FW: Re: controlling people

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Fred, Rupert

···

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify,you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

[richardhpfau]

A good thought Rupert and Boris, but would the following be a more precise statement of the phrase, “you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want”?:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it. (2) The other change is to add the words “both you and” to the part saying “can make them do what they want” (as shown in the slightly revised statement shown above in bold type)."

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

···

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Fred, Rupert

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Richard.

···

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:44 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

From: [Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

RP : A good thought Rupert and Boris, but would the following be a more precise statement of the phrase, “you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want”?:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

HB : It’s also a good thought. But the problem I see is in what you and Rupert presented. By my oppinion Rupert presented general PCT principle how people apply and counteract disturbances. And I understand that you presented scientific reasearch in which you got statistical average about how effcient are people at applaying and counteracting disturbances. If I understand right you wrote that people “often” (what can mean more than in 50% cases) influence other people through disturbances so that people counteract disturbances as both wanted. Did I understand right ?

Boris

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it. (2) The other change is to add the words “both you and” to the part saying “can make them do what they want” (as shown in the slightly revised statement shown above in bold type)."

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Fred, Rupert

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

[richardhpfau]

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.21 17:40 ET)]

Boris,

Regarding my suggestion: "You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want"

Yes, your understanding of “often” is right, but to some people, “often” can also mean less than 50%. The main reason that I used the word “often” is that even if both A and B want to achieve a certain perception, B may not be able to do so due to, for example, (a) a lack of skills or knowledge, or (b) a lack of resources, such as needed equipment, time, or the cooperation of other people. And so, when such resources, skills, and knowledge are lacking, even if both A and B want to do something, the statement “you can make them do what they want” does not seem to be correct.

I also used the word “influence” in the suggested statement rather than the word “make” (i.e., “influence them to do” rather than “make them do”) for the same reason. That is “you can make them do” sounds too definite; it seems similar to the idea of “always” have the person do it. In contrast, “often influence them to do” is much less definite; to me, it indicates that sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t achieve what both A and B want – the final result depending on both person B’s control systems and the environment surrounding those control systems.

With Regards,

Richard

Website: richardpfau.com

···

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:44 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Richard.

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:44 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

From: [Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

RP : A good thought Rupert and Boris, but would the following be a more precise statement of the phrase, “you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want”?:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

HB : It’s also a good thought. But the problem I see is in what you and Rupert presented. By my oppinion Rupert presented general PCT principle how people apply and counteract disturbances. And I understand that you presented scientific reasearch in which you got statistical average about how effcient are people at applaying and counteracting disturbances. If I understand right you wrote that people “often” (what can mean more than in 50% cases) influence other people through disturbances so that people counteract disturbances as both wanted. Did I understand right ?

Boris

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it. (2) The other change is to add the words “both you and” to the part saying “can make them do what they want” (as shown in the slightly revised statement shown above in bold type)."

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Fred, Rupert

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you
know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high
gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to
push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this
case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”. Regards,
Rupert

···

** You can’t make someone
do what (only) you want, but you can often influence
them to do what both you and they want.**

            You may notice two changes. 

(1) One is to use the words " often
influence" rather than “make them” in
the phrase “you can make them do what they want”
– since they may want to do something, but you
can’t make them do that thing if they have other
more important references that would effectively
prevent them from doing what both you and they
want to do. For example, both you and they may
want to get married, but they may have a more
important reference such as an obligation to honor
their father and mother’s strong objections to
doing so. Or, thinking of environmental
constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to
do it if they are locked up in a high security
prison. That is, you may often be able to
influence them to do something, but you can’t
always make them do it, even if they want to do
it.

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0704 ET)]

If someone were to ask me, “Can you make other people do what you want?� I would say, “Yes.� If the other person were to ask, “Even if they don’t want to do it?� I would again reply, “Yes.� And I would add, “They don’t have to want to do it, they just have to be willing to do it.�

Fred Nickols

···

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:38 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,
Rupert

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-05-22_11:13:44 UTC]

Fred, What is the difference between �wanting� and “willing�? Especially fro PCT poit of view)

···

Eetu

From: “Fred Nickols” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: 22. toukokuuta 2018 14:08
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0704 ET)]

If someone were to ask me, “Can you make other people do what you want?� I would say, “Yes.� If the other person were to ask, “Even if they don’t want to do it?� I would again reply, “Yes.�
And I would add, “They don’t have to want to do it, they just have to be willing to do it.�

Fred Nickols

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet
Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:38 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want”
– since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married,
but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security
prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”), you can have a high degree of control over them.
So, in this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,
Rupert

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0732 ET)]

Interesting question, Eetu. I think the difference ties to purpose. When you “want� to do something, that something serves a purpose of yours. When you are merely “willing� to do something someone else wants, the purpose originates with them, not you. Think about how many people are doing things at work not because they really want to but because they are willing to do what others ask of them. Or suppose a robber points a gun at you and demands your money. You don’t “want� to give him your money but I’ll wager you would be quite “willing� to surrender your money.

Frankly, I suspect that if PCT professionals proclaimed that we can’t make someone else do what we want, they would be greeted with hoots of derision. Ditto for the claim that we can’t/don’t control anything except our perceptions. It flies in the face of common sense. I just now zapped some leftovers in the microwave. They tasted plenty warm to me. Did I “control� the temperature of those zapped leftovers? I suppose someone can provide me with a seemingly elegant PCT-based explanation of why I didn’t’ and can’t and I would nod and say silently to myself, “Suit yourself� and continue believe I controlled the temperature of those leftovers, even if I had to use a microwave to do it.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:15 AM
To: ‘csgnet@lists.illinois.edu’ csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Re: controlling people

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-05-22_11:13:44 UTC]

Fred, What is the difference between �wanting� and “willing�? Especially fro PCT poit of view)

Eetu

From: “Fred Nickols” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: 22. toukokuuta 2018 14:08
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.22.0704 ET)]

If someone were to ask me, “Can you make other people do what you want?� I would say, “Yes.� If the other person were to ask, “Even if they don’t want to do it?� I would again reply, “Yes.� And I would add, “They don’t have to want to do it, they just have to be willing to do it.�

Fred Nickols

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:38 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,
Rupert

[richardhpfau]

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.23 1:30 pm EDT)]

Ref: [From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

How can you know all of (a) the important variables/references that a person is controlling for that have high gain, as well as (b) other environmental constraints/disturbances that the person is facing at a particular moment (ones that may prevent the person from acting as she/he wants) in order make the strong statement that “you can make them do what both you and they want”?

I grant that you may know some variables having high gain that a person is controlling for, but all of them? It seems that for most persons whose behavior we are trying to affect, we may assume that we know these things, but we really don’t know all of them enough to make the general and strong statement that “you can make them do what both you and they want.” That statement seems much too definite – such strong definiteness being the main reason why I lean towards using the less definite words “often influence” rather than “make them” do what both you and they want in the statement:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

···

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

** You can’t make someone
do what (only) you want, but you can often influence
them to do what both you and they want.**

            You may notice two changes. 

(1) One is to use the words " often
influence" rather than “make them” in
the phrase “you can make them do what they want”
– since they may want to do something, but you
can’t make them do that thing if they have other
more important references that would effectively
prevent them from doing what both you and they
want to do. For example, both you and they may
want to get married, but they may have a more
important reference such as an obligation to honor
their father and mother’s strong objections to
doing so. Or, thinking of environmental
constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to
do it if they are locked up in a high security
prison. That is, you may often be able to
influence them to do something, but you can’t
always make them do it, even if they want to do
it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you

know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high
gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to
push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this
case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,

Rupert

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.05 23 15 26]

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.23 1:30 pm EDT)]

Ref: [From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

How can you know all of (a) the important
variables/references that a person is controlling for that
have high gain, as well as (b) other environmental
constraints/disturbances that the person is facing at a
particular moment (ones that may prevent the person from
acting as she/he wants) in order make the strong
statement that “you can make them do what both you and they
want”?

