between V and R in the data! Your data are the values of V and R that are calculated from the x,y values that represent a movement trajectory. The formula says that for any such trajectory (other than a perfectly straight line) all the variance in the values of V will be accounted for by a regression equation of the form:

log(V) = .33log(D) + .33log (R)

RM: Or, if you want to do it with R as the criterion variable, all the variance in the values of R will be accounted for by a regression equation of the form:

log(R) = log(D) - 3.0 * log(V)

RM: The regressions in my spreadsheet prove that the data always conform to these formulas.

BA: Let’s say that you are analyzing the motion of a car rounding a bend in the road. …There is no mathematical necessity why V should have any particular relation to R.

BA: Rick, do you agree?

RM: No. Try it. Get the series of x,y values that correspond to the movement trajectory of a car going around a turn – any turn – or of the position of a pitcher’s hand as she winds up and throws the ball, or of a train going through the Rockies, or of a random scribble made with my spreadsheet tracking program, etc. For every curved trajectory, whether controlled or not, the equations relating V to R above will hold.

BA: I don’t know about you, but when I perform a regression analysis, I find it a good idea to create a scatterplot and eyeball the data before doing the analysis.

RM: Yes, I always do that, with regression and correlation. Very good advice. I’ve made some great discoveries doing this. You could use them as examples in the next edition of your causal model based research methods text;-)

BA: What does a curve look like in which the power exponent is 1/3, or ¼? Seeing that relationship graphically might provide some insight into what variables the driver was controlling as she rounded that curve.

RM: No it won’t.

BA: Was she slowing as she entered the curve?

RM: This implies that you are thinking of curvature as a disturbance and velocity as the output that compensates for this disturbance. So you are, indeed, looking at the power law as an S-R (actually, a disturbance-output) relationship, with curvature (R) as the disturbance and velocity (V) as the output. The controlled variable would then be some function of curvature and velocity (CV = f( R, V). The problem is that, for this to be true, R and V must have independent effects on the CV. And they can’t because the value of R depends completely on the value of V and vice versa.

BA: A PCT explanation for the observed power-law coefficient would hypothesize and test for variables like this to explain the observed relationship between V and R.

RM: That sounds good but it can’t work because V and R don’t have independent effects on whatever you might think of as the controlled variable.

BA: Rick, do you agree?

RM: I’m afraid not. But I see that your intentions are good. You are thinking of the power law as a disturbance-output relationship, like that between food powder and salivation in a conditioning task. And the goal is to try to figure out what variable is being controlled by varying output (V) to compensate for the disturbance (R). And this would have been a great idea if what you see as disturbance (R) and output (V) variables had independent effects on some other variable (as you claim they do). But V and R can’t have independent effects on any variable because they are functions of each other (as you demonstrated above).

RM I guess the was a fairly subtle observation to make, but I think you could have made it if you had just realized that both curvature and velocity are measures of the most likely controlled variable in studies of movement control – the movement trajectory itself.

BA: I want you to demonstrate that you understand why moving a target point along an ellipse by incrementing theta at a constant rate is guaranteed to produce a power-law relationship between the velocity of the target point and the curvature of the ellipse, one in which the target slows as the curve tightens and speeds up as the curve straightens.

RM: To answer that I would have to know what you mean by "guaranteed to produce a power-law relationship ".

BA: … Why do you think the observed relationship [between V and R] is irrelevant?

RM: Irrelevant to what?

BA: You claim that only the V you derive from the equation for R is relevant. Or at least that’s how I’ve understood you.

RM: You understood wrong.

BA: Your claim seems to be that using the formula to compute R from V (and D) somehow forces the regression result to conform to a power law relationship.

RM: I claim that using the formulas power law researchers use for V and R forces the folowing relationship between V and R:

log(V) = .33log(D) + .33log(R)

RM: No particular relationship between log (V) and log(R) is forced when just these two variables are included in the regression.

BA: Please note that power-law researchers do not compute V from R; rather, they observe it in the data.

