# Machines, Criticism

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/machines-criticism/6663>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [December 28, 1995, 5:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/machines-criticism/6663 "1995-12-28T17:52:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 1995, 5:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/machines-criticism/6663/1 "1995-12-28T17:52:37Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (951228.1000)]

Bob Clark (951227.1736 EDT) --

> it seems likely that you have all noticed that we are faced with the Turing  
> Test Situation whenever we "look at" the "Net."

The only difference is that I don't ask myself whether other posters are  
machines; I assume they are;-)

Actually, it doesn't really matter to me whether other posters are machines  
or not; I just go about my business, controlling for whatever it is I'm  
controlling for; compensating for the disturbances created by the posts  
posted by the other posters, be they machines or people.

But my informal Tests suggest to me that all the posters on this net are most  
definitely control systems. Whether they are living control systems or  
artifacts, I don't know. But they are most defintely control systems; they  
persistently control for certain rather obvious perceptions (such as the  
perception that reinforcement theory can't be \_all\_ wrong or the perception  
that tests of control theory require a new apporach to behavioral research)  
and maintain these perceptions in reference states against disturbance.

So, whether the other posters on the net are people or machines, they are  
surely control systems.

Ed Ford (951219)--

> Criticism kills initiative

Hank Folson (951228) --

> I first saw this as very un-PCT.

It seemed like it to me too. Criticism is, if anything, a disturbance to a  
controlled variable. Criticism might create error (if the person is unable to  
effectively compensate for it) and persistent criticism might create  
persistent error, leading the person to reorganize and, possibly, stop trying  
to control the variable being disturbed by the criticism. This would look  
like a loss of initiative (initiative being seen in the obvious attempt to  
control the criticized variable) so maybe there is a sense in which  
persistent criticism might lead to what can appear to be "loss of  
initiative". But it doesn't work in the cause-effect way that I'm sure was  
unintentionally suggesed by Ed's statement.

> I now see that your point is that criticism is not an effective way to deal  
> with people.

I think this is a VERY important issue; how do we "deal with people" without  
criticism? This is a difficult problem because "dealing with people" implies  
that something they are doing is a disturbance to something for which we are  
controlling . Your example of the kid with the gun at school is a good one;  
most people (not all, unfortunately) would want to "deal with this kid"  
because a child carrying a gun to school is a disturbance to what most people  
want to perceive as the way kids should behave in school. Criticizing the kid  
is one approach to trying to control this perception; another approach might  
be simply siezing the gun or expelling the child or "reasoning it through  
with the kid". Whatever we do, however -- criticize, use force, reason -- the  
goal is to control our perception of the behavior of another control system;  
we won't be satisfied if the kid keeps coming to school with a loaded gun.

So the question is "how do you deal with the kid with the gun"? I don't think  
PCT has an answer. All PCT can tell you is that you are trying to control  
another control system (the kid) and that problems will arise when you do  
this. PCT does suggests that the gun is probably being carried as part of an  
effort to control another variable; if so, then it might be possible (as Hank  
suggests) to determine what variable the kid is trying to control by  
carrying the gun and to suggest alternative ways to control this variable  
that might be acceptable to both the kid and oneself.

But it is not guaranteed that offering alternative ways to control a variable  
will result in success when you "deal with others". And when you offer such  
alternatives, it is difficult to avoid having the person your are "dealing  
with" notice that you are implicitly "criticizing" the currently selected  
alternative.

Best

Rick