Old post by Bill

[From Bill Powers (2009.10.01.0813 MDT)]

I was checking out the Archives that Dag Forsell has created, and
naturally wanted to see what I was writing years ago. In the first batch
contributed by Richard Kennaway, from 1994, I found this, which is highly
pertinent to some of the arguments still going on:

···

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


If you approach human interactions from any particular political or
social or religious standpoint, then you're no longer a PCT
scientist but simply yet another person trying to work out a way to
get what you want at all levels of organization. You change from
being a scientist to being data.
In some ways I wish I could just be data and not a PCT scientist. I
am data, of course, but in ways that elude my conscious knowledge.
Consciously, I am simply observing and trying to understand how
people work, in a way that bars me from participating (sincerely) in
most of the ordinary beliefs and customs that I consciously observe.
This is not a comfortable way to live. It's the price of choosing to
understand rather than to be comfortable. I don't blame anyone for
rejecting this approach and keeping in some secret place a set of
convictions and persuasions as a place of refuge, a place where some
periods of certainty and freedom from conflict can be enjoyed. But
understanding is not to be found in that place: only comfort.

===============================================================
That’s better than I know how to write (or think) today.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.1000EDT)]

Bill, I don’t recall Richard Kennaway’s wonderful post. It may have been posted before I was on CSGNet or not a regular reader. Like you, I sense that Richard has captured some “truth” about human behavior and human nature that I totally agree with yet have never been able to express effectively.

You must know how many times I have pleaded with Rick Marken (publicly and privately) to stop bringing his perceptions about “political, social and religious” behavior onto this forum. For me, they do NOT advance PCT science. They only advance Rick’s personal view of how he would like to perceive the world. His views matter, certainly to him, but to many other people also. But, there are many groups (physical and on the Internet) where such views are of high interest to others where debating the goals and behavior related to them are a legitimate subject of debate. These subjects are so personal and at high perceptual levels that intense conflict is likely. Violence and even wars are fostered in trying to have your view prevail over contrary reference perceptions.

But, perhaps myopically, I assume that on a scientific forum we can have sincere disagreements without being disagreeable. It seems this way with you and Martin about information theory. It can become so frustrating, you want to just give up and disengage. But, I don’t see the personal attacks, namecalling, etc., coming from you or Martin. For me, it not only produces respect, but a desire to stay on to learn different perspectives and anticipate new subjects that enlighten my mind and learn new things and possibly reorganize my own internal control systems.

Even in the recent economic debate (which I believe has PCT behavioral elements but also is constrained by largely intractable political system limits), we find Rick relying on “data.” The data selected and interpreted by Rick to support Rick’s world view. According to Richard, as I understand his point, this is to make Rick comfortable. I think this hits the nail on the head. And, it detracts from Rick’s scientific accomplishments in PCT which I respect and find highly valuable. It actually has turned some potential PCTers off, where they leave this group or leave PCT science altogether.

Why do they do that? Well, of course, I can only speculate. I think they do not come to CSGNet or PCT with a reference for making Rick comfortable about his world view. I am more convicted that they do not join CSGNet to get their reference perceptions about tax policy, homosexuality or God attacked, get called names or have their ethics ridiculed by Rick (or anyone else for that matter). There have been others far more vile than Rick who have thankfully departed this Net.

So, I tip my hat to Richard. His post on correlation was simply the most informative and scientific as anything I ever read about this data analysis technique. This is also profound. Seeking understanding of human behavior through PCT is why I come here. It is not to determine what behavior is right or wrong. As far as I know, you and Rick both acknowledge PCT/HPCT can NOT provide those answers in any absolute way. All it can do is to diagnose or test for the perceptions in each of our heads/perceptual hierarchies which make us personally comfortable.

Oh, it is nice when others hold those same perceptions, but it is bound to create conflict when they are opposed by others. Why can’t we stick to being scientists on CSGNet and apply that science to our lives and interactions with other humans? Can’t we stop the nitpicking and accusations and stick to behavior science while applying MOL to internal conflicts as you have suggested to me. BTW, I am not a proponent of personal MOL. I see this as merely conscious reasoning. Having an MOL facilitator provides the unique opportunity to notice/discover background/unconscious thoughts that can lead to learning/reorganization in the subject. Man, that is new, exciting and superior behavior system theory with corresponding results that are mind boggling.

