Enemies

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.17)]

<Bill Williams 15 December 2003 8:00 PM CST>

<to Marc, and CSGnet folk,

Earlier in the sequence of the “Congratulations” thread, I suggested that from a control theory perspective, adopting the perception that someone or some group was an enemy was probably not a good idea.>

Hi, Bill W. I apologize for not replying to a number of your posts. This was not a sign of me being an enemy of yours. They were worthy. I have wanted to reply, and even saved a few posts for reply, but they are so old now, the thread is gone! I just got busy trying to reduce other larger errors in my life. I hope you will understand and forgive me.

I look at this a bit differently. I would suspect that most people adopt a reference for having zero enemies. This would be a good idea from a control theory or any perspective regarding relationships.

If a person or group is perceived to be becoming your enemy, you would act to try to alleviate that circumstance. You might for example test for that variable by discussions offering explanations, apologies and even concessions regarding your behavior to try to restore friendship.

Failing such action to successfully persuade a real or potential enemy to become a friend, having a reference for people or groups as an enemy would allow you to be preventive and cautious when an enemy draws near. Seeing an undeterred enemy threatening your safety or freedom may leave one with a choice of flight or fight to avoid the error.

So, it is not so much having references for relational variables like friends or enemies for which you control that is undesirable, it is more that perceived enemies themselves are not advantageous.

<I also suggested that identifying “enemies” appeared to be a characteristic common to fundamentalists of various persuasions.>

Religion can certainly be a source of reference perceptions for people as “enemies.” Islam, for example, teaches its fundamental adherents that Christians and Jews are its enemies worthy of death.

But, there are many such sources for gaining enemy references. Politics and governmental leaders certainly produce as many enemy refereces as religion and often with the intent of killing people and groups of people. In business and in sports, competitors are similar to enemies although harm short of murder is the norm there (usually).

I think there is a phenomena where you can perceive someone as your enemy based upon how you perceive their actions, when their intent was not hostile toward you. Should you wrongfully perceive a person as an enemy, your own actions may help create an adversarial relationship with the supposed enemy. You even look for actions by the other person or group that justify your perception of them as your enemy. So, it seems there is a self-fulfilling tendency to make enemies unnecessarily.

I can see why a person who is PCT aware might be more likely to avoid such incorrect perceptions just by testing for relational hostility. It that is where you were headed, I can agree.

2

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:11 PM CST]

Kenny,

I wasn't feeling neglected as a result of your not having replied to a message of mine in what is by now an old thread.

In the recent discussion I think I attempted to indicate when I used the term "fundamentalist" that I don't think the term is altogether useful. The meaning that the term has assumed in current useage it seems to me is in some ways upside down and backwards from what I think it should mean. And, anyway the whole issue of religious belief and the meaning of belief is a confused and difficult question. You don't seem at all touchy about such issues as long as you perceive that the other person is on the whole well meaning.

But, you say,

Religion can certainly be a source of reference perceptions for people as
"enemies." Islam, for example, teaches its fundamental adherents that Christians and Jews are its enemies worthy of death.

The Islamic fundamentalist I've been talking to claims that the Koran strictly regulates the treatment of unbelievers, and "people of the book." According to him a Christian or Jew can live in an Islamic society live well and expect to be treated respectfully. As I understand it the treatment accorded unbelievers is different that that which regulates the status of "people of the book." And, there is no question that to be a full participant in an Islamic society that you must be a believer in "the one true God." However, it wouldn't surprize me if there were Islamic sects in which outsiders are treated poorly.

I've found it intresting talking to this Islamic fellow. Sometimes "interesting" isn't quite the right word for it, "stunned" is closer to the effect upon me of some extra-ordinarily candid disclosures. Not any more stunning, I will say, than the effect of realizing that people I thought were quite genuine Christian believers were also racists of deep conviction.

You say,

I can see why a person who is PCT aware might be more likely to avoid such
incorrect perceptions just by testing for relational hostility. It that is
where you were headed, I can agree.

That is what I had in mind.

