Madness in the Levels

G_T_Wierzbicki · December 24, 1998, 1:47pm

[From Greg Wierzbicki (981224.0845 edt)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)]
>
> > Further
> > the reaction to Clinton's "lying" and the indifference to
> Reagan's and
> > Livingston's "lying" supports this view.
>
> And so, at long last, is it really "indifference to
> lying" which is to become
> the control variable grail of advanced society?

I don't understand this question.

Sorry, let me try to clarify. First, it seems that your asserted Republican
"indifference to lying" in the cases of Livingston and Reagan is hardly proved.
Isn't it possible that there might be a difference between Clinton and
Livingston and/or Reagan? Isn't it possible, at least, that a perceived
difference might be present among a subset of people who call themselves
Republicans?

Now, on the hand, isn't also possible that some of those people who identify
with Republican ideals might not be so indifferent, but rather liars themselves
who are attempting to favorably "spin" your & my perception of the Livingston &
Reagan cases themselves with lies, or coverups or outrageoous excuses?

So, just how is your asserted "indifference to lying" proved in this case?

But further, even allowing for the possible existence of such Republican
indifference, then so what? Is that the standard an advanced society (not that
I'd claim we're too advanced, mind you) should advocate? "Well, if it's good
enough for the Republicans, then it's good enough for the Democrats!" Sounds
like a lot of nonsense to one who is not willing to be aligned with the
pathological dogma of either party. And hence my question to you (sarcastic
comment?) about indifference to lying becoming the implicit standard (control
variable grail) of advanced society.

> > Republican's believe
> > whatever is convenient to believe in order to maintain their base
> > support.
>
> OK, perhaps. But how is this different from say,
> groups of Democrats, or
> conservatives, or liberals, or straight men, or Catholics, or Jews, or
> homosexual women, or control system thinkers, or...or...or...?

Politicians are concerned primarily with the power they are able to
exercise as a result of their ability to be elected. Democrats are no
different than Republicans in this regard. It may be that the other
groups you mention are in a similar circumstance, but I am unaware that
this is the case.
I happen to prefer the Democratic to the Republican base, but this is a
personal preference. It may even be genetic in origin.

OK, but what do you mean by what Republicans believe? Are you suggesting they
all believe the same thing? I doubt it. And, what's to prevent them from
lying to us about what they believe? Not to quibble, but it's likely (isn't
it?) that there's a variety of beliefs among members of the party (or religion,
or social group, or subject matter discipline) some of which never see the light
of day on the nightly news (or other).

I jump in at this time because it seems to me that PCT has a lot to say about
the "stuff" which has preoccuppied our national media/politicos of late, but
nobody seems to paying much attention. Instead we (the nation) seem incapable
of having a competent discussion on the matter. We rehash the same BS and make
the same mistakes repeatedly; almost as if we're controlling for ignorance, or
at least non-truth (aka lying?).

Looking to CSGnet to see how the wizards might lead the way, I have become
interested in the recent attempts to move the conversation beyond theory into
practical applications on these weighty national issues. Yet I'm dissappointed
by recent claims that one group is using PCT and another isn't (those low
foreheaded Neanderthals) as some seem to be suggesting. This CAN'T be. If PCT
works at all, then it must work for all sides--right? Whether these sides know
what they're doing or not, is another matter. Casting Clintonites in the light
of divine PCTers and non-Clintonites in the darkness of behaviorism seems to
miss the point that all sub-groups are controlling for sets of values which
conflict with values being controlled by other groups. Where's the national
PCT-informed dialog on how to resolve these conflicting values? I doubt whether
both sides crying foul and attempting to spin the bi-partisan nonsense will
likely get us too far.

Greg Wierzbicki

G_T_Wierzbicki · December 24, 1998, 2:17pm

[From Greg Wierzbicki (981224.0915 EST)]

Rick Marken (981223.1250)

> And so, at long last, is it really "indifference to lying" which
> is to become the control variable grail of advanced society?

Not really. I think the goal is to understand lying as an aspect
of hierarchical interpersonal control and to be able to judge it
in that context.

Concur. Lying is just another form of action--a speach act--employed to
attempt to bring the perceived environment into alignment with referents.

I just had another thought: Why do people find Clinton's alleged
lie such a hugh threat to our democracy while dismissing Starr's
horrible _question_ -- the one that generated the lie -- as no
big thing?

You're not suggesting that Starr _caused_ Clinton to lie, are you? If so, then
how would this be reconciled with PCT?

