Conservative Controlled Variables

CSGnet Archive CSG2009
1

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.27.1830)]

Dag Forssell (2009.08.26.1540)–

Why bully people on CSGnet by labeling them, very clearly implying right up front that they are inferior?

Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27)–

Dag, I second your perception…

The shame is what a great PCT contributor he can be if he would keep this forum focused upon PCT science.

This is rather interesting. All this feeling of being “bullied” just because I asked: “Any right wingers out there who are willing to be explorers in an MOL session”?

I wonder why Dag and Kenny, of all people on CSGNet, would react so negatively to this request? And why would they react so strongly to me rather than, say, Bill? After all, I made this request in response to Bill’s question about what right wingers might be controlling: Here’s what Bill said:

BP: What seems to be missing [in right wingers] is the idea of
“myself as part of a social system that I help support and that
makes life better for everyone including me.”

You could argue that this part isn’t missing or defective in the ones

we are concerned about [right wingers or “conservatives”], it’s just
organized around a different vision of a social system. I don’t think
we will make much progress with this problem

until we figure out just what the problem is.

This seems like a very interesting question and certainly one that is pertinent to an understanding of human nature. The question is: Are right-wingers missing the ability to perceive and thus control a system concept perception (like “myself as part of a social system that I help support and that makes life better for everyone including me.”) or are they controlling for a system concept like this, it’s just that they have a different vision (reference) for what the state of this system concept perception should be? Put in simpler terms, is my right wing friend, who vigorously opposes universal healthcare, unable to see himself as part of a social system that helps make life better for everyone or does he consider a society where nearly 1/5th of the population has no health insurance to be the kind of social system he wants to help achieve?

Perhaps what upset Dag and Kenny was my reference to people as right wingers. I don’t know why that would be upsetting. If Kenny or Dag had asked if there were any left- wingers out there who were willing to be explorers in an MOL session I’d volunteer in a NY minute. I don’t necessarily agree with everything every left winger says but I know that my system concepts would probably be considered left wing because I experience such large errors every time I read or hear anything that comes from an avowedly right-wing or “conservative” source. I myself would find it interesting to try to find out what some of my own higher level goals might be.

I think I can articulate many of the goals that would define me as “left wing” without any MOL because I know what kinds of things are a disturbance to these perceptions. MOL isn’t really needed for me to know that I am saddened by the egregious increase in wealth disparity that has happened since Reagan (see attached graph; looking at it creates enormous error for me); by increases in poverty, especially child poverty; by people who cannot support their families because they can’t get work or the work doesn’t pay a living wage; by wars that are fought for no good reason other than ego or greed; by people who want to have control over women to the extent that they want the power to tell them what they can and can’t do to their own bodies; etc. For most of the social things I care about, I see myself more in agreement with left wingers than right wingers (indeed, I can’t think of anything I agree with right wingers about, though I sometimes disagree with left wingers).

Anyway, I’m happy to be the subject of an MOL to find more about what my “left wing” (or any wing) higher level variables might be that I am not aware of. I think if we could do the same with a right winger we might be able to get a better handle on solving the “problem” Bill mentions about, which, I suppose, could be called "why can’t left and right wingers just get along. If there are no right wingers here who are willing to volunteer what they are controlling for in terms of social variables, that’s fine; it turns out that I know quite a few right wingers and I’ll make it my task to find out what they are controlling for. I’ve wanted to do this anyway; I thought CSGNet might be a nice forum in which to do it; but maybe it’s one in which right wingers might feel embarrassed about discussing what they really want (other than that they want me to shut up;-)

Best regards

RIck

WealthDiscrepancy1.jpg
WealthDiscrepancy1.jpg960×720 53.4 KB

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

2

[Shannon Williams (2009.08.27.21:30)]

Anyway, I'm happy to be the subject of an MOL

OK. Awesome!

to find more about what my "left wing" (or any wing) higher level variables might be that I am not aware of.

This MOL session would be more along the lines of Dag's note: Why
bully for the fun of bullying?

It actually would be a good session because I think it may lead into
the concept of 'Play'. What references drive my daughter to bang her
rattle happily and incessantly against her toy box? I think it is not
so different from what drives Rick to hammer his world skills happily
and incessantly against all of the unenlightened folk.

Shannon

3

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.27.1950)]

Shannon Williams (2009.08.27.21:30)–

Anyway, I’m happy to be the subject of an MOL

OK. Awesome!

to find more about what my “left wing” (or any wing) higher level variables might be that I am not aware of.

This MOL session would be more along the lines of Dag’s note: Why

bully for the fun of bullying?

That doesn’t sound like a very MOL question to me. I think the goal of MOL is to ask questions in a way that encourage the explorer (me in this case) to notice the “background thoughts” that are behind the foreground discussion. Your question assumes that you already know what is in the background of my foreground discussion of my views; that I want to bully. That’s not MOL; that’s more like McCarthyism ( it’s like asking someone"Why do you want to destroy America, you Commie bastard?:wink:

It’s hard to do MOL over the net, I think, because background thoughts are often indicated by pauses or laughs and such, which are hard to see in a post. But Bill did a pretty good job of it a while back on Jim Wuwert (I believe). Maybe he could do it with me as the explorer and show you how it’s done; he’s much better at being a guide than I am.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

4

[Shannon Williams (2009.08.27.23:00 CST)]

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.27.1950)]

Your question assumes that you already know what is in the
background of my foreground discussion of my views; that I want to bully.