You don't need to know all or any of them. Remember the old mantra

(borrowed from Dewey, I believe) about control: "* many means to
the same end* ". When you are controlling a physical variable
such as the location of a rock, you may start by trying to pick it
up, but it is too heavy and doesn’t [“want to”] move. You are not
interested in what the rock “wants” unless you are an animist. You
are controlling to perceive it moving to the place you want it. So
you try pushing or rolling it, but it still doesn’t [“want to”]
move. Maybe you control in imagination a perception of the rock
moving because you put a strong stiff object behind and under it and
pressed down on the other end. You’ve never done that before, but
controlling in imagination your perception of the rock works, and in
practice it might work. You see a big crowbar and it matches your
imagined perception of a useful tool, so you do what you had done
when you controlled the rock position in imagination, and the rock
moves, after which you are able to roll it to where you want it.

Now think of not a rock, but someone you don't know at all well but

who you would like to be your date at a party. You ask if they would
like to go with you, assuming that they are controlling for being at
the party but need someone to go with. But they refuse. Then you say
“Come on, it will be a really good party, with all these great
people”, assuming that the target might be controlling for seeing
some of those “great people”, but still no dice. Then you guess they
might be controlling for going with someone they know and like if
they go at all, so you imagine how you might “get the rock moving”
and control for having your target date begin to like you a little.
To do that you imagine having a mutual friend tell your target what
a really nice person you are, and that they would enjoy your
company. So you get the friend to do that (because you correctly
believe that the friends controls for you both to be happy) and your
target accepts the date.

No, you need only keep acting to correct the perception you are

controlling by trying different disturbances to the same or
different perceptions that the other person might possibly be
controlling using actions that might produce the effect you want
(bring the perception you are controlling nearer its reference
value).

You may not be successful, but that's no different than the rock.

Maybe it wasn’t a separate boulder, but a protruding piece of
bedrock, which would require coercion (explosives) to move. Maybe
the person is controlling for doing something very important
(controlling with high gain) other than going to the party that day.
They might accompany you if you used coercion (physical force –
kidnapping), but most people would not perceive your target as your
date if you did so.

Martin

···

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Rupert
Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

** You can’t
make someone do what (only) you want, but
you can often influence them to do what
both you and they want.**

                        You may notice

two changes. (1) One is to use
the words "often influence "
rather than “make them” in
the phrase “you can make them do what
they want” – since they may want to
do something, but you can’t make them
do that thing if they have other more
important references that would
effectively prevent them from doing
what both you and they want to do.
For example, both you and they may
want to get married, but they may have
a more important reference such as an
obligation to honor their father and
mother’s strong objections to doing
so. Or, thinking of environmental
constraints/disturbances, they may not
be able to do it if they are locked up
in a high security prison. That is,
you may often be able to influence
them to do something, but you can’t
always make them do it, even if they
want to do it.

           Well, it may come down to preferences for certain

words. But if you know what variables someone is
controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can
disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”),
you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in
this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than
“influence”.

          Regards,

          Rupert

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.24 18.15)]

Who said ""? Who said "you can make them do what

both you and they want"? I don’t think either of these are quotes
from what I have said.
Rupert

···

On 23/05/2018 18:29, Richard Pfau
wrote:

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.23 1:30 pm EDT)]

Ref: [From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

How can you know all of (a) the important
variables/references that a person is controlling for that
have high gain, as well as (b) other environmental
constraints/disturbances that the person is facing at a
particular moment (ones that may prevent the person from
acting as she/he wants) in order make the strong
statement that “you can make them do what both you and they
want”?

      I grant that you may know some variables having high gain

that a person is controlling for, but all of them ? It
seems that for most persons whose behavior we are trying to
affect, we may assume that we know these things, but we really
don’t know all of them enough to make the general and
strong statement that “you can make them do what both you and
they want.” That statement seems much too definite –
such strong definiteness being the main reason why I lean
towards using the less definite words “often influence” rather
than “make them” do what both you and they want in the
statement:

** You can’t make someone
do what (only) you want, but you can often influence
them to do what both you and they want.**

all of them

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-24_10:54:03]

···

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.05 23 15 26]

