[From Rick Marken (2004.03.24.1000)]
Michelle Ivers (2004.03.24. 0900 EST)
Rick Marken (2004.03.23.0900)
I don't believe it is possible to design a control system that
controls but cannot be controlled.I actually said that we are designed to control our perceptions rather
than BE controlled by others.
You may be right about the designer's intent. But there is really no way to
know what the designer's intent actually was or whether there even was a
designer. I was describing the situation on the ground, so to speak. The
living control systems that we see all around us, whether designed or the
result of evolutionary processes (the latter being far more plausible) can
be controlled. If there was a designer (or a board of designers, as in
Greek mythology), the intent might have been to produce systems that control
their perceptions rather than BE controlled by others. But what was
actually produced was systems that control their perceptions _and_ that can
BE controlled by others. Of course, if the designer knew PCT he or she would
have known that this is the way input control systems work.
Wouldn't you agree then that as control systems we
don't like being controlled?
This is often true, particularly in cases where someone is trying to
directly control the state of another person's controlled variables. But I
gave examples of cases where control (of actions via disturbance) is not
minded at all, as in giving change for a five.
Controlling what other people say (and do) seems like exactly the
kind of thing control systems would do.I'm not sure how you think you can control what others say and do. In
my opinion, you can attempt to affect another control system, you can
create a disturbance for it, you can be part of its feedback function, but I
don't see how you can CONTROL someone else. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Controlling someone else means controlling the perceptual variables they are
controlling or controlling their actions via disturbance to the perceptual
variables controlled by those actions. Controlling another person's
controlled variables can only be done using force or the threat thereof.
Control of another person's outputs, however, can be quite easy. If you
have ever done the rubber band demo you know that your finger can be moved
where the experimenter wants it as long as you are controlling the position
of the knot. When the experimenter moves your finger in this way, he or she
is controlling your behavior (specifically, controlling where you place your
finger).
Rick, I made no comment as the the "OK-ness" of Bill Williams'
comments. My only comment was that he stated clearly that "it
seems to me". (his perception). If your perception of me is
that I'm an 'ignorant slut' for disagreeing with you then that's
ok. (After all, its only your perception Rick, and that doesn't
really matter a whole lot to me.)
Of course it's not my perception. I used the term "ignorant slut" in a
question about how you would feel _if_ I had said such a thing to you. What
I asked was "If I said that it is my perception that Michelle Ivers is an
ignorant slut... would I be immune from criticism for having said it?" The
point was that just because I say that something is _my perception_ doesn't
make it any less hurtful to you or less contemptible for me to have said it.
You were justifying Bill Williams' name calling by saying it was" just his
perception". I think I made my point because you are obviously offended even
by my hypothetical and you would properly, I think) judge it to have been
contemptible if I had said it to you.
Whether it comes from a SNL skit or not (the fact that you didn't
think I'd get the reference anyway), says to me that I've probably
caused you a great deal of disturbance.
You sure did. I found it very disturbing, not only to see someone defending
Bill Williams' despicable behavior, but doing it using pseudo-PCT jargon
("it's just his perception"). I asked how you would feel if I called you an
"ignorant slut" (Bill Williams has called me much worse, with great glee and
relish) to try to get you to see that these kinds of things hurt. My
hypothetical shows that _if_ I had said that it's just my perception that
you are an ignorant slut, it would not make my having called you that any
less hurtful to you (or any less acceptable for me to have said it).
I think you've got me wrong here Rick. I don't have any references
about how other people behave.
I think you've got yourself wrong. You, like every other human being, have
references for the way other people behave. Do you care whether or not
people kill and steal? If so, then you've got references for how other
people behave. Have you ever stopped a fist fight between two kids? If so,
you've got references for the way other people behave.
I disagree with you here Rick. Counter-control occurs when you (I)
have a reference about another control system doing something.
There's more to it than that. You also have to act, by disturbing a variable
that the system is controlling, to get the system to act in a way that
matches your reference.
Eg. You appear to want people to act a certain way when posting to
this forum. You have made your references for this very clear to It only
takes one all who read. or two people to post in a manner that is contrary
to your references and you are the one being counter-controlled.
That's true if people have actually posted in a manner aimed at getting me
to reply in a way that matches _their_ reference.
Over the last few months, it has been really easy to create disturbances
for you.
You must not have been around for long. For many years on this net it has
been easy for people to create disturbances to the variables I'm controlling
for. All someone has to do is say uninformed things about PCT, for example,
and I'm off to the races. This makes me eminently counter-controllable. If
you want to control for hearing me carry on about counter-control, for
example, all you have to do is say something like "we are designed to
control our perceptions rather than BE controlled by others".
(I would suggest that Bill Williams picked up on that quite quickly.)
Bill Williams is only one of many who can successfully jerk my chain
(another way of saying "counter-control"). Bill W. is particularly good at
it because he disturbs so many of the perceptions I control: my perception
of PCT, of science and of my self. If Bill (and many others) are posting
their "disturbances" in order to see me reply in certain ways, then I am,
indeed, being counter-controlled. But there is no harm to me from this
counter-control. People may enjoy seeing me do what they want and gloat over
their control of me. But that's no skin off my teeth.
