GSGNET Content

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]

<Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1005) MDT)>

<As to driving the neo-cons out, an equally valid example would be driving the tax-and-spend democrats out. I think it’s best not to give political opinions a free ride on an exposition of PCT – it reduces the scientific material to merely an excuse for expressing a personal opinion about something else. I prefer to keep PCT in the center position. Not that I disagree with your opinions, but they are your own and have no scientific justification. It’s a bit like taking a group picture only to find that someone was grinning at the camera and holding up his latest book for everyone to see.>

I heartedly agree with your sentiment, Bill, about “political opinions” getting a free ride on an exposition of PCT on CSGNET. I perceive Rick as the worst offender.

I don’t read CSGNET to discuss politics. There are plenty of forums where one can do that. This forum’s central purpose is PCT, a scientific explanation of behavior. Sure, republicans and democrats and independents behave differently. We can assess their behavior and guess at what perceptions they are controlling and yak about what we think of their actions or what reference perceptions we think they should have instead.

The focus of such discussions can easily slip from the scientific PCT aspects of the behavior to the political actions and references we prefer, either overtly or as hidden agendas. Political issues are often emotionally charged (preventing terrorism, stopping illegal immigration or the governments role in abortion, homosexuality, constitutional rights, taxation, economics etc.). Such issues can move men to conflict and even violence, revolution or war. They are not functionally or primarily scientific in nature. And while PCT may help us understand the different beliefs and actions, it WILL NOT by itself resolve a single one for other people or the collective society.

There are so many aspects of PCT that still need expansion and testing and clear exposition. Even trying to write a simple explanation of PCT for beginners is fraught with difficulty for our most competent adherents. Rick can and has contributed much to this science. It is greatly appreciated.

Speaking for myself, I am not interested in hearing Rick’s political opinions and rants at all, much less on CSGNET and especially when they entail name-calling and character assassination. Can’t Rick and those who are interested in such discussions and debates with Rick, or anyone else, simply conduct them privately? I have done that with him on various religious topics. Wouldn’t it make CSGNET not only more scientific but more professional and worthy of reading by those wanting to learn about PCT, sans personal political or religious preferences?

I have complained and urged this many times over the years without much “reorganization” taking place on Rick’s part. Perhaps your well-stated preference will be more influential. :sunglasses:

···

See what’s free at AOL.com.

2

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1615)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)--

<Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1005) MDT)>

<As to driving the neo-cons out, an equally valid example would be driving
the tax-and-spend democrats out. I think it's best not to give political
opinions a free ride on an exposition of PCT -- it reduces the scientific
material to merely an excuse for expressing a personal opinion about
something else. I prefer to keep PCT in the center position. Not that I
disagree with your opinions, but they are your own and have no scientific
justification. It's a bit like taking a group picture only to find that
someone was grinning at the camera and holding up his latest book for
everyone to see.>

I heartedly agree with your sentiment, Bill, about "political opinions"
getting a free ride on an exposition of PCT on CSGNET. I perceive Rick as
the worst offender.

I agree with both you and Bill. Squeezing my political opinions into
an exposition of PCT is kind of tacky and I agree that I'm probably
the worst offender. I like Bill's idea that doing this is like holding
up one's latest book (on Princess Diana, say) in a group picture (like
one of your bridge club).

What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
harder against your opponent. This might work in the short run
(especially if you go after and catch the people who are the actual
terrorists) but in the long run the only way to solve conflicts is to
negotiate, hoping that one or both parties will eventually "go up a
level" and see that there are more important goals than the one over
which they are fighting.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

3

[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]

<Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1615)>

<I agree with both you and Bill. Squeezing my political opinions into
an exposition of PCT is kind of tacky and I agree that I’m probably
the worst offender. I like Bill’s idea that doing this is like holding
up one’s latest book (on Princess Diana, say) in a group picture (like
one of your bridge club).>

I can hardly believe me eyes!

<What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
example, I think the neocon policy of fighting “terror” by bombing is
misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
harder against your opponent. This might work in the short run
(especially if you go after and catch the people who are the actual
terrorists) but in the long run the only way to solve conflicts is to
negotiate, hoping that one or both parties will eventually “go up a
level” and see that there are more important goals than the one over
which they are fighting.>

That is a huge improvement, Rick. I can’t tell if you are being serious or pandering?

Perhaps, the “President’s” policy would be a further improvement over “neocon?”

Most amazing is that I tend to agree with your PCT point as it applies to the terrorist situation or any severe conflict between people. I won’t go into the details but one of the Chinese professors was rather antagonistic toward the American policy regarding attacking Iraq. You may be surprised but I told him privately that it was not what I thought would work either and was not wise. He pressed me on what I thought was a better approach. I wrote him about that but then the discussion ended. I don’t know what he was controlling for in not responding. I do know he was not very fluent in English and that may have hampered communication since Chinese is Greek to me! All I know is some English/American and a little Polish and Spanish. Adios! :sunglasses:

Best

Rick

···

See what’s free at AOL.com.

4

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1950)

Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]

><Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1615)>

><I agree with both you and Bill.

I can hardly believe me eyes!

><What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
>example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
> misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
>harder against your opponent...

That is a huge improvement, Rick. I can't tell if you are being serious or
pandering?

Hey, we secular humanists are not completely devoid of values;-)

Perhaps, the "President's" policy would be a further improvement over
"neocon?"

I don't think so. The policy was formulated by people who identify
themselves as neo-conservatives. It's their policy, adopted by the
president. Why not give credit where credit is due?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

5

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.22.1113 CDT)]

Rick,

Sure, this is a scientific forum. And we should be able to restrict our focus to
scientific issues. One of the most vexing issues I have heard recently in
science is the way that NASA scientists investigating global warming were
prevailed on to "correct" their science by a certain George Deutsch, "a
24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters
whose r�sum� says he was an intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney
re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the
public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen�s public
statements.

"In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
middle-school students. The message said the word 'theory' needed to be added
after every mention of the Big Bang.

"The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding,
'It is not NASA�s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this
about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a
creator.'

"[George continued:] 'This is more than a science issue, it is a religious
issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting
one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly
educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.'"

Reported in Bad Astronomy Blog:
{http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/\}
PS, I could find the original story, for those who hate to have to read liberal
blogs, but the story has been supported in numerous publications. To further
clarify, Mr. Deutsch finally left NASA when it was found that he never completed
his undergraduate degree (and he was dictating to scientists what they must
publish...?) IF you want, I will find the source doc...

But here is the bottom line. As scientists (those who proceed from the
scientific method rather than searching for facts to support a priori
conclusions), we must stand against the forces who would (as they state about
the Government) prefer to reduce the science community to a small enough
footprint so they can drown it in a bathtub or gas it in more ignominious
circumstances. Even as our focus on this forum is PCT, the general topic is
doing science, dammit!!!

Therefore, I tend to disagree with the suggestiong that we specifically reduce
the topic to PCT (or related topics portrayed in PCT terms), since there are
really much bigger fish to fry.

It is a political as well as an intellectual matter. It could be a matter of
life. If Kenny doesn't care to read discussions about how the "War on Terror"
impinges on scientific matters or some such, then he has a delete key.

Rick, I finished my first browse through Reich's book and I just finished Scott
Ritter's Target Iran (2006). I just wonder how the outcomes of this "War on
Everything" of the neocons will not only impinge on "science," but on the
advancement of knowledge in technology, agriculture, energy, biology, and earth
sciences. Man, it doesn't look good for us if these topics are being occluded by
Paris Hilton, attacks on GLBT Rights, vetos on Stem Cell Research, Rosie
O'Donnell taking over the Price is Right, the scuffle about the Clinton scene in
Mike Moore's SiCKO, etc. We need to refocus on the attacks that are being lobbed
on us by the current ogre in the Oval Office, I believe, or we will lose out
terribly.

Now for some PCT. If you can't perceive it, then you can't control it. Our
perceptions of what this forum is ultimately about are therefor unclear, because
we may be scared of confronting the anti-science critique. So, as we are
distracted and constrained by this critique, we lose the connection between PCT
and its central proposal of living control systems, not living controlled
systems (as in the above story). If we focus merely on PCT research (cowed as
scientists once were in Germany, Soviet Union and China), we may not see the
impending assault on science by neocons, theocons, and neo-fascists. We really
stand to lose not only the preeminence of science, but the damned good idea
inherent in PCT.

Maybe this is a stretch, but I would like to ADAPT the poem by Pastor Martin
Niem�ller (1892�1984):

When the Neocons came for the muslims,
I remained silent;
I was not a muslim.

When they constrained the physicists,
I remained silent;
I was not a physicist.

When they came for the scientists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a scientist.

When they came for PCT,
there was no one left to speak out.

{SEE First they came ... - Wikipedia…}

--Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1950)
> Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]
>
> ><Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1615)>
>
> ><I agree with both you and Bill.

> I can hardly believe me eyes!
>
> ><What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
> >example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
> > misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
> >harder against your opponent...

> That is a huge improvement, Rick. I can't tell if you are being serious or
> pandering?

Hey, we secular humanists are not completely devoid of values;-)

> Perhaps, the "President's" policy would be a further improvement over
> "neocon?"

I don't think so. The policy was formulated by people who identify
themselves as neo-conservatives. It's their policy, adopted by the
president. Why not give credit where credit is due?

Best

Rick

6

[Jim Dundon 06.22.07.1218edt

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1950)

Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]

><Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1615)>

><I agree with both you and Bill.

