Conflict Resolution (Re: Power in PCT)

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.25.2320)]

I changed the subject line because there are two topics being
conflated into this thread. I jsut want to work out the discussion of
what I would call "conflict resolution".

Bill Powers (2008.08.25.1223 MDT)--

Being in conflict is not pleasant. Normally the unpleasantness leads to
reorganization and terminates the conflict. That's no problem. It becomes a
problem when you get your awareness stuck in the conflict itself and
reorganize the way you are pushing back instead of your reasons for pushing
back: when you reorganize at the wrong level.

That's what I'm trying to write to Rick about (and learning a bit more every
time I try). When you stay at the level of the conflict, where the pushing
and the pushing back are happening, all you can do is make it more intense.
Something in you has to step back and say "Wait a minute, this is a conflict
and I'm just making it worse.

My main experience with that kind of conflict (and conflict
resolution) comes from writing papers on PCT. I push (writing the
paper) and the reviewers push back (rejecting it). I know I'm in a
conflict and I have a pretty good idea why. I think I know the answers
to all those questions above. I'm not sure knowing the answers has
helped much; I usually just stop pushing eventually (and start
preparing the next push), if that's what you mean. Conflicts like that
can be a bit stressful but they are not particularly distressing. It's
like racquetball -- it's a conflict I enjoy and that seems to have
nice side effects (better papers in one case; bigger muscles in the
other;-)

There isn't anything deep or mysterious or magical about the method of
levels. That's what I've been trying to work around to saying, with the help
of Rick's skepticism and your clarifications and occasional slips. Trying to
resolve the conflict at the level where it's expressed just doesn't work.

Actually, in the two conflicts I mentioned (publishing papers and
playing racquetball) my goal isn't to resolve them; it's to win them.
My win percentage is probably a bit higher in racquetball than in
publishing but I enjoy both and when I lose I enjoy that too if I know
I've fought the good fight.

Somebody has to look at why those reference conditions were set as they are
in the first place. Otherwise the conflict will just drag on and on.

I know why both the conflict producing references for publishing and
racquetball are set. And, indeed, they are easily revised. So the
conflicts don't usually drag on. Is this what going up a level is;
realizing why you are in the conflict and just deciding to give it a
rest for now? If so, then the same applies to political conflicts; I
know why I get into them and when I see that I am getting nowhere I
just drop it for the time being.

When
Rick really gets what I am talking about, he is going to blow his mind.
Right, Rick?

Well, my mind is not blown yet so I must still not get what you're
talking about. Can't you just talk about what you're talking about?
How about giving an example of what you mean using the conflict
between PCT and conventional psychology as an example.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.26.0826 MDT)

Rick Marken (2008.08.25.2320)–

My main experience with that
kind of conflict (and conflict

resolution) comes from writing papers on PCT. I push (writing the

paper) and the reviewers push back (rejecting it). I know I’m in a

conflict and I have a pretty good idea why.

You may know how the conflict looks from your side, but how does it look
from the other side?

Actually, in the two conflicts I
mentioned (publishing papers and

playing racquetball) my goal isn’t to resolve them; it’s to win
them.

My win percentage is probably a bit higher in racquetball than in

publishing but I enjoy both and when I lose I enjoy that too if I
know

I’ve fought the good fight.

It sounds as if you don’t have any problem, then. If you enjoy the
contest as a sport, and being involved in the conflict doesn’t prevent
you from doing anything you want to do, there’s no reason to look for a
resolution of the conflict. In fact, it’s not really a conflict as I
think of them; neither side is driven to its limit and nothing has been
lost that’s of any importance to a higher-level system. It’s just a case
of interacting control systems finding an equilbrium point in which
errors are acceptable all around. You’re happy submitting papers and
pretending to be frustrated when they’re not accepted, and the editors
are happy doing their job of weeding out unacceptable materials in the
course of assembling new issues of their journals. No reason why that
can’t just keep going on as it is. If you’re happy and they’re happy,
where’s the conflict? There would be a problem only if the conflict
persisted and kept one or both sides from doing what they want or need to
do.

I know why both the conflict
producing references for publishing and

racquetball are set. And, indeed, they are easily revised. So the

conflicts don’t usually drag on. Is this what going up a level is;

realizing why you are in the conflict and just deciding to give it a

rest for now? If so, then the same applies to political conflicts; I

know why I get into them and when I see that I am getting nowhere I

just drop it for the time being.

