HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:55:45 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Blind Men; Leadership

[from Gary Cziko 921213.1900 GMT]

Rick Marken (921212.1400):

Rick, thanks for posting the psycholoquy reiviews on the Blind Men paper.
I suppose one advantage of electronic submission and review is that it is
easier to share the reviews with CSGnet.

I must say the reviews were real eye-openers for me.  I see much more
clealry now how much education it would take of "normal" psychologists
before they could provide valid reviews of PCT-inspired papers.  This was
indicated by questions such as "where does s* come from" and "is a piece of
cheese s = 6 and a piece of cake s = 7" (My goodness, isn't it obvious s =
6 is a medium piece of cheese and s = 7 is a big piece of cheese and when s
= 8 you have a fondue?).

The problem is that trying to put in the necessary background would make
the paper too long for a journal article.

Maybe Bill is right in that psychology has become irrelevant.  Wouldn't it
be neat if education and sociology and linguistics and other more
"specialized" social sciences passed by psychology and left it in the dust
(this wouldn't be the first time for linguistics).  Maybe what the "real"
PCT modelers like you, Bill and Tom ought to do is lend your skills and
understanding to people in these fields which are less resistant to PCT.

Speaking of which, I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I did a
little PCT show last spring for some of the staff of the federally funded
National Center for School Leadership which is located on my campus.  The
director, Paul Thurston, found it quite interesting and has asked me to
follow this up next semester with regular meetings with his staff and
writing a paper with him on the applications of PCT to school leadership
issues and problems (I will even get an extra month of summer salary, so
you see PCT can pay after all!).

I hope to make heavy use of CSGnet to help me with this, especially people
like Dag Forssell and Ed Ford and the management types out there.  It will
be interesting to see what type of underlying "model" current theories of
effective school leadership are based on and how PCT gives a new
perspective.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217.333.8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217.244.7620
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:59:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Sciligion?

From Greg Williams (921212)

>Bill Powers (921212.0300)

>Might as well get the mail and write about it. What else can you
>do when you're awakened at such an hour to be told you have a new
>grandson (my daughter Barbara's second)?

Excellent! Sounds like a wonderful holiday present (namely, you, Mary, Ed,
Barbara, and other family members as a present to the new arrival)!!

>RE: Science and religion

>It will not be possible for science and religion to get together
>until both realize that neither is Revealed Truth, and that both
>are human ideas. Of course that is precisely what both sides have
>been rejecting since the start of science. One side points the
>finger at Nature, the other at God. Neither side, apparently,
>notices whose finger is doing the pointing.

Well said. I'd like to add one additional observation regarding the
possibility of the "sides" getting together. In several forms of religion, and
some (at least historical) forms of science, accepting authority and having
faith have been/are now valued more (sometimes MUCH more) than adjusting
beliefs in the light of new evidence. Modern science at least gives lip
service to the idea that one's OWN finger should be doing the pointing,
unencumbered by pleas or threats from others. But that is anathema to some
modern religions. One reason that a discussion of "science vs. religion" is
appropriate on the net, in my opinion, is that the issue of self- vs. other-
determination is right at the heart of what control theory has to say about
the chances of an individual successfully coping in a disturbance-filled
world. On the other hand, high-level reference signals (within a broad
spectrum) appear to be very loosely coupled to day-to-day survival (assuming
you aren't in a holy war, of course), so I don't feel much missionary zeal for
going around begging folks to recant what they accept on authority. And if I
did, I wouldn't rail against the beliefs themselves so much as against why
they are held. As a general principle (based on PCT ideas), it would appear
that breaking correcting loops (e.g., accepting dogma uncritically) is
dysfunctional. Yet people do it all the time and seem none the worse for it.
Of course, their neighbors might be MUCH worse for it!

May your neighbors not be EXTREMELY dogmatic this holiday season,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:25:54 -0500
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Where are the Goals

[FROM: Dennis Delprato (921215)]

Only skimmed over reviewer's comments on Rick's most
recent clash with tradition.  Two quick points:

1. On goals:  One impediment to people like the reviewers
grasping PCT is the tendency to treat PCT as saying something
about what they know as goals (fine).  BUT the problem is that
they do not get away from the conventional notion that the
goals are "out there."  I suggest that this one important factor
in many not grasping what the likes of Rick are saying.