Bill Williams

3

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1158)]

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:11 PM CST]

The Islamic fundamentalist I've been talking to claims that the Koran

strictly regulates the treatment of >unbelievers, and "people of the book."
According to him a Christian or Jew can live in an Islamic society live well

and expect to be treated respectfully. As I understand it the treatment

accorded unbelievers is different that that >which regulates the status of
"people of the book." And, there is no question that to be a full
participant in an >Islamic society that you must be a believer in "the one
true God." However, it wouldn't surprize me if there were >Islamic sects in
which outsiders are treated poorly.

Bill, this really has nothing to do with your thread, but I think from an
historical perspective it's nice to hear and know different views.
Throughout history, Jews have generally lived quite nicely and well among
muslims, as eveidenced by the number of Jews living in "arab" countries
_prior_ to the break up of the Ottoman Empire. Of course much had to do with
the feelings of the reigning Caliph (A Caliph being similair in stature to
that of the Pope) and his views at any given point in time, but overall
things were not horrible. It wasn't until after the First World War and the
break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the end of the Caliph's, and the begginings
of Arab nationalism did the trouble really begin in the middle east. It was
no coincidence that the middle east provided Hitler with a tremendous amount
of support. The Jews were and continue to be a scapegoats for much hate.
Unfortunately, being an anti-zionist is a pc way of being anti-semetic. If
you know your history you could not possibly think of Israel as an
illegitmate state, without thinking the same thing about _EVERY_ other
country in the middle east, after all, _EVERY_ country there was a
_POLITICALLY_ constructed entity of the _20TH_ century, except for Egypt.

Ask your friend about Dhimmi's. Ask your friend about whether a Jew who
witnessed a murder can testify in court against a muslim accused of that
murder? Ask your friend if Jews are allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. Ask your
friend about the tolerance Saudi's have for Christians practicing there
faith in public in Saudi Arabia.

I've found it intresting talking to this Islamic fellow. Sometimes

"interesting" isn't quite the right word for it, >"stunned" is closer to the
effect upon me of some extra-ordinarily candid disclosures. Not any more
stunning, I will >say, than the effect of realizing that people I thought
were quite genuine Christian believers were also racists of >deep
conviction.

Bill, It _always_ takes two to tango. Whatever my beliefs might be, whatever
fantasy's I might have, are meaningless until, and unless, I actually try to
realize them. Until people start checking and understanding their
perceptions, we are all headed for trouble. When you perceive things
differently, your goals and aspirations will follow. If I perceive myself
capable of doing certain things, I will make goals in accordance with that,
likewise if I perceive certain restrictions, my goals would or should follow
suit.

Marc

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1335)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1158)

Bill, It _always_ takes two to tango. Whatever my beliefs might be,
whatever
fantasy's I might have, are meaningless until, and unless, I actually
try to
realize them. Until people start checking and understanding their
perceptions, we are all headed for trouble. When you perceive things
differently, your goals and aspirations will follow. If I perceive
myself
capable of doing certain things, I will make goals in accordance with
that,
likewise if I perceive certain restrictions, my goals would or should
follow
suit.

Let me respectfully differ. As far as I know, our goals determine how
we control our perceptions. If your goals change, what you pay
attention to changes and, effectively, what you perceive changes. If
the Jews and the Arabs had common goals, I am confident that they could
resolve their differences.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

5

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1335)]

Let me respectfully differ. As far as I know, our goals determine how
we control our perceptions. If your goals change, what you pay
attention to changes and, effectively, what you perceive changes. If
the Jews and the Arabs had common goals, I am confident that they could
resolve their differences.

No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then
becomes _what_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not perceive
the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals help? What
has to change is the perception one has of the 'rights' someone else is
entitled to. How can I possibly set a 'goal' of peace, when I perceive them
as not being entitled to it. What 'goal' would I change for that? Reference
conditions are imaginations of the way we would like perceptions to be.
Those reference conditions are based on a number of things, things which I
will get into in my post in the next few days in answer to Bill's request
and proposal (and yes, 'error' plays a huge part as well). Reference
conditions could be nothing more than 'old' stored imagined perceptions. So
to say that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change, I think is
inaccurate, and again Chris Argyris has a very large body of work saying
that a change in perceptions (going up the ladder, MOL) is just the tonic to
get people to 'see' how they are viewing the world and what might need
fixin'.