I can hardly believe me eyes!

><What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
>example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
> misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
>harder against your opponent...

History is replete with conflicts solved by hard pushing contests. It looks to me like it is one way of doing things. Even Bill Powers offers proof of control with his example of pushing against a servo system. If you walk away from the other servo system and bomb it from a distance, end of confict. If they are being produced faster than you can bomb them, negotiate, capitulate, reorganize, join them.

Hard pushing may not be the best way but it is one way.

That is a huge improvement, Rick. I can't tell if you are being serious or
pandering?

Hey, we secular humanists are not completely devoid of values;-)

Perhaps, the "President's" policy would be a further improvement over
"neocon?"

I don't think so. The policy was formulated by people who identify
themselves as neo-conservatives. It's their policy, adopted by the
president. Why not give credit where credit is due?

Best

Rick

Best,

Jim D

7

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.22.0940)]

Jim Dundon (06.22.07.1218edt) --

>> ><What I should do is just talk about these things in terms of PCT. For
>> >example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
>> > misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
>> >harder against your opponent...

History is replete with conflicts solved by hard pushing contests. It looks
to me like it is one way of doing things.

Yes, it seems to work in come cases. The Civil War comes to mind. WWII
could also be considered an example. And it can work in interpersonal
conflicts too. Force works -- or seems to work -- when the loser
reorganizes their control systems in a way that is acceptable to the
winner. It's not a sure fire bet that this will work -- witness WWI --
but it's not a sure bet that negotiation will work, also. I guess I
prefer negotiation over force because there is less blood and death
involved.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

8

I also prefer that discussions be limited to PCT or related topics portrayed in PCT terms. Other forums exist for discussions about areas not related to PCT. Sending info on non-PCT matters is an imposition on readers time – readers who are forced to spend their time looking at non-PCT stuff before obtaining information about PCT matters or pressing the delete key.

With Regards,

Â

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Bryan Thalhammer

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:16 pm

Subject: Re: GSGNET Content

`
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.22.1113 CDT)]
Rick,
Sure, this is a scientific forum. And we should be able to restrict our focus to
scientific issues. One of the most vexing issues I have heard recently in
science is the way that NASA scientists investigating global warming were
prevailed on to "correct" their science by a certain George Deutsch, "a
24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters
whose résumé says he was an intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney
re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the
public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public
statements.
"In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
middle-school students. The message said the word 'theory' needed to be added
after every mention of the Big Bang.
"The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding,
'It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this
about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a
creator.'
"[George continued:] 'This is more than a science issue, it is a religious
issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting
one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly
educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.'"
Reported in Bad Astronomy Blog:
{[http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/](http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/)
}
PS, I could find the original story, for those who hate to have to read liberal
blogs, but the story has been supported in numerous publications. To further
clarify, Mr. Deutsch finally left NASA when it was found that he never completed
his undergraduate degree (and he was dictating to scientists what they must
publish...?) IF you want, I will find the source doc...
But here is the bottom line. As scientists (those who proceed from the
scientific method rather than searching for facts to support a priori
conclusions), we must stand against the forces who would (as they state about
the Government) prefer to reduce the science community to a small enough
footprint so they can drown it in a bathtub or gas it in more ignominious
circumstances. Even as our focus on this forum is PCT, the general topic is
doing science, dammit!!!
Therefore, I tend to disagree with the suggestiong that we specifically reduce
the topic to PCT (or related topics portrayed in PCT terms), since there are
really much bigger fish to fry.
It is a political as well as an intellectual matter. It could be a matter of
life. If Kenny doesn't care to read discussions about how the "War on Terror"
impinges on scientific matters or some such, then he has a delete key.
Rick, I finished my first browse through Reich's book and I just finished Scott
Ritter's Target Iran (2006). I just wonder how the outcomes of this "War on
Everything" of the neocons will not only impinge on "science," but on the
advancement of knowledge in technology, agriculture, energy, biology, and earth
sciences. Man, it doesn't look good for us if these topics are being occluded by
Paris Hilton, attacks on GLBT Rights, vetos on Stem Cell Research, Rosie
O'Donnell taking over the Price is Right, the scuffle about the Clinton scene in
Mike Moore's SiCKO, etc. We need to refocus on the attacks that are being lobbed
on us by the current ogre in the Oval Office, I believe, or we will lose out
terribly.
Now for some PCT. If you can't perceive it, then you can't control it. Our
perceptions of what this forum is ultimately about are therefor unclear, because
we may be scared of confronting the anti-science critique. So, as we are
distracted and constrained by this critique, we lose the connection between PCT
and its central proposal of living control systems, not living controlled
systems (as in the above story). If we focus merely on PCT research (cowed as
scientists once were in Germany, Soviet Union and China), we may not see the
impending assault on science by neocons, theocons, and neo-fascists. We really
stand to lose not only the preeminence of science, but the damned good idea
inherent in PCT.
Maybe this is a stretch, but I would like to ADAPT the poem by Pastor Martin
Niemöller (1892–1984):
When the Neocons came for the muslims,
I remained silent;
I was not a muslim.
When they constrained the physicists,
I remained silent;
I was not a physicist.
When they came for the scientists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a scientist.
When they came for PCT,
there was no one left to speak out.
{SEE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came)
...}
--Bryan
> [Rick Marken (2007.06.21.1950)
> > Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]
> >
> > >
> >
> > >*> > I can hardly believe me eyes!
> >
> > > > >example, I think the neocon policy of fighting "terror" by bombing is
> > > misguided because it assumes that you can solve conflicts by pushing
> > >harder against your opponent...
>
> > That is a huge improvement, Rick. I can't tell if you are being serious or
> > pandering?
>
> Hey, we secular humanists are not completely devoid of values;-)
>
> > Perhaps, the "President's" policy would be a further improvement over
> > "neocon?"
>
> I don't think so. The policy was formulated by people who identify
> themselves as neo-conservatives. It's their policy, adopted by the
> president. Why not give credit where credit is due?
>
> Best
>
> Rick*`

