Assassins

[From Kenny Kitzke (2012.12.16. 1300 EST)]

Hi, David. Man, it has been some time since I saw you and we played tennis together. Unfortunately, I can’t even remember for sure the last CSG Conference place or year when I chased your high spin shots!

Anyway, I would like to share a couple of thoughts about your question to Rick and its relevance to PCT in understanding human behavior.

  1. I do not believe it is possible to know post facto what variable or variables the assassin was controlling at the time of the shooting since he is dead.
  2. Even when he was alive, I am not sure we PCTers are adept enough to conduct an investigative test with him to feel certain we have identified a single variable and reference value for which he will certainly control at that time or much less in the next morning or next week.
    One reasonable reaction to these perceptions (which Rick seems to agree with) is that, so what’s so hot about PCT that I should waste my time trying to understand PCT?

Indeed, I sense that many people walk away from PCT because it seemingly offers little help in understanding why the assassin did what he did which is affecting (in PCT speak disturbing) millions of people all around the world, including the President of the USA,

At least for me, it is like seeing the other side of a valuable coin. By understanding PCT, and understanding that the key reference perception variable and error in the assassin’s mind which he controlled provided references for his lower level actions which are uncomprehendable and illogical to us as observers.

As a therapist for troubled people experiencing perceptual error in high level perceptions, you can probably understand what goes on in the non-PCT world and express it far better than I can. But, suffice it to say that most of psychology and religiosity are searching for the Cause or Causes that led to this action. And, their quest seems noble for if they could figure it out, they could prevent those causes from reappearing ever again. Yeah, right! No these S-R experts can’t and won’t achieve either goal with a high degree of certainty or success. So, the apparent uselessness of PCT in such matters is just as much true for them. Who is fooling who? Who understands enough about human nature to prevent such human actions?

This is not a mystery for me. Ed Ford used to ask a misbehaving child in school, “What are you doing?” Is there a rule against that behavior? He searched for having the child move up a level to look at their own behavior (how their behavior conforms to the rule which is either imposed on them or accepted by them as reasonable) and use self-control of their perceptions to comply with the rule. There is a lot of evidence of just how well a Responsible Thinking process works in complying to the rule without outside coercion against certain available actions.

The rule here is pretty simple: “Thou shall not kill.” A better rendition or specific example is thou shall not murder the innocent. If such murder was the reference variable in the mind of the assassin, and the value is zero or never, would his actions have followed? PCT says NO and I agree.

Most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, accept this reference of NEVER murdering innocent children in a school. Did the assassin? Why not? It seems to me to be a better thing to investigate than what kind of gun control rules (and a hundred other possible actions like better school door locks or policemen in every classroom) would prevent this kind of horrible action by another human being who is just controlling his perceptions. The search for the Cause in this case is a illusion of an incorrect theory of psychology. Who knew? Worse, the causes have causes. Where does one start?

I suggest a good place would be to teach every child in school (and every school psychologist) to understand why people do what they do? We can understand that diddy only when we understand PCT and quit thinking that stimuli in your life or environment cause you to do or not to do specific actions.

Oh, and Rick, please spare me your naive comment about your solution. Excuse me, I won’t accept your premise nor what our President will say later today about increasing gun control as a preventable action. How about people control? What could you teach Obama about PCT to find a scientific solution?

.

In a message dated 12/15/2012 9:01:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, davidmg@VERIZON.NET writes:

···

From David Goldstein
(2012.12.15.2056)

From Rick Marken (2012.12.15.1645)]

What was the person who did the shooting in Newtown Ct controlling?

How can we find out given that he killed himself?

David Goldstein

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 15, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM wrote:

From Rick Marken (2012.12.15.1645)]

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1310)]

Kenny Kitzke (2012.12.16. 1300 EST)

KK: One reasonable reaction to these perceptions (which Rick seems to agree with) is that, so what’s so hot about PCT that I should waste my time trying to understand PCT?

RM: Really? Is that what my reaction was? I thought my reaction was that we should stop wasting our time listening to anything right wing Christian fundamentalists say.

KK: Oh, and Rick, please spare me your naive comment about your solution.

RM: Sorry Kenny. I just can’t do it (spare you). After what happened on Friday I have had it completely with “conservatives” and their policies over the last 30 years that have put this country at the bottom of the heap of every industrialized nation (and many 3rd world ones) in measures of income inequality, health care and education and way at the top of the heap (by a factor of 6 to 1 over our nearest competitor) in terms of gun deaths per capita. It’s enough already.

RSM

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2012.12.16.1446 MST)]

Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1310)

RM: Sorry Kenny. I just can't do it (spare you). After what happened on Friday I have had it completely with "conservatives" and their policies over the last 30 years that have put this country at the bottom of the heap of every industrialized nation (and many 3rd world ones) in measures of income inequality, health care and education and way at the top of the heap (by a factor of 6 to 1 over our nearest competitor) in terms of gun deaths per capita. It's enough already.