My hat is off to you and Tim for showing this better theory to me, not only to apply to my life, but to teach and apply it for the betterment of the lives of others. After the Economic Summit in Pittsburgh, and the accolades for how great it was managed and what a great city Pittsburgh is, a gang member in Pittsburgh shot and murdered a 5-year old boy sleeping on his couch in his home. I wish someone could do an MOL with that teenage gangster. It is the real world. And, how about an MOL with the head of Iran before his nuclear weapon plan plunges the world into a war that could kill millions of innocent people.

Such ideas are for my comfort. The point is they will not be initiated through CSGNet. Only people who understand PCT/MOL can take the understanding and apply it for results, one by one. How to go about that is not always obvious.

Kenny

In a message dated 10/1/2009 10:24:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

If you approach human interactions from any particular political or
social or religious standpoint, then you're no longer a PCT
scientist but simply yet another person trying to work out a way to
get what you want at all levels of organization. You change from
being a scientist to being data.
In some ways I wish I could just be data and not a PCT scientist. I
am data, of course, but in ways that elude my conscious knowledge.
Consciously, I am simply observing and trying to understand how
people work, in a way that bars me from participating (sincerely) in
most of the ordinary beliefs and customs that I consciously observe.
This is not a comfortable way to live. It's the price of choosing to
understand rather than to be comfortable. I don't blame anyone for
rejecting this approach and keeping in some secret place a set of
convictions and persuasions as a place of refuge, a place where some
periods of certainty and freedom from conflict can be enjoyed. But
understanding is not to be found in that place: only comfort.

[From Bill Powers (2009.10.01.0813 MDT)]

I was checking out the Archives that Dag Forsell has created, and naturally wanted to see what I was writing years ago. In the first batch contributed by Richard Kennaway, from 1994, I found this, which is highly pertinent to some of the arguments still going on:

===============================================================
That’s better than I know how to write (or think) today.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Richard Kennaway (2009.10.01.1644 BST)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.1000EDT)]

Bill, I don't recall Richard Kennaway's wonderful post. It may have been posted before I was on CSGNet or not a regular reader. Like you, I sense that Richard has captured some "truth" about human behavior and human nature that I totally agree with yet have never been able to express effectively.

That wasn't me Bill quoted, much as I might like to have said that, but, I think, Bill himself.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Bill, I don’t recall Richard
Kennaway’s wonderful post. It may have been posted before I was on
CSGNet or not a regular reader. Like you, I sense that Richard has
captured some “truth” about human behavior and human nature
that I totally agree with yet have never been able to express
effectively.
You must know how many times I
have pleaded with Rick Marken (publicly and privately) to stop
bringing his perceptions about “political, social and
religious” behavior onto this forum.
[From Bill Powers (2009.10.01.1127 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.1000EDT)

···

I hate to deprive Richard of your praise, but he is right: that was
something I wrote back in 1994. I didn’t make the source clear.

I’m not really interested in your complaints about or attacks on Rick any
more than I am interested in his complaints about or attacks on you. What
you said there is just another personal attack, as I see it. Is this
retaliation number 1,354 for retaliation number 1,353, or have I lost
count?

I occasionally come down on him for something he has said, but I consider
doing that a mistake and most often manage to keep it to myself.

For me, they do NOT advance PCT
science. They only advance Rick’s personal view of how he would
like to perceive the world.

Does that disturb your personal view of how the world should be? To whom
are you complaining? Do you want the CSG to have a vote and throw Rick
off the island? Are you calling for a thunderbolt to take him out? Am I
supposed to be the policeman and tell him to quit picking on you, or
whoever it is this time? Exactly what action are you hoping to initiate
here? Whatever it is, I’m not going to do it for you. If you want PCT
science to be done, by all means do it. And yes, I an addressing all that
to Rick, too.

It takes two people to have an interpersonal conflict. Do the
arithmetic.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.01.1400EDT)]

In a message dated 10/1/2009 1:49:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

Bill, I don't recall Richard Kennaway's wonderful post.  It may have been posted before I was on CSGNet or not a regular reader.  Like you, I sense that Richard has captured some "truth" about human behavior and human nature that I totally agree with yet have never been able to express effectively.

