Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting law)

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1259)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1310EST)--

Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1110)>

Do you want it off the back of only those who behave properly (like those
good corporations you mention) or do you want if off of everyone's back?>

In trying to go after the bad guys, whether criminals, businesses or
travelors, they inconvience the good guys. Do you know what value this
government and this country has gotten out of the efforts to inspect my
baggage at the airports? It is all a waste hampering people who cause no
problem.

Am I more clear, here?

Yes. And I understand your frustration. Linda and I own an apartment
building and we have had a number of what seemed like rather Kafkaesque
dealings with the LA housing authority (local, not federal, but just as "on
our backs"). Due to their code rules we eventually had to take a perfectly
good apartment unit off line, costing us quite a bit of money. But I think
they were right to enforce their rule; I eventually realized that the main
reason for my anger was my own greed; their rules were keeping me from
making more money. But, in fact, I was making enough (breaking even
approximately, which was all I had hoped or expected to do). Their rules
were an inconvenience to me but those same rules probably saved the lives of
many people who would otherwise be living in firetraps. So I think the cost
to me individually was worth the benefit to society. But I agree that the
rules could probably be improved to inconvenience the good guys less.

So while I have concerns about well-intentioned rules that inconvenience the
good guys while trying to protect people from the bad guys, I am far more
concerned about well-intentioned rules that hurt the good guys while trying
to protect people from themselves. These are rules concerning "victimless
crimes" like the rule against getting married if you're gay or the rule
against consuming recreational drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine) in
private. Those are cases where government is "on our backs" without any
benefits to show for it. Are you for getting government off our backs in
these cases too?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1639EDT)]

<Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1259)>

<So while I have concerns about well-intentioned rules that inconvenience the
good guys while trying to protect people from the bad guys, I am far more
concerned about well-intentioned rules that hurt the good guys while trying
to protect people from themselves.>

Generally, I agree and find that kind of government very oppressive and odious. The Roman Empire was a perfect example of that with, “Convert to Christianity or die!”

<These are rules concerning “victimless
crimes” like the rule against getting married if you’re gay or the rule
against consuming recreational drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine) in
private.>

Many think that these are not “victimless” activities, for those doing them or society. If everyone agreed they were victimless, I doubt anyone would resist.

<Those are cases where government is “on our backs” without any
benefits to show for it. Are you for getting government off our backs in
these cases too?>

Every case is an individual one. And, one thing I learned from PCT, it is that people control for reference perceptions in their mind (or deeper in their spirit/heart that I think may be better understood as a twelfth level of perception or conscience not the same as rational system level concepts/variables).

And, HPCT gives no proven scientific answer to how our highest reference levels really get there or which are right or wrong, better or worse, for any other living control system. Am I saying this correct technically in PCT speak in your opinion?

Realizing this has taken a load off my mind: regarding religion, politics, science, economics and even life and its purpose as others see them. I suppose I have some opinion or preference on each one for me and my life which might differ from yours. I think I can live with that when it does not affect me.

As you well know, I am opposed to debating these interesting aspects and merits of human life on this forum, because there are generally better forums for that where PCT is not the central theme. Tackling such right or wrong topics here also often produces conflicts at high levels (difficult to understand or change) and the actions taken for pro or con can get rather nasty and personal. Participants sometimes drop out it seems because of this approach. We are now under 100 participants. That is not what I want. But, that is just me.

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1550)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1639EDT)

Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1259)

These are rules concerning "victimless
crimes" like the rule against getting married if you're gay or the rule
against consuming recreational drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine) in
private.

Many think that these are not "victimless" activities, for those doing them or
society.

So you apparently do think it's OK for government to "get on people's backs"
about activities that are perceived to have victims.

Those are cases where government is "on our backs" without any
benefits to show for it. Are you for getting government off our backs in
these cases too?

Every case is an individual one.

Do you mean that in some cases a gay marriage has a victim and in some cases
it doesn't?

And, HPCT gives no proven scientific answer to how our highest reference
levels really get there or which are right or wrong, better or worse, for any
other living control system. Am I saying this correct technically in PCT
speak in your opinion?

Yes, I think so.

As you well know, I am opposed to debating these interesting aspects and
merits of human life on this forum, because there are generally better forums
for that where PCT is not the central theme. Tackling such right or wrong
topics here also often produces conflicts at high levels (difficult to
understand or change) and the actions taken for pro or con can get rather
nasty and personal. Participants sometimes drop out it seems because of this
approach. We are now under 100 participants. That is not what I want. But,
that is just me.