The problem here, Rick, is that it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between your approach and that of the nasty right-wingers. Both sides react far out of proportion to the disturbance, adopt favorite enemies and persistently attack them, invent clever nasty names to call those who disagree with them, impute base motives to others without any proof, make accusations and refuse to give them up regardless of what others say or do, and profess to feel absolutely justified and satisfied with the way they do things.

This is a great way to create, escalate, and exacerbate conflicts between people, and it accomplishes next to nothing by way of solving problems.

Every conflict requires two opposing sides in order to continue in existence. Both sides are equally responsible for the conflict, and each side assigns total responsibility to the other side. Each side feels it is the only justified side. Each side thinks it is doing the right thing, thinking the right thoughts, reasoning the right way, pursuing the highest goals.

There must be a different way to find solutions that isn't so obviously futile and self-destructive. Are we smart enough to find one?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1430)]

Bill Powers (2012.12.16.1446 MST)–

Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1310)

RM: Sorry Kenny. I just can’t do it (spare you). After what happened on Friday I have had it completely with “conservatives” and their policies over the last 30 years that have put this country at the bottom of the heap of every industrialized nation (and many 3rd world ones) in measures of income inequality, health care and education and way at the top of the heap (by a factor of 6 to 1 over our nearest competitor) in terms of gun deaths per capita. It’s enough already.

BP: The problem here, Rick, is that it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between your approach and that of the nasty right-wingers.

RM: Hmmm. Not that hard for me. But I g

BP: Both sides react far out of proportion to the disturbance

RM: You think my reaction was out of proportion? Seemed pretty tame to me.

BP: This is a great way to create, escalate, and exacerbate conflicts between people, and it accomplishes next to nothing by way of solving problems.

Every conflict requires two opposing sides in order to continue in existence. Both sides are equally responsible for the conflict, and each side assigns total responsibility to the other side. Each side feels it is the only justified side. Each side thinks it is doing the right thing, thinking the right thoughts, reasoning the right way, pursuing the highest goals.

There must be a different way to find solutions that isn’t so obviously futile and self-destructive. Are we smart enough to find one?

RM: I’m certainly not. But maybe you are. What have ya got?

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Fred Nickols (2012.12.16.1647 AZ)]

I am certainly not going to butt in here nor even come remotely close to mixing it up with Rick. He’d eat me for lunch. But I do think that a readily observable and verifiable pattern in his interactions with certain others (and issues) on this list does suggest a “second-best” alternative to “the test” for ascertaining/identifying those variables an individual is trying to control.

If we assume an individual is aware of the effects of his/her behavior on others and those behaviors persist, we cannot necessarily assume that those effects are intentional. However, I do believe we can assume that those effects are not viewed as sufficiently unwanted to result in altering those behavior patterns. In other words, some other variable is being controlled and the effects on others are tolerable. Further, the “costs” of finding other ways of controlling the same controlled variable(s) are seen as too high to warrant changing those behavior patterns. Looping back to Rick, it seems to me that he is controlling for an exact, precise and correct grasp of PCT. At the same time, he is also controlling for maintaining its “purity” for lack of a better term. And, he isn’t particularly interested in being “nice” about it. Bottom-line? Rick is intensely devoted to PCT and will not suffer nor tolerate what he views as anything that distorts, corrupts or doesn’t fit with what he views as PCT.

Back to the more general case. If we accept PCT as “true,” then it seems to me that seemingly inexplicable or even inexcusable behavior on the part of others makes eminent sense to them. So, when we encounter that kind of otherwise “mystifying” behavior, we need to spend some time thinking about what, in PCT terms, would account for it. In short, what controlled variables would make otherwise puzzling behaviors quite reasonable? Caveat: I recognize that’s all speculation.

All that said, my personal view is that Rick can be an obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative pk. I also happen to believe that, in light of other matters that concern him (especially PCT itself), he doesn’t give a st if he comes across as a pk. And, for what it’s worth, I probably learn more about PCT from Rick’s rants than I do from anything else. So, on my part, I’m perfectly willing to tolerate his c*p because, on balance, it’s well worth it.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and a Happy Holiday Season to all.

Fred (The PCT Dabbler/Dilettante) Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:29 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Assassins

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1430)]

Bill Powers (2012.12.16.1446 MST)–

Rick Marken (2012.12.16.1310)

RM: Sorry Kenny. I just can’t do it (spare you). After what happened on Friday I have had it completely with “conservatives” and their policies over the last 30 years that have put this country at the bottom of the heap of every industrialized nation (and many 3rd world ones) in measures of income inequality, health care and education and way at the top of the heap (by a factor of 6 to 1 over our nearest competitor) in terms of gun deaths per capita. It’s enough already.

BP: The problem here, Rick, is that it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between your approach and that of the nasty right-wingers.

RM: Hmmm. Not that hard for me. But I g

BP: Both sides react far out of proportion to the disturbance

RM: You think my reaction was out of proportion? Seemed pretty tame to me.

BP: This is a great way to create, escalate, and exacerbate conflicts between people, and it accomplishes next to nothing by way of solving problems.

