No laissez faire here

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

{from Joel Judd 950206.1535 CST}

Bill & Rick:

I agree with the characterization of responsibility within a control
system model. I just keep trying to reconcile the neutral nature of the
model with the fact that I have to deal with real live PCSs every day.
The intentional-unintentional distinction is clear, too.

What gets less clear, though, are higher level perceptions that may
result in undesirable effects, even when the agent is not controlling
for such effects. The terrorist example is not what I'm thinking about
here. Instead, what about the gun dealer who believes he is really
engaging in a harmless activity? Remember, people kill people, not
guns. Just because he sells the Uzi, doesn't mean he's responsible for
those killed by it (or the manufacturer, if you like).

A number of pasttimes, products, and the like BY THEMSELVES are harmless
(kind of like theories of human behavior?) but when put into play weave
all kinds of interesting and unpredictable tapestries.

PCT has nothing to say about what people become responsible for...

Yeah, but it should :wink:

···

TO: CSG-L INTERNET Any user on the Internet, not at DESE Proj. Box

FROM: JUDDJ DESEINST Joel Judd - DESE - Division of Instruction

DATE: February 6, 1995
SUBJECT: No laissez faire here

2

Tom Bourbon [950207.0943]

{from Joel Judd 950206.1535 CST}

Bill & Rick:

I agree with the characterization of responsibility within a control
system model. I just keep trying to reconcile the neutral nature of the
model with the fact that I have to deal with real live PCSs every day.

I think you have identified one of the things that makes it so difficult
for some people to accept the PCT model for a person, Joel. Each of us
exists in or as a hierarchy of controlled perceptions. From within
that hierarchy it is sometimes difficult to remember that things almost
certainly look different inside the hierarchies of other people. It seems
extraordinarily easy for each of us to assume, at least once in a while,
that all others, or at least all others who are as smart and good as we,
must perceive the world the same way we do -- that that they must see the
same "truths" we do, and hold them "to be self-evident," the way we do. It
can be a shock to discover that the easy assumption is wrong.

What gets less clear, though, are higher level perceptions that may
result in undesirable effects, even when the agent is not controlling
for such effects. The terrorist example is not what I'm thinking about
here. Instead, what about the gun dealer who believes he is really
engaging in a harmless activity? Remember, people kill people, not
guns. Just because he sells the Uzi, doesn't mean he's responsible for
those killed by it (or the manufacturer, if you like).

Right, people kill people, not guns, and that really illustrates the
relationship between killing, as an activity, and perceptual control.
Thinking back over just the past few weeks, I recall seeing accounts in the
media of how people had killed other people by slashing them with knives,
dropping them out of windows, strapping them in child seats and driving the
car into the lake, stomping and kicking and strangling them with a shoelace,
clubbing them with baseball bats, running over them with a Dodge pickup
truck or a Chevrolet sedan or some other vehicle, poisoning them with
insecticide, and so on. Those are only a *few* of the imaginative ways I
heard of people killing people in recent weeks; I probably forgot many
others.

People seem to find many ways to kill people -- controlling perceptions all
the while. They are not about to be stopped by the absence of a gun (knife,
vehicle, bottle of bug poison, shoelace, bat, window, lake, etc). And they
certainly will not be goaded, S-R style, into killing people merely because
one of those items is present. On the other hand, people who intend to
kill, will kill. And as you say, who would have ever thought, when they
created or sold a particular shoelace, bat, Dodge, window, or lake that a
perceptual controller would turn that item into a means for killing.

Extraordinarily variable means to a common end -- and none of the means
kill people; people kill people.

As you said:

A number of pasttimes, products, and the like BY THEMSELVES are harmless
(kind of like theories of human behavior?) but when put into play weave
all kinds of interesting and unpredictable tapestries.

Indeed!

PCT has nothing to say about what people become responsible for...

Yeah, but it should :wink:

But that would take all of the fun out of it! :slight_smile:

Later,

Tom

3

[Martin Taylor 950207 15:30]

Tom Bourbon [950207.0943]

Getting a little political here, are we?

Extraordinarily variable means to a common end -- and none of the means
kill people; people kill people.

Go up a level and look at the situation again. Variable means to a common
end. What's the end for which killing is the means? If killing were made
a leetle less easy, a gun being less readily to hand, would perhaps some
other means to that end be substituted for killing? Just sometimes?

Rather than the simplistic "guns don't kill people; people kill people"
perhaps we should say "people kill people if it's easier than other ways
of getting what they want." Then removing the guns would make it less
likely that people would kill people, sometimes.

At least the experience of countries with different degrees of access to
guns would suggest it might be so.