Well, if PCT can't handle the important life questions then what's it good
for?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

In a message dated 10/26/2005 7:04:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1550)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.1639EDT)

And, HPCT gives no proven scientific answer to how our highest reference
levels really get there or which are right or wrong, better or worse, for any
other living control system. Am I saying this correct technically in PCT
speak in your opinion?

Yes, I think so.

As you well know, I am opposed to debating these interesting aspects and
merits of human life on this forum, because there are generally better forums
for that where PCT is not the central theme. Tackling such right or wrong
topics here also often produces conflicts at high levels (difficult to
understand or change) and the actions taken for pro or con can get rather
nasty and personal. Participants sometimes drop out it seems because of this
approach. We are now under 100 participants. That is not what I want. But,
that is just me.

Well, if PCT can’t handle the important life questions then what’s it good
for?
Finally, a question you and I are both asking Rick. Maybe the Chinese will figure it out. :wink:

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.2000EDT)]

<Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1550)>

<So you apparently do think it’s OK for government to “get on people’s backs”
about activities that are perceived to have victims.>

It depends on every individual case and even then, not every observer would probably agree. I would support government getting on the back’s of proven child molesters. I might be for allowing the child’s father to just murder the molester and let the government worry about other things: national enemies, terrorists, etc., that threaten whole populations and cities and which no individual can resist.

<Do you mean that in some cases a gay marriage has a victim and in some cases
it doesn’t?>

I suppose that is possible. It would depend on the facts of that gay marriage. I don’t have much pesonal knowledge about gay marriage. But the data I see about heteromarriages suggest that over half of them have victims. I have no reason to imagine the fraction is better in gay marriages. Do you?

Kenny says:

< And, HPCT gives no proven scientific answer to how our highest reference

levels really get there or which are right or wrong, better or worse, for any
other living control system. Am I saying this correct technically in PCT
speak in your opinion?

<Yes, I think so.>

Wow, do you mean I understand something about PCT after all?

<Well, if PCT can’t handle the important life questions then what’s it good
for?>

In my book, PCT is by far the best theory for understanding how people, and all living things, behave. A giant leap forward in psychology science. I have never taken it to be an answer to much more than that and have said so many times on CSGNet and at the Conferences.

I imagine Dag would disagree. How about asking him?

In a message dated 10/26/2005 8:09:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, KJKitzke@AOL.COM writes:

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.2000EDT)]

In my book, PCT is by far the best theory for understanding how people, and all living things, behave.

Yes, and I suppose this is the main beef I have. The key words here are ‘living things’. With PCT, I can’t tell the difference between a human, gorilla, or a robot.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.2228 CDT)]

Can I understand here: Kitzke: "I might be for allowing the child's father to just murder the molester and let the government worry about other things..."

You would sanction taking away common law and replace it with the old revenge vendetta (didn't that Galilean guy say something about that...)? You would presume that government is not even good for managing criminal prosecution? You would abandon laws that have existed for centuries because you so believe in getting rid of the government so that you wouldn't have to pay taxes on something you don't like, is that so? Is that the stance you want us to be so clear about?

With all due respect and frankness, I find this bizarre and strange. Gee, not even Matt Dillon can be in your playbook. Sad....

I will grant you that many marriages have difficulties bordering on spousal abuse, however I don't understand the linkage from gay marriage to child molesters in your post.

The thing is that marriages, like families in general, civil unions, business relationships, and office mates share a lot of things, such as working around personality issues, contracts, sharing assets, trust, networking, celebrating, mourning, jealousy, hate, etc. Amazing how so many aspects of relationships in general of living control systems are EQUAL.

So maybe you really do know more about gay marriages...?! :slight_smile:

--Bryan

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.2000EDT)]
<Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1550)>
<So you apparently do think it's OK for government to "get on people's backs"
about activities that are perceived to have victims.>
It depends on every individual case and even then, not every observer would probably agree. I would support government getting on the back's of proven child molesters. I might be for allowing the child's father to just murder the molester and let the government worry about other things: national enemies, terrorists, etc., that threaten whole populations and cities and which no individual can resist.