RP: How can you know all of (a) the important
variables/references that a person is controlling for that
have high gain, as well as (b) other environmental
constraints/disturbances that the person is facing at a
particular moment (ones that may prevent the person from
acting as she/he wants) in order make the strongÂ
statement that “you can make them do what both you and they
want”?Â

MT: You don't need to know all or any of them. Remember the old mantra

(borrowed from Dewey, I believe) about control: "* many means to
the same end* ". When you are controlling a physical variable
such as the location of a rock, you may start by trying to pick it
up, but it is too heavy and doesn’t [“want to”] move. You are not
interested in what the rock “wants” unless you are an animist. You
are controlling to perceive it moving to the place you want it. So
you try pushing or rolling it, but it still doesn’t [“want to”]
move. Maybe you control in imagination a perception of the rock
moving because you put a strong stiff object behind and under it and
pressed down on the other end. You’ve never done that before, but
controlling in imagination your perception of the rock works, and in
practice it might work. You see a big crowbar and it matches your
imagined perception of a useful tool, so you do what you had done
when you controlled the rock position in imagination, and the rock
moves, after which you are able to roll it to where you want it.

RM: Actually, this was an excellent post. And best of all it was based entirely on observation!! (I do hope you did better at getting dates than this might suggest;-)

Best

Rick

Â

Now think of not a rock, but someone you don't know at all well but

who you would like to be your date at a party. You ask if they would
like to go with you, assuming that they are controlling for being at
the party but need someone to go with. But they refuse. Then you say
“Come on, it will be a really good party, with all these great
people”, assuming that the target might be controlling for seeing
some of those “great people”, but still no dice. Then you guess they
might be controlling for going with someone they know and like if
they go at all, so you imagine how you might “get the rock moving”
and control for having your target date begin to like you a little.
To do that you imagine having a mutual friend tell your target what
a really nice person you are, and that they would enjoy your
company. So you get the friend to do that (because you correctly
believe that the friends controls for you both to be happy) and your
target accepts the date.

No, you need only keep acting to correct the perception you are

controlling by trying different disturbances to the same or
different perceptions that the other person might possibly be
controlling using actions that might produce the effect you want
(bring the perception you are controlling nearer its reference
value).

You may not be successful, but that's no different than the rock.

Maybe it wasn’t a separate boulder, but a protruding piece of
bedrock, which would require coercion (explosives) to move. Maybe
the person is controlling for doing something very important
(controlling with high gain) other than going to the party that day.
They might accompany you if you used coercion (physical force –
kidnapping), but most people would not perceive your target as your
date if you did so.

Martin

      I grant that you may know some variables having high gain

that a person is controlling for, but all of them ? It
seems that for most persons whose behavior we are trying to
affect, we may assume that we know these things, but we really
don’t know all of them enough to make the general and
strong statement that "you can make them do what both you and
they want."Â That statement seems much too definite –
such strong definiteness being the main reason why I lean
towards using the less definite words “often influence” rather
than “make them” do what both you and they want in the
statement:

** You can’t make someone
do what (only) you want, but you can often influence
them to do what both you and they want.**

–

      On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Rupert

Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

** You can’t
make someone do what (only) you want, but
you can often influence them to do what
both you and they want.**

                        You may notice

two changes. (1) One is to use
the words "often influence "
rather than “make them” in
the phrase  “you can make them do what
they want” – since they may want to
do something, but you can’t make them
do that thing if they have other more
important references that would
effectively prevent them from doing
what both you and they want to do.Â
For example, both you and they may
want to get married, but they may have
a more important reference such as an
obligation to honor their father and
mother’s strong objections to doing
so. Or, thinking of environmental
constraints/disturbances, they may not
be able to do it if they are locked up
in a high security prison. That is,
you may often be able to influence
them to do something, but you can’t
always make them do it, even if they
want to do it.

           Well, it may come down to preferences for certain

words. But if you know what variables someone is
controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can
disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”),
you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in
this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than
“influence”.

          Regards,

          Rupert

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Richard

I took some time to study arguments so that I wouldn’t make the same mistake as with Rupert.