Every conflict requires two opposing sides in order to continue in existence. Both sides are equally responsible for the conflict, and each side assigns total responsibility to the other side. Each side feels it is the only justified side. Each side thinks it is doing the right thing, thinking the right thoughts, reasoning the right way, pursuing the highest goals.

There must be a different way to find solutions that isn’t so obviously futile and self-destructive. Are we smart enough to find one?

RM: I’m certainly not. But maybe you are. What have ya got?

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2012.12.16.1835 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2012.12.16.1647 AZ)--

FN: All that said, my personal view is that Rick can be an obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative p***k. I also happen to believe that, in light of other matters that concern him (especially PCT itself), he doesn't give a s**t if he comes across as a p***k. And, for what it's worth, I probably learn more about PCT from Rick's rants than I do from anything else. So, on my part, I'm perfectly willing to tolerate his c**p because, on balance, it's well worth it.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and a Happy Holiday Season to all.

Fred (The PCT Dabbler/Dilettante) Nickols

BP: That's a start in the right direction, I think. Remember that nobody produces behavior or behavior patterns just for the sake of making them happen. So when someone is acting like a p***k, there is an intent to experience some particular effect as a result, if PCT is right. Furthermore, if this behavior persists for a long time or increases, the obvious conclusion is that it's not producing enough of the desired result, or maybe produces only a small bit of it, so the person has to keep trying harder to make it work.

Of course this is the opposite of what someone into reinforcement theory would say; that person would say that it's the result of the behavior that rewards a person for producing it and makes him do it more. Reorganization theory, to the contrary, says that it's lack of a needed result that leads to endlessly looking for the magic way of finally achieving what is wanted. And reorganization theory is much more sympathetic to the offender (without condoning anything), because instead of saying the offender acts that way because he likes offending people, we would say he acts that way because he is perpetually unsatisfied and unhappy with his experiences in the world. He's really a miserable p***k.

I'm thinking, of course, not of Rick but of Adam Lanza, the shooter. And I'm thinking of myself. I can imagine how the shooter came to this final resolution of his problem, because there was a time in my life when I could conceivably have gone the same way. For a few years I had hate fantasies that included my parents and others, and only through the luck of reorganization somehow managed to leave that frame of mind, in small irregular steps. It is quite easy for me to imagine how it could have simply become worse and worse until I had to do something extreme about it.

This means I can take a step or two in Adam Lanza's shoes. I can see that there was no evil spirit plotting a way to become a murderer; it was simply one thing leading to another and a problem becoming large and larger because nothing was working to make it any better.

That is all that is necessary to keep reorganization going, and, again if PCT is right, that means continuing a random walk of reorganization, the outcome of which is unpredictable except to say that it will end either with a solution to the problem that eliminates the need to keep reorganizing, or with death. Adam Lanza's random walk ended with his death, and that of many others.

If the first grade rooms at that school had been wiped out by a tornado, those six and seven year old children, and some of the adults who took care of them, would be no less dead than they are now in Newtown. The grief of survivors and onlookers would be just as sharp and intolerable. The main difference would be that we can't hate a tornado the way we can hate a person for creating the same destruction.

Instead of hating tornadoes, what we have done is to devise early warnings of their approach, ways of making buildings stronger, ways of providing stormproof shelters, ways of teaching people of all ages how to give themselves the best chance of surviving, ways to alert first responders as quickly as possible so as to save those who can still be saved. Instead of simply hating, we try to do something that will make the problem not quite as bad, and maybe eventually will stop it in one way or another. People are just beginning to do that for schools and other public places at risk. But they have begun, and they will get better at doing it, with clear heads and calm determination and a focus on actions that could actually have some useful effect. The people who eventually solve this problem will not waste their time hating anything or anyone.

Somewhere in all that there is yet another lesson we can draw from PCT about learning to get along with each other. Let's keep trying to put it into words.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.16.2025)]

Fred Nickols (2012.12.16.1647 AZ)–

FN: All that said, my personal view is that Rick can be an obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative pk. I also happen to believe that, in light of other matters that concern him (especially PCT itself), he doesn’t give a st if he comes across as a pk. And, for what it’s worth, I probably learn more about PCT from Rick’s rants than I do from anything else. So, on my part, I’m perfectly willing to tolerate his cp because, on balance, it’s well worth it.

RM: Thanks, Fred (I think;-).

Bill Powers (2012.12.16.1835 MST)–

BP: If the first grade rooms at that school had been wiped out by a tornado, those six and seven year old children, and some of the adults who took care of them, would be no less dead than they are now in Newtown. The grief of survivors and onlookers would be just as sharp and intolerable. The main difference would be that we can’t hate a tornado the way we can hate a person for creating the same destruction.