I wonder how many of the Clinton haters out there
lived through the McCarthy era and/or knew people who were
affected by it.

Why the term "Clinton haters"? Isn't it possible to control for a point of
view that lying is inappropriate or, at least, undesirable without being
labelled a McCarthy-ist?

Intentional dissemination of bogus data in scientific circles is frowned upon
in large part due to it's interference with scientific progress. Why isn't it
appropriate to frown upon disseminating bogus data in political-social circles
due to it's interference with social-polital progress?

Greg Wierzbicki

Bill_Powers1 · December 24, 1998, 4:14pm

[From Bill Powers (981224.0902 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.1645 EDT)--

Republicans (and Democrats) do not share a common set of beliefs. If you
believe that in general government is a "bad thing" you probably vote
Republican. If you believe taxes should be lower you probably vote
Republican. If you believe that abortion is murder, you probably vote
Republican. If you believe that "family values" are important and should
be supported by the government, you probably vote Republican. If you
believe that there should be fewer government regulations on business,
you probably vote Republican. These beliefs are not all shared by a
majority of those who vote Republican.

True, but there are also many reference signals held in common, even across
R-D boundaries. Most people, I think, believe in the Bill of Rights at
least as it applies to themselves. Most people think this is a pretty great
country and would willingly defend it against external threats. Most people
believe in honesty. Most think we should be kind to the helpless, loyal to
our friends, encouraging to the young, respectful of those who have great
responsibilities, and honorable in living up to contracts. Etc.

So how is it that people can, at the same time, be so hard-hearted,
selfish, and vengeful?

Best,

Bill P.

Bruce_Gregory8 · December 24, 1998, 6:36pm

[From Bruce Gregory (981224.1335 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981224.0902 MST)

True, but there are also many reference signals held in common,
even across
R-D boundaries. Most people, I think, believe in the Bill of Rights at
least as it applies to themselves. Most people think this is a
pretty great
country and would willingly defend it against external threats.
Most people
believe in honesty. Most think we should be kind to the helpless, loyal to
our friends, encouraging to the young, respectful of those who have great
responsibilities, and honorable in living up to contracts. Etc.

So how is it that people can, at the same time, be so hard-hearted,
selfish, and vengeful?

I glad you ask me only the easy questions... Again, I think this phenomenon
is a result of the us versus them dichotomy that seems somehow to be
hardwired into us. There is (unfortunately) plenty of evidence for the
phenomenon, ranging from ethnic cleansing to football rivalries. Demagogues
are very good at moving one group or another into the them category. Once
this happens, the consequences are truly awful. The neighbor against
neighbor bloodshed in Bosnia demonstrates that familiarity is no protection
against the us-them dichotomy. Once it starts it is very difficult to
limit--the reason that many groups work so hard, e.g. the Anti-defamation
league, to prevent it starting. With Jews so thoroughly integrated into our
society it might seem difficult to believe that we could become virulently
anti-Semitic, but Jews were integrated into the high-cultured German society
as well. The recent dismantling of the social safety net demonstrates how
easy it is to generate a "them" who simply need to get off their asses and
work the way "we" do. The facts are well-established ("they" are mostly
women with dependent children and/or drug and alcohol problems) but play
little role in the "debate". In fact, there was no debate. The tax payers
got tired of supporting the lower 20% of the socio-economic scale and
elected politicians who told them they were right to feel this way.

One of the truly dangerous outcomes of the present insanity in Washington is
that it encourages us-versus-them. The moderates are at greatest risk and
the extremists carry the day. At one time both parties had both a moderate
and a conservative wing. The conversion of southern Democrats to Republicans
is leading to a greater polarization than has existed for many years. What
we see in the Congress today may be a coming attraction for the next few
decades. By the way, conservatives can be quite charming when you know them.
The same was said of SS troopers--they were loving fathers and good
husbands. They understood the importance of family values...

Bruce Gregory

Bill_Powers1 · December 25, 1998, 4:11am

[From Bill Powers (981224.2033 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (981224.1335 EDT)--

So how is it that people can, at the same time, be so hard-hearted,
selfish, and vengeful?

I glad you ask me only the easy questions... Again, I think this phenomenon
is a result of the us versus them dichotomy that seems somehow to be
hardwired into us.

