# Cooperation and Competition (was Anarchy)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130>\
**Category:** CSG2000\
**Created:** [June 29, 2000, 2:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130 "2000-06-29T02:08:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 2:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130/1 "2000-06-29T02:08:01Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2000.06.28 21.44]  
Going back to before I went on holiday...

> [From Mike Acree (2000.0501.1340 PDT)]
> 
> Rick Marken (2000.05.01.1310)--
> 
> \>I have some questions.  
> \>  
> \>1. What is "cooperation"?  
> \>  
> \>2. How did Darwin (or any evolutionary biologist) know when  
> \>it was occurring and when it was not?
> 
> Reasonable questions. It was my intention to be granting the most liberal  
> possible definition of cooperation in my example of the bees and the  
> flowers. But we should probably ask Martin. I don't necessarily fault him  
> for having introduced the terms without defining them, but I do think he  
> owes us an explanation (when he returns) of the very strange idea that  
> cooperation and competition are themselves in competition.

I thought I had defined them pretty well in the Web site discussed by  
Mike: \<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html&gt;](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html&gt;), but  
apparently not. Here goes, again.

In my terminology, "cooperation" occurs when the actions of one  
control system eases the control exercised by another. "Competition"  
occurs when the actions of one control system makes it more difficult  
for another to control. Neither need perceive the existence or the  
actions of the other. In the analysis that led to this discussion,  
the effects were largely side effects. Neither "cooperation" nor  
"competition" need be reciprocal.

"Cooperation" often happens because the actions of one control system  
either reduce the influence of a disturbing variable on the  
perceptual signal of another, or because the actions of one control  
system affect the environmental feedback path through which the other  
influences its complex environmental variable.

"Competition" often happens because the environmental variables of  
two control systems are not orthogonal, so that the control actions  
of one necessarily disturb the perceptions of the other. But it can  
happen that it is the side effects of one's control actions that  
disturb the perceptions of the other. In that case it is the output  
vector of one that is not orthogonal to the perceptual vector of the  
other, even though the two perceptual vectors may be orthogonal.

The two effects are labels for the poles of a continuum, in which the  
central point is orthogonailty.

"Cooperation" wins out over "competition" in the sense that  
reorganization tends toward conditions of better control. Better  
control occurs more readily when the actions of one control system  
ease control by the other system than when its actions make control  
by the other more difficult.

Naturally, in a world of many control systems, a \_global\_ measure of  
competition and cooperation will be a vector measure, and some of the  
elements of the vector will be on the cooperative side and some on  
the competitive side. The vector will have n\*(n-1) elements of the  
form Xij,  
which is the degree to which the actions of control system i  
aids/inhibits the control performance of control system j.

My contention is that in a long-evolved system of interacting control  
units, the mean of Xij over all ij tends toward more cooperation,  
despite the obvious fact that some competition is inevitable (some  
Xij will be strongly competitive). That is the sense in which I claim  
"cooperation wins out over competition." See  
\<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html&gt](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html&gt); for more detail.

Sorry to drag this up again after so long, but Mike did say I owed an  
explanation when I returned, in a message I didn't see until after I  
returned from a subsequent trip.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 6:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130/2 "2000-06-29T06:51:07Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.06.29.0029 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2000.06.28 21.44--

> In my terminology, "cooperation" occurs when the actions of one  
> control system eases the control exercised by another. "Competition"  
> occurs when the actions of one control system makes it more difficult  
> for another to control.

I would like to see these two terms, cooperation and competition, reserved  
to mean social perceptions that people control. You're using them to  
describe objective situations -- as you're defining cooperation and  
competition, it makes no difference whether the parties involved intend to  
be cooperating or competing, or perceive that they are doing so.

Competing entails an objective relationship of mutual interference: our  
word for that is conflict. A corresponding term for cooperation, as you  
define it, might be facilitation, although there may be a better one.

By using the terms conflict and [facilitation for now], we can refer to the  
objective situations as you have defined them. This leaves the terms  
competition and cooperation to mean \_deliberately selected and maintained  
conflict or facilitation\_. People moving furniture together minimize  
conflict by intentionally seeking a relationship with another person that  
aligns their efforts rather than pitting them against each other. They  
control to maintain cooperation. Wrestlers seek a state of competition with  
other wrestlers, which is what defines a wrestling match. They control to  
maintain conflict.

Is this change of terminology acceptable?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 3:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130/3 "2000-06-29T15:46:43Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.06.29.0845)]

Bill Powers (2000.06.29.0029 MDT)--

> I would like to see these two terms, cooperation and  
> competition, reserved to mean social perceptions that  
> people control...

> By using the terms conflict and [facilitation for now],  
> we can refer to the objective situations as you have  
> defined them.

> Is this change of terminology acceptable?

Yes. Great idea.

Competition and cooperation refer to controlled social  
perceptions. Conflict and facilitation refer to observed  
behavior. What is observed (conflict and facilitation) may  
or may not be a side effect of controlling social perceptions  
(competition and cooperation, respectively). The only way to  
find out is to test for the controlled variable.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/cooperation-and-competition-was-anarchy/3130/4 "2000-06-30T15:03:16Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2000.06.30 10:35]

> [From Bill Powers (2000.06.29.0029 MDT)]
> 
> Martin Taylor 2000.06.28 21.44--
> 
> \>In my terminology, "cooperation" occurs when the actions of one  
> \>control system eases the control exercised by another. "Competition"  
> \>occurs when the actions of one control system makes it more difficult  
> \>for another to control.
> 
> I would like to see these two terms, cooperation and competition, reserved  
> to mean social perceptions that people control. You're using them to  
> describe objective situations -- as you're defining cooperation and  
> competition, it makes no difference whether the parties involved intend to  
> be cooperating or competing, or perceive that they are doing so.
> 
> Competing entails an objective relationship of mutual interference: our  
> word for that is conflict.

No, what I called "competition" is not the same thing as "conflict",  
not in the PCT sense of conflict. See below.

> A corresponding term for cooperation, as you  
> define it, might be facilitation, although there may be a better one.

I don't mind "facilitation." It doesn't have the reciprocal  
connotation of "cooperation," nor does it have a connotation that  
apparently some people have--that "cooperation" must be conscious. I  
think this connotation strange. Bees clearly cooperate, but I very  
much doubt that they control a perception of cooperating!

Forcing this "controlled perception" connotation onto the notion of  
cooperation is a very odd thing to do, but if saying "facilitation"  
will avoid that issue, I'm willing to "cooperate."

> Is this change of terminology acceptable?

Partially. Any change in terminology that can aid people to focus on  
an issue rather than arguing at cross-purposes is good.

Why don't I like "conflict" as a substitute for "competition"  
(incidentally, I don't really like "competition" either, but it's  
better than "conflict").

"Conflict" has a technical meaning in PCT as I understand it.  
Conflict occurs when two control systems each control a perception of  
the same environmental variable (or two correlated environmental  
variables, though in this case the conflict is resolvable).  
"Competition" as I defined it occurs whenever the actions of one  
control system reduce the ability of another to control. That can  
happen in many ways. Remember that we are dealing with \_elementary\_  
control systems (systems controlling one scalar perceptual variable).

Assuming that no external control system can influence what happens  
inside the "skin" of another control system (i.e. the paths from  
sensor input to effector output), here are some places where it can  
influence the ability of the other to control:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-- it can alter the environmental feedback path from the effector  
output to the CEV  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-- it can alter the relationship between the CEV and the sensors  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-- it can influence the power supply to the affected control  
system, which affects its output gain.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-- it can produce a disturbance to the CEV of the affected system;  
this comes in two forms: (a) side effects disturb the CEV, or (b)  
conflict.

I would like a term that covers all these. "Negative facilitation" or  
"anti-facilitation" would do, since the first three items in the list  
could be either facilitatory or the reverse. But that's a bit of a  
mouthful. "Inhibition" doesn't cut it, either. Technically, I suppose  
"antagonism" would be precise if you go back to the Greek roots, but  
now it carries connotations of higher-level perceptions even more  
strongly than does "competition."

In sum, I have no term at hand that I would happily substitute for  
"competition." I await further suggestions.

Martin