>

<Do you mean that in some cases a gay marriage has a victim and in some cases
it doesn't?>
I suppose that is possible. It would depend on the facts of that gay marriage. I don't have much pesonal knowledge about gay marriage. But the data I see about heteromarriages suggest that over half of them have victims. I have no reason to imagine the fraction is better in gay marriages. Do you?
Kenny says:
< And, HPCT gives no proven scientific answer to how our highest reference
> levels really get there or which are right or wrong, better or worse, for any
> other living control system. Am I saying this correct technically in PCT
> speak in your opinion?

<Yes, I think so.>
Wow, do you mean I understand something about PCT after all?
<Well, if PCT can't handle the important life questions then what's it good
for?>
In my book, PCT is by far the best theory for understanding how people, and all living things, behave. A giant leap forward in psychology science. I have never taken it to be an answer to much more than that and have said so many times on CSGNet and at the Conferences.
I imagine Dag would disagree. How about asking him?

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.2050)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.2000EDT)--

Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1550)>

Do you mean that in some cases a gay marriage has a victim and in some cases
it doesn't?

I suppose that is possible. It would depend on the facts of that gay marriage. I don't have much pesonal knowledge about gay marriage. But the data I see about heteromarriages suggest that over half of them have victims. I have no reason to imagine the fraction is better in gay marriages. Do you?

So should we outlaw heterosexual marriage as well?

I think you just don't think gay people should be allowed to get married. Isn't that what's really what your saying?

As you well know, I am opposed to debating these interesting aspects and
merits of human life on this forum, because there are generally better forums
for that where PCT is not the central theme.

Well, if PCT can't handle the important life questions then what's it good for?

In my book, PCT is by far the best theory for understanding how people, and all living things, behave. A giant leap forward in psychology science.

What better reason, then, to debate interesting aspects of human life on CSGNet. All the interesting things we are talking about now -- beliefs, politics, governments, marriages, laws, running corporations, etc -- are all products of human behavior (controlling). I think there could hardly be a better place to discuss them than on CSGNet.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

In a message dated 10/26/2005 11:57:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.26.2050)]

What better reason, then, to debate interesting aspects of human life
on CSGNet. All the interesting things we are talking about now –
beliefs, politics, governments, marriages, laws, running corporations,
etc – are all products of human behavior (controlling). I think there
could hardly be a better place to discuss them than on CSGNet.
Then why do you have such a difficult time with people who don’t share your world view, or your view on how behavior works?

What does PCT say about how one might avoid the back-stabbing and digging say, that is going on in this very thread?

What does PCT have to say about the lack of tolerance you and others seem to have?

What have you found illuminating about this discussion that PCT might be able to help any of the participants with?

That it’s all control? Wow, what revelation. That and two bucks gets me on the NYC subway. When PCT starts acknowledging that behavior is more than simply the control of our 5 senses, the whole world might be better off.

···

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.2313 CDT)]

Not sure how to tackle this human, gorilla, robot thing. Living matter controls perceptions of its environment, some living control systems do this with more far-reaching results (19th century word for this is "better") than others. Some living matter survives with long-term, large population approaches (oh, bacteria, let's say). Other living matter survives with mid-term, middle-sized population approaches (most animals and plants), but maybe die out if the environment changes faster than they can compensate for. Still other living matter survives with really-short-term, small sized population approaches (i.e., homo sapiens, homo erectus, homo habilis, etc), and genus homo generally wipes the floor with the second group of plants and animals, but forgets about the resiliance of the first group of bacteria/bugs and often gets wiped out by them. Yet, from Darwin's or Wallace's perspectives, there is no great difference among all living things. Kinda like a paper, scissors, stone thing.

I didn't forget about the robot. The movies, "Bladerunner," "Bicentennial Man," and "I, Robot," whatever their relative cinematic values, drove home an important point for me: A robot is not living until it begins to control its perceptions, and then if not armed with the right higher level perceptions, kinda goes nuts and kills off the humans. I am not even sure if designers of robots and computer interfaces realize this dramatic point, much less the point made in B:CP about living control systems, that life is simply the ability to control to some extent one's perceptions of one's environment.

If a robot can do it, if a gorilla can do it, if a human can do it, and if bacteria/bugs can do it, then what's the difference? And doesn't that make PCT an incredibly strong tool, in its parsimonious ability to describe life in all its variety? Humans are not necessarily king after all the chips fall.

