Evolution

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
81

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1415)]

Rick,

Your paragraph below speaks volumes:

I hope that's a good thing;-)

We will continue to be limited by our preconceived notions until pioneers in complexity theory seed an entirely new logic (i.e., attractor) that absorbs the noise from all artificial intelligence, right wing or otherwise. :slight_smile:

Glad to hear that someone's on it;-)

By the way, how it that new logic going to get people to pay attention
to data that invalidates their beliefs?

Best

Rick

···

<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

82

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.05.10.32)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1415)]

Rick,

Your paragraph below speaks volumes:

I hope that’s a good thing;-)

We will continue to be limited by our
preconceived notions until pioneers in complexity theory seed an entirely new
logic (i.e., attractor) that absorbs the noise from all artificial
intelligence, right wing or otherwise. :slight_smile:

Glad to hear that someone’s on it;-)

By the way, how it that new logic going to get people
to pay attention

to data that invalidates their beliefs?

By digestion.

Logic doesn’t make
or break beliefs.

Logic is content free.

The Basic Logic of PCT is
Imperative Logic, the logic of commands.

Your position is already inappropriate
as you say my belief is better than your belief. This immediately creates
mistrust and rejection. That is not how to go about changing people’s minds.

If both parties genuinely
change their positions then maybe you can move forward.

Regards

Gavin

···

Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:

83

[Martin Lewitt Nov 4, 2010 13:54]

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1130)]

Martin Taylor (2010.11.04.15.22) --

When Nixon started the "War on Drugs" and created the DEA we
(my friends and I) all said something on the lines of "Didn't they
learn ANYTHING from prohibition?", but we thought that the
public would soon insist on relegalization and the WoD would
  be short-lived. But instead of that, it has grown out of control,
to become a religion or worse.

The public learns nothing from experience and right wingers actively
ignore experience (at least the aspect of experience that matters to
me; the well being of the vast majority of our citizens; they are very
tuned in to the difficulties of being a multibillionaire;-)). This is
just the way control systems operate; people don't want to deal with
data that is inconsistent with their preconceived beliefs.

Since multi-billionaire have scant hope of consuming much more that the smallest fraction of their wealth, they should be looked upon as mere managers of resources and compared in that capacity to the skill and character of those who manage the government. Keep in mind that you sometimes lose an election.

Prohibition was repealed only because most people enjoy drinking
alcohol; only a minority of those people drink just to get high.
Everyone who uses marijuana uses it _only_ to get high. I think the
repeal of prohibition had general support because it interfered with
many people's life style; not because they saw that prohibition was
the cause of a huge crime wave. Marijuana is unlikely to ever be
legalized in the US because of the fact that it is used only to get
high and right now I bet only a small minority of people are users.
The non-user population --probably 80% in the US -- could care less
about evidence that drug prohibition is a waste of their taxes.

Perhaps the hope then is with cocaine and its appetite suppressing, obesity fighting properties. There are perhaps millions of lives at stake.

Same is true for right wing policies, such as regressive taxation (the
Reagan/Bush tax cuts), that always increase unemployment and the
deficit. People don't look at the data; they just know what they are
told by the right wing noise machine that now controls the US media.
And right wing policy makers care only about making the rich richer
and they _know_ that making the rich richer is the best thing to do
for the economy so they are certainly not interested in data, which
has that damned liberal bias;-)

We are all fooled by the spin that a reduction in progressiveness of the taxation is regressive.

I'm afraid the US is f**ked by the complete right-wing corporate take
over of the political process and media, along with the active
cheering on of the working class Tea Party mishuganas. But there is a
small ray of hope; California might actually get it together, which
would be nice for me because, though I love Canada, I love sunny
California even more;-)

Funny, I thought the government was regulating most of the corporations it didn't already own. Bond owners like the PRC and Japan are the most likely to benefit from the Federal Reserves quantitative easing. The dollars will already have lost their value by the time they get to the businesses and consumers. Are you sure you don't have a conflict of interest? Resource and energy rich Canada probably stands to benefit the most from California's defeat of Prop. 23.

Martin L.

···

On 11/4/2010 12:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

Have a nice winter;-)

Best

Rick

84

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1545)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

By the way, how it that new logic going to get people to pay
attention to data that invalidates their beliefs?

By digestion.

Yes, I find that after a good meal I'm ready to go off and collect data.

Logic doesn�t make or break beliefs.

It does for some bliefs. Mathematical beliefs can be disproved by logic, right?

The Basic Logic of PCT is Imperative Logic, the logic of
commands.

Hmm. Never heard of it.

Your position is already inappropriate as you say my belief is
better than your belief. This immediately creates mistrust and
rejection. That is not how to go about changing people�s minds.

I know. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If both parties genuinely change their positions then maybe you
can move forward.

So the way to get people to change their beliefs is to have both
parties change their beliefs. Very logical, of the tauto variety;-)

My interest was in the fact that I have found people -- all people,
not just right-wingers -- to be very reluctant to change their
beliefs in the face of data. This is a phenomenon that is readily
explicable in terms of PCT, however. People control for their beliefs
being right and they resist disturbances that would show these beliefs
to be wrong.. Some people are able to change beliefs on the basis of
data -- scientists are supposed to be willing to do this -- but the
fact is no one likes to be shown that what they believe is wrong. I
certainly don't. But, like Bart Simpson, even if I don't always try to
accept evidence that disconfirms a belief, I always try to try.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

85

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.05.14.09)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1545)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

By the way, how it that new logic going to
get people to pay

attention to data that invalidates their
beliefs?

By digestion.

I’m making reference
to Ostwald Ripening (Digestion). One crystal devours the other because of its
quality. Increasing its size and then totally devouring its prey, (the less
quality crystals) through the Madelung forces increasing. Or the Predator-Prey
Model.

