Blaming the victim

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
41

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.1310)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.22.0850)

Bill Williams (21 September 2001 6:00 CST) --

> it seems to me that the pain that words/speech may appear to _cause_ is
> actually a pain that the listener generates internally.

Words evoke imagined perceptions in the listener.

If I didn't know better, I would think you were defending a conventional
S-R view. Words are the stimulus and imagined perceptions are the response.

To the extent that
these perceptions differ from the listener's existing references there
will be error -- pain -- so in this way words can seem to be the cause
of pain.

I would think that the connection between pain and error is tenuous at
best. What seems to be needed is a model that explains why only some errors
are associated with pain.

Words can also cause pain by evoking images in the listener
that lead the listener to perform hurtful acts. Iago uses words this way
in Othello.

Again you seem to be skirting an S-R model. I am sure this is not your
intention.

> Verbal abuse, it now appears to me, is a misnomer.

I think it's a perfectly good nomer; you can abuse people with words
quite effectively.

Abuse me with words all you like. You have my permission.

> When one human being regards another human being as being less than
fully human
> then it seems to me unfortunate results are likely to follow.

I think the behavior of the asshole, scumbag terrorists prove this to be
true in spades. I don't think the terrorists are (or were) less than
human. The words I used to describe them are meant to communicate the
obvious fact (obvious to everyone I know or want to spend any time with)
that these slime represent the worst that humanity has to offer in terms
of their choice of reference signals.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but I suspect that the
terrorists felt exactly the same way about American capitalists.

> When if ever,does a vile description of another human being serve a
> constructive purpose???

When those human beings have done something that hurts me (and my loved
ones) beyond speech and comprehension; something that sucks the meaning
out life for my children and their generation; that plunges everyday
life into a fearful, graceless exercise; and that virtually ends
political dialog. In that case, using vile words to describe the human
beings who did this serves the constructive purpose of making the world
(in my imagination) seem a little more sensible.

I hope you feel better. (I discount the possibility that you will work
yourself up into a frenzy and begin acting like a worthless scumbag.)
However, this (dare I say masturbatory?) flight of fantasy seems unlikely
to accomplish anything constructive, don't you agree? I agree it's
difficult to dialog with those willing to die to maintain their reference
levels, no matter those reference levels might be.

I trust you are comforted that Bush has declared a jihad on terrorists. The
battle between good and evil has been joined. At least we know which side
you are on.

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

42

[From Bill Williams UMKC 22 September 2001 12:30 CST ]

There is no question that Rick, in some sense, has a very considerable
understanding of control theory. However, in the following he does not appear
to me to be arguing from a control theory perspective.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.0850)]

Bill Williams (21 September 2001 6:00 CST) --

> it seems to me that the pain that words/speech may appear to _cause_ is
> actually a pain that the listener generates internally.

Words evoke imagined perceptions in the listener. To the extent that
these perceptions differ from the listener's existing references there
will be error -- pain -- so in this way words can seem to be the cause
of pain. Words can also cause pain by evoking images in the listener
that lead the listener to perform hurtful acts.

HOw can a word, which is just a pattern of sound waves, _cause_ a listener to do
anything including hurt? Isn't the listener responsible for whatever the
listener does? Including in this the control of their feelings?? Your argument
does not appear to me to be one that is consistent with control theory or for
that mattter your recent arguments concerning blame. After all, if someone
curses me in German, I'm not going to be able to comprehend what is being said.
Therefore I won't be offended. The interpretation is something that I have to
do. I don't actually act upon the word the sound waves but rather to my
interpretation of the word. Einstein I am told would go to Nazi demonstrations
because he found them so funny. If I understand your argument, if I say the
wrong word to you, and you hit me, then I'm responsible for my being hit because
I said the wrong word. Isn't this what your last sentence above says?

Iago uses words this way

in Othello. It's because words can be used in this way that most
civilizations teach their children that it is wrong to use words in
certain ways (free speech or no), in particular it is wrong to use
speech to slander and bear false witness.

I'm pleased to hear that you acknowledge civilization's teaching that it is
wrong to slander and bear false witness. Some of us had doubts as to your
views in this regard. Would that your practice more fully conformed to
these teachings. If you wish we can discuss particulars.