Yes, of course. That’s the normal way of dealing with conflicts. You step
back, ask if you really have to have what you thought you wanted, decide
there’s another way or a better time to get what you really want, and go
on. If people couldn’t do this, societies would be bloody mayhem all the
time, like a room full of N three-year-olds wanting to play with N-1
toys, without adult supervision.

When Rick really gets what
I am talking about, he is going to blow his mind. Right, Rick?

Well, my mind is not blown yet so I must still not get what you’re

talking about. Can’t you just talk about what you’re talking
about?

I am. I have been. Apparently, you try to control your own experiences,
and when they conflict with what other people want, you try harder, until
either you get your way or you fail to get your way. When you don’t get
your way, you reassess the situation, alter your higher-level goals
enough to stop wanting whatever it was you wanted, and get rid of the
error that way. Sounds like normal behavior of an adaptively-reorganizing
control system to me.

So the mystery is cleared up. You don’t understand what I’m getting at
because you don’t have any conflicts that keep you from doing what you
want to do at higher levels. I assume, of course, that you do have higher
levels – that there’s some reason for wanting to win at paper-publishing
or racquetball other than just seeing your paper printed (which you could
do yourself) or seeing that your score is the larger number. When other
people have real conflicts that persist and cause continuing problems in
their higher-level systems, such as their self-esteem, you don’t see why
“just talking about them” makes matters any better, because
this never happens to you. You just reorganize and that’s the end of the
problem. Do I understand now?

How about giving an example of
what you mean using the conflict

between PCT and conventional psychology as an example.

There is no conflict between PCT and conventional psychology (unless
you’re using “conflict” to mean just “difference”
instead of the technical meaning). PCT and psychology are not control
systems; they are system-concept perceptions. Conflict occurs between
control systems fighting over control of a single variable. Conflict, in
the technical sense, is bad for the hierarchy (or human relationship)
within which it occurs because it removes from operation control systems
that are needed by higher-order systems. But mere opposition doesn’t
automatically mean conflict; it can just mean that a somewhat higher
level of effort is required for maintaining control.
Try this: a model of two control systems keeping their input quantities
at fixed or varying reference levels against disturbances. Let the action
of each control system add a disturbance to the input quantity of the
other control system, either directly or by having each controlled
variable have a small effect on the other controlled variable. Start with
a very small amount of effect of each system on the other (equal
effects), and then start increasing it. You will find that control by
each system (measured by the error signals) gets worse and worse, and at
some point the whole thing just blows up, going into positive feedback. I
suppose we could call that “psychosis.” You can play with both
the signs and magnitudes of the mutual disturbances. You could even do
this with your model of conflict involving X-Y control using a mouse. You
could also add limits to the amount of output each system can produce –
equal or unequal limits.
That’s my picture of conflict. Conflicts do occur in the course of
reorganization in two of the models I use in the new book, but they
always are resolved after a period of chaos. A problem would occur if the
reorganization did not happen in a place where the cause of the conflict
could be changed (Wrong weights in the output functions, for the above
systems). Of course in my model the right place is the only place it
can occur.

It’s interesting that you could help your daughter resolve a conflict
that evidently bothered her a lot, without even realizing what was
happening. This says a lot about the need for “empathy” in
therapy, or even the need for understanding of the problem on the
therapist’s part.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1030)]

Bill Powers (2008.08.26.0826 MDT)

It sounds as if you don't have any problem, then. If you enjoy the contest
as a sport, and being involved in the conflict doesn't prevent you from
doing anything you want to do, there's no reason to look for a resolution of
the conflict.

Oh, goody! Can I go back to bashing those right wing Republicans now;-)

Apparently, you try to control your own experiences, and
when they conflict with what other people want, you try harder, until either
you get your way or you fail to get your way. When you don't get your way,
you reassess the situation, alter your higher-level goals enough to stop
wanting whatever it was you wanted, and get rid of the error that way.
Sounds like normal behavior of an adaptively-reorganizing control system to
me.

Whoppee, I'm normal!! I've got to tell Linda. Boy will she be surprised!

So the mystery is cleared up. You don't understand what I'm getting at
because you don't have any conflicts that keep you from doing what you want
to do at higher levels.

Well, I'm sure I have some band they all involve my mother (what would
you expect?):wink:

I assume, of course, that you do have higher levels
-- that there's some reason for wanting to win at paper-publishing or
racquetball other than just seeing your paper printed (which you could do
yourself) or seeing that your score is the larger number. When other people
have real conflicts that persist and cause continuing problems in their
higher-level systems, such as their self-esteem, you don't see why "just
talking about them" makes matters any better, because this never happens to
you. You just reorganize and that's the end of the problem. Do I understand
now?

I guess that's true. I have had problems, though, and talking about
them has made things better. Actually, I think they were less
conflicts than just errors created by external circumstances. I
actually can't think of a situation where an internal conflict has
prevented me from achieving a higher level goal; I'm pretty adapt at
reorganizing, but you'd expect that from a liberal who believes in
virtually nothing;-)

There is no conflict between PCT and conventional psychology (unless you're
using "conflict" to mean just "difference" instead of the technical
meaning). PCT and psychology are not control systems; they are
system-concept perceptions. Conflict occurs between control systems fighting
over control of a single variable.

Yes, I know. I would say the single variable in conflict is (for now)
"who gets to say how we do psychological research" and the two
different states of this variable are "me" or "them". I'm trying to
get it to "me" and they are trying to maintain it at "them". They are
winning;-)

Try this: a model of two control systems keeping their input quantities at
fixed or varying reference levels against disturbances...

That's my picture of conflict.

Mine too.

It's interesting that you could help your daughter resolve a conflict that
evidently bothered her a lot, without even realizing what was happening.
This says a lot about the need for "empathy" in therapy, or even the need
for understanding of the problem on the therapist's part.

I agree. I think I might have actually helped the little bon bon; I
have no idea, however, what the nature of the reorganization was. I
don't know if I _really_ helped but it briefly got me rated even
higher than Linda as the parent to turn to and that was worth it's
weight in my cluelessness;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.26.1215 MDT)

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1030) --

I would say the single variable in conflict is (for now)
"who gets to say how we do psychological research" and the two
different states of this variable are "me" or "them". I'm trying to
get it to "me" and they are trying to maintain it at "them". They are
winning;-)

OK, but you don't mind having it go on that way, so there's no problem, is there? It's something to do. Maybe you'll win, or maybe they will, but since that doesn't cause any problems for you at higher levels, either way, there's no reason to resolve the conflict, and anyway, you might win it some day. That won't matter, either, of course, since there's no error at the higher levels to correct.

> It's interesting that you could help your daughter resolve a conflict that
> evidently bothered her a lot, without even realizing what was happening.
> This says a lot about the need for "empathy" in therapy, or even the need
> for understanding of the problem on the therapist's part.

I agree. I think I might have actually helped the little bon bon; I
have no idea, however, what the nature of the reorganization was.

That's pretty common -- even the person reorganizing often has no idea, clear or otherwise, of exactly what changed. It's not a cognitive process.

I don't know if I _really_ helped but it briefly got me rated even
higher than Linda as the parent to turn to and that was worth it's
weight in my cluelessness;-).

Briefly? Cluelessness? I think this is called "coat-trailing."

Anyway, are we done with this?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1140)]

Bill Powers (2008.08.26.1215 MDT) --

I don't know if I _really_ helped but it briefly got me rated even
higher than Linda as the parent to turn to and that was worth it's
weight in my cluelessness;-).

Briefly? Cluelessness? I think this is called "coat-trailing."
Coat-trailing Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary

Actually I was trying to be self-deprecating rather than contentious.
I don't know why you picked up "coat-tailing" in what I said but I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I intended self-deprecation, not
contentiousness.

Anyway, are we done with this?

Yes, I guess so. At least until I get you all upset again with my
political arguments. I still think PCT can be the basis for the
development of good social policies (good in the sense that they
optimize the general ability to control). Apparently you don't so I
think we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Non-contentiously

Rick

···

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

[Martin Taylor 2008.08.26.14.54]

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1140)]

Bill Powers (2008.08.26.1215 MDT) --
    
   I still think PCT can be the basis for the
development of good social policies (good in the sense that they
optimize the general ability to control). Apparently you don't so I
think we will just have to agree to disagree on that.
  

