[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.0556 MDT)]
Choices made concerning the problem of "what to do" are rendered by, and
only by, the self. But, the contexts in which the choices which a self makes
are in large part offered or determined by others. So, if you don't wear
control theory glasses, its going to look as if those who have controlled the
context in which the choice is made have controlled the choice.
True. Allow me to paraphrase and expand on this theme.
This same consideration extends to _all_ contexts of experience. If you
don't wear control-theory glasses, it will seem that both the physical and
the social world determine what animals and people choose to do. Each of us
lives in a world that has certain properties. Whatever we end up wanting to
experience, we must act on the world as it is, including the living systems
in it, to get what we want. Further, since we must never forget the
hierarchical nature of the human goal structure, when we look for means of
achieving a goal at one level, we are also thereby looking for an
experience to want at a lower level. We must pick those lower-level wants
that will, if achieved, accomplish the higher-level goal in the world as it
is. This is how we become entangled with other people, for other people
must use the same environment (which includes ourselves) to get what they
want, and the means they select often interferes with our own selection
(the "occupied" sign in that little door in the airplane). Furthermore,
other people often _are_ the means we choose: "Please pass the salt."
We also have to remember that many people make their livings by trying to
control what other people choose, and enjoy doing so. By means both clever
and crude, they get control over things that other people need, or convince
other people that what they already need or want, but can't get for
themselves, can be obtained just by buying something or hiring some
service. Sometimes, of course, this is true -- you can definitely avoid bad
breath, and its effects on people around you, by buying some kind of
toothpaste and brushing your teeth with it. You can even attract girls -- a
particular sort of brainwashed, ignorant, and deluded girls, perhaps, but
girls nonetheless -- by driving the right kind of car. Advertising has to
contain a grain of truth if it's to work for very long and if the
advertiser is to go on convincing people that it's generally worth buying
things from that person.
But the point we have to keep reminding ourselves of is that nobody can
reach into anyone else's head and tweak the reference signals there, and
even if anyone could do this, systems at a higher level would tweak them
right back again. Any arbitrary change in any reference signal at any level
(including the highest -- work that one out) amounts to a disturbance,
because it changes what is going on in another system somewhere, and will
elicit resistance.
Another thing -- this word "choice." I don't think it's a robust enough
term to carry the load in this discussion. It's hard to be sure what a
person means by this term, and often what is meant is contrary to fact.
First, it can mean acting voluntarily rather than automatically or because
of coercion. I think that's how Glasser uses it in "choice theory."
Second, it can mean selecting one object or course of action among several.
Implied but seldom discussed is the idea that the alternatives are mutually
exclusive -- you can select _only one_, and when it's selected the other
possibilities are ruled out.
Third, because of the point above choice implies conflict. because if one
could choose _both_ or _all_ of the alternatives, "choice" wouldn't mean
anything. You have to make a choice only when you want _both_ alternatives
at the same time, but it is impossible to _have_ both. I have to choose
between having my cake later, and eating it now.
Fourth, it's used whenever there is more than one possible outcome or
alternative, WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTOR CONSIDERS ANY ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN
THE ONE "CHOSEN." When, most mornings, Mary walks down the path to the main
road, she turns left at the main road and goes to the place where the
newspaper is delivered in its little box. I could say, "Ah, I see you have
chosen to turn left this morning." To say that is to imply that she was
presented with the alternatives of turning left and turning right, and that
after considering both possibilities, she chose to turn left. After all,
_I_ could plainly see the alternatives; surely she could too.
But no. When I ask her a little time from now, I'm sure she will say that
she does not choose left over right. She never even considers turning
right, because that's not the way to where the newspaper is. To get to
where the newspaper is, you turn left from the front door down the
driveway, right down the path, and left toward the newspaper box. The
control systems involved do not choose between alternatives. They simply
convert any remaining error into the appropriate action, and turn in the
directuion toward the newspaper box.
The point is, of course, that we read "choice" into situations where no
choice is actually involved, just because _we_ can see alternatives.
I wouyld much prefer to use the term choice _only_ when when there is a
conflict. Normally, we avoid having to make choices. We simply do what
works to get us what we want.
Best,
Bill P.