Yes, I find that after a good meal I’m ready to go off
and collect data.

Logic doesn’t make or break beliefs.

It does for some bliefs. Mathematical beliefs can be
disproved by logic, right?

They’re axioms not
beliefs.

The Basic Logic of PCT is Imperative Logic, the
logic of

commands.

Hmm. Never heard of it.

Well there’s an opportunity
to increase the Quality of PCT so it can have the potential to devour its less
quality-ful competitions.

Your position is already inappropriate as you say
my belief is

better than your belief. This immediately creates
mistrust and

rejection. That is not how to go about changing
people’s minds.

I know. A man convinced against his will is of
the same opinion still.

You’re got part of
it.

If both parties genuinely change their positions
then maybe you

can move forward.

So the way to get people to change their beliefs is to
have both

parties change their beliefs. Very logical, of the
tauto variety;

I never said change
beliefs, I said change positions. That’s an enormous difference. I.e.
select for another position, ie control for another position. You don’t have
to change your beliefs. And see what happens. You cant build trust by asking
someone to change their beliefs.

-)

My interest was in the fact that I have found people
– all people,

not just right-wingers – to be very reluctant
to change their

beliefs in the face of data. This is a phenomenon that
is readily

explicable in terms of PCT, however.

It sure is explainable in
terms of PCT. What about those that do change their position?

People control for their beliefs

being right and they resist disturbances

Yes and people also have
revolutionary (or reorganised) ideas. They also control for objectives, creativity
etc, and a whole host of things that change inner concepts.

that would show these beliefs

to be wrong… Some people are able to change beliefs
on the basis of

data – scientists are supposed to be willing to do
this – but the

fact is no one likes to be shown that what they
believe is wrong. I

certainly don’t. But, like Bart Simpson, even if I don’t always try to

accept evidence that disconfirms a belief, I always
try to try.

As the brain surgeon said
to his very sick patient with brain tumours, I”ll TRY make
things better for you after I have opened your skull, cut into your brain and……………………….

Regards

Gavin

86

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11…5.15.15NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1545)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

The Basic Logic of PCT is Imperative Logic, the
logic of

commands.

Hmm. Never heard of it.

There are only three
categories of logic (declarative) statements, Imperative Logic (commands), interrogative
logic (questions).

Logic is the form and
knowledge is the content.

In Declarative logic you only
have two outcomes True or False. (16 in total in the Truth Tables)

In Imperative Logic you
can have 3 outcomes, Structure (form) or process (content) or structure-process
(19683 in total).

Imperative logic has been
ignored by mainstream for many years because you supposedly can’t make it
into true or false. Because a command is not true or false. It’s obeyed or
not. Actually when a command is given its obey-ience is selected (Perceptual Controlled
Variable) it’s either, stop or go or do something.

Command logic controls just
about everything in our society. Law, organisms, organisations, science. But
very few people have actually got to grips with it. There is however a calculus
for Imperative Logic.

PCT is governed by
Imperative Logic.

Regards

Gavin

···
87

[Martin Lewitt Nov 5 0243 MDT]

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.11…5.15.15NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1545)]

          > Gavin Ritz

(2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

          > The Basic Logic

of PCT is Imperative Logic, the
logic of

commands.

          Hmm. Never heard of

it.

          There are only three

categories of logic (declarative) statements, Imperative
Logic (commands), interrogative
logic (questions).

          Logic is the form and

knowledge is the content.

          In Declarative logic you only

have two outcomes True or False. (16 in total in the Truth
Tables)

          In Imperative Logic you

can have 3 outcomes, Structure (form) or process (content)
or structure-process
(19683 in total).

          Imperative logic has been

ignored by mainstream for many years because you
supposedly can’t make it
into true or false. Because a command is not true or
false. It’s obeyed or
not. Actually when a command is given its obey-ience is
selected (Perceptual Controlled
Variable) it’s either, stop or go or do something.

Why is the word "logic" being co-opted for this, is it to make

commands as a way a relating to others seem more resonable? The 3
outcomes, seem incomplete. isn’t another outcome an attempt to
stop, but complete or partial failure, an attempt to go, but
complete or partial failure, an attempt to do something, but
complete or partial failure, or perhaps doing something else? Is it
assumed to be disobedience to ignore a command?

          Command logic controls just

about everything in our society. Law, organisms,
organisations, science. But
very few people have actually got to grips with it. There
is however a calculus
for Imperative Logic.

There has been a proliferation of laws and regulations in our

society, so it may seem that just about everything is under its
control, but certainly there is much that just isn’t addressed by
law or commands. Could this proliferation of logics also result in
a more peaceful suggestion or recommendation logic?

Martin L
···

On 11/4/2010 8:38 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

          PCT is governed by

Imperative Logic.

Regards

Gavin

88

Hi Martin !

Martin L :
You are apparently unaware of the amount of lawlessness in Mexico, the
kidnappings for ransom, the drug cartel violence and the hostility of Mexico
to immigration and investment. Currently, in order for a foreigner s to own
land, a Mexican partner must own 51%. There are various corrupt schemes or
fictions that occur after that, once example
is the Mexican is paid to turn his share over to a corporation, of which the
foreigner is the president. It enriches a few lawyers, but decreases
economic efficiency and discourages economic development.

Kent M:
I'm sorry to hear, Bill, that CSGnet in recent years has been colonized by
people carrying on conversations that have little or nothing to do with PCT.

Boris :
Hi, Kent. I'm really disappointed with such an attempt of interpersonal
control. It's new to me. And it's coming from the master. I'm sure you can
do better (my attempt of interpersonal control :).
Which kind of conversation have nothing to do with PCT ? The kind of
conversation that doesn't suit Bill or you ? If PCT is some general
principle it has to do, by my opinion, with all kinds of behavior
(conversation). Why didn't you first read does "colonized" conversations and
built up your own opinion ?

Bill P :
This whole discussion would look quite different if everybody would start
explaining WHY they WANT government to be one way or another. WHY they WANT
to persuade others to want the same thing.

Boris :
So Martin, I hope you agree, that we include Bill's opinion into our
discussion. After all it's his forum and it seems right to do so.

1. So why governments are one way or another ? Why governments are so
different by their way of governing and why are so corrupt in their own way ?
2. Why is such an amount of lawlessness in Mexico and other states ?
3. Why are there so many kidnappings for ransom ?
4. Why policeman and politicians take bribe ?
5. Why mamilar trust deal with drugs ? Why people take drugs ?
6. Why is so much criminal present in the states with private or state
property, police, army, Courts of Lawďż˝.
7. Why do court decisions depend so much of different judges, amount of
money, social status of convict, better or the best lawyers ?
8. Why is there so much drug cartel and mafia violence ?
9. Why drug cartel and mafia organization are so successfull ?
9. Why is much hostility of Mexico to immigration and investment ?

And maybe some more whyďż˝:
Why managers first think of themselves and the most amount of money deal to
themselves ? For example Lehman Brothers.
Why do 12 or 14 eleven year kids come to school with a machine guns ?
Why are there so many armed inhabitants in USA ?
Why terrorism is so widen around the World ?
Why Israel and Arabic countries around are in constant war conflict ?
Why N.Korea is threatening the whole world with nuclear weapon ?

I'll try to simplify as much as I can again. Maybe there is one answer to
all these questions ? Maybe people are control beings and control as
priority perception of their well-being ? Can we say that people WANT to
live better or if they can't, they reorganize and with trials and errors
they "form" behaviors (actions) which successfully satisfy their needs
(reduce intrinsic errors), fulfill their wishes, their expectations, their
goals ? And when they do this, isn't it in their nature to use as much
social or interpersonal control they can ? Maybe like all of us on this forum ?

Best,

Boris

89

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT)]

Replying to Boris Hartman and others:

Bill P :

This whole discussion would look quite different if everybody would
start

explaining WHY they WANT government to be one way or another. WHY they
WANT

to persuade others to want the same thing.

Boris :

So Martin, I hope you agree, that we include Bill’s opinion into our

discussion. After all it’s his forum and it seems right to do so.

  1. So why governments are one way or another ? Why governments are
    so

different by their way of governing and why are so corrupt in their own
way ?

  1. Why is such an amount of lawlessness in Mexico and other states ?

  2. Why are there so many kidnappings for ransom ?

  3. Why policeman and politicians take bribe ?

  4. Why mamilar trust deal with drugs ? Why people take drugs ?

  5. Why is so much criminal present in the states with private or
    state

property, police, army, Courts of Law….

  1. Why do court decisions depend so much of different judges, amount
    of

money, social status of convict, better or the best lawyers ?

  1. Why is there so much drug cartel and mafia violence ?

  2. Why drug cartel and mafia organization are so successfull
    ?

You completely missed my point.I was asking why you, Boris Hartman – or
the others in this discussion – want government to be different from the
way it is. Why do you want government not to be corrupt? Not why it
should be different or why one form or amount of government is
better or worse than some other, but why you, personally, wish it were
different. What could you do that you can’t do now, and why do you want
to do that? I am not interested in answers to any of the questions you
ask above, because they are impossible to answer: the answers depend on
what individual people perceive and want. When you know that, you will
understand why the world is the way it is. But when you understand what
you want and why you want it, you will understand how to live in the
world as it is at the same time you’re trying to make it more like the
way you want it to be. When you can answer the question of what you want
at as many levels as possible, instead of throwing funny words with fuzzy
meanings around, you will be doing something of interest to students of
PCT. Otherwise, those who are really interested in PCT will ignore
you.
CSGnet is not my forum. It is A forum to which anyone may
subscribe and on which anyone may write what they please. I fought
against making it MY forum when it started 20 years ago. I wanted it
completely free and open with all participants being equal. And so it has
been, though because I had a running start and know more about control
systems than most of the other participants, I talk a lot more and try to
help others reach the same level of understanding. But that doesn’t mean
others have to revere me or subjugate themselves to my wishes. If I want
something that involves others I have to persuade others that it’s OK, or
just go ahead by myself. I never say that something is true just because
I said it. I’m a teacher but not a guru.

The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is not the first to
go off into political and economic sidetracks. I’ve done it myself. But I
try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have
complained about it. As I am complaining now. If anyone wants to
construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a political system,
I will get interested when it’s shown to me and I agree that it works and
is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no interest to me.
Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

I can’t make you do that but I can ignore you when you don’t. I wrote
this just to make sure you’re all clear about that.

Best,

Bill P.

90

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.06.1830)]

Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT) –
I was asking why you, Boris Hartman – or
the others in this discussion – want government to be different from the
way it is. Why do you want government not to be corrupt? Not why it
should be different or why one form or amount of government is
better or worse than some other, but why you, personally, wish it were
different. What could you do that you can’t do now, and why do you want
to do that?

Since I’m in this discussion I’ll try to answer. I don’t particularly want government to be different but I do want some government policies to be different. Maybe that’s the same thing? So why do I wish these policies to be different? I would say it’s because I would like to live in a somewhat different (better, from my perspective, of course) society and I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that certain policies will move society toward that better state. I would like to live in a society where there is no poverty, no bullying, no hatred, no racism, no greed; where education and learning are valued over wealth, where affordable health care is available to all, where all children have the opportunity to develop their special talents in a safe and nurturing environment and where the use of violence to resolve conflicts is not even considered – among other things.

The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is not the first to
go off into political and economic sidetracks. I’ve done it myself. But I
try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have
complained about it. As I am complaining now. If anyone wants to
construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a political system,
I will get interested when it’s shown to me and I agree that it works and
is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no interest to me.
Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

I don’t see what’s wrong with discussing political or economic issues in the context of an understanding of PCT even if we don’t have a perfect working model of all the phenomena we discuss. I think PCT can inform a lot of political/economic issues even without a model. For example, I’ve been having a discussion with a right-wing friend of mine who recently argued that “competition is fundamental to human nature”. This is apparently an important assumption about human nature that is made by those who believe in what they call “free market” economics. I think PCT would have a lot to contribute to my discussion with him and I’ll try to ease it in when I can. But I think CSGNet would certainly be the appropriate place to discuss the implications of PCT for some of the basic assumptions about human nature that are made by economists and political scientists. After all, economics and political science, like sociology, are based on assumptions about the nature of human nature and that’s one of the main things that PCT is about (of course it’s about the nature of all living things but the behavior of humans is what’s most relevant to my “social” system concept perceptions).

I’m certainly interested in PCT as a scientific enterprise. But I do control for the system concept – the concept of what I consider the “good” society to be a member of – that I described above. And one of the reasons the science of PCT is important to me is that it seems like it can be a scientific basis for developing social policies/organizations that will bring my system concet perception (of the society in which I live) closer to my reference for it.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

91

[From Shannon Williams (2010.11.06.2200 CST)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.06.1830)]

science of PCT is important to me is that it seems like it can be a
scientific basis for developing social policies/organizations that will
bring my system concet perception (of the society in which I live) closer to
my reference for it.

Obama said he's "open to any idea, any proposal" that will help jump
start the economy. Using PCT, we know why the 'people' (including the
congress members and Obama and all of the relevant advisers) are not
'open to any idea, any proposal'.

I have an idea. I want to sell it to you, and then maybe using PCT,
we can identify the roadblocks to selling it to others. It should be
an easier sell than PCT itself.

The idea originates in Rick's argument (based on data) that the
economy seems to perform better when taxes are higher. The data
baffled me, but now the reason is stupidly obvious to me. Most
people (on this list at least) believe that if the rich people go out
and spend their money (invest etc) that the stock market does better,
and companies generate more jobs, and so the economy does better.
Well, the same thing happens if you take the money from the 'rich' and
design public works which give companies more income (or if you just
directly create more government jobs). I wrote a little ditty below
to help people recognize that government spending is just like any
other spending. We should not keep it separate and unequal. (I am
not advocating big government. I am advocating understanding. My
solution that I would submit to my congressmen is not 'higher taxes'.)

Here is the ditty:

Round and round the cities and towns
               The dollar chased the spending
Round and round the cities and towns
               Till Stop goes the spending!

A dollar to the ice cream man,
               Then he pays the grocer,
The grocer pays the grocery clerk
               Till Stop goes the spending!

The clerk pays the cosmetics store,
               The store pays the taxes,
The taxes pay the street cleaner,
               Till Stop goes the spending!

The cleaner pays the shoe store.
               the shoe store pays an exec.
The exec cannot find a need for it
               so STOP goes the spending!

A dollar saved for times of need
               When need is never coming
Is a dollar lost to the cities and towns
               And STOP goes the spending.

My 'solution' that I would submit to my congressmen is a guideline.
When the economy is in trouble don't try to 'stimulate spending'. Try
to inhibit savings. Think in terms of 'use it or lose it'. On the
surface this might look like higher taxes. Sure. Hike the income tax
up to 90% on the super rich- but give them plenty of spending and
investment loopholes so that their actual tax rate is only 33%. Or tax
people at a flat 20% but impose non-spending penalties. There are
many different ways to spin it around people's reference points.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Shannon

92

[Martin Lewitt Nov 7, 2010 0211 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.06.1830)]

Bill Powers (2010.11.07.0835 MDT) –

        I was asking why you, Boris Hartman -- or

the others in this discussion – want government to be
different from the
way it is. Why do you want government not to be corrupt? Not
why it
should be different or why one form or amount of
government is
better or worse than some other, but why you, personally,
wish it were
different. What could you do that you can’t do now, and why
do you want
to do that?

      Since I'm in this discussion I'll try to answer. I don't

particularly want government to be different but I do want
some government policies to be different. Maybe that’s the
same thing? So why do I wish these policies to be different? I
would say it’s because I would like to live in a somewhat
different (better, from my perspective, of course) society and
I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that certain policies will
move society toward that better state. I would like to live in
a society where there is no poverty, no bullying, no hatred,
no racism, no greed; where education and learning are valued
over wealth, where affordable health care is available to all,
where all children have the opportunity to develop their
special talents in a safe and nurturing environment and where
the use of violence to resolve conflicts is not even
considered – among other things.

I thought Bill's questions intended that  you go beyond this, to why

these things matter to you, what difference do you think they make
for you? Why are you so concerned with the values of other people
rather than your own? Are you willing to move to be in such a
society? Can the current society be argued to already be a close
approximation to that society?

        The group now having a so-called discussion on CSGnet is

not the first to
go off into political and economic sidetracks. I’ve done it
myself. But I
try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed
I have
complained about it. As I am complaining now. If anyone
wants to
construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a
political system,
I will get interested when it’s shown to me and I agree that
it works and
is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no
interest to me.
Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

      I don't see what's wrong with discussing political or economic

issues in the context of an understanding of PCT even if we
don’t have a perfect working model of all the phenomena we
discuss. I think PCT can inform a lot of political/economic
issues even without a model. For example, I’ve been having a
discussion with a right-wing friend of mine who recently
argued that “competition is fundamental to human nature”. This
is apparently an important assumption about human nature that
is made by those who believe in what they call “free market”
economics.

Collective in-group identification and out-group hostility would

seem to be fundamental to human nature. Perhaps they have been
domesticated in western mass society, taking the forms of sports
teams (e.g, Red Sox vs Yankees), school identification (Warton vs
Harvard, MIT vs Caltech, Teasippers vs Aggies), brand identification
(PC vs Mac), fraternities, sororities, states (Texas vs
California). But many of these competing identities are represent
more than just “competition”, that is just the out-group relation,
the in-group relationships involve cooperation and sharing. Teams
are just in sports, they are in groups within productive
enterprises.

      I think PCT would have a lot to contribute to my

discussion with him and I’ll try to ease it in when I can. But
I think CSGNet would certainly be the appropriate place to
discuss the implications of PCT for some of the basic
assumptions about human nature that are made by economists and
political scientists.

It seems to me that PCT has focused on the workings, but assumes the

blank slate, even though evolution has left human nature with more
than just the mechanism implementing these workings. I find that
evolution explains human nature better than PCT.

      After all, economics and political science, like

sociology, are based on assumptions about the nature of human
nature and that’s one of the main things that PCT is about (of
course it’s about the nature of all living things but the
behavior of humans is what’s most relevant to my “social”
system concept perceptions).

      I'm certainly interested in PCT as a scientific enterprise.

But I do control for the system concept – the concept of what
I consider the “good” society to be a member of – that I
described above. And one of the reasons the science of PCT is
important to me is that it seems like it can be a scientific
basis for developing social policies/organizations that will
bring my system concet perception (of the society in which I
live) closer to my reference for it.

It seems too easy to ignore human nature when thinking about PCT.

It needs to be constrained by human nature.

regards,

   Martin L.
···

On 11/6/2010 7:31 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

      Best



      Rick

–

  Richard S. Marken PhD

  rsmarken@gmail.com

  [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
93

Bill P :
You completely missed my point.I was asking why you, Boris Hartman -- or the
others in this discussion -- want government to be different from the way it is.

Boris :
I'm sorry Bill that I misunderstood you. But it goes all the way around too.
You also misunderstood me. I was just curiuos about Healthcare system in USA
as in Europe informations were obviously misleading and Martin L. offered me
quite expert explanation, so I wanted to "exploitate" :):slight_smile: such a good
information source. After all I think that Healthcare is also very important
PCT subject.
I have no "need to wanting" for USA government to be different. I'm not USA
citizen. I don't know what are you talking about. Maybe you wanted my
opinion about USA government ?

Bill P :
CSGnet is not my forum. It is A forum to which anyone may subscribe and on
which anyone may write what they please.

Boris :
Cheers. I'm glad to hear that. What's the problem with "colonizers" if this
is so?

Bill P :
But I try to get back to the point, and when others have digressed I have
complained about it. As I am complaining now.

Boris :
I just hope that this doesn't mean that you are reference knowledge of PCT
on CSGnet to which every discussion has to be reduced (as Martin L. pointed
out). I think that you needn't have to use such a hard interpersonal
control by insulting me and trying to degrade me if that is so.
As we've gone once through all these stuff, I have no intention to conflict
you again.

Bill P :
When you can answer the question of what you want at as many levels as
possible, instead of throwing funny words with fuzzy meanings aroundďż˝

Boris :
With " throwing funny words with fuzzy meanings around" or with questions
about "why human behavior" in many situations, I just tried to stimulate
thinking about "ULTIMATE GOAL" of human behavior (why people act as they
want to have all mind and material territory around) and invent endless
behavior to achieve this ultimate goal including eliminating other people.

Maybe it's not entirely PCT bases but it's sure bases for one possible
answer to all those questions.

Bill P :
If anyone wants to construct a PCT-based working model of an economy or a
political system, I will get interested when it's shown to me and I agree
that it works and is soundly constructed. But just mouthing words is of no
interest to me.

Boris :
Thanks for "kind" interpersonal control. I think that's not the way to get
wanted informations.
My only and ultimate purpose I tried to present was how all behaviors in all
fields of human behavior (including economy, politics, crime, justice,
"joint control actions"ďż˝) have one ultimate goal and that can be explained
by ultrastability (Ashby) or autopoiesis as Maturana called it (by the way I
talked to him and I noticed that he was acquainted with Ashby) or of course
PCT (you were also acquainted with Ashby).

So the ultimate goal of human behavior I thought can be stability in
essential variables (ultrastability) or self-production (autopoiesis) or
reducing intrinsic errors (HPCT, reorganization). Maybe there were also
others. I don't know. I believe that you know more about it.

I think that all three mentioned theories, tried to model how human behavior
really works with more or less specific emphasize on modeling nervous system
(brain). They were more or less successfull in providing answers in relation
to experiments with behavior of living beings, but I think that non of them
give final model and ultimate answers how to simulate processes that lead to
maintaining "almost constant conditions in living organisms". Neither
physiology did. About psychology is difficult to talk as there are to many
theories, some closer and some further away from "working brain model".

So that was all I tried to do when I put all those questions. Was I really
so "far,far away" from PCT ?

I tried to show (now I quit) that whatever solutions some theory offer
(diagrams, hierarchical models, vertical, feed-back, feed-forward,
up-forward, side-forward models, mathematical calculationsďż˝) to solve the
control of ultimate goal of living beings with designing schemes of signal
pathways or step-mechanisms or bio-chemical or bio-electrical chainsďż˝) is
matter of individual heuristics, imagination and knowledge of inventors of
theories and they are more or less accurate in relation to their fields of
knowledge.

Bill P :
Put your model where your mouth is, as the saying goes.

