Group splitting

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Rick Marken (961004.0910)]

Bill Benzon (961004) --

As I've said, research indicates that when groups reach a certain size, they
tend to split up.

But this research (because it was not informed by an understanding of the
nature of purposeful behavior) says nothing about whether any observed
split is an intended result or an irrelevant side effect. The "tendency" for
groups to split when they reach a certain size may be intended by some
members of some groups; or it may be an unintended side effect of the process
of carrying out other intentions by some members of the group.

The observation that groups tend to split when they reach a certain size is
of no use in itself; at best, it can be the start of studies of why group
size might be associated with splitting in particular groups. Is it because
some or all individuals in the group are controlling for group size. Is it
because group size is a disturbance to some other variable controlled by some
or all individuals in the group (such as the size of the venue for group
meetings)? As far as I know, the studies that would tell why size affects
whether of not a group splits have simply not been done yet.

Something about the number of people in relation to the existing social
"technology" leads to interpersonal tensions. Given those tensions, lots of
folks form the purpose of splitting the group.

Size is likely to be a disturbance to many variables controlled by
individuals in a group. Speculations about what variables are being disturbed
have to be checked out by Testing for the variables controlled by the
individuals in a group. I don't believe that this sort of research has been
done yet.

PCT has something to say about what happens once those purposes are
formulated. But it is going to take another body of thought to account for
just why those particular purposes arise when the group reaches a certain
size.

Reorganizaton and hierarchal relationships between control systems would
explain why new purposes arise (if they do) in certain circumstances. But I
have a feeling that most of the "splitting" that seems to be a result of
group size is less a result of the formulation of new purposes as it is a
side effect of individuals controlling for things like "face to face
contact", "perceived similarily of purpose", "availability of venues", etc.

If you will, in this particular case, the fact that the cursor traces
E = mc^2 IS what we have to explain.

That would mean that you have determined (using the Test) that "group size"
is a controlled variable. We would then explain the fact that a particular
group splits into two groups when its size reaches, say, 100, as a control
process; members of the group are controlling for this result.

If the explanation turns out to be that there is a "hidden hand" (to invoke
a famous metaphor), then the task of the sociologist is to find the little
man behind the curtain who is the possessor of that hidden hand.

I don't understand this. If the explanation of the group splitting phenomenon
turns out to be that there is a "hidden hand" then there is no explanation
at all. It's just saying that it is "magic". From the PCT point of view, any
particular example of group splitting is either intended by members of the
group, a side effect of the intention to do something else (like fit into a
room) or a result caused by external forces (as when a group of sand grains
is split when put through a filter). If the splitting is not one of these
three phenomena (an intended result, a side effect of the process of
producing an intended result or a caused result) then it is, indeed,
inexplicable so "hidden hand" is really all you've got.

Best

Rick

2

[From Rick Marken (961004.0910)]

Bill Benzon (961004) --

As I've said, research indicates that when groups reach a certain size, they
tend to split up.

But this research (because it was not informed by an understanding of the
nature of purposeful behavior) says nothing about whether any observed
split is an intended result or an irrelevant side effect.

Since I don't know this research directly I'm not in a position to judge
what the researchers did or did not know about human purpose. Do you know
something about them that I do not?

The "tendency" for
groups to split when they reach a certain size may be intended by some
members of some groups; or it may be an unintended side effect of the process
of carrying out other intentions by some members of the group.

Yes.

The observation that groups tend to split when they reach a certain size is
of no use in itself; at best, it can be the start of studies of why group
size might be associated with splitting in particular groups.

Yes.

Is it because
some or all individuals in the group are controlling for group size. Is it
because group size is a disturbance to some other variable controlled by some
or all individuals in the group (such as the size of the venue for group
meetings)? As far as I know, the studies that would tell why size affects
whether of not a group splits have simply not been done yet.

