# PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372>\
**Category:** CSG2008\
**Created:** [January 31, 2008, 12:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372 "2008-01-31T00:18:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 12:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/1 "2008-01-31T00:18:00Z")

</div>

> > [Martin Taylor  
> > 2008.01.28.17.27]
> > 
> > I knoe this is very unscientific, but I find it hard to look at all those  
> > graphs and sustain the belief that correlation does not imply  
> > causation.  
> > [From Bill Powers (2008.01.30.1558 MST)]

Richard Kennaway (2008.01.30.1636 GMT) –

What correlation? I can draw lines between many pairs of points in those  
plots that support either the proposed hypothesis or its opposite. What  
does the relationship between any two points have to do with the  
relationship between any other two points?

> [Kennaway]The  
> variables “Absolutely believe in God”, “Attend religious  
> services”, “Pray several times a week”, and so on are  
> hardly independent. I would expect them to be highly correlated,  
> although the article does not mention this. There may also be  
> correlations among the various measures of societal well-being. In  
> which case, the correlations shown in the paper may be not many, but  
> one. The paper does not address this issue.
> 
> And perhaps the causality goes the other way. The greater the  
> societal well-being, the less it turns to  
> religion.

Yes, that’s what I suggested, too. But really, we don’t have any data  
here; just a lot of scattered points that leave the conclusions up to  
your prejudices, imagination, and any statistical tricks you know. I have  
no confidence in this sort of pseudodata. It’s just a way of trying to  
salvage something from a badly-conceived and badly-executed experiment.  
The same time and effort devoted to getting good data from a good  
experiment will make this kind of guesswork unnecessary.

> Well, it’s  
> at least as plausible as the opposite direction, and either way does not  
> speak well of religion. But eyeballing the data and making up  
> stories about it doesn’t go very far, especially data of this poor  
> quality. The paper is suggestive but no more than that. To the  
> atheist it will suggest that it hits the nail on the head, while to the  
> religionist it will suggest that it’s completely  
> flawed.

Bravo. Of course the problem is that when you take this view, those in  
favor and those against both come down on you – if you’re not cheering  
for one side you must be for the other side.

> These responses to  
> Gregory Paul’s paper are worth reading:
> 
> [  
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html](http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html)
> 
> [  
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html](http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html)

The references you gave were useful if a bit ponderous. The  
“reductionist fallacy” (inferences about collectives based on  
individuals) that is mentioned calls to mind its opposite: inferences  
about individuals based on collectives. In social matters, all inferences  
are fuzzy, in either direction. If you did a survey in Germany in 1943 to  
find out whether individuals believed in National Socialism, you would  
probably have got close to 100% saying yes. To say otherwise would have  
been foolish, especially for Jews. In the USA today, if a stranger asks  
questions about your belief in God, prayer, creation, evolution, and so  
on, you will get the least hassle if you portray yourself as devoutly  
religious. I don’t believe Americans are anything like as religious as  
the polls seem to show. A few penetrating questions, I maintain, would  
show that the claimed adherence to Judeo-Christian doctines is not  
reflected in actions (Do you believe a rich man has a chance of getting  
into heaven? Should we kill adulterers – you, for example, if you happen  
to have been one – by throwing large stones at them?). I’d say that God  
commands about the same _practical_ degree of belief as $anta Claus,  
however loudly people announce themselves to be among the blessed. I  
know, I know, they feel lots better for believing, and I take their word  
for that. But so what? Is the truth whatever makes us feel  
better?  
As I said to Rick, I think that religion is an attempt to explain things  
that science has unfortunately declared to be off-limits. It’s not a very  
successful attempt, so I think we should look elsewhere for better  
explanations and more effective remedies, which means that science had  
better stop being so hoity-toity about what science can try to deal with.  
I don’t think there is anything to gain from blaming everything on  
religion; that’s like blaming the witch-doctor for your headache when all  
he is guilty of is not being able to cure it. Religions go to extremes  
_because_ they don’t work. Let’s just get on with the job of  
devising a better approach to fixing the headache.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 5:25am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/2 "2008-01-31T05:25:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.30.2130)]

> Bill Powers (2008.01.30.1558 MST)--

> Yes, that's what I suggested, too. But really, we don't have any data here;  
> just a lot of scattered points that leave the conclusions up to your  
> prejudices, imagination, and any statistical tricks you know. I have no  
> confidence in this sort of pseudodata.

Gosh, if this is pseudo data (or no data at all) then what was your  
tracking data that showed just a lot of scattered points (no  
correlation) when you plot handle position against cursor position?

> It's just a way of trying to salvage  
> something from a badly-conceived and badly-executed experiment. The same  
> time and effort devoted to getting good data from a good experiment will  
> make this kind of guesswork unnecessary.

First, this wasn't an experiment. Second, what is badly conceived and  
executed about it? The conception was simply to look at the  
relationship between aggregate measures of religiosity and social  
problems. This seems like a perfectly reasonable first step in looking  
at whether there is a relationship between religiosity and social  
problems. Many religious leaders say religious belief improves  
society. The execution of the study involved getting some measures of  
religiosity and social problems over different countries, either from  
surveys or archival sources. The lack of a high negative correlation  
between religiosity and social problems across counties seems to argue  
against the idea that increased religiosity causes lower social  
problems as strongly as the lack of a high negative correlation  
between cursor and handle argues against the idea that the cursor is  
the cause of outputs in a tracking task. And since you think it was  
such a poorly conceived and executed experiment, what would you  
recommend be done to make it better?

> In the USA today, if a stranger asks questions about  
> your belief in God, prayer, creation, evolution, and so on, you will get the  
> least hassle if you portray yourself as devoutly religious.

That's possible but it seems to me that it's highly unlikely. I think  
it's highly unlikely that anyone was present when the survey was  
given. I would imagine the surveys were done by mail or e-mail. I  
can't think of any reason why a person would not honestly answer a  
private, anonymous survey about their degree of religious belief.

> I don't believe  
> Americans are anything like as religious as the polls seem to show. A few  
> penetrating questions, I maintain, would show that the claimed adherence to  
> Judeo-Christian doctines is not reflected in actions...I'd say that God commands  
> about the same practical degree of belief as $anta Claus, however loudly people  
> announce themselves to be among the blessed.