···

From: Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:08 AM
To: Boris boris.hartman@masicom.net; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.21 17:40 ET)]

Boris,

Regarding my suggestion: "You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want"

RP : Yes, your understanding of “often” is right, but to some people, “often” can also mean less than 50%.

HB : I hope we agree that “often” makes too much space for speculations as can be defined in very subjective way. So I proposed in res tof post a little bit changed suggestion for interaction.

RP : …"you can make them do…" That statement seems much too definite

&nnbsp;

HB : When I look closer to Ruperts’s statement I see that you could be right. It one meaning can be even equated with “control of other people”. But as I see it It can have a doble meaning in the sense that you can make people (in the sense of possibility) or in the sense of “control behavior” of other people what you emphasized. But let us say that Rupert meant his statement in double sense.Â

My main occuppation was directed to formulation of interaction between people that we could all agree.

HB : So my oppinion is that your statement and Ruperts statements does not correspond to your final conclussion. It seems that both determine something. So I think that they both can be corrected in accordance to your final conclussion.

RP : ….to me, it indicates that sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t achieve what both A and B want – the final result depending on both person B’s control systems and the environment surrounding those control systems.

HB : Your final conclussion is by my opinion what we were looking for. I think this is what happens in real life. People can or can’t achieve what they both want. Depends on many “factiors” which you expoased. I agree that the main point of analyzing relationship between people is that you can hardly predict how people will counteract disturbances if we know that they can also misslead us. People can or can’t succed in their attempts of applying disturbances to other people.

So by my oppinion from this aspect of your final view, I think that we could simply use your final conclussion for the suggestion of how interaction between people works when they try to apply disturbances

Richard Pfau : "You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t influence them to do what both you and they want"

HB : Or you can just write :“…but you can or can’t influence them…”

So all in all it seems that this statement fit into everyday life experiences where we are more or less succesfull in persuading people that we are right that they should listen to us and so on. Succesfulness of such an attempts we can see here on CSGnet. For example our attempts to disturb Rick’s perception in right way so that he’ll counteract as we would wish are useless. No attempts are succesfull. Neither was psychoterapy. He is still halucinating.

We can or can’t achieve what we want by disturbing other people perception. By my experiences we are not so successfull especialy when youngers are concerned.

And I think what is important hear is this that Richards’ suggestion strongly differ from Ricks statement that “people control people all the time”. He was halucinating that people always succed with disturbances to other people. It’s of course nonsense. You can imagine in what position did he put Bill when he tried to “defend” already lost position.

Best,

Boris

With Regards,

Richard

Website: richardpfau.com

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:44 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Richard.

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:44 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

From: [Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

RP : A good thought Rupert and Boris, but would the following be a more precise statement of the phrase, “you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want”?:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

HB : It’s also a good thought. But the problem I see is in what you and Rupert presented. By my oppinion Rupert presented general PCT principle how people apply and counteract disturbances. And I understand that you presented scientific reasearch in which you got statistical average about how effcient are people at applaying and counteracting disturbances. If I understand right you wrote that people “often” (what can mean more than in 50% cases) influence other people through disturbances so that people counteract disturbances as both wanted. Did I understand right ?

Boris

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it. (2) The other change is to add the words “both you and” to the part saying “can make them do what they want” (as shown in the slightly revised statement shown above in bold type)."

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Fred, Rupert

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

[_Boris_Hartman]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-24_10:54:03]

[Martin Taylor 2018.05 23 15 26]

RP: How can you know all of (a) the important variables/references that a person is controlling for that have high gain, as well as (b) other environmental constraints/disturbances that the person is facing at a particular moment (ones that may prevent the person from acting as she/he wants) in order make the strong statement that “you can make them do what both you and they want”?

MT: You don’t need to know all or any of them. Remember the old mantra (borrowed from Dewey, I believe) about control: “many means to the same end”. When you are controlling a physical variable such as the location of a rock, you may start by trying to pick it up, but it is too heavy and doesn’t [“want to”] move. You are not interested in what the rock “wants” unless you are an animist. You are controlling to perceive it moving to the place you want it. So you try pushing or rolling it, but it still doesn’t [“want to”] move. Maybe you control in imagination a perception of the rock moving because you put a strong stiff object behind and under it and pressed down on the other end. You’ve never done that before, but controlling in imagination your perception of the rock works, and in practice it might work. You see a big crowbar and it matches your imagined perception of a useful tool, so you do what you had done when you controlled the rock position in imagination, and the rock moves, after which you are able to roll it to where you want it.

