[Hans Blom, 950815]
(Rick Marken (950809.1200)] and Joel Perkin (950809.0945 EDT))
Joel:
But most of the rules *are* what John wanted and agreed to earlier
in the year. ...
responsible thinking is the willingness and ability to follow set
rules and standards
Rick:
The only rules and standards a person can ever follow willingly are
one's own. ...
When you say "responsible thinking is the willingness and ability to
follow set rules and standards" it is clear that you want to teach
kids to follow the rules and standards that YOU have set or that you
accept.
A thought, that arises quite naturally in the context of model-based
control: We can control better if the world is more law-like, more
rule-based, more predictable. A chaotic, random world allows little
control. It seems to me, therefore, that in a social context we WANT
rules: they allow for better control for all participants. They allow
for better models of what is out there -- if the rules are followed.
It does not matter much what the rules are. We drive on the right
side of the road, the Britishers on the left. Right or left doesn't
matter. It is the extra predictability of whatever the rules are that
gives us better models. It isn't even necessary for everyone to
follow the SAME rules; as long as there are rules that we can all
perceive and use in the ways we act, we have all gained.
To me, the goal of Ed's program is to further rule-based behavior, in
which participants honestly promise to (and do) obey certain rules --
known to all -- so that everyone becomes more predictable to everyone
else, so that our interactions will become less chaotic and more
fluent and efficient. My impression of Ed's notion "responsible
thinking" is not an autoritarian one: Ed allows the rules to be
modified, but only in such a way, that the rules are always known to
all participants. Responsible thinking is taking it upon you to
behave predictably, so that others are better able to "model" you and
interact with you.
... so that others can better control you, one might say as well. Why
give others that power? Why revoke some of your freedom? Why not use
your freedom to drive on the lefthand side of the road in the USA?
Well, you can do that if agreeing to some set of rules is to your
advantage. So it is in your interest to carefully consider which
rules to agree with...
Again, the actual content of the rules is secondary, as long as they
are known (and not too complex to understand/be modelled/be used in
the way we act, I might add). Every culture lives by its own diffe-
rent set of rules, more or less successfully. It would be my guess
that we would be the best controllers in a world/culture where no
random (unpredictable) actions occur.
And, Rick, you ALWAYS accept some rules, even if it is your rule not
to accept rules. That, too, makes you predictable, in a way. But the
rules that operate in our society with regard to predictably unpre-
dictable people usually aren't the nicest...
Greetings,
Hans