[From Bill Powers (2009.10.01.1127 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.1000EDT) –

I hate to deprive Richard of your praise, but he is right: that was something I wrote back in 1994. I didn’t make the source clear.
Sorry for the confusion between you and Richard. I read it rather quickly as I was on my way to a meeting. The point made was pleasing to my goals.

You must know how many times I have pleaded with Rick Marken (publicly and privately)  to stop bringing his perceptions about "political, social and religious" behavior onto this forum.

I’m not really interested in your complaints about or attacks on Rick any more than I am interested in his complaints about or attacks on you. What you said there is just another personal attack, as I see it. Is this retaliation number 1,354 for retaliation number 1,353, or have I lost count?
Your statement seems in conflict with your behavior when you questioned Rick as to why he characterized me as, or potentially as, a Nazi.

I occasionally come down on him for something he has said, but I consider doing that a mistake and most often manage to keep it to myself.
My perception is that when you come down on him he eventually backs away from his accusatory statements towards other CSGNet participants or their views of social, political or religious issues. I don’t view that as a mistake. It is a self-policing way to make CSGNet a more science focused group.

For me, they do NOT advance PCT science.  They only advance Rick's personal view of how he would like to perceive the world.

Does that disturb your personal view of how the world should be?
No. It disturbs my view of what would welcome new participants and keep older ones on the Net and posting their observations and questions about PCT.

To whom are you complaining?
To the participants on CSGNet. It is a self-control request to have Rick, and everyone else, avoid personal references for perceptual variables in the areas of social, political or religious areas. It is done all the time with advising the group’s preference for the time and person header. Being silent when “Republicans,” even the President, is called an a__hole, does not make this look like a professional, and scientific forum.

Do you want the CSG to have a vote and throw Rick off the island?
I don’t like voting. But, if a number of members objected, or remained silent, when such personal issues within social, political or religious variables are brought up, I believe a consensus would build that Rick could observe that these issues are best taken to other venues. If no one responds, or objects to the content, it might cause the offender to try a new means for advancing PCT science.

Are you calling for a thunderbolt to take him out?
Is that an insult? Is that what you think I want?

Am I supposed to be the policeman and tell him to quit picking on you, or whoever it is this time?
Yes, basically, you and others who wish to keep focused on the science of PCT rather than the correctness of personal reference perceptions. I would add that a private complaint would probably be more appropriate.

Exactly what action are you hoping to initiate here?
I am hoping that your well-written expose on personal comfort versus scientific discoveries would be acknowledged by all or most of the participants on CSGNet. A Net consensus would form, and be expressed as off-base when, especially new visitors, unaware of that consensus, start to debate the merits of how the universe began, when mankind originated, animal rights, birth control rights, or who this Creator was that our forefathers envisioned gave citizens of the USA their inalienable rights. Take it somewhere else to raise you comfort.

Whatever it is, I’m not going to do it for you. If you want PCT science to be done, by all means do it. And yes, I an addressing all that to Rick, too.
Understood and fair enough. I have been applying PCT to management and leadership for a decade. I was not the first and won’t be the last. Dag’s Soldani article is a good foundation for applying PCT for improved business results. It seemed like science to me.

It takes two people to have an interpersonal conflict. Do the arithmetic.

Best,

Bill P.
That is 1 + 1 = 2? I think I get it.

Kenny

···

[From Rick Marken (2009.10.01.1540)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.1000EDT)–

Bill, I don’t recall Richard Kennaway’s wonderful post. It may have been posted before I was on CSGNet or not a regular reader. Like you, I sense that Richard has captured some “truth” about human behavior and human nature that I totally agree with yet have never been able to express effectively.

You must know how many times I have pleaded with Rick Marken (publicly and privately) to stop bringing his perceptions about “political, social and religious” behavior onto this forum. For me, they do NOT advance PCT science.

The post to which you refer argued that it is not scientific to “…approach human interactions from any particular political or social or religious standpoint”. It didn’t say “don’t talk about political, social or religious behavior on CSGNet”. In fact, political, social, religious (and economic) behavior is the “data” that many of us want to understand scientifically.

