Conflict principle

Discussion in 'General Electronics Chat' started by anhnha, Dec 6, 2015.

  1. anhnha

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 19, 2012
    774
    47
    Could anyone explain conflict principle in this article?
    http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/my_work/conferences/cs_2005/paper1.htm
    This part is confusing:
    But what happens if we try to change not so delicately but directly the output signal Y1? This means to attack with power the system output by another input value X keeping constant X1 – fig. 2. In the example above this means to change forcibly the actions of the person. Obviously, a conflict arises here – the person reacts to our intervention trying to keep the old situation.
     
  2. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    Strikes me as someone just publishing a paper by trying to apply psychobabble phrases to descriptions of electronic circuits.

    I lost interest real quick, so I can't help you.
     
  3. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,144
    1,791
    I lost interest even faster. Looks like useless bumpf to me.
     
  4. OBW0549

    Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    1,310
    885
    Wow.
     
  5. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    Their next paper details how to eliminate microagressions in negative feedback circuits. :D
     
  6. anhnha

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 19, 2012
    774
    47
    So, is it wrong?
     
  7. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,144
    1,791
    Trigger warning -- never mind, I don't believe in them!
    I don't know and I don't care. It is hard to apply any value judgement to something that appears to be devoid of rational basis. It is just what the author says it is, and if you find it useful then so be it. I see no useful purpose in the concept, but that is just my unvarnished opinion.
     
  8. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. The author failed to make any kind of a compelling case upfront why I should bother giving his work a second thought. So I didn't and won't. That doesn't mean that it is wrong or worthless, just that, for me, he failed to convince me that it is worth my time. It could be the most revolutionary concept since the transistor, but I don't think so.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  9. anhnha

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 19, 2012
    774
    47
    Thanks. I accidentally read some articles in the site and found helpful. So I want to read more. However, that article is really confusing.
    http://www.circuit-fantasia.com/
     
  10. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    3,573
    2,541
    So, we can all agree that the author is at least a big failure as salesman/woman...
     
  11. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    That seems to be the consensus.
     
  12. AnalogKid

    Distinguished Member

    Aug 1, 2013
    4,540
    1,251
    The author is using a power supply as an analogy of a human's interaction with an external environment, and he is correct. If you try to change the output of a regulated power supply by impressing external energy to its output, the regulator circuit will try to counteract that action (within the capabilities of the circuit) to maintain the standard output voltage or current.

    Psychology has always sought to use the available technologies to describe the internal functioning of cognitive processes. Eastern philosophies still rely on natural processes, mostly comparing human actions to those of animals, while western thinking incorporated mechanical systems in the 19th century and electronic systems in the 20th. Today we talk about the brain as a computer because we have computers. No analogies are perfect, which is why the field always is on the prowl for a better way to describe/discuss/explain the invisible. There was a guy at Chicago or Northwestern or somewhere over there that modeled the way we react when our personal space is violated (such as standing too close to someone when having a conversation at a party) using electric field equations. They fit to better than 90%, and excellent analog-y.

    ak
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
  13. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    The direction you are talking about, as you say, has been around for a very long time with analogies drawn from many different fields. I got the impression that the guy was doing exactly the opposite, using psychological concepts to explain and design electronic circuits. But I admit that it wasn't long after I formed this impression that I lost interest in the article and didn't read further.
     
  14. AnalogKid

    Distinguished Member

    Aug 1, 2013
    4,540
    1,251
    You are correct. My response was based solely on the quote in post #1. And while my analysis was brilliant, it is not supported by the linked paper.

    Never mind.

    ak
     
  15. Lestraveled

    Well-Known Member

    May 19, 2014
    1,957
    1,215
    My power supply can beat up your power supply!! Your oscilloscope wears army boots!! SO,THERE....:D
     
  16. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
     
  17. cmartinez

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    3,573
    2,541
    :eek: how dare you!
     
    Lestraveled likes this.
  18. Brownout

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 10, 2012
    2,375
    998
    It seems to be either poorly written or poorly translated between languages (the author appears to be Greek) So the result is, the paper is unintelligible.
     
  19. anhnha

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 19, 2012
    774
    47
    Yes, he is a Bulgarian. I tried to read it but after googling this is the only one so I doubted about it.
     
  20. tom_s

    Member

    Jun 27, 2014
    285
    333
    'what we got ere, is FAILURE ta communicate'

    ref: cool hand luke
     
    cmartinez likes this.
Loading...