Content of CSGNET

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.06)]

I have been pleased to have some new/newer participants on this net. So, welcome Boris, Gavin, Martin L., Chad. I want to express my perception, which is similar to Bill’s, that the NET has been essentially hijacked by participants expressing their considerable knowledge and philosophies of how things in the world we experience work or should work.

The “things” include often very impersonal and non-living systems such as economics, politics, health care, etc. Us living human beings are affected by these systems. We have opinions about them and what we think of the way the seem to work for us and others, and how we would prefer them to work.

There is nothing wrong with intelligent and knowledgeable people expressing their opinions about such inanimate systems operating in our environment. However, this forum is focused on understanding the behavior of human beings whether individually or collectively as communities with similar reference perceptions.

If you are a person interested in immigration systems and policies, education systems and results, equitable taxation systems, Arab-Israel hostility, etc., it is appropriate and effective to congeal at forums where those topics are of mutual interest to the members of that forum. But, unless there is a direct PCT science link to those topics, they probably should not clog this CSGNET forum. Occasionally, topics come up, often indirectly, where two or three of the members want to debate them and better understand them. One possibility is for those members to take their topic off the NET and communicate directly with one another.

With the reappearance of Kent, it was exciting for me. He is knowledgeable about PCT. He feels PCT can be applied in the field/system of sociology and achieve better characteristics and outcomes. He seeks input from other knowledgeable PCTers about this application. His main interest (correct me Kent if I am not interpreting your focus correctly) is not in determining what kind of society Kenny and other CSG members want to live in but rather how society can be acted upon and changed by individual and collective control of perceptions.

Personally, the comments about the value of “logic” linked to PCT seem very misguided. PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular. Anyone who understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science of psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results to prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to finally understanding human behavior.

Well, that’s my two cents. I hope it might be helpful in understanding some of Bill’s comments and why the delete key is one solution to how CSGNET is used without a lot of rules and allows everyone to self-control for their own perceptions in a professional and scientific manner.

Other views of how PCT science can be enhanced and spread more widely through this NET are certainly welcomed.

Kenny

In a message dated 11/6/2010 11:20:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT)]

The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is not the first to go off into political and economic sidetracks. I’ve done it myself. But I try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have complained about it. As I am complaining now. If anyone wants to construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a political system, I will get interested when it’s shown to me and I agree that it works and is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no interest to me. Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

I can’t make you do that but I can ignore you when you don’t. I wrote this just to make sure you’re all clear about that.

Best,

Bill P.

2

[Martin Lewitt Nov 7, 2010 0148 MDT]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.06)]

        I have been pleased to have some new/newer participants

on this net. So, welcome Boris, Gavin, Martin L., Chad. I
want to express my perception, which is similar to Bill’s,
that the NET has been essentially hijacked by participants
expressing their considerable knowledge and philosophies of
how things in the world we experience work or should work.

        The "things" include often very impersonal and non-living

systems such as economics, politics, health care, etc. Us
living human beings are affected by these systems. We have
opinions about them and what we think of the way the seem to
work for us and others, and how we would prefer them to
work.

        There is nothing wrong with intelligent and knowledgeable

people expressing their opinions about such inanimate
systems operating in our environment. However, this forum
is focused on understanding the behavior of human beings
whether individually or collectively as communities with
similar reference perceptions.

Economics, politics and health care hardly seem "inanimate", the

should at least qualify as attempts at “understanding the behavior
of human beings”. I would throw in cultural and physical
anthropology as providing insight as well. It seems there are
those among us that hope PCT can make contributions to these
fields. i guess I’m hopeful as well, but most attempts at such
macro-syntheses, lack rigor, and appear to just confirm
preconceptions, and are viewed rather uncritically by those who
share the same preconceptions. I don’t see any rigorously
defensible novel insights into collective behavior or social issues
yet.

Martin L
···

powers_w@FRONTIER.NET

3

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07)]

I would hope, Martin L., that we could agree that economic, political, health care, education, governmental legality etc., are public systems but are not alive and do not “behave” according to PCT? My automobile is a non-living system. It acts and controls what it does and is animate in that sense but only within its design constraints. It can’t, like a living systems (humans, animals, etc.,), make its own decisions about what it will wants or what it can do.

Living human beings are limited by the systems which comprise their environment. So, the non-living gravitational system constrains me from flying through the air like a bird. But, the nature of humans allow us to think and create ways to fly like a bird. The thrill of “flying” in a hot air balloon, a glider, an airplane or a space station is not just like what a bird can do, it is far superior to what a bird can experience.

I too hope that the better understanding of how human behavior works afforded by PCT would facilitate the ability of humans to design and control these inanimate environmental systems to provide a more satisfying life experience both physically and emotionally. I am optimistic that this can happen to some degree.

The obstacle I see is that humans, as living control systems, are not naturally inclined to put the desired perceptions and actions of other people ahead of their own. And, even if they are so inclined, the variability in society is such that it is not likely to occur and may be impossible to achieve. As Kent, Bill and other PCTers have realized, conflict seems inevitable among people. Such may be the “hard-wired” nature of being human and even PCT conceived reorganization is not able to overcome completely.

Best wishes,

Kenny

In a message dated 11/7/2010 4:08:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mlewitt@COMCAST.NET writes:

Economics, politics and health care hardly seem “inanimate”, the should at least qualify as attempts at “understanding the behavior of human beings”. I would throw in cultural and physical anthropology as providing insight as well. It seems there are those among us that hope PCT can make contributions to these fields. i guess I’m hopeful as well, but most attempts at such macro-syntheses, lack rigor, and appear to just confirm preconceptions, and are viewed rather uncritically by those who share the same preconceptions. I don’t see any rigorously defensible novel insights into collective behavior or social issues yet.

Martin L

··· 
If you are a person interested in immigration systems and policies, education systems and results, equitable taxation systems, Arab-Israel hostility, etc., it is appropriate and effective to congeal at forums where those topics are of mutual interest to the members of that forum.  But, unless there is a direct PCT science link to those topics, they probably should not clog this CSGNET forum.  Occasionally, topics come up, often indirectly, where two or three of the members want to debate them and better understand them.  One possibility is for those members to take their topic off the NET and communicate directly with one another.

With the reappearance of Kent, it was exciting for me.  He is knowledgeable about PCT.  He feels PCT can be applied in the field/system of sociology and achieve better characteristics and outcomes.  He seeks input from other knowledgeable PCTers about this application.  His main interest (correct me Kent if I am not interpreting your focus correctly) is not in determining what kind of society Kenny and other CSG members want to live in but rather how society can be acted upon and changed by individual and collective control of perceptions.

Personally, the comments about the value of "logic" linked to PCT seem very misguided.  PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular.  Anyone who understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science of psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results to prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to finally understanding human behavior.

Well, that's my two cents.  I hope it might be helpful in understanding some of Bill's comments and why the delete key is one solution to how CSGNET is used without a lot of rules and allows everyone to self-control for their own perceptions in a professional and scientific manner.

Other views of how PCT science can be enhanced and spread more widely through this NET are certainly welcomed.

Kenny

In a message dated 11/6/2010 11:20:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT)]

  The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is not the first to go off into political and economic sidetracks. I've done it myself. But I try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have complained about it. As I am complaining now. If anyone wants to construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a political system, I will get interested when it's shown to me and I agree that it works and is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no interest to me. Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

  I can't make you do that but I can ignore you when you don't. I wrote this just to make sure you're all clear about that.

Best,

Bill P.
4

[Martin Taylor 2010.11.07.13.12]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07)]

        The obstacle I see is that humans, as living control

systems, are not naturally inclined to put the desired
perceptions and actions of other people ahead of their own.
And, even if they are so inclined, the variability in
society is such that it is not likely to occur and may be
impossible to achieve. As Kent, Bill and other PCTers have
realized, conflict seems inevitable among people. Such may
be the “hard-wired” nature of being human and even PCT
conceived reorganization is not able to overcome completely.

I think you may have misconstrued Kent's essay a little. Yes, you

get conflict when different control systems have different reference
values for the same perceptual variable, or more generally, when the
environment offers fewer degrees of freedom for variation than the
number of perceptions being controlled by different control systems
(resource scarcity). But Kent also showed that the result is
stabilization, which allows many (most?) people more opportunities
to control a wider variety of perceptions.

As Kent said in [From Kent McClelland 2010.11. 5.1130 CDT]:

"I thought I was making it clear in my essay that I see a payoff in

terms of enhanced degrees of freedom to do certain things deriving
from every stability that is collectively maintained."

and

"I would guess that on balance the massive stabilizations of the

environment associated with modern civilization have increased the
degrees of freedom available to everyone on the planet."

This all happens without explicit cooperation. Cooperation can take

more than one form. It doesn’t mean working together to bring one
variable to a commonly accepted reference value. It can mean
providing extra environmental affordances for someone else (holding
a mirror so she can see her face); it can mean reducing the
influences of disturbances to some variable the other is controlling
(“pouring oil on troubled waters”). I expect there are other kinds
of explicit collaboration, as well, often working in self-sustaining
(homeostatic) loops that assist the kind of stabilization Kent
describes.

I don't think conflict is a part of human nature, so much as it is a

consequence of control by independent control systems. But then so
is collaboration and stabilization a consequence of control by
independent control systems.

Whether cooperation or conflict is itself a controlled perception is

not a necessary part of “human nature”. Some societies thrive
because most of their people like to cooperate and children grow up
in that culture, whereas others even go so far as to legislate a
requirement for competition, and their children grow up thinking
competition is necessary and natural. And in yet other societies,
children grow in a culture that expects cooperation with “us” and a
necessary competition to best “them”. I suspect that in each
culture, most people would think that their way is “human nature” or
“ordained by God”.

Martin
5

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.08.11.03NZT)

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.06)]

Personally,
the comments about the value of “logic” linked to PCT seem very
misguided.

Kenny can you explain this too me.

PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular.

Does PCT use any mathematics?

If it does how then would it not be
logical?

Anyone
who understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science
of psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results
to prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to
do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to
finally understanding human behavior.

Not sure how this relates to logic?

I suspect that we are using very different
meanings for logic.

Regards

Gavin

6

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07.16:20EST)]

I may well have misconstrued Kent’s study; and more than a little. I scanned it and then wrote my reply from memory.

What I remembered was the idea that collective control could end up stabilizing an environmental variable…but that stabilized perceivable variable would not be matching the desired reference perception in the majority of individual controllers. So, the error they experience would still drive them to action.

I conceived this as a tug of war game. Both teams continue acting trying to move the flag to their side and win the game while the flag location remains stationary or stable. So conflict between the teams is actually near its maximum. Despite their high gain action the controlled variable remains fixed/stable at a location that is not desired.

This struck me as very much like the world I experience. Despite all my individual action, even in concert with the similar actions of others with similar reference levels, the variable of interest does not move much, or moves favorably for a while and the minute we lower our activity, others move the variable back to a level they favor. Sort of two steps forward, one step back. Living is a constant struggle. For me, PCT helps me understand and accept this so I don’t just give up.

Perhaps you or Kent can correct what I am not construing properly. I’d like to restudy Kent’s paper but there is so much else on the plate today, my error is not large enough to take that action. What does not make sense to me how the stable environment produces greater degrees of freedom for me as a benefit. If it does, won’t those trying to move the stable environmental variable the opposite way also have more degrees of freedom and essentially cancel my benefit so that the conflict remains the same or even gets worse or more intense with greater gain but no better control?

The assistance of wiser minds would be appreciated so I can lower my misguidance concerning collective control actions for stability which do not actually improve my control ability.

Kenny

In a message dated 11/7/2010 1:30:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET writes:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07)]

The obstacle I see is that humans, as living control systems, are not naturally inclined to put the desired perceptions and actions of other people ahead of their own.  And, even if they are so inclined, the variability in society is such that it is not likely to occur and may be impossible to achieve.   As Kent, Bill and other PCTers have realized, conflict seems inevitable among people.  Such may be the "hard-wired" nature of being human and even PCT conceived reorganization is not able to overcome completely.

[Martin Taylor 2010.11.07.13.12]

I think you may have misconstrued Kent’s essay a little. Yes, you get conflict when different control systems have different reference values for the same perceptual variable, or more generally, when the environment offers fewer degrees of freedom for variation than the number of perceptions being controlled by different control systems (resource scarcity). But Kent also showed that the result is stabilization, which allows many (most?) people more opportunities to control a wider variety of perceptions.

As Kent said in [From Kent McClelland 2010.11. 5.1130 CDT]:

“I thought I was making it clear in my essay that I see a payoff in terms of enhanced degrees of freedom to do certain things deriving from every stability that is collectively maintained.”

and

“I would guess that on balance the massive stabilizations of the environment associated with modern civilization have increased the degrees of freedom available to everyone on the planet.”

This all happens without explicit cooperation. Cooperation can take more than one form. It doesn’t mean working together to bring one variable to a commonly accepted reference value. It can mean providing extra environmental affordances for someone else (holding a mirror so she can see her face); it can mean reducing the influences of disturbances to some variable the other is controlling (“pouring oil on troubled waters”). I expect there are other kinds of explicit collaboration, as well, often working in self-sustaining (homeostatic) loops that assist the kind of stabilization Kent describes.

I don’t think conflict is a part of human nature, so much as it is a consequence of control by independent control systems. But then so is collaboration and stabilization a consequence of control by independent control systems.

Whether cooperation or conflict is itself a controlled perception is not a necessary part of “human nature”. Some societies thrive because most of their people like to cooperate and children grow up in that culture, whereas others even go so far as to legislate a requirement for competition, and their children grow up thinking competition is necessary and natural. And in yet other societies, children grow in a culture that expects cooperation with “us” and a necessary competition to best “them”. I suspect that in each culture, most people would think that their way is “human nature” or “ordained by God”.

Martin

7

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.08.11.08NZT)

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07)]

I would
hope, Martin L., that we could agree that economic, political, health care,
education, governmental legality etc., are public systems but are not
alive and do not “behave” according to PCT?

I think they most certainly do “respond”
exactly as per PCT’s model.

And human organisations are very much alive
by the fact the humans are “so called plugged” into their roles
both mentally and physically.

My automobile is a non-living system. It acts and controls what
it does and is animate in that sense but only within its design
constraints. It can’t, like a living systems (humans, animals, etc.,),
make its own decisions about what it will wants or what it can do.

Living
human beings are limited by the systems which comprise their environment.
So, the non-living gravitational system constrains me from flying through the
air like a bird. But, the nature of humans allow us to think and
create ways to fly like a bird. The thrill of “flying” in a hot
air balloon, a glider, an airplane or a space station is not just like
what a bird can do, it is far superior to what a bird can experience.

I too
hope that the better understanding of how human behavior works afforded by PCT
would facilitate the ability of humans to design and control these inanimate
environmental systems to provide a more satisfying life experience both
physically and emotionally. I am optimistic that this can
happen to some degree.

It is happening.

The
obstacle I see is that humans, as living control systems, are not naturally
inclined to put the desired perceptions and actions of other people ahead of
their own. And, even if they are so inclined, the variability in society
is such that it is not likely to occur and may be impossible to
achieve. As Kent, Bill and other PCTers have realized, conflict seems inevitable
among people. Such may be the “hard-wired” nature of being
human and even PCT conceived reorganization is not able to overcome completely.

I don’t agree I think with a few
tweaks here and there and taking a slightly different position PCT can definitely
overcome its internal inconsistencies.

This is what I’m attempting to do.

Regards

Gavin

Best
wishes,

Kenny

In a
message dated 11/7/2010 4:08:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mlewitt@COMCAST.NET writes:

Economics, politics and health care hardly seem
“inanimate”, the should at least qualify as attempts at
“understanding the behavior of human beings”. I
would throw in cultural and physical anthropology as providing insight as
well. It seems there are those among us that hope PCT can make
contributions to these fields. i guess I’m hopeful as well, but most attempts
at such macro-syntheses, lack rigor, and appear to just confirm preconceptions,
and are viewed rather uncritically by those who share the same
preconceptions. I don’t see any rigorously defensible novel insights into
collective behavior or social issues yet.

Martin L

If you
are a person interested in immigration systems and policies, education systems
and results, equitable taxation systems, Arab-Israel hostility, etc.,
it is appropriate and effective to congeal at forums where those topics
are of mutual interest to the members of that forum.
But, unless there is a direct PCT science link to
those topics, they probably should not clog this CSGNET forum.
Occasionally, topics come up, often indirectly, where two or three of the
members want to debate them and better understand them. One
possibility is for those members to take their topic off the NET and
communicate directly with one another.

With
the reappearance of Kent, it was exciting for me. He is knowledgeable about
PCT. He feels PCT can be applied in the field/system of sociology and
achieve better characteristics and outcomes. He seeks input from
other knowledgeable PCTers about this application. His main interest
(correct me Kent if I am not interpreting your focus correctly) is not in determining
what kind of society Kenny and other CSG members want to live in but
rather how society can be acted upon and changed by individual and
collective control of perceptions.

Personally,
the comments about the value of “logic” linked to PCT seem very
misguided. PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular. Anyone who
understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science of
psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results to
prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to
do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to
finally understanding human behavior.

Well,
that’s my two cents. I hope it might be helpful in understanding some of Bill’s comments and why the
delete key is one solution to how CSGNET is used without a lot of
rules and allows everyone to self-control for their own perceptions in a
professional and scientific manner.

Other
views of how PCT science can be enhanced and spread more widely through this
NET are certainly welcomed.

Kenny

In a
message dated 11/6/2010 11:20:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT)]

The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is not the first to go
off into political and economic sidetracks. I’ve done it myself. But I try to
get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have complained about
it. As I am complaining now. If anyone wants to construct a PCT-based working
model of an economy or a political system, I will get interested when it’s
shown to me and I agree that it works and is soundly constructed. But just
mouthing words is of no interest to me. Put your model where your mouth is, as
the saying goes.

I can’t make you do that but I can ignore you when you don’t. I wrote this just
to make sure you’re all clear about that.

Best,

Bill P.

8

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.08.11.23NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07.16:20EST)]

What
does not make sense to me how the stable environment produces greater degrees
of freedom for me as a benefit. If it does, won’t those
trying to move the stable environmental variable the opposite way also have
more degrees of freedom and essentially cancel my benefit so that the
conflict remains the same or even gets worse or more intense with greater
gain but no better control?

That’s only because you and I are
more ordered than a natural environment and “probably” less ordered
in a civil environment.

In PCT we select for control of our internal
references.

Regards

Gavin

···
9

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07.17:20EST)]

Gavin, I tried to indicate a distinction between “logic” in a more vernacular definition (as reasoning or analysis) and the tri-partite definitions you have proffered.

My point is that logically most people, and most psychologists, observe behavior as a response to a stimulus. If I sneak up behind you an yell “boo!” you may jump up in fright. If I tell you that you can’t do 25 pushups, you may be stimulated to act to prove to me that I am wrong and hit the deck huffing and puffing. The illusion is that I am causing you to behave in a new way, essentially controlling your behavior.

One of the benefits of PCT for me is that it has a mathematical element to explain what is happening, rather than the simple logic of what seems anecdotally to be happening. So, my remark was not to say that PCT is not logical, but most S-R psychology is illogical. Logic can be misleading. I still have trouble logically that a steel ball will not fall more rapidly when dropped than an apple. By experiment, my human logic has been displaced by science.

I recognize your business proficiency and experience. I would be surprised if you have not heard many times the logic and advice to pay attention to what people/executives do rather than what they say. I believed that too for many years until I learned PCT. While actions often do speak louder than words, actions do not necessarily reveal why they are being displayed. And, getting that wrong can and does cause conflict than often can never be rectified.

You may not agree with my point, but I hope I have made it more understandable. Words and meanings often get in the way of understanding. It seems to be a human limitation and affliction.

Kenny

In a message dated 11/7/2010 5:05:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

···

( Gavin Ritz
2010.11.08.11.03NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2010.11.06)]

Personally, the comments about the value of “logic” linked to PCT seem very misguided.

Kenny can you explain this too me.

PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular.

Does PCT use any mathematics?

If it does how then would it not be logical?

Anyone who understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science of psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results to prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to finally understanding human behavior.

Not sure how this relates to logic?

I suspect that we are using very different meanings for logic.

Regards

Gavin

10

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.08.12.26NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07.17:20EST)]

Gavin,
I tried to indicate a distinction between “logic” in a more
vernacular definition (as reasoning or analysis) and the tri-partite
definitions you have proffered.

My
point is that logically most people, and most psychologists,
observe behavior as a response to a stimulus. If I sneak up behind
you an yell “boo!” you may jump up in fright. If I tell
you that you can’t do 25 pushups, you may be stimulated to act to prove to
me that I am wrong and hit the deck huffing and puffing. The
illusion is that I am causing you to behave in a new way, essentially
controlling your behavior.

One of
the benefits of PCT for me is that it has a mathematical element to
explain what is happening, rather than the simple logic of what seems
anecdotally to be happening.

Kenny I think that you and I are talking about a totally different
concept of logic. I don’t really know what you are really referring to But
I get the sense its just a meaning for simple in your lexicon. Try this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

& this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Mathematics is based on logic and logic
only. Its foundations are based on the axioms based entirely on logic. With all
its complexities at the heart of it all its just logic.

So,
my remark was not to say that PCT is not logical,

PCT is totally logical.

but
most S-R psychology is illogical. Logic can be misleading.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this
statement. But I guess you are using a colloquial term for some sort of
discourse. Not sure.

I still
have trouble logically that a steel ball will not fall more rapidly when
dropped than an apple. By experiment, my human logic has been displaced
by science.

This is not logic.

I
recognize your business proficiency and experience. I would be surprised
if you have not heard many times the logic

When someone says this they normally mean “simple
sense” but this is not logic. This is just a term used in English really
unrelated to logic per se.

and
advice to pay attention to what people/executives do rather than what
they say. I believed that too for many years until I learned
PCT. While actions often do speak louder than words, actions do not
necessarily reveal why they are being displayed. And, getting that wrong
can and does cause conflict than often can never be rectified.

You may
not agree with my point, but I hope I have made it more understandable.
Words and meanings often get in the way of understanding. It seems to be
a human limitation and affliction.

I agree, but your understanding of logic
is not what my understanding of logic is.

Regards

Gavin

Kenny

In a
message dated 11/7/2010 5:05:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

···

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.11.08.11.03NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.06)]

Personally,
the comments about the value of “logic” linked to PCT seem very
misguided.

Kenny can you explain this too me.

PCT is not logical in the normal vernacular.

Does PCT
use any mathematics?

If it
does how then would it not be logical?

Anyone
who understands the behavioral illusion that has so misled the claimed science
of psychology all these years (with a lack of repeatable and beneficial results
to prove it) would know that logically concluding what people are trying to
do/achieve by observing their actions is the problem, not the solution, to
finally understanding human behavior.

Not sure
how this relates to logic?

I
suspect that we are using very different meanings for logic.

Regards

Gavin

11

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.08.15.44NZT)

The Content of CSGNET should be the outcome
of the Form created in PCT by Bill over 50 years which in turn relates to everything interpreted and
acted upon by mankind. It leaves nothing untouched even the very idea of the creation
of the universe itself all bundled into one single elegant concept of the Perceptual
Controlled Variable. The most fractal of all concepts.

Even those parts that PCT hasn’t the
answer for is included.

Regards

Gavin

···
12

[Kent McClelland 2010.11.09.1555 CDT]

I’m getting back into this conversation late, but I agree with both Kenny and Martin in the exchange below. I think a certain amount of conflict between people is simply inevitable, because the reference conditions for the perceptions we are trying to control never match up perfectly from person to person, even when the people are trying to cooperate. Each person’s perceptual hierarchy is unique, so what I’m thinking and what you’re thinking isn’t ever in exact agreement, even when we think we’re on the same page. (The virtue of highly formalized mathematical presentations is that they cut down the opportunity for idiosyncratic interpretations of what the other person is saying.)

That said, I find nothing at all to disagree with in Martin’s response to Kenny. I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Best to you both,

Kent

···

[Martin Taylor 2010.11.07.13.12]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.07)]

        The obstacle I see is that humans, as living control

systems, are not naturally inclined to put the desired
perceptions and actions of other people ahead of their own.
And, even if they are so inclined, the variability in
society is such that it is not likely to occur and may be
impossible to achieve. As Kent, Bill and other PCTers have
realized, conflict seems inevitable among people. Such may
be the “hard-wired” nature of being human and even PCT
conceived reorganization is not able to overcome completely.

I think you may have misconstrued Kent's essay a little. Yes, you

get conflict when different control systems have different reference
values for the same perceptual variable, or more generally, when the
environment offers fewer degrees of freedom for variation than the
number of perceptions being controlled by different control systems
(resource scarcity). But Kent also showed that the result is
stabilization, which allows many (most?) people more opportunities
to control a wider variety of perceptions.

As Kent said in [From Kent McClelland 2010.11. 5.1130 CDT]:



"I thought I was making it clear in my essay that I see a payoff in

terms of enhanced degrees of freedom to do certain things deriving
from every stability that is collectively maintained."

and



"I would guess that on balance the massive stabilizations of the

environment associated with modern civilization have increased the
degrees of freedom available to everyone on the planet."

This all happens without explicit cooperation. Cooperation can take

more than one form. It doesn’t mean working together to bring one
variable to a commonly accepted reference value. It can mean
providing extra environmental affordances for someone else (holding
a mirror so she can see her face); it can mean reducing the
influences of disturbances to some variable the other is controlling
(“pouring oil on troubled waters”). I expect there are other kinds
of explicit collaboration, as well, often working in self-sustaining
(homeostatic) loops that assist the kind of stabilization Kent
describes.

I don't think conflict is a part of human nature, so much as it is a

consequence of control by independent control systems. But then so
is collaboration and stabilization a consequence of control by
independent control systems.

Whether cooperation or conflict is itself a controlled perception is

not a necessary part of “human nature”. Some societies thrive
because most of their people like to cooperate and children grow up
in that culture, whereas others even go so far as to legislate a
requirement for competition, and their children grow up thinking
competition is necessary and natural. And in yet other societies,
children grow in a culture that expects cooperation with “us” and a
necessary competition to best “them”. I suspect that in each
culture, most people would think that their way is “human nature” or
“ordained by God”.

Martin