improper actions

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.04,15:25 EUST)]
Background.
We know all that newspapers grab in people's bad actions and special in bad
actions the newspapers think people have done.. You have an example in US
where Lewis Libby Jnr. was arrested regarding the supposed leaking of a
C.I.A. officer's identity.
In Norway a psychiatrist and a psychologist are searched for sale of medical
certificates to people who had no diagnosis. The recipients were sentenced
and they wished to escape from imprisonment.

What PCT-ers know.
People control their perceptions, not their actions. People have references
for what they wish to do. These references are compared with their
perceptions and the error result in actions. Remember continuity. Actual
perceptions are a result of feedback signals and disturbances. When the
perceptions are like the reference, there are no actions.
People have more or less references for law-abiding behavior. If they don't
have references for law-abiding behavior it is possible to reorganize.

I know PCT doesn't form the right way of living.

My questions.
Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?
Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what we
call criminal actions?
Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and tell
people about criminal's purposes?
Should the judicial system test the Criminals and offer organized and
controlled systems for reorganizing?
Is it correct that if the judicial system knew about PCT, they would not
punished peoples bad actions?
Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

Bjorn

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.04.115)]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 9:29:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.04,15:25 EUST)]

What PCT-ers know.

People have more or less references for law-abiding behavior.

Then why are there over 8 million people in prison’s around the world?

If they don’t have references for law-abiding behavior it is possible to reorganize.

I know PCT doesn’t form the right way of living.

My questions.
Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?
Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what we
call criminal actions?
Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and tell
people about criminal’s purposes?
Should the judicial system test the Criminals and offer organized and
controlled systems for reorganizing?
Is it correct that if the judicial system knew about PCT, they would not
punished peoples bad actions?
Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

Thanks Bjorn. These questions seem kind of odd unless you are familiar with the orthodoxy of PCT theory and realize that with PCT these are all legitimate questions if the theory is true to form.

Easy enough. Why not empty out the prisons and just tell 'em to reorganize and everything will be fine. This technique might work wonders in Paris right now to quell the riots or even the Middle East.
Certainly worth thinking about because here I believe you are seeing what a lack of data and understanding might produce. According to Rick’s ‘models’ all of these questions would be answered in the affirmative. Does anyone really need to ‘prove’ the theory ‘wrong’ when it produces these kinds of questions?

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.04.1250)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.04,15:25 EUST) --

My questions.

Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

I don't think so.. Newspapers are supposed to tell us what people are doing.
Newspaper people presumably perceive behavior in terms of the same
perceptual types as everyone else. I think they describe people's behavior
in terms of the perceptual levels at which that behavior seems most
newsworthy; in terms of _relationships_ with other people, _programs_ of
actions (like the CIA leak), _principles_ people seem to be defending, etc.
Whether these perceptual aspects of behavior are actions or controlled
variables (they are usually both, given the hierarchical nature of behavior)
or even irrelevant side effects of action is, I believe, a matter to be
sorted out by further investigation or by the courts.

Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what we
call criminal actions?

I don't have any problem with the judicial system passing sentences.
Sometimes I disagree with the sentence but I don't see any reason to be
opposed to it in principle.

Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and tell
people about criminal's purposes?

I think the determination of a criminal's purposes is the job of the
judicial system. I think the law already uses what is essentially a
retrospective version of The Test to try to determine purpose (intent).

Should the judicial system test the Criminals and offer organized and
controlled systems for reorganizing?

That sounds a little scary to me. I really don't know what to do with
criminals. I guess it would be best to deal with it on a case by case basis.
Certainly criminals who are likely repeat offenders -- the ones who are
likely to repeat crimes that hurt others -- should be taken out of society
to protect others. But I don't know what to do with the one time offenders
-- the passion crimes. Of course, I against punishing people in any way for
crimes -- like taking drugs -- where there are no victims.

Is it correct that if the judicial system knew about PCT, they would not
punished peoples bad actions?

I don't think so. I know PCT and I'd still like to see some bad actions
punished -- for my sake if not for the sake of the criminal.

Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

It depends on what you mean by help. I don't think punishment reliably helps
the person who performed the bad action to become a "better" person. It
might help the victim or relatives of the victim of the bad action feel
better. If the action caused a bad result unintentionally I don't think any
punishment is in order, and neither does the legal system (unless there was
negligence).

These are just my opinions, of course. PCT certainly informs how I deal with
these real-life concerns. But I don't believe PCT will make the world into
a Utopia, even when everyone understands it (though it will make it a MUCH
better place). I think the main cause of human problems (individual and
social) from a PCT perspective is _unwanted_ conflict (some conflicts, like
sporting events, are wanted and not a great source of social problems,
unless they are English soccer matches;-). And conflicts will always be
with us. PCT (like liberal civilization -- which emphasizes tolerance) can
reduce the intensity and probably prevent many of them.

Best regards

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 Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.06, 07:45 EUST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.11.04.1250)

Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

I don't think so.. Newspapers are supposed to tell us what people are

doing.
Yes, that's the answer everybody give. But why are they supposed to tell us
about actions, the exercisers don't control?
Isn't your answer a rest of behavioral way of thinking?
Don't Newspapers behave as control systems with negative feedback as
employers in your and Bill's econ simulations?
If that's what they are, we could say:
The journalists (the Newspapers) have their set of references. When people
perform improper actions, these actions are Disturbances in the journalists
control of their perceptions. Their writing are the error initiated actions.
Some of these actions oppose the effects of the disturbances on the
controlled quantity.

Back to my question. Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples
actions?
I think some people with a great tolerance (your understanding of
tolerance?), perceiving other peoples actions, will say that Newspapers
don't need to describe other people's actions. Other people have less
tolerance will answer "no".

You say about the same(?) below.

Newspaper people presumably perceive behavior in terms of the same
perceptual types as everyone else. I think they describe people's behavior
in terms of the perceptual levels at which that behavior seems most
newsworthy; in terms of _relationships_ with other people, _programs_ of
actions (like the CIA leak), _principles_ people seem to be defending, etc.
Whether these perceptual aspects of behavior are actions or controlled
variables (they are usually both, given the hierarchical nature of

behavior)

or even irrelevant side effects of action is, I believe, a matter to be
sorted out by further investigation or by the courts.

>Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what

we

>call criminal actions?

I don't have any problem with the judicial system passing sentences.
Sometimes I disagree with the sentence but I don't see any reason to be
opposed to it in principle.

I think judicial systems behave as control systems with negative feedback as
Newspapers (and employers). Their actions are elements in their control
processes.

Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and

tell

people about criminal's purposes?

I think the determination of a criminal's purposes is the job of the
judicial system. I think the law already uses what is essentially a
retrospective version of The Test to try to determine purpose (intent).

I think everybody should learn how to Test for Controlled quantities, also
journalists.

Should the judicial system test the Criminals and offer organized and
controlled systems for reorganizing?

That sounds a little scary to me. I really don't know what to do with
criminals. I guess it would be best to deal with it on a case by case

basis.

Certainly criminals who are likely repeat offenders -- the ones who are
likely to repeat crimes that hurt others -- should be taken out of society
to protect others. But I don't know what to do with the one time offenders
-- the passion crimes. Of course, I against punishing people in any way for
crimes -- like taking drugs -- where there are no victims.

I think it is difficult to organize for reorganizing. I think reorganizing
is a result of intrinsic error.

Is it correct that if the judicial system knew about PCT, they would not
punished peoples bad actions?

I don't think so. I know PCT and I'd still like to see some bad actions
punished -- for my sake if not for the sake of the criminal.

Is also this a rest of behavioral way of thinking? I think there is a lot of
behavioral thinking in the judicial system, as there is in other systems.
I don't think knowledge about PCT will stop the judicial system to punish
people. I think knowledge about PCT would changed their argumentation. They
would say that punishment is a disturbance when people control their
perceptions. If people don't control a perception over time because of their
knowledge about punishment, an intrinsic error will provoke reorganization.
What that reorganizing will led to, is difficult to say.

Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

It depends on what you mean by help. I don't think punishment reliably

helps

the person who performed the bad action to become a "better" person. It
might help the victim or relatives of the victim of the bad action feel
better. If the action caused a bad result unintentionally I don't think any
punishment is in order, and neither does the legal system (unless there was
negligence).