> You could say that the listener has "chosen to hurt."

I think this is rarely the case. Words hurt because they evoke images
that differ from existing references or because they lead to hurtful
actions aimed at eliminating the word-evoked disturbing perception (as
in the case of Othello and Desdamona).

> Verbal abuse, it now appears to me, is a misnomer.

I think it's a perfectly good nomer; you can abuse people with words
quite effectively.

Many people are of the opinion that you've been quite effective in this
respect-- being abusive. Given my view of the causal situation, I think the
problem is in their minds. Consistent with that I've advised them that they can
eliminate the problem by paying you no attention or changing their reference
levels. HOwever, They feel so strongly it that they don't come to the meetings
anymore, which I view as mistake-- their mistake.

> When one human being regards another human being as being less than fully

human

> then it seems to me unfortunate results are likely to follow.

I think the behavior of the asshole, scumbag terrorists prove this to be
true in spades. I don't think the terrorists are (or were) less than
human. The words I used to describe them are meant to communicate the
obvious fact (obvious to everyone I know or want to spend any time with)
that these slime represent the worst that humanity has to offer in terms
of their choice of reference signals.

Couldn't agree more-- worst humanity has to offer. However, by resorting to the
"asshole, scumbag" language you are potentially giving some folks in the Near
East a great deal of satisfaction. I don't intend giving such people an occasion
to laugh at my pain.

> When if ever,does a vile description of another human being serve a
> constructive purpose???

When those human beings have done something that hurts me (and my loved
ones) beyond speech and comprehension; something that sucks the meaning
out life for my children and their generation; that plunges everyday
life into a fearful, graceless exercise; and that virtually ends
political dialog. In that case, using vile words to describe the human
beings who did this serves the constructive purpose of making the world
(in my imagination) seem a little more sensible.

This is fine with me. I would hope however that you would disassociate it from
a control theory view. Personally I think it would detract from my dignity to
go about screaming "Asshole scumbag." at people.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

In my view what would make the world a little more sensible would be to adopt a
control theory view. We could start by not getting so excited about words. We
can choose how we process words. If we think of words as sound waves, that we
recognize as signs, and symbols, and understand that our reactions are in large
part or wholly a matter of how these words in combination with our reference
levels create error signals then, it seems to me, we can make choices about what
reference levels we are going to maintain concerning words. When I first
realized this it was such a relief. Whatever Rick or anyone else said about me,
didn't have to cause me any disturbance-- if I chose the right reference level--
like "consider the source." However, since most people Rick included have a
limited understanding of control theory, I for the most part don't engage in the
use of vile language.

What Rick appears to be doing is accomodating his conception of causal relations
to a pre-existing set of emotional commitments ( reference levels ). WHat
control theory ought to allow us to do is to conform our emotional committments
(reference levels ) to a view of the world conceived in terms of a control
theory perspective-- words are lifeless soundwaves.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

43

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1200)]

Me:

Words evoke imagined perceptions in the listener.

Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.1310)--

If I didn't know better, I would think you were defending a conventional
S-R view. Words are the stimulus and imagined perceptions are the response.

I am defending an "S-R" view of one aspect of perceptual control. Words
are perceptions that evoke (cause), by some kind of associative process,
other, imagined perceptions. Word (and all other) perceptions are
themselves evoked by physical variables, qi, such as the light patterns
on a screen. The S-R relationship is p = f(qi).

I would think that the connection between pain and error is tenuous at
best.

I was just using "pain" to mean whatever unpleasantness might be
experienced when there is chronic error. I agree that control error is
not necessarily associated with the kind of sensation we typically refer
to as "pain".

Me:

Words can also cause pain by evoking images in the listener that lead
the listener to perform hurtful acts. Iago uses words this way in Othello.

Ye:

Again you seem to be skirting an S-R model. I am sure this is not your
intention.

