From [Marc Abrams (2006.08.13.1944)]
[From Rick Marken (2006.08.13.1145)]
If by “direct access” you mean that you have to be able physically close enough to a person to disturb potential controlled variables, then, yes, this is true.
Thank you, now what if the person is not controlling for the variable you are interested in? And frankly, what if the person was controlling for that variable? A person controls for any number of variables. How do you know which variables are the most important? That is, how do you know that they will be willing to act on them in a fashion you desire?
I think a much more important question is why you are controlling for what you are. For instance, we all know that you control for being “right”. The interesting question here is why do you feel the need to be right all the time? Another great question might be why do you feel sarcasm is an effective way to communicate your ideas over the Internet?
But I think there are naturally occurring disturbances – introduced when you don’t have direct access to potential controlled variables – that you can use as a basis for detecting controlled variables.
So what? Detecting what is being controlled is just one small part of interacting with someone else. The much more important and interesting question is why we each control for what we do, not what others might do.
We can look at ourselves, as painful as it might be at times, and see why we are controlling for what we are. But this requires a great deal of courage. It means exposing yourself and your beliefs to questions most of us would rather avoid dealing with, and do avoid dealing with.
So although Condi might be out of reach, I would hope that you are not, at least to yourself. If you want to talk about anyone you might want to try yourself.
Bill developed PCT with large doses of introspection and it is through introspection that good perceptual research can be done, IF people are willing to trust and be honest about their own introspections. But as Argyris has found out, this is no easy task, nor is it sustainable for long periods of time because our control mechanisms are very powerful in keeping threats at bay.
I’ve tested for what people (and dogs) control for when catching balls (and Frisbees) without having direct access to those people >(or dogs). I did it by fitting models to data, to which I did have access.
And what did this knowledge provide you with the ability to do?
I don’t believe Rick has the courage to talk about why he controls for > what he does. His sarcasm is a way of hiding behind his >>cowardice and > unwillingness to explore his own beliefs.
Sarcasm is a pretty thin disguise. When I made my sarcastic remark – saying that “Condi couldn’t be lying because Republicans don’t >lie” – I think my own beliefs were pretty transparent or my comment wouldn’t have even been perceived as sarcastic. My belief is >obviously that Republicans do lie –
So? And Democrats or Libertarians don’t? What does a political party affiliation have to do with either telling a lie or being a jerk?
It is just this kind of outburst and thinking that makes me, and probably others, just shake their heads. Was this in any way a “scientific” statement or hypothesis?
Rick, you’re a whole lot better than this, or are you?
just as everyone does. Seeing the sarcasm turns on the listener knowing how I feel about Republican self-righteousness about their honesty.
And what about your self-righteousness in all of this?
Why is yours ok and others intolerable? I believe this is a question of control and one that needs to be studied because you are no different than any other control system. But your current models cannot answer this question because you do not have all the necessary components in your model. This is a highly emotional issue and cannot be fully understood without understanding how our emotions affect and are affected by our attempts to control.
If you didn’t know that about my belief’s then you wouldn’t even see the sarcasm; you might have taken it as a statement of fact. >If someone like O’Reilly or Hannity had said it instead of me it would probably have been perceived as not sarcastic.
Maybe, maybe not. This of course is still another untested assumption on your part. Personally, from my days dealing with Bruce Gregory, sarcasm has always been a loser of a way of trying to communicate with others, especially over the Internet.
For me, the interesting question remains; why do we choose to control for the variables that we do?
When you ask why I control for what I do, I think ultimately its because I am controlling for a vision of society (a system concept, if >you like) to which nearly every action and statement of the Bush administration is a disturbance. I want a world where violence is the last resort to solving problems, where poverty is unknown, where the sick and mentally ill are cared for by the society, where >learning and teaching is revered and ignorance is scorned, where harmless differences between people (like their sexual preferences) are tolerated, where art and innovation are cherished and wealth (especially inherited wealth) and title are disdained. And where my >leaders are intelligent, articulate and humane. That is, I want to live in a liberal, secular, egalitarian society, like the one I thought I >was living in up until about 1980.
So, are you angry about being “wrong” about the society you thought you lived in for so long, or angry that you can’t really do anything about it?
Why do you feel that others actually want war? I spent 18 months of my life in one and would not recommend it. I don’t want war. I want peace. I want to be left alone and allowed to live my life as I see fit. Not as you think I should live it.
Do you honestly believe the Israeli’s want war? Unlike Hezbolla, the PLO, and some other idiots who are committed to the destruction of Israel, I don’t see Israel proclaiming the need to wipe a people off the face of this earth. They moved out of Lebanon, the Gaza and the West Bank for peace and what they got was a military buildup and rockets in their cities.
I don’t see Israeli citizens strapping bombs onto their kids and sending them to their deaths. I don’t see Israel building military stations under hospitals and using humans as shields. I don’t see Israel kidnapping Arabs.
I don’t see Israel starting 4 wars to wipe the country off the face of this earth. If Israel is “illegitimate” than so is every Arab country carved out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War.
Maybe you can tell me why when Israel was granted its charter by the UN and a Palestinian state was also established why the neighboring Arab countries told the Palestinian to leave because they were going to destroy Israel in a few days and they would than be able to return.
When Israel was formed over 800,000 Jews were kicked out of neighboring Arab countries, losing all their property. Why are the Palestinian still refugee’s? Why will other Arab countries not allow then to assimilate into their countries?
Israel has Arab’s in their legislature. If your a Jew you can’t even live in Saudi Arabia.
Moral equivalence my ass.
I applaud your ideals and detest your intolerance. Your ignorance is profound.
What the hell does PCT say about “terrorism”?
I think terrorism is what Tom Bourbon and Tim Carey call “counter-control”.
Really? And what scientific proof do you have for this?
The terrorist is controlling a much stronger adversary by taking advantage of that adversary’s very high gain controlling against >terrorism. Al Queda and Hezbolla have counter-controlled the US and Israel, respectively, right out of the ballpark. Al Queda and >Hezbolla knew that the US and Israel would act with very high gain to protect its citizens from further attack. And both terrorist >groups got more than they ever could have hoped for; the US invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with the >attack and Israel killing the hundreds of women and children among whom the terrorists were hiding.
What complete and utter nonsense. Its a great deal simpler than what you say. Written into the charter of Hezbollah is the destruction of Israel. The sole purpose of these organizations is the elimination of the Jewish state, period. They want a one state solution for the _world_and they are not going to get it.
The terrorist, like the obstreperous student who doesn’t want to be in class, knows that it is impossible to beat the adversary using >force.
And why pray tell are they looking to “defeat” Israel? Israeli “repression”? What repression? Exactly what is Israel doing from stopping the Arabs from developing their own country and economy?
The terrorists were concerned about now are up against the two strongest military machines (US and Israel) on earth.
Yes, they should be much more concerned with getting rid of their corrupt leadership that keeps them down and out. not Israel.
Terrorism is counter-control
Nonsense.
Developing solutions to the root causes of terrorism will take real political courage
Nonsense. It might help if hate were not institutionalized in their educational system and they stopped fighting amongst themselves long enough to get literate.
As long as they insist upon destroying the state of Israel they are going to have a very difficult time getting other things they want.
You say “counter-control”. I say they are controlling for the destruction of Israel and Western civilization. There is no need for counter-control here
Marc
···
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.