--Bry (Go Chicago White Sox, 2005 World Series Winner)

[Marc Abrams wrote]

···

In a message dated 10/26/2005 8:09:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, KJKitzke@AOL.COM writes:

    [From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.26.2000EDT)]
         In my book, PCT is by far the best theory for understanding how
    people, and all living things, behave.

Yes, and I suppose this is the main beef I have. The key words here are 'living things'. With PCT, I can't tell the difference between a human, gorilla, or a robot.

In a message dated 10/27/2005 12:17:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.2313 CDT)]

If a robot can do it, if a gorilla can do it, if a human can do
it, and if bacteria/bugs can do it, then what’s the difference?
This is certainly one view, and if you want to equate yourself to a water bug or oak tree that is certainly your business, but I think human control systems have many unique characteristics and qualities we either don’t share with other living organisms or utilize in unique ways.

And doesn’t that make PCT an incredibly strong tool, in its
parsimonious ability to describe life in all its variety? Humans
are not necessarily king after all the chips fall.

I suppose. Sort of like knowing everything is made up of atoms and molecules. What’s next?

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.27)]

<Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1140)>

<Indeed. The problem of course is that we are all in this together. So as
Bush II proceeds to ruin the country at the behest of the slight majority
that elected him, he is making life more miserable for most of those who
voted for him as well as for most of us who didn’t.>

Speak for yourself Rick. You do not know that Bush is making life more miserable or to what degree for me or anyone else, especially those who voted for him. How do you know that Kerry would have not raised the misery index even more in America?

If PCT has not taught you that your opinion is merely that, then it probably is not very worthwhile, IMHO.

<It’s one of the downsides of democracy, though I still think democracy is the best way to go by far.>

I agree with you on that. But, ranting or critiquing or complaining about the current elected
President I perceive to be a waste of time for me. With you and Bry, there is quite enough of that, especially on this forum. I am not sure at all it adds any value to PCT. But, what do I know about anything?

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.27.1200EDT)]

<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.2228 CDT)>

<Can I understand here: Kitzke: “I might be for allowing the
child’s father to just murder the molester and let the government
worry about other things…”>

You do see the word “might” right? Do you know what hyperbole is? That is hyperbole.

<You would sanction taking away common law and replace it with the
old revenge vendetta (didn’t that Galilean guy say something
about that…)? You would presume that government is not even
good for managing criminal prosecution? You would abandon laws
that have existed for centuries because you so believe in getting
rid of the government so that you wouldn’t have to pay taxes on
something you don’t like, is that so? Is that the stance you want
us to be so clear about?>

You seem to have a bad habit of taking a word like “reorganize” or a “might” statement that was quite unusual, for me or anyone, and probably shocking to most people and projecting a bunch of motives or intents to them.

But, at least you asked this time after setting up your straw man possibilities. My answers are no, no and no. Those were not any of my thoughts. And, if you want to discuss my thoughts about such things, I will do so privately. In fact, I will make a private post to you.

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900)]

From Marc Abrams

Then why do you have such a difficult time with people who don't share your
world view, or your view on how behavior works?

Why do you?

Obviously it's because we want other people to agree with us. This is pretty
basic PCT -- and common sense.

What does PCT say about how one might avoid the back-stabbing and digging say,
that is going on in this very thread?

Back-stabbing and digging are simply outputs -- extreme outputs --that are
used to try to get a perception that is in conflict (in this case, the
perception of what another person is saying) to its goal state. The way to
avoid this is for one or both parties to the conflict to either change their
goal and start agreeing with the other party or simply stop participating in
the conflict.

What does PCT have to say about the lack of tolerance you and others seem to
have?

The same as what it says about the lack of tolerance you have. Tolerance is
the degree to which one accepts error in a control system: the more error
one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is. What makes for
greater tolerance is not really well understood. One thing that seems to be
true is that tolerance is not some general "personality trait". A person can
be tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant with respect to
others. In PCT terms, this means that a person controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high gain, respectively. I obviously
control for PCT with high gain; I am intolerant of what I perceive to be
incorrect understandings of and false conclusions derived from PCT. I
control for other things -- like the political opinions of some of my
friends (my racquetball partner is a neocon) -- with far lower gain.

What have you found illuminating about this discussion that PCT might be able
to help any of the participants with?

What discussion was that?

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

In a message dated 10/27/2005 12:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900)]

From Marc Abrams

Then why do you have such a difficult time with people who don’t share your
world view, or your view on how behavior works?

Why do you?
Good question, care to explore it?

Obviously it’s because we want other people to agree with us. This is pretty
basic PCT – and common sense.
I think that may be one of the reasons but not the only one. And if so, why is it important for others to agree with us?

What does PCT say about how one might avoid the back-stabbing and digging say,
that is going on in this very thread?

Back-stabbing and digging are simply outputs – extreme outputs --that are
used to try to get a perception that is in conflict (in this case, the
perception of what another person is saying) to its goal state.
Are they ‘extreme’? I don’t think so.

The way to
avoid this is for one or both parties to the conflict to either change their
goal and start agreeing with the other party or simply stop participating in
the conflict.
This is certainly one way it may happen. Is it the only the way to ‘avoid’ conflict? I don’t think so.

What does PCT have to say about the lack of tolerance you and others seem to
have?

The same as what it says about the lack of tolerance you have.
Rick, I am a controller, just like you and Bill and everyone else. This reminds me of the way we used to argue as kids. When we would get into the; “no, you are, no you are” type of exchange. I am not accusing you of anything here. I am asking a legit question about myself more than others.

Tolerance is
the degree to which one accepts error in a control system: the more error
one accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is.
An interesting claim. Do you have ant evidence for this? I’m not suggesting this is false. I’m simply asking if you have any data to back up your inference.

The definition I get for tolerance out of Encarta is;

1.
acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.

  Why would differing views necessarily cause error? That is, why would my views or goals ***necessarily*** conflict with your goals?

** Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.**

What makes for
greater tolerance is not really well understood. One thing that seems to be
true is that tolerance is not some general “personality trait”. A person can
be tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant with respect to
others.
Why, what is the differences that create this?

In PCT terms, this means that a person controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high gain, respectively. I obviously
control for PCT with high gain; I am intolerant of what I perceive to be
incorrect understandings of and false conclusions derived from PCT. I
control for other things – like the political opinions of some of my
friends (my racquetball partner is a neocon) – with far lower gain.
Yes, but this does not address why you have a difficult time with others who do not believe the same way. I am not trying to pin anything here on you. I am talking about a phenomenon that applies to all, including myself.

Are your beliefs about PCT any different in kind from any other fundamentalist beliefs in say Judaism, Islam, or Christianity?

I don’t think so.

What have you found illuminating about this discussion that PCT might be able
to help any of the participants with?

What discussion was that?
Precisely my point.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.27.1020 CDT)]

Kenny,

We are getting silly here, using the word "might" mitigating a statement regarding giving up common law in favor of a return to the revenge law is what I would call somewhat radical. Perhaps the lack of tone in email, that you are speaking in jest for something that you *really* wouldn't support this, is what you are referring to. But the context of this statement ("gettting the government off our backs....") suggests that you really were in favor of such a radical proposal. Sorry if I jump on this, but any statement in favor of dropping our rule of law in favor of a rule of man is just a target for correction. Sorry to be so strong on this, but George Bush and his cronies have made me a believer, but not in their cabal. :wink:

And I am not taking the word out context or attaching motive, since you so clearly stated (below) that you could (might) support such a wildly radical proposal. For me, this is your hyperbole, not mine. And in the context, the motives and intents are all there stated by you in previous post, but I don't archive beyond a day or so...

--B.

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.27.1200EDT)]
<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.26.2228 CDT)>
<Can I understand here: Kitzke: "I might be for allowing the
child's father to just murder the molester and let the government
worry about other things...">
You do see the word "might" right? Do you know what hyperbole is? That is hyperbole.
You seem to have a bad habit of taking a word like "reorganize" or a "might" statement that was quite unusual, for me or anyone, and probably shocking to most people and projecting a bunch of motives or intents to them...

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1025)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.27)--

Rick Marken (2005.10.26.1140)>
Indeed. The problem of course is that we are all in this together. So as
Bush II proceeds to ruin the country at the behest of the slight majority
that elected him, he is making life more miserable for most of those who
voted for him as well as for most of us who didn't.

Speak for yourself Rick.

That's clearly the only person I was speaking for.

You do not know that Bush is making life more miserable or to what degree
for me or anyone else, especially those who voted for him.