I certainly don't know of any such studies. The two possibilities you
mention -- controlling for group size & controlling for size of venue --
aren't particularly interesting, though we have to do some investigating to
rule them out. What interests me is the possibility that, once some size
threshold is reached, people can no longer achieve their familiar purposes
in familiar ways. So we have some "random shifting," the group breaks up,
and the resulting smaller groups are once more stable, with members being
able to achieve their familiar purposes in familiar ways.

Something about the number of people in relation to the existing social
"technology" leads to interpersonal tensions. Given those tensions, lots of
folks form the purpose of splitting the group.

Size is likely to be a disturbance to many variables controlled by
individuals in a group. Speculations about what variables are being disturbed
have to be checked out by Testing for the variables controlled by the
individuals in a group. I don't believe that this sort of research has been
done yet.

PCT has something to say about what happens once those purposes are
formulated. But it is going to take another body of thought to account for
just why those particular purposes arise when the group reaches a certain
size.

Reorganizaton and hierarchal relationships between control systems would
explain why new purposes arise (if they do) in certain circumstances. But I
have a feeling that most of the "splitting" that seems to be a result of
group size is less a result of the formulation of new purposes as it is a
side effect of individuals controlling for things like "face to face
contact", "perceived similarily of purpose", "availability of venues", etc.

The "new purpose" I had in mind was simply the purpose to take one's
closest friends & family & move elsewhere. And, yes, the formulation of
that purpose is probably a side effect of the inability to effectively
control for things like face to face contact, etc. But what I'm trying to
suggest is that there are real constraints operating here and someone ought
to go out and find out just what those constraints are.

One could imagine, for example, that it is as easy to interact with a
million people as with one or two. If that were possible, society would
probably be quite different. As such communication is not possible, it
becomes necessary to invent new kinds of social structures (status &
roles), rituals, symbol systems, etc., as social groups become larger. As
a consequence, individuals in groups of different size and structure are
controlling different sets of variables.

If you will, in this particular case, the fact that the cursor traces
E = mc^2 IS what we have to explain.

That would mean that you have determined (using the Test) that "group size"
is a controlled variable. We would then explain the fact that a particular
group splits into two groups when its size reaches, say, 100, as a control
process; members of the group are controlling for this result.

Well...what I had in mind is that group size is not a controlled variable
at all, but that we see group size effects nonetheless.

If the explanation turns out to be that there is a "hidden hand" (to invoke
a famous metaphor), then the task of the sociologist is to find the little
man behind the curtain who is the possessor of that hidden hand.

I don't understand this. If the explanation of the group splitting phenomenon
turns out to be that there is a "hidden hand" then there is no explanation
at all. It's just saying that it is "magic". From the PCT point of view, any
particular example of group splitting is either intended by members of the
group, a side effect of the intention to do something else (like fit into a
room) or a result caused by external forces (as when a group of sand grains
is split when put through a filter). If the splitting is not one of these
three phenomena (an intended result, a side effect of the process of
producing an intended result or a caused result) then it is, indeed,
inexplicable so "hidden hand" is really all you've got.

I'm suggesting that group splitting is a caused result where (something
that's a function of) the size has the effect of an external force. If,
for example, people with a certain kind of conceptual structure have to say
"hello" & chat with everyone in the group at least once a week, and that
becomes impossible once the group gets larger than a certain size, then
those folks are going to be uncomfortable. And that discomfort somehow
leads the group to splitting up.

···

********************************************************
William L. Benzon 518.272.4733
161 2nd Street bbenzon@global2000.net
Troy, NY 12180 Account Suspended
USA
********************************************************
What color would you be if you didn't know what you was?
That's what color I am.
********************************************************

3

[From Rick Marken (961004.1330)]

Bill Benzon (961004) --

Me:

But this research (because it was not informed by an understanding of the
nature of purposeful behavior) says nothing about whether any observed
split is an intended result or an irrelevant side effect.

Bill:

Since I don't know this research directly I'm not in a position to judge
what the researchers did or did not know about human purpose. Do you know
something about them that I do not?