This still doesn't solve my problem. I am able, for example, to see the
difference between the local "us" (the citizens of Durango), and the
nearest local "them" (the Southern Ute or Sky Ute indian tribe close by).
Yet I have no problems with their customs or existence. So obviously it's
not just being able to define an "us" and a "them" that is the problem. In
fact, if you _couldn't_ tell the difference between your ethnic group and a
different one, I'd say you had a serious perceptual problem.

The problem is in what follows from recognizing that this difference
exists. I don't think you have to take the drastic step of assuming that
what follows is wired in -- after all, we have at least one and more often
two members of the local culture teaching us how to deal with "them" from
our birth -- our parent(s). As we grow up, many other members of this
culture work on us very hard to shape our attitudes and beliefs. Unless we
wake up to this incessant pressure and decide to resist it, the least-error
course is to go along with it.

But what's in it for the person who decides to make enemies of "them?" The
reason I brought up the subject of factual beliefs not long ago was that
what's in it for Republicans to act the way they do, I think, is a
predicted set of consequences of their behavior in which they believe very
strongly. They think that punishment can have good results -- that's what I
call a factual belief. They believe that punishing one person for a crime
will deter others from committing the same crime. They have, in fact, a
whole set of beliefs about human nature, most of which I think are
incorrect. But if we could once establish what this set of beliefs is, I
think we would see that the "Republican attitude" would become completely
understandable.

And of course the same could be done for Libertarians, Democrats,
Socialists, Nazis, and so forth. I think most of their factual beliefs
about human nature are wrong, too. But if we believed what they seem to
believe, we would probably think and act the way they do. We are all
victims of what we take without proof to be true.

I think it is possible to lead people to see that some of their factual
beliefs are factually incorrect. And when a person lets go of or corrects a
factual belief, eventually the strain that puts on the system of thought
leads to other changes, and ultimately to a new equilibrium in the whole
person. This is what we're trying to do with PCT, isn't it? By showing that
human behavior is a process of controlling rather than responding to
stimuli or executing planned actions, we introduce a new fact into people's
intellectual systems. This puts a strain on their whole belief system, and
in resolving all the conflicts that arise, they find a new way of
understanding practically everything.

Already, the people who would probably call themselves Democrats or
Republicans (or something else) in this discussion group are beginning to
sound less like party advocates and more like PCTers. Would a real PCTer be
able to buy all of what ANY party seems to advocate?

Best,

Bill P.

Samuel_Saunders1 · December 25, 1998, 1:06am

I have tried desparately to avoid involvement in this thread, because I
think it is for the most point irrelevent to PCT, but I could not let this
pass. This misses the nature of the legislative system completely. The
members in question were not on the rules committee or members of the house
leadership, and thus had little say in how the impeachment vote was
conducted. They were faced with a forced choice- vote to impeach or vote to
acquit. If they believed that Clinton's alleged perjury required some
consequence, but no impeachment, they had to decide if acquittal or
impeachment was the better of two undesireable choices. Apparently they
decided that impeachment was the better choice, then sought to modify the
effect by suggesting that the Senate seek some other penalty than removal
from office. They did not suggest that Clinton should be acquitted by the
Senate. It can be debated whether their behavior was appropriate, but the
above characterization is misleading at best.

Now that I have jumped in, I suppose I will waste a bit of time and argue why
Clinton's alleged perjury could be considered a threat to the nation.
Whatever the merrits of her case and its timing, Paula Jones was pursuing
her sexual harrasment suite within the limits of the law and precedent. In
that context, questions about Clinton's relationships with subordinate women
were appropriate. Clinton did not answer those questions responsively, and
may in fact have lied. This country is diverse, with substantial range of
ethnic, religious, political, moral diversity. In many places that has been
an explosive situation (consider Bosnia or Nothern Ireland, for example).
It could be argued that being assured of access to the legal system and
uniform treatment is a primary element in allowing this diverse society to
continue to maintain a degree of civility and tollerance. If it is
suspected that those in high places may refuse to play by the rules (such as
providing honest testimony under oath) with little consequence, that social
cement may begin to erode. That risk is why Clinton's dishonesty might be
considered graver than that of Livingston, et al. I agree that excusing
Reagan's lying is more difficult, although the Iran-Contra committee failed
to pursue sworn testimony from Reagan, among many procedural errors which
compromised that investigation.

The famous 70% is misleading as well. It is an agregate figure across the
population. Many Republican districts may well have much lower support,
perhaps even a minority. Recalling that the majority of eligible voters
rarely if ever vote, the overall figure is even less meaningfull in
estimating the impact of taking a particular stand on impeachment.

The dominance of the two major parties, and the barriers built into the
election laws, mean that most elections have the same forced choice nature
as the impeachment vote in congress. The U.S. political process provides
few output degrees of freedom for controlling perceptions of public policy.
Perhaps while investigating assumptions about human nature and economics, it
might also be worth while investigating the degree to which a democracy can
truly be representative with such a restricted range of alternatives in the
political arena. This leads far from the topic of the current trial of Bill
Clinton, however, so I shall not pursue it further at this time.

As I said in opening, I think the immediate question of the trial of Clinton
has little relevance to CSG, and trading views on this issue in this forum is
likely to be counter-productive, so I shall not respond to comments on my
posting, although I will read them. Please do not be offended if I do not
respond to comments on these thoughts. The fate of the issue is now in the
hands of the Senate. Commenting at this time, before the appropriate
procedures have been invoked, is likely to be a waste of time, and to harden
positions prematurely. After the procedures have run their course, it
should be possible to analyze the whole story, with better access to the
data, and come to some conclusions which may have some value in setting
future policy and procedures, and in suggesting avenues for theory and
research. Now, in the heat of the moment, is not the time.

···

On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 01:32:04PM -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (981223.1430)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.1645 EDT)--

> As you see some of them[House Republicans] decided to vote
> impeachment and then tell the Senate that they really didn't
> mean it.

Was this funny or what? These guys voted for a bill that said
Clinton should be removed from office. Then they say "we really
just wanted him punished for lying, not removed from office".
So here we have the spectable of Republicans -- those who would
protect us from that lying anti-Christ Clinton -- publicly lying
(by their impeachment vote) about wanting Clinton removed from
office for lying. Why aren't these guys calling for themselves
to be impeached for lying

Best

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

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
ssaunde@ibm.net

Bruce_Gregory8 · December 25, 1998, 1:00pm

[From Bruce Gregory (981225.0800 EDT)]

Samuel Spence Saunders

As I said in opening, I think the immediate question of the trial
of Clinton
has little relevance to CSG, and trading views on this issue in
this forum is
likely to be counter-productive, so I shall not respond to comments on my
posting, although I will read them.

Do you imagine that your post changed anyone's mind? If not, why couldn't
you resist posting it? Let me suggest it is an example of asserting that you
are right and I am wrong. This is just the point I was trying to make.
Thanks for underlining it.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory8 · December 25, 1998, 1:24pm

[From Bruce Gregory (981225.0825 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981224.2033 MST)

This still doesn't solve my problem. I am able, for example, to see the
difference between the local "us" (the citizens of Durango), and the
nearest local "them" (the Southern Ute or Sky Ute indian tribe close by).
Yet I have no problems with their customs or existence. So obviously it's
not just being able to define an "us" and a "them" that is the problem.

I suspect you need a contested resource to bring the mechanism into play. If
the Ute's were successfully pressing a claim that they are entitled to the
property currently claimed by the citizens of Durango, I suspect that "us
versus them" would soon rear its ugly head. If there were no state and
national government to settle the matter and then to back up their decisions
with threats of coercion, something like Yugoslavia might result.

The problem is in what follows from recognizing that this difference
exists. I don't think you have to take the drastic step of assuming that
what follows is wired in -- after all, we have at least one and more often
two members of the local culture teaching us how to deal with "them" from
our birth -- our parent(s). As we grow up, many other members of this
culture work on us very hard to shape our attitudes and beliefs. Unless we
wake up to this incessant pressure and decide to resist it, the
least-error
course is to go along with it.

I wonder to what extent our ability to "decide to resist" is itself genetic.
No way to tell at this point.

But what's in it for the person who decides to make enemies of "them?"

Enhanced control.

The
reason I brought up the subject of factual beliefs not long ago was that
what's in it for Republicans to act the way they do, I think, is a
predicted set of consequences of their behavior in which they believe very
strongly.

Yes, but _why_ do they believe it and _why_ don't I believe the same thing?

They think that punishment can have good results --
that's what I
call a factual belief.

It's a belief about the way the world is. I'm reluctant to call it "factual"
because I suspect there are no facts that will them to abandon the belief.
Most of us are very good at ignoring facts that clash with our beliefs.

They believe that punishing one person for a crime
will deter others from committing the same crime. They have, in fact, a
whole set of beliefs about human nature, most of which I think are
incorrect. But if we could once establish what this set of beliefs is, I
think we would see that the "Republican attitude" would become completely
understandable.

I have no trouble understanding the "Republican attitude". I simply deplore
it.

And of course the same could be done for Libertarians, Democrats,
Socialists, Nazis, and so forth. I think most of their factual beliefs
about human nature are wrong, too. But if we believed what they seem to
believe, we would probably think and act the way they do. We are all
victims of what we take without proof to be true.

Hear! Hear!

I think it is possible to lead people to see that some of their factual
beliefs are factually incorrect.

I believe in the old PCT saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you
can't make him drink.

And when a person lets go of or
corrects a
factual belief, eventually the strain that puts on the system of thought
leads to other changes, and ultimately to a new equilibrium in the whole
person.

This was an essential principle, I believe, behind Cognitive Dissonance
theory. It ignores, I fear, our ability to rigidly partition our thinking.
Many people are persuaded that politicians are "worthless" but incumbents
are overwhelming returned to office. It is "their" representatives who are
worthless. "Our" representatives are just fine.

This is what we're trying to do with PCT, isn't it? By
showing that
human behavior is a process of controlling rather than responding to
stimuli or executing planned actions, we introduce a new fact
into people's
intellectual systems. This puts a strain on their whole belief system, and
in resolving all the conflicts that arise, they find a new way of
understanding practically everything.

I think our success speaks for itself.

Already, the people who would probably call themselves Democrats or
Republicans (or something else) in this discussion group are beginning to
sound less like party advocates and more like PCTers. Would a
real PCTer be
able to buy all of what ANY party seems to advocate?

I thought you were old enough to remember the New Deal.

Merry Christmas!

Bruce Gregory

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · December 25, 1998, 4:24pm

[From kenny kitzke (981225.1100 EST)]

<Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.> posted:
<I have tried desparately to avoid involvement in this thread, because I
think it is for the most point irrelevent to PCT, but I could not let this
pass.>

I feel your pain.

I am will not be offended if you don't reply because I too percieve the
great CSG "madness" debate to be well, maddening.

The theory of PCT totally explains:

a) the behavior of Mr. Bill
b) the behavior of the Republicans and Democrats in the House of Rep.
c) the members of CSG who are disturbed by their perceptions of this
external behavior and need to react with posts to CSG to satisfy their own
reference values, including the use of ridicule and obscenity for effect.

My perception was CSG was about the science of behavior theory. The
disturubance of this "madness" thread to me results in me responding this
way. What CSG experts think about Mr. Bill, Republicans, adultery, lying
under oath or impeachment is great chatter for those with little better to
do.

There are many forums where this is what people want to discuss. It seems
there is only a handful here. But, what does a "handful" really mean? Is
it just a perception?

Kenny

P.S. Sort of sucked in too Sam, but resisting this as CSG material.

Bruce_Gregory8 · December 25, 1998, 4:41pm

[From Bruce Gregory (981225.1140 EDT)]

kenny kitzke (981225.1100 EST)

a) the behavior of Mr. Bill
b) the behavior of the Republicans and Democrats in the House of Rep.
c) the members of CSG who are disturbed by their perceptions of this
external behavior and need to react with posts to CSG to satisfy their own
reference values, including the use of ridicule and obscenity for effect.

Really? I seem to have missed the ridicule and obscenity. I'll take you word
for it.

My perception was CSG was about the science of behavior theory. The
disturbance of this "madness" thread to me results in me responding this
way. What CSG experts think about Mr. Bill, Republicans, adultery, lying
under oath or impeachment is great chatter for those with little better to
do.

Have you thought about finding something better to do? Perhaps something
with less ridicule and obscenity. Or is it your need to be right that
motivates this post?

Bruce Gregory

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · December 25, 1998, 7:05pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (981225.1400 EDT)]

I did until today. Sorry you could not find anything better all week.

Dah. Which obscenity is it that I used?

I said what my intentions were in my only post on this subject. If you
can't read or accept that, deal with it.

Keep posting away. It is madness, but I can remain in control. No need
for you to respond to me Bruce, unless you need to.

Kenny

Bruce_Gregory8 · December 26, 1998, 2:30am

[From Bruce Gregory (981225.2130 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (981225.1400 EDT)

Keep posting away. It is madness, but I can remain in control. No need
for you to respond to me Bruce, unless you need to.

I pray for you every night. I haven't given up on you. I'm sure you _can_
remain in control. God bless you.

Bruce Gregory