[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.0703 MDT)]
Bill Williams 24 October 2001 10:30 CST--
I think what you may not be considering in your judgement about which
problems
to work on first is the issue of how many "we" there are to work on problems
may depend upon which problems "we" choose to work on. The "life style"
questions are vital questions in which a fair number of people are intensely
interested. ... Thus the question of "benefits" it
seems to me is a matter that is worth exploring now, rather than waiting
until
a time when we have run out of easier problems. The idea that we have the
capacity to "choose" what we are going to want, it seems to me is a "fact"
that is worth emphasizing.
But when you realize that we _always_ determine what we want -- that wants
can be set only by a higher-level system inside ourselves -- this fact no
longer stands out so, because there is no alternative. We not only have the
capacity to determine what we want, there is no other way, and never was,
to determine what we want.
I guess I'm disagreeing with you about the importance of life style
questions, but it's not because I don't think people are interested in
them. I think we have to understand the mechanics of economics before we
can get control of them and thus be able to provide people with whatever
lifesyle they prefer. Sure, it would be wonderful for some of us if we
could all live on capital income and have anything we want, but the
mechanics of our economic system forbid that. Somebody has to work. Or at
least so it seems now.
And it's not that I want to work on the easier questions first. You could
say the same thing about learning algebra before the calculus. There just
isn't any way to understand the calculus before you have understood
algebra, no matter how much more interesting or important you may consider
the calculus to be. I think it's the same way with economics and
psychology. No matter how important or interesting you may think the
higher-level problems are, you're simply not going to solve them until
you've learned to understand the "simpler" stuff. I'm in no position to
tell anyone not to waste their time, but at least I can state an opinion
about what is likely to get us somewhere.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Williams 25 October 2001 2:00 CST]
[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.0556 MDT)]
Bill Williams
>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.
I think I aggree fully with your paraphrase and expansion.
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
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.
So, what term would you use?
Best
Bill Williams
···
______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1025.1521)]
Bill Powers (2001.10.25.0556 MDT)
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.
There might be value in saying, "I see you have chosen to turn left," if
the comment allows Mary to see that there _was_ an alternative, even if she
did not consider it. Since children (unlike Mary) tend to be impetuous,
they often fail to see alternatives unless they are pointed out to them.
When they can see the alternatives _without_ having them pointed out, they
enlarge the domain in which they can exercise control. If there is any
merit to this analysis, "choice" applies to situations were alternative
actions are possible, even when the actor may not be aware of the alternatives.
[From Rick Marken (2001.10.25.1330)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.1025.1521)--
There might be value in saying, "I see you have chosen to turn left," if
the comment allows Mary to see that there _was_ an alternative, even if she
did not consider it.
The alternative is really an infinite number of alternatives: _all_ values of the
output function (all angles of turn) that did _not_ occur because they would not
have gotten Mary to the newspaper. These alternatives are built into the output
function of a good newspaper retrieval system like Mary. I don't see how telling
Mary that one particular value of her output function ("turn left") was used as
the means of retrieving the newspaper would suggest that this was one of many
alternatives. I think what you would have to say is something like "I see you have
chosen to turn left _rather than_ right or straight ahead", and even that doesn't
cover all the alternatives, which are the infinite number of non-chosen angles of
turn..
Since children (unlike Mary) tend to be impetuous,
they often fail to see alternatives unless they are pointed out to them.
Mary can be pretty impetuous. But children are most like Mary in that they are
control systems. Control systems don't need to "see" alternatives. They just need
to have these alternatives built into their output functions.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1025.1731)]
Rick Marken (2001.10.25.1330)
Mary can be pretty impetuous. But children are most like Mary in that they are
control systems. Control systems don't need to "see" alternatives. They
just need
to have these alternatives built into their output functions.
I find this statement a bit odd. I agree, but how do we get alternatives
built into our output functions? For example, I could tell a student that
she doesn't need to understand ("see") floating and sinking, as long as she
has the appropriate alternatives built into her output functions. I suspect
she would not be comforted (or feel that she had been helped).
Children often have the appropriate alternatives built into their output
functions. They often fail to control the appropriate perception, however.
They can perfectly well _not_ run across the road before looking for
oncoming traffic; it's just the case that they sometimes don't. They are
paying attention to the "wrong" thing (the rolling ball instead of the
oncoming car). It seems to me that we fail to act responsibly if we don't
coach them about what then need to pay attention to if they are to survive.
[From Rick Marken (2001.10.25.1500)]
Me:
> Control systems don't need to "see" alternatives. They
> just need to have these alternatives built into their output functions.
Bruce Gregory (2001.1025.1731)--
how do we get alternatives built into our output functions?
I think this is what reorganization system about. reorganization is the
development of output functions that allow the system to successfully control its
inputs.