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what’s free from AOL at AOL.com.

9

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.22.1015)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.22.1113 CDT)

"In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
middle-school students. The message said the word 'theory' needed to be added
after every mention of the Big Bang.

Seems like a good idea to me. It's important to keep facts
(observations) and theory separate.

"The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,'

Right. The Big Bang is a theory that explains (better than any other
at the moment) the facts.

'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this
about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a
creator.'

Oops. Now he went over into cookoo land. But up to that point I think
his point is well taken. Keep facts and theories separate. For the Big
Bang, the facts are the movement of the stars and galaxies away from
the same point of origin; the theory is that this is the result of an
original "Big Bang" explosion. For evolution, the facts are the fossil
record, structural, functional ad behavioral relationships between
organisms, etc; one theory is "natural selection" and the other is
"purposeful selection" (based on PCT). I prefer the PCT theory.

Even as our focus on this forum is PCT, the general topic is
doing science, dammit!!!

I agree. And keeping fact and theory separate is an important part of
understanding science. Doing this would, I think, eliminate a lot of
the obfuscation that comes from the religious side. Sure, intelligent
design is a theory that accounts for the facts of evolution. But it is
not a scientific theory because there is nothing that could be
observed that would contradict it.

We need to refocus on the attacks that are being lobbed
on us by the current ogre in the Oval Office, I believe, or we will lose out
terribly.

I feel that way, too, but I agree with Bill and Kenny that sneaking
political opinions into PCT discussions is not the way to do it. I
think the errors and misconceptions of the last 6 years of
"conservative" rule (in quotes because I think most of the people I've
listened to who call themselves "conservative" are actually better
described as reactionaries who want to take us back to the good old
Middle Ages; I'm really a conservative because I want to conserve and
carefully expand policies that have worked well: the GI bill, social
security, medicare, etc) can be understood in terms of PCT and that's
the way I think they should be handled. For example, terrorism can be
readily understood as counter-control and the "war on terror" is a
good example of the neocons (and the majority of the US, for that
matter) being counter controlled out of the ballpark. If he were on
CSGNet, I bet Tim Carey could give a great analysis of terrorism as
counter-control. There are many other topics relevant to what's going
on in the US (and the world) that can be understood in terms of PCT.

Now for some PCT. If you can't perceive it, then you can't control it.

Yes. That's why I think your point about media coverage of events is
so important. The media is one of the main ways we perceive the state
of system level perceptions (social variables). If the media is biased
toward reporting about celebrities rather than social ills then people
who might otherwise want to act to eliminate those ills won't do so
since, if you can't perceive it, then you can't control it -- except
in imagination.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com

10

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.22.1255 CDT)]

With all due respect, I suggest you find the DEL key on your keyboard. I use it
all the time on many CSGnet posts. You can too. :slight_smile:

Science is more than just dry articles. Sometimes it involves being shown the
instruments of torture by those in charge. Then what do you do, my friend? :slight_smile:

Don't impose on my time to refute your opinion with the sad facts of history.

:smiley:

Best,

--Bryan

Richard Pfau wrote, but did not properly document:

···

I also prefer that discussions be limited to PCT or related topics portrayed
in PCT terms.� Other forums exist for� discussions about� areas not related
to PCT.� Sending info� on non-PCT matters is an imposition on� readers time
-- readers who� are forced to� spend their time looking at� non-PCT stuff
before obtaining information about� PCT matters or pressing the delete key.

With Regards,