Instead of hating tornadoes, what we have done is to devise early warnings of their approach, ways of making buildings stronger, ways of providing storm proof shelters, ways of teaching people of all ages how to give themselves the best chance of surviving, ways to alert first responders as quickly as possible so as to save those who can still be saved. Instead of simply hating, we try to do something that will make the problem not quite as bad, and maybe eventually will stop it in one way or another. People are just beginning to do that for schools and other public places at risk. But they have begun, and they will get better at doing it, with clear heads and calm determination and a focus on actions that could actually have some useful effect. The people who eventually solve this problem will not waste their time hating anything or anyone.

RM: I have no hatred for the poor creep who did this. But I do have a hard time not hating the people who actively oppose implementing sensible measures (gun control) that would most effectively moderate the effects of “tornadoes” (nut cases with guns) and instead advocate for developing methods of predicting and eliminating such " tornadoes".

BP: Somewhere in all that there is yet another lesson we can draw from PCT about learning to get along with each other. Let’s keep trying to put it into words.

RM: I get along with right wingers just fine. I just don’t get along with their ideas. And I think that their ideas, when implemented as policy, are causing lots of people unnecessary pain. So I am in a conflict; I don’t like to hurt people – especially family and friends – but I also don’t like people who advocate things that cause unnecessary pain to main people. It’s hard to fight against the ideas without at least seeming to be fighting against the people who advocate them. But in this case its actually true that ideas don’t hurt people, people do. So I’ll go after the ideas and if the people who advocate them feel bad, so be it. Do you have a better idea?

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2012.12.17.0740 MST)]

Rick Marken (2012.12.16.2025) –

RM: I have no hatred for the
poor creep who did this. But I do have a hard time not hating the people
who actively oppose implementing sensible measures (gun control) that
would most effectively moderate the effects of “tornadoes” (nut
cases with guns) and instead advocate for developing methods of
predicting and eliminating such " tornadoes".

BP: Somewhere in all that there is yet another lesson we can draw
from PCT about learning to get along with each other. Let’s keep trying
to put it into words.

RM: I get along with right wingers just fine. I just don’t get along with
their ideas. And I think that their ideas, when implemented as policy,
are causing lots of people unnecessary pain. So I am in a conflict; I
don’t like to hurt people – especially family and friends – but I also
don’t like people who advocate things that cause unnecessary pain to main
people. It’s hard to fight against the ideas without at least seeming to
be fighting against the people who advocate them. But in this case its
actually true that ideas don’t hurt people, people do. So I’ll go after
the ideas and if the people who advocate them feel bad, so be it.
Do you have a better idea?

I guess my question would be, how effective is “going after”
ideas or people who advocate things you don’t like? It seems to me that
this invites and perpetuates the very things you are trying to oppose.
When you push on people, they push back even if they weren’t pushing
before you did. You create and sustain a conflict, which destroys control
and encourages mutually destructive actions. The mere fact that you are
outraged and hate certain ideas isn’t very interesting to most people;
there are people on both sides of every issue that engages you who insist
that they are on the right side and have the right ideas. A neutral
intelligent octopod from Alpha Centauri 3 would see a host of pretty
well-balanced conflicts, good for a lot of years of emotional exercise,
and guaranteed not to get anywhere in either direction.

Babies quickly learn that if they have a problem, making a lot of noise
will soon bring an adult to take care of it for them. But when the babies
grow up, they’re supposed to unlearn that, and learn instead to be the
adults who take care of problems. Once adulthood arrives, there are no
super-adults who will show up and save the day, except in comic books. If
we don’t do it for ourselves, it won’t get done. Just complaining about
the problem won’t solve it. Complaints are meant to get someone else to
take care of it.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.17.0900)]

Bill Powers (2012.12.17.0740 MST)

Rick Marken (2012.12.16.2025) –

RM: I get along with right wingers just fine. I just don’t get along with
their ideas…So I’ll go after
the ideas and if the people who advocate them feel bad, so be it.
Do you have a better idea?

BP: I guess my question would be, how effective is “going after”
ideas or people who advocate things you don’t like?

RM: I think it has been very effective because it is the only way to effect change. But the change has come very slowly. But I think the world has indeed gotten better because the good ideas have eventually triumphed over the bad. Until just under 200 years ago we still had slavery in this country. I admire those who fought against it and I detest those who fought for it. It took a long time for this to change but it eventually did because people argued and even fought against it. I think violence is terrible but when the bad ideas are seriously hurting people you get violence too, unfortunately. Just over the last 100 years in the US the labor movement pushed for good ideas – child labor laws, 40 hour work week, workplace safety, good wages – that became accepted for quite a while. But the people on the other side of the conflict are always there – the bad idea people. And they sometimes win back the gains that were made by the good. But looking over the long years of history I do see a general, slow movement toward goodness. I believe that’s because most people do end up with good system concepts and those generally, eventually prevail. But it is an E.coli process that is moving, on overage, up the gradient. Fort the last 30 year the US has been moving down the gradient, I think because the people with bad ideas – the minority of people – have ways to bend the conflict in their favor, using money and the power of media. But over the long run I think we are moving in the good direction and it’s because, by luck, we have produced people like Jesus, Lincoln, Tom Paine, etc – who who have been willing to fight the bad ideas with the good. Like rust, the bad ideas never stop so you have to keep pushing against them. I prefer to do it with data rather than rhetoric. But I see no other way to do it. This conflict between good and bad system concepts will go on forever, I suppose – or at least until an asteroid hits or a super volcano erupts – and then the who conflict becomes moot.

