From [Marc Abrams (980219.20:03 EST)
I am responding to the recent thread with Jeff V and the rest of the
world :-). About a week ago Bill P made an a couple of important
statements that I think are worth repeating. To paraphrase:
a) You can _never_ _know_ for sure what someone else's _perception_
really is.
b) In doing the "test" you are really testing wether _your_ perception
of what _you_ (think, assume, know, guess, etc. take your pick of
words :-)) what someone else _might_ be controlling for. And, we all
know that we _control_ for _many_ things _at the same time_ some of
which we are aware of and some not.
So my logic from the above is: Wether we "know" a _CV_ or not and
wether we see intended or unintended side effects are _all_
_irrelevant_ unless we _check_ _our_ assumptions, guesses, etc. with
the person we are communicating with. In using the Vancouver thread as
an example, Bruce A, Bruce G, Isaac K, & Rick all made assumptions
about what Jeff had _meant_. (what he was controlling for) by what he
said. _NO ONE_ asked Jeff to clarify what he meant by what he said. I
find that amazing in light of Bill's statements.
I would also like to add something about Rick. I am _not_ trying to
defend him, because I don't think he needs defending. I am using him
as an example because a recent post by Jeff Vancouver illustrates my
point..
Jeff V stated:
Unfortunately, it is your Nopes and Nos which create the kinds of
perceptions to which people react (have reference signals different
from the perceptions).
Sorry Jeff. _Rick_ was not, is not, and _never_ will be the _cause_ of
_your_ perceptions. Or _ANYONE_ else's. _WE_ are responsible for _OUR
OWN_ perceptions. PERIOD.
My point is that communicating over the net is tough. We make it
tougher when we _assume_ without clarifying.
Marc
From [Marc Abrams(980221.1302)
Hi Jeff.
[from Jeff Vancouver 980220.0910 EST]
From [Marc Abrams (980219.20:03 EST)
First, let me say thank you for the first part of this statement
(which I
did not reproduce). Although, I am not sure even I know what I am
controlling :).
Join the club 
That was one of my main points. We are "controlling"
for _many_ things simultaneously. Some we are aware of ( conscious
of ) & some not. The other problem is that this stuff _changes_ over
time and so does the prioritization.
Sorry Jeff. _Rick_ was not, is not, and _never_ will be the _cause_
of
_your_ perceptions. Or _ANYONE_ else's. _WE_ are responsible for _OUR
OWN_ perceptions. PERIOD.
Sorry, Marc, it is not the cut and dry. Unless one is creating their
perceptions from memory (I.e., using the imagination mode),
perceptions are
derived from the inputs from the environment into the input functions.
It
is true that I am "responsible" for my input functions, but I do not
think
it is unreasonable to describe the nature of the inputs into those
functions which influence the results (I.e., the perception).
And I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Our
_perceptions_ are _internally_ _constructed_. Rick might very well be
causing _Disturbances_ but that is because of how _YOU_ perceive
Rick to be. _My_ perceptions of Rick are different. He occasionally
disturbs some of my CV's but when that happens I try to find out what
is it about _my_ perceptions that might be causing the problem. The
reason I do that is simple. It's the _only_ thing I can control. ( and
not easily :-))
Marc.
[from Jeff Vancouver 980221.1522 EST]
From [Marc Abrams(980221.1302)
me:
Sorry, Marc, it is not the cut and dry. Unless one is creating their
perceptions from memory (I.e., using the imagination mode),
perceptions are
derived from the inputs from the environment into the input functions.
It
is true that I am "responsible" for my input functions, but I do not
think
it is unreasonable to describe the nature of the inputs into those
functions which influence the results (I.e., the perception).
Marc:
And I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Our
_perceptions_ are _internally_ _constructed_. Rick might very well be
causing _Disturbances_ but that is because of how _YOU_ perceive
Rick to be. _My_ perceptions of Rick are different. He occasionally
disturbs some of my CV's but when that happens I try to find out what
is it about _my_ perceptions that might be causing the problem. The
reason I do that is simple. It's the _only_ thing I can control. ( and
not easily :-))
I sort of agree with you. But what you are controlling is your perception
of your perceptions. That is, the output function of the ECU in question
is reorganizing the input function of the ECU that controls whatever it is
that Rick is saying that is ticking you (or me) off.
THere is an infinite regress problem here that makes the word
responsibility very problematic.
But, Marc, thank you for doing it respectfully. I am actually beginning to
think my thread is making a difference (I even think I perceive some toning
down of Rick).
Sincerely,
Jeff
From [Marc Abrams (980222.1601)]
Thanks for the clarification Rick ( [From Rick Marken (980221.2030)]
You can now give yourself a pat on the back
Marc
That was one of my main points. We are "controlling"