He's back! Shindler (should be) Missed

[From Rick Marken (940516.1100)]

Bill Powers (940514.2025 MDT) --

So, Rick, I think it's about time to come back. We have experiments
to design and carry out, programming to do, and progress to make.

As you wish.

Since I promised I would not comment about anything said during my absence
I'll just start a new thread (I will try to keep my rate of posting down;
but I do want to get something off my chest ).

I want to argue that the phenomenon of control - - human control in general,
and our OWN controlling in particular -- is an EXTREMELY important
phenomenon to understand. If it were understood, the world really would be a
better place for ourselves, our children and their children. Controlling is
ubiquitous and fundamental to our daily, real life existence -- yet it is
almost completely invisible so it has been almost completely ignored. PCT
exposes the ubiquity of control and explains how it works.

It is extremely important to try to get this understanding of control out to
others besides the few who currently have it. It seems like PCT theorists
talk about nothing but control, control control. But I realized that that is
the who point; controlling is what people do; it is living; it is why we have
ANYTHING we care about (like the Bach 2 and 3 part inventions) and why we
have human problems too (like war and murder). We have to keep harping on
that one point: people -- you, me, everyone -- control. There is no hope for
making things better until people know what control is and how it works.

These thoughts were motivated by a horrible experience I had this weekend --
the experience of seeing "Shindler's List". The horror I experienced was not
just from the scenes in the movie itself but from the public reaction to the
movie, which has been one of overwhelming praise. The movie has been touted
as a "great" exploration of human nature. It was given the "best picture"
award and was called a "new" view of the holcaust by many reviewers. I
didn't want to see it because I didn't want to see another "holcaust" movie;
I don't particularly like to watch violence, unless it is clearly make-
believe (I liked both Terminator movies alot). I was told by many people that
this was not just another holcaust movie; that it was a great and uplifting
movie.

I finally caved in and saw it. And, sure enough, it's another holocaust movie
-- only WORSE! Three hours of horror -- well executed horror. There was no
uplift at the end for me. I was sickened, appalled and, well, pissed for
having been lied to. I would have learned more about human nature if I had
spent the entire three hours banging my head against a wall.

What appalled my about this movie (and the generally adulatory response to
it) was that it was completely superficial. This was a movie based on the
idea that a faithful description of BEHAVIOR gives insight into human nature.
The atrocities were supposed to speak for themselves: see the horrible things
people do, said the movie. Look at those horrible behaviors and see what you
shouldn't do -- that is, see what behaviors you shouldn't emit. And look at
how this one person, originally one of the "bad behavior emitters" -- ie. a
Nazi -- manages to emit some good behavior.

Movies like this not only get us NOWHERE in terms of understanding why things
like the holocaust happen -- they (and the response to them) keep us from
getting anywhere in our understanding of human nature becuase they seem to
give people the impression that, by watching this crap, they ARE getting
such understanding. This movie is a horrible waste of money, talent (like
Spielberg's -- he's a great horror film maker) and time: and it contains a
large dose of the worst drug on the market -- understandingness -- a drug
that gives you the FEELING that you understand something when you don't.

The movie gives the impression that there are evil people out there who emit
evil behaviors -- hateful, mean people. The movie shows with grisly precision
the kinds of evil behaviors people do. I presume the goal of showing this
horror is to convince you that people are capable of such behaviors and to
make sure you either stay away from evil people like this or convince
them that they should not emit such behaviors in the future.

The real cause of the holocaust, of course, is not evil people. The cause is
the fact that we are ALL controlling people; it is our nature to make things
the way we want them to be. If we want "a europe without jews", we will do
whatever our other goals will permit us to do in order to achieve that goal--
which means ANYTHING. Many people managed to convince themselves that jews
were not people so suddenly a possible solution to the "jewish problem"
presented itself to people who did not necessarily have a goal of of killing
people. The killing, masacre, and ugliness and all the other disgusting
things shown in the picture are not "emitted behaviors" -- they are side
effects of controlling. We have to understand that the Nazi's are no
different than any of their victims or from any of the rest of us; they are
people who want the world to be a certain way; they are (like Bach, Beethoven
and the kid who kills to steal a car) controllers.

People who don't understand that "evil" is a perceived side effect of
controlling feel free (when the situation arises) to do exactly what was
done to them as victims - - as long as it doesn't LOOK like what was done to
them. So many of the people who were delt with as an obstruction to be
eliminated during the holocaust felt fine about treating other people as an
obstruction to be eliminated during the time after the holocaust; these were
people who felt that they had LEARNED something from the holocuast; this is
the problem with "learning" from looking at the superficial aspects of
behavior.

We learn no more by focusing on the ugly horrors which are the side effects
of controlling for a "europe without jews" than we would by focusing on the
ugly scrapings and drippings that fell on the floor while Michaelangelo and
his students were controlling for the frescos on the ceiling of the Sistine
chapel.

People control and sometimes people become the objects of this control; this
results in conflict, which can result in some VERY ugly efforts being
mustered by either side in an effort to produce the desired results. The
only solution to this problem -- an unavoidable problem for interacting
controllers -- is to understand that all people are controllers -- including
YOU and ME.

We must keep teaching about control; we have the power to stop the horrors of
conflict. But the solution is not in figuring out how to get other to behave
right; the solution is understanding one's own nature as a controller.

Know thy controlling self.

Best

Rick

From Tom Bourbon [940516.1629]

[From Rick Marken (940516.1100)]

Good to see you're back.

Rick:

These thoughts were motivated by a horrible experience I had this weekend --
the experience of seeing "Shindler's List". The horror I experienced was not
just from the scenes in the movie itself but from the public reaction to the
movie, which has been one of overwhelming praise.

I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on it. One reason I haven't is
that I saw the original war -- as a young kid in an extended family where
all of my uncles went to war and not all came back -- and I already know
what the Nazis did. I share your ideas about why they did it: they
were doing whatever it took to control their perceptions. I don't very much
respect their choice of reference signals, though, and that's the source of
a problem I have every time a discussion on the net turns to the topic of
social conflict. I don't like the reference signals some people pick and
I'd rather they not be on the same planet with me.

We learn no more by focusing on the ugly horrors which are the side effects
of controlling for a "europe without jews" than we would by focusing on the
ugly scrapings and drippings that fell on the floor while Michaelangelo and
his students were controlling for the frescos on the ceiling of the Sistine
chapel.

Agreed, completely. But for me the ugly side effects of what the Nazis did
do not equate with the ugly side effects of what happened in the Sistine
Chapel. I'm afraid I don't believe all intentions are equally good (or
bad). I could try to tell you why, but not right now. I'm more
interested in asking your opinion about how PCT might have led to different
outcomes in a couple of recent incidents in Houston.

People control and sometimes people become the objects of this control; this
results in conflict, which can result in some VERY ugly efforts being
mustered by either side in an effort to produce the desired results. The
only solution to this problem -- an unavoidable problem for interacting
controllers -- is to understand that all people are controllers -- including
YOU and ME.

OK. You probably know that I've understood that point for years -- probably
for as long as I've known the same thing about you. How has that reduced
the incidence of very ugly things people do to one another? Would a similar
understanding, on the part of everyone on the planet, assure an end to
people doing ugly things to one another? Would conflict end?

I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions. I'm asking what
you think, and if you think PCT -- the theory, not us as theorists -- says
anything about what the world would be like if, at midnight tonight local
time, every person on the planet became an expert on PCT.

We must keep teaching about control;

You bet.

we have the power to stop the horrors of
conflict.

Oops. You lost me. _We _ (or anyone else) "have" the "power?" There is
"power" to be "had" and when it is applied it will lead to the end of
conflict?

But the solution is not in figuring out how to get other to behave
right; the solution is understanding one's own nature as a controller.

And that brings me to the incidents -- only three chosen from an
unfortunately large number of candidates. When I imagine myself as having
been on the receiving end of the ugly actions I am about to describe, I
cannot begin to conceive how my knowledge of myself as a controller, or of
the perpetrator(s) as controller(s) would have stopped the events or how my
knowledge would havd ended the conflict -- except in an ugly way I'm not
sure you would have liked.

#1. Yesterday afternoon, in bright daylight and in full view of a number of
people, a woman finished fueling her automobile, climbed into the driver's
seat and was immediately shot several times. Her murderer dragged her body
from the car, dumped it on the ground, jumped into her car, and sped away.
The automobile was found a few hours later, burned.

# 2. One evening a few weeks ago, four students at a local university
returned from a late-night pizza break. They parked their car in the lot by
their dorm and were immediately accosted at gun point by two men who
pushed them back into the car and "suggested" that one of them drive the
car to a nearby ATM machine. At the machine, no one could make it deliver
money. The gunmen had the driver go to a nearby parking lot, where the
captives were stripped of their clothes, then the gunmen drove off with one
of them -- a young woman. After taking turns raping her, they left her
dazed and naked in a strange neighborhood.

# 3. Last year, two young women walked home from a party at the home of a
teenaged friend. They took a shortcut through a field near some railroad
tracks. They walked into an "initiation ceremony" for a "gang." For a
period of several hours, they were repeatedly raped, beaten, stomped,
kicked and strangled. Their bodies were found several days later, partially
devoured by animals.

I believe all of these were indeed very ugly actions, of a kind so far
removed from being comparable to the unintended side effects of the
paintings in the Sistine Chapel as to render a comparison obscene. (The
idea of any similarity in degree is obscene to me, Rick, but you aren't. I
still love you the way I love my brother.) One of my problems is that I
also believe all of the perpetrators were indeed very ugly people whose
lives I would have ended on the spot, had I been one of their victims
and had I had the wherewithal to do so. I would not have cared a rat's
behind that they were controlling their own perceptions, the way any
control system must. Whatever the reasons, their references are screwed up
to a degree that I do not accept. It might have been better had they not
come to be so screwed up, but they did. It might have been nice had
something happened earlier to prevent their developing such references, but
that isn't what happened.

Another of my problems is that I cannot imagine precisely how it would have
helped had any one of the recipients of those ugly actions been an expert
on PCT who understood her own nature as a controller.

I've usually stayed out of the network discussions about such topics, opting
instead to watch and wait for some hint as to how and why PCT the theory --
not the good intentions of particular PCT theorists, including Rick -- would
make things any better. I'm still watching.

Later,

Tom

[From Oded Maler (940517)]

Re: Rick Marken (940516.1100)

One would expect a better come-back. I've not seen the film in
question (I've been waiting for your disrecommendation :slight_smile: but it's
the first time I hear that hollywood movies are supposed to serve as
teaching materials for "introduction to psychology" course.

--Oded

ยทยทยท

--

Oded Maler, VERIMAG, Miniparc ZIRST, 38330 Montbonnot, France
Phone: 76909635 Fax: 76413620 e-mail: Oded.Maler@imag.fr