Live and Learn

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
41

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.1050)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.08)--

<Rick Marken (2007.07.08.1340)>

<But what's the evidence you use to decide whether to accept or reject
that hypothesis.

I said I would provide it to you (and Dick, and anyone else who is
interested in such a discussion) at the Conference; not on this forum.

Why all the secrecy?

Deciding whether the Bible is true and trustworthy seems to me to require
considering its testimony against other reliable information. It is going
up a level saying, "Why is this testimony believable?"

In a way, yes. For me, going up a level involves realizing that it is
me (higher level systems in me) that is evaluating these words and
deciding what I like and what I don't like in them. It's the part of
me that dismissed what I see as bad examples of behavior in the bible
(such as God's terrorist activities in Egypt, his commanded genocide
of the Canaanites, his telling Abraham to kill his own son and Abraham
doing what he was told, etc) and agreeing with what I think are the
good examples (Esau's forgiveness of Jacob, Jesus' treatment of the
woman caught in adultery, etc).

I think that when you go up a level you will become aware of the fact
that it is you (your own references for principles and system
concepts) that is the reason why you perceive the Bible as "true", not
vice versa.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

42

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1518 CDT)]

Rick,

You know this whole thing about the Bible on CSGnet annoys me. But what annoys
me even more is having an impromptu discussion about it at the Conference. This
suggests that this topic is taking away from more productive scientific
discussions. The ONLY way to deal with this online, under the stairs, in a bar,
or over a dinner is as a series of discussions about perceptions, behaviors and
internal and interpersonal conflicts. You cannot talk about the "truth" of the
document, since that is a statement of faith, which by definition is not
accessible scientifically. You CAN talk about the psychology of fundamentalist
believers, and what kinds of perceptions, gain, and controlling behavior are
employed to damp down the conflict and maintain dichotomous perceptual systems
of belief, common sense, and scientific method without building up chronic error
and eventual shut-down.

"Why is the Bible believable" is a question one can ask. True. Just as one can
ask "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin." No. You cannot ask that
question in a scientific context. You must ask, "WHY do fundamentalists allow
themselves to control for biblical belief and not have a resultant shut down
(due to chronic error)" AND "HOW do they accomplish this (that is, what do they
sacrifice, and what do they lose intellectually)?" Why goes up the hierarcy to
the system image (no further), and how goes down to bio/chemical interactions.

My assertion is that to start the discussion of the Bible as provable a priori
through affirmation or witnessing by believers is tainted with subject bias and
perhaps even experimenter bias. Also, by definition, a belief is not able to be
refuted and is not testable. Therefore, we have to start with the perceptions,
error and behavior variables and decide what in the system image sets the
references for undocumentable perceptions (spirits, ghosts, and goblins) and the
behavior that maintains them. I would suggest again Dick's study as a starter,
The Self as a Control System. All the pieces are there to do a study to
determine the components of the system image, the principles, the programs used
to enforce belief (in oneself or in others, hah).

No need to discuss the relative goodness of the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, or
the KJV vs. a 21st Century translation vs. the actual first-source Greek, Hebrew
and Aramaic. No need to metaphysically deal with beliefs, or philosophically
sift through the many contradicting and undocumented events in the document.

You are interested in Behavior: Control of Perception? Dick has some of the
methods, and I believe that Tim Carey's MOL should provide you with some other
insights.

It is psychology or behavior, not belief that you are testing.

Cheeeeeeeeeeers,

--Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2007.07.09.1050)]

> Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.08)--
>
> <Rick Marken (2007.07.08.1340)>
>
> <But what's the evidence you use to decide whether to accept or reject
> that hypothesis.

> I said I would provide it to you (and Dick, and anyone else who is
> interested in such a discussion) at the Conference; not on this forum.

Why all the secrecy?

> Deciding whether the Bible is true and trustworthy seems to me to require
> considering its testimony against other reliable information. It is going
> up a level saying, "Why is this testimony believable?"

In a way, yes. For me, going up a level involves realizing that it is
me (higher level systems in me) that is evaluating these words and
deciding what I like and what I don't like in them. It's the part of
me that dismissed what I see as bad examples of behavior in the bible
(such as God's terrorist activities in Egypt, his commanded genocide
of the Canaanites, his telling Abraham to kill his own son and Abraham
doing what he was told, etc) and agreeing with what I think are the
good examples (Esau's forgiveness of Jacob, Jesus' treatment of the
woman caught in adultery, etc).

I think that when you go up a level you will become aware of the fact
that it is you (your own references for principles and system
concepts) that is the reason why you perceive the Bible as "true", not
vice versa.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

43

[From Bruce Nevin (2007.07.09.1747 EDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1518 CDT) --

I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, but ...

  You CAN talk about ... what kinds of perceptions,
  gain, and controlling behavior are employed
  to damp down the conflict and maintain dichotomous
  perceptual systems of belief, common sense, and
  scientific method without building up chronic error
  and eventual shut-down.

Hold on there, pardner. There are some hefty assumptions in there.

It is perfectly possible to sustain error over protracted periods, more
so the higher in the hierarchy you go. Even at the level of sequence and
program control you don't zoom out of your driveway at maximum speed
just because of the size of the difference between destination and
present location when you're starting out on a long trip.

Different people observably differ in their tolerance for uncertainty
and ambiguity, and their capacity to keep the jury out entertaining more
than one explanation or theory or cosmology. I've mentioned Rokeach
before in this connection (_The Open and Closed Mind_.) This may amount
to the gain with which we control perceptions like closure and certainty
in what we are pleased to call system concept perceptions. (Hmm. Are
Closure, Certainty, "Elegance," etc. labels for systems concepts about
systems concepts?)

Given the open-endedness of science, closure and certainty are always
premature comforts. IMO it's the demand for closure and for the comfort
of certainty that marks the fundamentalist, whether religious,
political, scientistic, or just plain defying all categories stuck in
the mud like some good ol' buddies I've known through the years. As my
grandpa used to say, people are funny monkeys.

  /BN

44

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.1400)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1518 CDT)--

Hi Bryan

The ONLY way to deal with this online, under the stairs, in a bar,
or over a dinner is as a series of discussions about perceptions, behaviors and
internal and interpersonal conflicts. You cannot talk about the "truth" of the
document, since that is a statement of faith, which by definition is not
accessible scientifically.

I basically disagree. Faith is something people "do" so it should be
understandable in terms of PCT. Actually, since PCT is about
everything people do, it is also about doing PCT. One of the nice
things about PCT is it explains itself;-)

You CAN talk about the psychology of fundamentalist
believers, and what kinds of perceptions, gain, and controlling behavior are
employed to damp down the conflict and maintain dichotomous perceptual systems
of belief, common sense, and scientific method without building up chronic error
and eventual shut-down.

Sure. But we've got some actual fundamentalist believers right here on
CSGNet so why not study them instead of just talking theory?

My assertion is that to start the discussion of the Bible as provable a priori
through affirmation or witnessing by believers is tainted with subject bias and
perhaps even experimenter bias.

It's the "subject bias" that we're actually after in MOL, I think. The
experimenter (guide) does have to try to keep his/her bias (which is
basically his/her interest in the subject matter) out of it, but this
is true of MOL on any topic, from the truth of the bible to whether a
person's spouse is truly faithful. The focus has to be on helping the
person see things form a new perspective; not getting them to see
things the "right" way.

Also, by definition, a belief is not able to be
refuted and is not testable.

Right. But believing is something people do so it's a legitimate
subject of study.

You are interested in Behavior: Control of Perception? Dick has some of the
methods, and I believe that Tim Carey's MOL should provide you with some other
insights.

I agree.

It is psychology or behavior, not belief that you are testing.

It is not the correctness or goodness of the belief that we are
testing. We are trying to get at why the belief is being controlled
for.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

45

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1600 CDT)]

Bruce, sure they are. There are hefty assumptions there. People CAN be observed
to talk about things indicating a long and protracted chronic error.

Below I was providing an example of different types of conflicts among beliefs,
common sense explanations and The Method.

My only questions were WHY and HOW. Also, I stated that Dick and Tim very likely
can inform on an experimental design. However, I would be unwilling to accept an
experimental design that tested the nature of the beliefs. Can't do it. Spirit,
which by definition, doesn't exist (IN THE ORDINARY WORLD).

So, yes, I too agree with what you said, that fundamentalism has many flavors,
and that it can be due to some real human/monkey characteristics that people
maintain beliefs in the face of insurmountable evidence. I even have some
squirrels in the backyard who continue to bow down to me as I present them their
holy peanut cookies. I can't figure it out why they don't stand there, lean
against the tree and tap their foot until I throw out a holy cookie.

Hm.

--Bryan

Thanks for your response.

···

[Bruce Nevin (2007.07.09.1747 EDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1518 CDT) --

I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, but ...

  You CAN talk about ... what kinds of perceptions,
  gain, and controlling behavior are employed
  to damp down the conflict and maintain dichotomous
  perceptual systems of belief, common sense, and
  scientific method without building up chronic error
  and eventual shut-down.

Hold on there, pardner. There are some hefty assumptions in there.

It is perfectly possible to sustain error over protracted periods, more
so the higher in the hierarchy you go. Even at the level of sequence and
program control you don't zoom out of your driveway at maximum speed
just because of the size of the difference between destination and
present location when you're starting out on a long trip.

Different people observably differ in their tolerance for uncertainty
and ambiguity, and their capacity to keep the jury out entertaining more
than one explanation or theory or cosmology. I've mentioned Rokeach
before in this connection (_The Open and Closed Mind_.) This may amount
to the gain with which we control perceptions like closure and certainty
in what we are pleased to call system concept perceptions. (Hmm. Are
Closure, Certainty, "Elegance," etc. labels for systems concepts about
systems concepts?)

Given the open-endedness of science, closure and certainty are always
premature comforts. IMO it's the demand for closure and for the comfort
of certainty that marks the fundamentalist, whether religious,
political, scientistic, or just plain defying all categories stuck in
the mud like some good ol' buddies I've known through the years. As my
grandpa used to say, people are funny monkeys.

  /BN

46

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1620 CDT)]

I basically AGREE with you. You test what fundies DO with their belief, but you
have no way to test the nature of the belief itself. That behavior should be
understandable in terms of PCT. So I have no problem testing fundie behavior,
but I do question the value of discussing the relative values of a belief in the
supernatural scientifically, since by definition it is not accessible.

Studying a single fundie will undoubtedly result in recrimination and bad
feelings, and I don't think, except in a very open session with a person like
Bill Moyers as interviewer, that it would work. What is needed is a group of
self-identified fundies with a control, let's say for a group of people who
believe in astrology or numerology. However, I would add that the cultural or
social groups would differ since fundies have a more supportive culture and
astrologists and numerologists may function more as isolates. But I am not sure,
I am only suggesting that culture is very important to consider when determining
a good control group.

Regarding bias, I do agree that in the MOL you study bias. Yes, I get you there.
However, I wonder if there is a potential for the Hawthorne Effect here, where
fundie subjects might act differently than when they were in their own
environment. Also, an experiment conducted by a fundie on fundie beliefs might
be badly constructed to support the belief rather than taking the basic
scientific stance of the null hypothesis. All this talk of a 12th level suggests
that an experiment that proves the 12th level might be proposed, and I would be
against it.

I do disagree further down. You cannot scientifically study the correctness or
goodness of a belief. You can only study the behavior of two or more people as
they determine what they think is more correct or more good. The subject of a
belief is beyond testing.

I would like to see an experimental design from Dick on this. I wish that Tim
was posting, so he could offer his comments. I am not as yet familiar with his
book.

--Bryan

···

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.09.1400)]

> Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.09BD.1518 CDT)--

Hi Bryan

> The ONLY way to deal with this online, under the stairs, in a bar,
> or over a dinner is as a series of discussions about perceptions, behaviors
and
> internal and interpersonal conflicts. You cannot talk about the "truth" of
the
> document, since that is a statement of faith, which by definition is not
> accessible scientifically.

I basically disagree. Faith is something people "do" so it should be
understandable in terms of PCT. Actually, since PCT is about
everything people do, it is also about doing PCT. One of the nice
things about PCT is it explains itself;-)

> You CAN talk about the psychology of fundamentalist
> believers, and what kinds of perceptions, gain, and controlling behavior
are
> employed to damp down the conflict and maintain dichotomous perceptual
systems
> of belief, common sense, and scientific method without building up chronic
error
> and eventual shut-down.

Sure. But we've got some actual fundamentalist believers right here on
CSGNet so why not study them instead of just talking theory?

> My assertion is that to start the discussion of the Bible as provable a
priori
> through affirmation or witnessing by believers is tainted with subject bias
and
> perhaps even experimenter bias.

It's the "subject bias" that we're actually after in MOL, I think. The
experimenter (guide) does have to try to keep his/her bias (which is
basically his/her interest in the subject matter) out of it, but this
is true of MOL on any topic, from the truth of the bible to whether a
person's spouse is truly faithful. The focus has to be on helping the
person see things form a new perspective; not getting them to see
things the "right" way.

> Also, by definition, a belief is not able to be
> refuted and is not testable.

Right. But believing is something people do so it's a legitimate
subject of study.

> You are interested in Behavior: Control of Perception? Dick has some of the
> methods, and I believe that Tim Carey's MOL should provide you with some
other
> insights.

I agree.

> It is psychology or behavior, not belief that you are testing.

It is not the correctness or goodness of the belief that we are
testing. We are trying to get at why the belief is being controlled
for.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

47

[Martin Taylor 2007.07.15.11.28]

Back again, sort of, and skimming through far more CSGnet postings than I would have expected. I've come across much that I want to comment on, but until I get to the end of them I don't know what other comments have already been made. And I'm off again in a couple of weeks, so I may not get around to them before that.

However, the following caught my eye just now, as it relates to some thinking I've been doing about the evolution and cultural propagation of things like religious beliefs and antagonisms, which go back at least to the climate-change-induced origins of the Mesopotamian cities 5500 years ago or thereabouts. That is, though it may not seem so on the face of it, a PCT-relevant discussion, but now is not the time for it (for me).

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.03.0830)] To:

Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.02)--

What I still
would like to hear, though, is _why_ you think the Bible is true. That
is more interesting to me than whether God exists (or, for that
matter, whether the Bible is true or not) because it is basically the
method of levels. When you ask "why" one is doing (controlling for)
something (like believing that the Bible is true or that God exists or
that PCT is a good model of human nature) you are trying to get to the
higher level systems (or, equivalently, the background point of view)
that is setting the references for those control systems.

So, again, why do you think the Bible is true?

Two questions are implicit in this. Perhaps the ambiguity was deliberate.

1. What is the evidence leading you to the perception that the Bible is true?

2. Why are you controlling for a perception of the truth of the Bible at the level "it is true"? (Going up a level)

The question as asked is #1. The question as implied by the preceding paragraph is #2.

If question #2 is intended, I can ask in the manner of #1: "What, Rick, is the evidence that Kenny (or anyone else) is controlling for a perception of the truth of the Bible at a level {true | partly true

false}." What Test for the Controlled Variable might one apply?

What disturbance (I imagine in the form of evidence contrary to the supposed reference condition) might be attempted by the Tester? Has this been done in any particular case?

If question version #1 is intended, I can ask Rick (going up a level in the manner of #2) why the cited paragraph was written? Which kvetch is being scratched?

···

-------------

Sorry if this duplicates something written subsequently that I haven't yet reached in my skim.

Martin

48

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.15.1030)]

Martin Taylor (2007.07.15.11.28)--

Rick Marken (2007.07.03.0830)] To Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.02)--

> What I still
>would like to hear, though, is _why_ you think the Bible is true.

Two questions are implicit in this. Perhaps the ambiguity was deliberate.

Somewhat. I was just seeing if I could get a quasi MOL session going;
try to get at any background thoughts behind the thought that the
"Bible is true". But you can't get at a person's background thoughts
if they won't talk about the foreground thought. So I think the MOL
session with Kenny is over.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

49

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.03.1132)]

Yes, as I say in my subject line we all live and learn, and I am no exception.

In reflecting back on my participation in CSGnet I can see where I made some major mistakes. No, not in my use of the English language, but in my blindness to the consequences of my efforts to control.

No, this is not a confessional, but if I can share some insights of myself others might benefit and maybe we can all move ahead and avoid some of these things in the future.

Most of what you will read here has come to me in the last couple of months, and again, I am not trying to excuse what has happened, just trying to explain it.

My differences with Bill Powers and his theory have been well documented and in fact probably to well documented.

I really didn’t give Bill a fair chance and here is why. In questioning the validity of his ideas the way I did I put him on the defensive, but more importantly if he thought I had any credibility that would mean he may actually be wrong, and so,me of his ideas misplaced, and as a controller (like us all) he could not tolerate that big of a disturbance, so he made me into a moron and villain who could be easily dismissed in his mind, like he does with all the folks who have questions and concerns about his theory. I was out to destroy him and my barking about the shortcomings I saw in PCT was proof of that. End of discussion.

If I really cared, I would be nice and make believe I thought everything was ok, and in a sense he is right.

I could have more profitably tried talking about things that interested me instead of talking about how to ‘improve’ PCT, when in fact PCT was never intended to address the questions I have and in the areas I happen to be interested in, which is cognition.

Being forthright and honest is important, but it must be done with a view & concern of other folks as well. I had a great deal of respect for Bill and I thought he knew that, but that mattered little.

Bill is not blameless in all this. His track record is a poor one when it comes to dealing with people who do not share his views. Tolerance in the Markin sense does no one any good, and you can’t fake respect.

Thinking other people have credible ideas are important when you want their cooperation. I don’t share many of Rick’s or Bill’s views but then again, I’m not Bill or Rick, so I don’t need to.

I’ve come to realize that Rick and Bill are not ‘bad’ people. Just controllers who desperately want to keep their beliefs in tack and remain in control, and in that way, if I’m not ostracized & condemed I do represent a huge threat to them. But I never saw it that way, and now I do see it.

I have nothing to apologize for because I never intended to cause anyone any harm or distrust, and in fact if either Bill or Rick, ever really wanted too they could have found this out very quickly, but again, it had little to do with my actual intent, because even if I may be right, that means they may be wrong, and that is something Bill and Rick simply cannot tolerate, and something I should never have made an issue of.

It is extremely unfortunate that we put ourselves into this win/lose position of controlling, only to find out, that by ‘winning’ we probably destroy any hope of getting the cooperation we want from the people you want it from, and here I can safely say that for both of us.

Regards,

Marc