RM: I know!

BA: Also, repeatedly asking me for my own explanation is a red herring, designed to distract us from the current rather uncomfortable discussion of your model.

RM: Not really. I think if you tried to come up with a model of your own you would see the problem with your concept of the power law as representing an observed relationship between disturbance and output. I’m here to help.

BA: I have some ideas, and my intuition says that the reasons why the data so often conform to the power law will vary with the circumstances.

RM: Pretty vague, but it’s start, I suppose. Now try to put that into the form of a model and see what happens.

BA: Thus there may be no general PCT explanation for the ubiquity of the power-law finding. It probably will require specific models involving different controlled variables to correctly understand why a power-law relationship emerges, when it does, in each specific case.

RM: Just try it (modeling, that is)!

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

rsmarken · August 21, 2016, 11:31pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.21.1630)]

···

RM: I’m copying this from Henry Yin, with his permission, of course. I have copied Henry on a couple of these posts. He’s a busy guy but I’m thrilled that he took the time to send a reply.Â

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Henry Yin, Ph.D. hy43@duke.edu wrote:

Hi Rick,

I donâ€™t have access to CSG so you may forward my message.

I think this debate is important and interesting.Â I havenâ€™t had time to follow the details closely, but I did take a look at the Lacquanti et al 1983 paper, which described the power law in some detail.Â The main conclusion is that angular velocity is
causally dependent on curvature. As the authors stated, curvature is considered the input to a dynamical system, whereas angular velocity its output.Â This is
wrong , based on incorrect assignment of input and output in systems analysis.Â Curvature cannot be an independent variable here. Analysis of the mathematical relationship between curvature and angular velocity will not tell us anything useful about the
properties of the system. Â I believe Billâ€™s major contribution to science is his elucidation of the behavioral illusion, and this is another good example of it.Â It reminds me of the more famous â€˜matching law,â€™ another law based on misunderstanding.Â And
there must be other examples of this.Â So I think a good way to learn PCT is to train oneself on problems like these.Â Math is not the challenge here, but correctly identifying the components of the system before writing down the equations.

Henry

Â

On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.20.1400)]

–

Â BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this discussion
continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â

RM: Thanks Henry. It’s a relief to know that there is at least one person around who can carry the PCT torch when I am gone.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.20.1130 EST)

Â

BA: Throughout my recent exchanges with Rick on the power-law issue I have assumed that Rick simply did not understand the serious deficiencies in his analysis…

Â

BA:Â When Alex Gomez-Marin came to CSGnet for help with a scientific problem, here was an opportunity to show a practicing scientist (a physicist with training in neuroscience no less!) what PCT might offer by way of a solution or at least
a start toward a solution.Â Rick quickly responded with his â€œsolution,â€? which Alex immediately noted is seriously flawed as it is based on a misconception of what the equation for computing the radius of curvature actually does.Â

RM: Alex is a very nice guy. I like him very much. I had a very cordial email (and Skype) exchange with Alex before the power law explosion.Â Â I knew that the PCT explanation of the power law would be very controversial. So before I posted about it to CSGNet
I wrote to Alex privately saying that I did have the PCT explanation of the power law and that it would be very disturbing to the power law community So I asked Alex if it would it be ok with him if I posted it to CSGNet anyway and he said yes. I didn’t go
into details about what the PCT explanation was but I thought Alex might be Â excited by it and I invited him to be co-author on the paper I would write describing it. I assumed that a young, smart and ambitious researcher like Alex would jump at the chance
to show that 40+ years of research on movement control was based on an illusion.Â

RM: But obviously my assumption was all wrong. Alex didn’t get excited about the PCT explanation of the power law – not in a good way, anyway;-) – and I don’t blame him. Alex is just starting his career and success in that career will not be achieved
by basically insulting those who can promote that career.Â