Marc

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)

No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then
becomes _what_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not
perceive
the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals
help? What
has to change is the perception one has of the 'rights' someone else is
entitled to.

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my
experience.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

7

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1545)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530)]

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my
experience.

In a way, yes. All 'reference conditions' are in part, old perceptions. If
you change the perception, the stored memory, or imagination you have about
that concept will also change. For example, if I perceive and attribute to a
people a certain characteristic, my 'goals' with regard to those people and
beliefs about those people will be affected by my attributions. My
attributions are perceptions I have about others, they are not goals. In
order for me to change a goal, and in order for it to be an effective
change, I must change my perceptions, both real and imagined first. My
'goals' are imagined states I would like to see my perceptions in. If I
change my 'goals' without changing my perceptions, than those 'goals' were
not really 'reference conditions' for perceptions and as such were simply
imaginations in the first place, not something I was actually controlling
for. That is not to say that those imaginings were not in part real or
important, just that they were not being controlled for.

Marc

8

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my
experience.

Then how do you know you have any beliefs?

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.12.18.1647)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my
experience.

Then how do you know you have any beliefs?

I don't. Or to put it another way, I only know that I assign certain
truth values to certain statements. (The value "T" to the statement
"The sun will rise tomorrow morning.") This is the extent of my
perception of that "belief." As far as I know, this belief is
distinct from my perception of the sun rising.

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

10

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1400)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)--

No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then
becomes _what_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not perceive
the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals help?

I think what you are describing is not a difference in perceptions but a
difference in goals. The perceptual variable in question is the existence
of the state of Israel, which can be in two states: exist and not exist. The
expressed goal of some Palestinians is that this perception be in the state
"not exist" and the expressed goals of nearly all Jews (except some very
Orthodox) is to have this perception in the state "exist". It's the
difference in goals regarding the state of this perceptual variable that
creates the conflict, not a difference in how the parties perceive the
situation.

I think conflicts like this are seen (especially by the participants) as a
difference in perception because people are imagining a perceptual variable
in different goal states. It seems like the Israel-Palestinian conflict
results from a difference in perception because the goal perceptions of the
parties _are_ different. But both parties actually perceive the situation
(the existence of the state of the Israel) the same way; the Israeli's see
that a state of Israel exists and the Palestinians see that too. The
conflict is over what the state of that perception should be. It's a
conflict of goals, not perceptions.

Reference
conditions are imaginations of the way we would like perceptions to be.

Reference conditions are specifications for the state in which a perceptual
variable _should_ be. According to HPCT, references can be played back
through the perceptual input functions so that what is imagined is exactly
what is wanted.

Reference
conditions could be nothing more than 'old' stored imagined perceptions. So
to say that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change, I think is
inaccurate

No one is saying that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change. Many
things would change drastically if you changed the perceptual input function
to a control system. It could even lead to a solution to conflict, if the
perceptual function were changed so that the perceptual computation were
based on different environmental degrees of freedom than those involved in
the conflict.

, and again Chris Argyris has a very large body of work saying
that a change in perceptions (going up the ladder, MOL)

The term "change in perceptions" is ambiguous. It could mean a change in the
perceptual input function, say going from p = k1s1+k2s2 to p = k3s3+k3s4. I
think this kind of change in perception is very unlikely and would require
significant reorganization of all other systems in the hierarchy. But
"change in perception" could also mean "going up a level" where what is
changed is one's awareness of the perceptions under control. This kind of
change in perception happens all the time. For example, right now I have
changed from being aware of what I am writing to why I'm writing it. This is
the kind of change in perception-- probably better called a change in
_perspective_ -- that is the major approach to conflict resolution in HPCT.

is just the tonic to
get people to 'see' how they are viewing the world and what might need
fixin'.

Yes. I bet he's talking about something more like the MOL change in
perspective than a more fundamental change in perception itself.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

11

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1702)]

Rick, First we need to decide what a 'reference condition' is. I say it's an
old imagined perception. What do you say?

Marc

12

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1702)

Rick, First we need to decide what a 'reference condition' is. I say it's an
old imagined perception. What do you say?

I think of the _reference condition_ as the reference state of the
controlled perceptual variable. In a thermostat temperature controller that
is set to keep the temperature at 72 degrees, the reference condition is 72
degrees. The temperature is rarely in that condition exactly so the
reference condition is not necessarily the actual state of the controlled
variable.

The _reference signal_ is the variable in a control system that specifies
the reference condition of the controlled variable.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

13

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST]

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.12.18.1647)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my
experience.

Then how do you know you have any beliefs?

I don't. Or to put it another way, I only know that I assign certain
truth values to certain statements. (The value "T" to the statement
"The sun will rise tomorrow morning.") This is the extent of my
perception of that "belief." As far as I know, this belief is
distinct from my perception of the sun rising.

As is the perception that my hand approaches my glass distinct from
my perception of my hand and of my glass.

Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world
works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of
saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Martin

14

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1737)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST

As is the perception that my hand approaches my glass distinct from
my perception of my hand and of my glass.

Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world
works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of
saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Are you agreeing with me, as I perceive, or are you disagreeing with me
as you seem to perceive?

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

15

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1736)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)]

I think of the _reference condition_ as the reference state of the
controlled perceptual variable.

Rick, Rick, Rick. I _asked_ how you defined a _REFERENCE STATE_. _NOT_, a
controlled perceptual variable. So I will ask again, How do you define a
'reference condiditon'? What is it? This is _not_ a trick question.

Do you agree with my definition? If not, what do you think it is?

Marc

16

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1744)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST]

Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world
works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of
saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

I think so.

Marc

17

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1746)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1400)

I think what you are describing is not a difference in perceptions but
a
difference in goals.

I share your view and appreciate your analysis.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

18

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1610 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST--

Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world
works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of
saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Thank you, Martin. You appear to agree with my definition of perception:
anything you experience.

Best,

Bill P.

19

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1515)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1736)--

Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)--

I think of the _reference condition_ as the reference state of the
controlled perceptual variable.

Rick, Rick, Rick. I _asked_ how you defined a _REFERENCE STATE_. _NOT_, a
controlled perceptual variable. So I will ask again, How do you define a
'reference condiditon'? What is it? This is _not_ a trick question.

OK. I'll try again.

A reference condition is that state of the perceptual variable that requires
no change in the actions of the control system. It's the state of the
perceptual variable that is "correct" from the point of view of the control
system.

Do you agree with my definition?

No.

If not, what do you think it is?

I know what a "reference condition" is, in PCT. I'm doing my best to try to
explain it to you. This is pretty basic stuff. Why not look up "reference
condition" in B:CP and see if my definition agrees with Bill's? I suspect
it's pretty close, though I don't have a copy of B:CP handy to confirm that.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

20

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1619 MST)]

I know what a "reference condition" is, in PCT. I'm doing my best to try to

explain it to you. This is pretty basic stuff. Why not look up "reference
condition" in B:CP and see if my definition agrees with Bill's? I suspect
it's pretty close, though I don't have a copy of B:CP handy to confirm that.

Best to confirm before writing.

The term "reference signal," as you say, refers to part of the model of a
control system, and is not observable from outside the organism.

"Reference level" and "reference condition" have to do with controlled
variables: that is, the states of environmental variables that an outside
observer deduces are being controlled by another control system. The term
"level" refers to a quantitative measure on a scale. "Condition" is used
when it's not appropriate to think of a continuous numerical scale, as in
controlling the roundness of a ball, or that figure in Demo 1 made of four
lines jointed together, or a particular taste.

Reference conditions or levels are tested by verifying that for every
disturbance tending to alter them, the supposed controller applies an equal
and opposite influence to the same variable, holding it near a specific
level, or condition, or form, or state, and returning it to that state
after a significant perturbation.

See Glossary in B:CP. I still stick to those definitions. A reference level
or condition refers to the state to which actions restore environmental
variables. Both refer to what someone else can see me controlling, or to
what I can see someone else controlling.

Best,

Bill P.