From a PCT-theoretic point of view, wouldn't it be better to replace "good social policies" with "social policies having defined consequences" and let people with differing points of view decide whether those consequences would be "good" or "bad"?

For me there are two questions of interest, quite separate

(1a) What does PCT say would be the consequences of policies X, Y, and Z? and it's corollary question (1b) can we use PCT to design social policy that would have consequence Q?, and
(2) What does PCT say about how I might go about getting policy Q that I think "good" to be adopted by the public (or by the dictator if that's the current form of government)?

Saying "PCT can be the basis for the development of good social policies" is a bit of a mix of the two questions.

Anyway, to get answers to question 1 probably requires pretty massive simulation, or else mathematical modelling of the kind economists do -- which would leave the results open to the same kind of criticism that it's divorced from the real world. It's not really something amenable to experiment, except on a very small scale. It is, however, open to testing whether a PCT model of an existing policy leads to the consequences that we observe for the existing policy. That's a bit like how climate models are tested, and the results would be every bit as contentious, if the resources were to be available to do the tests.

Martin

[From Bill Powers (2008.087.26.1453 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1140)]

Actually I was trying to be self-deprecating rather than contentious.
I don't know why you picked up "coat-tailing" in what I said but I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I intended self-deprecation, not
contentiousness.

I meant it in the sense of trying to get some response out of me. When someone says something self-deprecating, it's not usually meant to be taken just as a factual report: "my daughter doesn't come to me first," or "I am a clueless person." The implication is that there's something wrong with these things, or that you wish they weren't true. The customary response would be, "Oh, I'm sure your daughter values your support," or "Come on, you're not really clueless," which show that the listener at least wants to make you feel better. Either that, or it's a dare: go on, think that I'm clueless, who cares what you think? It would probably be a mistake for me to think that you just said these things so I would know the facts about you. Do you really think you're clueless? Or that your daughter doesn't want to tell you things? I think you were just getting your self-deprecation on record before someone else got there first.

> Anyway, are we done with this?

Yes, I guess so. At least until I get you all upset again with my
political arguments.

When do you plan to do that next? If you would just put a warning in the subject header, anyone with views different from yours could just delete the message without reading it, like spam. I'd probably peek, but I wouldn't feel any need to reply -- you would already have said what I would have said: this is political spam.

I still think PCT can be the basis for the development of good social policies (good in the sense that they optimize the general ability to control).

Why do you still think that, other than that you find it very difficult to back down from a position? For example, how would PCT help you to decide that aborting a fetus before a certain day of pregnancy (say, the first day or the next to last day) is OK? How would it help you decide if giving money to a poor person would help that person recover his self-respect, or just allow him to relax more since you're carrying the load for him or her? How would it help you decide that we should go to war with Hitler, who was attacking France and Britain, but not with Saddam Hussein, who was attacking Yemen, or the Taliban who were, in effect, attacking us?

And perhaps hardest of all, how do you use PCT to justify having such a thing as a "social policy," which is a set of rules that whoever can enforce rules says that every person must obey on pain of punishment or loss of reward? Or would you not enforce social policies, but just recommend them? How is "optimizing the general ability to control" different from "minimizing the ability of some significant part of the population to control"? When people vote 55 to 45 percent for a President, does PCT say it's OK to minimize the ability of 45% of the population to control their lives the way they want to? It seems to me that PCT says that such a decision would be most unwise.

Using PCT to justify things you have always liked anyway and deprecate things you have always hated anyway is simply a misuse of science. It's interpreting what the science finds so as to support your prejudices, which is always easy to do. That's a way to turn a perfectly good theory into bad science. Enough of that will kill PCT. I can't make you stop, but I wish you wouldn't do it.

Apparently you don't so I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think we have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your forcing your views on politics into a discussion of PCT. I can disagree without your permission.

Let me know when you have that model running.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1300)]

Martin Taylor (2008.08.26.14.54) --

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1140)]

I still think PCT can be the basis for the
development of good social policies (good in the sense that they
optimize the general ability to control). Apparently you don't so I
think we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

From a PCT-theoretic point of view, wouldn't it be better to replace "good
social policies" with "social policies having defined consequences" and let
people with differing points of view decide whether those consequences would
be "good" or "bad"?

