# keeping a commitment

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/keeping-a-commitment/14103>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [December 10, 1999, 2:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/keeping-a-commitment/14103 "1999-12-10T14:56:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 1999, 2:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/keeping-a-commitment/14103/1 "1999-12-10T14:56:47Z")

</div>

[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](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 1999, 9:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/keeping-a-commitment/14103/2 "1999-12-10T21:40:20Z")

</div>

[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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8baadc/32.png) [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 9:22am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/keeping-a-commitment/14103/3 "1999-12-11T09:22:10Z")

</div>

[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