Golden Rules and system levels

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

From Bruce Buchanan (941210.07:00 EST)

Rick Marken (941206.0920) writes:

2) "The one with the gold rules" is an observation of fact,

Actually, I meant to say that this rule is factually wrong, not morally
wrong. It is based on the "law of effect" illusion that still seems to have a
grip on the fevered brains of most ordinary people and virtually all
behaviorists. The rule APPEARS to hold true because most people not only want
money (gold) but they also want to be "good"...The fact that the one with the
gold really doesn't really rule is revealed when he or she tries to rule
someone who is not controlling for having gold . . .

I did realize that you meant to say that this rule is factually wrong. I
understood this as your point of view, so that when you simply repeat your
position it does not seem to me to advance the discussion. But it seems to
me prima facia wrong to say that "the one with the gold really doesn't
rule" even though people think that happens. This flies in the face of the
history of the world!

Concepts must deal with phenomena at various and appropriate levels of
description and system complexity. Maybe this is a problem area in which
hierarchical levels must be considered e.g. for the coordinate operation of
multiple person-systems in terms of a consensus on the
external-and-internalized criteria of societal-systems.

While I believe that PCT is valid enough within the individual sphere it
describes and explains, it strikes me as inappropriate to try to apply it
to societal and other phenomena simply because these are phenomena that
human beings perceive. They are that, but they are more than that, and they
have other principles and sometimes laws by which they may be understood on
their own terms - which are not that of PCT. An argument which puts anyone
in the position of saying that observations and relationships which do not
accord with the PCT concepts are illusions which only APPEARS to be true
has to be suspect.

3) "He who makes the rules gets the gold"

This is an interesting variant; but, again, it is true only as long as a good
portion of the other control systems around are willing (for whatever higher
level reason) to control for following the rules made the "the one who makes
the rules".

Yes, but the point is that there are in fact lots of other control systems
around willing, for social and economic reasons, etc., to follow various
rules, which may even be seen as products of consensus, as instruments of
individual control systems.

PCT shows that any attempt to "rule" other control systems (by establishing
contingencies) is a recipe for conflict. PCT recognizes that it is hard to
resist the desire to "rule" (control) other control systems (because we are
control systems ourselves) -- but if we don't resist, we get what we see so
much of -- crime, violence and hatred -- ie. conflict.

It is not only attempts to control the behavior of others, or failure to
recognize PCT or any other concepts or principles, that brings conflict
into situations, but conditions of existence which may present mutually
exclusive alternatives and the necessity for choices. My question is how
PCT as a theory accommodates to other theories, for I do not think PCT is
or needs to be in principle irreconcilable with theories about other
aspects and dimensions of existence.

One of the inescapable conflicts is that of living in a social world where
the interests of individual necessarily diverge. In order to manage
conflict, though, it is necessary to recognize the multi-level nature of
the problems and deal with them at the proper levels of complexity. For
this we need systems models of societal interaction which may take proper
account of PCT at the individual level but must keep the role of the
individual in a larger perspective, even if it is the individual who must
perceive and understand the realities of the larger situation, necessarily
more than any one person can perceive.

In the previous note [Bruce Buchanan 941206.10:00 EST] I had written:

A larger point might be the view that the ... sets of societal system

relationships are real and important, although not within the framework nor
adequately described by PCT. They nevertheless have an impact, as part of the
system environment, as it were, upon the fortunes of PCT ideas and their
acceptance.

If this is correct it may important. If it is not correct where is the error?

I still don't see Rick's response as a serious response to this question. A
serious response, in my view, would seek to relate PCT to other conceptual
frames of reference, not to insist that PCT includes everything. While
everything we can know may be perception, I guess I am coming back to a
point I have tried to make before, that many important things are also more
than just perception. While I don't want to belabour the point to death
neither do I feel it is likely to be useful to the future acceptance of PCT
to totally disregard it.

Cheers!

Bruce B.

2

If there is resistance to PCT in academic circles, let us approach the
problem or resistance in the spirit of PCT.

Consider the following reformulation of the Test (or corollary):

There ain't such a thing as resistance, there is only an undiscovered
control system.

Psychologists exhibit resistance to PCT. What is the undiscovered control
system?