RM: Actually, this was an excellent post. And best of all it was based entirely on observation!! (I do hope you did better at getting dates than this might suggest;-)

HB : Exactly. Do you understand now that when “perceptual signal” is controlled" nothing else is controlled. There is no direct relationship between “when p is controlled also q.i. is controlled”. Â It can’t happen at the same time. And specialy not to the extend that perception is controlled also aspect of environment is controlled. Martin gave a really good example. Why didn’t you do such an obervations yourself ? Why did you have to mislead CSGnet forum ?

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:55 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Now think of not a rock, but someone you don’t know at all well but who you would like to be your date at a party. You ask if they would like to go with you, assuming that they are controlling for being at the party but need someone to go with. But they refuse. Then you say “Come on, it will be a really good party, with all these great people”, assuming that the target might be controlling for seeing some of those “great people”, but still no dice. Then you guess they might be controlling for going with someone they know and like if they go at all, so you imagine how you might “get the rock moving” and control for having your target date begin to like you a little. To do that you imagine having a mutual friend tell your target what a really nice person you are, and that they would enjoy your company. So you get the friend to do that (because you correctly believe that the friends controls for you both to be happy) and your target accepts the date.

No, you need only keep acting to correct the perception you are controlling by trying different disturbances to the same or different perceptions that the other person might possibly be controlling using actions that might produce the effect you want (bring the perception you are controlling nearer its reference value).

You may not be successful, but that’s no different than the rock. Maybe it wasn’t a separate boulder, but a protruding piece of bedrock, which would require coercion (explosives) to move. Maybe the person is controlling for doing something very important (controlling with high gain) other than going to the party that day. They might accompany you if you used coercion (physical force – kidnapping), but most people would not perceive your target as your date if you did so.

Martin

I grant that you may know some variables having high gain that a person is controlling for, but all of them? It seems that for most persons whose behavior we are trying to affect, we may assume that we know these things, but we really don’t know all of them enough to make the general and strong statement that “you can make them do what both you and they want.” That statement seems much too definite – such strong definiteness being the main reason why I lean towards using the less definite words “often influence” rather than “make them” do what both you and they want in the statement:

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.22 11.35)]

(Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it.

Well, it may come down to preferences for certain words. But if you know what variables someone is controlling for, and they have high gain, and you can disturb those variables (you know what “buttons to push”), you can have a high degree of control over them. So, in this case I prefer wording that has a stronger sense than “influence”.

Regards,
Rupert

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[richardhpfau]

Boris,

Your statement (copied below) seems fine to me:

"You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t influence them to do what both you and they want"

It fits something that I read this morning in Seven Brief Lessons in Physics by Carlo Rovelli (2016, p. 57). Although he was writing about physics, if his thought is applied to people we might write:

People behave as they must, following the laws of biology in complete independence from what we know or don’t know about them. We interact with others through a limited number of variables among the innumerable variables that characterize their microstate. The value of these variables is not sufficient to predict future behavior exactly…

With Regards,

Richard

Website: richardpfau.com

···

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:11 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard

Â

I took some time to study arguments so that I wouldn’t make the same mistake as with Rupert.

Â

From: Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:08 AM
To: Boris boris.hartman@masicom.net; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

Â

[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.21 17:40 ET)]

Â

Boris,

Â

Regarding my suggestion: "You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want"

Â

RP : Yes, your understanding of “often” is right, but to some people, “often” can also mean less than 50%.

Â

HB : I hope we agree that “often” makes too much space for speculations as can be defined in very subjective way. So I proposed in res tof post a little bit changed suggestion for interaction. Â

Â

RP : …"you can make them do…"Â Thhat statement seems much too definite…

Â

HB : When I look closer to Ruperts’s statement I see that you could be right. It one meaning can be even equated with “control of other people”. But as I see it It can have a doble meaning in the sense that you can make people (in the sense of possibility) or in the sense of “control behavior” of other people what you emphasized. But let us say that Rupert meant his statement in double sense.Â

Â

My main occuppation was directed to formulation of interaction between people that we could all agree.

