Choosing; meaning

Martin Taylor 2000 01 26 14:40]

[From Bill Powers (2000.01.24.1029 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2000.01.24 09:26--

>IF (A is true) THEN (Do X) ELSE (Do Y)

This describes a choice-point in a program; in a closed loop, it's the TOTE
unit. If this is what you want to mean by "choosing", then I guess I can go
along with it.

As a fundamental basis for computation, and as somthing that _must_ be
dealt with when we consider the logical parts of the hierarchy, I hope.

I don't thinks it covers all situations in which people use
that term, but if that isn't the concern -- if you're just establishing a
technical term -- that's not a problem. Of course in that case, the meaning
of "I see you've chosen ..." suggested by you, Tucker, the Bruces,
Jorgensen, and apparently almost everyone else but me doesn't apply, does it?

"A" = "I act disruptively"
"X" = "I go to the RTC room"
"Y" = "I stay in class"

Didn't you accept that it could be a true statement about what the teacher
perceived the student to have been doing? And didn't you accept that the
teacher's purpose in making the observation might be an attempt to get the
student to go up a level? I guess I must have misinterpreted you again, in
thinking that you had agreed with these people's understanding of the
"meaning" of the phrase.

I took this misinterpretation from Bill Powers (2000.01.22.1234 MST):

In the RTP case, I like Erling Jorgensen's interpretation as a kind of
warning or reminder. The meaning is not actually "choosing" -- it's more
like reminding the student that under the rules that everyone is supposed
to be aware of, disrupting for the second time always results in a trip to
the RTC, so it's _AS IF_ the student had made a conscious decision to go to
the RTC (even though it's unlikely that any such decision was actually
made). In fact, with a skillful teacher, there could well be an
understanding that "I see you have chosen ..." is metaphorical and
cautionary, and not to be taken literally. So this makes it into a tool of
rhetoric, a way of helping the student grasp what it means to agree to a
social rule -- at least in _that_ teacher's classroom.

To go deeper into this requires a thread on the PCT nature of dialogue,
which I call "Layered Protocol Theory."

It's a complex topic, some of which was discussed in the two papers I
co-authored in the IJHCS special issue, but those papers covered mainly
cooperative dialogue, whereas I think to some extent the RTP use of "I see
you have chosen" is--I use the term in a technical sense rather than the
everyday sense--"deceptive," which implies non-cooperative.

In a collaborative, or cooperative, dialogue, the top level reference
of the recipient is to perceive the originator to be satisfied that the
recipient has adequately interpreted the message. The originator has
some reference perception relating to a state or an action s/he wants
to see in the recipient, and the recipient has adequately interpreted
the message when that perception in the originator closely matches its
reference value--the recipient is prceived as having come to the
desired state or to have performed the desired action. In a collaborative
dialogue, the originator tries to ensure that the recipient knows what
that reference state is.

Technically, "deception" in dialogue means that the originator of a
message has a purpose that is not intended to be apparent to the
recipient of the message. The originator intends the recipient to come
to some state or perform some action without the recipient doing
it in order to see the originator as being satisfied. In other words,
a "deceptive" message is one that is intended to disturb one of the
recipient's controlled perceptions, but _not_ the controlled perception
of the originator's state of satisfaction that the message has been
adequately interpreted.

If the teacher's purpose in saying "I see you have chosen..." were
simply to let the student know what the teacher has seen, then the
message would not be deceptive. If the teacher says it with the intention
that the student perceives the teacher to want him/her to "go up a level,"
it is also not deceptive. But if the teacher says it with the intention
that the student questions his/her own purposes in the disruptive actions,
but does not intend the student to know that was the teacher's purpose,
then the message is technically "deceptive," no matter how helpful it may
be to the student.

The implication of potential force behind the removal of the student
to the quiet room is irrelevant. That potential force can be treated
as if it were a law of nature--it's like trying to put a glass down
with too much overlap over the edge of a table; the glass falls to the
floor regardless of the purpose of the person who placed it. An
observer could say "I see you chose to smash the glass" with the intent
of irritating the accident-prone person--i.e. disturbing their self-image
perception to the extent of reorganizing so that they include a perception
of the table edge the next time they try to put a glass down. (I have
a personal stake in this example, having many years ago scalded my leg
by putting a coffee cup down on a sheet of paper I mistakenly thought
to be wholly on top of the table; I now look carefully before putting
coffee cups down on papers during meetings:-()

···

------------------

The meaning is not actually "choosing" -- it's more
like reminding the student that ...