Americans who say they are religious are surely religious in different  
ways. But what the religious leaders (in our ecumenical society say)  
is that what is important is being religious, what ever that means to  
the person. Some people who call themselves religious Christians care  
mainly about abortion and gay marriage (two things that didn't concern  
Christ at all) and think the rich are great, poor deserve what they  
get and that when someone slaps you on the cheek you bomb the hell out  
of some irrelevant country. Others are more like what I would call  
Christians. But the question addressed by the survey was whether the  
proportion of people who consider themselves religious is related to  
the rate of social problems. Again, the point being addressed was  
whether having a large proportion of people who consider themselves  
religious is necessary in order to have a decent society. I think the  
data show clearly that it is not.

> I don't think there is anything to gain from blaming everything on religion;

Nor do I. And I wasn't. The person who wrote the article may be but  
that wasn't my aim in posting the data. Religion is a system concept,  
no? And I seem to remember you once saying that the way to make  
society better is to find system concepts that work better. Many  
people have said the same thing and the system concept that they think  
will make things better is a religious one. I presented this data as a  
way of evaluating the success of the general idea that a religious  
system concept is important for social betterment. The data suggest  
that having a large proportion of one's population considering  
themselves religious is not necessary to having a decent society.  
That's not blaming religion for anything. That's just saying that  
religious system concepts are \_irrelevant\_ to improving society.

> Religions go to extremes because they don't  
> work. Let's just get on with the job of devising a better approach to fixing  
> the headache.

Right . You are saying that religions don't work based on your own  
intuition, which is based on your observation that religion has been  
around for a long time but things are just as bad as ever. I am  
saying the same thing -- religions don't work -- but I'm basing it on  
the observation that there is \_no relationship\_ between the proportion  
of people in a country presenting in some way or another as  
"religious" and measures of social dysfunction in that country. I  
think my basis for saying that religions don't work is much better  
than yours. But I'm glad we both agree that religions don't work (but  
they sometimes motivate some really great art, which works for me).

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 10:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/3 "2008-01-31T10:37:15Z")

</div>

> > Yes, that’s what I  
> > suggested, too. But really, we don’t have any data here;
> 
> > just a lot of scattered points that leave the conclusions up to  
> > your
> 
> > prejudices, imagination, and any statistical tricks you know. I have  
> > no
> 
> > confidence in this sort of pseudodata.
> 
> Gosh, if this is pseudo data (or no data at all) then what was your
> 
> tracking data that showed just a lot of scattered points (no
> 
> correlation) when you plot handle position against cursor  
> position?
> 
> > It’s just a way of trying  
> > to salvage
> 
> > something from a badly-conceived and badly-executed experiment. The  
> > same
> 
> > time and effort devoted to getting good data from a good experiment  
> > will
> 
> > make this kind of guesswork unnecessary.
> 
> First, this wasn’t an experiment.  
> Second, what is badly  
> conceived and executed about it? The conception was simply to look at the  
> relationship between aggregate measures of religiosity and social
> 
> problems.  
> This seems like a  
> perfectly reasonable first step in looking
> 
> at whether there is a relationship between religiosity and social
> 
> problems.  
> Many religious leaders say  
> religious belief improves
> 
> society. The execution of the study involved getting some measures  
> of
> 
> religiosity and social problems over different countries, either  
> from
> 
> surveys or archival sources. The lack of a high negative correlation
> 
> between religiosity and social problems across counties seems to  
> argue
> 
> against the idea that increased religiosity causes lower social
> 
> problems as strongly as the lack of a high negative correlation
> 
> between cursor and handle argues against the idea that the cursor is
> 
> the cause of outputs in a tracking task. And since you think it was
> 
> such a poorly conceived and executed experiment, what would you
> 
> recommend be done to make it better?
> 
> > In the USA today, if  
> > a stranger asks questions about
> 
> > your belief in God, prayer, creation, evolution, and so on, you will  
> > get the
> 
> > least hassle if you portray yourself as devoutly religious.
> 
> That’s possible but it seems to me that it’s highly unlikely. I  
> think
> 
> it’s highly unlikely that anyone was present when the survey was
> 
> given. I would imagine the surveys were done by mail or  
> e-mail.  
> I can’t think of any  
> reason why a person would not honestly answer a
> 
> private, anonymous survey about their degree of religious  
> belief.
> 
> > I don’t believe
> 
> > Americans are anything like as religious as the polls seem to show.  
> > A few
> 
> > penetrating questions, I maintain, would show that the claimed  
> > adherence to
> 
> > Judeo-Christian doctines is not reflected in actions…I’d say that  
> > God commands
> 
> > about the same practical degree of belief as $anta Claus, however  
> > loudly people
> 
> > announce themselves to be among the blessed.
> 
> Americans who say they are religious are surely religious in  
> different
> 
> ways. But what the religious leaders (in our ecumenical society say)
> 
> is that what is important is being religious, what ever that means  
> to
> 
> the person.  
> Some people who call themselves  
> religious Christians care
> 
> mainly about abortion and gay marriage (two things that didn’t  
> concern
> 
> Christ at all) and think the rich are great, poor deserve what they
> 
> get and that when someone slaps you on the cheek you bomb the hell  
> out
> 
> of some irrelevant country. Others are more like what I would call
> 
> Christians. But the question addressed by the survey was whether the
> 
> proportion of people who consider themselves religious is related to
> 
> the rate of social problems. Again, the point being addressed was
> 
> whether having a large proportion of people who consider themselves
> 
> religious is necessary in order to have a decent society. I think  
> the
> 
> data show clearly that it is not.
> 
> > I don’t think there is anything to gain from blaming everything on  
> > religion;
> 
> Nor do I. And I wasn’t. The person who wrote the article may be but
> 
> that wasn’t my aim in posting the data. Religion is a system  
> concept,
> 
> no? And I seem to remember you once saying that the way to make
> 
> society better is to find system concepts that work  
> better.  
> Many people have said the  
> same thing and the system concept that they think
> 
> will make things better is a religious one. I presented this data as  
> a
> 
> way of evaluating the success of the general idea that a religious
> 
> system concept is important for social betterment. The data  
> suggest
> 
> that having a large proportion of one’s population considering
> 
> themselves religious is not necessary to having a decent society.
> 
> That’s not blaming religion for anything. That’s just saying that
> 
> religious system concepts are _irrelevant_ to improving  
> society.
> 
> > Religions go to extremes  
> > because they don’t
> 
> > work. Let’s just get on with the job of devising a better approach  
> > to fixing
> 
> > the headache.
> 
> Right . You are saying that religions don’t work based on your own
> 
> intuition, which is based on your observation that religion has been
> 
> around for a long time but things are just as bad as ever. I  
> am
> 
> saying the same thing – religions don’t work – but I’m basing it  
> on
> 
> the observation that there is _no relationship_ between the  
> proportion
> 
> of people in a country presenting in some way or another as
> 
> “religious” and measures of social dysfunction in that  
> country.  
> I think my basis for  
> saying that religions don’t work is much better
> 
> than yours.  
> [From Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)]

