More Dealing

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

[from Gary Cziko 930413.1913 GMT]

Greg Williams (>) (930413) writes responding to me (>>)

Along the way, I think I discovered a couple of quite high-level variables
being controlled by the CSG's esteemed editor. How about "not being
misrepresented on CSGnet" and "not being intimidated by Gary Cziko."

Close, but this ain't horseshoes.

Well, now, why don't you tell us just how close I was? This is the first
time you've admitted having any knowledge of your higher-level controlled
variables, so perhaps we're on the verge of a breakthrough here.

Did you write down your predictions in advance and give them to a neutral
party for safekeeping?

No, not that time. But I DID do this (although I'm not sure what neutral
is) this time around. I predict we'll hear from one of the safekeepers
soon.

My take on my motivation which you've been trying to predict was to do what
I thought would influence you to write "GOTCHA!" (which you did).

This is great! You're finally making sense out of your own behavior by
discovering higher-level controlled variables. And notice that you even
used the word "motivation" without recourse to any "crude statistical
analysis of your previous replies to my posts, coupled with some guesses
on how your environment has conditioned you."

Now why don't you try to take this up a level or two? Why do you suppose
that you wanted me to write "GOTCHA"? How would it have disturbed you if I
didn't write "GOTCHA"? Would you have kept trying until I wrote it?

I chose my
actions to influence you thusly on the basis of a crude statistical
analysis of your previous replies to my posts, coupled with some guesses
on how your environment has conditioned you.

I recommend that you stick with the system that has apparently worked so
well for yourself for understanding the behavior of others (see above).

:>> Gotcha, recursively!

Sorry, Greg, but you can't "gotcha" me because I WANT to be "gotchaed"
(which ungotchas the ungotchaing). I am not controlling for making it hard
for you to test and discover my controlled variables. I think the test CAN
work quite well at the higher levels and that we can even apply it to
ourselves (perhaps involving others to help us) when we are not sure what
we are controlling.

So why don't you try the test yourself on a slightly more cooperative
subject, i.e., me? Fire away with your disturbances and get to know Gary
Cziko!

--Gary

P.S. I just had the disturbing peception of imagining our
non-native-English-speaking CSGnetters trying to find "gotcha" in the
dictionary. "Gotcha" is a colloquial form of "(I) got you" and is used by
person A when A feels that he has defeated, tricked, or gained some victory
over person B.

···

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cziko Telephone: 217-333-8527
Educational Psychology FAX: 217-244-7620
University of Illinois E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------

2

From Greg Williams (930413 - 2)

Gary Cziko 930413.1913 GMT

Well, now, why don't you tell us just how close I was? This is the first
time you've admitted having any knowledge of your higher-level controlled
variables, so perhaps we're on the verge of a breakthrough here.

I admitted to Bill that his predictions last week (ca.?) were
reasonable in terms of my subjective impressions of my motivations. My
subjective impressions of my motivations in this case are that I
wanted to explain my poll category, lest it be misinterpreted (that's
even what I said in the "explanatory" post to the net) and then I was
shocked that you would criticize my "explanatory" post for quoting
your direct message to me after you had quoted (well, plagiarized) my
direct message to you, so I wanted to influence you not to be a party
to this sort of thing again, by offering you a deal which I expected
you would accept.

But I DID do this (although I'm not sure what neutral
is) this time around. I predict we'll hear from one of the safekeepers
soon.

How am I doin', safekeepers?

This is great! You're finally making sense out of your own behavior by
discovering higher-level controlled variables.

That's what Freud would have thought, too.

And notice that you even
used the word "motivation" without recourse to any "crude statistical
analysis of your previous replies to my posts, coupled with some guesses
on how your environment has conditioned you."

But not without (implicit) recourse to the subjectivity of my
perceived motivations. My point (same as when I challenged Bill) is
that The Test is the OBJECTIVE way to determine motivation, but it is
not always easy to apply or without problems.

Now why don't you try to take this up a level or two?

Sure. But please don't count my "supposing" for much if you want to do
"real science" re. figuring out what I want(ed?). You need The Test
for that.

Why do you suppose that you wanted me to write "GOTCHA"?

To show you that predicting actions could be successful when not based
on PCT ideas.

How would it have disturbed you if I didn't write "GOTCHA"?

In PCT terms, you could postulate a difference between my reference
signal for seeing you write "GOTCHA" and my perception that you hadn't
written "GOTCHA."

Would you have kept trying until I wrote it?

Maybe. In PCT terms, it would depend on the loop gain. My subjective
opinion is that my motivation to see you write "GOTCHA" wasn't very
strong, but that's a guess. You'd have had to apply The Test back then
to have more than my guess. (Freud was satisfied with guesses; others
aren't. Are you?)

I chose my
actions to influence you thusly on the basis of a crude statistical
analysis of your previous replies to my posts, coupled with some guesses
on how your environment has conditioned you.

I recommend that you stick with the system that has apparently worked so
well for yourself for understanding the behavior of others (see above).

But I haven't used The Test to try to figure out my motivations, if
that's what you mean. Would you like me to try the "crude statistics
cum guess at environmental conditioning" approach again to predict
your behavior (this time with a note to a safekeeper in advance,
stating my predictions)?

Sorry, Greg, but you can't "gotcha" me because I WANT to be "gotchaed"
(which ungotchas the ungotchaing). I am not controlling for making it hard
for you to test and discover my controlled variables.

OK, I retract the recursive "GOTCHA." Sorry.

I think the test CAN work quite well at the higher levels and that we
can even apply it to ourselves (perhaps involving others to help us)
when we are not sure what we are controlling.

I AGREE WITH YOU, contra Bill Powers' objections way back in our
"influence" debate regarding not really being able to find out much of
use (i.e., in con-games) about others via The Test. I think The Test
is an incredibly useful tool in social situations, and I think people
generally realize that and use it. I also AGREE that The Test can be
applied to ourselves. But I didn't happen to be using it to test for
my control structure in the situation discussed above, and I think
trying to apply it later begs a lot of questions regarding the
accuracy of hypothetical "I would have's." That doesn't mean it is
impossible; just (potentially) hazardous, as was Freud's "explanation"
of present behavior on the basis of historical traumas.

So why don't you try the test yourself on a slightly more cooperative
subject, i.e., me? Fire away with your disturbances and get to know Gary
Cziko!

How would you like to be disturbed first?

As ever,

Greg