Naughty or Nice

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Rick Marken (01.01.01.1515)]

Me:

The notion that I am assuming I know what goes on in RTP schools
with no evidence is a slogan invented by Tom Bourbon and now used
by the defenders of RTP (now including Bill Powers) to denegrate
whatever I say that is relevant to RTP.

Bruce Nevin (2000.12.31 15:50 EST)--

So far as I know, denigration is not the aim.

Not the _only_ aim, perhaps. I forgot to mention that silencing me
on the topic of RTP is probably the main aim.

The aim as I have understood it has been to show that your
assertions are not relevant to RTP because they have no empirical
basis.

That is simply not the case, Bruce. I have never made assertions
about RTP that have no empirical basis. You (and Tom and now Bill
P. and just about everyone else) keep saying I do. But I don't
believe I ever have. I have never, for example, said that RTP
teachers say "I see you have chosen..". I have no idea what RTP
teachers do. All I know is what I am told. And I don't like some
of what I am told.

You here acknowledge as much.

Yes. As I just did again. I acknowledge that I have never been
to an RTP school and that, therefore, I don't know what goes on
in an RTP school. But I have never "asserted" anything about what
goes on in RTP schools. What I have "asserted" (and will continue
to assert) is that 1) telling childen that they have chosen to
do X when you have no evidence that they want to do X and when X
is precisely what you want (and are willing to compel) them to
do is disrespectful to children and 2) the RTP literature says that
teachers are supposed to (and do) tell students, calmly and politely,
"I see you have chosen to go to the RTC" if they have disrupted
twice in a row. I have an empirical basis for making both of those
"assertions".

The significance, morality, respectfulness, or any other
attribute of the phrase "I see you have chosen" has no relevance
to anything discussed on CSG-net other than RTP. To claim now
that you were not talking about RTP is disingenuous at best.

I was talking hypothetcally about teachers in general. Of course,
what I said is relevant to RTP. But I was carefully avoiding any
claim that RTP teachers do this. I don't know whether they do this
or not. I believe Tim Carey who (via Bill Powers) says that they
do not, at least in Australia. That's fine. But then why tell
the teachers to do this in the RTP literature? Why say it's what
the teachers actually do (as in MSOB, p. 155)?

Me:

In the previous post you called me a liar

Ye:

I did not. I said "I think you're lying to us...

Do you really think that that is an important distinction? Would
it be OK with you if I said "I think you're acting like an asshole,
Bruce" instead of "You're an asshole, Bruce"? If so, it certainly
opens up whole new horizons for me on the net;-)

Instead of rationalizing your disrespectful behavior, Bruce, I
think it would have been a lot nicer if you had just apologized to
me. In fact, I think all of you who have been carrying on against
me with respect to RTP would feel a lot better in this beautiful
and hopeful New Year if you would just think about what you are
doing. Once you get up a level and see that we are all doing the
same thing (PCT), I'm sure an apology will come very easily.

Me:

What was the stylistic flaw in what I said, Bruce? Or was it a
substantive flaw, perhaps? In either case, what was wrong with
what I said above?

Ye:

Sorry. I just cannot see that as a smooth move initiating a
productive discussion of PCT and its applications.

I find it amazing that you find something "unsmooth" or "un-
productive" about my questions above. They look like (and were)
perfectly straight forward questions. I also find it a tad
disconcerting to be getting lessons on how to have productive
discussions about PCT from someone who has not always been a model
of productive discussion himself. For example, in reply to my claim
that there is plenty of evidence that teachers control for classroom
order you [Bruce Nevin (2000.12.18.1829 EST)] replied with this
sarcastic remark:

And all this time I thought that the process of identifying
controlled variables was so much more demanding

Is this your idea of how to carry on a productive discussion?
I can't believe it is.

I also find it rather curious that you pick out my perfectly
straight forward, serious questions to Bruce Gregory as examples
of unproductive interactions but say nothing at all about comments
like this from Bruce Gregory (2000.1218.1956) himself:

Stick to politics Marken, you're not cut out for this PCT stuff.

Sounds pretty unproductive to me.

You continue:

The only possible reason for bringing up "I see you have chosen"
etc. is to continue a quarrel. In the absence of empirical data
there is no possible way to resolve any issue associated with
this by methods of science.

Without empirical evidence there is no way to know whether the
RTP teachers use this tactic. But there is plenty of empirical
evidence that this tactic is used in schools and in homes and
that it is used in a way that I would call disrespectful.