Rick Marken (2008.01.30.2130) –

That is lack of evidence of a causal relationship. Anyone who thinks  
there is a relationship (causal or otherwise) would have to use a lot of  
imagination, or rely on extremely uncertain indications of one. Plot the  
handle position against the disturbance, however, and you will get nearly  
a straight line or (if time is included) a nice ellipse, very strong  
evidence of a relationship. That’s good data.

The null hypothesis was that religion does not affect social welfare. The  
experimental test was to ask people what their religious ideas were and  
see if the answers correlate with social welfare. They didn’t (not in my  
book).

What was badly conceived was the definition of “religiosity”  
and “social problems.” What was badly executed was the survey  
– how can you find out what people meant by their answers if you don’t  
ask them, and pursue the lines of questioning until you’re sure you know?  
No wonder the correlations are (probably, I didn’t calculate them) so  
low. The kind of information needed here can’t be obtained by the simple  
inexpensive means of mailing out questionnaires. You get what you pay  
for.

I think it’s a sloppy and ineffective first step as the scatter plots  
reveal.

If I were looking at effects on changes in societies, I would measure  
changes in each society, not compare static samples from different  
societies.

Make up your mind about what your point is. I have said that  
I think the data about effects of religion on social welfare fail to show  
any relationship. You were arguing previously that the data show a  
negative relationship: that religion causes social evils. Now you’re only  
saying what I’ve already agreed to, and said from the start: religion  
does not improve social life. If there’s no relationship, that means  
there is no negative relationship as well as no positive  
relationship.

The first job is to show whether social problems have improved in any  
countries. If they haven’t changed measurably in any country, then  
there’s no point in looking for correlations of changes in social  
problems with anything else. The correlation of a constant with any other  
variable is zero. And if one country has social problems, you don’t look  
for their causes by looking at a different country’s social problems. You  
don’t calculate economic growth by subtracting my income last year from  
your income this year.

But somebody saw the results, obviously. If you got emails or letters  
asking you questions about your loyalty to the United States, would it be  
it your policy to fire off honest answers to whoever the sender says he  
is? A lot of people I know would reply, when asked about their religion,  
“None of your business.” How many people said that to these  
surveyors or their sources of data?

It’s a good thing you don’t live in the Bible Belt. Come on,  
try.

The things that are wrong with societies are the things that go wrong  
with individual people and are caused by ignorance and conflict. It is  
not lack of religion that makes bad things happen, but problems inside  
people’s heads. Some people are religious in ways that end up doing lots  
of good for people in need of help. Others cancel them out by doing lots  
of harm to people in need of help, like locking children in closets for  
months, treating women like inferior beings, and persecuting social  
nonconformists. If we could select which religious people would be  
allowed to continue in their ways, we could arrange for religion to seem  
to do a lot of good. Not that the same amount of good, or even more,  
couldn’t be accomplished in other ways, too. But just by looking for  
localized social improvements or degradations we could probably pick out  
the “good” religions from the “bad” ones.

However, it still wouldn’t be religion that causes the social changes.  
The social changes are caused by fixing what’s wrong with people, not by  
sitting quietly and believing something.

Now I think that the way to make society better is to help people  
reorganize their system concepts until the result is a better life rather  
than a worse one. I have my own preferences and recommendations, but  
obviously I don’t know what would work if everyone lived under the same  
concept. Or how you could even tell if it was the same concept.

You’re now arguing the same point I’ve been making all along. But you  
were saying that religion makes things worse. You’re still officially  
saying that until you officially retract it.

If things are just as bad as ever, how could there be any relationship?  
Actually, all parties concerned agree that things are at least as bad as  
ever, and possibly that they are getting worse. Religious people agree to  
this, too, but the activists say that this means we should try even  
harder to spread and apply religious ideas. That’s what I mean by saying  
failure leads to extreme actions: when what you’re doing fails to correct  
the error and even lets it increase, and you don’t reorganize, all you  
can do is produce more of the same action. The only effective thing to do  
when control is not working is to change what you’re doing, not do more  
of it.

I think mine’s just as good as yours. Nyah.

Best.

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/4 "2008-01-31T15:31:10Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2008.01.31.10.19]

> [From Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)]  
> Rick Marken (2008.01.30.2130) --  
> ...  
> Make up your mind about what your point is. I have said that I think the data about effects of religion on social welfare fail to show any relationship. You were arguing previously that the data show a negative relationship: that religion causes social evils.

Having followed this thread, I read the above with some considerable surprise, because it doesn't seem to represent at all what Rick has been saying. So I reread all of Rick's postings on the subject.

All the time, Rick has been saying that the data do NOT support the thesis that if people were more religious (read "Christian") society would have fewer of the ills reported in the Paul paper. He has said that if there is a relation at all, it is that increased religiosity is found in societies with higher levels of those problems. He has been careful always to point out that correlation does not imply causality. All of what Rick has said is correct and carefully expressed, so far as I can see.

I think you are being totally unfair to Rick.

> Now you're only saying what I've already agreed to, and said from the start: religion does not improve social life. If there's no relationship, that means there is no negative relationship as well as no positive relationship.

Now, for myself, and not just in support of Rick...