OK. I am sure that I do not know what IS in the background of your
foreground discussion of your views. Please re-word my question.

I believe that I know some things that are NOT cluttering your
background thoughts which make you an ideal candidate for this. You
are not cluttered with maintaining a perception of personal
superiority. [You are focused on the superiority of your tools
perhaps - but I don't believe that is right. You just seem excited
about using your tools and and all the puzzle pieces fit.] You do not
seem to be nursing any grudges or depression or any baggage like that.
You do not seem focused on the thoughts and inner-workings of your
audience. You exhibit no controls in that arena. I see play and
enjoyment in you that is about as raw as it gets for an adult.

But Bill did a pretty good job of it a while back on Jim Wuwert (I believe).
Maybe he could do it with me as the explorer and show you how it's
done; he's much better at being a guide than I am.

Cool. That would be awesome. Bill?

···

--
Shannon

5

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.27.2140)]

Shannon Williams (2009.08.27.23:00 CST)–

I believe that I know some things that are NOT cluttering your

background thoughts which make you an ideal candidate for this. You

are not cluttered with maintaining a perception of personal

superiority. [You are focused on the superiority of your tools

perhaps - but I don’t believe that is right. You just seem excited

about using your tools and and all the puzzle pieces fit.] You do not

seem to be nursing any grudges or depression or any baggage like that.

You do not seem focused on the thoughts and inner-workings of your

audience. You exhibit no controls in that arena. I see play and

enjoyment in you that is about as raw as it gets for an adult.

That’s so sweet Shannon. Thanks. I’m glad I give that impression and I’d like to think that that’s actually the way I am. But the fact is I do get depressed (well, very down) occasionally, especially when I see people acting like those anti-heathcare reform protesters at the town halls. Maybe this would be a good focus for an MOL. Why does seeing this – or listening to some of the things my right wing friends say – affect me so strongly. Clearly, there is a conflict there. Actyually, I think I know what the conflict is; but if I’m right, then why doesn’t the conflict go away (as Bill has often said conflicts do once you become aware of them).

But Bill did a pretty good job of it a while back on Jim Wuwert (I believe).
Maybe he could do it with me as the explorer and show you how it’s

done; he’s much better at being a guide than I am.

Cool. That would be awesome. Bill?

I’m ready to by MOL’d;-)

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

This seems like a very interesting question and certainly one that is pertinent to an understanding of human nature. The question is: Are right-wingers missing the ability to perceive and thus control a system concept perception (like “myself as part of a social system that I help support and that makes life better for everyone including me.”) or are they controlling for a system concept like this, it’s just that they have a different vision (reference) for what the state of this system concept perception should be? Put in simpler terms, is my right wing friend, who vigorously opposes universal healthcare, unable to see himself as part of a social system that helps make life better for everyone or does he consider a society where nearly 1/5th of the population has no health insurance to be the kind of social system he wants to help achieve?

I might be your huckleberry. I’ve been a teabagger a couple times and attended a townhall in opposition to the public or single payer options. I’ve been distracted for awhile, so I’m not quite sure what this “MOL” is. Perhaps your right wing friend doesn’t think you really mean “universal” healthcare. He may be aware that the current bill before congress excludes undocumented immigrants and doesn’t replace medicaid. He may think that even a bill which did include them wouldn’t truly be universal, but would be national. He may think that a society where 1/5th the population has no health insurance is in a better position to serve as the economic engine of the world, lifting huge middle classes in China and India out of poverty, and sending money back to Mexico that keeps its economy afloat. He may see the US income disparity as a consequence of a huge new supply of labor on the market in China and India and he can’t begrudge them their chance at a piece of the American dream, nor can he begrudge business owners for seeing that Americans usually can’t outproduce the 3 to 5 workers in china or india that could be employed for the same money. Your friend benefitted when the market was in his favor, and is willing to take his lumps when it turns the other way. Perhaps he takes the long term view, that despite the current period of instability and readjustment, the world must ultimately be wealthier with hundreds of millions more educated and productive people in it. Perhaps your right wing friend is humble in the face of the worlds complexity, and chooses to approach it conservatively guided by a few principles that seem to work. For instance, people seem to be more productive in their own self interest and when incentivised and when they have personal autonomy. Perhaps he is appreciative of the spontaneous organization that the emergent phenomena of markets seem to achieve. Perhaps he isn’t explicitly aware of any of this, but would affirm that this is what he must believe internally.

Perhaps what upset Dag and Kenny was my reference to people as right wingers. I don’t know why that would be upsetting. If Kenny or Dag had asked if there were any left- wingers out there who were willing to be explorers in an MOL session I’d volunteer in a NY minute. I don’t necessarily agree with everything every left winger says but I know that my system concepts would probably be considered left wing because I experience such large errors every time I read or hear anything that comes from an avowedly right-wing or “conservative” source. I myself would find it interesting to try to find out what some of my own higher level goals might be.
I see large errors the other way, a little too much hubris, and self satisfaction and lack of analyzing and questioning ones own assumptions. These are especially dangerous when accompied by an ignorance of economics.

I think I can articulate many of the goals that would define me as “left wing” without any MOL because I know what kinds of things are a disturbance to these perceptions. MOL isn’t really needed for me to know that I am saddened by the egregious increase in wealth disparity that has happened since Reagan (see attached graph; looking at it creates enormous error for me); by increases in poverty, especially child poverty; by people who cannot support their families because they can’t get work or the work doesn’t pay a living wage; by wars that are fought for no good reason other than ego or greed; by people who want to have control over women to the extent that they want the power to tell them what they can and can’t do to their own bodies; etc. For most of the social things I care about, I see myself more in agreement with left wingers than right wingers (indeed, I can’t think of anything I agree with right wingers about, though I sometimes disagree with left wingers).

Despite the huge labor supply overhangs on the market from globalization, I am saddened by some of the increase in wealth disparity, because some of it seems to have been increased by mismanagement of the economy. For instance, Paul Volcker threw the economy into recession before Reagan took office “in order to break the inflation psychology”. Since when were economists psychologists? There must be a better way to break a psychology than a $500 billion dollar recession. Perhaps he should have consulted Madison avenue. Perhaps he should have consulted Reagan who had a plan for producing our way out of the inflation. In subsequent years, the Federal Reserve has started clamping down on the economy whenever wages started to rise, claiming that was inflationary. The effect has been to direct the returns from increases in productivity to capital rather than labor. Under conservative economic principles, the market not the federal reserve is supposed to be allocating these returns.

Anyway, I’m happy to be the subject of an MOL to find more about what my “left wing” (or any wing) higher level variables might be that I am not aware of. I think if we could do the same with a right winger we might be able to get a better handle on solving the “problem” Bill mentions about, which, I suppose, could be called "why can’t left and right wingers just get along. If there are no right wingers here who are willing to volunteer what they are controlling for in terms of social variables, that’s fine; it turns out that I know quite a few right wingers and I’ll make it my task to find out what they are controlling for. I’ve wanted to do this anyway; I thought CSGNet might be a nice forum in which to do it; but maybe it’s one in which right wingers might feel embarrassed about discussing what they really want (other than that they want me to shut up;-)

Is this what csgnet reallly wants to be doing? I doubt I will be embarrassed, I hope to come to terms with how best to adapt society to serve the needs and aspirations of human nature. Societies that work with our evolved human nature instead of trying to shoe horn it into an idealistic vision of what it should be, would seem to have a better chance to satisfice the greatest number.

Best regards

Rick

Likewise, I’m sure,

Martin

mlewitt@comcast.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

7

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27)]

As usual, Rick comes up with a justification for what he did. It is the SOW technique (same old way) that long time CSGNet subscribers have witnessed from Rick ad nauseum. He gets away with it because there are always new members that swallow the bait thinking Rick is just innocently searching for understanding.

As usual, Rick also ignores most of Dag’s post, or my second of his perception, and picks a snippet of his choosing to criticize our intentions ignoring our observations about him that we claim disturb us. For example, Dag went on to say:

"You have invited people to MOL sessions of this kind before. Then you
insult whoever is foolish enough to try to answer you. I can see it
coming. You can too, can’t you?

As Bill said the other day – this kind of crap can only go downhill.
I propose you nip this in the bud. This is not PCT science, this is
just bullying for the fun of bullying. Us (good, enlightened, guys)
against “Them” (who desperately need to understand how unenlightened
they are)."

Dag makes several observations beyond the “bullying” accusation. For me, bullying was the least of my concerns and I would not even characterize what you asked that way. What you said, Rick, that Dag mentions, and disturbs me is:

  • label people
  • when people respond to your habitual, seemingly innocent, questions about people’s beliefs different than yours, you often insult them, ridicule their beliefs and them as being stupid or naive to the extent that some abandon the CSGNet or even PCT
  • and, the pompous, arrogance of your determining they are not enlightened or good like you, simply stinks.
    Oh, would Rick really do that? Sure, he always does. Here it is in stinging satire quoting Rick:

Bill readily acknowledged that people Rick labels as “conservatives” or “right wing”

In a message dated 8/27/2009 9:30:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:

···

Dag Forssell (2009.08.26.1540)–

Why bully people on CSGnet by labeling them, very clearly implying right up front that they are inferior?

Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27)–

Dag, I second your perception...

The shame is what a great PCT contributor he can be if he would keep this forum focused upon PCT science.

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.27.1830)]

This is rather interesting. All this feeling of being “bullied” just because I asked: “Any right wingers out there who are willing to be explorers in an MOL session”?