If you and the others who are protective of RTP want me to
stop saying anything on CSGNet that could be construed as an
"attack" on RTP then, I'm afraid, you are going to be as
frustrated in 2001 as you were in 2000, 1999 and 1998. I enjoy
discussing PCT on CSGNet. Many of the things that are said about
RTP on CSGNet (like many of the things that are said about reinforcement
theory, S-R theory, cognitive theopry, open-loop
control, information theory, etc etc) are a disturbance to my
perception of how organisms work, ie. a disturbance to my per-
ception of PCT. CSGNet is for discussion of PCT and if some of the
things I say on CSGNet are simply intolerable, insuperable
disturbances to something you want to believe, then one solution
(and I say this out of honest concern for your fellings,
not out of any dislike) is to follow the lead of some of the
action theorists, postmodernists, modern control theorists,
cognitivist scientists, etc. who have simply left CSGNet because
they preferred hearing agreement instead of constant dissent.

Best regards

and a very Happy New Year to ALL

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

2

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.02 01:56 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.01.1515)--

silencing me on the topic of RTP is probably the main aim.

You are of course free to talk about whatever you please. I am only identifying what you say without evidence as things that you are saying without evidence.

I have never made assertions about RTP that have no empirical basis.

Sounds like you are saying you have never said anything about RTP, only about the RTP literature. That's really quite funny. Thanks! I needed that.

What I have "asserted" (and will continue
to assert) is that 1) telling childen that they have chosen to
do X when you have no evidence that they want to do X and when X
is precisely what you want (and are willing to compel) them to
do is disrespectful to children and 2) the RTP literature says that
teachers are supposed to (and do) tell students, calmly and politely,
"I see you have chosen to go to the RTC" if they have disrupted
twice in a row. I have an empirical basis for making both of those
"assertions".

And I have agreed with you that this is wrong. I don't know that anyone is defending it as not wrong. Do you? I also asked what would be a proper way to enact the intention behind it, and tried to analyze what those intentions were. That sort of analysis is I believe behind Bill's reference to teachers controlling for (among other things) respectful relationships between themselves and their students--which is surely why RTP teachers, as we are told, do not in fact use this notorious phrase. Regardless of Bill's meaning, that is what I would mean if I said that.

I was talking hypothetcally about teachers in general. Of course,
what I said is relevant to RTP. But I was carefully avoiding any
claim that RTP teachers do this.

This is disingenuous. If there is a tenuous connection of the phrase to RTP by way of its literature, there is zero empirical evidence for its relevance to teachers in general. And no one disputes that this sort of attribution of motive for manipulative purposes is wrong, coercive, etc. So where's the beef? Who cares already? This is certainly the wrong forum to try to persuade Ed to fix it in a new edition of his book, but if you care a lot about that, you could start listening in on the respthink net or whatever it's called, and after a time of lurking gradually and tactfully begin to contribute to whatever discussions they're having there. You've got a lot of fence-mending to do if that's your aim. And if you don't care enough about the issue to do it effectively, what's the point of carrying on about it so ineffectively here? I have advanced my idea of what the point is, reiterated below, but maybe you can tell us. What's the point?

Do you really think that that is an important distinction? Would
it be OK with you if I said "I think you're acting like an asshole,
Bruce" instead of "You're an asshole, Bruce"?

Well, to me either of these is much more insulting than "you are lying", but yes, there is an important distinction and I would respond differently. It would have been better if I had said "you're not telling the truth, and maybe you're unaware of what you're doing" rather than "I think you're lying to us, and maybe to yourself." The distinction between "you're not telling the truth" and "you're a liar" is like the difference between "Um, your fly is open, Rick" and "Rick's a flasher, he walks around with his pants unzipped all the time."

If so, it certainly opens up whole new horizons for me on the net;-)

I'm not convinced you perceive the difference.

As to abrasive comments that I or others have made from time to time, we never claimed that they were otherwise; you have.

Thanks for the invitation to leave. You wanted a particular familiar kind of argument in which you could demonstrate your fidelity to PCT, the failure of others to understand you, and therefore your near-uniqueness as one who understands PCT. I think you have been controlling for this status for a long time. What a racket. You cite others who have left. Maybe directly or indirectly they were invited to leave also. But the invitation is not yours to give.