First, let us consider exceptions to resistance to PCT.

If, for example, you told an engineer that he could built a better robot
using PCT concepts than e.g. neural networks, he might accept PCT. So
e.g. Harry Klopf and his collaborators have moved from a neural network
approach to a hierarchical control approach.

Or if Ed Ford shows people how he can help theme solve their
problems, he probably wouldn't meet resistance - if people are desperate
enough, they will try anything.

Similarly, Dag Forssell should be able to sell PCT to managers, as soon as
he sells it as a way of solving everyday problems managers encounter,
rather than a theory. Notice e.g. how Gerald Weinberg has successfully
reframed what he does as "Quality Software Management", even though it
really is cybernetics or systems science.

How are the psychologists different? A possibility might be that PCT
doesn't solve any problems relevant to psychologists. If psychology is
defined as a set of 'sacred' texts and concepts, then academic success is
defined in terms of how elegantly you are able to manipulate these
concepts. Nothing PCT can say or demonstrate will be relevant, because
since it doesn't use conventional psychological concepts, it isn't
psychology. It follows that academic careers in psychology can't be built
on PCT.

The conclusion might be that the target audience shouldn't be
psychologists. After all, the foundation of PCT was cybernetics, not
psychology, and cybernetics was always intended to address a much wider
range of problems than psychology.

Best regards,
Lars

ยทยทยท

From: Lars Christian Smith, 10 December 1994, 6 p.m. CET (that is Central
European Time)
Subject: Higher levels, resistance to PCT

To: Rick Marken, Dag Forssell et al.

3

<[Bill Leach 941212.17:01 EST(EDT)]

Bruce Buchanan (941210.07:00 EST)

... But it seems to me prima facia wrong to say that "the one with the
gold really doesn't rule" even though people think that happens. This
flies in the face of the history of the world!

It does not "fly in the face of history". Money is "able to influence"
only to the extent that others want the money and are willing to "follow
the rules". This includes others using force against yet others to
attempt to force compliance. That such most generally works and has
generally worked "in history" does not impart "power to money". Many a
wealthy person has found that wealth does not necessarily protect one
from a comparatively poor assassin.

While I believe that PCT is valid enough within the individual sphere it
describes and explains, it strikes me as inappropriate to try to apply
it to societal and other phenomena simply because these are phenomena
that human beings perceive.

I used to think so too... in stepped Tom Bourbon...

They are that, but they are more than that, and they have other
principles and sometimes laws by which they may be understood on their
own terms - which are not that of PCT.

In the first place PCT is "value neutral". It's principles apply to "free
society" and "slave society"; to monarchy, oligarchy, democracy,
republic, anarchy; to "saints" and "sinners"; to "realists" and
"psychotics" (though I don't believe there is any work there yet).

PCT does not "say" that a particular set of "systems concepts" are
"better" than any other, what it does have something to say is that a
particular set of systems concepts will result in error signals if
certain other circumstances are perceived by the subject. PCT does not
necessarily even "try" to predict the sort of behaviour that might
result.

It is not even possible to predict how people will behave based upon what
is believed to be their "standards" even WITH a knowledge and
understanding of PCT much less without. As Frankl pointed out,
conventional psychology can be mostly wrong about how people will behave
in a postulated situation when that situation actually comes into
existance. Indeed, the more stressful the situation, the more likely
that conventional predictions will fail.

An argument which puts anyone in the position of saying that
observations and relationships which do not accord with the PCT concepts
are illusions which only APPEARS to be true has to be suspect.

I would say that this is a true statement. Until one can see for oneself
that observations and relationships which do not accord with the PCT
concepts are illusions which only appear to be true then one is quite
rightly forced suspicious of those maintaining such a position. I
believe that the only way "out of this position" is to "take on" a Tom
Bourbon with cherished beliefs concerning the operation and functioning
of "society" and though such an interaction come to see why so many
"absolute truths" of human behaviour are indeed an illusion.

3) "He who makes the rules gets the gold"

This is an interesting variant; but, again, it is true only as long as
a good portion of the other control systems around are willing (for
whatever higher level reason) to control for following the rules made
the "the one who makes the rules".