It is S-R in the sense that it one is causing an output (R) via
disturbance (S) to a controlled variable. In Othello's case, Iago's
words caused pain by disturbing Othello's perception of Desdemona's
faithfulness. Iago's words acted like a disturbance inasmuch as they
evoked, in Othello, a perception of Desdemona as faithless. Othello
corrected this perception by killing Desdamona; so words certainly hurt
her, though only indirectly. There are other ways to use words to hurt
people more directly, for example, by yelling "fire" in a crowded
theater. People end up trampling each other in their attempt to protect
themselves from a non-existent disturbance: the fire.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

44

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1215)]

Bill Williams (22 September 2001 12:30 CST) --

HOw can a word, which is just a pattern of sound waves, _cause_ a
listener to do anything including hurt?

See my previous post: Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1200). The words (S) act
as a disturbance to a variable (qi) that is controlled by acting (R) in
a particular way. A person who knows you are controlling for qi
(faithfulness of your wife, not being consumed by fire) can control your
actions (R) to some extent by verbally creating disturbances (S) to that variable.

Isn't the listener responsible for whatever the listener does?

Not in this case. Now the controller is actually responsible for your
actions because the controller is controlling for those actions.

If I understand your argument, if I say the wrong word to you, and you
hit me, then I'm responsible for my being hit because I said the wrong
word.

No. I would say you were responsible for getting hit only if you were
controlling (by saying the word) for getting hit. If getting hit was an
unintended side effect of having said the word, then, of course, you are
not responsible for getting hit.

I'm pleased to hear that you acknowledge civilization's teaching that it is
wrong to slander and bear false witness. Some of us had doubts as to your
views in this regard. Would that your practice more fully conformed to
these teachings. If you wish we can discuss particulars.

Whatever slandering or bearing false witness I have done has been done
unintentionally. I can't help how some others perceive my behavior. From
my perspective it looked like those who claimed to be slandered or lied
about were those who were failing in intellectual discussion and
resorted to hatred of me as a last resort.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

45

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 22 September 20001 4:45 CST ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.1310)]

> Rick Marken (2001.09.22.0850)
>
>Bill Williams (21 September 2001 6:00 CST) --
>
> > it seems to me that the pain that words/speech may appear to _cause_ is
> > actually a pain that the listener generates internally.
>
>Words evoke imagined perceptions in the listener.

If I didn't know better, I would think you [Rick ] were defending a

conventional

S-R view. Words are the stimulus and imagined perceptions are the response

Lets go one step further. If I understand this correctly, which is doubtfull,
Rick is arguing that if I say or perhaps wear the wrong thing on purpose, and as
a result get hit, or something, then I am to blame because I said or wore the
wrong thing and I did it on purpose.

best
   Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

46

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1900)]

Bill Williams (22 September 20001 4:45 CST) --

If I understand this correctly, which is doubtfull, Rick is arguing
that if I say or perhaps wear the wrong thing on purpose, and as a result
get hit, or something, then I am to blame because I said or wore the
wrong thing and I did it on purpose.

Not quite. See Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1215).

I think of someone as being responsible for X if they act in order to
produce X. That is, being responsible for X means (to me) controlling
for X. So you are responsible for wearing what you call "the wrong
thing" if you were controlling for wearing that thing (you wore it _on
purpose_). But you are not responsible for getting hit for wearing the
wrong thing if you didn't wear the wrong thing in order to get hit. That
is, you are not responsible for getting hit if you were not controlling
for being hit (your purpose was not to get hit).

This is the point I was making in the original "blame the victim" post.
The US is certainly responsible for carrying out what some might call
the "wrong" foreign policy because it carried out that policy on
purpose. But the US is not responsible for getting "hit" for those
policies unless the purpose of the US was to get hit by terrorists.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

47

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.2211)]

Bill Williams UMKC 22 September 20001 4:45 CST

Lets go one step further. If I understand this correctly, which is doubtfull,
Rick is arguing that if I say or perhaps wear the wrong thing on purpose,
and as
a result get hit, or something, then I am to blame because I said or wore the
wrong thing and I did it on purpose.

I don't think that "blame" has any place in the PCT model. Clearly there
are two kinds of situations. In one you disturb a perceptual variable I am
trying to control as the unintended consequence of your efforts to control
a different perceptual variable (you cut me off in traffic, but that is not
your intention; in fact, you are not paying any attention to me at all). In
the second situation, you intend to disturb a perceptual variable I am
trying to control (you intentionally cut me off because you think I cut you
off earlier). I think you are correct that I can take responsibility for my
reaction in either case, i.e., I don't have to blame you or act as though
you are responsible.

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

48

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.2211)]

I don't think that "blame" has any place in the PCT model. Clearly there
are two kinds of situations. In one you disturb a perceptual variable I am
trying to control as the unintended consequence of your efforts to control
a different perceptual variable (you cut me off in traffic, but that is not
your intention; in fact, you are not paying any attention to me at all). In
the second situation, you intend to disturb a perceptual variable I am
trying to control (you intentionally cut me off because you think I cut you
off earlier). I think you are correct that I can take responsibility for my
reaction in either case, i.e., I don't have to blame you or act as though
you are responsible.

I think I aggree with what you say, but lets see if we agree after I rephrase
what you've said. If someone through inattention cuts me off, they are
responsible for disturbing me as a result of their carelessness. However
nothing they've done requires me to do something to "get back at them." Now
suppose they cut me off on purpose. This is a somewhat different situation,
but there is in the situation nothing that requires me to strike back at them.
I may choose to do so, but that is a choice that I make. I could just as well
choose to distance myself from the situation by turning off the road at the
first opportunity.

But, you are right. Blame doesn't seem to have much if anything to do with a
causal ( or control theory ) analysis.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

49

{From Bruce Gregory (2001.0923.0721)]

>
I think I aggree with what you say, but lets see if we agree after I

rephrase

what you've said. If someone through inattention cuts me off, they are
responsible for disturbing me as a result of their carelessness. However
nothing they've done requires me to do something to "get back at them."

Now

suppose they cut me off on purpose. This is a somewhat different

situation,

but there is in the situation nothing that requires me to strike back at

them.

I may choose to do so, but that is a choice that I make. I could just as

well

choose to distance myself from the situation by turning off the road at

the

first opportunity.

Yes, we agree.

50

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.0825)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.2211) --

I don't think that "blame" has any place in the PCT model.

Since blaming is something people do (look at how Bill Williams and
others have blamed me for what they see as the problems on CSGNet), I
think it should (and does) have a place in the PCT model. "Blaming",
according to the dictionary, has two meanings: "assigning
responsibility" and "expressing disapproval". People do both of these
things all the time, particularly people involved in the legal system.

What lawyers and judges are doing when they are "blaming", from a PCT
point of view, is 1) controlling to determine the state of a perceptual
relationship between an agent (the suspect) and a result (the crime) and
2) expressing an appropriate level of disapproval for that relationship.

The perceptual variable that is the relationship between agent and crime
ranges from "no responsibility" (the suspect is innocent) to
"unintentional responsibility" (the suspect caused the result by
accident) to "complete responsibility" (the suspect caused the result
intentionally; the crime was committed in the "first degree"). Based on
the court's determination of the nature of the suspect's relationship to
the crime -- the perception of the suspect's level of responsibility for
the crime -- the court assigns to the suspect what it considers to be
the appropriate level of disapproval (from none to execution).

So "blaming" is a complex (and, I think, rather common) purposeful
behavior that is carried out systematically and formally in courts of
law. The judicial system is society's official "blaming" system and PCT
can explain how individuals implement that system.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

51

[ From Bill Williams 23 SEptember 20001 10:30 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1215)]

Bill Williams (22 September 2001 12:30 CST) --

> HOw can a word, which is just a pattern of sound waves, _cause_ a
> listener to do anything including hurt?

See my previous post: Rick Marken (2001.09.22.1200). The words (S) act
as a disturbance to a variable (qi) that is controlled by acting (R) in
a particular way. A person who knows you are controlling for qi
(faithfulness of your wife, not being consumed by fire) can control your
actions (R) to some extent by verbally creating disturbances (S) to that

variable.

I think I see it now. By jumping up and down with joy, the terrorist
sympathizing scum on the West bank are jerking your chain. Actually I think we
are in aggreement concerning the causal relationships involved. I, however,
would prefer not to introduce the old and wicked S-R notation, even as a joke.
Not everyone has Bruce Gregory's appreciation of the value of humor.

But, I have a question. How supposing I had a wife, would it be possible for me
to control her faithfulness??? Isn't she the one who ULTIMATELY makes a
decision as to whether or not to be faithfull???

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

52

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.0920)]

Me:

A person who knows you are controlling for qi (faithfulness of your
wife, not being consumed by fire) can control your actions (R) to some
extent by verbally creating disturbances (S) to that variable.

Bill Williams (23 September 20001 10:30 CST) --

I think I see it now. By jumping up and down with joy, the terrorist
sympathizing scum on the West bank are jerking your chain.

They may be but I doubt it. I think they were just very happy because a
big error signal had been closed for them.

Actually I think we are in aggreement concerning the causal relationships
involved. I, however, would prefer not to introduce the old and wicked S-R
notation, even as a joke.

I don't understand. I don't see anything "wicked" about using S-R
"notation" when talking about how people can control behavior by
capitalizing on the S-R relationship between the effects of disturbance
and output on a controlled variable.

But, I have a question. How supposing I had a wife, would it be possible
for me to control her faithfulness???

Yes. If you knew that she uses faithfulness (o) to control some other
variable (qi), such as how much attention you pay to her. Then you could
disturb qi, by varying the amount of attention you pay to you wife (d),
for example, and, thus, influence her level of faithfulness. This works
as long as it's true that your wife is, indeed, controlling qi (your
attention to her) by varying o (faithfulness) to compensate for d (your
attentiveness). If it's true that your wife is, indeed, controlling qi
in this way, then you can control her faithfulness (o) by varying d
since, according to control theory o = -1/g(d). This is an S-R
relationship -- d is the stimulus (S) and o is the response (R) that
exists because qi is under control and qi = o+d. To see how these S-R
relationships can be used to control behavior see my "Control of
Behavior" demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Coercion.html.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

53

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.0920)]

Me:

> A person who knows you are controlling for qi (faithfulness of your
> wife, not being consumed by fire) can control your actions (R) to some
> extent by verbally creating disturbances (S) to that variable.

Bill Williams (23 September 20001 10:30 CST) --

> I think I see it now. By jumping up and down with joy, the terrorist
> sympathizing scum on the West bank are jerking your chain.

They may be but I doubt it. I think they were just very happy because a
big error signal had been closed for them.

In my opinion they were taunting us with their expression of joy. And, you
by frothing at the mouth were encouraging them.

> Actually I think we are in aggreement concerning the causal relationships
> involved. I, however, would prefer not to introduce the old and wicked S-R
> notation, even as a joke.

I don't understand. I don't see anything "wicked" about using S-R
"notation" when talking about how people can control behavior by
capitalizing on the S-R relationship between the effects of disturbance
and output on a controlled variable.

I was being somewhat facitious. But, I'll explain. I don't get as excited about
behaviorism as some people do. I don't think B.F. Skinner was a demon. But, I'd
rather stick to a control theory nominclature-- even if it is somewhat more
complex than using the S-R notation. I think we are in agreement that what is
involved is _really_ a control theory phemenon. It seems to me that there is a
danger, it may be slight or in may not, of confusing people by inadvertantly
suggesting to people that there may be something to S-R theory after all. And,
from the standpoint of heterodox economics I myself avoid the use of the term
"capital" because it is so vague, and using it may suggest that there is
something worthwhile specified by orthodox economic constructs. I would rather
make a clean break with conventional theory and nominclature in both psychology
and economics. I don't favor eclecticism either as a method or in a choice of
captions.

> But, I have a question. How supposing I had a wife, would it be possible
> for me to control her faithfulness???

Yes. If you knew that she uses faithfulness (o) to control some other
variable (qi), such as how much attention you pay to her.

First of all, I think it would be a bad idea, a very bad idea, to consider
marriage primarily in terms of controlling for a wife's faithfulness. This it
seems to me is the wrong question to be asking. What's wrong should be apparent
in the following:

Suppose this hypothetical wife controls for the variable of staying alive (qi).
I should maybe get a gun??? While it may conform to way you have framed the
issue, I think there's something wrong with this picture. I think it suggests
policy measures that the hypothetical wife might if she comprehended that
she was being manipulated would strongly resent. Now there are I will admit more
sophsticated measures that might be adopted, but when the question is approached
in this way, there is a fundamental problem involved-- and its connected to the
manipulative assumptions which involved. Ordinarily, whether overt or covert,
manipulation is resented. And, smart girls have a way of figuring these things
out, and those who are so smart aren't as much fun. So, I think the S-R
notionation leads us in directions I wouldn't want to go-- manipulative
interpersonal interaction. Vicki Hearne in her book (1986) _Adam's Task:
Calling Animals by Name_ describes the inablity of behaviorist so interact
effectively with their dogs (p. 58.). This, it seems to me may provide a clue
that the approach has some problems even when applied to questions of dog
handling. Applying it to wives is asking for trouble. Rather than ask what can
I do to control my wife's faithfulness, it seems to me that control theory might
lead in another direction. Genuinely applying control theory, it seems to me,
might lead one to ask an entirely different kind of question to begin with. If
one begins with the assumption that marriage is about controlling for the wife's
faithfulness, this assumption paradoxically it seems to me may in certain
circumstances generate unfaithfullness as a result of the wife's perception that
her marriage is of such poor quality that her husband is primarily concerned
with manipulating her so that she will remain faithfull.

If control theory didn't provide a better answer than one would reach by way of
a S-R analysis, it wouldn't have much interest for me.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

54

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.0825)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0922.2211) --

> I don't think that "blame" has any place in the PCT model.

Since blaming is something people do (look at how Bill Williams and
others have blamed me for what they see as the problems on CSGNet),

I think you are ignoring what I recomended as a solution for what people
have percieved as problems on the CSGNet. My suggestion has been that
people adopt reference levels about speech that would allow them to
avoid becoming upset when other people say things with which they do
not agree. As you know, I'd also said that you should feel free to
express yourself without restraint on the net. What remember saying
was that you've sometimes said things that were not true, and sometimes
you said things that other people regard as hurtful. This is not
quite the same as blaming you for problems concerning the CSGnet.

I

think it should (and does) have a place in the PCT model. "Blaming",
according to the dictionary, has two meanings: "assigning
responsibility" and "expressing disapproval". People do both of these
things all the time, particularly people involved in the legal system.

What lawyers and judges are doing when they are "blaming", from a PCT
point of view, is 1) controlling to determine the state of a perceptual
relationship between an agent (the suspect) and a result (the crime) and
2) expressing an appropriate level of disapproval for that relationship.

The perceptual variable that is the relationship between agent and crime
ranges from "no responsibility" (the suspect is innocent) to
"unintentional responsibility" (the suspect caused the result by
accident) to "complete responsibility" (the suspect caused the result
intentionally; the crime was committed in the "first degree"). Based on

the court's determination of the nature of the suspect's relationship to

the crime -- the perception of the suspect's level of responsibility for
the crime -- the court assigns to the suspect what it considers to be
the appropriate level of disapproval (from none to execution).

So "blaming" is a complex (and, I think, rather common) purposeful
behavior that is carried out systematically and formally in courts of
law. The judicial system is society's official "blaming" system and PCT
can explain how individuals implement that system.

I think what Bruce and I intended to express by our comments on "blaming"
was that in our conception control theory is not about how to administer
punishment. Blaming is typically a step on the way to punishing someone.
Bruce can speak for himself in this matter, but I'm of the opinion that
it would be better to change the situation before something happens which
makes, or seeems to make it, necessary to punish someone. I think this is
consistent with a control theory ethic. This doesn't preclude someone using
control theory to explain as you say, how "individuals implement [a]
system." of punishment. However, what I would expect a control theory
analysis to do would be to provide evidence of how wasteful is a system
which depends upon punishment, including in this blame, as an organising
princple.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

55

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1330)]

Bill Williams:

But, I have a question. How supposing I had a wife, would it be possible
for me to control her faithfulness???

Me:

Yes. If you knew that she uses faithfulness (o) to control some other
variable (qi), such as how much attention you pay to her.

Bill W.

First of all, I think it would be a bad idea, a very bad idea, to
consider marriage primarily in terms of controlling for a wife's
faithfulness.