I don't expect to continue with this thread.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 03:14 PM 01/01/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

3

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0102.0652)]

Rick Marken (01.01.01.1515)

Congratulations! A brilliant parody of pompous self-righteousness.

BG

4

[From Bill Powers (2001.02.0604 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.02 01:56 EST)]

I don't expect to continue with this thread.

Sounds like a good idea. So far nobody has achieved distinction (in any
positive sense) in this _exchange_ of self-righteous commentary. In fact
the main expertise that the various parties have demonstrated is an ability
to say just what will inflame the passions the most, while attempting to
convey the impression that the speaker is simply being reasonable. I
haven't noticed any innocent parties, at least among the major players
(although Stefan Balke sounds pretty reasonable).

It could be that we've drained most of the excitement out of PCT in the
last 10 years, so all that is left is the hard work. Maybe all this
squabbling over who is the most righteous is just a way of avoiding the
admission that we don't know what to do next, and really don't have that
much to talk about. The Devil finds work for idle hands.

Glorious Leader has been working for a month or so on another book, which
may or may not be titled _Yet another introduction to PCT_. I don't know
how long it will take or where it is leading, but it keeps me busy.
Occupational therapy. Could it be that some of you other grasshoppers also
need some constructive project to keep you out of academic brawls?

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2000.01.02.0910)]

Me:

I have never made assertions about RTP that have no empirical basis.

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.02 01:56 EST)

Sounds like you are saying you have never said anything about RTP,
only about the RTP literature.

That's correct.

That's really quite funny. Thanks! I needed that.

Is this another of your examples of how to carry out productive
conversations, Bruce? I would suggest that a more productive
reply would have been to point to assertions I have made about
what actually goes on in RTP (as opposed to assertions about what
the RTP literature says goes on in RTP). Then I would have to
admit that I have done so and I would apologize for doing it.

By the way, do you consider Bruce Gregory's (2001.0102.0652) comment:

Congratulations! A brilliant parody of pompous self-righteousness.

another example of productive conversation style?

If you want an example of what I see as productive (and clear)
conversation style, and on the topic of RTP to boot, I suggest you
read Stefan Balke's (2001.01.01) recent post.

And I have agreed with you that this [saying "I see you have
chosen"] is wrong. I don't know that anyone is defending it as
not wrong. Do you?

Sounds to me like you were. But, if not, then fine.

I also asked what would be a proper way to enact the intention
behind it, and tried to analyze what those intentions were...

So why all the fuss about me even bringing up the topic? And if
you do agree that saying "I see you have chosen X" when you have
_not_ seen that but do want the person to do X is wrong, then why
worry about the "proper way to enact the intention behind it"? Even
if there is a "proper intention" behind an action, that doesn't
mean that it's not a disrespectful action. Some of the most
disrespectful actions have been produced as the means of carrying
out the best of intentions.

Me:

I was talking hypothetcally about teachers in general. Of course,
what I said is relevant to RTP. But I was carefully avoiding any
claim that RTP teachers do this.

Ye:

This is disingenuous.

It doesn't look that way to me.

If there is a tenuous connection of the phrase to RTP by way of
its literature, there is zero empirical evidence for its relevance
to teachers in general.

The RTP literature says to use the phrase "I see you have chosen
to go to the RTC" when a child disrupts; not necessarily when a
child shows an actual inclination to go to the RTC room . This is
not a "tenuous connection"; it's a about as clear a connection
as one can have between on thing (the phrase) and another (RTP).
When I say I as talking about "teachers in general" I meant all
teachers, including non-RTP. I know that at least some non-RTP
teachers have used this phrase because I have seen it used on
others and on myself.

And no one disputes that this sort of attribution of motive for
manipulative purposes is wrong, coercive, etc.

Great!! I don't know about "no one" but it's nice to know that you
are now one of them.

So where's the beef? Who cares already? This is certainly the wrong
forum to try to persuade Ed to fix it in a new edition of his book,

The beef is where RTP says that it is based on PCT. CSGNet is a forum
for discussing PCT and its applications. The RTP literature describes
processes that are inconsistent with PCT while at the same time saying
that these processes are based on PCT. I am giving a PCT perspective
on some of these processes. If the RTP leaders don't want to change
anything on the basis of what I (and Bill and now Stefan Balke) say
(or even enter into a dialog about it) there's nothing I can do about
it. I just correct my own errors (in this case, errors that result from
what I perceive as misapplication of PCT).