Boris :
As I think I've actually helped PCT (involved in "joint control action") in
improving baseball catch, feed-forward, education, table tennis, some
questions of evolution and reorganization, arrow in diagram�I think I'm not
mouthing around. Otherwise I can't see the reason why are you trying to
control me to "put my model in my mouth". You must have some pre-experinced
knowledge about me. But it was nice try of interpersonal control :):slight_smile:

I think I told once, what are the conditions to put my modelďż˝. I'm beginning
to think that's what the real purpose of your "blank" debate was. I remember
you threatened me once with lawyers if I try to use your knowledge
unauthorized. So I'd rather have some written agreement, "as the saying goes".

I must admit that I'm really missing our private debates, but mutual respect
with some human worth attitude is necessary to make some permanent cooperation.

Best,

Boris

94

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.-855 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.06.1830)]

RM: I don't see what's wrong with discussing political or economic issues in the context of an understanding of PCT even if we don't have a perfect working model of all the phenomena we discuss.

BP: Who said "perfect?" But you do need a model and you have to know that it works correctly; otherwise you're just stating your personal preferences without any justification and assuming you're right for no reason. It's really your personal preferences that drive the communications, but the communications about these subjects are usually stated as if they were rational arguments and truthful propositions, which on this list they have seldom been.

RM: I think PCT can inform a lot of political/economic issues even without a model. For example, I've been having a discussion with a right-wing friend of mine who recently argued that "competition is fundamental to human nature". This is apparently an important assumption about human nature that is made by those who believe in what they call "free market" economics. I think PCT would have a lot to contribute to my discussion with him and I'll try to ease it in when I can.

BP: Wouldn't you first have to prove that the PCT model is correct about what it says concerning this aspect of human nature? Competition is certainly fundamental to human nature when the humans in question have different reference levels for some shared variable they are both controlling. I think we can prove that the model is correct about that. But then the question becomes, why are their reference levels for this variable different? The only way to find out about that is to ask them, or otherwise try to infer -- provably -- what each person's reasons are. Two people can be showing identical competitive behavior for reasons different from those for any other two people behaving the same way. And of course each person will have a store of perfectly good reasons why the reference level should be set as he prefers, and will not tell you (and perhaps not even want to know) why he accepts those reasons and not other reasons offered by other people for setting it differently. When there are good reasons on both sides, they are clearly irrelevant.

It's certainly possible to have a PCT discussion about things like competition, but it gets pretty boring if all you have to say is that competition is bad or competition is good, and offer supporting opinions that are nothing but personal preferences in disguise. I think that's what most political and economic arguments are.

RM: But I think CSGNet would certainly be the appropriate place to discuss the implications of PCT for some of the basic assumptions about human nature that are made by economists and political scientists. After all, economics and political science, like sociology, are based on assumptions about the nature of human nature and that's one of the main things that PCT is about (of course it's about the nature of all living things but the behavior of humans is what's most relevant to my "social" system concept perceptions).

BP: That's fine, but you have to look at the assumptions on both sides, not just argue that yours are right and theirs are wrong. As soon as you realize that the assumptions are different, that becomes the only subject that's worth discussing, because that may be why there is any disagreement in the first place. But you have to try to find ALL the assumptions, not just the ones you're willing to talk about. If you are committed to finding the truth rather than just winning an argument or having everything your way, you will try to find all your assumptions and all your reasons for accepting them, and that has quite a lot of interest for PCTers. If the other person isn't also willing to do that, however, it's not going to be much of a conversation and you can go do something more interesting.

RM: I'm certainly interested in PCT as a scientific enterprise. But I do control for the system concept -- the concept of what I consider the "good" society to be a member of -- that I described above. And one of the reasons the science of PCT is important to me is that it seems like it can be a scientific basis for developing social policies/organizations that will bring my system concet perception (of the society in which I live) closer to my reference for it.

BP: So is it your system concept that everyone should accept the same system concepts that appeal to you? Why should a society be organized to appeal to you? Or are you saying that you are trying to find ways to change society so it will be acceptable to more people, not just to you? That's a different goal, of course, and it implies a willingness to adjust your system concepts to accomodate other people, as well as expecting them to make adjustments, too. Which ones would you not be willing to adjust, and why? Is there some hint here of a Level 12, Kenny Kitzke's "spiritual" level?

You say you "control for" those system concepts you describe. That's another subject of PCT interest. Are you just saying you prefer them and try to live up to them, or are you trying to get other people to adopt them and live up to them, too? What are the methods you use to bring those system concepts into effect, in yourself or in others? Do they work? That is, is the error you sense getting smaller? Larger?

As you see, it's quite possible to have a PCT-relevant discussion of political and economic matters without bringing the specifics of any of them up. The particular subject under discussion is interesting only as an example of PCT principles in operation. The PCT-interesting questions have to do with why there is a disagreement in the first place, why it continues, and how it can be resolved. Those are all questions about the individuals involved, not about objective reality. Finding answers involves asking why more than how; it requires the individuals to go up a level or two or three. All that is much more interesting to me than what the argument is about. Arguments are just conflicts, and the only thing interesting about a serious conflict is figuring out how to eliminate it. Normally, people just resolve their conflicts with each other. Extended conflicts are malfunctions.

Best,

Bill P.

95

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.07.0910)]

Bill Powers (2010.11.07.-855 MDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.11.06.1830)]

BP: Wouldn’t you first have to prove that the PCT model is correct about what it says concerning this aspect of human nature? Competition is certainly fundamental to human nature when the humans in question have different reference levels for some shared variable they are both controlling.

Competition can’t be fundamental if it only occurs under those circumstances. Under other circumstances – when references for the shared variable are the same – there is cooperation. I would say that what is fundamental to human nature is that people control.