By the way, I am referring to the two sides of the conflict as good and bad but I just as well could call them A and B. Whatever you call them, one side seems to be “winning” over the long run. It’s the side I favor and I will continue to fight for it. I think fighting for what you believe in this way is what it means to be human, at the highest level. I think that’s what Dylan was getting at when he sang “You gotta serve somebody”. I serve point of view A – it might be the devil and it might be the lord but I gotta serve somebody;-)

Unless you have some better idea. Perhaps “Let it be” (I ultimately get all my philosophical ideas from rock and roll lyrics;-).

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Kenny Kitzke (2012.12.17.1500EST)]

Bill, I suspect that you perceive that I occasionally bring up rather controversial subjects on CSGNET. Prior to this Assassins thread was the one titled Obama Victory.

My purpose in these postings is to try to understand whether PCT better explains why people do what they do than the popular S-R explanations. If this group can’t provide such an explanation, I do not know who will? Further, without a more public utterance about PCT about behavior that is of interest to millions of people in the USA or even the world, I perceive PCT will never emerge as a superior and worthwhile theory of psychology. It will be relegated to an historical dustbin of radical ideas that never changed the prevailing scientific view of human behavior no matter how inaccurate and ineffective the prevailing theories seem to be.

So, in neither case did I try to argue on CSGNET posts for the supposed causes or rightness or wrongness of the election outcome or what caused this observed diabolic murder spree and what can be done to prevent a future occurrence. It is not that I don’t have personal beliefs or speculations about such things but that I realize that my perceptions are not shared by everyone and that some will adamantly oppose my views even presenting some well intentioned reasons for why their view is superior (more right) than mine.

Lastly, I refuse to believe that I have a right to fight others who disagree with my views to get them to adopt my views or suffer my hate and viral attacks upon either their intelligence or their morality.

I just mention this to say how I find your views expressed to Rick as a more fruitful way to live together more peacefully and without rancor or hate or threats. I regret that Rick does not seem to get it even when it comes from the leader of the PCT Revolution who longs for a reorganization of the theory of human behavior as much as Rick does and believes it will help us get along with one another.

How Rick, as much as he understands PCT, can conceive that you can overtly attack and fight ideas of other people without offending them and often creating large errors and conflict within them is just difficult to understand.

It is as if Rick simply does not understand or accept MOL. The solution that seems to escape him (and most people) is that name calling is something a MOL facilitator would never do. They simply help raise the attention of the “client” or adversary to higher levels within themselves. Isn’t it reasonable to get adversaries to assess their own personal reference variables concerning say slavery or murder of innocents to a zero level of acceptability? When that happens within a person’s hierarchy, the actions that enslave or kill will not be a means of control.

Anyway, that is why I see PCT being a mighty and revolutionary way of achieving peace among people. No more hate, fighting and belittling others for their higher level perceptions of beliefs or systemic approaches for how to behave properly.

Oh, I am tempted to take on Rick about beliefs he has that I find as naive. But, for the kind of reasons you illuminate I sense it will produce more conflict among us PCTers. And, if we are so divisive with one another, how are we going to ever convince the psychologists, politicians and school administrators that their search to discover specific motivational causes in the specific events I raised will somehow tell us what we should do differently to prevent future occurrences. It seems to me to be a waste of precious time.

As you seem to realize, when the time you have to make a difference seems to be drawing to a close, you want more than ever to find a better way to influence people and their behavior, not just for themselves but for all human beings. You have taught me some better ways through PCT…and they don’t include belligerence and name calling. I am so grateful for that Mr. Powers.

While the issues lately discussed on CSGNET on information theory, affordances, requisite variety, law of effect, etc., may have a relation to an improved theoretical understanding of PCT, they have not interested me and I perceive them to be dealing with the trees and ignoring the forest. These details are unlikely to catch the attention of practicing psychologists much less those who wish they could experience a better life and human experience by a better understanding of why people do what they do, even voters and assassins.

Let me know if I seem off base.

Kenny

In a message dated 12/17/2012 10:01:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···
RM: I have no hatred for the poor creep who did this. But I do have a hard time not hating the people who actively oppose implementing sensible measures (gun control) that would most effectively moderate the effects of "tornadoes" (nut cases with guns) and instead advocate for developing methods of predicting and eliminating such " tornadoes".

  BP: Somewhere in all that there is yet another lesson we can draw from PCT about learning to get along with each other. Let's keep trying to put it into words.


RM: I get along with right wingers just fine. I just don't get along with their ideas. And I think that their ideas, when implemented as policy, are causing lots of people unnecessary pain. So I am in a conflict; I don't like to hurt people -- especially family and friends -- but I also don't like people who advocate things that cause unnecessary pain to main people. It's hard to fight against the ideas without at least seeming to be fighting against the people who advocate them. But in this case its actually true that ideas don't hurt people, people do. So I'll go after the ideas and if the people who advocate them feel bad, so be it.  Do you have a better idea?

[From Bill Powers (2012.12.17.0740 MST)]

Rick Mar ken (2012.12.16.2025) –

I guess my question would be, how effective is “going after” ideas or people who advocate things you don’t like? It seems to me that this invites and perpetuates the very things you are trying to oppose. When you push on people, they push back even if they weren’t pushing before you did. You create and sustain a conflict, which destroys control and encourages mutually destructive actions. The mere fact that you are outraged and hate certain ideas isn’t very interesting to most people; there are people on both sides of every issue that engages you who insist that they are on the right side and have the right ideas. A neutral intelligent octopod from Alpha Centauri 3 would see a host of pretty well-balanced conflicts, good for a lot of years of emotional exercise, and guaranteed not to get anywhere in either direction.

Babies quickly learn that if they have a problem, making a lot of noise will soon bring an adult to take care of it for them. But when the babies grow up, they’re supposed to unlearn that, and learn instead to be the adults who take care of problems. Once adulthood arrives, there are no super-adults who will show up and save the day, except in comic books. If we don’t do it for ourselves, it won’t get done. Just complaining about the problem won’t solve it. Complaints are meant to get someone else to take care of it.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.18.1130)]

Kenny Kitzke (2012.12.17.1500EST)–

KK: How Rick, as much as he understands PCT, can conceive that you can overtly attack and fight ideas of other people without offending them and often creating large errors and conflict within them is just difficult to understand.

RM: So when you say that gun control , which I advocate, is wrong you are not attacking me but when I say that lack of gun control is wrong I am attacking you? Is that what I should learn from PCT. And since you seem to agree that I understand PCT and yet I am still a mean, hurtful bastard (the technical term is “{prick” I believe), doesn’t that make you want to rethink the merits of teaching PCT in elementary schools as a way to make everyone get along (as you propose in another post). And since you think it’s so bad to attack other people’s ideas you must really hate to listen to right wing radio commentators.

KK: It is as if Rick simply does not understand or accept MOL. The solution that seems to escape him (and most people) is that name calling is something a MOL facilitator would never do. They simply help raise the attention of the “client” or adversary to higher levels within themselves. Isn’t it reasonable to get adversaries to assess their own personal reference variables concerning say slavery or murder of innocents to a zero level of acceptability? When that happens within a person’s hierarchy, the actions that enslave or kill will not be a means of control.

RM: You’re right. I don’t understand MOL. Certainly not the way you do. When I go up a level and assess my own personal reference "variables’ (I presume you mean references for various perceptual variables) I end up becoming aware of the fact that I have zero level of acceptability for many of the things you seem to accept: egregious income and wealth inequality, easy access to automatic weapons, for-profit health insurance, etc.

KK: Anyway, that is why I see PCT being a mighty and revolutionary way of achieving peace among people. No more hate, fighting and belittling others for their higher level perceptions of beliefs or systemic approaches for how to behave properly.

RM: But if you admit that I understand PCT then how can you continue to believe this; although I think I do understand PCT pretty darn well I will continue to fight for social policies that I believe (based on data) will make things better for everyone: single payer healthcare, strict gun control, highly progressive taxation, increased government investment in R & D, education and infrastructure, living wage laws, etc.

KK: Oh, I am tempted to take on Rick about beliefs he has that I find as naive. But, for the kind of reasons you illuminate I sense it will produce more conflict among us PCTers. And, if we are so divisive with one another, how are we going to ever convince the psychologists, politicians and school administrators that their search to discover specific motivational causes in the specific events I raised will somehow tell us what we should do differently to prevent future occurrences. It seems to me to be a waste of precious time.

RM: Conflict is a normal part of the scientific approach to gaining knowledge; alternate (conflicting) explanations of phenomena are proposed; the conflict between explanations (beliefs) is then settled by collecting data in appropriate tests. So conflicts should be a normal part of PCT to the extent that PCT is a science. So if you disagree with some of my beliefs what we should do is try to be as clear as possible about what out conflicting beliefs (theories) are and then present data that supports our beliefs.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2012.12.18.1311 MST)]

Rick Marken (2012.12.17.0900) –

BP: I guess my question would be, how effective is “going
after” ideas or people who advocate things you don’t like?
RM: I think it has been very effective because it is the only way to
effect change.

Your statement is useful, because it could explain why you haven’t
thought of any other way. If you’re convinced there is no other way but
confrontation, ridicule, name-calling, and hatred, then of course you
will not be looking for one. But I would assume that you have tried other
ways, and the only reason they’re not being used is that they haven’t
worked, either.

One of the great difficulties in getting people to change anything about
their customary ways is that it’s hard to persuade them that there is any
need to do so, or any gain to be had from changing. When a person has
been trying for a long time to achieve some goal, I always wonder first
why the person hasn’t succeeded so far, when there are so many different
ways to correct almost any error – including giving up the goal.