You can tell there is no understanding of purposful behavior by looking at
the research results themselves. All these researchers report is a
relationship between one variable (possibly manipulated under controlled
conditions) and another; they report a statistical relationship between group
size and whether or not the group splits. There is neither a description of a
variable (a controlled variable) that was kept constant by this relationship
nor any mention of it's absence.

The existence of a relationship between group size and splitting, even if it
is quite reliable, tells us nothing about whether or not a variable is under
control. The research you report (this is not your fault, of course; _all_
behavioral science research is like this) is done with the idea that there
are independent variables (like group size) and dependent variables
(splitting) but no _controlled_ variables. This means that the results of
such research are of little value to those of us who want to understand
purposeful behavior (control).

The two possibilities you mention -- controlling for group size &
controlling for size of venue -- aren't particularly interesting, though we
have to do some investigating to rule them out.

Would they still be uninteresting if they were not ruled out? I can think of
situations where group size is unquestionably controlled -- a baseball team,
for example. I can also think of situations where group size is a side effect
of the size of the venue -- the number of people at a sold out movie, for
example.

What interests me is the possibility that, once some size threshold is
reached, people can no longer achieve their familiar purposes in familiar
ways. So we have some "random shifting," the group breaks up, and the
resulting smaller groups are once more stable, with members being able to
achieve their familiar purposes in familiar ways.

I'm sure this happens sometimes. But in order to see it happening you would
have to know some of the "familiar purposes" that can no longer be achieved.
You will then have to determine whether the splitting done to achieve those
purposes is random or systematic (for example, when there are too many men on
the field in a football game there is a systematic approach to dealing with
that problem).

I'm suggesting that group splitting is a caused result where (something
that's a function of) the size has the effect of an external force.

OK, that's a possibility. An extremely unlikely one, from my point of view,
but one that can be Tested. To show this, I think you would have to show that
variations in group splitting are completely determined by the size (or the
variable that is a function of the size) of the group (all other things
equal).

If, for example, people with a certain kind of conceptual structure have to
say "hello" & chat with everyone in the group at least once a week, and that
becomes impossible once the group gets larger than a certain size, then
those folks are going to be uncomfortable. And that discomfort somehow
leads the group to splitting up.

This theory (which seems plausible for some individuals) is _not_ the same as
the theory that a group size related _external force_ causes group splitting.
What you are saying here is that splitting is a side effect of controlling
for "saying hello to everone in the group". You might want to take a look at
Bill Powers' _Crowd_ or _Gatherings_ programs to see how some rather
fascinating patterns of group behavior can result as a side effect of each
individual controlling of some rather "uninteresting" percpetions (like their
distance from other people). There is no _external force_ (attractor basin,
god, whatever) producing these patterns; it's all a remarkably reliable side
effect of control.

Since there is really no data (other than anecdotal experience) relevant to
the question of why groups split (whether it's a controlled result, a side
effect of control or the results of a casual force) it seems like
understanding group splits is, at the moment, a rather hopeless pursuit. We
know how PCT _would_ explain splitting if splitting were a controlled result
or a side effect of control (as it is in the _Crowd_ program). But
until someone starts doing group research based on PCT, all we've got are our
hopes. I (unlike the OJ jury) like some evidence to temper my hopes;-)

Best

Rick

4

[From Rick Marken (961004.1330)]

The existence of a relationship between group size and splitting, even if it
is quite reliable, tells us nothing about whether or not a variable is under
control. The research you report (this is not your fault, of course; _all_
behavioral science research is like this) is done with the idea that there
are independent variables (like group size) and dependent variables
(splitting) but no _controlled_ variables. This means that the results of
such research are of little value to those of us who want to understand
purposeful behavior (control).

But some of us are interested in other things. Or is that not permitted on
this listserve?

The two possibilities you mention -- controlling for group size &
controlling for size of venue -- aren't particularly interesting, though we
have to do some investigating to rule them out.