It’s certainly possible to have a PCT discussion about things like competition, but it gets pretty boring if all you have to say is that competition is bad or competition is good, and offer supporting opinions that are nothing but personal preferences in disguise. I think that’s what most political and economic arguments are.

That’s true. That’s why I wouldn’t discuss it that way. My discussion would be based on control theory.

RM: But I think CSGNet would certainly be the appropriate place to discuss the implications of PCT for some of the basic assumptions about human nature that are made by economists and political scientists…

BP: That’s fine, but you have to look at the assumptions on both sides, not just argue that yours are right and theirs are wrong.

Of course. That’s why I would like to have a “discussion” rather than an “argument”.

RM: I’m certainly interested in PCT as a scientific enterprise.

BP: So is it your system concept that everyone should accept the same system concepts that appeal to you?

Implicitly I suppose that’s probably close to being true. If other people don’t mind living in a society where children are starving at the gates of opulent mansions then it would be hard for me to live in such a society. But I’d probably manage. There’s always music.

Why should a society be organized to appeal to you? Or are you saying that you are trying to find ways to change society so it will be acceptable to more people, not just to you?

I think it’s more the latter. But if the latter happened then the former would too.

That’s a different goal, of course, and it implies a willingness to adjust your system concepts to accomodate other people, as well as expecting them to make adjustments, too. Which ones would you not be willing to adjust, and why? Is there some hint here of a Level 12, Kenny Kitzke’s “spiritual” level?

Yes, I think I “sense” that level in myself. It’s the “why I want society to be the way I want it” level. Of course I’m willing to adjust my system concepts to accommodate other people. I’m liberal, to a degree.

You say you “control for” those system concepts you describe. That’s another subject of PCT interest. Are you just saying you prefer them and try to live up to them, or are you trying to get other people to adopt them and live up to them, too?

I’d say both, to some extent, but mainly the former. I guess I assume that people have basically the same system concept references as I have but we differ on how to get there. So I do try to persuade people that certain policies are probably better ways to get there than others. But I also suspect that some people may have different visions of the kind of society they want to live in. Not much I can do about that. Just accommodate, to the extent that I can, I guess.

What are the methods you use to bring those system concepts into effect, in yourself or in others? Do they work? That is, is the error you sense getting smaller? Larger?

The methods I use are the usual; voting, contributing money, discussing, writing letters. The error goes up and down.

As you see, it’s quite possible to have a PCT-relevant discussion of political and economic matters without bringing the specifics of any of them up. The particular subject under discussion is interesting only as an example of PCT principles in operation. The PCT-interesting questions have to do with why there is a disagreement in the first place, why it continues, and how it can be resolved.

I’d like to know this myself.

Those are all questions about the individuals involved, not about objective reality. Finding answers involves asking why more than how; it requires the individuals to go up a level or two or three. All that is much more interesting to me than what the argument is about. Arguments are just conflicts, and the only thing interesting about a serious conflict is figuring out how to eliminate it. Normally, people just resolve their conflicts with each other. Extended conflicts are malfunctions.

Sure. But that doesn’t mean they can be fixed. I’d love to resolve my conflicts with conservatives or religious fundamentalists. I can probably agree with them on the best way to make blueberry jam (going down a level) but up there at the system concept level things don’t look so good. If you can get me up (or down) to a level where I don’t get sick listening to right wing media or virtually any current Republican leader then please go for it!

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

96

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.07.1130 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.07.0910) –

RM: Competition can’t be
fundamental if it only occurs under those circumstances. Under other
circumstances – when references for the shared variable are the same –
there is cooperation. I would say that what is fundamental to human
nature is that people control.

BP: OK, so there’s an opening for something to discuss other than whether
a given conflict should be resolved one way or the other.

BP earlier: It’s certainly possible to have a PCT discussion about
things like competition, but it gets pretty boring if all you have to say
is that competition is bad or competition is good, and offer supporting
opinions that are nothing but personal preferences in disguise. I think
that’s what most political and economic arguments are.RM: That’s true. That’s why I wouldn’t discuss it that way. My
discussion would be based on control theory.

BP: When you say “based on” control theory, do you mean it is
about control theory, or that your personal knowlege of control theory
guides what you say about some other subject? If our knowledge about
control theory were complete and correct, we would find a way to
understand the other person’s position, wouldn’t we? The fact that we
don’t tells me we still don’t know the whole story.

…

RM:I’d love to resolve my
conflicts with conservatives or religious fundamentalists. I can probably
agree with them on the best way to make blueberry jam (going down a
level) but up there at the system concept level things don’t look so
good. If you can get me up (or down) to a level where I don’t get sick
listening to right wing media or virtually any current Republican leader
then please go for it!

BP: Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out how they can say and do the
things they do, and still believe they are good people? For example, it
would fascinate me to understand how one intelligent person can liken
another one to an anus and still have a self-image of a reasonable and
compassionate person. The greatest difficulty in understanding other
people is in getting them to examine their own background thoughts and
tell you about them. Most people probably anticipate a little pain – or
a lot – from a real self-examination. We know our own faults a lot
better than other people know them. In an adversarial discussion – an
argument – attack and defense are the key features, not self-examination
or revelation. You always find the point where the other person comes up
against a wall and simply refuses to look any further, or feels repelled
by the idea. What you do at that point determines whether the discussion
begins to get somewhere or deteriorates.

Isn’t it interesting how much one can say about religion, politics, or
economics without once mentioning any topic under any of those
headings?

Best,

Bill P.

97

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.07.2100)]

Bill Powers (2010.11.07.1130 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2010.11.07.0910) --

BP: When you say "based on" control theory, do you mean it is about
control theory, or that your personal knowlege of control theory
guides what you say about some other subject?

The latter.

If our knowledge about
control theory were complete and correct, we would find a way to
understand the other person's position, wouldn't we?

Why?

The fact that we don't tells me we still don't know the whole story.

So once you feel like you understand the other person's position, then
what? I think you understand the behaviorist, cognitive and modern
control theory positions and yet you keep arguing against them. Or are
you now prepared to resolve that conflict?

BP: Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how they can say and do
the things they do, and still believe they are good people?

ink
I suppose. But I really have no problem with that. I'm sure Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, Bush, Rove, Cheney and all the rest of them thought they
were good people; making the world a better place from their
perspective; what could be gooder?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

98

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.08.0435 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.07.2100) --

BP earlier: If our knowledge about
> control theory were complete and correct, we would find a way to
> understand the other person's position, wouldn't we?

RM: Why?

BP: The fact that we don't tells me we still don't know the whole story.

RM: So once you feel like you understand the other person's position, then
what? I think you understand the behaviorist, cognitive and modern
control theory positions and yet you keep arguing against them. Or are
you now prepared to resolve that conflict?

BP: I don't understand them. I understand what they believe about behavior or models, but I can't understand how they can go on believing that way. How can the things they say seem right to them? Obviously they do, or they wouldn't say them, if you can sort out those pronouns. But I can't imagine how they get there from here.

> BP earlier: Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how they can say and do
> the things they do, and still believe they are good people?

RM: I suppose. But I really have no problem with that.

BP: What, no problem with not understanding?

RM: I'm sure Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, Bush, Rove, Cheney and all the rest of them thought they
were good people; making the world a better place from their
perspective; what could be gooder?

BP: But what exactly is it at their higher levels that makes what they do seem good? If we knew that, we could make sense of their behavior, and if we could do that, we might know how to forestall the appearance of more people like these, instead of just complaining about them or being in conflict with them.

Best,

Bill P.

99

Hi Bill,

Your paragraph below caught my attention:

"BP: But what exactly is it at their higher levels that makes what
they do seem good? If we knew that, we could make sense of their
behavior, and if we could do that, we might know how to forestall the
appearance of more people like these, instead of just complaining
about them or being in conflict with them."

I assume that everyone has good intentions at the onset of every interaction. I adopt this stance because it is the quickest way to attain the neutral space that arises between two individuals when they genuinely accept each other as equals. I explore this space because no matter how different the other person's threshold is (i.e., PCT hierarchy), I can almost always learn something new from him or her that somehow relates to an open inquiry that I had prior to that interaction.

To understand the intentions of others, I rely mostly on the circumplex of affect as my compass. For example, if someone responds to my input in a generally disgusted, irritated or alarmed manner (i.e., the top left-hand quadrant), then I assume that this person is needlessly attempting to mirror similar fears, disgust, and/or alarm in my emotions in order to attain the conditions that feel most natural to him or her.

One could assume that this disposition, for the most part, reflects a lack of exposure to positive role models throughout that person's life (i.e., at the higher levels of the PCT hierarchy). I, for one, would agree with this assertion up to a point. For example, I was brought up in an environment in which alarm, sadness, and isolation were daily emotional experiences, however, I avoided becoming a bitter recluse later on precisely because role models presented themselves serendipitously at the right time and at the right place.

Today I prefer to hang around people who are inspirational, imaginative, curious, fascinating and loving people. This is not because I grew up around such people. It is because I was fortunate enough to discover them by accident.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET> 11/8/2010 6:51 AM >>>

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.08.0435 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.07.2100) --

BP earlier: If our knowledge about
> control theory were complete and correct, we would find a way to
> understand the other person's position, wouldn't we?

RM: Why?

BP: The fact that we don't tells me we still don't know the whole story.

RM: So once you feel like you understand the other person's position, then
what? I think you understand the behaviorist, cognitive and modern
control theory positions and yet you keep arguing against them. Or are
you now prepared to resolve that conflict?

BP: I don't understand them. I understand what they believe about
behavior or models, but I can't understand how they can go on
believing that way. How can the things they say seem right to them?
Obviously they do, or they wouldn't say them, if you can sort out
those pronouns. But I can't imagine how they get there from here.

> BP earlier: Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how they can say and do
> the things they do, and still believe they are good people?

RM: I suppose. But I really have no problem with that.

BP: What, no problem with not understanding?

RM: I'm sure Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, Bush, Rove, Cheney and all the rest of them thought they
were good people; making the world a better place from their
perspective; what could be gooder?

BP: But what exactly is it at their higher levels that makes what
they do seem good? If we knew that, we could make sense of their
behavior, and if we could do that, we might know how to forestall the
appearance of more people like these, instead of just complaining
about them or being in conflict with them.

Best,

Bill P.

100

(ps 921207.1600)

   [From Bill Powers (921204.1430)]

   But I am still bothered by the idea of the environment, the stupid
   environment, selecting anything. The problem is a lot like that of S-R
   theory. Why should the environment stimulate organisms to do just those
   things that are good for the organism? Why should the environment selectfor
    survival of a species instead of its extinction? The nonliving
   environment has no power to select for anything -- it can't tell whether
   a change in the behavior of an organism gets the organism closer to a
   more viable form, nor does it care.

because the environment is *not* ``non-living.'' take away all the
living parts of earth's environment, and what do you get? something
like the moon. as far as we can tell, there aren't any organisms
living on the moon; the moon's non-living environment indeed doesn't
care. but here (and probably anywhere there's life) organisms *do
not* live in isolation in an inanimate environment, nor do species.

any bioecology, or probably any modern biology, textbook has scads of
examples of how individuals, populations, and species are intimately
interconnected. classic examples include predator/prey populations
and your relationship w/ all the microorganisms in your gut, including
especially everybody's favorite, e. coli.

cheers.

                                --penni