Having seen the Paul data, are you willing to support the thesis that there is no relationship? If you were to bet a large sum at even odds on the outcome of an experiment in whose methods you would believe, would you take the side of "no relationship" or the side of "more religion goes along with more problems"?

If I were to be offered such a bet (as an offer I couldn't refuse:-), I know which side of the bet I would take. And it wouldn't be that there's no relationship.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/5 "2008-01-31T15:46:28Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.0750)]

> Martin Taylor (2008.01.31.10.19) --
> 
> \>[From Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)]  
> \>Rick Marken (2008.01.30.2130) --  
> \>...  
> \>Make up your mind about what your point is. I have said that I think  
> \>the data about effects of religion on social welfare fail to show  
> \>any relationship. You were arguing previously that the data show a  
> \>negative relationship: that religion causes social evils.
> 
> Having followed this thread, I read the above with some considerable  
> surprise, because it doesn't seem to represent at all what Rick has  
> been saying. So I reread all of Rick's postings on the subject.
> 
> All the time, Rick has been saying that the data do NOT support the  
> thesis that if people were more religious (read "Christian") society  
> would have fewer of the ills reported in the Paul paper. He has said  
> that if there is a relation at all, it is that increased religiosity  
> is found in societies with higher levels of those problems. He has  
> been careful always to point out that correlation does not imply  
> causality. All of what Rick has said is correct and carefully  
> expressed, so far as I can see.

Thanks Martin. I woke up to Bill's appalling post this morning and was  
wondering how in the world to reply to it -- given my dismay and the  
fact that I have a gazillion other things to do today -- and then your  
wonderful post came through. Thanks!!

> I think you are being totally unfair to Rick.

To say the least. I wonder what it's about. Any ideas Martin?

> Now, for myself, and not just in support of Rick...
> 
> Having seen the Paul data, are you willing to support the thesis that  
> there is no relationship? If you were to bet a large sum at even odds  
> on the outcome of an experiment in whose methods you would believe,  
> would you take the side of "no relationship" or the side of "more  
> religion goes along with more problems"?
> 
> If I were to be offered such a bet (as an offer I couldn't refuse:-),  
> I know which side of the bet I would take. And it wouldn't be that  
> there's no relationship.

Also a good point. Do you think Bill will be able to understand that  
you said nothing about causality? My guess is that he will say that he  
would not take the bet because there is no evidence that religion  
causes social problems -- which would be true but another  
non-sequiter, like his earlier reply to me.

Thanks again.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/6 "2008-01-31T18:11:29Z")

</div>

> Thanks Martin. I woke up to  
> Bill’s appalling post this morning and was
> 
> wondering how in the world to reply to it – given my dismay and the
> 
> fact that I have a gazillion other things to do today – and then  
> your
> 
> wonderful post came through. Thanks!!  
> So it’s not really correct to  
> say, based on the evidence, that religious system concepts are “not  
> very likely” to be the cause of social dysfunction; just that
> 
> they are “not necessarily” the cause of this dysfunction. In  
> fact,
> 
> there is other data that suggests that there is a causal  
> relationship
> 
> between religious beliefs and abortion rate, for example. Abortion
> 
> rates are higher in regions where counselors are not allowed – for
> 
> strictly religious reasons – to discuss the abortion option with
> 
> expectant mothers than in places where they are allowed to discuss
> 
> this option.
> 
> > [Martin]you are being  
> > totally unfair to Rick.
> 
> [  
> [From Bill Powers (2008.01.31…0927 MST)].

Rick Marken (2008.01.31.0750) –

Well, it seems to me that you’re doing what lots of other people do:  
repeat the mantra that correlations do not imply causality, and then  
proceed to speak as if they do. Here’s what you said in your post of  
(2008.01.28. 1230):

But those “other data” are correlations, too. Why do you accept  
a correlation between abortion rates and not being allowed to discuss  
abortion as indicating a causal relationship? You have to invent an  
elaborate scenario to defend it, as opposed to the simple scenario that  
would lead one to expect the opposite causal relationship.

What we can agree on is that there are no data supporting a relationship  
between increases in religiosity and increases in social problems.  
Consider the figure you cited:

![1c3218c3.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/6/655d4ee5635921893724072aab32294dac5d1c2e.jpeg)

There is just one clear outlier: eliminate that and you greatly reduce  
the appearance of a correlation. Eliminate the other semi-outlier on the  
right, and the remaining 16 points show no relationship at all. So you  
are really basing your claim of a relationship on just two points, or at  
most three if you include the upper 15 percent (from 50 to 65 percent  
absolute belief in God) To the left of the 50 percent point there is no  
visible relationship. These are crappy data and not even supportive of  
the claim of a positive correlation (it’s hardly a normal distribution).  
There is obviously something operating in the USA to produce high  
homicide rates that is not operating the other countries. Belief in God  
is almost certainly not correlated with the homicide rate, as 16 out of  
the 18 points clearly show.

Please note that there is NOTHING in these data about  
“changes.” These are different countries with different  
homicide rates and (purportedly) different degrees of belief in God.  
Moving from one country to another is not a measure of a change in the  
homicide rate, or a change in the prevalence of a belief in God. There is  
absolutely nothing to indicate what would happen to homicide rates in the  
US if the degree of religiosity in the US were to decrease – or if the  
same happened in any of the other countries shown. Those changes were not  
measured.

Rick] To say the least. I wonder what it’s about.  
Any ideas Martin?

How about your “appalling” not-so-hidden agenda of fishing for  
reasons to bash religion even if you have to accept ridiculously bad data  
to do it? I happen to share your distaste for religion, as I have made  
abundantly clear, but I have an even greater distaste for bad or pseudo  
science. I am willing to put my own objections to religion on hold when I  
see someone purporting to support the same position as mine, but on  
grounds that are totally spurious. If I accepted your arguments, my own  
position would be greatly weakened. Nor would I be taken seriously when I  
turn to argue with those who support religion.

> > Now, for  
> > myself, and not just in support of Rick…
> 
> > 
> 
> > Having seen the Paul data, are you willing to support the thesis  
> > that
> 
> > there is no relationship? If you were to bet a large sum at even  
> > odds
> 
> > on the outcome of an experiment in whose methods you would  
> > believe,
> 
> > would you take the side of “no relationship” or the side  
> > of "more
> 
> > religion goes along with more  
> > problems"?

