keeping a commitment

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (991210.1500)]

Bruce Nevin (991210.1640 EST)--

What are we trying to model here?

That's a good question. If "getting a kid to make a commitment"
means anything other than "getting a kid to control of a
particular perception" then my spreadsheet demonstration is
irrelevant. For example, the spreadsheet demonstration is
irrelevant if "getting a kid to make a commitment" means
"getting a kid to learn to control the principle of quid
pro quo". This seems to be the point of your post. For
example, you say:

As means of controlling a self-concept, a principle of
keeping commitments or maintaining the reciprocity of reliable
social relationships is controlled by means of some particular
interaction with other people.

And I agree. Commitments are principle perceptions. And, as you
note, we control commitments _as the means_ of controlling
system (social) type perceptions, like "being an American".

But even in this case, the higher level systems that control
for social perceptions must be able to vary the reference for
the perception of a commitment in order to control for the
social perception. For example, you must be able to vary your
level of commitment to following some of the rules of your
country (such as the old Jim Crow rules in the South) if
maintaining a high level of commitment to those rules makes
you feel less American.

This, of course, is the wisdom of Bill's koan:

There are very good reasons for keeping a committment,
which makes them [the reasons] more important than
keeping a comittment.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

2

[From Bruce Nevin (991210.1640 EST)]

What are we trying to model here?

Rick has said that keeping a commitment means setting a reference signal to
a constant value, and has demonstrated with a very nice spreadsheet
simulation how a fixed reference does not work.

Suppose a bully who is much stronger than you is holding your arm pinned to
a table. This is the canonical scenario for coercion. There seems to be a
constant reference value "arm on table".

But is this what is meant by keeping a commitment? Or is a fixed reference
on level 2 of a 3-level hierarchy what is meant by keeping a commitment?

In real life, that reference perception "arm on table" remains constant
until the bully gets bored, tired, distracted, has achieved the
higher-level purpose for which the coercion was the means (such as
establishing a threat), or for some other reason changes it. What
higher-level perception is controlled by means of keeping a commitment,
such as a commitment not to interfere with others in a classroom, or a
commitment to send greeting cards every year?

I think a commitment starts at the highest level. As means of controlling a
self-concept, a principle of keeping commitments or maintaining the
reciprocity of reliable social relationships is controlled by means of some
particular interaction with other people. Control may fail due to
disturbances, conflict, or insufficient gain in one or more loops in the
hierarchy. The reference values are relatively more constant, that is,
slower to change, the higher you go in the hierarchy. The reference for
keeping commitments may change, slowly, from the self-concept level.

To keep a commitment one must first make one. I referred to this as
"maintaining the reciprocity of reliable social relationships." Individuals
make commitments to relatives, friends and allies, not to strangers and
enemies. Friendships may fade, allies and even relatives may become
estranged. With such changes, a particular commitment may be reassessed
without any change to the principle of keeping commitments.

So commitments are part of "civility" and "being considerate" and
"reliability" in the expectation and desire that others should be civil and
considerate and reliable back -- the reciprocity of reliable social
relationships.

You don't need to model language to get at this. You need a program that
says if somebody gives me a benefit, I owe them a benefit, and vice versa.
A perception that assisting in a task that requires cooperation is a
benefit of this sort. Control of some perception, such that the means of
control require the cooperation of another.

  Bruce Nevin

3

[From Bjoern Simonsen(991211.10:15 EU-time)]

[From Rick Marken (991210.1940)]

This is a trifle.

And I agree. Commitments are principle perceptions. And, as you
note, we control commitments _as the means_ of controlling
system (social) type perceptions, like "being an American".

Do I misunderstand if the commitment: "If I disturb the learning for other pupils, I choose to go to the RTC" is a Program perception. I feel that principles normally govern commitments. But I agree with Bruce Nevin when he says that references for Commitments also are System concepts.

Bjoern

I manage what I choose

E-mail bsimonse@c2i.net