2. On feedback control:  The crude reactions to feedback control
especially frustrate me.  Mainstreamers seem to take one or more
of the following positions:

a. Feedback control is not important in psychological behavior.
b. It is important but we know all there is to know about what's
   going on here.  Let's get on with the important stuff.
c. Feedback?  Oh, you mean reinforcement.  This has been beaten
   to death.  Or--I am quite up on reinforcement, am continuing
   the work of the great learning theorists.
d. Feedback control -- I agree it is important for motor skills,
   but we are not interested in this area.
e. Feedback? -- Too mechanical, OK for machines but not for....
f. Feedback?  That's information on how well one is approximating
   a goal that is out there in one's external environment.
g. Feedback? Control? I don't know what your are talking about
   and that ain't all 'cause I don't give a damn either.

This is not a very sophisticated classification of reactions to
feedback control, but it does begin to give some idea of how
it is that K. U. Smith's and now Powers's work tends to be met
with wide yawns.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Original_cc:  TBOURBON
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:02:00 CDT
From:         Tom Bourbon <TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: "Blind men"'s rebuff, Another PCT Tech Report (Long!)

From Tom Bourbon (921212  22:55)
Rick,
   Too bad your fate was in the hands of people with scientific bents --
they don't have much use for old fashioned fuzzy heads like PCT modelers.
Maybe we should just accept the fact that they already know everything we
try to say -- and then some.  They just don't talk about it -- ever --
until they review a PCT manuscript, that is.
   The message is clear for those of us in psychology:  If you want to
publish PCT in "real" journals, water it down and turn it into another
"perspective" or "framework,"  cite everybody they think is important,
and leave all of the serious issues alone.  I am happy that sociology
and now education are fields in which at least some of the reviewers
are not so scientific.
   Maybe we can put out a special holiday set of Technical Reports --
two for the price of one, but suitable only for nonscientists.
   Too bad, buddy.
Tom Bourbon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:26:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      N/A and Oslo

[From Dag Forssell (921216 07.20)]      gabriel 921214 21:46

>So. Bottom line. I am a bit uncomfortable about your N/A entries.
>But otherwise absolutely delighted.

Instead of N/A, it is now: "Depends on type 2."

------------------------------------------------
Tom Bourbon (921215.0925  CST)

>If anyone out there is interested in a trip to Oslo,
>I believe I just handed you a ticket.

We can send William T. Powers to Oslo for developing the science
necessary for PEACE on earth. Anyone else will have to go to Stockholm,
where all the other prizes are awarded.

Tom, It is delightful to have you as a regular contributor on the net.
I am very impressed with the quality and relevance of your contributions.
Glad you have your own editor and E-mail address, so you are with us all
the time and get inspired to express yourself.

Best, Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:03:09 CST
From:         Mark William Olson <mwog8061@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      neuroscience

I have made 4 attempts to mail the first part of the message you received and am
 way too frustrated to try again.  The basic jist of the message is that
 although I agree with Tom's commments, the negative case is overstated.  Good
 research can be done in neuroscience without any knowlege of PCT.  This is not
 true for psych in general.  But because PCT is a computational model, at a
 higher level of anlaysis than neuropsych stuff, this is true.  I'd say more but
 my patience is out--I've written 4 long responses now--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:10:55 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      why rather fight

[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 921216 16:08:13)]
/*****************************************************************************
* [Martin Taylor 921215]                                                     *
*                                                                            *
* Why . . . do most species stop fighting short of lethality, whereas        *
* humans are among the very few who don't?  The argument from integrating    *
* output would seem to suggest that all species should fight to the death    *
* in the case of an unresolvable conflict (can't both have this doe).        *
*                                                                            *
* Giving up seems to be the most common way of ending conflicts.  One        *
* participant "decides" that winning is unlikely, and concedes.  Humans      *
* are considered wimpish, cowardly, poor specimens, if they follow that      *
* sensible rule.  I would have thought that if humans have more levels of    *
* control systems in their hierarchy, they would be more able to avoid or    *
* resolve conflict than would other species; at least a naive application    *
* of HPCT would seem to lead to that conclusion.                             *
*****************************************************************************/

A way to an answer lies I think in someone's (Gary's?) questions
and observations a year or so ago about how a person could ignore
or override perceptions that in imagination anyway result in
intrinsic error.  Bill argued then that the image of heroic
resistance to torture is a myth.