RM: Bill Powers often said that PCT is revolutionary. He meant that it is theoretically revolutionary because it explains behavior in a way that is the exact opposite of the way it is explained by conventional psychology: as control of input rather than control of output. But he also meant that it is
practically revolutionary because it challenges those in positions of power in the academic establishment, particularly those in the psychology/ neuroscience establishment. If PCT is right, then many of the textbooks and the leading scientists in the
field are all wrong.Â

RM: The practical consequences of a PCT revolution are similar to those of any social revolution; it will cost careers, status, and (most importantly) money. This is why the PCT revolution has not happened and will not happen for quite some time. It will
have to be a PCT evolution, as more people like Henry Yin navigate their way through the conventional programs of academia, get “certified” by the establishment (with tenure, for example) and then start doing and publishing research based on PCT.Â

BA: I canâ€™t speak for Martin, but I was appalled to find Alex quite rightfully angered at Rickâ€™s refusal to listen, and withdrawing from CSGnet in frustration.Â

RM: I listened and I never withdrew from the CSGNet discussion. I withdrew (and then un-withdrew) from LCS IV, not CSGNet. I withdrew from LCS IV for the reasons given in my post; I didn’t want to be associated with a work on PCT that would contain many
articles that areÂ based on the very misconceptions about the nature of the behavior that Bill Â spent his entire professional career trying to dispel.Â I un-withdrew because Henry YinÂ pointed out that the contributors to
LCS IV were selected by Bill. So apparently Bill was willing to have non-PCT stuff published in the volume honoring him since he knew that many of the people he wanted as contributors were still mired in an S-R view of behavior.Â

Â

BA: I hoped that if I could explain Alexâ€™s critique clearly enough to Rick, he would finally see that he was committing a serious error.Â Then, perhaps, we could get back to the problem Alex had originally asked for help with.Â

RM: The problem Alex had asked for help with was a PCT explanation of the power law. I have provided it. I believe you don’t accept it for the reasons I gave at the end of my last post to Martin. I think you believe that the power law describes a stimulus-response
relationship between curvature (measured as R or C) Â and velocity (measured as V or A). All of your “explaining” of why my PCT explanation of the power law is wrong has been aimed at showing that measures of curvature and velocity are two independent measures
of the trajectory of a movement. these measures would have to be independent order for curvature to be considered an independent variable that is the cause of (or “constraint” on) the dependent variable, velocity. My analysis is based on the observation that
curvature and velocity are not independent measures of movement trajectory. This drives you nuts because it blows your S-R view of the power law out of the water.Â

RM: All of your efforts to cast the power law in S-R terms has obscured the fact that power law research is aimed at understanding how organisms make voluntary movements. And we already have a model of how organisms do that; it’s called PCT. It explains
voluntary movement as the control of perception. The model of voluntary movement that I posted (and post again, correcting a couple of little errors) is the PCT model of how people produce voluntary movement trajectories.Â

<image.png>

RM: So when Alex asked for a PCT explanation of the power law, this model should have popped into your mind. And then you would ask yourself (as I asked myself) where would the power law fit into this model. It doesn’t fit in with the output functions
(o.x and o.y) since the power law is only based on measures of the controlled variable (the movement trajectory, which is temporal variations in qi.x, qi.y). And, for the same reason, it doesn’t fit in with the feedback functions, kf.x, kf.y. So then you would
realize (as I did) that the power law is an observed relationship between two different variable characteristics of the controlled variable (the movement trajectory) itself!!Â

RM: So without the need for any mathematics, a knowledge of the PCT model of voluntary movement would lead you to see that the relationship between curvature and velocity that is observed in power law research has nothing to do with what power law researchers
think it’s about – Â how movement trajectories are produced. The relationship between measures of curvature and velocity that is observed in power law research can depend only on the nature of the movement trajectory that is produced, not on how it is produced.Â

RM: But then why is the observed relationship between curvature and velocity so often close to a 1/3 or 2/3 power relationship? That question might lead you (as it led me) to look at the equations that define the two measures of the controlled variable
– curvature and velocity – that are used in the study of movement control by power law researchers. And what I saw is that these equations do not measure independent aspects of the controlled variable; they measure aspects of the controlled variable that
are mathematically dependent. And the dependence is expressed this way:Â

V = D^1/3Â*R^{1/3 Â Â Â}

and

A = D^1/3Â*C^{2/3

Â Â Â Â}

Â

where Â D = Â |dXd²Y-d²XdY|Â

RM: This was a stunning discovery since the power coefficient of R is 1/3 and the power coefficient of C is 2/3, the very power coefficients that are typically found for these variables in power law research. This seemed like more than a coincidence. And
it’s not. Since the power law is determined using linear regression of log(R) on log(V) and log(C) on log (A) I realized that researchers would find a power coefficient close of 1/3 when regressing Â log(R) on log(V) and 2/3 Â when regressing log(C) on log(A)
to the extent that the variance in log (D) for a particular movement trajectory is close to being constant.Â

Â

BA: It has turned out to be an exercise in futility.Â

RM: It’s futile, Bruce, because you think movement trajectories are generated by an S-R process (curvature constrains velocity) and I think they are the result of the control of perception (making perception match a possibly varying internal reference
for the state of that perception). As I said above, you could have made the same discovery I did about the power law (that it says nothing about how movement trajectories are generated), without even having to do any math, if you had just understood that voluntarily
produced movement trajectories are the control of perception (per the PCT model above).Â

Â BA:Â If Rick wants to have an honest discussion of his proposal from a scientific point of view, Iâ€™m still willing.Â

RM: That’s great. I’ll go at this as long as you want. And it seems that others are interested in this too. So let’s keep at it. I agree that my finding about the power law is a pretty awful one from the point of view of a conventional psychologist. So
I expect you and Martin to fight it tooth and nail. But there may be some out there who are willing to see the PCT perspective and are not afraid of the revolutionary conclusions that come from looking at behavior through control theory glasses.

Â

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.Â

RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here is a fair way of describing what including log D in the regression does. The only reason I include the regressions with log (D) in my spreadsheet analysis is to show that when you leave it out your
estimate of the power coefficient will deviate from 1/3 (or 2/3) depending on how much log(D) deviates from a constant in the particular movement trajectory that you are analyzing. But this is something that could only be appreciated my multiple regression
mavens.Â

Â

BA:Â This exchange might be followed by Rick demonstrating that he understands why using sines and cosines to draw an ellipse enforces movements in which tangential velocity of the point around the ellipse speeds up in the straighter sections
and slows in the sharper curves, thus necessarily producing a relationship between log velocity and log R that conforms to the power law.Â (Rickâ€™s latest spreadsheet, in which one attempts to keep a small circle inside a larger one that is tracing an ellipse
in this way, enforces this relationship in the motion of the target and, to the extent that the small circle stays within the larger one, the small circleâ€™s as well.)

Â RM: I already answered this in my reply to Martin in another thread. But here we go again: The idea that an elliptical trajectory “enforces” the 1/3 power relationship between R and V (and 2/3 between C and A) is exactly what my analysis of the situation
predicts.Indeed, the more perfectly your cursor tracks the ellipse, the closer the estimate of beta will be to .33 (for V vs R) or .67 (for C vs A).Â What is interesting about the demo is that these elliptical movement trajectories are produced by outputs
(mouse movements) that are not very elliptical (due to the disturbances), which is just another proof that the Â power law that is found for voluntarily produced movement trajectories says nothing about how these trajectories are produced; PCT explains how
they are produced: it’s control of perception.

BA:Â In fact, it would be nice if Rick could provide a clear explanation for why he believes that the tangential velocity with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation.

RM: I never said that the tangential velocity (V) with which a path is traced is not relevant with respect to finding a power-law relation. It obviously is relevant. It’s the dependent variable in the power law relationship.Â

Â

BA:Â If Rick refuses this challenge, it will demonstrate his disinterest in understanding his critics.Â

RM: I think I answered your challenge. Now how about answering mine: how do you explain the power law?

BA: Repeating the mantra that the data produced by his model â€œconform to the power lawâ€? and thus â€œproveâ€? his model to be correct (they do no such thing, for reasons already explained) will be counted as unresponsive.

RM: So I’m unresponsive if I show that my model accounts for the data? Seems kind of unscientific. Anyway, the fact that the model fits the data doesn’t “prove” that the model is correct. It just increases one’s confidence in the model. If you don’t think
my model is correct I believe it now behooves you to describe a test that would lead to rejection of the model. And it would help a lot if you would show me your model of the power law so that I can see what you think is going on. I’ve asked you and Martin
to tell me what you think the power law shows – which is basically asking for your mental model of why there is a power relationship between the velocity and curvature of a movement trajectory – but I still have gotten no response. So apparently unresponsiveness
is not unique to me;-)

Â BA:Â It would also be nice to hear from anyone else who has been attempting to follow along in this discussion of the power law, on CSGnet or otherwise.Â At present I have no idea whether anyone is even interested in having this
discussion continued, let alone whether anyone has formed an opinion based on it.Â

RM: On this, I heartily agree. But we do know that there are apparently a couple others who are very interested in this discussion but don’t feel like joining in. But it would be nice to hear what others think is going on.Â

BestÂ

RickÂ

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

Abbott · August 22, 2016, 3:11am

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.2310 EDT]

Rick Marken (2016.08.21.1620)] –

Bruce Abbott (2016.08.21.1010 EDT)

BA: Cutting to the chase .

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.

RM: OK, I address it by saying that what you say here is a fair way of describing what including log D in the regression does…

BA: O.K., so you agree. When you include log D in the regression, you have…

R = V³/D.

BA: So this exercise only reveals the formula that is used to compute R. It tells you nothing about the relation between V and R in the data!

BA: Rick, do you agree?

RM: No. It will tell you everything about the relation between V and R in the data! Your data are the values of V and R that are calculated from the x,y values that represent a movement trajectory. The formula says that for any such trajectory (other than a perfectly straight line) all the variance in the values of V will be accounted for by a regression equation of the form:

log(V) = .33log(D) + .33log (R)

RM: Or, if you want to do it with R as the criterion variable, all the variance in the values of R will be accounted for by a regression equation of the form:

log(R) = log(D) - 3.0 * log(V)

RM: The regressions in my spreadsheet prove that the data always conform to these formulas.

BA:Â I said

BA: That discussion would begin by addressing the criticism that including log D in the regression does nothing more than reveal the equation by which V and D are used to compute the radius of curvature.

BA: and you agreed that this is â€œa fair way of describing what including D in the equation does.â€?Â If all it tells you is the formula for computing R from V and D, then it cannot simultaneously â€œtell you everything about the relation between V and R in the data.â€?Â The relation between V and R in the data can be practically anything at all.Â

BA: As proof of this assertion, I posted an Excel spreadsheet in which V and R were linearly related.Â Did you look at it?Â The regression equationÂ and accompanying figure relating V to R confirmed this relation.Â The regression that included D as a predictor found the formula for computing R from V, just as I have stated it would.Â I encourage you to examine that spreadsheet carefully.Â Empirical proof should not be ignored.

BA:Â The relation between V and R in the data is found by regressing V onto R, not by regressing V onto R and D.

BA:Â The problem is that R can depend on V and yet V and R can vary independently.Â This may seem like a contradiction, but R is computed by dividing V-cubed by D, and together they specify by how much the point is changing direction relative to how much it is moving forward.Â The ratio of the two indicates how much the track is curving, independent of the tangential velocity that was used to compute that curvature. The same curvature can be computed from an infinite number of different speeds, because curvature depends not on V per se, but on the ratio of V-cubed to D.Â That ratio can be independent of any particular value of V.

BA: Letâ€™s say that you are analyzing the motion of a car rounding a bend in the road. …There is no mathematical necessity why V should have any particular relation to R.

