[From Bill Powers (921213.1730)]
John Gabriel (921213 16:52 CST) --
I'm not against trying to cope with the world as it is and doing
what's necessary to survive, within limits (survival is not
necessarily the most important goal, as generations of heros and
martyrs have shown). But when we go to war, I think we should
just go to war and do our best to win. Forget the justifications.
They're all hogwash. If someone's trying to kill you you try to
kill him first. Why try to make more of it than that? As long as
we find some nobility in lethal contests, we'll be reluctant to
let go of that kind of social interaction. We have to remember
that everyone fighting in a war has gone insane. We wouldn't let
people run loose in the streets if they acted that way when they
had a dispute with the neighbors.
So in answer to your question, if someone tried to harm my new
grandson I would do my best to prevent it. I wouldn't stop to
theorize. But I wouldn't try to pretty it up afterward. Nor would
I then devote all my efforts to erecting an impregnable wall to
keep the bad guys away from him -- and him inside.
What I would do afterward is what I am doing now: trying to work
toward a real science of human behavior. A real science of human
behavior is the ultimate protection against bullets.
But on lethal force etc. there are interesting issues in animal
behaviour - see the Altmans on Baboon Society, and Rolf
Peterson and others on Wolves.
I don't aspire to be either a baboon or a wolf. All violent
confrontations, I suspect, are simply a matter of incompatible
goals; it's not that we inherit aggression, but simply that we
are all control systems. We do what works. If it doesn't work, we
try harder or try something else.
Escalation is always a problem, witness what is happening in
the cities. Just exactly why I want to have better decision
making in Govt AND in Defense.
Yes. Control theory shows why conflicts tend to escalate. It is
the nature of conflicting control systems to raise their opposing
outputs to the maximum possible level. The only permanent
solution is to resolve, not win, the conflicts.
If you want, let's debate off line, but perhaps just let it
drop.
No need for either. Control theory has a lot to say about
conflict. But it won't be of much use until we get away from
statistical generalizations and start getting real data with
which to improve the theory. PCT can be effective if we decide to
make it effective. The way to make it effective is to demand that
it work every time, and accept nothing less. No more trends andtendencies and
indications and probabilities and scenarios and
situations. That approach doesn't work worth a hoot. If we're
going to apply PCT to the problem of war, let's find out what
brings people into conflict and what can get them out of it
again. And I mean REALLY find out, not just do a bunch of
statistical studies. Give me one one-hundredth of a percent of
the military budget and we'll get started. This is a solvable
problem. If anybody really wants to solve it.
A Happy Christmas back to you, and even happier ones ahead.
ยทยทยท
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best.
Bill P.