REMI COTE 960312.1720
To Martin Taylor 960308 14:40
Sorry for that 5 day delay.
It seem that we are stuck with the chiken-egg problem from the beginning
of this gratifing exchange of post. Usualy these poblem are solve in
saying that it is neither the chiken nor the egg that came first, it is
the amoeba... So the process of how history evolve (phaseology) is important.
Let's not forget also the principal problem of our exchange.
We discussed if an environement can have a bad effect on control system, if
control system can have a state of hight stress, and if it is o.k.
to say that anxiety can be assimilated to big error or difference between
reference and input, all this on the higher level of the system. Like
the experiment in Boston (I heard it from somebody (B.P. in july 94))
where experimenty's were asked to control variable more and more
difficult to control, and their blood pressure rised, I unfortunately
don't have the exact reference, but I've seen the same experiment
using stoop task, and using mental calculus).
So if you agree basically that anxiety,worry,antagonism, aggressivity
are all parent with this condition of sustained big error between input
and reference at high level, press 1.
If Your not pressing one, it is very important that you tell me.
Maybe I misuse some term, please tell me and I will adapt.
If you don't and instead keep telling me that you don't understand
it is going to be frustrating for both of us. You will set the
rule (since you are on the bord of IJHCS), you will tell me the
term to use, categorise it for me.
Of course we can play dictionnary together, why not I will learn from
this process. But if you take all these word (anxiety, worry, aggressivity)
in a fussy set of thing that are associate with error (diff. between input
and reference at high level) or with any concept or term you want and
then we can go on a next stage of discussion.
What is the question then (a reminder):
We want to know or to think about the plausibility that a technological
environement can have "bad" side effect on human control system that
are not present in natural environement.
bad=more aggressivity, antagonism, worry than a natural environement
natural environement= not contaminated with technology
You:
No problem that controlling fire _enables_ the differentiation
of humanity from other primates (along with language, which may be one thing
that enables fire control).
Me: According to Goudsblom theory, language wouldn't have appeared if it
wasn't a necessity. If it wasn't an advantage for hominid or pre-hominid
to develop it, we would not have develop it. Do you agree? Do you agree
also that without fire, and the technological world that was enabled by
fire and fire only, the usage of a complex language (more complex that
the babling of whale, and other sea mamal) would had only be an inconvenient
for the species? That is a lot of question.
For me, a good theory is one that generate a lot of question. (Problem finding,
problem solving, and creativity, Mark A. Runco, Editor 1994, ablex pub. corp.)
You:
One might ask, supposing the plausible story is true, whether it is not
humanities "increased aggession" that led to the discovery of weaponry
rather than the reverse. Your response is simply to assert that it
_must_ be true, because if not: Else you are forced (logically) to
link positively complexity of brain with aggression. Conscience
(awareness) with agression (...)As I understand aggression, there are
many aggressive species of animal, and many that are not aggressive,
in all brain sizes.
Me: Do you agree that human animal are different from the rest of living
creature in their amount of agressivity and in their brain complexity.
Some mamal are less agressive than some bird, yes, but the question I did
ask underneath my comment was:"do you link brain complexity with agressivity?"
Your answer seem to be "no".
You:
I interpret what is externally observed as "aggression" to be a manifestation
of relatively high gain control systems. They work hard to attain their
goals, and in particular they work hard against conflicting control systems.
I suggest the possibility that it is the aggressive primate that is more
likely to discover fire--and if that aggressive primate can also talk,
more likely to pass the knowledge on to other members of the group,
and to following generations.
Me: Chiken-egg infinite loop. To be avoided. The goal of our game is to
find explanation to what we can observe. I wanted to explain why some human
are more agressive than any other animal individual of any species.
Technology is a generator, it crystallise our exchange with the world.
It gave a dichotomic color to our experience. Tecknology bring a lot
of do's and don't, extreme condition of social dependance, complexify
the code of our interpersonal relation, example: apogee of "society de
cours" court society, brought by the reing of Louis 14 in France, where
hypocrisis and flattering manner became the do's...
You saying that agressivity are what the species need do be more competitive.
In a social species like our aggressivity is not a good assert for survival.
Even once fire is domesticated.