If the situation is simply a squabble over who gets to eat or
mate on this occasion, it is easier to back down.  If winning on
this occasions constitutes a change or confirmation of desired
status as one perceives that one is perceived by others, it is
harder.  It might be unbearable to be thought a coward, or a
traitor, or a wimp, and the imagined consequences of that social
assessment (a sure thing) might outweigh the imagined consequences
physically of getting beat up losing a fight (perhaps perceived
in imagination as not so sure a thing).

The higher levels of the hierarchy have to be there for this.
I think we see a fair amount of this in mammal and primate
societies.  But the elaboration of status and of institutionalized
consequences associated with status that we humans have developed
depends I think on language.

Sorry I can't spin that out more clearly.  Hope it's enough to
get the point over.  Gotta run,

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:44:11 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: Rick on (off) Shannon

[Martin Taylor 921217 10:40]
(Rick Marken 921216 sometime)

I really can't let Rick's latest non-sequitur go unchallenged:

> Bill P.'s
>important observation was that perception is one link in a
>causal loop in which we are all locked -- a loop that obviates
>Shannon's concerns about reliable transmission since, in living
>systems, perception is not the "start" of communication (or the
>"end", for that matter); it is both the start and the end at the
>same time.

Every piece of the loop is constrained by Shannon's observations/theorems.
If (like Rick) you don't understand them, you are doomed not to uinderstand
PCT.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:02:29 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: awareness of error/ignorance

[from Gary Cziko 921219.0440 GMT]

Bruce Nevin (Fri 921218 13:24:41)

I enjoyed your:

>>        Melius invenitur veritas ex errore quam ex ignorantia
>>
>>"It is easier to arrive at truth from error than from ignorance."

exchange with Martin Taylor.  Your discussion reminds me of Socrates who
when told that the oracle had said he was the wisest man in Athens set off
to find wiser men.  He discovered that whom he considred the wisest men
thought they knew a lot but didn't really know anything while Socrates knew
that he himself knew nothing but knew he knew nothing.  So he finally
agreed that the oracle was right after all.

I like the motto, but is your Latin good enough to make a revision?  I
would much prefer something like "get closer to" or "draw nearer to" than
"arrive at."  Would something like "advenitur" do it?  This reflects my
Popperian sympathies.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217.333.8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217.244.7620
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:29:13 PST
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: Do you believe in purpose?
              10 Dec 1992 22:24:12 -0800
              <92Dec10.222550pst.11966@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 921211)


   [From Rick Marken (921210.2200)]

   (ps 921210.1400)

   >(btw, i don't really believe in Purpose, either; i was stipulating it
   >for the sake of this discussion.)

   It's pretty late for me but this comment woke me up.

i'm flattered you read me so closely ;-}.

   In PCT, "purpose" is virtually synonymous with "control". Actually,
   the common sense of the word  "purpose", as in "behaving with a purpose"
   or "his purpose was to" is synonymous with PCT's "reference level of
   a controlled variable".

i think this ``virtual synonymy'' is a rhetorical move of pct's that
irritates people w/ a scientific bent (like me).  i'm quite willing to
accept yr control models of concrete and reasonably well-understood
phenomena.  i find yr generalization to everything else, including the
kinds of things implied by ``purpose,'' completely unwarranted.  so i
wish you'd stick to making claims you can justify....

cheers.

                                --penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:26:06 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Drowning in Data

>From:         "Bill Cunningham, ATCD-G     (8" <CUNNINGB@MONROE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>

>XXXXXXXXXX sez brigade commander can't make decisions fast enough relative
>to the data rate, screened for his definition of relevance.  Recognize that
>they are giving brigade access to every sensor in the Western world.
>Commander's screening guidance is temporal/geographic and therefore it's
>all relevant and he's drowning on input he never dreamed of.  My interpretation
>goes right back to e-mail report where commander hadn't articulated intent
>and decision tree adequately, so he's given the wrong criteria for relevance.

>Gee, where have we heard this before?

>Bill C.

