From Greg Williams (920916)
Bill Powers (920915.2000)
[on influence in general]
Clearly, it's the environment that determines what the organism must
learn, because the effects of the organism's actions on its own
critical variables is mediated by the environment.
So the environment "determines" what the organism must learn? I thought you
earlier said that the organism (ALONE) determined it. If you really mean what
you say here (and I would be happy with your broadening it to "the environment
and the organism co-determine" what the organism must learn), I'm happy. This
is truly a Big Step away from organismism.
Yet we can certainly say that the environment influences E. coli.
That's what I've been saying PCT says! And that provides a path to bridge-
building to the ideology of environmentalism, eventually (I propose) resulting
in a new PCT-based ideology of NEITHER radical environmentalism NOR radical
autonomism, but a middle road which is supported by common sense notions as
well as PCT science.
But have any of these influences actually changed E. coli in any way?
No.
Oh, come on. They haven't influenced SOME of properties of E. coli, but they
HAVE influenced others. That's OBVIOUS. You can argue, of course, about which
properties are more "important" than others from various standpoints, but
your statement as it stands is simply incorrect.
Of course the organism may fail to deal with the challenges of natural
disturbances. If so, it will die. Then the environment can't even
influence its behavior. Its behavior has stopped. No external event
can get it going again.
That, of course, is irrelevant to the idea that even an organism's non-living
environment has significant influences on the LIVING organism -- significant
enough to sometimes (temporarily or even permanently) prevent control by the
organism.
Both science and common sense have become obsessed with what the world can do
to organisms, from evolution to everyday stimuli.
I agree. But I think the solution to this problem isn't swinging to the
opposite ideology of radical individualism.
···
-----
[on purposive influence]
Because the environment, including the total system of the person to be
affected, is always in flux, producing a given disturbing action will never
have the same effect twice in a row. So there can be no set formula of action
for having a desired effect.
Often, the "flux" isn't very important, and so actions needn't be altered very
much to achieve the same purposive influence repeatedly.
All that can be done is to monitor the aspect of the other's behavior that you
want to affect and vary your actions until you see what you want or fail.
Before that, you can try to understand how the other controls; with a good --
not necessarily detailed -- model of the others' controlling, it won't be such
a difficult, trial-and-error process as you make it out to be.
Having an effect is most easily done when the effect you want to see
is of no consequence to the influenced person.
Actually, many times it would be easier if the influencee WANTS (a lot) what
you offer!
You don't have to understand control theory to find such effects. All you
have to do is experiment and remember.
PCT provides a theoretical underpinning and, I suspect, as we get into greater
details (of HPCT), might provide practical tips to enhance the success of
purposive influence...
Applying the Test is a perfectly natural procedure that people use all the
time. They just don't put their conclusions into a theoretical framework, so
they usually miss seeing what the other person is controlling for. What they
see is action and reaction. That is quite valid as an empirical observation,
even if it does give a false picture of cause and effect.
... and PCT could help to clear up such misunderstandings...
This is done all the time. Almost invariably, it leads to conflict.
... and PCT could help prevent conflict by showing the way toward improved
success in human interactions WITHOUT conflict.
It is rare, I think, that any protracted use of this method on an individual
can avoid creating situations in which the controllee is caused an
inconvenience or worse by these attempts at control. The seething violence
that we see all around the world is the direct result of failures of this
method of controlling people.
To the contrary, I think no-conflict, successful instances of purposive
influence are the rule, not the exception. Perhaps violence is most often the
result of would-be purposive influencers being rather poor at influencing, and
then giving up and pulling out the bazooka. An understanding of PCT principles
underlying the requirements for SUCCESSFUL purposive influence (first and
foremost, give the influencee what he/she wants) could help to remedy this
unfortunate problem of inept purposive influence.
What makes this method of control fail is that it is invariably done
for the good of the controller, not for the good of the controlled.
Exactly -- to be successful, it must be done for the good (as perceived by
each, respectively) of both. That's what PCT says. When will would-be
purposive influencers come to realize this fundamental fact? It will help if
they understand PCT basics. (An aside: for POSITIVE purposive influence --
"facilitation" -- to work, the influencee must want what is "offered" by the
influencer WITHOUT "catches"; for NEGATIVE purposive influence --
"exploitation" -- to work, the influencee must want what is PUTATIVELY
offered, not what is offered IN TOTO. I don't think knowing PCT basics will
stop some purposive influencers from trying to be exploiters, but it might
help to warn marks about what to watch out for.)
Theoretically, it's possible for one person with unlimited resources
and time to learn enough about another person's control structure to
elicit any desired behavior from that person without inducing errors
that would create resistance. The controller, in effect, would become
the means by which all the controllee's wants and needs are satisfied.
This, of course, is NOT what I've been talking about, or advocating.
This is a totally unrealistic scenario. It has never been even
remotely approached.
I agree. I'm not talking about putting you in a Skinner box.
What has happened is that every attempt at controlling another eventually
arrives at the point where avoiding inconvenience to the other person is just
too inconvenient.
Impasse time, again. Your "every"s and "all"s are just too much for me to buy,
because I don't see them being supported either empirically or by PCT science.
Civilized give-and-take works only for trivial things, things that are really
optional, that matter only in a sort of hypothetical way, like manners.
Well, I suppose non-violent family interactions, education, politics,
advertising, interactions in the workplace, etc., etc., ARE in the last
analysis "optional." What isn't optional is dying if your head is blown off by
some guy who escalates from purposive influence to violence because he never
heard of PCT.
So how do we take care of our young, get along with our friends, teach people
things that will be useful to them, help people in trouble, persuade others to
do things our way, all without starting down that road that ends in violent
antagonism and chaos? I think there are ways. I think that PCT can help us
find them. But to find those ways we have to break with the old mind-set, and
we have to stop looking for justifications of the way we're already doing
things. The way we're already doing things, no matter now nice and logical and
right it may seem, has given us the world we live in, which is approaching a
state of total failure.
I agree completely.
This is why I have so little motive to establish links between PCT and more
traditional approaches.
This is why I have so great motive to establish what PCT science says about
purposive influence -- a pervasive, significant phenomenon in human
interaction which all too often is unsuccessful, setting the stage for
violence. This also leads to one final thought: successful purposive influence
among humans might be NECESSARY (if violence is to be avoided) simply because
it is virtually impossible that everyone who interacts will naturally have the
same reference levels -- thus, we each must try to come to an (always partial,
but good enough to avoid violence) understanding of what others want, and
"give" them some of what they want in order to get some of what we want. All
along, I've not been trying to justify purposive influence, but to explain it.
Now it looks like our radical individualities might justify promoting positive
purposive influence as a way to reduce violent attempts at controlling people.
An alternative to the traditional approaches of thinking about purposive
influence -- namely, PCT -- could be the key to showing people how to be more
successful purposive influencers, so they wouldn't be compelled to use
violence.
Optimistically,
Greg