I will redefine agressivity, because if we want to progress, we will have to.
I may have write that agressivity was brought by technology. What I had
in mind then, is black and white image of WW2 documentary, Aushwitch, mass
murder, mushroom cloud. If I look at the overt society of these years (30'-40')
I would'nt have foud a lot of sign of aggressivity, people walking in the
street, respectuous of law and order. Some even push to limits of conformity,
the extreme of non-agression. One man alone may bear 40% of the responsability
of the events of WW2, Hitler. This guy is a lot responsible to the event.
May be he was crasy, but the point is that technology allow this man to cause
and contruct (with the help of his follower) a great disaster. Without teck
we would'nt had to face nuclear threat from china today... As I said
there woudn't be any human today without fire...
Maybe we are all a bit more nervous and agressive in a teck world too. Why:
A teck world imply a dependance. A chinese soldier is forced to obey to
captain order. It is not because he like it, he ois dependant from the
system. He is forced to control certain variable. (here some tangential
insight: maybe one day we would have to discuss about Festinger consonnance)
Maybe, he is realy cool inside himself, like WW2 Kamikase, completely brainwash
by his leader: "you are not dying, you belong to the heros, you are god, etc"...
imagine the waco, or neonazi rubbish, amplified by number of soldier (millions)
You end up with the only logical explanation for this buildup, technology.
Technology allow the language, the logistic, the sophisticated weapon, the
intelligence, the propaganda. In a teck-free environement, all this is totally
impossible.
Aggressivity is possible and "normal" in living control system. It appear when
high gain are necessary. What I am saying is that if you take two group of 1
million human in two different but warm, lively planet where life is possible
and confortable without technology. One teck-contaminated and one teck-free,
and observe and codified human behavior according to criteria defining agressivity,
for a period of 100 years. I am pretty sure that a teck-free environement
would leave less agressivity. I intend to fill some paper and apply for a grant
regarding this project.
What will be the result of this 100 years experiment? (according to you)_
···
----------------
You:
Technology _supplies_ force. That's basically its function. Steam engines
are a lot more powerful than muscle. Technology can also enhance perception,
allowing us to see things that are smaller, further away, in different
spectral ranges, etc, etc. Either way, technology enhances and extends
the possibilities for control.
Me: Sometimes, teck can be an enemy, because you trust it, and bang
it break, and then you have to pay for repair, find a substitute
(like R. Marken in 1994 when he decided not to wait for lousy paper
work undone by a clerk at some computer rental company), Finding a
substitute can be stressfull, and the more there are illusion of
confidence and control given by more and more technology, the more
there are chances that we fall in a situation (stressful) of finding
a substitute. Same with a job or for the soldier, he either do
what he's order to do, or he found a substitute for his job, or he
himself became a substitute (being shot for trahison his organ
are transplanted trouhout the civilised world).
You:
Your answer deals neither with the banker I described nor with
the gatherer I described.
Me: According to my umble expertise, Gatherer didn't exist the way
you describe it. They didn't know about anything else than the
pleasure to eat, when they where hungry. They eat anything eatable
in a tree then move on to another one... From one bone pit to another.
No stress there, sunshine, sex, sports. No calculation, like little
bird, we flew from one tree bunch to another, no worrying, no
antagonising, every one was necessary, had a role (like a broadway role)
Life was fun, enjoyable. (according to my expertise!)
You:
Then in HPCT worry has to be associated with something like the "program level"
of perception. Species that don't have program level control will not worry.
Me: Are you sure of this. Worry is synonimous of anxiety, nervousness.
I once killed a northern pike with a short bat. I was anxious, yes, but
the fish was anxious too. On my first hit, I guess I miss the brain...
I was still holding him or it (depending if you read the life of St-Francois)
I felt his nervousness. I was worrying, or not, depending on your definition.
The fourth hit was the good one, then I had a beer (how gross).
For me worry is synonimous of stress, anxiety, correlate with the fight or
flight response, correllate with high blood pressure. I heard something
like that on a video that D. Forsell send to me for a really reasonnable
price. C S G Annual conference of 1994.
One Last question. How do you explain the anxiety and or difficulty
generated by the stroop task, in PCT term?
REMI
oop task, in PCT term?
REMI