Yes. I was trying to think of a better way to say it when I was
writing it. This is what I was looking for.

For me there are two questions of interest, quite separate

(1a) What does PCT say would be the consequences of policies X, Y, and Z?
and it's corollary question (1b) can we use PCT to design social policy that
would have consequence Q?, and
(2) What does PCT say about how I might go about getting policy Q that I
think "good" to be adopted by the public (or by the dictator if that's the
current form of government)? ...

Anyway, to get answers to question 1 probably requires pretty massive
simulation, or else mathematical modelling of the kind economists do --
which would leave the results open to the same kind of criticism that it's
divorced from the real world.

Nothing wrong with criticism. But policies are now being implemented
based on the vaguest of economic models so I don't think we could do
any worse using even the most preliminary of PCT based models.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1900)]

Bill Powers (2008.087.26.1453 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1140)]

Actually I was trying to be self-deprecating rather than contentious.
I don't know why you picked up "coat-tailing" in what I said but I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I intended self-deprecation, not
contentiousness.

I meant it in the sense of trying to get some response out of me.

I wasn't. Sorry you thought so.

I still think PCT can be the basis for the development of good social
policies (good in the sense that they optimize the general ability to
control).

Why do you still think that, other than that you find it very difficult to
back down from a position? For example, how would PCT help you to decide
that aborting a fetus before a certain day of pregnancy...

Those are not the kind of questions it can address.

And perhaps hardest of all, how do you use PCT to justify having such a
thing as a "social policy,"

Another question it can't address.

How is "optimizing the general ability to control" different from
"minimizing the ability of some significant part of the population to
control"?

You would have to make the question more precise;

When people vote 55 to 45 percent for a President, does PCT say
it's OK to minimize the ability of 45% of the population to control their
lives the way they want to? It seems to me that PCT says that such a
decision would be most unwise.

Ah, so PCT does have something to say about politics.

Using PCT to justify things you have always liked anyway and deprecate
things you have always hated anyway is simply a misuse of science.

I completely agree. Anyone who did that would be quite non-scientific indeed!!

It's interpreting what the science finds so as to support your prejudices, which
is always easy to do. That's a way to turn a perfectly good theory into bad
science. Enough of that will kill PCT. I can't make you stop, but I wish you
wouldn't do it.

Gee, you were going along so well there until you said you can't make
_me_ stop doing this. I think there are a number of people who have
used PCT to justify their own prejudices but I don't think I've done
it. But if I have please point it when I'm doing it. The one time I
_officially_ used PCT as the basis for policy recommendations - in my
paper on prescribing error -- I actually recommended policies that
were contrary to my prejudices. I thought errors could be reduced by
improving labeling and training but the model suggested that there
would be far more purchase (in terms of error reduction) from
standardization and consistency of procedure.

By the way, is it OK to use PCT as a justification for prejudices
about education and management policies? Is it just political or
economic policies that should not be discussed?

I don't think we have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your forcing
your views on politics into a discussion of PCT. I can disagree without your
permission.

What political view was I forcing into a discussion of PCT?

Let me know when you have that model running.

Model of what?

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.0806 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1900)--

I intended self-deprecation, not
>> contentiousness.
>
> I meant it in the sense of trying to get some response out of me.

I wasn't. Sorry you thought so.

I was mentioning possibilities. But if you want me to start treating you as a clueless person, I can try to oblige. Just say the word.

>> I still think PCT can be the basis for the development of good social
>> policies (good in the sense that they optimize the general ability to
>> control).
>
> Why do you still think that, other than that you find it very difficult to
> back down from a position? For example, how would PCT help you to decide
> that aborting a fetus before a certain day of pregnancy...

Those are not the kind of questions it can address.

But wasn't the Republican position on abortion one of the social policies you were against? What about all those other things you use CSGnet to complain about, like the war in Iraq or Homeland Security or White House lies, and so on? Are those the kinds of questions PCT can address? And if not, why are you addressing them on CSGnet?

> And perhaps hardest of all, how do you use PCT to justify having such a
> thing as a "social policy,"

Another question it can't address.

That kind of lets the wind out of the sails, doesn't it?