In most instances where I’ve been invited to demonstrate MOL with a
volunteer (who of course doesn’t expect anything dramatic to happen),
exploring even small difficulties has quickly led to recognizing much
larger ones on which the person has basically given up because a solution
seems impossible. Reorganization has apparently failed.

Persisting a bit leads to a different conclusion: the person has come to
a point at which any change that improves some aspect of life makes one
or more others worse. This leaves the person stuck with one unsuccessful
way of trying to make things better, sort of a mixture of several
opposing ways, like a good cop trying to play the bad cop at the same
time. In short, what keeps the person from making any progress is a
conflict. The person is in a “local minimum” of error, in that
any move in any direction makes the total error larger. In a way I guess
that’s where we all end up, but sometimes there is some better local
minimum that we can’t get to because when we go in that direction,
everything gets much worse before it starts to get better.

When I suggest that one solution to a problem is to give up the goal of
solving it, I am not being serious. I’m just saying that as a way of
bringing to attention the instant objection most people would feel to
actually giving it up. “But if I gave up wanting peace, justice,
equality, fairness, compassion, and all the rest, I might as well give up
living, too!” Then, of course, I would turn the conversation in a
different direction, until the person found himself/herself objecting by
saying :“But if I give up smashing the unjust, ridiculing selfish
snobs, hating evil-doers, and shaming oppressers, I might as well give up
all hope of anything getting better – and give up living, too.”
Either way the person loses.

Any attempt on my part to suggest one direction of change in particular
will only arouse the opposition, all the reasons for which that change
would make matters worse. What’s necessary, I think, is to use methods of
directing attention to help a person become aware not just of one set of
ideas or a different opposing set, but of the conflict itself, the
self-contradiction.

There is literally no way in which one person can reach inside another
and cause any particular change of organization to happen. It can’t be
done by force or guile. It can’t be done at all. Reorganization is like
digestion; nobody else can do it for you. I might be able to make your
life so painful that you start to reorganize, but once you do I have no
way to steer the reorganization in the direction I want it to go. And I
can’t erase your memory of what I did to you.

Through all this I’ve been talking to myself more than anyone. What we
need is a way to handle people like the shooter. But the more we talk
about changing people, the clearer it becomes that we can change only
ourselves. I think the solution has to be in the form of changing how we
ourselves deal with people who trouble us because they are in so much
trouble themselves.

The question, as it seems to be morphing, is not how to reform or
forestall crazy shooters (or bad theorists), but how to reform the way
all of us try to deal with crazy shooters and shooters-to-be. If what we
just naturally do is increasing the problems the crazies are facing, we
will just naturally get exactly the opposite of the result we
want.

People are not going to stop having serious problems that could lead to
extreme attempts to solve them. But I think it possible, in principle,
for the rest of us to become more aware of their problems and to start
trying to find out what they want, and to finds ways of helping them get
it without their descending into what looks like madness to the rest of
us.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.18.1820)]

Bill Powers (2012.12.18.1311 MST)--

BP: I guess my question would be, how effective is "going after" ideas or
people who advocate things you don't like?

RM: I think it has been very effective because it is the only way to effect
change.

BP: Your statement is useful, because it could explain why you haven't thought
of any other way. If you're convinced there is no other way but
confrontation, ridicule, name-calling, and hatred, then of course you will
not be looking for one. But I would assume that you have tried other ways,
and the only reason they're not being used is that they haven't worked,
either.

RM: I meant confrontation has been very effective in the long run
(like historical long run) in terms of changing things generally for
the better. It has been effective for me only inasmuch as I enjoy it.
I wouldn't call name calling, ridicule and hatred strategies I've
tried; to the extent that I have done those things I regret it; I like
to argue but I don't mean to be mean. Of course, a lot of the
perception of my meanness may just be the way people perceive my
otherwise measured and clear ways of presenting counter-arguments. As
that great PCT expert Harry Truman once said, "I don't give 'em hell;
I just tell the truth and it feels like hell".

BP: One of the great difficulties in getting people to change anything about
their customary ways is that it's hard to persuade them that there is any
need to do so, or any gain to be had from changing. When a person has been
trying for a long time to achieve some goal, I always wonder first why the
person hasn't succeeded so far, when there are so many different ways to
correct almost any error -- including giving up the goal.

RM: I think I do change the way I go about things; but, really, my
goals are being achieved pretty well (from my perspective). My main
goal in these confrontations (on CSGNet and in publications and talks)
is to try to present my points of view and the evidence on which they
are based clearly so that some people (mainly on-lookers, not
necessarily the confrontee) might benefit from them. I also do what I
do to get the counter-arguments, which are sometimes convincing (you,
for example, have often convinced me that something I was arguing
strongly for was wrong). One thing that is _not_ my goal (though it
may seem like it is, I admit) is to get the confrontee to change their
mind. I know that that is impossible for me to do and, frankly, if
someone says they have been convinced by what I say it kind of creeps
me out. My experience is that when that happens it is either because
the person didn't understand my point and is agreeing with a point I
didn't make (which is creepy) or the person is trying to stop the
argument (which is fine).