It's interesting that you treated the meaning of "meaning" as a purpose
rather than as a pointer to some real-world object or phenomenon, the
way most people do. Did you do that casually, or with malice aforethought,
or because it is so obvious to you as not to require special notice?

I was not aware of the necessity to equate "meaning" with purpose until
perhaps 5 or 10 years ago (I don't remember exactly when this important
fact became clear to me). It's so different from the way most people
define "meaning" that I think it worth remarking and re-emphasising.

I'd be interested, if you can introspect, to know how this insight came
to you. For me, it came through the later development of Layered Protocol
Theory, and was one reason why it was so easy for me to see LPT as a
special case of PCT.

Martin

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.01.27.1043 EST)]

Bill Powers (2000.01.26.1520 MST)--
At 03:31 PM 01/26/2000 -0700, Bill Powers wrote in response to
Martin Taylor 2000 01 26 14:40

Didn't you accept that it could be a true statement about what the teacher
perceived the student to have been doing?

Yes, but I did not agree that it WAS what the student was doing. In fact, I
believe the teacher is most likely to have misperceived, since the
student's thought processes can't be established very easily.

Perhaps a sounder statement might be "Neither we nor the teacher can tell
whether the teacher has misperceived or not, since the student's thought
processes can't be established very easily."

The teacher's notion of the student's thought process is not so groundless
as ours. It is based upon a lot of prior discussion, teaching, and learning
that involved the teacher and this student, together with the others
present, and in particular it is based upon the "What are you doing?"
exchange with this student just a short while before. There is some
validity to social expectations. Millions of years of evolution of social
critters is not without effect.

Even so, neither we nor the teacher can tell for sure whether the teacher
has misperceived or not, since the student's thought processes can't be
established very easily.

        Bruce Nevin

[From Bill Powers (2000.01.27.1010 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.01.27.1043 EST)--

Perhaps a sounder statement might be "Neither we nor the teacher can tell
whether the teacher has misperceived or not, since the student's thought
processes can't be established very easily."

Yes, that's better, but see below:

The teacher's notion of the student's thought process is not so groundless
as ours. It is based upon a lot of prior discussion, teaching, and learning
that involved the teacher and this student, together with the others
present, and in particular it is based upon the "What are you doing?"
exchange with this student just a short while before. There is some
validity to social expectations. Millions of years of evolution of social
critters is not without effect.

Teachers, however, are not an alien race come to study the psychology of
human children by making inferences from objective data. They once were
children, and probably the best way to estimate a child's frame of mind is
through memory. I don't agree with you that our notion of a child's frame
of mind is "groundless." I don't have much data, but it seems to me that
whenever I was told something like "I see you have chosen ..." [externally
imposed consequence of some stupid act on my part], the speaker was simply
wrong. I not only didn't choose the consequence, but at the time I
misbehaved I wasn't even thinking about the consequence. I will admit to a
few cases in which I did think about the consequence but was confident it
wouldn't happen to me. I can't think of a single case where an intention to
bring the consequence about was the reason for my misbehavior.

The phenomenon of children misbehaving deliberately in order to get sent to
the RTC is apparently so rare that authentic cases of it were described in
Ed Ford's books as being in some way remarkable. There is certainly no
implication in RTP materials that children usually deliberately misbehave
as a means of being sent to the RTC. If that's what they want, all they
have to do is raise a hand and ask to go there.

The "I see you have chosen ..." formula is, as Erling Jorgenson said, not
to be taken literally (if we are to be charitable about this matter). The
teacher saying this, unless seriously deluded, is not announcing a
discovery about a choice consciously and deliberately made by the student
(except in a few anomalous cases).

However, in many instances I know about, this is a code phrase, meaning
"Whether you like it or not, the consequence of what you just did is going
to be [the consequence]". The implied follow-on is "... and since you were
supposed to know that would happen, my enforcement of that consequence is
your doing, not mine."

It's the "not my fault" aspect of this verbal game to which I object. You
don't seem to be bothered by it. Does the end justify the means, in this
case? I think that children see through this formula, and that to some
extent it lowers their opinion of the teacher's honesty and candor. But you
seem to be looking for a way of seeing this kind of interaction that will
make it permissible. I really don't understand why, unless you habitually
use it with children and don't want to give it up.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2000.01.27.0950)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.01.27.1043 EST)--

The teacher's notion of the student's thought process
is not so groundless as ours.... Millions of years of
evolution of social critters is not without effect.

Yes. It has not only produced teachers who can determine what
kids have chosen to do, it has also produced Mafia bosses who
can determine which offers can't be refused.

