[From Bruce Nevin (991129.2327 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (991129.1142 EST)
At 11:45 AM 11/29/1999 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
Bill Powers (991129.0807 MDT)
Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you
see. " ... and
that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a
non-factual statement
about what you imagine.Agreed.
Is an agreement imaginary?
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Gregory (991130.0655 EST)]
Bruce Nevin (991129.2327 EST)
Bruce Gregory (991129.1142 EST)
>
>
>Bill Powers (991129.0807 MDT)
>
>> Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
>> Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you
>> see. " ... and
>> that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a
>> non-factual statement
>> about what you imagine.
>
>Agreed.Is an agreement imaginary?
No, but it is possible to violate an agreement as the side effect of
controlling another variable. I'm will to minimize inferences based on the
assumption that someone has acted on one basis or the other. I have no
problem reminding someone of a prior agreement, however.
Bruce Gregory
At 11:45 AM 11/29/1999 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Nevin (991130.1131 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (991130.0655 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (991129.1142 EST)
>
>
>Bill Powers (991129.0807 MDT)
>
>> "you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a
>> non-factual statement about what you imagine.
>
>Agreed.Is an agreement imaginary?
No, but it is possible to violate an agreement as the side effect of
controlling another variable.
Yes, one type of conflict that we haven't talked about a lot is when
control of one variable has side effects that interfere with control of
another. The usual assumption is that conflict occurs only when two control
loops with different reference values are closed through the same
environment variable.
An agreement is control of one or more variables by all parties to the
agreement. For simplicity, assume there are two parties. Each expects the
other to control variables known to both at reference values known to both.
(They need not be the same variables/references for both.)
I'm willing to minimize inferences based
on the assumption that someone has acted on one basis or the other.
Failure to control as agreed may be due to
Conflict from another control loop closed through
the same environment variable.
Interference from controlling something else.
Forgetting to control as agreed.
Not paying attention to an agreed variable.
Ceasing to agree.
Controlling provocation of the other.
Demonstrating one's power vs. the helplessness of the other.
There are probably others. I think we are obligated to "minimize
inferences" as you say, that is, we can't assume which of these is true.
However, the other party to the agreement can fairly assume that control as
agreed was not important to the agreement-breaker, or was not as important
as e.g. one of the above. They are likely to conclude that the other should
not expect to rely on them for cooperation and assistance, since they are
not being reliable in turn. (For the evolutionary basis, refer to Robin
Dunbar, _Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language_, Harvard U. Press.)
I have no problem reminding someone of a prior agreement, however.
Yes, if one stops controlling as agreed, the other may remind them.
If the student actually entered in the agreement, the teacher is
remembering the agreement and is reminding the student of it. If not, then
the teacher will find out in the course of asking the questions that follow
the first disruption. Given that prior dialog, we can conclude that the
teacher is not imagining the student's participation.
What is the RTP agreement? The students agree to control the perception
"distrupting the class" -- that is, distracting other students when they
are trying to learn. Children of school age already are familiar with
controlling "disturbance to another's control". They remind one another of
this frequently. They expect one another to be responsible for unintended
side effects when they are disturbances. Reminders and other resistance to
the unintended side effects can disturb the other's control, as a side
effect in turn, resulting in conflict. The resistance is not always a
counter-disturbance, however--after all, it is resistance to a side effect.
But if the lapse from the agreement was due to internal conflict, then even
resistance which itself does not disturb the other's control can
nonetheless seem to "cause" this internal conflict. Keeping agreements,
such as the general agreement of mature adults to be civil and considerate,
is not always convenient.
The specific RTP agreement is a particular instance of agreements that the
children negotiate less formally every day. The RTP process provides an
example which they can (and reportedly do) follow in resolving other
interference with one another.
I have seen zero evidence that the RTP agreement is a rule created by
teachers for their convenience and imposed upon the students. On the
contrary, I have seen testimonial evidence that teachers have to be
convinced that RTP will serve their convenience at all.
Bruce Nevin
At 06:55 AM 11/30/1999 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
At 11:45 AM 11/29/1999 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
[From Bruce Gregory (991130.1215 EST)]
Bruce Nevin (991130.1131 EST)
I have seen zero evidence that the RTP agreement is a rule created by
teachers for their convenience and imposed upon the students. On the
contrary, I have seen testimonial evidence that teachers have to be
convinced that RTP will serve their convenience at all.
This is also true of traffic laws. We agree they are needed for the
benefit of all and accept the fact that they lead to the occasional
annoyance of some. I see the RTC as a form of therapy. It addresses the
question, how can I get along with others and meet my own needs, too. A
pressing problem in any society, and one that we all must solve. Whether
you see the RTP mechanism as a facilitator or a punisher probably tells
us more about you than it does about RTP.
Bruce Gregory