The gang of three see it every day in softwqreland
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:28:26 CST
From:         URROBERT@ECNUXA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: My First PCT Publication Out
              Dec

[From Dick Robertson] (12.11.92)
Gary, congratulations on seeing your PCT article in print.  I've just finished
using it in a History of Psychology course as the last example of what Kuhn
called a paradigm revolution.
All the best,  Dick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 09:27:07 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Mon, 14 Dec 92 09:27:07 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 921214172707
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:27:07 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      Error; Brains; Lesions

[From Rick Marken (921214.0900)]

Tom Bourbon  (921214 01:30 CST) --

>Until research and theory in the neurosciences
>catch up with the science of control by living systems, "looking at
>the brain," or looking to the neurosciences, for evidence that will
>change the nature of the model in PCT, probably will not be
>necessary or fruitful

Wonderful post Tom. Thanks for doing all the nice work and
recognizing its implications for behavioral neuroscience.

This nice little post of yours is just another great example of why
PCT (on network CSG-L) is the place to be. The simulations helped
us see what is not clear from the algebra: when you disturb p,  p is still
brought to r but the external variable is off by the amount dp. This
is a good way of showing that what is controlled is perception (not
"reality"). It also shows how a person can seem to be doing something
"wrong" (from the observer's perspective) when s/he is doing something
"right" (keeping the perception at its reference) from his/her own
perspective.

Of course, all of this would never be of interest to "real" living systems
scientists because it's just too simple (where are those Nth order partial
differential equations, Tom?). But for simple minded folk like me it
was dynamite. Again, thanks for doing the work, Tom. Great post.

Best

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 20 Dec 1992 12:07:58 -0500
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Misstatements & Other Basics

[FROM: Dennis Delprato (921220)]

>(Bill Powers (921218.1500)

>RE: Feedback is too delayed.

>Dennis, would you be willing to become a repository for citations
>from the literature containing misstatements about feedback
>control, PCT, etc.?

Pleased to, especially given that I seem to have already begun
this out of my own curiosity.

Note another major roadblock that you bring up in the following:
"I am a professional control-system engineer/I have a close friend
who is a real control-system engineer/ I have a high IQ and
studied control system engineering/ ... and you simply are not
getting it right at all.  Too bad, too, since the idea of
applying control system theory to humans is an excellent way
of showing how psychology is nothing but physics."

>Bruce Nevin (921218.1324) --

>That Latin saying developed into a most interesting and relevant
>discussion. It is surely true that our most profound problems in
>introducting PCT come from those who think they already have a
>grasp of what feedback and control are about. You'll remember
>that a year or so ago we had a participant on the net who was a
>"real control-system engineer." He obviously understood control
>systems -- but he absolutely could not accept the statement that
>control systems control their inputs! He eventually bade us
>farewell, saying in a perfectly friendly way that he just
>couldn't go along with this strange way of looking at control
>systems, but good luck to us.

Dennis Delprato
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:11:13 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      Olive Branch

[gabriel to powers 921213 16:52 CST]
Dear Bill
        On reflection perhaps I came on a bit strong. If you want to know
why look at the history of ANZAC in WWI and NZEF in Crete in 1940. Also
a couple of school friends. One had spent from age 10-14 in Japanese
prison camp because parents were missionaries in Hong Kong. Another's
father had been shot for being a member of the resistance in France,
and the young man and his mother had had to take to the hills with
his father's friends. That young chap had killed his first enemy sentry
at the age of 12 in order to acquire a firearm. I suppose I didn't mind
being bombed that much, I had other friends who fared far worse.
I also think the move to denigrate Harris and the memorial to
Bomber Command, was in poor taste, even though I feel strongly that
Harris and Co. made a strategic mistake that prolonged the war.
See Col. Harry Summers' book on VietNam. I also feel between the
devil and the deep sea about Somalia, but there should have been
the kind of debate Summers talks about. Difficult though, with
people starving and the Administartion changing.

But on lethal force etc. there are interesting issues in animal
behaviour - see the Altmans on Baboon Society, and Rolf Peterson
and others on Wolves. Escalation is always a problem, witness what
is happening in the cities. Just exactly why I want to have better
decision making in Govt AND in Defense.

If you want, let's debate off line, but perhaps just let it drop. By
the way, in general I disagree with Strategic Bombing, and true history
of the Japanese efforts to sue for peace in 1944 is also interesting,
as is the Straits of Tsushima story. But both those belong to Bill C.
I'm sure he'll tell you if asked.

Happy Christmas, and much delight in all the good things of life,
including the grandkids.

                John
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Original_cc:  TBOURBON
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:39:00 CDT
From:         Tom Bourbon <TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: One Whole Minute

From Tom Bourbon  (921213 11:36 CST)
Bill Powers  (921213 08:33)

Elegant, Bill.  Simply elegant.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU