[From Rick Marken (930819.0930)]
Hal Pepinsky et. al. (930818) --
Bill Powers (930818.1440 MDT) gave some nice replies to this post;
let me add just a few thoughts.
Hal asks:
Bill, as one who has explicitly rejected punishment at the
outset, you must be surprised to see Rick draw this implication from your
own theory.
I don't think Bill rejected punishment, per se. What Bill rejected (and what
I reject as well) is the idea that societal problems can be solved by
controlling other people -- by ANY means; rewards, punishments,
bribes, threats, lies, whatever. This rejection of control as an approach
to solving human problems is not based on moral or philosophical
considerations -- it is based on an understanding of how living control
systems work. The result of trying to control other control systems
is conflict. Conflict is bad because it prevents control systems from
doing what they are designed to do -- control.
The wonderful passage from BCP that Hal quoted was not an indictment of
punishment per se -- it was an indictment of control as a means of solving
social problems. The implications of that passage are far more interesting
and complex than the idea that we should stop punishing people. The
most important implication is that our problems result from the fact that
ALL people are control systems -- we ALL want to control. It is true
that our attempts to control other people produce conflict -- and loss of
control -- but it is also true that, as control systems, we can't simply
stop controlling. It is our nature to control, and among the perceptions
we try to control is our perception of the behavior of other control
systems (people). As Bill said later in the chapter containing the paragraph
Hal quotes (I think) "We ARE the problem". We are the problem, not because
people are intrinsically bad or evil; we (all humans) are the problem simply
because we are control systems. We can't help but get into conflicts with
one another because we can't help but control. The only solution to this
problem (as Bill noted in a previous post) is to learn about our nature as
control systems; this learning teaches us strategies for overcoming
conflict -- both intra- and interpersonal. The basic strategy is "going up
a level" so that awareness is focussed at the level of ourselves that is
selecting the conflict- producing goal(s). The solution to social problems,
according to PCT, is truly within ourselves.
PCT says nothing about whether the elimination of punishment is a good
or bad thing. PCT shows what will result if one tries to use punishment
(or reward) as a means of control (what results is conflict). But
punishment per se is just something that happens (or not) -- it is a
perceptual variable. HPCT (Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory) does
show that there is never one absolute "right" value for any perceptual
variable (except for the intrinsic -- mainly physiological-- variables)
because control of higher level perceptual variables is achieved by
varying the references (goal states) of lower level perceptual variables
(I refer you to my book "Mind Readings" and the chapter on a spreadsheet
model of a control hierarchy -- seeing the control hierarchy in action can
aid understanding of this point considerably). The level of punishment that
you (Hal) want to perceive other people experiencing (zero) may be right
when you are controlling the perception of yourself as a humane
criminologist; it might be wrong when you are controlling the perception
of having a good marriage with a sexual masochist (just guessing -- I
speak not from experience).
PCT suggests that "banning" punishment as a means of control might
reduce conflict and improve social "safety" in the short run. But "banning"
is itself a means of control -- is it not -- and as such will result in
conflict.
What you cannot "ban", according to PCT, is the FACT that people
control.
Best
Rick