Ah, metaphor.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Martin Taylor 2000.01.27 21:17]

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.01.27.1043 EST)]

Bill Powers (2000.01.26.1520 MST)--
At 03:31 PM 01/26/2000 -0700, Bill Powers wrote in response to
Martin Taylor 2000 01 26 14:40

Bill's message has not arrived here yet, so I cannot comment on it. If
it contained anything that might be worth a comment, I'd appreciate a
(possibly private) repost. But perhaps it has not arrived at other
recipients of CSGnet, either, in which case a public repost might be
in order.

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2000.01.27 21:17]

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.01.27.1043 EST)]

Bill Powers (2000.01.26.1520 MST)--
At 03:31 PM 01/26/2000 -0700, Bill Powers wrote in response to
Martin Taylor 2000 01 26 14:40

Bill's message has not arrived here yet, so I cannot comment on it. If
it contained anything that might be worth a comment, I'd appreciate a
(possibly private) repost. But perhaps it has not arrived at other
recipients of CSGnet, either, in which case a public repost might be
in order.

Here:

X-Sender: powers_w@mail.frontier.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
References: <3.0.6.32.20000124103605.0079e410@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000122131229.0079cdb0@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000120161730.00796710@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000119063914.007a2be0@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000118094554.0079c790@mail.frontier.net>
            <4.1.20000113172248.00a27470@pilgrim.cisco.com>
            <3.0.6.32.20000111031539.0079dce0@mail.frontier.net>
            <4.1.20000110183339.015fcf00@pilgrim.cisco.com>
            <3.0.6.32.20000110151803.0079c880@mail.frontier.net>
            <4.1.20000110143617.0195e7d0@pilgrim.cisco.com>
            <3.0.6.32.20000110100402.007ab600@mail.frontier.net>
            <4.1.20000110091859.00ad3360@pilgrim.cisco.com>
            <3.0.6.32.20000108102131.0079c340@mail.frontier.net>
            <200001081651.KAA29166@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu>
            <3.0.6.32.20000118094554.0079c790@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000119063914.007a2be0@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000120161730.00796710@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000122131229.0079cdb0@mail.frontier.net>
            <3.0.6.32.20000124103605.0079e410@mail.frontier.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000126153103.0079e250@mail.frontier.net>
              <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)"
              <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

···

At 09:20 PM 01/27/2000 -0500, Martin Taylor wrote:
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:31:03 -0700
Reply-To: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)"
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Subject: Re: Choosing; meaning
To: CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v04210101b4b4fe1f82c7@[24.112.156.251]>
X-SMTP-HELO: postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: owner-csgnet@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU
X-SMAP-Received-From: outside
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11]
X-UIDL: 2458b1058178e68fa31ecff823b03b3c

[From Bill Powers (2000.01.26.1520 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2000 01 26 14:40
Me:

the meaning
of "I see you've chosen ..." suggested by you, Tucker, the Bruces,
Jorgensen, and apparently almost everyone else but me doesn't apply, does

it?

Taylor:

"A" = "I act disruptively"
"X" = "I go to the RTC room"
"Y" = "I stay in class"

Didn't you accept that it could be a true statement about what the teacher
perceived the student to have been doing?

Yes, but I did not agree that it WAS what the student was doing. In fact, I
believe the teacher is most likely to have misperceived, since the
student's thought processes can't be established very easily.

And didn't you accept that the
teacher's purpose in making the observation might be an attempt to get the
student to go up a level? I guess I must have misinterpreted you again, in
thinking that you had agreed with these people's understanding of the
"meaning" of the phrase.

None of that has anything to do with the logical statement "If A then X
else Y." If that is ALL you intend to mean by choosing, then what does
going up a level, reminding, warning, and so on -- none of which has any
agreed-on or consistent technical meaning -- have to do with that logical
form?

I took this misinterpretation from Bill Powers (2000.01.22.1234 MST):

In the RTP case, I like Erling Jorgensen's interpretation as a kind of
warning or reminder. The meaning is not actually "choosing" -- it's more
like reminding the student that under the rules that everyone is supposed
to be aware of, disrupting for the second time always results in a trip to
the RTC, so it's _AS IF_ the student had made a conscious decision to go to
the RTC (even though it's unlikely that any such decision was actually
made).

I don't see how you make "If A then X else Y" out of that. In fact, what
you quoted above says that the meaning of what I took Erling to be saying
is NOT "choosing" -- it's a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with
choosing. I was taking Erling's meaning to refer to a metaphor, not a
rigorous logical statement.

I truly don't want to get any deeper into this academic exercise.

Best,

Bill P.