I wonder why Dag and Kenny, of all people on CSGNet, would react so negatively to this request? And why would they react so strongly to me rather than, say, Bill? After all, I made this request in response to Bill’s question about what right wingers might be controlling: Here’s what Bill said:

BP: What seems to be missing [in right wingers] is the idea of
“myself as part of a social system that I help support and that
makes life better for everyone including me.”

You could argue that this part isn’t missing or defective in the ones
we are concerned about [right wingers or “conservatives”], it’s just
organized around a different vision of a social system. I don’t think
we will make much progress with this problem
until we figure out just what the problem is.

This seems like a very interesting question and certainly one that is pertinent to an understanding of human nature. The question is: Are right-wingers missing the ability to perceive and thus control a system concept perception (like “myself as part of a social system that I help support and that makes life better for everyone including me.”) or are they controlling for a system concept like this, it’s just that they have a different vision (reference) for what the state of this system concept perception should be? Put in simpler terms, is my right wing friend, who vigorously opposes universal healthcare, unable to see himself as part of a social system that helps make life better for everyone or does he consider a society where nearly 1/5th of the population has no health insurance to be the kind of social system he wants to help achieve?

Perhaps what upset Dag and Kenny was my reference to people as right wingers. I don’t know why that would be upsetting. If Kenny or Dag had asked if there were any left- wingers out there who were willing to be explorers in an MOL session I’d volunteer in a NY minute. I don’t necessarily agree with everything every left winger says but I know that my system concepts would probably be considered left wing because I experience such large errors every time I read or hear anything that comes from an avowedly right-wing or “conservative” source. I myself would find it interesting to try to find out what some of my own higher level goals might be.

I think I can articulate many of the goals that would define me as “left wing” without any MOL because I know what kinds of things are a disturbance to these perceptions. MOL isn’t really needed for me to know that I am saddened by the egregious increase in wealth disparity that has happened since Reagan (see attached graph; looking at it creates enormous error for me); by increases in poverty, especially child poverty; by people who cannot support their families because they can’t get work or the work doesn’t pay a living wage; by wars that are fought for no good reason other than ego or greed; by people who want to have control over women to the extent that they want the power to tell them what they can and can’t do to their own bodies; etc. For most of the social things I care about, I see myself more in agreement with left wingers than right wingers (indeed, I can’t think of anything I agree with right wingers about, though I sometimes disagree with left wingers).

Anyway, I’m happy to be the subject of an MOL to find more about what my “left wing” (or any wing) higher level variables might be that I am not aware of. I think if we could do the same with a right winger we might be able to get a better handle on solving the “problem” Bill mentions about, which, I suppose, could be called "why can’t left and right wingers just get along. If there are no right wingers here who are willing to volunteer what they are controlling for in terms of social variables, that’s fine; it turns out that I know quite a few right wingers and I’ll make it my task to find out what they are controlling for. I’ve wanted to do this anyway; I thought CSGNet might be a nice forum in which to do it; but maybe it’s one in which right wingers might feel embarrassed about discussing what they really want (other than that they want me to shut up;-)

Best regards

RIck

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

8

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27.11:00EDT)]

Sorry, I hit send instead of send later as I needed to answer the door bell. So I will ask you to just continue this as the post I was drafting and sent prematurely.

My point was that Rick will not only label people but anyone who dares to perceive themselves as “conservative” or “right wing” must be like the straw man he establishes below.

In a message dated 8/27/2009 9:30:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:

I think I can articulate many of the goals that would define me as “left wing” without any MOL because I know what kinds of things are a disturbance to these perceptions. MOL isn’t really needed for me to know that I am saddened by the egregious increase in wealth disparity that has happened since Reagan (see attached graph; looking at it creates enormous error for me); by increases in poverty, especially child poverty; by people who cannot support their families because they can’t get work or the work doesn’t pay a living wage; by wars that are fought for no good reason other than ego or greed; by people who want to have control over women to the extent that they want the power to tell them what they can and can’t do to their own bodies; etc. For most of the social things I care about, I see myself more in agreement with left wingers than right wingers (indeed, I can’t think of anything I agree with right wingers about, though I sometimes disagree with left wingers).
I think labels are deceptive. Anyone who understands PCT would be especially aware that people are individuals and develop and possess unique reference perceptions and control different variables. So, by Rick’s account, right wing folks:

  • favor increasing wealth disparity which has become egregious since Reagan
  • favor increasing poverty, especially child poverty
  • favor forcing people to work at less than a living wage
  • favor wars out of ego or greed
  • favor forcing women to give birth to unwanted human tissue
    Such a straw man would hardly want to enter into a public MOL with Rick. But, I don’t think fear is why there are no volunteers on CSGNet. Do you?

Now, I intended to comment some about Bill, as Rick attempts to justify his actions based on the post Bill made. And, that Dag, or I, attack poor ole Rick but not Bill as if we are what, we are afraid of Big, Bad, Bullying Bill?

On the contrary, Bill did not ridicule “conservatives” or “right wingers” nor ask them to do a public MOL to get them (and everyone else) in touch with their higher level controlled variables or reference levels so we can ridicule their unenlightened ideas. Let’s look at what Bill wrote which you quoted as justification for your tirades against people who hold different beliefs.

BP: What seems to be missing [in right wingers] is the idea of
“myself as part of a social system that I help support and that
makes life better for everyone including me.”

You could argue that this part isn’t missing or defective in the ones
we are concerned about [right wingers or “conservatives”], it’s just
organized around a different vision of a social system. I don’t think
we will make much progress with this problem
until we figure out just what the problem is.

Notice that Bill merely speculates. He knows he does not know. Further, he even shows an understanding that his speculation about what right wingers may be missing may be just due to a different hierarchal vision of a social system. That is different, NOT inferior or defective. I have no problem with Bill’s not understanding the problem or make progress on whatever it is. It has been that way since the creation of man. If you, or Bill, think an MOL will fix this problem in mankind, the floor is yours.

In conclusion, I have largely ignored Dag’s warning to nip it in the bud, and not respond to your incessant moralistic laments for what is wrong with me, “right wingers,” economists, Presidents’s or this countries social or political policies.

I can assure you it is not my purpose to defend what social or political variables I control, if any, and especially to you. That is the glory of being a perceptual control system. And, I thank Bill and you for all you have taught about the PCT-related science of human behavior. Unfortunately, human nature is a much bigger subject and I know of nothing that suggests you have any special knowledge beyond mine as there is much left to learn.

···
9

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.28.1010)]

I might be your huckleberry. I’ve been a teabagger a couple times and attended a townhall in opposition to the public or single payer options.

Hi Martin

Yes, you certainly qualify. When you reply (if you reply) I wonder if you could say a bit about who you are and when/why you became interested in PCT. And could you put a header on your posts (like mine above); it’s a CSG convention and it helps me, at least, see who’s doing the posting and when.

I’ve been distracted for awhile, so I’m not quite sure what this “MOL” is.

It’s a therapy techniques based on the hierarchical perceptual control theory model of behavior, with a dollop of consciousness and reorganization theory thrown in (well, maybe more than a dollop). What I wanted to do was to use it to find out what your references are for various social variables. The thing about MOL is that it is non judgemental; I’m not interested in evaluating your social references; I just want to try to figure out what they are. I see from glancing over your post that a lot of what you say describes your theories about how best to achieve those goals. I’ll try to read those without evaluating those policy recommendations but with the aim of trying to figure out what they suggest about the kind of society you want to live in.

Perhaps your right wing friend doesn’t think you really mean “universal” healthcare.

I’m going to read this as reflecting your views, rather than as your interpretation of my friend’s. If that’s wrong let me know. I’d rather find out what my friend’s views are directly from him, to the extent that he’s willing to share.

He may think that a society where 1/5th the population has no health insurance is in a better position to serve as the economic engine of the world, lifting huge middle classes in China and India out of poverty, and sending money back to Mexico that keeps its economy afloat.

What I get from this is that you do not long for (have a reference for) a society in which everyone is insured for some minimal level of health care. A society where healthcare is accessible only to those who can afford it is OK with you. Is that right?

He may see the US income disparity as a consequence of a huge new supply of labor on the market in China and India and he can’t begrudge them their chance at a piece of the American dream, nor can he begrudge business owners for seeing that Americans usually can’t outproduce the 3 to 5 workers in china or india that could be employed for the same money.

It sounds like you might not care for living in a society with a large wealth disparity but you are willing to accept it. Is that right?

Perhaps he takes the long term view, that despite the current period of instability and readjustment, the world must ultimately be wealthier with hundreds of millions more educated and productive people in it.

So your social goals embrace the whole world. Is that right?

Perhaps your right wing friend is humble in the face of the worlds complexity, and chooses to approach it conservatively guided by a few principles that seem to work. For instance, people seem to be more productive in their own self interest and when incentivised and when they have personal autonomy.

So personal autonomy is also a goal. You want all people to have personal autonomy. Is that right? If so, could you explain what you mean by “personal autonomy” and, perhaps, give some examples of social situations where people do not have personal autonomy.

Despite the huge labor supply overhangs on the market from globalization, I am saddened by some of the increase in wealth disparity, because some of it seems to have been increased by mismanagement of the economy.

Ok, this seems to agree with my interpretation of your statement above: you don’t like wealth disparity, at least some degree of it. Is that right?

Is this what csgnet reallly wants to be doing?

Why not?

I doubt I will be embarrassed, I hope to come to terms with how best to adapt society to serve the needs and aspirations of human nature. Societies that work with our evolved human nature instead of trying to shoe horn it into an idealistic vision of what it should be, would seem to have a better chance to satisfice the greatest number.

That’s why I think this is a good topic for CSGNet. I, too, want to figure out how best to adapt society to best fit human naturel. I believe that PCT is the best model of human nature that we have. So I have been thinking about how best to organize a society based on PCT principles since I got involved in PCT science. But what I’ve realized is that apply PCT requires giving up one’s existing ideas about how to improve society (free market economics, socialism, marxism, etc), ideas that were developed without any understanding of how people actually work (and often without reference to data, but that’s another problem), and start form scratch (for example, in one of your comments above you mention “incentives”, which don’t really exist, according to PCT). Of course, it also requires some idea about what people think of as a “best” solution. That’s where this little exercise comes in. I can’t see how we can discuss ideas about how best to organize a society based on PCT principles without knowing what we mean by “best”.

Your post suggests, to me, that your idea of a “best” society is somewhat similar to mine. For example, you don’t seem to like the existence of a large wealth discrepancy; you also seem to like a wealthy society, which I take to mean that you, like me, do not like the existence of poverty. Along the same lines you seem to want a society where people have autonomy, and I do too, if what you mean by “autonomy” is a society in which everyone is able to be in control of their lives. Apparently, your idea of autonomy does not include making it possible for everyone to have access to healthcare. So that aspect of your vision of the society you want to live in is somewhat different than mine. Maybe that’s because we have different ideas about what autonomy is. If you are willing to continue this, perhaps you could explain what you think of as “autonomy”,

Best regards

Rick

···

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Martin Lewitt mlewitt@comcast.net wrote:

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

10

[From RIck Marken (2009.08.28.1040)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27) –

Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27.11:00EDT) –

Why should anyone pay any attention to someone who is living in the past?:wink:

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

11

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.28.1500)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.08.27.11:00EDT)–

My point was that Rick will not only label people but anyone who dares to perceive themselves as “conservative” or “right wing” must be like the straw man he establishes below.

I think I can articulate many of the goals that would define me as “left wing” without any MOL because I know what kinds of things are a disturbance to these perceptions. MOL isn’t really needed for me to know that I am saddened by the egregious increase in wealth disparity that has happened since Reagan…

I think labels are deceptive. Anyone who understands PCT would be especially aware that people are individuals and develop and possess unique reference perceptions and control different variables. So, by Rick’s account, right wing folks:

  • favor increasing wealth disparity which has become egregious since Reagan
  • favor increasing poverty, especially child poverty
  • favor forcing people to work at less than a living wage
  • favor wars out of ego or greed
  • favor forcing women to give birth to unwanted human tissue

Just a quick note to point out that Rick (that would be me) did not give an account of what people who consider themselves right wing folks favor. I gave an account of what I (one who is willing to accept the label left-winger) favor. I’m not sure what right wing folks favor; that’s why I suggested MOL. I wasn’t implicitly putting down what right right wingers favor because I don’t really know what they favor. If you are willing to consider yourself a right winger and you find the things I favor to be good and the opposite of those things, which are in your bulleted list, to be bad, then you apparently favor the same things I do. That’s the kind of thing I want to find out: where do lefties like me and righties (like you?) you differ. Apparently we don’t differ by all that much on our social goals; maybe we just differ in what we see as the best means to gachieve those goals. That would be a nice discovery, wouldn’t it?

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

Rick,

I want to get in a quick response before the end of the business day, I’ll be able to respond more fully this weekend. I’ve introduced myself previously BTW. I also recalled that there was a conventional form, that didn’t quite seem necessary to me, but I had forgotten what that form was. Other solutions to the problem seemed possible.

What I get from this is that you do not long for (have a reference for) a society in which everyone is insured for some minimal level of health care. A society where healthcare is accessible only to those who can afford it is OK with you. Is that right?

Actually, I do have a reference for a society where everyone has some minimal level of health care, if one makes these assumptions:

  1. the nation is a closed system

  2. healthcare is the standard of value

  3. everything else is held equal

However, if you read my analysis, you will note that I didn’t consider the nation a closed system. I consider the possibility that everything may no longer be equal, given human nature, people may not produce as much in the type of system required to achieve a minimal level of health care for all. It isn’t explicit in what I said, but I can clarify now, that I think values are subjective and dont’ accept that healthcare is the standard of value. Many of those without healthcare (more correctly without insurance) may have been able to afford it, but valued other things more, such as food and shelter for relatives in Mexico. So it is not even clear that those without healtchcare will produce as much welfare in the society required to impose minimal healthcare as they do in the current system or in a system improved in some other way than has been proposed.

I understand the need to make simplifying assumptions.

“Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification” – Karl Popper

I think your simplifications are the wrong ones for exploring my references. My analysis was assuming certain references on your part, it was assuming that you might consider what happens outside the national system important enough to outweigh the standard of value that you were applying at the national level. It also assumes that you appreciated that human nature and society is complex enough that there might be nonlinear unintended consequences. One of my fears is that you might actually intend the consequences.

My actual references are probably at the moral local and personal level, but I do find it a pleasant covergence, that universalizing my personal references, seems to result in a better global satisfice of more peoples values, than somekind of worship of mathmatical equality of an assumed objective standard does.

I will pay attention to other details later, but in the mean time perhaps these clarifications might alter the course of your simplifcations in a more productive direction.

regards,

Martin Lewitt

mlewitt@comcast.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM

13

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.28.1640)]

I want to get in a quick response before the end of the business day, I’ll be able to respond more fully this weekend. I’ve introduced myself previously BTW.

I’m sorry. I guess I missed it. Could you give me just a quick review of how you got to PCT when you get back. Thanks!

Actually, I do have a reference for a society where everyone has some minimal level of health care, if one makes these assumptions:

  1. the nation is a closed system
  1. healthcare is the standard of value
  1. everything else is held equal

However, if you read my analysis, you will note that I didn’t consider the nation a closed system

OK, so isn’t it fair, then, to conclude that you don’t have a reference for everyone having a minimal level of health care, given that the nation is not a closd system, etc?

I think your simplifications are the wrong ones for exploring my references. My analysis was assuming certain references on your part, it was assuming that you might consider what happens outside the national system important enough to outweigh the standard of value that you were applying at the national level. It also assumes that you appreciated that human nature and society is complex enough that there might be nonlinear unintended consequences. One of my fears is that you might actually intend the consequences.

I don’t quite understand this but I’m willing to try. You say your goal is for everyone to have universal healthcare but that you only have this goal if certain assumptions are true; you then say these assumptions are not true so the goal of universal healthcare cannot be achieved; therefore you don’t have the goal of universal healthcare. What’s wrong with my coming to that conclusion? Suppose I said that I have the goal of going to Harvard but that I have that goal only if your assume that I have the grades and connections to get in. Since I don’t have the grades or connections, I’ve decided to give Long Beach State a try (a very good school, by the way). Wouldn’t it be appropriate, then, to say that I really don’t have the goal of going to Harvard?

I will pay attention to other details later, but in the mean time perhaps these clarifications might alter the course of your simplifcations in a more productive direction.

Great. I’ll look forward to hearing from you this weekend. Thanks again for being willing to do this. Remember, I’m not trying to judge you or put you down. I just want to find out what kind of society you want to live in. So far, it looks like your goals for society are very similar to mine; if that turns out to be the case, then our differences , to the extent that they exist (and if you were a teabagger we surely have some differneces) may turn more on means than ends. And it’s a lot easier to evaluate what are the best means to achieve an end than to decide what the end result should be.

Best

Rick

···

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Martin Lewitt mlewitt@comcast.net wrote:

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

14

[From Bill Powers (2009.08.29.0827 MDT)]

I think values are subjective and dont' accept that healthcare is the standard of value. Many of those without healthcare (more correctly without insurance) may have been able to afford it, but valued other things more, such as food and shelter for relatives in Mexico. So it is not even clear that those without healtchcare will produce as much welfare in the society required to impose minimal healthcare as they do in the current system or in a system improved in some other way than has been proposed.

I understand the need to make simplifying assumptions.

"Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification" -- Karl Popper

My subjective standard for truth in economic predictions is a working model of the economy. You build in all of your assumptions and all the measurable relationships you can find and then turn it loose to see what it will do. All assumptions are simplified, of course, but we have nothing else with which to reason, so we just do the best we can with what we have so far.

Without a working model of an economy, there is really very little to talk about. Unaided human reasoning is not up to the task of understanding the behavior of a multilevel, multivariable system operated by human beings with a wide range of intentions, as well as a wide range of preferences and vital needs. Slogans, superstitions, and self-serving interpretations reign when there is no model.

Since we have no model, the appropriate thing to talk about, in my sometimes less than humble opinion, is how we should go about modeling the economy. What principles of modeling apply, what are the variables we need to consider, how do we find out what the facts are so we can set the initial conditions? How do we find out if the model works properly? At what level of detail do we want the model to make predictions? Homo Economicus is different under PCT than under most economists' theories. How do the human control systems involved show up in the model? Should that not make a difference?

The disagreements about economics that have been appearing here clearly can't be resolved at the level where they are being discussed. If we all read each others' analyses we will descend into a swamp of ever more slippery disagreements, because none of the analyses are based on the same premises or the same assumed mechanisms and none are backed up by a working model that behaves without help from its author. If agreement rather than triumph is the goal, the only way to get somewhere is to go up as many levels as required to start building a model on which all can agree.

Thanks to all for birthday greetings. 83 today. ? to go, where ? is getting smaller. Hurry up.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 10:08 PM 8/28/2009 +0000, Brandon Smietana wrote:

15

[From Jeff Vancouver (2009.08.29.1208 EST)]

Happy birthday Bill! I am hurrying along.

Jeff

16

[From Rick Marken (2009.08.29.0945)]

Bill Powers (2009.08.29.0827 MDT)–

My subjective standard for truth in economic predictions is a working model of the economy. You build in all of your assumptions and all the measurable relationships you can find and then turn it loose to see what it will do. All assumptions are simplified, of course, but we have nothing else with which to reason, so we just do the best we can with what we have so far.

I would add that after you turn it loose and see what it does, you compare what it does to what is actually observed: the data. Without that step it seems to be that the modeling would be just mental masturbation; lots of fun but it really gets you nowhere. For me that’s the joy of PCT; like sex, it’s not only fun (developing the models) but it gets you somewhere (when you see that the behavior of the model matches the data).

Without a working model of an economy, there is really very little to talk about. Unaided human reasoning is not up to the task of understanding the behavior of a multilevel, multivariable system operated by human beings with a wide range of intentions, as well as a wide range of preferences and vital needs. Slogans, superstitions, and self-serving interpretations reign when there is no model.

