[pcp-discuss:] Fwd: New Paper: Definitions

From: Francis Heylighen (fheyligh@vub.ac.be)
Date: Fri Mar 02 2001 - 09:21:11 GMT

  • Next message: Paulo Garrido: "RE: [pcp-discuss:] Goal-directedness, control and freedom"

    >Reply-To: "Paul A. Stokes" <paul.stokes@ucd.ie>
    >From: "Paul A. Stokes" <pstokes11@home.com>
    >To: "Francis Heylighen" <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
    >Subject: Fw: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
    >Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:39:31 -0800
    >X-Priority: 3
    >
    >Francis,
    >
    >Once again I seem to be having problems. I sent this to the list yesterday
    >and no sign yet. Although this time I did send it through the mail address
    >with which I am subscribed to the list.
    >
    >I would be most grateful if once again you forwarded it . . .
    >
    >Much obliged once more
    >
    >Paul
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: "Paul A. Stokes" <pstokes11@home.com>
    >To: <pcp-discuss@lanl.gov>
    >Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:23 PM
    >Subject: Re: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
    >
    >
    >> Shann,
    >>
    >> I think you need to distinguish carefully between:
    >>
    >> 1. control with feedback i.e. regulation as you say
    >> 2. control without immediate feedback. Many of the examples you cite
    >> although not requiring immediate feedback, e.g. an order or command, will
    >> eventually invite cheking and enquiry if not acted upon. This is a form of
    >> lagged feed-back. Your examples have a curtailed time horizon. In fact I
    >> would propose that all 'normal' intentional action relies on feedback
    >sooner
    >> or later.
    >> 2. causality (some of the examples you cite seem to imply some notion of
    >> unintended causality)
    >> 3. calibration i.e. intended action without feedback (this is discussed by
    >> both pere et fille Bateson) but is a form of leanring based upon feedback.
    >>
    >> I hope you find these of use.
    >>
    >> Paul A. STOKES
    >> __________________________________________________________________________
    >> Visiting Scholar
    >> Dept.of Sociology, UCSB
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Shann Turnbull" <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
    >> To: <pcp-discuss@lanl.gov>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:31 PM
    >> Subject: Re: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
    >>
    >>
    >> > Dear Francis
    >> >
    >> > Thank you and Cliff for your paper which I found most informative. On
    >the
    >> > first page you define the word "control" as "maintenance of a goal by
    >> > active compensation of perturbations".
    >> >
    >> > This definition means that control is dependent upon a goal being known
    >> and
    >> > the need for feedback communication. In social organisations a goal may
    >> > not be known or agreed upon and feedback can be problematical or non
    >> > existent. It is possible to direct, command or order action on personal
    >> > whims without an operational goal or without the need to obtain
    >immediate
    >> > feedback on the outcome. Regulation on the other hand requires feedback
    >> to
    >> > allow "active compensation of perturbations".
    >> >
    >> > From my reading of Ashby's introduction to cybernetics your definition
    >of
    >> > control is how he uses the word "regulate".
    >> >
    >> > From your text your definition of control would also seem to mean
    >> regulate?
    >> > Do you identify any difference between these two words?
    >> >
    >> > Might it be useful, at least in the social sciences, to make a
    >distinction
    >> > between the two words? That is between when a goal is not known and/or
    >> > feedback is not required and when feedback is required?
    >> >
    >> > Social scientists use the word control in both senses or ambiguously
    >which
    >> > makes rigorous analysis of social systems ambiguous, difficult or
    >> impossible.
    >> >
    >> > For example, Tannenbaum (1962: 5) defined 'control' as "any process in
    >> > which a person or group of persons or organisation of persons
    >determines,
    >> > i.e. intentionally affects, what another person or group or organisation
    >> > will do". This definition provides a word/concept to describe a
    >situation
    >> > where no standard of performance is required.
    >> >
    >> > On the other hand, Etzioni, (1965: 650) and Downs, (1967: 144) use the
    >> word
    >> > 'control' in the sense you use of meeting some standard of performance.
    >> >
    >> > So to establish a rigorous basis to analysis the control, regulation,
    >> > governance, self-regulation and self-governance of firms I have found it
    > > > useful to use the Tannenbaum definition of control and your definition
    >of
    >> > control to mean regulate. I appreciate that that your paper was written
    > > > for "hard scientists" but might it not also be useful for natural
    >> > scientists to identify words which can distinguish between goal directed
    >> > action (regulation) and non goal directed control? Natural selection
    >> > depends upon creating variety on a trial and error basis. If such
    >> > distinction in concepts/language and words could be agreed upon I
    >believe
    >> > that this would assist in grounding the social sciences in the natural
    >> sciences
    >> >
    >> > The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines control in both senses.
    >> >
    >> > The first definitions do not require feedback are as follows:
    >> > 1. The fact of controlling, or of checking and directing action;
    >> > domination, command, sway.
    >> > 2. Restraint, check 1594
    >> > 3.A method or means of restraint; a check 1752.
    >> > 4 A person who acts as a check; a controller.
    >> >
    >> > The second definitions that requires feedback is:
    >> > 1. To check or verify, and hence to regulate (payments, etc); by
    >> comparison
    >> > with a duplicate register
    >> >
    >> > In their definition of "regulate" the Shorter Oxford Dictionary uses the
    >> > word control to describe the process of regulation. Sometimes you seem
    >to
    >> > use the word in the same way in your text. On page 5 your see the need
