Conflict principle

Thread Starter

anhnha

Joined Apr 19, 2012
880
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.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,970
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.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
12,695
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.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,970
So, is it wrong?
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

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,639
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.
So, we can all agree that the author is at least a big failure as salesman/woman...
 

AnalogKid

Joined Aug 1, 2013
8,224
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:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
24,970
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.
 

AnalogKid

Joined Aug 1, 2013
8,224
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
 
Top