Yes, but the point is that there are in fact lots of other control
systems around willing, for social and economic reasons, etc., to follow
various rules, which may even be seen as products of consensus, as
instruments of individual control systems.

NO! NO! NO! That is not the point. The point is that the "control" that
appears to exist ONLY exists because those being controlled allow the
control. That this actually happens IS NOT questioned or challenged what
is challenged is the "conventional wisdom" that asserts that the rule
maker (or the gold holder) actually has power over other control systems
due only to the rule making position or the gold itself.

It is not only attempts to control the behavior of others, or failure to
recognize PCT or any other concepts or principles, that brings conflict
into situations, but conditions of existence which may present mutually
exclusive alternatives and the necessity for choices. My question is how
PCT as a theory accommodates to other theories, for I do not think PCT
is or needs to be in principle irreconcilable with theories about other
aspects and dimensions of existence.

I don't believe that Rick was trying to ignore "mutually exclusive
alternatives". As a matter of "life and death" these are actually rare
indeed though common in discussions. PCT does not accommodate to other
theories. Most theories that deal with human behaviour on any level
could benefit from an examination from a PCT perspective. Most theories
(especially of the sorts that we are generally talking about around here)
make assumptions (often mostly implicit) about how people function and it
is the assumptions that are most often wrong.

Many people have made valid assertions about how to "get along with"
other people for thousands of years. Much of the Dale Carnegie stuff
certainly works well and for the most part "Gospel of John" Christians
seem to do pretty well too for a couple of examples. That some people
have seemed to "understand" other people is not doubted by at least this
writer. Even the philosophers has at times "touched" on some
"fundamental" truths but none have actually provided an explaination that
fits the general case. While PCT might have a great deal of trouble at
this point with explaining exactly why Aunt Sara wrecked the car, it is
likely that PCT could do a better job of answering that question than any
other approach.

One of the inescapable conflicts is that of living in a social ...
In order to manage conflict, ... multi-level nature of the problems and
deal with them at the proper levels of complexity. For this we need
systems models of societal interaction which may take proper account of
PCT at the individual level but must keep the role of the individual in
a larger perspective, even if it is the individual who must perceive and
understand the realities of the larger situation, necessarily more than
any one person can perceive.

One literally must infer from PCT that conflicts are a multi-level
problem and that solutions will not be found at the conflict level. I am
not sure what you mean in this instance by "levels of complexity". I
would again suggest that you take up with Tom (in particular) issue about
"societal behaviour".

In the previous note [Bruce Buchanan 941206.10:00 EST] I had written:

A larger point might be the view that the ... sets of societal system
relationships are real and important, although not within the framework
nor adequately described by PCT. They nevertheless have an impact, as
part of the system environment, as it were, upon the fortunes of PCT
ideas and their acceptance.

If this is correct it may important. If it is not correct where is the
error?

I still don't see Rick's response as a serious response to this
question. A serious response, in my view, would seek to relate PCT to
other conceptual frames of reference, not to insist that PCT includes
everything. While everything we can know may be perception, I guess I
am coming back to a point I have tried to make before, that many
important things are also more than just perception. While I don't want
to belabour the point to death neither do I feel it is likely to be
useful to the future acceptance of PCT to totally disregard it.

I take it as a serious question. In the "relationships are real and
important", in a very serious sense they are not "real" though they still
are important. For example, as was quite eloquently and patiently
explained to me by the "big three", "when government acts to do such and
such" this is a nearly fatally flawed view of what is happening.
"Government" does not do anything (good or bad). It is always people
acting to control their own perceptions that act. It is indeed, just as
soon as one begins loosing sight of the idea that these "conceptual
bodies or organizations" have the capacity to actually act as independent
entities from the people that "comprise" such conceptual bodies that
serious errors are introduced in the understanding of the interactive
functioning of people in "groups".

That the perceptions of such concepts as "government", "police", or any
other "group" are important to the individual is not denied. Your
assertion that such is not within the "framework nor adequately described
by PCT" is one to which some will take exception.

Personally, only having my "slats knocked out from under me" by several
here on this forum concerning my treasured beliefs concerning "group
dynamics" but still working on understanding fundamental PCT I am not at
all prepared to explain what was so clearly explained to me.

-bill