···

================

Going back a few days to a message from Rick now archived:

Rick said something about a person who intended to run a car into a
lamp-post being responsible for the car hitting the lamp-post, but not
for the dead pedestrians, since those were unintended side effects (or
something like that). It seems to me that responsibility in this same
sense should include those side effects that were reasonably probable
or readily imagined. There's more than one level of control system
operating here. For sure, the "hit the lamp-pole" perceptual signal
includes no pedestrians, dead or alive. But others in the same person
do, or should be expected to, if the driver has any experience in a car.

I think it is legitimate to say that a person is just as responsible
for the likely side-effects of a control behaviour as for the intended
consequence. You don't drive a car through a crowd that just happens
to be holding a celebration on the road to your work, even if your intention
was "only" to get to work and you had no intention of killing 17 people,
and there was a possibility that the people would move aside before you
hit them.

It used to be a legitimate defence in Japan, in case of a car accident,
that you were sufficiently drunk that you failed to perform your control
actions adequately (i.e. ran head on into an oncoming car in its proper lane).
Our Supreme Court recently ruled that a man could not be convicted of
rape if he was sufficiently drunk not to be able to form the intention
to rape. It seems to me that the intention to get drunk has foreseeable
likely side effects, and that these side effects should be part of the
responsibility of the actor.

Martin

4

Tom Bourbon [950208.1741]

[Martin Taylor 950207 15:30]

Tom Bourbon [950207.0943]

Getting a little political here, are we?

In what way(s), Martin? I really don't understand. Can you explain what it
was about my post that you thought was "political?" Was the post I was
replying to also political? If so, in what way(s)? I know we are talking
about some topics on which people, including the ones on this net, often hold
differing political views and opinions, but I was trying to talk about
killing as behavior by which killers control intended perceptions.

Extraordinarily variable means to a common end -- and none of the means
kill people; people kill people.

Go up a level and look at the situation again. Variable means to a common
end.

I did that, before I sent my post.

What's the end for which killing is the means?

I can't identify *the* end. There are *exactly* as many ends as there are
individuals who use killing as a means. Exactly as many.

If killing were made
a leetle less easy, a gun being less readily to hand, would perhaps some
other means to that end be substituted for killing? Just sometimes?

Not if the desired end is to kill, or if the higher-level end requires
killing.

Do you think it is appropriate to apply your questions to some of the other
means for killing that I mentioned in my post? For example, if we
eliminated hunting knives and kitchen knives from society, would knives be
at least a little less likely to be used as the means to reach an end? I
am not asking this in defense of any political position. I am trying to
understand why several participants on the net seem, to me, to talk about
one kind of inanimate object as though it plays the role of "cause" to the
behavior called killing. When we do that, aren't we lapsing into exactly
the model of environmental cause that would be acceptable to Skinner, for
example, or to Staddon? Perhaps I am only misreading some of you. I want
to know.

If we were to remove guns, knives and all of the other means for killing
that I described in my post, would killing stop? Would there be any
unintended consequences, possibly including some that a majority of people
might not like? I am simply curious.

Rather than the simplistic "guns don't kill people; people kill people"
perhaps we should say "people kill people if it's easier than other ways
of getting what they want." Then removing the guns would make it less
likely that people would kill people, sometimes.

Getting a little political here, are we? :wink:

At least the experience of countries with different degrees of access to
guns would suggest it might be so.

Only on selective readings of history and crime statistics.

Again, I am, not trying to argue for or against legal ownership of guns. My
intent is to encourage everyone to think about how their opinions about that
issue are arbitrary and they serve as reference perceptions, exactly like
the role played by our opinions about cursors and targets on the computer
screen, ice cream, movies, abortion, god, space exploration, the proper
temperature of coffee or tea or ale or bath water, and every other
perception we control. No particular setting of the reference level for any
particular perception is "objectively correct" when we are talking about
reference perceptions in a hierarchical perceptual control system.

It seems to me that the intention to get drunk has foreseeable
likely side effects, and that these side effects should be part of the
responsibility of the actor.

Didn't Aristotle say something like that, in _Nicomachean Ethics_? One who
harms another is guilty once. One who becomes drunk, then harms another, is
guilty twice; first, for putting himself or herself in the condition that
made the second offense more likely, then for the harm.

Later,

Tom

5

[Martin Taylor 950209 11:20]

Tom Bourbon [950208.1741]

Getting a little political here, are we?

In what way(s), Martin? I really don't understand. Can you explain what it
was about my post that you thought was "political?" Was the post I was
replying to also political?

I thought so. It seemed to me that to use as a topic material something
that (in the US) is a politically touchy subject, and to assert a judgment
on it, was political. That's independent of whether the position you take
is one with which I agree (and it isn't).

If killing were made
a leetle less easy, a gun being less readily to hand, would perhaps some
other means to that end be substituted for killing? Just sometimes?

Not if the desired end is to kill, or if the higher-level end requires
killing.

"Just sometimes" is in your opinion "never?" The question is about the "if"
in your response. If the "if" is satisfied, of course you are right, but
that's not the point. The point is that when you have a very easy means
to satisfy a higher level reference, it will usually be the one that is used.

Do you think it is appropriate to apply your questions to some of the other
means for killing that I mentioned in my post? For example, if we
eliminated hunting knives and kitchen knives from society, would knives be
at least a little less likely to be used as the means to reach an end?

Yes, of course. But it's much harder to kill someone with a knife if they
know you are trying to do it than it is with a gun. There just might be
a fight. You just might lose. With a loaded gun, if you aim straight, you
only have to pull the trigger. Quick, easy, and for you, painless (until
later).

I am trying to
understand why several participants on the net seem, to me, to talk about
one kind of inanimate object as though it plays the role of "cause" to the
behavior called killing.

I haven't seen anyone on THIS list take that position. Granted, in the
public discourse, the necessary shortening required by the length of a sound
bite tends to induce people to talk that way. But I doubt that many of
even the strongest anti-gun people would claim that the gun gets up by itself
and hypnotizes someone into killing.

If we were to remove guns, knives and all of the other means for killing
that I described in my post, would killing stop?

Of course not. But it would be harder for any individual, by killing, to
control whatever higher-level perceptions result in killing nowadays (in
the USA). Other means, such as discussion, might turn out to be easier
in a lot of cases.

Would there be any
unintended consequences, possibly including some that a majority of people
might not like? I am simply curious.

And more than a little disingenuous, I suspect. Of course there would be
consequences many people wouldn't like. There would be consequences they
would like, as well. Would the overall level of error in all the perceptual
control systems in the world increase or decrease? That's the unanswerable
question. Perhaps if we had enough guns, the population would decline
fast enough to stave off the coming ecological catastrophe, and people
would like the murder and mayhem better than the alternative starvation
and plague. Who knows?

At least the experience of countries with different degrees of access to
guns would suggest it might be so.

Only on selective readings of history and crime statistics.

That's a VERY interesting comment, which I don't understand at all.

Again, I am, not trying to argue for or against legal ownership of guns.

Then your wordings were a little unfortunately chosen. Sorry for
misunderstanding you.

No particular setting of the reference level for any
particular perception is "objectively correct" when we are talking about
reference perceptions in a hierarchical perceptual control system.

No, neither, in a well-functioning hierarchy, is any reference level
permanently static (except perhaps for the intrinsic references, and I
suspect that even these change value as we age). What is "objectively
correct" insofar as anything can be objective, is that the reference
levels be such as to minimize the overall error in the hierarchy; in a
particular hierarchy at a particular stage of reorganization, the only
thing that can affect the different reference levels is the environment.

Paradox!

Martin

6

<[Bill Leach 950210.05:02 EST(EDT)]

[Martin Taylor 950209 11:20]

Getting a little political here, are we?

In what way(s), Martin? I really don't understand. Can you explain
what it was about my post that you thought was "political?" Was the
post I was replying to also political?

Not that any of us is going to "get anywhere" in a discussion of this
sort...

It is very important to recognize ones' assumptions.

<Tom>

I am trying to understand why several participants on the net seem, to
me, to talk about one kind of inanimate object as though it plays the
role of "cause" to the behavior called killing.

I haven't seen anyone on THIS list take that position. Granted, in the
public discourse, the necessary shortening required by the length of a
sound bite tends to induce people to talk that way.

And once again, you seem to be discounting a very important problem by
excusing it due to "uncontrollable" circumstances. Continuously
bombarding people with "facts" that are not necessarily true is not the
way to solve ANY problems.

But I doubt that many of even the strongest anti-gun people would claim
that the gun gets up by itself and hypnotizes someone into killing.

That's comforting to know.

Of course not. But it would be harder for any individual, by killing,
to control whatever higher-level perceptions result in killing nowadays
(in the USA). Other means, such as discussion, might turn out to be
easier in a lot of cases.

This is a good point to raise but is it true? Do we really know that a
person that has used a gun to kill another person really would not kill
that other person if a gun were not available? And maybe even more
importantly, would this be true in a significant percentage of the
murders comitted?

Most of us that would not murder someone almost can not conceive of any
other way to accomplish the task but what about those that will and do
commit murder?

And I won't touch "ecological catastrophe"!

-bill