I agree. But until there is a reasonable model I think the slogans, superstitions and self-serving interpretations should be constrained by the data. The fact that those shouting the slogans, superstitions and self-serving interpretations – as well as “reputable” economists – do not seem to be constrained at all by the data does not, it seems to me, bode well for a successful model serving as a constraining influence either. That doesn’t mean that I think that the development of such a model shouldn’t be a priority for economists; I just don’t believe that a completely successful model of the economy would do much to stop the slogans, superstitions and self-serving interpretations (any more than PCT has done this in psychology). I think the operative word here (in economics as in psychology) is “self-serving”; we are dealing with control systems (like me;-) who do not lightly give up control of variables that serve their selves (higher level goals).

The disagreements about economics that have been appearing here clearly can’t be resolved at the level where they are being discussed. If we all read each others’ analyses we will descend into a swamp of ever more slippery disagreements,

I agree; that’s why I’m trying to avoid analysis and just look at the data. Certainly the data should constrain whatever kind of modeling we come up with, shouldn’t it? I agree that to really know what’s going on we need a model that accurately predicts the data. But until then isn’t it fair to look at the data and see what has happened in the past? If there is no visible relationship between, say, taxes and growth then, it seems to me, one should not claim there is such a relationship unless one already has a working model that shows why this relationship is not observed (just as PCT explains why the causal relationship between cursor and handle in a tracking task is not observed). That’s what I’ve been asking about in this “Got data” thread; if the data show no relationship between taxes and growth and economists say their is such a relationship then I figured they must be saying this on the basis of some modeling that accounts for the fact that the relationship between taxes and growth exists but is not observed. I’m getting the impression that this idea is based on belief rather than on the behavior of a working model (though I do have a note in to Krugman asking why economists believe this; I doubt that he’ll answer little ol’ me but maybe).

Thanks to all for birthday greetings. 83 today. ? to go, where ? is getting smaller. Hurry up.

Does this mean you saw my (rather nondescript) greeting on Facebook? I guess I should remember your b-day since it’s just a few days after my daughter’s.

Happy B-day

Rick

PS. Are you not interested in leading the MOL session with me as the explorer? I could start off by talking about how I feel when discussing health care reform with right wingers (or conservatives or superior intellects or whatever they like to be called).

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

17

[From Dick Robertson,2009.08.29.1244]

I’ll try sending this again, my first attempt seems frozen in cyberspace.

Anyway

Thanks to all for birthday greetings. 83 today. ? to go, where ?

Happy Birthday, Young Fella (I beat you by three months.)

And thanks for this post that brings some light into this discussion, that even I can make sense of.
I would love to see all the experts in economics get together on building a model like you suggest,
but I don’t expect we’ll see it anytime soon. There are various centers of self-interest that I would expect to fear the outcome, just as we have seen with the non-acceptance of PCT by the power centers in psychology.

Best,

Dick R

···

From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:10 am

18

Happy Belated Birthday Bill! My grandmother has you beat by eight years.

···

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Robertson Richard<R-Robertson@neiu.edu> wrote:

[From Dick Robertson,2009.08.29.1244]

I'll try sending this again, my first attempt seems frozen in cyberspace.

Anyway

From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:10 am

Thanks to all for birthday greetings. 83 today. ? to go, where ?

Happy Birthday, Young Fella (I beat you by three months.)

And thanks for this post that brings some light into this discussion, that
even I can make sense of.
I would love to see all the experts in economics get together on building a
model like you suggest,
but I don't expect we'll see it anytime soon. There are various centers of
self-interest that I would expect to fear the outcome, just as we have seen
with the non-acceptance of PCT by the power centers in psychology.

Best,

Dick R

19

The original microeconomic models assumed that each economic decision maker was acting in his own self interest to maximize his subjective values. As they came to explicitly deal with the fact that humans may not always be rational, or perform the maximization calculations properly they found it didn’t make much difference in their models, since they also didn’t have knowledge of their subjective values, but could only infer them from the exchanges and other decisions they made. What is it about PCT that would mean that the same microeconomic models would not also be robust to whatever difference PCT would make?

Martin L

mlewitt@comcast.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bill Powers” powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:00:31 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain

Homo Economicus is different under PCT than under most economists’ theories. How do the human control systems involved show up in the model? Should that not make a difference?

20

i reviewed a presentation by Ted Cloak applying PCT to the transmission of memes, if I recall correctly. I gave him some feedback which we discussed. I become aware of csgnet when he cc’d it on some email. While reserving judgement, I was curious enough about the possible implications for designing neural nets and understanding the brain.

I was an economics, physics and philosophy triple major as an undergrad, eventually escaping with a BA in Philosophy. Subsequently, I did graduate work in business and computer science, and have worked in scientific computing for nearly 30 years.

It took longer to clear my personal matters than I anticipated, so I won’t get to the substance until after I rest.

regards,

Martin L

mlewitt@comcast.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 5:37:31 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain

. Could you give me just a quick review of how you got to PCT when you get back. Thanks!