I would not bet at all. I see no grounds for calculating the odds, and  
with only one chance to bet anything could happen. Changes were not  
measured, and that was not the only flaw. For example, the commentary on  
the Paul data that Richard K. found brought up the point that in  
translating the questionnaires into Japanese, the translators said they  
couldn’t find a term in the Japanese language corresponding to the  
English word “God.” There were other language problems, too. If  
you base your prediction of homicide rate on the figure above, you would  
have to conclude that raising the incidence of belief to 100% should  
increase the homicide rate by a factor of 10 or 100 (pretty steep slope  
of that line through the only points implying any relationship at all).  
Doesn’t that make you a little suspicious? If everyone believed in God,  
would there still be any murderers? Do you know of any reason to believe  
that murderers believe in God any more than others do? Or is murder  
caused mostly by people who do not commit murders?

> > If I were to  
> > be offered such a bet (as an offer I couldn’t refuse:-),
> 
> > I know which side of the bet I would take. And it wouldn’t be  
> > that
> 
> > there’s no relationship.

I’ll keep you in mind when I need some extra cash.

> Also a good point.  
> Do you think Bill will be able to understand that
> 
> you said nothing about causality?

That’s pretty hard to support given my quote from Rick’s post above, and  
others that could be produced. Rick’s argument goes about like this:  
Correlations do not necessarily imply causality. “Not  
neccessarily” means that it’s not completely certain that causality  
is implied. Of course that also means that there very well could be  
(meaning “probably is”) a causal relationship between religion  
and social ills, and if there very well could be one, that’s enough  
reason to speak as if there is one. So religion causes social  
ills.

> My guess is  
> that he will say that he
> 
> would not take the bet because there is no evidence that religion
> 
> causes social problems – which would be true but another
> 
> non-sequiter, like his earlier reply to me.

Are you betting that the degree of belief in God in any given country  
correlates with an increase in homicide rates in that country? If so, I’d  
like to see the data on that one (that’s not in the Paul data). What do  
you predict the homicide rate would be in a randomly-chosen country in  
the plotted group if 99% of the population became born-again Christians?  
My prediction (odds of 16/18) is that it would be about what it is  
now.

Of course that doesn’t mean that the killing would stop. Wars,  
police-actions, informal invasions, retaliations, and executions might  
even increase. But they would not be considered to involve homicide.  
Self-defense is not homicide, is it? And didn’t we change the name of the  
War Department?

Best,

Bill P.

![Figure1.GIF](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/6/6f0494273c95dda0804558834d1807acbb06aa3a.gif)

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/7 "2008-01-31T18:48:17Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1050)]

> Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)--

OK, as usual I finished up many of my tasks more quickly than I  
thought so I'll take a minute to reply to this post.

I guess the thing that is most depressing about your post, besides the  
apparently purposeful misinterpretation of my own posts, is that it  
makes you look like a person who has no idea how research works. I  
assume you are doing this to try to reduce conflict with the religious  
types on the net. But it also has the effect of making me feel  
embarrassed to tell colleagues that my work is based on yours. If any  
of my colleagues read your last post they would think it quite strange  
that I take you seriously.

For example, you say that the Paul data is "non-data" because the  
scatter is so bad. But any researcher looking at those graphs would  
see that the scatter in some of the graphs isn't bad at all. Martin  
pointed this out by asking whether you would bet that there is not a  
relationship between any these measures of religiosity and social  
dysfunction. I will point this out by noting that, in one graph -- the  
one showing the correlation between the proportion of the population  
with an absolute belief in God and the number of abortions for 15-19  
year olds-- the correlation between this variables is actually .94 (I  
computed this by transferring the graphical data to a spreadsheet). So  
the measured correlation is actually quite a bit higher than I thought  
it was by eyeball estimate (about .7).

A correlation of .94 is certainly not "no relationship". By the way,  
if you eliminate the US data because you think it is misleading  
because people are saying they believe in God because they are afraid  
to say they don't, the correlation goes down to .82. Both those  
correlations -- .94 and .82 -- are significant at the .05 level (with  
6 and 5 df, respectively). Every researcher would be well aware of the  
fact that these correlations do not imply causality; but they would  
definitely think someone who said that these are "non-data" or  
"pseudo-data" was a crank, at best. I know you know research inside  
and out so I wish you wouldn't talk like a crank just to try to reduce  
conflict or whatever it is you are trying to do.

You go on to make more of an apparent crank of yourself in your reply  
to my claim that Paul's research was not an experiment. I had said:

> First, this wasn't an experiment.

and you reply with:

> The null hypothesis was that religion does not affect social welfare. The  
> experimental test was to ask people what their religious ideas were and see  
> if the answers correlate with social welfare. They didn't (not in my book).

But as I'm sure you know, an experiment is not defined by having a  
null hypothesis that is tested. An experiment (as you know) involves  
the manipulation of an independent variable \_under controlled  
conditions\_ and measuring a dependent variable. Paul did not  
manipulate or control for any variables; that's why you can draw no  
conclusions about causality. Paul's research is called  
"non-experimental" or "correlational". If one of my colleagues read  
your comment above they would wonder what in the world I could  
possibly see in your work.

I know that you know the difference between experimental and  
non-experimental research and I know that you know that Paul's  
research was non-experimental. I also suspect that a correlation of  
.94 is real data in your book. I don't know why you go off on these  
odd crank posts. As I said, I suspect it's to reduce conflict with the  
religious types (at the expense of conflict with me, I suppose). But  
try to think about what this does to your image as a scientist. And if  
you don't care about that, think about what it might do to my  
reputation for taste in scientific role models;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 7:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/8 "2008-01-31T19:24:27Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson, 2008.01.31.1325CST]

My goodness,

Is all this sharpness really necessary?

> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----  
> From: Richard Marken [rsmarken@GMAIL.COM](mailto:rsmarken@GMAIL.COM)  
> Date: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:51 pm  
> Subject: Re: PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1050)]
> > 
> > > Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)–
> > 
> > OK, as usual I finished up many of my tasks more quickly than I  
> > thought so I’ll take a minute to reply to this post.
> > 
> > I guess the thing that is most depressing about your post,  
> > besides the  
> > apparently purposeful misinterpretation of my own posts, is that it  
> > makes you look like a person who has no idea how research works. I  
> > assume you are doing this to try to reduce conflict with the religious  
> > types on the net. But it also has the effect of making me feel  
> > embarrassed to tell colleagues that my work is based on yours.  
> > If any  
> > of my colleagues read your last post they would think it quite strange  
> > that I take you seriously.
> > 
> > For example, you say that the Paul data is “non-data” because the  
> > scatter is so bad. But any researcher looking at those graphs would  
> > see that the scatter in some of the graphs isn’t bad at all. Martin  
> > pointed this out by asking whether you would bet that there is  
> > not a  
> > relationship between any these measures of religiosity and social  
> > dysfunction. I will point this out by noting that, in one graph -
> > 
> > - the  
> > one showing the correlation between the proportion of the population  
> > with an absolute belief in God and the number of abortions for  
> > 15-19  
> > year olds-- the correlation between this variables is  
> > actually .94 (I  
> > computed this by transferring the graphical data to a  
> > spreadsheet). So  
> > the measured correlation is actually quite a bit higher than I thought  
> > it was by eyeball estimate (about .7).
> > 
> > A correlation of .94 is certainly not “no relationship”. By the way,  
> > if you eliminate the US data because you think it is misleading  
> > because people are saying they believe in God because they are afraid  
> > to say they don’t, the correlation goes down to .82. Both those  
> > correlations – .94 and .82 – are significant at the .05 level (with  
> > 6 and 5 df, respectively). Every researcher would be well aware  
> > of the  
> > fact that these correlations do not imply causality; but they would  
> > definitely think someone who said that these are “non-data” or  
> > “pseudo-data” was a crank, at best. I know you know  
> > research inside  
> > and out so I wish you wouldn’t talk like a crank just to try to reduce  
> > conflict or whatever it is you are trying to do.
> > 
> > You go on to make more of an apparent crank of yourself in your reply  
> > to my claim that Paul’s research was not an experiment. I had said:
> > 
> > > First, this wasn’t an experiment.
> > 
> > and you reply with:
> > 
> > > The null hypothesis was that religion does not affect  
> > > social welfare. The  
> > > experimental test was to ask people what their religious ideas  
> > > were and see  
> > > if the answers correlate with social welfare. They didn’t (not  
> > > in my book).
> > 
> > But as I’m sure you know, an experiment is not defined by having a  
> > null hypothesis that is tested. An experiment (as you know) involves  
> > the manipulation of an independent variable _under controlled  
> > conditions_ and measuring a dependent variable. Paul did not  
> > manipulate or control for any variables; that’s why you can draw no  
> > conclusions about causality. Paul’s research is called  
> > “non-experimental” or “correlational”. If one of my colleagues read  
> > your comment above they would wonder what in the world I could  
> > possibly see in your work.
> > 
> > I know that you know the difference between experimental and  
> > non-experimental research and I know that you know that Paul’s  
> > research was non-experimental. I also suspect that a correlation of  
> > .94 is real data in your book. I don’t know why you go off on these  
> > odd crank posts. As I said, I suspect it’s to reduce conflict  
> > with the  
> > religious types (at the expense of conflict with me, I suppose). But  
> > try to think about what this does to your image as a scientist.  
> > And if  
> > you don’t care about that, think about what it might do to my  
> > reputation for taste in scientific role models;-)
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > ## Rick
> > 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/9 "2008-01-31T19:35:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1140)]

> Bill Powers (2008.01.31..0927 MST)

> Well, it seems to me that you're doing what lots of other people do: repeat  
> the mantra that correlations do not imply causality, and then proceed to  
> speak as if they do. Here's what you said in your post of (2008.01.28.  
> 1230):

> \>So it's not really correct to say, based on the evidence, that religious  
> \>system concepts are "not very likely" to be the cause of social dysfunction;  
> \>just that they are "not necessarily" the cause of this dysfunction. In fact,  
> \>there is other data that suggests that there is a causal relationship  
> \>between religious beliefs and abortion rate, for example. Abortion  
> \>rates are higher in regions where counselors are not allowed -- for  
> \> strictly religious reasons -- to discuss the abortion option with  
> \>expectant mothers than in places where they are allowed to discuss  
> \>this option.

The point of my discussion above was not to say that there is a causal  
relationship between religiosity and social dysfunction. My point was  
that "correlation does not imply causality" does not mean that  
correlation means there is definitely not a causal relationship  
between the variables. You seem to think that I am arguing that  
correlation actually does imply causality, which I am not. You seem to  
be arguing that correlation implies no causality, which is what I take  
issue with.

The point I was trying to make above is simply that correlation -- an  
observed relationship between two variables -- does not imply that one  
variable causes the other but it also does not imply that one variable  
\_does not\_ cause another. For example, there is a strong, negative  
correlation between current flow and resistance in an electrical  
circuit. This correlation does not imply causality nor does it imply  
no causality. In the case of current and resistance there actually is  
a causal relationship between the variables. That's what I meant when  
I said that correlated variables are "not necessarily" causally  
related rather than "not very likely" causally related. The  
correlation between variables like current and resistance or religion  
and social dysfunction means only that the variables are \_not  
necessarily\_ causally related; it says nothing about the likelihood  
that they actually are (or are not) causally related.

You seem to be interpreting the mantra "correlation does not imply  
causality" to mean that "correlation means that causation is very  
unlikely", a frequent misinterpretation of the mantra. In fact, the  
mantra simply means that a high correlation between variables says  
nothing about whether the variables are or are not causally related.  
It should also be quickly pointed out, however, that no correlation  
between variables \_does\_ imply no causal relationship between the  
variables. That was all I was arguing based on the Paul data. Where  
there is a very low correlation between religiosity and social  
dysfunction I conclude that, contrary to religious zealots,  
religiosity seems to have no causal relationship to social health.  
Where there is a strong positive relationship between religiosity and  
social dysfunction, all I am saying is that this is not necessarily a  
causal relationship and, anyway, it is opposite to the relationship  
predicted by the religious zealots.

