[From Rick Marken (9500229.1040)]
Some time ago (2/3), Chuck Tucker posted a description of his replication of
the experiment described in my "Cause of control movements.." paper. There
have been absolutely no comments on it, notably from those (like Bruce
Abbott) who might be expected to be most intersted since it is another piece
of evidence that the basic assumption of scientific psychology (the cause-
effect model) is wrong. Doesn't anyone find this harmless looking little demo
just a tad interesting?
Bill Powers (950208.1640 MST) --
So my argument is that there is no reasonable way in which we can talk
about responsibility that makes it into something objective, independent
of people's intentions.
I just thought of another interesting implication of PCT regarding
"responsibility". I think you and I agree that it only makes sense to think
of "responsible for" as "in control of"; people (as living control systems)
are responsible for bringing controlled perceptual variables to their
reference states; they are not responsible for uncontrolled side effects of
this control. The other interesting implication of this view is that people
are also not responsible for the level to which controlled perceptions are
brought; that is, they are not responsible for the goals they set since these
goals are determined by higher-order goals and prevailing disturbances.
Any particular control system in a control hierarchy is responsible only for
making its perceptual signal match whatever reference is sent to it; the
control system itself cannot be responsible (control) for what its reference
input is.
Most of our problems with other people have to do with the fact that they are
selecting goals that we don't like -- "irresponsible goals". But, since there
is no "responsible" way to set goals, there is no "irresponsible" way to set
them, either. Since a control system can only be responsible for percpetions
it controls, "irresponsible" can only refer to perceptions that are not under
control. And this is precisely what we do mean when we talk about
"irresponsible behavior"; we are talking about the fact that our OWN
perceptions of another person's behavior (goals) are out of control.
When I say that the grafitti artict (GA) is "irresponsible" I am referring to
to a perception of mine that is out if control. I want to perceive an
unblighted neighborhood. The GA, in the process of responsibly making a one
of his perception's match its reference, is keeping by perception of the
neighborhood from being under control.
This is simply the "way it is" according to PCT. Now what is a grafitti
hating citizen (like me) to do? Well, PCT doesn't say; but it does suggest
some options. One is to just get the GA to change goals no matter what -- ie.
control the GA. There is only one sure way to get people to change goals --
kill them. Killing will change the GA's goal to "no goal". Killing works
every time but it can have unwanted side effects for the controller.
Less sure-fire methods of control involve threats of punishment. This works
if 1) you are sure that the punishment is something the person really does
not want (like being disemboweled publicly) and 2) the punishment is
absolutely certain (if caught, punishment happens; this might lead to many
false alarms -- disembowing innocent people -- but that's the risk you take
when you want certain punishment for real perpetrators).
So making the GA adopt what, to you, is a "responsible goal" (ie. controlling
the GA) is one option; it's a reasonable option but it has many side effects
that violate references people have for certain perceptions, like not
causing harm to the innocent or incurring permanent vendetattas from the
"punishee" and his kin, etc. These side effects are the reason there is even
an argument about how to deal with crime (irresponsible behavior).
Another approach to dealing with irresponsible behavior is to recognize that
this behavior is NOT irresponsible from the point of view of the person DOING
it; rather, it is a necessaity -- selected by higher level control systems
to achieve higher level goals. Once this is recognized, you can try a
"cooperative" approach to dealing with irresponsible behavior. This
involves trying to figure out 1) what higher level goal the GA is trying to
achieve by doing the graffiti and 2) alternative ways the GA might be able
to achieve these goals without screwing up your goals. This approach requires
time, effort and acceptance that the GA is not "bad"; just a living control
systems (like the rest of us). This cooperative approach is NOT guaranteed
to "work", but neither is the killing and punishment approach. I suspect
that, if the cooperative approach were tried more often, people would see how
well it CAN work and they might be less inclined to resort to the killing and
punishment approach.
I think a case can be made for the idea that the side effects of the killing
and punishment approach will tend be worse than the irresponsible behaviors
the approach is designed to solve. On the other hand, the cooperative
approach, while not always successful (the irresponsible behaviors continue),
will at least not, usually, make things worse.
But, ultimately, the choice of punative vs cooperative approaches to dealing
with what, from one's own perspective, are "irresponsible" behaviors, is made
by one's self, for one's own higher level reasons (goals) -- and PCT says
that this is the case, too.
Best
Rick