Bill Powers (2001.02.0604 MST):

I haven't noticed any innocent parties, at least among the major
players (although Stefan Balke sounds pretty reasonable).

As a son of Adam, I'm afraid Stefan is just as guilty as the rest
of us;-) But I agree that Stefan sounds mighty reasonable; that
was the best piece on RTP -- from an RTP practitioner -- that I
have read in a long time.

Maybe all this squabbling over who is the most righteous is just
a way of avoiding the admission that we don't know what to do next

Actually, I know exactly what to do next (I've got a very cool
paper in process and I've got to work on the econ modeling). The
squabbling over who is the most righteous (which I am clearly
winning by a mile;-)) is just a way for me to avoid this real work.

The Devil finds work for idle hands

Actually, I think he (she?;-)) just find work that's easier
and more naturally engrossing than the hard work involved in
doing science and (toughest of all) _writing_.

Love to you and Mary. Glad you are having more luck with the
writing than I am.

Happy New Year

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0102.1239)]

Rick Marken (2000.01.02.0910)

By the way, do you consider Bruce Gregory's (2001.0102.0652) comment:

> Congratulations! A brilliant parody of pompous self-righteousness.

I apologize for the sarcasm. Your post wasn't brilliant. But I trust it
_was_ a parody. You are pulling my leg, aren't you?

BG

7

[From Rick Marken (01.01.02.0955)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0102.1239)--

I apologize for the sarcasm.

Thanks.

Your post [Rick Marken (01.01.01.1515)] wasn't brilliant.
But I trust it _was_ a parody. You are pulling my leg,
aren't you?

No. It was not intended as a parody. Why do you think it
was?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

8

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0102.1339)]

Rick Marken (01.01.02.0955)

No. It was not intended as a parody. Why do you think it
was?

I'm afraid I can't respond in a way that would seem constructive.

BG

9

[From Rick Marken (01.01.02.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0102.1339) --

I'm afraid I can't respond in a way that would seem
constructive.

This kind of honesty is very refreshing, Bruce. If you find this
lack of control disturbing, you might try to go "up a level"
and see _why_ you can't do this. If you succeed in getting up a
level or two, I bet you will suddenly feel yourself free to
make constructive (if not righteous;-)) contributions to
discussions on CSGNet.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

[From Stefan Balke (2000.12.27)]

Hi Rick and Bruce,

I'm following your exchange and don't know whether Bill Powers is right with
his idea, that Bruce is teasing Rick, but I have a serious question about
the content:

Rick says:
PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that
"choose" by setting references for the states of controlled
input variables.

Bruce says:
No, PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that _control_
by setting references for the states of controlled input variables. This
seems to be where you go wrong. If choosing refers to anything in PCT, it
refers to reorganization.

What are the implications of this distinction? Does a clear definition
exist? My personal experience is mixed. Sometimes I'm able to set
voluntarily new references and it works (for example stop smoking),
sometimes I fail dramatically (getting in trouble with my wife at the same
old points) :frowning:

Best regards,
Stefan Balke

11

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250)]

While reviewing some previous posts to see what my chances might be
of getting gifts rather than little pieces of coal in my stockings, I
found the following:

Me:

If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]

I see you've chosen to revert to your old style. Or perhaps you've never
gotten beyond it.

What was the stylistic flaw in what I said, Bruce? Or was it a substantive
flaw, perhaps? In either case, what was wrong with what I said above?
Please tell me while there is still time before Santa arrives.

Merry Christmas to all from the beautiful redwood forest near Santa Cruz,
CA.

Best regards

Rick

12

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1224.1842)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250)

>If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
>then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
>child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
>thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]

> I see you've chosen to revert to your old style. Or perhaps you've never
>gotten beyond it.

What was the stylistic flaw in what I said, Bruce? Or was it a substantive
flaw, perhaps? In either case, what was wrong with what I said above?
Please tell me while there is still time before Santa arrives.

It's all perception, Rick. Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

BG

13

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.26.1800)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1224.1842) --

It's all perception, Rick.

Is this why you feel free to treat "it" in any way you like?
It's all just perception, after all.

Best regards

Rick, The Friendly Perception

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

14

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1226.2110)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.26.1800)

Bruce Gregory (2000.1224.1842) --

> It's all perception, Rick.