Â

HB : So my oppinion is that your statement and Ruperts statements does not correspond to your final conclussion. It seems that both determine something. So I think that they both can be corrected in accordance to your final conclussion.

Â

RP : ….to me, it indicatess that sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t achieve what both A and B want – the final result depending on both person B’s control systems and the environment surrounding those control systems.

Â

HB : Your final conclussion is by my opinion what we were looking for. I think this is what happens in real life. People can or can’t achieve what they both want. Depends on many “factiors” which you expoased. I agree that the main point of analyzing relationship between people is that you can hardly predict how people will counteract disturbances if we know that they can also misslead us. People can or can’t succed in their attempts of applying disturbances to other people.

Â

So by my oppinion from this aspect of your final view, I think that we could simply use your final conclussion for the suggestion of how interaction between people works when they try to apply disturbances

Â

Richard Pfau : "You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t influence them to do what both you and they want"

Â

HB : Or you can just write :“…but you can or can’t influence them ¦”

Â

So all in all it seems that this statement fit into everyday life experiences where we are more or less succesfull in persuading people that we are right that they should listen to us and so on. Succesfulness of such an attempts we can see here on CSGnet. For example our attempts to disturb Rick’s perception in right way so that he’ll counteract as we would wish are useless. No attempts are succesfull. Neither was psychoterapy. He is still halucinating.

Â

We can or can’t achieve what we want by disturbing other people perception. By my experiences we are not so successfull especialy when youngers are concerned.

Â

And I think what is important hear is this that Richards’ suggestion strongly differ from Ricks statement that “people control people all the time”. He was halucinating that people always succed with disturbances to other people. It’s of course nonsense. You can imagine in what position did he put Bill when he tried to “defend” already lost position.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

With Regards,

Richard

Website: richardpfau.com

Â

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:44 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Richard.

Â

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:44 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Re: controlling people

Â

From: [Richard Pfau (2018.05.18 2:44 pm EDT)]

Â

RP : A good thought Rupert and Boris, but would the following be a more precise statement of the phrase, “you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want”?:

Â

You can’t make someone do what (only) you want, but you can often influence them to do what both you and they want.

Â

HB : It’s also a good thought. But the problem I see is in what you and Rupert presented. By my oppinion Rupert presented general PCT principle how people apply and counteract disturbances. And I understand that you presented scientific reasearch in which you got statistical average about how effcient are people at applaying and counteracting disturbances. If I understand right you wrote that people “often” (what can mean more than in 50% cases) influence other people through disturbances so that people counteract disturbances as both wanted. Did I understand right ?

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

You may notice two changes. (1) One is to use the words “often influence” rather than “make them” in the phrase  “you can make them do what they want” – since they may want to do something, but you can’t make them do that thing if they have other more important references that would effectively prevent them from doing what both you and they want to do. For example, both you and they may want to get married, but they may have a more important reference such as an obligation to honor their father and mother’s strong objections to doing so. Or, thinking of environmental constraints/disturbances, they may not be able to do it if they are locked up in a high security prison. That is, you may often be able to influence them to do something, but you can’t always make them do it, even if they want to do it. (2) The other change is to add the words “both you and" to the part saying “can make them do what they want” (as shown in the slightly revised statement shown above in bold type).”

Â

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Website: richardpfau.com

Â

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

Hi Fred, Rupert

Â

From: Rupert Young (rupert@perceptualrobots.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:58 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: controlling people

Â

I don’t think this went to the list.

[From Rupert Young (2018.05.13 19.30)]

(Fred Nickols (2018.05.13.1416 ET)]

You wrote earlier that you can’t make someone do what you want but you can make them do what they want,

That was meant as being mutually exclusive.

To clarify, you can’t make someone do what (only) you want but you can make them do what they want,

HB : Great thought Rupert

Boris

Regards,

Rupert

Â

Â