> How is "optimizing the general ability to control" different from
> "minimizing the ability of some significant part of the population to
> control"?

You would have to make the question more precise;

> When people vote 55 to 45 percent for a President, does PCT say
> it's OK to minimize the ability of 45% of the population to control their
> lives the way they want to? It seems to me that PCT says that such a
> decision would be most unwise.

Ah, so PCT does have something to say about politics.

No, it says that coercing a large part of the population is likely to produce conflict rather than accord. It says nothing about whether our president is an *&$!, or other such favorite epithets of yours. It addresses the problems at a level above that of political conflict and doesn't assume an answer in line with pre-existing preferences. It doesn't say, or care, which side has the 45%.

> Using PCT to justify things you have always liked anyway and deprecate
> things you have always hated anyway is simply a misuse of science.

I completely agree. Anyone who did that would be quite non-scientific indeed!!

And you don't ever do that?

> It's interpreting what the science finds so as to support your prejudices, which is always easy to do. That's a way to turn a perfectly good theory into bad science. Enough of that will kill PCT. I can't make you stop, but I wish you wouldn't do it.

Gee, you were going along so well there until you said you can't make
_me_ stop doing this. I think there are a number of people who have
used PCT to justify their own prejudices but I don't think I've done
it.

You're proposing doing it, aren't you? Why aren't you advocating that we dissect Democratic proposals to see what PCT says about them? It's clear that you expect a PCT analysis to favor the liberal, Democratic, egalitarian, progressive-tax, pro-pot, anti-war, pro-choice position, an expectation that rules you out as an unbiased investigator. You can't tell me that you weren't in favor of all those things before you knew anything about PCT.

On my own time, I favor most of the views you favor. But I very seldom get on CSGnet and rant against Republicans the way you do, partly because I know that many of our participants are honest Republicans but mostly because I think PCT should be aimed at higher targets and not be used for leverage in political conflicts. Experience, history, and PCT all tell me that trying to win conflicts is the root of all the barbarisms that exist or have existed. It's a definite sign, I think, that human evolution has a way to go yet. Maybe I should just say "Oh, well, that's just where we are right now so live with it." But that feels too much like giving up.

The one time I
_officially_ used PCT as the basis for policy recommendations - in my
paper on prescribing error -- I actually recommended policies that
were contrary to my prejudices.

So you consider that what you say on CSGnet is sort of unofficial and doesn't count?

By the way, is it OK to use PCT as a justification for prejudices
about education and management policies? Is it just political or
economic policies that should not be discussed?

I think you know the answer to that. And who said anything against discussing? What I'm arguing against is taking a position and joining in the conflict, instead of trying to find out what is behind the conflict. If, in spite of PCT, you think that having one side pushing against the other side and the other side pushing back just as hard is the best way to make matters better, then do it on your own time, but don't call your opinions scientific. To take part in the conflict is to defend the status quo, and help preserve the very things you say you're against.

> Let me know when you have that model running.

Model of what?

Conflicting systems with the degree of mutual disturbance gradually increasing from very loose to very tight. See if you can figure out which side is causing the conflict. Find out what the condition is that causes instability.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.28.2110)]

Bill Powers (2008.08.27.0806 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1900)--

Those are not the kind of questions it can address.

But wasn't the Republican position on abortion one of the social policies
you were against?

I said that the approach of funding contraceptive and adoptive
counseling might be a good "higher level" option inasmuch as it
demonstrably reduces abortion rates (which should please the no
abortion folks) but doesn't eliminate the choice (which should please
the pro choice folks). Gee, I just finished listening to Obama's
wonderful attempt to find such an approach to policy -- things we can
all agree on. I think I'll vote for him too;-)

What about all those other things you use CSGnet to
complain about, like the war in Iraq or Homeland Security or White House
lies, and so on? Are those the kinds of questions PCT can address? And if
not, why are you addressing them on CSGnet?

I think the only one of these things you mention that I addressed was
the Iraq war and I think it's relevant since it represents an
excellent example of counter-control; Al Queda counter-controlled Bush
out of the ballpark.

> And perhaps hardest of all, how do you use PCT to justify having such a
> thing as a "social policy,"

Another question it can't address.

That kind of lets the wind out of the sails, doesn't it?