    >to
    >> > make a disctinction between "goal-directedness and contol in your
    >> > statement: "It thus seems to have taken over the cybernetics banner in
    >> its
    >> > mathematical modelling of complex systems across disciplinary
    >boundaries,
    >> > however, while largely ignoring the issues of goal-directedness and
    >> > control." Your definition of control makes the words
    >"goal-directedness"
    >> > redundant as you state on page 12 when you consider both issues and
    >state
    >> > that "goal-directedness implies regulation".
    >> >
    >> > I find making a distinction between control and regulate useful in
    >> > analysing communications within firms or between firms and outside
    >> agencies
    >> > to control and regulate firms.
    >> >
    >> > Can you or anybody else on this list provide references in the
    >cybernetic
    >> > literature which makes these distinctions, and defines the concepts and
    >> > language, that I find useful to analyse the information and control
    >> systems
    >> > (cybernetic architecture) of social organisations?
    >> >
    >> > References:
    >> > Downs, A. 1967, Inside Bureaucracy, Little Brown & Co., Boston.
    >> > Etzioni, A. 1965, 'Organizational control structure', in Handbook of
    >> > Organizations, ed. J.G. March, Rand-McNally, Chicago, 650-77.
    >> > Tannenbaum, A.S. 1962, Control in organizations, McGraw-Hill, NY.
    >> >
    >> > Kind regards
    >> >
    >> > Shann Turnbull
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > At 03:06 AM 24/2/2001, you wrote:
    >> > >As I announced some time ago, I was invited to write a review paper on
    >> > >cybernetics for the Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology (3rd
    >> > >ed.), (Academic Press). The final version of the paper is now ready,
    >and
    >> > >available at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf
    >> > >
    >> > >Although it is obviously very difficult to summarize all the main ideas
    >> of
    >> > >cybernetics in a single paper without remaining very superficial, I
    >think
    >> > >my co-author Cliff Joslyn and I have managed to do a quite decent job,
    >> and
    >> > >I would recommend the paper to anybody who wants to get an introduction
    >> to
    >> > >and overview of the main concepts (e.g. variety, feedback, closure,
    >> > >control, constructivism, ...) and principles (e.g. law of requisite
    >> > >variety, requisite hierarchy, self-organization, ...) of cybernetics.
    >> > >
    >> > >Where possible, the ideas have been made explicit using simple formulas
    >> > >and diagrams. Since this is meant for a "hard science" encyclopedia, we
    >> > >have focused more on the "hard" ideas, and less on the philosophical,
    >> > >social and psychological implications, although these are implicit
    >> > >throughout the article.
    >> > >
    >> > >We thank Val Turchin and Ranulph Glanville for reviewing the manuscript
    >> > >and suggesting improvements. Although the Encyclopedia requested us to
    > > > >write the paper in an "authoritative" manner, as if we were expressing
    >> the
    >> > >general consensus in the field, it is obvious that such a consensus doe
    >s
    >> > >not really exist, and therefore the paper should be read as our own
    >view
    >> > >on cybernetics. Still, I think we have managed to include most of the
    >> > >ideas that cyberneticians generally agree upon, although other authors
    >> > >might have liked to put the emphasis differently.
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >-----------------------------------------
    >> > >Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics
    >> > >
    >> > >Francis Heylighen
    >> > >Free University of Brussels
    >> > >
    >> > >Cliff Joslyn
    >> > >Los Alamos National Laboratory
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >Contents
    >> > >I.Historical Development of Cybernetics
    >> > >I.1.Origins
    >> > >I.2.Second Order Cybernetics
    >> > >I.3.Cybernetics Today
    >> > >
    >> > >II.Relational Concepts
    >> > >II.1.Distinctions and Relations
    >> > >II.2.Variety and Constraint
    >> > >II.3.Entropy and Information
    >> > >II.4.Modelling Dynamics
    >> > >
    >> > >III.Circular Processes
    >> > >III.1.Self-Application
    >> > >III.2.Self-Organization
    >> > >III.3.Closure
    >> > >III.4.Feedback Cycles
    >> > >
    >> > >IV.Goal-Directedness and Control
    >> > >IV.1.Goal-Directedness
    >> > >IV.2.Mechanisms of Control
    >> > >IV.3.The Law of Requisite Variety
    >> > >IV.4.Components of a Control System
    >> > >IV.5.Control Hierarchies
    >> > >
    >> > >V.Cognition
    >> > >V.1.Requisite Knowledge
    >> > >V.2.The Modelling Relation
    >> > >V.3.Learning and Model-Building
    >> > >V.4.Constructivist Epistemology
    >> > >
    >> > >Bibliography
    >> > >--
    >> > >
    >> >
    >>_________________________________________________________________________
    >> > >Dr. Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be> -- Center "Leo
    >> Apostel"
    >> > >Free University of Brussels, Krijgskundestr. 33, 1160 Brussels,
    >Belgium
    >> > >tel +32-2-6442677; fax +32-2-6440744;
    >http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html
    >> > >========================================
    >> > >Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Francis Heylighen
    >> <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
    >> >
    >> > Shann Turnbull
    >> > P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
    >> > Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; +612 9327 8487 home; Fax: +612 9327 1497;
    >> > Life long E-mail:
    >> > sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au
    >> > http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html
    >> > Papers at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239
    >> > with other papers & book at http://cog.kent.edu/library.html
    >> >
    >> > ========================================
    >> > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Shann Turnbull
    >> <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
    >>
    >

    ========================================
    Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 02 2001 - 10:24:35 GMT