What is “unscientific”, according to the post, is using one’s particular political, social or religious standpoint as a basis for understanding human behavior. From that point of view I would say that you are far more guilty than I of the “sins” described in the post. You have explicitly used your religious views as a basis for understanding human behavior (the 12th level) and you have just recently used your economic views as a basis for dismissing the development of a PCT-based (ie. scientific) approach to the economy.

I admit that I occasionally let my political, social or religious biases show (I did so, for example, when I said that I judged the right wing positions to be “awful”). But these biases do not influence my approach to understanding human behavior and interactions. The only bias that does influence my approach is PCT; and because this bias exists in the form of a model that makes clear, testable predictions – and because I am willing to abandon this bias in favor of another if these prediction fail – I consider it a scientific bias.

They only advance Rick’s personal view of how he would like to perceive the world.

This is true when I say things like “the right wing is awful”. But it is not true when I say that your sarcastic posts on economics may have been a reaction to a disturbance caused be the election results. In that case I am treating your behavior as data and I’m proposing an explanation. I think that kind of discussion is fair. You are certainly free to do the same with my behavior.

But, perhaps myopically, I assume that on a scientific forum we can have sincere disagreements without being disagreeable.

I think disagreeable is in the eye of the beholder.

Even in the recent economic debate (which I believe has PCT behavioral elements but also is constrained by largely intractable political system limits), we find Rick relying on “data.” The data selected and interpreted by Rick to support Rick’s world view. According to Richard, as I understand his point, this is to make Rick comfortable.

My data on the relationship between taxation and growth/unemployment showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between taxes and these variables. All economists say with great authority that increasing taxes reduces growth and employment. My data show that they could not possibly be making this claim on the basis of what is observed. Republicans have happily used this purported economic truth as the basis for a tax reduction policy that has driven the country into bankruptcy. My data simply shows that the economists should just be honest and say “I have no idea what effect taxes have on the economy”. Nothing Richard said about correlations obviates this point.

There have been others far more vile than Rick who have thankfully departed this Net.

People more vile than me? Heavenly days;-)

My hat is off to you and Tim for showing this better theory to me, not only to apply to my life, but to teach and apply it for the betterment of the lives of others. After the Economic Summit in Pittsburgh, and the accolades for how great it was managed and what a great city Pittsburgh is, a gang member in Pittsburgh shot and murdered a 5-year old boy sleeping on his couch in his home. I wish someone could do an MOL with that teenage gangster. It is the real world. And, how about an MOL with the head of Iran before his nuclear weapon plan plunges the world into a war that could kill millions of innocent people.

You have a very interesting way of not bringing your opinions about political issues into this forum.

Such ideas are for my comfort.

Then why write them here? If I’m “vile” for giving my opinion on these matters, what are you for giving yours? Might I suggest “vile hypocrite”.

Regards

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2009.10.01,1716 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.10.01.1400EDT)

···

BP Earlier; I’m not really
interested in your complaints about or attacks on Rick any more than I am
interested in his complaints about or attacks on you. What you said there
is just another personal attack, as I see it. Is this retaliation number
1,354 for retaliation number 1,353, or have I lost count?

KK: Your statement seems in conflict with your behavior when you
questioned Rick as to why he characterized me as, or potentially as, a
Nazi.

BP: Yes, I commented on that contradiction, too. I’m trying to follow my
own advice but don’t always succeed, as indicated in the next section you
cite:

BP earlier: I occasionally come
down on him for something he has said, but I consider doing that a
mistake and most often manage to keep it to myself.

KK: My perception is that when you come down on him he eventually
backs away from his accusatory statements towards other CSGNet
participants or their views of social, political or religious
issues.

BP: Permanently? Not that I have noticed.

KK: I don’t view that as a
mistake. It is a self-policing way to make CSGNet a more science
focused group.

BP: If I police someone else, that’s not self-policing. It’s
participating in a conflict between people.

KK earlier: For me, they do NOT
advance PCT science. They only advance Rick’s personal view of how
he would like to perceive the world.

Does that disturb your personal view of how the world should
be?

KK: No. It disturbs my view of what would welcome new
participants and keep older ones on the Net and posting their
observations and questions about PCT.

