X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:19:49 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Nits; Stella etc.; Gary's paper; raising organisms

[From bill Powers (920909.1430)]
Chuck Tucker (92-09-09)

Every now and then you decide to put all the arguments into some kind
of order. Very nice. If you keep doing this, we may yet figure out
what we're talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Greg Williams (920909!) --

>Bill, I think we've reached an important consensus about my claims.
>Now, we can go back and nit-pick some more, or ...

I want to nitpick some more.

>>I agree with you that lots of this kind of deception goes on.

>>YOU GOT IT!!! But there's still more to get....

I think that we agree that deception is a form of manipulation. We
also seem to agree that rubber-banding is a form of manipulation (if
anyone doesn't understand what rubber-banding means, ask). But one of
these forms is control, while the other is not.

When you manipulate action by applying a disturbance to a known
controlled variable, the action will correlate with the disturbance
somewhere close to -1.00, as long as the other person continues to
control that variable relative to the same reference level. Accurate
predictions can be made of individual actions over considerable
periods
if the reference level stays the same for a while, as it will usually
do if you request it, or if the level is high enough.

When you manipulate action by deception, you are betting that your
deception will create a perception in the other person that will lead
to the action you want. This may work and it may not. Furthermore,
it's basically an open-loop process, in that deceptions typically
follow a formula which is applied in the expectation that the
predicted action will occur. Deceptions clearly do not work on
everyone; those who employ them rely on population statistics to find
people who do in fact behave as the manipulator wants. Advertizers pay
to modify the perceptions of tens of millions of people, but they're
satisfied if perhaps one person out of a hundred is deceived, and one
out of ten of those produces the intended action as a result. In an
audience of 10,000,000 that's 100,000 sales.

So manipulation by deception resembles an S-R phenomenon more than a
PCT phenomenon. A theory of manipulation by deception can't predict
actions of an individual. Its predictions would be statistical, and
therefore would apply only to a population. And proving that
manipulation by deception actually works would be extremely difficult,
because you have to take into account the people who would perform the
wanted act (buy the car, drink the beer, hand over the money) even
without the deception. A theory of manipulation by deception exists on
the same plane as theories of diet and psychoanalysis.

Manipulation, therefore, seems to mean at least two things that are so
different from each other than they don't intersect anywhere. The
rubber-banding kind is reliable, precise, repeatable, and predictable
from basic principles. The deception kind is statistical, unreliable,
and dependent on peculiarities of individual experience. It is
possible to predict the outcome of the rubber-banding kind of
manipulation for an individual. It is not possible to predict (in the
same sense) the outcome of a deceptive manipulation of an individual,
either from experience or from basic principles.

Are there any forms of manipulation that have the qualities of a
control-type manipulation? Or are the others all statistical and
relevant only to populations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Eric Harnden (920909) --

The Dynamo approach get too close to programming for most people to
learn it easily. Anyway, it's expensive, too, isn't it?

I think we should start leaning on Pat and Greg Williams to get their
simulation toolkit running. They write in C, so someone with a Mac
could adapt it for the Mac world. And maybe there are some mainframe
types out there who would do the same for other machines. Since this
will be a language for talking about PCT, it won't need all the
industrial whistles and bells.

> ...   all of which is to say that i think we've got workable
>alternatives to ascii graphics for the effective communication of
model >structures.

That's what we need, all right. But cost and skill at programming are
still barriers for lots of us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Gary Cziko (920909) --

The paper would be easier to read if you would do a search on "and"
and convert most of them to periods and a new sentence.

I hope it works -- sounds like you mashed down pretty hard on some
toes, there. Your appeal to those who AREN'T satisfied is probably the
most realistic way to go. The majority of people who publish in any
field are going to defend what they're doing as perfectly adequate.
Proving that it's not will not deter them for a moment. They don't
even bother to understand your arguments; they're too busy thinking up
how to demolish your conclusions.

The real test will come with publication.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas Baines (920909) --

>I'm not very far along with PCT so you'll have to wait 'til I catch
up. >Try this, however...

I can't even understand it. How can I try it?

>This reception/emission sets up patterns which reenforce one
>another in some places & cancel one annother elsewhere.

It's much too soon to start offering alternatives to PCT. Most people
take about 2 years to get comfortable with control theory, so they can
reproduce it from scratch from basic principles. I have a feeling it
would take me at least that long to be able to reproduce your
theoretical presentation from basic principles, particularly as you
haven't said what they are.

          The kids are fine.  Roxanne (the dog) has become fond of
          chasing rabbits.  I want to alter that behavior.  I think
          she is controlling for the hunt & chase.  I don't think it
          is for food.  I am trying to find a way to get her to
          substitute tennis balls & frisbees.  Stay tuned.

I'll bet you aren't going to do this by setting up reception/emission
patterns that reinforce in some places and cancel in others. I'll bet
you're going to do it pretty much the way PCT would describe it. That
is, if we on this net could ever agree on how PCT would describe it.
In the mean time, let us know what you do and how it works. That, at
least, is DATA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
          With small pups, start with two boxes which fit together to
          make a covered sleeping space just slightly larger than the
          pup.  They will quickly be ready to wait for the yard or the
          paper.

I said you were a genius.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Best to all,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU