Culture and Conservatism

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
41

[Bill Powers
2007.06.28.0830MDT]

On duty, the guide avoids
getting involved with the content, and looks only for ways to move the
point of view (one hopes to a higher level). Neither the guide nor the
explorer can predict how any conflict will be resolved, or what subject
will come up next. When I speak like this, by the way, I am not being a
guide.

     Are guides control

systems?
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.29.1420 MDT)]

Jim Dundon 06.29.07.1100 edt –

Yes.

    If yes, how is their

hierarchy structured?

The same as anyone else’s, through the details are probably different (no
two people are exactly alike).

    If no, how are they

structured?

N/A

     Where, in the hierarchy

of the explorer, is the guide?

Throughout it. It is the guide (save for awareness)

      Is the guide a

disturbance to the explorer?

Yes. The guide’s actions (not the existence of the guide) alters inputs
to the other person independently of that other person’s actions. That is
the definition of a disturbance (assuming the inputs in question are
under control).

     Is the explorer a

disturbance to the guide?

Yes, with the same clarification.

      Where in anybody's

hierarchy is the guide? You have not yet placed it

       in the

hierarchy.

MOL guiding is a process carried out by the person performing the
function of guide. It uses all the levels of control. When a person is
performing that function in relation to another person, we call the first
person the guide and the other person the explorer.

Best.

Bill P.

42

So the conflict is that I want
to control for my values

and I don’t. Of course, I am always controlling for my values and

usually do so without conflict. I think that, from the context of
the

discussion, a better definition of my conflict is that I want and

don’t want to publicly control for presenting my values by
criticizing

values, expressed publicly by others, that I find appalling. So the

conflict is over wanting to criticize values like "only
responsible

people deserve healthcare and such people shouldn’t have to
contribute

to paying for the healthcare of irresponsible others" and not
wanting

to.
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.30.0907 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.06.29.1000) –

Can we narrow this down any further? Are you in conflict about all your
values, or only some of them? If more than one, perhaps there are
different reasons for each conflict, but perhaps it’s the same reason for
a bunch of them. Maybe just listing individual conflicts would be a way
to start, not worrying about finding the common factor until you’ve
looked at a number of them.

I think the
conflict comes from wanting to make the world a better

place, in the sense making it a world more like the one I would like

to live in (one that matches my system level goal for a society?)
and

wanting to be liked (because I know that at least half the people in

the audience are controlling for very different views than mine and
I

know that saying things – even when they are brilliant, incisive
and

based on modeling and data – is just a disturbance to people who
want

to perceive something different).

So you did that on your own.

So I think that
that might be it. I do want to feel liked (loved,

even) but I also want to live in what I consider to be a decent

society. So there I jolly well am, aren’t I?

That doesn’t quite come out to be a conflict – why can’t you be liked
and also live in a decent society? A conflict would be “I have to be
liked” at the same time as “I don’t have to be liked.” Or
" I have to make the world better" and “It’s OK if I make
the world worse.”

I think two different levels might be involved here. Look and see if this
is true. Is wanting the world to be better a means of being likeable, or
is being likeable a means of making the world better? If being likeable
and wanting to make the world better are at the same level, and conflict,
then you can’t do either one without making the other impossible. But it
they’re at different levels, you are using one as a way of achieving the
other, and there is no conflict. You would give up the one if a better
means for achieving the other showed up. Does that fit anything?

It’s also possible that other conflicts have to be undone first before
the main one will unravel. Maybe one conflict is wanting to act like a
nice guy and wanting to behave like something that amounts to the
opposite, while the other is wanting to make the world a better place,
and wanting something that’s the opposite of that. Does either of those
check out as a conflict by itself?

Best,

Bill P.

43

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.30.0930)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.30.0907 MDT)--

>So I think that that might be it. I do want to feel liked (loved,
> even) but I also want to live in what I consider to be a decent
> society. So there I jolly well am, aren't I?

That doesn't quite come out to be a conflict -- why can't you be liked and
also live in a decent society?

Yes, I was trying to get at the source of the conflict. The conflict
is that I want to kvetch (my goodness, that didn't even give me a
spelling error) on the net and I don't. I think that's where we were
earlier; I was trying to figure out why I have that conflict. My "up a
level" hypothesis was that I don't want to kvetch on the net because I
want to be liked and I want to kvetch because I want to live in a
decent society. The conflict exists, as you note, only to the extent
that I see kvetching on the net as the means of achieving both. So I
can solve the conflict by just figuring out other ways (besides
kvetching on the net) to control for making the world a better place
and/or to get myself liked. And I do. I think I've basically given up
on having the net be where I get myself liked. Some of the stuff
that's posted here is just too much of a disturbance to my perception
of the kind of world I'd like to live in. I get my liking from
Linda...usually;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

44

So I can solve the conflict by
just figuring out other ways (besides

kvetching on the net) to control for making the world a better place

and/or to get myself liked. And I do. I think I’ve basically given
up

on having the net be where I get myself liked. Some of the stuff

that’s posted here is just too much of a disturbance to my
perception

of the kind of world I’d like to live in. I get my liking from

Linda…usually;-)
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.30.1055 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.06.30.0930) –

OK, I see. Kvetching on the net can now be put aside because the conflict
about it depends on two other goals which are accidentally incompatible.
So now we can proceed upward and ask about the remaining errors implied
in what you have found. The implicit errors are “I am not loved
enough” and “The world is not a good enough place to live
in.” Do I have that right? Those are, as I understand you, the two
errors that make you want to not kvetch (the impact on perceived love)
and kvetch (the impact on the perceived state of the world).

Since the errors are still there, this says that something is keeping you
from making either of them smaller. Either this something is external to
you (disturbance beyond your ability to oppose) or internal (some other
goal or goals create conflict with the actions necessary to correct the
error). We can now look at each of these unsatisfied goals and ask if
either one alone is there because of a conflict. It’s easy to understand
why you might want more signs of love from other people, so try to match
them with reasons why you might not want such signs – why you might NOT
want such expressions of love. Similarly for the perceived state of the
world: wanting to make it better is the current “good” side,
but what could make NOT wanting to make it better a good side
also?

Best,

Bill P.

45

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.30.1345 CDT)]

Rick,

There is another conflict there. Wanting to talk with people with whom you feel
community in your kvetching and not finding affirmation or consensus in the word
space. This conflict can be one of trying to drive while someone is putting
cardboard in front of your eyes, and hoping that you can push it out of the way
in time. You want to keep driving, because you know your destination is going to
lead to many good things. What they want you to do is stop driving there, since
it offends them or scares them. So your conflict is basically, "am I crazy, am I
right, why should I keep trying?"

So, holding back your posts touches at least the perceptions of being liked (or
not), evangelizing communitarianism (vs. authoritarian social dominance
currently infecting the Nation) as a more just society, and tolerating some of
the junk on the net that stands in for scientific and ethical communication. And
there might be more.

I posted earlier about the need to push back against anti-scientific and
authoritarian themes. I think that it is absolutely the place of a scientist to
deal with those topics in scientific, political, and morality discussion groups.

If we let a certain single vociferous group make false claims as to the source
of knowledge, liberty and love, then we stand to lose our Republic, Constitution
and all. So kvetch on, my friend. Say hello to Linda for me.

--Bry

···

[Rick Marken (2007.06.30.0930)]

> Bill Powers (2007.06.30.0907 MDT)--
>
> >So I think that that might be it. I do want to feel liked (loved,
> > even) but I also want to live in what I consider to be a decent
> > society. So there I jolly well am, aren't I?

> That doesn't quite come out to be a conflict -- why can't you be liked and
> also live in a decent society?

Yes, I was trying to get at the source of the conflict. The conflict
is that I want to kvetch (my goodness, that didn't even give me a
spelling error) on the net and I don't. I think that's where we were
earlier; I was trying to figure out why I have that conflict. My "up a
level" hypothesis was that I don't want to kvetch on the net because I
want to be liked and I want to kvetch because I want to live in a
decent society. The conflict exists, as you note, only to the extent
that I see kvetching on the net as the means of achieving both. So I
can solve the conflict by just figuring out other ways (besides
kvetching on the net) to control for making the world a better place
and/or to get myself liked. And I do. I think I've basically given up
on having the net be where I get myself liked. Some of the stuff
that's posted here is just too much of a disturbance to my perception
of the kind of world I'd like to live in. I get my liking from
Linda...usually;-)

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com