[From Fred Nickols (2002.09.26.1445)] --
I'm replying to the general gist of this thread (as I perceive it, of
course,) but not to any particular posting.
The discussion seems to me to hinge on the assumption that some of the
historically "ugly" behavior in some of the past exchanges represent
disturbances to controlled variables (e.g., Joe posts something, Fred posts
something in response that Joe takes as an insult, Joe fires back, Fred
escalates, etc, etc.).
The preceding premise is no doubt true in some cases, even many or most, I
have no way of telling. But I've been pondering another possibility.
What if a sarcastic posting by Fred in response to Joe isn't the result of
a disturbance to a controlled variable at all but, instead, is simply the
result of Fred being in the habit of slapping down morons whenever he spots
one and Fred views Joe's posting as evidence that Joe is a moron. In other
words, Fred isn't "defending" a controlled variable that has been
disturbed, he's simply swatting a moron fly in accordance with some
reference condition he's established for himself.
It seems to me that we can (and do) speculate endlessly about the kind of
variable Fred might be controlling for when he zaps Joe, and ditto for Joe
when he zaps back, but what if it's not a "disturbance" per se but simply a
matter of new or fresh perceptual input being compared with a reference
signal and the resultant error producing actions that we observers take as
a defense of a controlled variable?
Could what we tend to view as "defending" actually be something more in the
line of "attacking"?
Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net