I agree, but I still think knowledge about punishment is a disturbance for
some people. And it different people control their perceptions in different
ways, in spite of knowledge about punishment.

These are just my opinions, of course. PCT certainly informs how I deal

with

these real-life concerns. But I don't believe PCT will make the world into
a Utopia, even when everyone understands it (though it will make it a MUCH
better place). I think the main cause of human problems (individual and
social) from a PCT perspective is _unwanted_ conflict (some conflicts, like
sporting events, are wanted and not a great source of social problems,
unless they are English soccer matches;-). And conflicts will always be
with us. PCT (like liberal civilization -- which emphasizes tolerance) can
reduce the intensity and probably prevent many of them.

Agree. I think there always are conflicts between some people and different
Newspapers or between some people and the juridical systems. The result of
these conflicts are different. So is the world.

Bjorn

[Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.10.31]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.04,15:25 EUST)]

What PCT-ers know.

Believe?

People control their perceptions, not their actions. People have references
for what they wish to do. These references are compared with their
perceptions and the error result in actions. Remember continuity. Actual
perceptions are a result of feedback signals and disturbances. When the
perceptions are like the reference, there are no actions.
People have more or less references for law-abiding behavior. If they don't
have references for law-abiding behavior it is possible to reorganize.

Also remember that nobody other than the person concerned has any access to the perceptions or the references you mention.

My questions.
Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

What does "should" ask about? It usually carries the implication that there is some absolute reference standard for right and wrong. I know that there are people who believe this, but from a PCT perspective, rightness and wrongness can be assessed only with respect to one's own personal references. So I think you "should" rephrase the question as "Would you prefer newspapers to stop telling us about people's actions."

To address the question, let's follow the implications of a "yes" answer.

Firstly, all we can ever perceive about another person comes from observing (or being told about) their actions. We may try to perceive what they are controlling for by acting to disturb perceptions we guess they might be controlling, but we can't do that with most people. We can only observe what might be the environment from which they create their peceptions, and their actions in that environment. From those observations, we can guess which effects on the environment they might be intending, and from that we might infer something about what perceptions they might be controlling. It's not much, but if we can't directly interact with someone, it's the best we can do.

If we don't observe someone directly with our own senses, we can infer what they are controlling for only if someone tells us about their environment and their actions in that environment. You are asking, then, if we would like not to be able to know about what people are "doing" (what peceptions they are controlling and at what reference levels) if we can't observe them directly.

My own answer is that since the actions of quite a lot of people I never met may affect my own ability to control, I want to be able to know something about those actions, and more than that, I'd like to have some indication as to whether the effects on my environment of those actions are likely to be intended by the actor, or to be side-effects.

In other words, my answer is that newspapers "should" tell us about people's actions, but should tell us more about the environment in which those actions occurred than they usually do at present.

Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what we
call criminal actions?

In judicial systems based on English law, "intent" matters. Also, criminal actions often are seen as criminal not because of the action, but because of the environmental consequence of the action. If your finger pulls the trigger of a gun, that's an action. If it happened that the bullet killed someone, that's an environmental consequence. One can't tell if it's criminal without looking further into it. Did your finger pull the trigger because you slipped or someone bumped you when you were putting the gun in its storage place? Did you know the gun was loaded (you should have known, perhaps, but that's a different question). If you controlled a perception of your finger pulling the trigger, and you knew the gun was loaded, did you know that someone was in the line of fire? If you did, and you intended that the bullet hit that person, did you intend that it hit them in a lethal place?

Supposing that all of the things an outside observer can perceive lead that outside observer to perceive criminal intent, the action still isn't criminal if the environmental situation differs. The shooter might be in a war, and the killed person an enemy, for example.

But given that all the circumstances say that the action was criminal, the question is whether the judicial system should pass some sentence, meaning that the criminal's ability to control is reduced in some way. A fine reduces the criminal's ability to control using the actions of other people; a jail sentence reduces the physical range of the effects of the criminal's actions. (I don't consider the death penalty, as almost no countries in the developed world still permit it, even though it does rather reduce the criminal's abiity to control).

The question then resolves into what effects reducing the criminal's ability to control will have on MY ability to control. The answer to that depends rather on how the particular criminal's activities affect me directly, and on how the criminal's sentence influences the actions of other potential criminals. As a rule, I _know_ the answer to neither question, but I have beliefs based on prejudice, intuition, and analysis. The same applies to you, so we may give different answers to your question. My own answer is that is is likely that if the judicial system failed to pass any sentences, my ability to control would be much more affected than if it passed some, but that if the sentences tended to be too severe or too liberally handed out (as in a police state), my ability to control would also be more likely to be substantially reduced.

Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and tell
people about criminal's purposes?

How would they do that?

Should the judicial system test the Criminals and offer organized and
controlled systems for reorganizing?

I would change the last word "reorganizing" to "learning other ways to control", and answer "yes." Prisons provide criminals with a great deal of training in how to be better (more effective) criminals, and very little in how to be more effective actors in a cooperative society. We spend a lot of money in simply housing criminals an schools for crime, an making sure they can't get out, but almost none in demonstrating and teching more effective ways for the criminals to control whatever perceptions they were controlling in criminal ways. Random reorganization isn't the only means of learning.

Is it correct that if the judicial system knew about PCT, they would not
punished peoples bad actions?

No. See above.

Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

Does it help whom, or what, and on what time-scale? That's a very ill-defined question.

There aren't easy answers to any of your questions, but I return to my basic premise. You can only tell what people are controlling for by observing their actions, whether or not you interact with then to disturb their perceptions. You can only affect what they control by affecting their environmental feedback paths (by altering the path or by adding disturbances). And you can only control your own perceptions, not anyone else's.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0920)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.06, 07:45 EUST)--

But why are they [newspapers] supposed to tell us
about actions, the exercisers don't control?
Isn't your answer a rest of behavioral way of thinking?

I don't think so. How would a reporter know whether a particular behavior, like leaking the name of a CIA agent, is an action (a means to achieve a higher level goal, like punishing a critic of the administration), an intended result in itself or an accidental side effect? In fact, the leaking was probably both an action and an intended result. Of course, the people who did it want us to believe that it was an accidental side effect --a case where the leaker didn't know the information was secret. In fact, we don't really know whether the leak was an action, intended result or accident; we just have opinions and some circumstantial evidence. I don't believe that the role of a journalist is to determine whether some observed behavior, like blowing a CIA agent's cover, is an action, intended result or accidental side effect.

Back to my question. Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

Again, the problem is that you can't tell, just by looking, whether some behavior is an action, an intended result or an accidental side effect. TI think the first step in understanding behavior is to try to describe what you see. Phenomena first! I think journalists are there to describe phenomena, not to explain them.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.06)]

<Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.10.31>

What a joy it is to see this series of posts. They are about HPCT AND human behavior. They are scientific and scholarly. They don’t involve personal attacks on anyone: neither on President’s nor on CSGNet Members or their personal beliefs.

With Professional Postings like this, I would hope to see more new Members seeking knowledge of PCT, in theory and application, and how it can change one’s perspectives about life and controlling one’s own perceptions. And, perhaps more Members will participate and post and stay members?

Special thanks to you for a most informative and professional post. I think we have grown to expect that from you. Of course, Bjorn and Rick (and even Marc for a while) also contributed constructively. This is commendable and a good example to all PCTers and Members, IMHO.

Kenny

CSG President

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.06.1730 CST)

Yes? Where did the Galilean say blessed be the catty?

--B.

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.06)]
<Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.10.31>
What a joy it is to see this series of posts. They are about HPCT AND human behavior. They are scientific and scholarly. They don't involve personal attacks on anyone: neither on President's nor on CSGNet Members or their personal beliefs.

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

···

With Professional Postings like this, I would hope to see more new Members seeking knowledge of PCT

> ...
> Kenny

CSG President

[Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.23.41]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.06.1730 CST)

Yes? Where did the Galilean say blessed be the catty?

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

It's funny, but until Kenny complained about your calling Jesus "the Galilean", I had assumed you were talking about a rationalist follower of Galileo. The unexpected association of "Galilean" with Jesus caused me quite a sudden perceptual shift in the meanings of earlier postings, Jesus having been a very astute economist ("Cast your bread upon the waters and it shall return to you manifold"), whereas Galileo was a hard physicist -- and physics is, after all, the fundamental basis of PCT.

In PCT, we are all Galileoans.

Martin

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,11:15 EUST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.10.31

What PCT-ers know.

Believe?

When I said "know", I thought PCT-ers has studied e.g. BCP and they know
that the statements are recognized from the book. Maybe we _only_ should use
the word "know" for real time perceptions. Maybe we should say hypothesize
or believe when we perceive not real time experiences and imaginations.

Also remember that nobody other than the person concerned has any
access to the perceptions or the references you mention.

Yes, I often forget to say what I ought to say. Threads like this, and this
time you, become a reminder.

My questions.
Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

What does "should" ask about? It usually carries the implication that
there is some absolute reference standard for right and wrong. I know
that there are people who believe this, but from a PCT perspective,
rightness and wrongness can be assessed only with respect to one's
own personal references. So I think you "should" rephrase the
question as "Would you prefer newspapers to stop telling us about
people's actions."

I absolutely agree with your last sentence. But sometimes I am reluctant to
direct questions. When I say "should" I wish to ask what is inevitable or
seems likely to happen in the future. And I think the reader may answer for
himself and say "will".

To address the question, let's follow the implications of a "yes" answer.

Firstly, all we can ever perceive about another person comes from
observing (or being told about) their actions. We may try to perceive
what they are controlling for by acting to disturb perceptions we
guess they might be controlling, but we can't do that with most
people. We can only observe what might be the environment from which
they create their perceptions, and their actions in that environment.

>From those observations, we can guess which effects on the

environment they might be intending, and from that we might infer
something about what perceptions they might be controlling. It's not
much, but if we can't directly interact with someone, it's the best
we can do.

The purpose for my question was to see if anybody find it interesting to
read about actions we seldom know are carried out with purpose from the
executants. I will still answer the question as I did in my "From Bjorn
Simonsen (2005.11.06, 07:45 EUST)". Both Human beings and Newspapers behave
as control systems with negative feedback. Some times conflicts happen.

If we don't observe someone directly with our own senses, we can
infer what they are controlling for only if someone tells us about
their environment and their actions in that environment. You are
asking, then, if we would like not to be able to know about what
people are "doing" (what perceptions they are controlling and at what
reference levels) if we can't observe them directly.

I don't think we get credible information about what people are controlling
for, if someone tells us about their environment and the actions in that
environment. What somebody tell us, I generally think, is what the
storytellers control themselves.
Yes when I read about people's actions I often say to myself that it should
be interesting to know what the executants intended to perceive.

My own answer is that since the actions of quite a lot of people I
never met may affect my own ability to control, I want to be able to
know something about those actions, and more than that, I'd like to
have some indication as to whether the effects on my environment of
those actions are likely to be intended by the actor, or to be
side-effects.

Almost as I would say it myself.

In other words, my answer is that newspapers "should" tell us about
people's actions, but should tell us more about the environment in
which those actions occurred than they usually do at present.

I know I must put up with Newspapers having pictures and great fonted texts
about different people's actions and the perceptions they wish to control
with small fonted text inside the paper. I prefer to read the small fonted
text.

Should the judicial system not pass sentences viewed in the light of what

we

call criminal actions?

My own answer is that is
likely that if the judicial system failed to pass any sentences, my
ability to control would be much more affected than if it passed
some, but that if the sentences tended to be too severe or too
liberally handed out (as in a police state), my ability to control
would also be more likely to be substantially reduced.

Again my purpose for the question was to see if somebody find it correct to
pass sentences on the basis of actions we seldom know are carried out with
purpose from the executants. I know that the judicial system uses The Test
and the judicial system asks if the actions are executed with purpose. But
nobody, neither the judicial system will ever know if the world out there
are analog to their perceptions.

I also think that sentences are results after occurrences in past. Nobody
can change what happened in the past, whether it was intended exercises or
side effects. Many of us, maybe everybody can change what we intend to do in
the future. Maybe the judicial system should take this for a basis.

The nearest way I can express an alternative is reconciliation that found
place in South Africa after Apartheid and the Gacaca after the genocide in
Rwanda. More like the reconciliation than like the Gacaca, looking more into
the future than into the past.

Should the journalists learn how to Test for Controlled quantities and

tell

people about criminal's purposes?

How would they do that?

The way we learn the Test in BCP. Of course it is difficult to execute the
Test, also time-consuming and maybe uncertain. Yes I thin journalists
should learn PCT and the Test.

Does it help to punish peoples bad actions?

Does it help whom, or what, and on what time-scale? That's a very
ill-defined question.

Yes it is time-consuming an difficult to ask questions. I appreciated the
way you answered questions above, where you told us how you understood the
questions and answered those versions.

When you ask whom it helped, I can't answer. There are too many parts
controlling different perceptions when they read the question.

There aren't easy answers to any of your questions, but I return to
my basic premise. You can only tell what people are controlling for
by observing their actions, whether or not you interact with then to
disturb their perceptions.

I agree with your answer, there is nothing else we can observe (that I
know). If we don't interact with them to disturb their perceptions, I don't
think we generally are able to know what their control system are
controlling.
We are not able to observe the controlled quantity when we study peoples bad
actions. We can just test hypothesis. And it is possible to get many answers
because the controlled quantity are defined as a function of several
observable variables and some of our disturbances may only weakly be
opposed.

You can only affect what they control by
affecting their environmental feedback paths (by altering the path or
by adding disturbances).

I am not sure how I can alter the paths in the loops you control, but I have
tried to add some disturbances.

And you can only control your own
perceptions, not anyone else's.

How do you think Marc and Rick will comment this sentence. One of them or
both could answer with counter control.
I think we can put a person into control of a certain perception, but I
don't think we can control their perceptions.

Bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,13:15 EUST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0920)

But why are they [newspapers] supposed to tell us
about actions, the exercisers don't control?
Isn't your answer a rest of behavioral way of thinking?

I don't think so. Newspapers are supposed to tell us what people are

doing.

Well you must help me. This is the way I define behaviorism:
Behaviorism is a theory of animal and human learning that only focuses on
objectively observable behaviors and discounts mental activities.
Isn't an account about what people are doing focusing on objectively
observable behavior.

How would a reporter know whether a particular
behavior, like leaking the name of a CIA agent, is an action (a means
to achieve a higher level goal, like punishing a critic of the
administration), an intended result in itself or an accidental side
effect? In fact, the leaking was probably both an action and an
intended result.

They could ask I. Lewis Libby Jr.

Of course, the people who did it want us to believe
that it was an accidental side effect --a case where the leaker didn't
know the information was secret. In fact, we don't really know whether
the leak was an action, intended result or accident; we just have
opinions and some circumstantial evidence. I don't believe that the
role of a journalist is to determine whether some observed behavior,
like blowing a CIA agent's cover, is an action, intended result or
accidental side effect.

Well we know (or shall I say hypothesize, Martin) that living organisms
control their perceptions. They don't control their actions. Give me a
reason for reading something I don't know is an action, intended result or a
side effect. Well of course it is entertainment.

Back to my question. Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples
actions?

Again, the problem is that you can't tell, just by looking, whether
some behavior is an action, an intended result or an accidental side
effect.

Absolutely

TI think the first step in understanding behavior is to try to
describe what you see. Phenomena first! I think journalists are there
to describe phenomena, not to explain them.

I don't know TI, but we disagree about your last sentence.

Bjorn

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 5:21:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,11:15 EUST)]

Martin Taylor 2005.11.06.10.31

And you can only control your own perceptions, not anyone else’s.

How do you think Marc and Rick will comment this sentence. One of them or
both could answer with counter control.
I think we can put a person into control of a certain perception, but I
don’t think we can control their perceptions.

First, I don’t believe you can control someone else’s perceptions. What I think you can do is set the references other people should follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so. Second, I can influence your perceptions by disturbing you.

The tracking task & rubber band demo are examples of this.

Regards,

Marc

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,14:35 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

I think we can put a person into control of a certain perception, but I
don't think we can control their perceptions.

First, I don't believe you can control someone else's perceptions.

I think all on the list believe the same.

What I think you can do is set the references other people should
follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so.

What do you mean when you say you can set the reference on other people. Is
it a reference that doesn't exists?

Second, I can influence your perceptions by disturbing you.

I think all on the list believe the same.

Bjorn

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.07)]

<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.06.1730 CST)>

<Yes? Where did the Galilean say blessed be the catty?>

Bry, is this meant to be one of your contributions to this Net? Who is is meant to help with what?

Why not instead use some of your obvious intelligence to explore the HPCT issues that Bjorn, Fred or Tracy have raised? That might further our PCT understanding of the bahavior of human beings.

From ]Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0918)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 8:48:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,14:35 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

What I think you can do is set the references other people should
follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so.

What do you mean when you say you can set the reference on other people. Is
it a reference that doesn’t exists?

Of course the reference must exist. But the reference or I should say ‘a’ reference has been set by someone else.

In the rubber band demo I ask you to try to keep the knot over the dot. This is a reference you willingly take on as your own.

Regards,

Marc

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.07.940 EST)]

<Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,11:15 EUST)>

Should newspapers stop telling us about peoples actions?

All your examples of how our world could be different if we understood PCT as the preferred explanation of human behavior are marvelous. Will you be able to come to the China Conference?

I don’t think we will ever stop, nor should we, newspapers from reporting actions/observed behavior taken by people. We need to know the actions that have been observed in order to understand “what” happened.

What a more HPCT wise reporter could do that would help us understand the actions is to always try to determine “why” the person took those actions. This is essentially going up a level (hopefully more than one) to try to determine what reference variable was being controlled. This is where future different behavior can be identified which might still control the reference perception with less adverse consequences for the environment.

I am thinking that instead of reporting just that Ralph Wrong was arrested for “Driving Under the Influence,” the reporter might investigate the incident with Ralph and ask him “why” he was driving drunk. This might provide an opening to help Ralph not drive drunk again, be just as happy, and help society/environment avoid a wreck or death on the highway.

I would love to get into some of your other issues like punishment, or the injustice and ineffectiveness of our governmental and constitutional “rules of law,” but need to do some work today.

Best wishes from USA,

Kenny

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0930)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,13:15 EUST)]

Well we know (or shall I say hypothesize, Martin) that living organisms
control their perceptions. They don't control their actions.

The problem with this is that in a hierarchical system actions are at the
same time controlled results themselves. Consider a tracking task. In this
task the action used to keep the cursor in the reference state is not
"controlled" in the sense that the action (mouse position, say) will be
varied, as necessary, to keep the cursor at the reference.

But go down a level to the system that is controlling mouse position
(relative to the reference being set by the cursor control system) and you
see that this action _is_ most definitely controlled, with variations in
muscle force being the action that controls the perception of mouse
position. If mouse position is disturbed -- when the mouse hits a sticky
point on the desk, say -- the muscle tension will vary as necessary to bring
the mouse to the intended position.

So here is a clear example of an "action" (mouse movement) that is _both_ an
action (relative to the cursor control system) and a controlled result of
action (perception of mouse position is controlled relative to a varying
reference for mouse position by variation in muscle tension).

Only when we get to the lowest level of the hierarchy of control -- to the
muscle tensions themselves -- are we getting to uncontrolled actions. Since
we don't usually see varying muscle tensions, we never really see "pure"
actions when we look at people's behavior. So virtually every action that we
see is also a controlled result of action. A behavior like throwing a
Molotov cocktail is both an action (relative to the higher order goal of
creating damage) and a controlled result (the throw itself is controlled and
any disturbance to the throw will be resisted).

In a hierarchy of control, the terms "action" and "controlled result" are
relative terms. What is an action at one level is a controlled result at the
next lower level. An observed behavioral variable (such as mouse movement)
is an _action_ to the extent that it is part of the means of achieving a
higher order goal and it is a _controlled result_ to the extent that there
is a goal for the state of that variable and there are lower level behaviors
(muscle tensions) that bring the variable to the reference and protect it
from disturbance.

This is why I think it makes no sense to say that journalists should report
only actions. Unless they are reporting on the variations in people's muscle
tensions, every behavior that journalists describe is simultaneously an
action and a controlled result (unless it is an accidental side effect, in
which case it is neither).

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 Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.07.1145 CST)]

Hey team,

Regarding controling behavior or perceptions when the thing of interest to the observer is a behavior.

Simple. The action or behavior happening out there in the environment of a control system (at level system image, principle, program, even lower, within a living control system or in its physical or chemical environment) becomes a part of the perceptual input signal.

So, as I am holding my cup, and bring it too my lips, yes, I am controlling the perception of the hand/cup/lip/sip, but also there is the implicit control of what I am doing. But the action or behavior is not controlled, only the perception of it.

It may seem to the observer, even the person doing the controlling, that the thing controlled there, but its really all B:CP.

That was much easier than past posts.

--B.

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1355 EST)] -

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.07.1145 CST)]

Hey team,

Regarding controling behavior or perceptions when the thing of
interest to the observer is a behavior.

Simple. The action or behavior happening out there in the environment
of a control system (at level system image, principle, program, even
lower, within a living control system or in its physical or chemical
environment) becomes a part of the perceptual input signal.

So, as I am holding my cup, and bring it too my lips, yes, I am
controlling the perception of the hand/cup/lip/sip, but also there is
the implicit control of what I am doing. But the action or behavior is
not controlled, only the perception of it.

It may seem to the observer, even the person doing the controlling,
that the thing controlled there, but its really all B:CP.

I understand what you're saying, Bryan, and I agree with it. I'm simply trying to point out that a lot of folks aren't too terribly interested in the distinction between controlling their behavior versus controlling their perceptions of it. Indeed, most people I know will happily admit that all we know of our world we know through our senses, through our perceptions. And if you press them to acknowledge that they don't really control what's out there, only their perceptions of it, most of them (including me on many occasions) will give you an odd look, shrug, and say, "Sure. So what?" Why? Because unless our perceptions are totally divorced from any kind of objective reality, me thinking that I'm controlling my behavior so as to grasp that coffee cup, raise it to my lips, take a sip and put it back down, presents no practical problem and a PCT view of that same action offers no practical advantage.

BUT (and that's a big but), when we shift our attention from controlling our own behavior, actions, perceptions to controlling those of others, THEN we run into BIG problems and there PCT does offer some practical advantage.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at A Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.08,10:15 EUST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0920)
TI think the first step in understanding behavior is to try to
describe what you see. Phenomena first! I think journalists are there
to describe phenomena, not to explain them.
From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0930
This is why I think it makes no sense to say that journalists should report
only actions. Unless they are reporting on the variations in people's

muscle

tensions, every behavior that journalists describe is simultaneously an
action and a controlled result (unless it is an accidental side effect, in
which case it is neither).

First, who is TI. Then, I understand you mean "...it makes no sense to say
that journalists should report
only actions.", since this is written 10 minutes after "I think journalists
are there to describe phenomena, not to explain them.".

To conclude:

From Rick Marken (2005.11.06.0930)]

Well we know (or shall I say hypothesize, Martin) that living organisms
control their perceptions. They don't control their actions.

The problem with this is that in a hierarchical system actions are at the
same time controlled results themselves.

If I should say what I think you would said, then I would say: "In a
hierarchical system actions are results of controlled perceptions (not
controlled results). Then there is no problem.

This is why I think it makes no sense to say that journalists should report
only actions. Unless they are reporting on the variations in people's

muscle

tensions, every behavior that journalists describe is simultaneously an
action and a controlled result (unless it is an accidental side effect, in
which case it is neither).

I agree that journalists _not_ shall report only actions. But I will explain
it different.
When a journalist reports other people's improper actions, the writing is
the actions of the journalist.
The journalist is controlling his perceptions.
Controlling means producing repeatable consequences by variable actions.
Therefore his writing is the variable actions he is performing to produce
repeatable consequences. And these repeatable consequences are his
perceptions that cause the errors on different levels to be zero.

What I will like to read is the purpose and, if possible, the disturbances
that made the exerciser perform what I called improper actions.

Bjorn