BP: And that’s not part of your personal view of how the world should be
(or is)?

BP earlier: To whom are you
complaining?

KK: To the participants on CSGNet. It is a self-control
request to have Rick, and everyone else, avoid personal references for
perceptual variables in the areas of social, political or religious
areas. It is done all the time with advising the group’s preference
for the time and person header. Being silent when
“Republicans,” even the President, is called an a__hole, does
not make this look like a professional, and scientific
forum.

BP: What have the participants on CSGnet said so far about your request
to have Rick avoid personal references? I haven’t noticed any
ground-swell of support for your position. Nor have I seen any particular
influence by Rick in persuading others on CSGnet to agree with his
opinions if they didn’t already degree. Maybe he wants to see you thrown
off of CSGnet.

BP earlier: Do you want the CSG
to have a vote and throw Rick off the island?

KK: I don’t like voting. But, if a number of members objected,
or remained silent, when such personal issues within social, political or
religious variables are brought up, I believe a consensus would build
that Rick could observe that these issues are best taken to other
venues. If no one responds, or objects to the content, it might
cause the offender to try a new means for advancing PCT
science.

BP: There’s always the problem of enforcement. I don’t think that anyone
who objects to Rick’s communications has been prevented from stating an
opinion on that subject. If you want to call for a vote to eject Rick
from CSGnet, go ahead. You might get a majority, in which case the
minority would probably move, with Rick, somewhere else.

BP earlier: Are you calling for
a thunderbolt to take him out?

KK: Is that an insult? Is that what you think I
want?

BP: I think you want him out of your life, but don’t want to be the one
who leaves. That’s an internal conflict, the sort that arises out of
interpersonal conflicts. Conflicts tend to escalate. I don’t know where
you set your limits, or whether you would apply different principles in
this sort of case than what you would recommend for international
affairs.

BP earlier:
Am I supposed to be the policeman
and tell him to quit picking on you, or whoever it is this
time?

KK: Yes, basically, you and others who wish to keep focused on the
science of PCT rather than the correctness of personal reference
perceptions.

BP: OK, that’s simple then. No, I will not be the policeman. You can, of
course ask someone else to be the policeman, or try being one
yourself.

KK: I would add that a
private complaint would probably be more appropriate.

BP: that’s a good idea. Try it.

BP earlier: Exactly what action
are you hoping to initiate here?

KK: I am hoping that your well-written expose on personal comfort
versus scientific discoveries would be acknowledged by all or most of the
participants on CSGNet. A Net consensus would form, and be
expressed as off-base when, especially new visitors, unaware of that
consensus, start to debate the merits of how the universe began, when
mankind originated, animal rights, birth control rights, or who this
Creator was that our forefathers envisioned gave citizens of the USA
their inalienable rights. Take it somewhere else to raise you
comfort.

BP: It seems to me that those subjects are of legitimate concern to
scientists. Are you concerned with changing the manner in which debates
are carried on, or is what you want to change the subjects that are
allowed to be debated? Someone who merely spouts animosity toward those
who think differently is out of line, in my opinion, as is someone who
returns the animosity doubled. That problem can be addressed in various
ways – personal communication, as you suggest, being one. But even
personal communication won’t work if you bully instead of trying to
persuade. And trying to ban subjects of discussion will, if you succeed,
leave you with less than you started with. You might end up having CSGnet
all to yourself.

BP earlier: Whatever it is, I’m
not going to do it for you. If you want PCT science to be done, by all
means do it. And yes, I an addressing all that to Rick,
too.

KK: Understood and fair enough. I have been applying PCT to
management and leadership for a decade. I was not the first and
won’t be the last. Dag’s Soldani article is a good foundation for
applying PCT for improved business results. It seemed like science
to me.

BP: It takes two people to have
an interpersonal conflict. Do the arithmetic.

KK: That is 1 + 1 = 2? I think I get
it.

What I had in mind is that 1 + 0 = 0. One person can’t have an
interpersonal conflict.

Best,

Bill P.

Best,

Bill P.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

The Wizard Of Oz

"Convince a man against his will;

He’s of the same opinion still."

Embroidery by Grammy Alice