I think it's a fair inference, though. Most of the people who voted for Bush
are not in the top 1% of income earners who benefited most from Bush's
policies. As far as ruining the country, I base that on the fact that many
measures of how well the country is doing -- at the aggregate level --
reversed course and headed south shortly after Bush took office. The
proportion of children living in poverty, for example, which was decreasing
throughout the Clinton years, has been rising throughout the Bush regime. Of
course, we went almost instantaneously from record surplus to record
deficits right after Bush was sworn in and the national debt continues to
grow. The number of Americans without health insurance has increased
substantially. America went from being the most beloved and respected to
the most despised nation in the world just a couple months after 9/11. The
polarization in this nation is the greatest that it has been since the Civil
War. The stock market crashed and still has not returned to pre Bush levels.
Polls show that only about 26% of the population currently thinks we're
"going in the right direction". Of course, that means that many people
(let's say its the 26% who think things are going in the right direction --
26% of 300,000,000 is a big number) are doing quite well. I just think we
could be -- and were -- doing a lot better

How do you know that Kerry would have not raised the misery index
even more in America?

I don't know what Kerry could have done. He would have been handed quite a
pile of doo doo if he had won. I'm kind of glad he didn't win because it
would have taken an FDR to get us out of this mess. And I don't see anyone
of that caliber anywhere on the horizon, Republican or Democrat.

If PCT has not taught you that your opinion is merely that, then it probably
is not very worthwhile, IMHO.

Actually, I already knew that my opinion is my opinion. PCT taught me that
my opinion is a perception.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1200)]

From Marc Abrams

Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900)]=

From Marc Abrams

Then why do you have such a difficult time with people who don't share your
world view, or your view on how behavior works?

Why do you?

Good question, care to explore it?

It was a rhetorical question. I answered it myself in the post: you (like
everyone else, myself included, of course) have a difficult time with people
who don't share your world view (or your view on how behavior works) to the
extent that you are controlling for having those people share your world
view (or your view of how behavior works).

Obviously it's because we want other people to agree with us. This is pretty
basic PCT -- and common sense.

I think that may be one of the reasons but not the only one.

What do you believe are some of the other reasons?

And if so, why is it important for others to agree with us?

My guess is that it is important to the extent that higher level systems
increase the gain of the agreement control system in order to control their
own higher level perceptions, like the perception of politeness.

The way to avoid this [back-stabbing and digging] is for one or
both parties to the conflict to either change their goal and start
agreeing with the other party or simply stop participating in
the conflict.

This is certainly one way it may happen. Is it the only the way to 'avoid'
conflict? I don't think so.

What do you believe are some of the other ways to avoid conflict? I think
that's pretty much it: change goals so that the goals are aligned or stop
participating. I suppose being more tolerant (lowering the gain of one or
both parties to the conflict) could be considered another approach, but in
that case the intensity of the conflict (in terms of the "amplitude" of the
outputs) may decrease but the conflict still exists. Conflict-ending
tolerance means that the parties stop participating in the conflict, as, for
example, has happened with the different flavors of Christianity: there are
no more serious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants; they just put
up with each other, avoiding conflict as much as possible.

Tolerance is the degree to which one accepts error in a control
system: the more error one accepts (without reorganizing) the
more tolerant one is.

An interesting claim. Do you have ant evidence for this?

No evidence except the definition of tolerance. As you note, "tolerance"
means (among other things) "acceptance of different views". This is
actually a somewhat poor definition because a tolerant person doesn't
really "accept" different views -- a tolerant Jew doesn't accept the tenets
of Christianity, for example. I think what is meant by "acceptance" in this
definition is something like "puts up with". A tolerant person puts up with
views that they don't accept at all -- indeed, that they consider to be
wrong in certain respects.

A view that is considered wrong is, from a PCT perspective, a perception
that doesn't match a reference for what that perception should be.
Christianity doesn't match a Jew's reference for what a religion should be.
There is a discrepancy between the Jew's reference for religion and the
Jew's perception of the Christian religion. It's a relatively small
discrepancy -- Christianity is basically a sect of Judaism, after all -- but
there is a discrepancy. In PCT this discrepancy is called "error". A
tolerant person puts up with such errors, even when they are fairly large;
the intolerant person works to reduce these errors to zero.

Why would differing views necessarily cause error?

They only cause error to the extent that people are controlling for
different levels of those views.

That is, why would my views or goals necessarily conflict
with your goals?

They don't necessarily. But in fact, many of our views are obviously in
conflict.

> A person can be tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant

with respect to others.

Why, what is the differences that create this?