BA: Rick, do you agree?

RM: No. Try it. Get the series of x,y values that correspond to the movement trajectory of a car going around a turn – any turn – or of the position of a pitcher’s hand as she winds up and throws the ball, or of a train going through the Rockies, or of a random scribble made with my spreadsheet tracking program, etc. For every curved trajectory, whether controlled or not, the equations relating V to R above will hold.

BA:Â So, I cannot drive my car around a curve at any speed I choose?Â I can only drive it as fast as the equation for radius of curvature permits?Â Donâ€™t you see a problem with that?Â Obviously I am free to choose any speed regardless of curvature.Â That should sound alarm bells for you, not that scientists have missed something so obvious in the computation of R that a child couldnâ€™t miss it, but that there is something you are misunderstanding about what the formula does or does not imply about Vâ€™s relation to R in the data (not in the formula for R).

BA:Â As Iâ€™ve already demonstrated, the regression can only find the equation used to compute R; it will find that equation no matter what the shape of the scribble or how it was produced, so long as both R and V vary.Â As Iâ€™ve also demonstrated in my own spreadsheet, calculating R using the equation for radius of curvature imposes no particular relationship between V and R in the data.Â In my example, I demonstrated a linear relationship between V and R.

BA: I donâ€™t know about you, but when I perform a regression analysis, I find it a good idea to create a scatterplot and eyeball the data before doing the analysis.

RM: Yes, I always do that, with regression and correlation. Very good advice. I’ve made some great discoveries doing this. You could use them as examples in the next edition of your causal model based research methods text;-)

BA: What does a curve look like in which the power exponent is 1/3, or Â¼? Seeing that relationship graphically might provide some insight into what variables the driver was controlling as she rounded that curve.

RM: No it won’t.

BA:Â Assertions are not proof.Â You have to back that statement up with something if you want it to be accepted.

BA: Was she slowing as she entered the curve?

RM: This implies that you are thinking of curvature as a disturbance and velocity as the output that compensates for this disturbance. So you are, indeed, looking at the power law as an S-R (actually, a disturbance-output) relationship, with curvature (R) as the disturbance and velocity (V) as the output. The controlled variable would then be some function of curvature and velocity (CV = f( R, V).

BA:Â Disturbance-output relationship is what I had in mind.Â Clearly we are not in the land of S-R.Â

The problem is that, for this to be true, R and V must have independent effects on the CV. And they can’t because the value of R depends completely on the value of V and vice versa.

BA:Â Well there it is: The entire basis of your position is that you think that â€œR depends completely on the value of V and vice versa.â€?Â The refutation of this assertion was the entire point of my â€œparable of the rectangles,â€? which thus far you have refused to deal with.Â

BA: Here is the Cliff Notes version:Â V no more â€œdepends completely on the value of Râ€? than the height of a rectangle depends entirely on the rectangleâ€™s area.Â The two can vary independently despite the fact that height = Area/width.Â I can find a whole set of rectangles for which the area of the rectangle is proportional to the third root of its height.Â All that has to happen is that the remaining side vary in such a way as to make it so.Â And if I include the rectangleâ€™s width as well as area in my regression predicting height, I will find that each and every time, height = area/width.Â I learn nothing about how the rectangleâ€™s actual height varies as the third root of its area in this particular dataset.

BA: The same happens with the relation between V and R: D can vary in such a way that V can have just about any relation to R.Â Include D in the regression and you get the formula for R back, which tells you nothing about the empirical relationship between R and V in the data.

BA:Â This is so simple and obvious that I think I could almost get my cat to understand it.Â Donâ€™t make me have to come over there and slap some sense into you!

BA:Â To maintain your assertion that V must depend on R, you will have to disprove my mathematical proof of its falsity with respect to the empirical relationships, AND explain how V and R in my spreadsheet can be linearly related (as they are!) despite R being computed by the ratio of V-cubed to D.Â Your move.

Bruce