Children often have the appropriate alternatives built into their output
functions.
Yes. And these children can, therefore, not control the variables influenced by
the outputs generated by these functions. A child who turned right to get Mary's
paper for her has not yet developed a properly organized output function in its
would be "newspaper retrieval" control system, so it can't control for getting the
newspaper.
They can perfectly well _not_ run across the road before looking for
oncoming traffic; it's just the case that they sometimes don't.
Right. The output function of the child's developing "oncoming traffic" control
system is not completely and correctly organized yet.
It seems to me that we fail to act responsibly if we don't
coach them about what then need to pay attention to if they are to survive.
I completely agree. But I think there are far more effective ways to coach than to
simply point out that a particular alternative has been selected as the means of
achieving a particular result. If a child runs into the street without paying
attention to oncoming traffic, I think the last thing I would think of saying to
the child is "I see you have chosen to run into traffic without paying attention"
or (god forbid) "I see you have chosen to get hit by a car". What I would do
would make sure that the child understands the importance of having the intention
of avoiding oncoming traffic. I would then explain the alternative means that
could be used to control for that result (looking both ways, asking a parent to
get whatever went into the street , etc.). If I saw the child do the wrong thing I
would point out the possible consequences of having done that and re-explain the
preferred options.
Best regards
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.1633 MDT)]
Bill Williams 25 October 2001 2:00 CST--
I would 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.
So, what term would you use?
Depends on what you're trying to describe. If there are multiple discrete
alternatives, all of which are desirable but only one of which can be
selected, I might use the term "choice" to describe the situation. If the
goal is discrete but is simply one element of a well-learned sequence, I
would just describe it that way: the next goal in sequence, for instance.
If you're trying to allude to the difference between voluntary and forced
or automatic goal-seeking, I'd use those terms: voluntary, volitional,
conscious, and so on for one side, and antonyms for the other side. As it
is, if you use the word "choose", you have to pause anyway to make clear
which of the possible meanings you intend; if that's so, why not just make
your meaning clear and skip the word?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.1622 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.1025.1521)--
There might be value in saying, "I see you have chosen to turn left," if
the comment allows Mary to see that there _was_ an alternative, even if she
did not consider it.
It would strike me as awkward to tell her that I see something that I
didn't see. It would be more straightforward to ask her, "Did you realize
you could have turned right?" Her answer would probably be something like,
"Why should I turn right? The paper box is the other way."
I think that pointing out an alternative that the other person might have
overlooked by saying ":I see you have chosen ..." is just an attempt to
score points (I saw something you missed) or be cute (I'm only teasing).
If you really want to point out alternatives to children, what's wrong with
doing so in a way that doesn't embarrass them?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2001.10.25.0703 MDT)]
Bill Williams 24 October 2001 10:30 CST--
But when you realize that we _always_ determine what we want -- that wants
can be set only by a higher-level system inside ourselves -- this fact no
longer stands out so, because there is no alternative. We not only have the
capacity to determine what we want, there is no other way, and never was,
to determine what we want.
However many people have the misconception that what they want NOW, such as
a Camel, or whisky, or a high salt, high fat diet are unalterable. The idea
that these wants can be changed is for them a revelation. A revelation
which they are not likely to generate on their own. Do you remember when
you smoked and I'd tell you how much it surprized me that, "You're not
controlling for Living." and you'd tell me to fuck-off.
I'm in no position to
tell anyone not to waste their time, but at least I can state an opinion
about what is likely to get us somewhere.
I wasn't proposing that we should undertake theoretical exercises in what would
amount to mid-air, but rather that control theory has some practical
applications in terms of guiding efforts which people make to reorganize their
reference levels-- such as stoping smoking. I would think it would be possible
to do a better job than Glasser did along the lines of his _Positive
Addictions_.
Best
Bill Williams
···
______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
[From Bill Powers (2001.01.25.1628 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2001.10.25.1330)--
The alternative is really an infinite number of alternatives: _all_ values
of the
output function (all angles of turn) that did _not_ occur because they
would not
have gotten Mary to the newspaper.
Excellent observation. In any continuous-variable control task, the whole
idea of making a "choice between alternatives" simply doesn't apply. "I had
to choose between aiming the arrow in a direction of 25 degrees, 12
minutes, 32.765 seconds, or -154 degrees, 37 minutes, 2.239 seconds."
Unlikely.
Buying an ice-cream cone at Baskin-Robbins (33 flavors) gives us about the
greatest number of discrete alternatives we are ever faced with. When other
people actually make choices, they look an awful lot like people in
conflict to me. I'm probably underdeveloped when it comes to making
discrete choices, usually picking first thing that looks OK to me, without
worrying about whether a further search might turn up something better. I
do understand that in some people's eyes, that makes me a wierdo.
Best,
Bill P.