I don't see why; I accept the idea of there being social policies; I
think they make sense as a basis for coordinating human activities.
Those who don't (libertarians and anarchists) are certainly free to
show data indicating how well policy-less societies work.

Ah, so PCT does have something to say about politics.

No, it says that coercing a large part of the population is likely to
produce conflict rather than accord.

Isn't that saying something about politics?

It addresses
the problems at a level above that of political conflict and doesn't assume
an answer in line with pre-existing preferences. It doesn't say, or care,
which side has the 45%.

What if one side is the one that is against coercing (or policies)?
You might want to think of this as a non-political problem but it
seems rather political to me.

> Using PCT to justify things you have always liked anyway and deprecate
> things you have always hated anyway is simply a misuse of science.

I completely agree. Anyone who did that would be quite non-scientific
indeed!!

And you don't ever do that?

I don't know. I don't think I do it that much, if I do. I do
occasionally make expressions of my pre-existing political opinions
but I don't think I use PCT to justify these pre-existing prejudices
if there is no PCT justification for them.

I think there are a number of people who have
used PCT to justify their own prejudices but I don't think I've done
it.

You're proposing doing it, aren't you? Why aren't you advocating that we
dissect Democratic proposals to see what PCT says about them?

I'm proposing using PCT (and, if not PCT, then at least data) to
evaluate _all_ policies, regardless of the party or group advocating
them. I think Democratic policies should definitely be dissected.

It's clear that you expect a PCT analysis to favor the liberal, Democratic,
egalitarian, progressive-tax, pro-pot, anti-war, pro-choice position, an
expectation that rules you out as an unbiased investigator.

No. I don't. It's true that I have my personal biases but I believe in
the idea of basing policy decisions on data and/or the predictions of
a well tested model. If the data or model predictions conflict with my
biases I _try_ (well, I try to try, as Bart Simpson would say) to go
with the evidence. An example of this just came up. There is a move by
a group of college presidents to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.
I am completely on board for this; indeed, my bias is to have no
drinking age limit at all. But I just read an article where the data
show that in those states that have lowered the drinking age to 18,
the death rate from driving accidents goes up significantly for the
18-20 age group as does the crime rate. There will apparently be a
significant social cost for implementing a policy that I prefer. So
I'm not ready to sign up for lowering the drinking age.

You can't tell
me that you weren't in favor of all those things before you knew anything
about PCT.

True for all but the pro-pot; I'm certainly pro regulated access to
pot but I am not pro-pot.In fact, I don't care for it at all. But I
don't really see the problem. If anyone thinks my policy conclusions
based on PCT and/or data were simply arrived at to confirm existing
biases they are certainly free (and I would really like to see this)
to show their PCT and/or data-based evidence that recommends against
such policies. For example, I would love to see the evidence that
decreasing taxes improves the economy in some way.

On my own time, I favor most of the views you favor. But I very seldom get
on CSGnet and rant against Republicans the way you do, partly because I know
that many of our participants are honest Republicans but mostly because I
think PCT should be aimed at higher targets and not be used for leverage in
political conflicts.

Is there something about being an "honest" Republican that makes one
immune from being presented with evidence that may conflict with one's
ideas about what policies are best to achieve particular goals? I'm an
honest independent (I register Democratic but I can't consider myself
a Democrat since LBJ lied us into that other rotten little war) but
it's fine with me if people want to present evidence against the
merits of whatever policies I advocate. I just don't see what the
problem is with evaluating policies based on evidence (data and
modeling). We also have on this net "honest" conventional
psychologists, ones who still believe in reinforcement theory, for
example. Should we not use data and modeling to argue against their
theories because they are honest?

By the way, is it OK to use PCT as a justification for prejudices
about education and management policies? Is it just political or
economic policies that should not be discussed?

I think you know the answer to that.

Is it "yes"?

And who said anything against
discussing? What I'm arguing against is taking a position and joining in
the conflict, instead of trying to find out what is behind the conflict.

I don't understand the difference. I've seen you and many others
taking a position and joining in the conflict (discussion) about PCT.
I'd like to know what's behind the various conflicts on the net. I'll
try to remember to ask. I'll start not: what is behind your objection
to my talking about a PCT approach to evaluating policies?

Best

Rick

···

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