Is this why you feel free to treat "it" in any way you like?
It's all just perception, after all.

By George, I think he's got it!

BG

15

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.26.2000)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1224.1842) --

It's all perception, Rick.

Me:

Is this why you feel free to treat "it" in any way you like?
It's all just perception, after all.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1226.2110)

By George, I think he's got it!

Perhaps I do.

Let's see. I had objected to a certain way of treating children on
the basis of the fact that it is disrespectful. In particular, I
had objected to people telling a child "I see you have chosen to
do X" when there is no evidence that the child has, indeed, chosen
to do X. In response to this, you [Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]
said:

I see you've chosen to revert to your old style.

which I now understand to mean that you objected to my objection
to a particular way of treating children since children (like
everything else) are only perceptions and, thus, can be treated
in any way one wants.

Have I got it right now? If so, I would appreciate it if you
would not go public with this as the PCT "position" on how to
deal with other people.

Thanks

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

16

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.27.0400 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.26.2000)--

... In response to this, you [Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]
said:

I see you've chosen to revert to your old style.

which I now understand to mean that you objected to my objection
to a particular way of treating children since children (like
everything else) are only perceptions and, thus, can be treated
in any way one wants.

As a bystander in this peculiar exchange, perhaps I have another
perspective on what is happening. I think Bruce G. is teasing you, Rick --
if you take him seriously you will just be doing what he wants. Teasing is
a kind of blood sport, like bullfighting: you enjoy watching an organism
reacting to the goad, so you keep sticking it in as long as something
interesting keeps happening.

There are no serious points to be made here. Why bother?

Best,

Bill P.

17

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.0714)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.26.2000)

which I now understand to mean that you objected to my objection
to a particular way of treating children since children (like
everything else) are only perceptions and, thus, can be treated
in any way one wants.

Have I got it right now?

Sigh. No, I fear it's hopeless. What is a matter of perception is your
assessment that a particular action by a teacher is "disrespectful." (Just
as is my assessment that you are up to your old tricks.)

Nevertheless, Happy New Millennium. I'll strive to be less subtle in the
future.

BG

18

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1000)]

Bill Powers (2000.12.27.0400 MST)--

I think Bruce G. is teasing you, Rick --

Oh God, no! Not really. It can't be!

There are no serious points to be made here.

I disagree. See below.

Why bother?

Good question. I have no idea. I guess it's a way of
passing the time between eternities. And nearly everyone
here at work is on vacation so things are pretty slow.

Me to Bruce Gregory:

... you objected to my objection to a particular way of
treating children since children (like everything else)
are only perceptions and, thus, can be treated in any
way one wants. Have I got it right now?

Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.0714)--

Sigh. No...What is a matter of perception is your assessment
that a particular action by a teacher is "disrespectful."
(Just as is my assessment that you are up to your old tricks.)

If the disrespectfulness of saying "I see you have chosen" is
just "a matter of perception", then my perception of it being
disrespectful is just as valid as your perception of it being
respectful. When I say that it's disrespectful to say "I see
you have chosen", I cannot be up to any "tricks" other than
describing what I perceive. Indeed, by saying that I am "up
to my old tricks", you are strongly suggesting that my
perception of the situation is less valid than yours. But
this can't be since, from your own point of view, "it is a
matter of perception", implying that each person's view of
a situation is just as valid as any other person's view of
the same situation.

I agree that "it's all perception" but I don't think that this
means that each person's view of a situation is, therefore,
just as valid as any other person's view of the same situation.
I think science exists as a way of testing to determine which
view (way of perceiving the situation) is _more_ correct. In
the case of "I see you have chosen" the relevant science is PCT.

PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that
"choose" by setting references for the states of controlled
input variables. We show respect for these systems by
recognizing their autonomy, which involves (among other things)
recognizing that we can't tell which inputs they have chosen
to control (or why they have chosen to control them) without
doing some testing for controlled variables.

PCT suggests that it's disrespectful to tell a system "I see
you have chosen X" when you have not determined that the
system is actually controlling for X (or when you have good
reason to believe that the system is _not_ controlling for
X) because it denies the system's autonomy in a tricky way;
in a way that denies the speaker's own responsibility for
wanting (and possibly forcing) the system to control for X.