I'll take this to be a question about why some systems are tolerant (low
gain) and others are not (high gain). This is an empirical question. My
guess is that we will find that differences in system gain (tolerance) are
produced by higher level systems that are perceiving and controlling
perceptions that are a function of (among other things) error in these lower
level systems.

In PCT terms, this means that a person controls for some perceptions
with low gain and for others with high gain, respectively. I obviously
control for PCT with high gain; I am intolerant of what I perceive to be
incorrect understandings of and false conclusions derived from PCT. I
control for other things -- like the political opinions of some of my
friends (my racquetball partner is a neocon) -- with far lower gain.

Yes, but this does not address why you have a difficult time with others who
do not believe the same way.

I think it does. It says I have a difficult time with others who do not
believe the same way as I do when we are controlling with high gain for
different states of the same perception.

Are your beliefs about PCT any different in kind from any other fundamentalist
beliefs in say Judaism, Islam, or Christianity?

They are different only in the sense that my beliefs about PCT are always
contingent on empirical test of the model.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1610)]

Marc Abrams (2005.10.27.1725)

It seems to me that you don't care for my analysis of conflict. Your
alternative seems to be:

'Conflict' in this sense I believe is a lack of 'trust'.

I don't understand this. IN what sense could a conflict be a lack of trust?
I thought a conflict exists when two or more parties want the same variable
in different states. For example, a football game seems like a pretty clear
example of a conflict: the variable in contention is the location of the
ball and the different states of the variable are the different end zone
locations. The conflict seems to be about the location of the ball, not
lack of trust. Even if both teams trust each other, they would are still in
conflict, no?

But perhaps you mean that lack of trust is what causes the conflict. Is this
what you meant? If so, I still don't understand how this would work. Could
you provide a diagram?

I just don't know what your ideas about conflict actually are. Maybe I'll
like them. But I can't like or dislike them if I don't know what they are.
So how about telling us something about what you understand about conflict.
Let me ask you a couple questions to get you going:

1. Is a football game a conflict? If not, what is an example of a conflict?

2. Why do you think conflicts occur?

3. How do you think conflicts can be solved?

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.27.1927)

I’d be happy to answer your questions just as soon as you answer mine.

You are not interested in discussion. You are interested in ‘winning’ an argument and being ‘right’.

What you seem to have a very difficult time grasping is that you and I will be long gone before either me, you, Bill, or anyone living today will be found to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ empirically. Why don’t we catch up with each other a few hundred years from now and see what has happened.

Until then why can’t we simply have an exchange of ideas?

I don’t like your definition of tolerance and I don’t agree that conflict can only take place the way PCT currently says it can.

I tried pointing out to you that you and I have different perspectives on control and the human organism and that they are not mutually exclusive to one another, but all that doesn’t seem to matter to you. You want to focus on what you want to focus on, like any good controller would, but I’m not interested in being controlled by what you want.

You seem to think I am offering an ‘alternative’ to your theory and I’m not. I said;

This is certainly one way it may happen. Is it the only the way to ‘avoid’
conflict? I don’t think so.

I also asked;

You still haven’t told me how ‘tolerance’ and ‘conflict’ are related.

Which you have not answered. Why?

Go fight with someone who’s interested in fighting with you.

In a message dated 10/27/2005 7:15:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1610)]

Marc Abrams (2005.10.27.1725)

It seems to me that you don’t care for my analysis of conflict. Your
alternative seems to be:

‘Conflict’ in this sense I believe is a lack of ‘trust’.

I don’t understand this. IN what sense could a conflict be a lack of trust?
I thought a conflict exists when two or more parties want the same variable
in different states. For example, a football game seems like a pretty clear
example of a conflict: the variable in contention is the location of the
ball and the different states of the variable are the different end zone
locations. The conflict seems to be about the location of the ball, not
lack of trust. Even if both teams trust each other, they would are still in
conflict, no?

But perhaps you mean that lack of trust is what causes the conflict. Is this
what you meant? If so, I still don’t understand how this would work. Could
you provide a diagram?

I just don’t know what your ideas about conflict actually are. Maybe I’ll
like them. But I can’t like or dislike them if I don’t know what they are.
So how about telling us something about what you understand about conflict.
Let me ask you a couple questions to get you going:

  1. Is a football game a conflict? If not, what is an example of a conflict?

  2. Why do you think conflicts occur?

  3. How do you think conflicts can be solved?


Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.