> What we can agree on is that there are no data supporting a relationship  
> between increases in religiosity and increases in social problems.

Actually, I can no longer agree on that, given the finding of a .94  
correlation between proportion believing in God and rate of teen  
abortions.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/10 "2008-01-31T20:33:43Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1240)]

> Dick Robertson (2008.01.31.1325CST)
> 
> My goodness,
> 
> Is all this sharpness really necessary?

OK, let's call this off. It's really gone way off course. Bill seems  
to think that I have a thinly disguised desire to bash religion and  
that I am trying to claim that the correlations in the Paul data imply  
that religion is the cause of all social ills. This kind of took me  
aback.

concepts and the top level of the hierarchy. Coincidentally I found  
the Paul paper while looking through some other stuff on my Mac and  
posted it as a potential approach to evaluating the social benefits of  
adopting particular system concepts, religion clearly being one  
example of a system concept. I didn't post it to bash religion or to  
show that religion causes social problems. It didn't even occur to me  
that religious system concepts could even be considered a cause of  
social ills. What the data suggested to me was simply that religiosity  
was irrelevant to the level of social ills.

I posted the study to get opinions about this comparative survey  
approach to evaluating the potential merits (in terms of social  
benefits) of various system concepts. No one (except Martin) has  
really spoken to that point. But the incredibly hostile reaction to  
the research convinces me that this is not the right approach, whether  
it is or not.

So let's just drop it. I'm not that interested in the topic anyway,  
especially if my contributions are going to be met with the level of  
hostility they've received (except from you Martin XXOO;-)

So I apologize for whatever sharp remarks I made.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> from my perspective there was a discussion going on about system  
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/11 "2008-01-31T21:24:52Z")

</div>

Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.10.23NZT)

So does this list understand conflict?

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----  
> **From:** Control Systems Group  
> Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Robertson Richard  
> **Sent:** Friday, 1 February 2008 8:24  
> a.m.  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: PCT aspirin (was:  
> Developing a top (system) level)
> 
> [From Dick Robertson, 2008.01.31.1325CST]
> 
> My goodness,
> 
> Is all this sharpness really necessary?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: Richard Marken [rsmarken@GMAIL.COM](mailto:rsmarken@GMAIL.COM)
> 
> Date: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:51 pm
> 
> Subject: Re: PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)
> 
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1050)]
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Bill Powers (2008.01.31.0219 MST)–
> 
> > 
> 
> > OK, as usual I finished up many of my tasks more quickly than I
> 
> > thought so I’ll take a minute to reply to this post.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I guess the thing that is most depressing about your post,
> 
> > besides the
> 
> > apparently purposeful misinterpretation of my own posts, is that it
> 
> > makes you look like a person who has no idea how research works. I
> 
> > assume you are doing this to try to reduce conflict with the religious
> 
> > types on the net. But it also has the effect of making me feel
> 
> > embarrassed to tell colleagues that my work is based on yours.
> 
> > If any
> 
> > of my colleagues read your last post they would think it quite strange
> 
> > that I take you seriously.
> 
> > 
> 
> > For example, you say that the Paul data is “non-data” because  
> > the
> 
> > scatter is so bad. But any researcher looking at those graphs would
> 
> > see that the scatter in some of the graphs isn’t bad at all. Martin
> 
> > pointed this out by asking whether you would bet that there is
> 
> > not a
> 
> > relationship between any these measures of religiosity and social
> 
> > dysfunction. I will point this out by noting that, in one graph -
> 
> > - the
> 
> > one showing the correlation between the proportion of the population
> 
> > with an absolute belief in God and the number of abortions for
> 
> > 15-19
> 
> > year olds-- the correlation between this variables is
> 
> > actually .94 (I
> 
> > computed this by transferring the graphical data to a
> 
> > spreadsheet). So
> 
> > the measured correlation is actually quite a bit higher than I thought
> 
> > it was by eyeball estimate (about .7).
> 
> > 
> 
> > A correlation of .94 is certainly not “no relationship”. By the  
> > way,
> 
> > if you eliminate the US data because you think it is misleading
> 
> > because people are saying they believe in God because they are afraid
> 
> > to say they don’t, the correlation goes down to .82. Both those
> 
> > correlations – .94 and .82 – are significant at the .05 level (with
> 
> > 6 and 5 df, respectively). Every researcher would be well aware
> 
> > of the
> 
> > fact that these correlations do not imply causality; but they would
> 
> > definitely think someone who said that these are “non-data” or
> 
> > “pseudo-data” was a crank, at best. I know you know
> 
> > research inside
> 
> > and out so I wish you wouldn’t talk like a crank just to try to reduce
> 
> > conflict or whatever it is you are trying to do.
> 
> > 
> 
> > You go on to make more of an apparent crank of yourself in your reply
> 
> > to my claim that Paul’s research was not an experiment. I had said:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > First, this wasn’t an experiment.
> 
> > 
> 
> > and you reply with:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > The null hypothesis was that religion does not affect
> 
> > social welfare. The
> 
> > > experimental test was to ask people what their religious ideas
> 
> > were and see
> 
> > > if the answers correlate with social welfare. They didn’t (not
> 
> > in my book).
> 
> > 
> 
> > But as I’m sure you know, an experiment is not defined by having a
> 
> > null hypothesis that is tested. An experiment (as you know) involves
> 
> > the manipulation of an independent variable \_under controlled
> 
> > conditions\_ and measuring a dependent variable. Paul did not
> 
> > manipulate or control for any variables; that’s why you can draw no
> 
> > conclusions about causality. Paul’s research is called
> 
> > “non-experimental” or “correlational”. If one of my  
> > colleagues read
> 
> > your comment above they would wonder what in the world I could
> 
> > possibly see in your work.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I know that you know the difference between experimental and
> 
> > non-experimental research and I know that you know that Paul’s
> 
> > research was non-experimental. I also suspect that a correlation of
> 
> > .94 is real data in your book. I don’t know why you go off on these
> 
> > odd crank posts. As I said, I suspect it’s to reduce conflict
> 
> > with the
> 
> > religious types (at the expense of conflict with me, I suppose). But
> 
> > try to think about what this does to your image as a scientist.
> 
> > And if
> 
> > you don’t care about that, think about what it might do to my
> 
> > reputation for taste in scientific role models;-)
> 
> > 
> 
> > Best
> 
> > 
> 
> > Rick
> 
> > –
> 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> 
> > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 9:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/12 "2008-01-31T21:35:00Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1340)]

> Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.10.23NZT)
> 
> So does this list understand conflict?