BP: In most instances where I've been invited to demonstrate MOL with a
volunteer (who of course doesn't expect anything dramatic to happen),
exploring even small difficulties has quickly led to recognizing much larger
ones on which the person has basically given up because a solution seems
impossible. Reorganization has apparently failed.

RM: I try to do a little self MOL whenever I am feeling stressed and I
suspect some internal conflict is at the root of it. But I haven't
really felt the need to reorganize lately. At least not about how I
talk about PCT and/or politics.

BP: Persisting a bit leads to a different conclusion: the person has come to a
point at which any change that improves some aspect of life makes one or
more others worse. This leaves the person stuck with one unsuccessful way of
trying to make things better, sort of a mixture of several opposing ways,
like a good cop trying to play the bad cop at the same time. In short, what
keeps the person from making any progress is a conflict. The person is in a
"local minimum" of error, in that any move in any direction makes the total
error larger. In a way I guess that's where we all end up, but sometimes
there is some better local minimum that we can't get to because when we go
in that direction, everything gets much worse before it starts to get
better.

When I suggest that one solution to a problem is to give up the goal of
solving it, I am not being serious. I'm just saying that as a way of
bringing to attention the instant objection most people would feel to
actually giving it up. "But if I gave up wanting peace, justice, equality,
fairness, compassion, and all the rest, I might as well give up living,
too!" Then, of course, I would turn the conversation in a different
direction, until the person found himself/herself objecting by saying :"But
if I give up smashing the unjust, ridiculing selfish snobs, hating
evil-doers, and shaming oppressers, I might as well give up all hope of
anything getting better -- and give up living, too." Either way the person
loses.

Any attempt on my part to suggest one direction of change in particular will
only arouse the opposition, all the reasons for which that change would make
matters worse. What's necessary, I think, is to use methods of directing
attention to help a person become aware not just of one set of ideas or a
different opposing set, but of the conflict itself, the self-contradiction.

There is literally no way in which one person can reach inside another and
cause any particular change of organization to happen. It can't be done by
force or guile. It can't be done at all.

RM You're telling me!! :wink:

BP: Reorganization is like digestion;
nobody else can do it for you. I might be able to make your life so painful
that you start to reorganize, but once you do I have no way to steer the
reorganization in the direction I want it to go. And I can't erase your
memory of what I did to you.

Through all this I've been talking to myself more than anyone. What we need
is a way to handle people like the shooter. But the more we talk about
changing people, the clearer it becomes that we can change only ourselves. I
think the solution has to be in the form of changing how we ourselves deal
with people who trouble us because they are in so much trouble themselves.

RM: That's why I prefer the gun control solution. There are just as
many disturbed people in other counties as there are in the US. Yet
the US has 6 times the gun murder rate as it's nearest competitor. I
don'[t think that's because the US has a worse early warning system
than other countries. It's simply because other countries has saner
gun policies.

BP: The question, as it seems to be morphing, is not how to reform or forestall
crazy shooters (or bad theorists), but how to reform the way all of us try
to deal with crazy shooters and shooters-to-be. If what we just naturally do
is increasing the problems the crazies are facing, we will just naturally
get exactly the opposite of the result we want.

RM: Yes, keeping them away from automatic weapons might be a nice first step.

BP: People are not going to stop having serious problems that could lead to
extreme attempts to solve them. But I think it possible, in principle, for
the rest of us to become more aware of their problems and to start trying to
find out what they want, and to finds ways of helping them get it without
their descending into what looks like madness to the rest of us.

RM: Yes, but let's do it somewhere where they are less likely to pull
out an AK-47 when they tire of all of our awareness.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Chad Green (2012.12.19.1420 EST)]

BP: I guess my question would be, how effective is "going after"
ideas or people who advocate things you don't like?
RM: I think it has been very effective because it is the only way to
effect change.

Here's a variant of the rubber-band demonstration: Ask one of the antagonists to hand his/her end of the band to another participant, and walk to the knot and observe it and nothing else. Add as many antagonists to the demonstration as desired. What does the observer notice about the behavior of the knot from this vantage point?

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.10.1600)]

Chad Green (2012.12.19.1420 EST)--

BP: I guess my question would be, how effective is "going after"
ideas or people who advocate things you don't like?
RM: I think it has been very effective because it is the only way to
effect change.

CG: Here's a variant of the rubber-band demonstration: Ask one of the antagonists to hand his/her end of the band to another participant, and walk to the knot and observe it and nothing else. Add as many antagonists to the demonstration as desired. What does the observer notice about the behavior of the knot from this vantage point?

RM: It depends. You might see no change in a stable knot or a change
to instability from stability or vice versa. It depends on the
relative gain an pullling strategies of the various opponents.

But I wonder what this has to do with what Bill and I were talking
about. Could you help me out here, Chad.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com