[From Bill Powers (960405.0600 MST)]
Rick Marken (960404.2220) --
I didn't say "it is unlikely that [organisms] actually respond on
the basis of... maximizing reinforcement rate". I said it is
unlikely that organisms _control_ for maximum reinforcement rate.
Big difference.
This is an important point, which I left out in trying to explain that
control is not achieved by means of mimimizing error. The whole concept
of maximizing is dubious even as a description of what people or
organisms are observed to do -- even when they actually are doing it. In
cases where maximization does appear to be occurring, we see the result
as pathological: maximizing power, wealth, food intake, number of cars
owned, number of sexual performances, muscle development, beauty,
driving speed, and so forth. What is the "maximum" amount of anything?
Infinite! An organism that had no concept of "enough" would have its
existence threatened by a surplus of resources just as much as by a
shortage.
The idea of control is that the organism aims to produce a specific
amount of something for itself -- not the maximum possible amount. The
formal idea of maximization arose, I think, in the context of business:
maximizing profit, return on investment, productivity, and so forth.
Herbert Simon, I think, got a Nobel Prize for showing that successful
managers do not, in fact, try to maximize these things: they
"satisfice," meaning that they set goals and try to achieve them, which
is only another way of saying that they control. But a great deal of
thought has been put into methods for maximization, on the assumption
(without much thought) that this is a good idea.
Maximization can be confused with control when the environment is such
that it is seldom possible to reach a given goal. When nearly everybody
is hungry, it may seem that people merely try to get as much food into
themselves as possible. Since even a control system will continually try
to increase its inputs when the reference level is higher than the
maximum input that can be achieved, there isn't any visible difference,
in that case, between a maximizing system and a controlling system. The
difference shows up only when it becomes easier to increase the input;
then we find that a maximizing system just keeps on trying to get more
of the input, while the control system reduces its efforts nearly to
zero as the input approaches the reference level.
The idea of maximization probably grew up in times of hardship, where it
was impossible to get as much of the necessities of life as needed, let
alone the maximum possible amount. Since this condition applied to most
of the human race in times past, and applies to a good part of it even
now, it is not unreasonable that many people developed a cognitive goal
of getting as much for themselves as possible -- of maximizing their own
inputs. Since few of them could actually do this, the effect was no
different from setting a goal for a comfortable life and trying to
achieve it. Human beings, who have to invent methods for doing things
that other animals are born knowing how to do, pay a price for this
freedom: they can choose goals which, if achieved, would actually work
against survival.
This, in most cases, is what the goal of maximizing is: a contra-
survival goal. The only thing that has prevented its working against
survival in the past is that most people have been unable to reach even
a comfort level, not to mention a surplus of the necessities of life.
Consider the matter of human reproduction. In the past, when childhood
death and death from disease and starvation severely limited population
growth, stimulation of sexual desire was probably a good thing, since it
kept the race from dying out. The male mystique which demanded
maximization of sexual conquests, and the social approval of having the
maximum possible number of children by both men and women, had a
positive effect on population, and that was a good thing (although it
was harder on women than on men). But now we are entering an era
(probably entered it 100 years ago) where maximizing population is no
longer such a good idea; in fact it has become a very bad idea that is
going to lead to all kinds of death and destruction. So now what is the
survival value of ever-more-explicit pornography, women dressing in
sexually provocative clothing or lack thereof, advertising which
measures both male and female worth in units of aggressive or seductive
sexual predation, religions that demand maximum reproduction? It has
become negative. Now the idea of maximization is working against us, and
the concept of control -- aiming for a satisfying sexual life rather
than whipping up the maximum possible level of activity -- is looking
more and more necessary if we want to survive.
The same is true in the world of commerce. At one time, the interests of
entrepreneurs and the population they served were essentially the same.
As the entrepreneur battled to minimize costs and maximize profit, the
consumer benefited from the competition and the continuing improvement
in the amount and quality of basic goods and amenities of life. The
rising tide lifted all boats. While the population was small and the
efficiency of exploiting natural resources was low, maximizing and
controlling looked the same: the urge was to keep increasing the flow of
material goods. But as a certain level of affluence was reached in some
large countries, as the population kept going up and the expoitation of
resources kept getting more efficient, the human race began to approach
natural limits. We have come to a time in which maximizing no longer
serves our interests; to continue to maximize will become -- has already
become -- a threat to survival.
It is also exhausting and stupifying us. Most people in the affluent
countries are working harder and longer to sustain a sinking standard of
living. Instead of one person being able to support a family and even
improve the living standards while working shorter hours, now the norm
is for two people in the family to have to hold at least one job apiece,
and the result is not an improvement in the quality of life. Before
long, three people will be needed, then everyone will have to work:
child labor will return. Even though business is booming, most of the
people for whose sake business is conducted, supposedly, are not
benefiting. Even while maintaining the same standard of living, the
working family is giving up all else that makes life worthwhile. There
is no time to enjoy the fruits of labor.
I think it is no accident that there is a growing sentiment against
technology and commerce. The downside of maximization is beginning to be
obvious. In the more affluent countries, more and more people are
discovering that they actually have as much of many things as they want;
the urge to get more of them is subsiding, at least in fringe parts of
the population. It's not paradoxical that a revolt against technology
and wealth should arise in the most affluent countries. This doesn't
mean that people would like to give up television and cars and CDs and
all the other goodies; it's just that they're beginning to have a sense
that what they have is, for now, enough. Perceptions are approaching
reference levels, and reference levels are being adjusted, to allow
control to take the place of maximization.
If control takes the place of maximization, whatever is to be controlled
-- population, acquisition of material goods -- can be raised and
lowered at will, provided the will is there. Instead of multiplying like
bacteria, at a rate limited only by the rapidly climbing death rate due
to running out of nutrients, the human population can adjust itself to
control the quality of life for the living. Instead of consuming
resources at an exponentially-growing rate, the human race can assess
the situation and be satisfied with the practically achievable. This is
the difference between controlling and maximizing. It is also the
difference between choosing life or death.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill P.