You betcha! Do you?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/13 "2008-01-31T22:11:36Z")

</div>

Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.11.10NZT)

I'm not so sure now?

Regards  
Gavin

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken  
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 10:35 a.m.  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU  
> Subject: Re: PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)
> 
> [From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1340)]
> 
> > Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.10.23NZT)
> > 
> > So does this list understand conflict?
> 
> You betcha! Do you?
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick  
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/14 "2008-01-31T22:35:04Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1440)]

> Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.11.10NZT)
> 
> I'm not so sure now?

Try my conflict demo at:

[http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Conflict.html](http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Conflict.html)

and see if it makes any sense to you. It's an intrapersonal conflict  
but it works on the same principles as does the interpersonal  
conflicts that happen on the net, I think.

By the way, how's tomorrow (2/1) going? Hope it's better than today (1/31)😉

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols1)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/15 "2008-01-31T22:39:41Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.31.1535 MT)]

> Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.10.23NZT)
> 
> So does this list understand conflict?

Just for the heck of it I thought I'd tackle that question.

First off, this "list" doesn't understand anything. This list is many things but a sentient being isn't one of them.

So, I guess the question could be restated as "Do all the members of this list understand conflict?" Right away there are problems with that question, too. My guess is that if polled, all would say they have some grasp of conflict but I'd also guess that there are different definitions of conflict at work and so that question doesn't stand up to much scrutiny either.

I could go on and on but where I get to rather quickly is that questions are often used in lieu of declarative statements. So, I'll ask a question of my own...

Gavin: What is the statement behind your question above?

Regards,

> **···**
>
> --  
> Fred Nickols  
> Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers  
> www.skullworks.com  
> nickols@att.net
> 
> --  
> Fred Nickols  
> Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers  
> www.skullworks.com  
> nickols@att.net

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/16 "2008-01-31T23:09:39Z")

</div>

Gavin Ritz(2008.02.01.1200NZT)

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net  
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 11:40 a.m.  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU  
> Subject: Re: PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols (2008.01.31.1535 MT)]
> 
> > > Gavin Ritz (2008.02.01.10.23NZT)
> > > 
> > > So does this list understand conflict?
> 
> > Just for the heck of it I thought I'd tackle that question.
> 
> > First off, this "list" doesn't understand anything. This list is many  
> > things but a sentient being isn't one of them.
> 
> I'm sure you got the gist of my meaning. So I'll re-phrase, are the  
> communicating members on this list in an internal state of understanding the  
> conflicts they are in while communicating the latest bit of dialogue.
> 
> > So, I guess the question could be restated as "Do all the members of this  
> > list understand conflict?" Right away there are problems with that  
> > question, too. My guess is that if polled, all would say they have some  
> > grasp of conflict but I'd also guess that there are different definitions  
> > of conflict at work and so that question doesn't stand up to much scrutiny  
> > either.
> 
> In terms of PCT
> 
> > I could go on and on but where I get to rather quickly is that questions.
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.
> 
> \>are often used in lieu of declarative statements. So, I'll ask a question
> 
> > of my own...
> 
> > Gavin: What is the statement behind your question above?
> 
> There's no statement but there may well be an intention.
> 
> Has it been stated yet, still probably in the world of non-words, abstracted  
> at some high level of non words.
> 
> Regards  
> Gavin
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --  
> Fred Nickols  
> Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers  
> www.skullworks.com  
> nickols@att.net
> 
> --  
> Fred Nickols  
> Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers  
> www.skullworks.com  
> nickols@att.net

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/dmg)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2008, 4:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-aspirin-was-developing-a-top-system-level/8372/17 "2008-02-01T04:28:44Z")

</div>

[From David Goldstein (2008.01.31.2313)]  
[From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1240)]

Dear Rick and listmates:  
Just a small point. I have noticed that we don't always live according to our expressed system or principle level perceptions.  
This may be due to conflct at these levels.  
It may be that awareness may have to be on a specific principle or system level perception for a person to control that specific perception.  
David

> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Marken" \<rsmarken@GMAIL.COM\>  
> To: \<CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU\>  
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:33 PM  
> Subject: Re: PCT aspirin (was: Developing a top (system) level)
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2008.01.31.1240)]
> > 
> > > Dick Robertson (2008.01.31.1325CST)
> > > 
> > > My goodness,
> > > 
> > > Is all this sharpness really necessary?
> > 
> > OK, let's call this off. It's really gone way off course. Bill seems  
> > to think that I have a thinly disguised desire to bash religion and  
> > that I am trying to claim that the correlations in the Paul data imply  
> > that religion is the cause of all social ills. This kind of took me  
> > aback.
> > 
> > From my perspective there was a discussion going on about system  
> > concepts and the top level of the hierarchy. Coincidentally I found  
> > the Paul paper while looking through some other stuff on my Mac and  
> > posted it as a potential approach to evaluating the social benefits of  
> > adopting particular system concepts, religion clearly being one  
> > example of a system concept. I didn't post it to bash religion or to  
> > show that religion causes social problems. It didn't even occur to me  
> > that religious system concepts could even be considered a cause of  
> > social ills. What the data suggested to me was simply that religiosity  
> > was irrelevant to the level of social ills.
> > 
> > I posted the study to get opinions about this comparative survey  
> > approach to evaluating the potential merits (in terms of social  
> > benefits) of various system concepts. No one (except Martin) has  
> > really spoken to that point. But the incredibly hostile reaction to  
> > the research convinces me that this is not the right approach, whether  
> > it is or not.
> > 
> > So let's just drop it. I'm not that interested in the topic anyway,  
> > especially if my contributions are going to be met with the level of  
> > hostility they've received (except from you Martin XXOO;-)
> > 
> > So I apologize for whatever sharp remarks I made.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick  
> > --  
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > rsmarken@gmail.com