So I think the science of PCT shows that my way of perceiving
the "I see you have chosen" situation is, indeed, the more
correct way to see it. But if you want to believe that it's
all "just a matter of perception", then I think you would
get more respect for _your_ way of perceiving situations if
you stopped disagreeing with other people who perceive the
same situations differently.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

19

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1352)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1000)

Me to Bruce Gregory:

If the disrespectfulness of saying "I see you have chosen" is
just "a matter of perception", then my perception of it being
disrespectful is just as valid as your perception of it being
respectful.

How insightful of you.

When I say that it's disrespectful to say "I see
you have chosen", I cannot be up to any "tricks" other than
describing what I perceive.

Sharp as a tack.

Indeed, by saying that I am "up
to my old tricks", you are strongly suggesting that my
perception of the situation is less valid than yours.

I knew it was too good to last. I was "suggesting" no such thing to anyone
but you.

But
this can't be since, from your own point of view, "it is a
matter of perception", implying that each person's view of
a situation is just as valid as any other person's view of
the same situation.

How did "validity" sneak in here? Unless you mean valid as a perception.
But how could a perception be invalid? You must be teasing me.

I agree that "it's all perception" but I don't think that this
means that each person's view of a situation is, therefore,
just as valid as any other person's view of the same situation.

I couldn't agree more.

I think science exists as a way of testing to determine which
view (way of perceiving the situation) is _more_ correct. In
the case of "I see you have chosen" the relevant science is PCT.

PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that
"choose" by setting references for the states of controlled
input variables.

No, PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that _control_
by setting references for the states of controlled input variables. This
seems to be where you go wrong. If choosing refers to anything in PCT, it
refers to reorganization.

We show respect for these systems by
recognizing their autonomy, which involves (among other things)
recognizing that we can't tell which inputs they have chosen
to control (or why they have chosen to control them) without
doing some testing for controlled variables.

An interesting, but by no means widely shared interpretation of "respect".
I don't happen to share it, but since its not a PCT term, feel free to
adopt any meaning you like.

PCT suggests that it's disrespectful to tell a system "I see
you have chosen X" when you have not determined that the
system is actually controlling for X (or when you have good
reason to believe that the system is _not_ controlling for
X) because it denies the system's autonomy in a tricky way;
in a way that denies the speaker's own responsibility for
wanting (and possibly forcing) the system to control for X.

PCT doesn't suggest anything. It's a model. In exactly the same way that
Newton's laws are a model and don't "suggest" anything.

So I think the science of PCT shows that my way of perceiving
the "I see you have chosen" situation is, indeed, the more
correct way to see it.

Rick, let me once again acknowledge that you are always right.

But if you want to believe that it's
all "just a matter of perception", then I think you would
get more respect for _your_ way of perceiving situations if
you stopped disagreeing with other people who perceive the
same situations differently.

I'm not seeking respect for my way of perceiving situations. My way of
perceiving situations is simply my way of perceiving situations. It neither
demands, nor deserves, "respect."

BG

20

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1258)]

Me:

by saying that I am "up to my old tricks", you are strongly
suggesting that my perception of the situation is less valid
than yours.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1352)--

I was "suggesting" no such thing to anyone but you.

Then what did mean when you said I was "up to my old tricks"?
Is that just your way of saying "I see that you see things
differently than I do; but your way of seeing things is just
as good as mine"?

But how could a perception be invalid?

Many ways. Perceptual illusions, for one. "Scientific" illusions
are another (perceptions, like that of a stick that appears to be
bent at the water line, that differ from what we know to be true
on other grounds).

Me:

PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that
"choose" by setting references for the states of controlled
input variables.

Ye:

If choosing refers to anything in PCT, it refers to
reorganization.

I don't see that at all. I can see how "choosing" might refer
to the random selection of reference settings that is presumed
to occur in reorganization. But reorganization seems to involve
more than just this kind of "choosing".

But even if we agree that "choosing" refers to reorganization,
it still seems disrespectful to say "I see you have chosen X"
(meaning, "I see you are reorganizing") and forcing control of
X when you don't know that X is what the person wants to control.

Me:

PCT suggests that it's disrespectful to tell a system "I see
you have chosen X" when you have not determined that the
system is actually controlling for X

Ye:

PCT doesn't suggest anything.

I thought certain applications based their practices on PCT. If
PCT doesn't suggest anything then it certainly doesn't suggest
whether particular practices should or should not be used in
certain applications.

I'm not seeking respect for my way of perceiving situations.

Then "What are you doing?"

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com