Would they still be uninteresting if they were not ruled out? I can think of
situations where group size is unquestionably controlled -- a baseball team,
for example. I can also think of situations where group size is a side effect
of the size of the venue -- the number of people at a sold out movie, for
example.

Reasonable examples, but not terribly interesting, at least not to me.

What interests me is the possibility that, once some size threshold is
reached, people can no longer achieve their familiar purposes in familiar
ways. So we have some "random shifting," the group breaks up, and the
resulting smaller groups are once more stable, with members being able to
achieve their familiar purposes in familiar ways.

I'm sure this happens sometimes. But in order to see it happening you would
have to know some of the "familiar purposes" that can no longer be achieved.
You will then have to determine whether the splitting done to achieve those
purposes is random or systematic (for example, when there are too many men on
the field in a football game there is a systematic approach to dealing with
that problem).

But I'm not at all interested in cases like too many men on the field.
What's going on there is straightforward. What interests me is when the
village gets too large and people just pack up and leave.

I'm suggesting that group splitting is a caused result where (something
that's a function of) the size has the effect of an external force.

OK, that's a possibility. An extremely unlikely one, from my point of view,
but one that can be Tested. To show this, I think you would have to show that
variations in group splitting are completely determined by the size (or the
variable that is a function of the size) of the group (all other things
equal).

This may be so, but you know, actually doing this kind of thing is going to
be difficult. It seems unlikely that we'll ever be allowed to, say, maroon
200 people in the middle of Kansas, and watch what happens to them; and
they have to be 200 people with what Dave Hays & I call a Rank 1 conceptual
system. So, while you may be right, it's not a very helpful suggestion.
I'm glad I have no intention of actually trying to figure this stuff out.

If, for example, people with a certain kind of conceptual structure have to
say "hello" & chat with everyone in the group at least once a week, and that
becomes impossible once the group gets larger than a certain size, then
those folks are going to be uncomfortable. And that discomfort somehow
leads the group to splitting up.

This theory (which seems plausible for some individuals) is _not_ the same as
the theory that a group size related _external force_ causes group splitting.
What you are saying here is that splitting is a side effect of controlling
for "saying hello to everone in the group". You might want to take a look at
Bill Powers' _Crowd_ or _Gatherings_ programs to see how some rather
fascinating patterns of group behavior can result as a side effect of each
individual controlling of some rather "uninteresting" percpetions (like their
distance from other people). There is no _external force_ (attractor basin,
god, whatever) producing these patterns; it's all a remarkably reliable side
effect of control.

OK, so it's a side effect. But someone has to take such side-effects
seriously and attempt to understand them, for I suspect that much of social
life is made up of such things. In any event, I for one am relucant to
feel that extrapolating from simple simulations to the dynamics of
large-scale societies is just QED. Even if it is all just side-effects of
perceptual control, I take no comfort in that for PCT is a long way from
demonstrating the dynamics which give rise to the "side effects" which
constitute social life.

Since there is really no data (other than anecdotal experience) relevant to
the question of why groups split (whether it's a controlled result, a side
effect of control or the results of a casual force) it seems like
understanding group splits is, at the moment, a rather hopeless pursuit. We
know how PCT _would_ explain splitting if splitting were a controlled result
or a side effect of control (as it is in the _Crowd_ program). But
until someone starts doing group research based on PCT, all we've got are our
hopes. I (unlike the OJ jury) like some evidence to temper my hopes;-)

Does it really hurt so much to at least consider the possiblity that PCT
can't explain everything important about human behavior? I certainly don't
know why groups split & have no intention of investigating the problem. In
any event, it was only an example.

However, you have convinced me that you can throw up some PCT-based
explanation for anything I could possibly think up. So I won't bother.
But I do suspect that there are things about social groups which can't be
accounted for by PCT, certainly not by PCT in its current state.

···

********************************************************
William L. Benzon 518.272.4733
161 2nd Street bbenzon@global2000.net
Troy, NY 12180 Account Suspended
USA
********************************************************
What color would you be if you didn't know what you was?
That's what color I am.
********************************************************