_You_ asked (see above) if it were _possible_ to control your wife's
faithfulness. I answered (see above) "yes" and I explained one possible
way which _assumed_ that your wife was controlling for attention. Now
you reply by saying that you think it's a bad idea "to consider marriage
primarily in terms of controlling for a wife's faithfulness". I don't
see what this has to do with my answer to you (above) about one possible
way in which you _might_ be able to control your wife's faithfulness. Do
you think I was saying that marriage is about controlling for a wife's
faithfulness? If so, we are on such different wavelengths that I'm
afraid further discussion would be a waste of time for both of us.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

56

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1350)]

William Williams wrote:

what I would expect a control theory analysis to do would be to
provide evidence of how wasteful is a system which depends upon
punishment, including in this blame, as an organising princple.

Why not do the analysis and see if the results meet your expectations?
I've found that just because I expect something to follow from control
(or any other) theory doesn't mean it _does_.

PCT leads me to expect that problems _would_ result from trying to use
rewards and punishments to control human behavior. That's why I am
opposed to trying to use rewards (giving the terrorists what they want)
or punishments (bombing the terrorists and the governments that support
them) to control the terrorist's behavior (get them to stop
terrorizing). I am in favor of defending ourselves, as best as we can,
against terrorism and this includes capturing those terrorists that we
can capture and putting them in cells for the rest of their lives.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

57

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0923.1708)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1350)

I am in favor of defending ourselves, as best as we can,
against terrorism and this includes capturing those terrorists that we
can capture and putting them in cells for the rest of their lives.

Personally, I think the approach taken by the Mosad has much to recommend
it. Say what you like about the Israelis, they been dealing with terrorism
(and practicing it) for much longer than the U.S. has. I would also not be
quick to claim responsibility for my successes. Why not learn from the
terrorists?

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

58

[ From Bill Williams 23 September 20001 4:50 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1330)]

  we are on such different wavelengths that I'm
afraid further discussion would be a waste of time for both of us.

I might have said the same thing when you argued that the joy of the West Bank
terrorist sympathesizers was an even worse evil than the actual murder of
innocent people. Yes, indeed, we are on different wavelengths. You are only
just now recognizing this?

If you don't find the discussion useful, you are free to waste your time any way
you see fit. You might try your S-R model on your wife-- that should be good for
a laugh. The problems of the world, however, it seems to me are tied up with
how people on "different wavelengths" can find ways of communicating in mutually
helpful ways. If the effort is too much for you that's OK. But, how are you
going to make nice with hostile Arabs if your discussion with me ends with
"further discussion would be a waste of time"??? Bruce Gregrory may be right,
you are just too, too sensitive.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

59

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1630)]

Me:

we are on such different wavelengths that I'm afraid further
discussion would be a waste of time for both of us.

Bill Williams (23 September 20001 4:50 CST )

...how are you going to make nice with hostile Arabs if your
discussion with me ends with "further discussion would be a
waste of time

You didn't include the question that preceded the statement of mine that
you quoted above. My complete quote, with question, was:

Do you think I was saying that marriage is about controlling for a
wife's faithfulness? If so, we are on such different wavelengths that
I'm afraid further discussion would be a waste of time for both of us.

As you can see, I was not ending my discussion with you by saying
"further discussion would be a waste of time". Indeed, I was not ending
my discussion with you at all. I was asking whether you thought that my
PCT explanation of how one might be able to control a behavior
(faithfulness) (in [Rick Marken (2001.09.23.0920)]) -- an explanation
that you requested of me -- constituted me saying that marriage is about
controlling for a wife's faithfulness. If your answer to that question
turns out to be "yes" then, indeed, further discussion is probably a
waste of time (though I'm willing to go on with the discussion) because
I would have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion and I
wouldn't know how I could successfully explain that I was not saying
that. That is, if you actually _do_ think I was saying that marriage is
about controlling for a wife's faithfulness then it would seem to me
that we are on quite different "wavelengths", communication-wise.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

60

[ From Bill Williams 23 September 20001 7:30 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.23.1630)]

Me:

> we are on such different wavelengths that I'm afraid further
> discussion would be a waste of time for both of us.

Bill Williams (23 September 20001 4:50 CST )

"Waste of time" is a phrase that is croping up quite often. Where we are on
different wave lengths is whether you explaination is one that is derived from
control theory. It doesn't appear to me that it does. So the premise of the
argument is from the begining, from my perception mistaken. It's not the way I
would think a control theorist would approach the problem.

Best

  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/