I think a nice, clear analogy to what may be going on on this list is what
happens in Westerns when the bad guy shoots at the good guy's boots and says
"dance". The good guy "dances" by jumping up and down to avoid being shot.
This is counter-control. The bad guy is able to control the good guy's
behavior ("dancing") because he knows that the good guy is controlling for
not being shot in the foot. The good guy can avoid this counter-control by
changing his reference for being shot in the foot, but this could be quite a
painful way to avoid the far lest painful "dancing" that is done at the bad
guy's behest.
On the net, people can control my behavior, making me "dance" in the form of
replies to their taunts, by taking advantage of the fact that I am
controlling for how people perceive my self and my work. So a person like
Bill Williams can say things like "Rick is delusional" or "Rick's work is a
giant leap in the wrong direction" and then watch me "dance" by posting
replies in the form of explanations of my work and criticisms of his. If
Bill's goal is to see me respond in this way, then he is definitely
counter-controlling me. My replies probably look like desperate attempts to
justify my own existence and my apparent desperation probably makes the
counter-controller happy (just as the dancing good guy makes the bad guy
happy). To avoid being counter-controlled in this way, I could either give
up the goal of preserving my scientific reputation (which is like accepting
the shots in the foot, and I'm not signing up for that), avoid the bad guys
(the course I took for a while) or get a sheriff to kick the bad guys out of
town. My current preference is for the latter.
The only way to avoid counter-control, as far as I
know, is to not control at all.See above, the way to avoid counter-control is to stop having
references about other people doing things.
Right. That's what I said. You can avoid counter-control by no longer
controlling for what allows you to be counter-controlled. This is certainly
an option if avoidance of counter-control is important to you. But some
references, like the reference for not getting shot and not getting smeared,
are difficult to give up. The hurt caused by giving up my reference for a
correct understanding of PCT, for example, would be far greater than the
non-existent hurt that might result from me knowing that everything I am
saying is exactly what some counter-controller wants me to say.
I would probably be more inclined to say that I was controlling for
owning the $1.50 item, and that I gave over my $5.00 bill so that
I could control the perception of me owning the $1.50 item. When
I go into the shop, I'm not controlling for getting X amount of change.
I'm controlling for purchasing the item, window shopping etc.
But you are counter-controlling for getting $3.50 in change when you pay $5
for a $1.50 item. This counter-controlling would become obvious if the
salesperson did not hand you back $3.50. In that case, you would act (by
saying something like "I gave you a five, didn't I?") to get that to happen.
So it was Bill Williams who 'made' you type nasty comments and send
them to this forum?
I think it was Bill Williams who made the nasty comments. I replied to some
of those remarks but I don't believe my replies were nasty. But this is
another nice result bullies get from taunting people. When the victim
resists, the victim is seen as being nasty, at least by those who sympathize
with the bully. And often the victim does resort to nasty tactics to resist
the bully. I didn't, but it really doesn't matter. Any resistance by the
victim of bullying will be seen as nastiness by the cohorts of the bully.
This is another reason why I would like a moderated list. Once you get rid
of the bullying and ignorance, you also get rid of the interminable replies
(like this very post) to it.
So your friend from grad school would like to see you refering to me
as an 'ignorant slut' on a supposedly professional forum? Given that
I'm certain you don't even know who I am or where I'm from, I fail to
see how this is raising the general level of discussion on CSGNet.
If the net were moderated as I would want it to be, it would be clear to the
moderator that I was not calling you an ignorant slut any more than Bill
Powers was calling RTP teachers terrorists back in 1998 (Bill used terrorist
threats like "If you don't meet my demands the death of these hostages is
your responsibility" to illustrate how people deny responsibility for their
own coercive acts). The moderator would see comments like yours above ---
aimed at making it seem as though illustrations, such as my "ignorant slut"
question, are personal slanders -- as the actual slanders and would keep
them off the net. If the list had been moderated like this back in 1998, the
ugly fight over whether Bill slandered RTP would never have happened.
Instead, there would have been an intelligent and informative discussion of
the nature of control, coercion and responsibility.
Again Rick, that's only your perception of things. For example, I
wonder how many readers would agree with the language you used in this email
as being on a par with 'maintaining the quality' on here.
I'm sure that there are many who would find my illustration completely
offensive. And I would bet that every one of them would be people, like
yourself, who see nothing wrong with Bill Williams' personal attacks on Bill
Powers and me, which were real attacks and not illustrations.
And would I be correct in guessing that you would consider yourself as
such a qualified moderator?
You would, indeed.
If a moderator rejected one of your emails Rick,
would you continue to feel the same way?
Only if the moderator were a person like the one I described: one with
demonstrated competence in PCT modeling, research and applications. Right
now I can think of very few people who I would recognize as filling that
bill. If any one of the people I'm thinking of (including myself) rejected
one of my e-mails I would be perfectly comfortable with that.
RSM
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400