Cooperation and Control

[From Rick Marken (980902.0800)]

Tim Carey (980902.0955) --

Incidentally, would this diagram cover both conflict and
cooperation by just changing the references? For example if
we both want the bucket half full this would seem to be
cooperation but if I want it half full and you want it full
then we would seem to have conflict.

I think _cooperation_ means a great deal more than having
two or more control systems with the same reference for the
same variable. I think cooperation means _intentionally_
getting to a state where this is the case. That is, I think
"cooperation" is a controlled perception; so it can only be
done by people who can _perceive_ cooperation and can act
in a way that keeps this perception under control. I don't
think it's cooperation when references align accidentally.

Cooperation is an intentionally produced result; not an
accident. If person A and B happen, by chance, to want a
couch lifted at exactly the same time and they both decide
to do this lifting from opposite sides of the couch so that
both, together, produce an intended result (lifted couch) that
neither could have produced alone, I would not call this
"cooperation"; I would call it a _remarkable_ coincidence.

If A and B had discussed lifting the couch beforehand and had
agreed to lift the couch (agreed to adopt the same references
for couch position) by lifting from opposite ends of the
couch (agreed to adopted different references for where they
would exert force on the couch) so that both, together, produce
the intended result (lifted couch), I would, indeed, call this
"cooperation".

The important part of cooperation, for me, is the _negotiation_
that goes on before the parties start to control for the
cooperatively produced results.

If "cooperation" just meant "alignment of the references of two
or more control systems" then we would have to say that the
alignment between references that we see in slavery (where the
slave aligns his references for picking cotton with the master's)
is as cooperative as the alignment we see in wage labor (where
the worker agrees to do certain work for certain pay). I think
there is a difference between the "cooperation" we see in slavery
and the "cooperation" we see in wage labor that most people
recognize and that is captured by the HPCT model of interacting
control systems.

Personal note: I've been reading "Making Sense of Behavior".
What a great book! I recommend it to everyone. The chapter on
perception is a particular mind blower. Bill has done an
extraordinary job of laying out the whole PCT enchilada -- data,
models, philosophy, practical applications -- in plain English.
Wonderful book, Bill. Thanks for doing it.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory (9809.1130 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980902.0800)

Tim Carey (980902.0955) --

> Incidentally, would this diagram cover both conflict and
> cooperation by just changing the references? For example if
> we both want the bucket half full this would seem to be
> cooperation but if I want it half full and you want it full
> then we would seem to have conflict.

I think _cooperation_ means a great deal more than having
two or more control systems with the same reference for the
same variable. I think cooperation means _intentionally_
getting to a state where this is the case. That is, I think
"cooperation" is a controlled perception; so it can only be
done by people who can _perceive_ cooperation and can act
in a way that keeps this perception under control. I don't
think it's cooperation when references align accidentally.

An important lesson. Conflict is much easier to arrange than is cooperation.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980902.0900)]

Bruce Gregory (9809.1130 EDT)--

An important lesson. Conflict is much easier to arrange than
is cooperation.

True. But I think conflict is rarely arranged (though it is
_occasionally_ arranged, by street toughs, belligerent leaders
and the like).

I think conflict is best viewed as what happens when N control
systems control in a world with far fewer than N perceptual
degrees of freedom. I recommend Bill Powers'extraordinarily clear
and deep description of this "degrees of freedom" problem in the
"Degrees of freedom in social interactions" chapter of Living
Control Systems (p. 221-236)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Tim Carey (980903.0620)]

[From Rick Marken (980902.0800)]

I think _cooperation_ means a great deal more than having
two or more control systems with the same reference for the
same variable. I think cooperation means _intentionally_
getting to a state where this is the case. That is, I think
"cooperation" is a controlled perception; so it can only be
done by people who can _perceive_ cooperation and can act
in a way that keeps this perception under control. I don't
think it's cooperation when references align accidentally.

A great point Rick. For cooperation to occur there must be a reference for
cooperation at some level.

Thanks,

Tim

[From Kenny Kitzke (980903.0800 EDT)]

<Rick Marken (980902.0800)>

<The important part of cooperation, for me, is the _negotiation_
that goes on before the parties start to control for the
cooperatively produced results.>

Does how a cooperation interaction came into being (through prior
negotiation) make it any more or less joint cooperative behavior?

Consider the old woman who has fallen and can't get up.
Case 1: She has a safety buzzer that calls the local ambulance service.
Medics arrive in ten minutes (by negotiated contract) and help get her
safely to her feet.
Case 2: Two friends see her fall and immediately go to get her safely to
her feet.

Please explain why "prior negotiation" is important to the cooperation seen
in Case 2, between the two friends and between them and the old lady.

There may be all kinds of joint activity (like negotiation) prior to
cooperation, or none at all. Categorizing these prior activities as an
important part of cooperation broadens the PCT meaning of cooperation to
unimaginable conditions. You may percieve prior negotiation as the more
important part of cooperation. Fine. Others do not.

Labor-management negotiations are anything but cooperative endeavors. They
are dominated by threats and coercion. Even when an agreement is reached,
both parties typically believe they lost getting what they wanted. It is a
lose-lose decision making format.

No, prior *negotiation* is not an important part of cooperation. If a
slave picks cotton for his master out of a reference for self-worth and "no
work no eat", who are you to question his behavior and his cooperation?

[From Rick Marken (980903.1310)]

Kenny Kitzke (980903.0800 EDT)--

Consider the old woman who has fallen and can't get up.
Case 1: She has a safety buzzer that calls the local ambulance
service.
Medics arrive in ten minutes (by negotiated contract) and help
get her safely to her feet.
Case 2: Two friends see her fall and immediately go to get
her safely to her feet.

Please explain why "prior negotiation" is important to the
cooperation seen in Case 2, between the two friends and between
them and the old lady.

Prior negotiation isn't important in this case; just _communication_.
If the two friends are cooperaters (rather than controllers) they
will heed the woman in the unlikely event that she says "Please
don't pick me up; I hit the safety alarm by mistake". If they are
controllers they will pick her up anyway, because they "know
what's good for her"

No, prior *negotiation* is not an important part of cooperation.
If a slave picks cotton for his master out of a reference for
self-worth and "no work no eat", who are you to question his
behavior and his cooperation?

I'm Rick Marken and I can't believe the stuff you come up with.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory 9980903.1625 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980903.1310)

Kenny said,

> No, prior *negotiation* is not an important part of cooperation.
> If a slave picks cotton for his master out of a reference for
> self-worth and "no work no eat", who are you to question his
> behavior and his cooperation?

I'm Rick Marken and I can't believe the stuff you come up with.

PCT has little to say about motives. Without elaborate tests you have no way
of knowing whether I am obeying the speed limit out of my desire to be a
cooperative citizen or I am trying to avoid the power of the state. You
would have to remove the master and see what the slave does before you would
be more than speculating. As Thoreau said, "It is hard to have a southern
overseer; it is worse to have a northern one; but worst of all when you are
the slave-driver of yourself."

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980903.1440)]

Bruce Gregory (980903.1625 EDT)--

PCT has little to say about motives.

Yes. All it says is "Motives (internal causes of behavior)
don't exist".

You would have to remove the master and see what the slave
does before you would be more than speculating.

Yes. Of course. I was just judging by how I would feel if
I were in the same position as the slave. Since both you
and Kenny seem to be able to imagine that slavery could be
quite fulfilling I can only hope that someday you guys get
the chance to experience it.

As Thoreau said, "It is hard to have a southern overseer; it
is worse to have a northern one; but worst of all when you are
the slave-driver of yourself."

Thoreau was a pompous, self-absorbed ass who didn't (and
probably couldn't) understand control theory.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory (980903.1745 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980903.1440)

Thoreau was a pompous, self-absorbed ass who didn't (and
probably couldn't) understand control theory.

He always spoke very highly of you,

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (980903.2230 EDT)]

<Rick Marken (980903.1310)>

<I'm Rick Marken and I can't believe the stuff you come up with.>

I can tell. You seem limited to a world you have to scientifically model
to believe it is real. I don't. You would have to go up a level beyond
your hierarchial limitations to believe what I believe. :sunglasses:

Can you believe that a soldier is willing to give up his life defending his
country? Isn't it quite similar for a slave who happily works for the good
of his master to his own detriment? Can you see blind man?

A dead soldier is a hero to most people. You too? A dead to himself slave
is also a hero to me. Are all slaves stupid? Does having references for
the interaction called slavery that are different from yours mean I'm
crazy?

Who are you to tell anyone? I know, because I asked you before. You are
Rick Marken and you are unique among the 5 billion living control systems.
I guess we better listen to you to know how to establish our references for
our hierarchy. We don't want to exasperate you.

No advice volunteered, no never

Kenny

[From Rick Marken (980904.0930)]

Kenny Kitzke (980903.2230 EDT)--

You seem limited to a world you have to scientifically model
to believe it is real. I don't.

Not just model, but _test_. See Bill Powers' (980904) first
lesson on SIMULATION. When I want poetry, I read Genesis. When
I want wisdom, I read Powers (actually, I test simulations
against experience -- and I know how to do this thanks largely
to Powers).

Can you believe that a soldier is willing to give up his life
defending his country? Isn't it quite similar for a slave who
happily works for the good of his master to his own detriment?

Yes, to the extent that both will meet with a similar fate if
they decide to opt out of the program.

A dead soldier is a hero to most people. You too?

I see some soldiers as heros, dead or alive. But by and
large I see dead (and maimed) soldiers as the tragic result
of people's inability to rise above their controlling natures.

Does having references for the interaction called slavery
that are different from yours mean I'm crazy?

Not at all. Just kind of surprising, given your love of PCT.
Slavery is about as clear an example of coercive control of
human behavior as I can imagine. Yet you chose to focus on
how happy an enslaved person can be (and I agree that an
enslaved person can be happy) instead of the problems created
by the approach to human interaction taken by the enslavers.
I guess it's just puzzling, since enslaving people is such an
obviously poor way of dealing with people, from a PCT perspective.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken