PCT basis for ethics

bnhpct · February 21, 1998, 5:16am

[From Bruce Nevin (980220.2356)]

David Goldstein (07:35 PM 2/20/98) --

in B:TCP, there is a specified relationship
between the Reorganization System and the Perceptual Control Hierarchy.
If we want to label this relationship responsiblity, then the concept
is part of the theory.

This is the seed of a PCT ethics, something that's been jostling around in
the back of my mind for some time, but not yet ready to hatch.

There's a culture-contingent aspect to what we learn about human
relationships. In the 1940s Ruth Benedict started developing the notion of
synergy as a way of evaluating the choices when people of different
cultures come in conflict with each other or otherwise start to reorganize
their culturally shared values, principles, etc. (She never wrote it up,
putting her energy into _The Chrysanthemum and the Sword_, still one of the
best books on Japan. Some students published their notes on Benedict's
lectures on synergy in about 1965 in _American Anthropologist_. One of them
was Herb Maslow, whence, doubtless, the pop-psych diluted usage of
"synergy" today.) Interesting bit I remember: one way you can tell how
"high in synergy" or "low in synergy" a culture is the relationship between
selfishness and altruism. Toward the high end of the synergy scale, the
concepts selfishness and altruism may not even exist, there is no way to
benefit oneself but by benefitting others, and no way to benefit another
that is not felt to benefit oneself. Toward the low end of the scale, as we
well know, that last sentence seems laughably naive.

A PCT ethic would be rooted at a higher level than this--that is, it would
not be contingent on the those shared characteristics of people's
perceptual universes that we can identify and talk about as their culture.
Talk that I have seen thus far in this vein has not succeeded in this. But
synergy-related questions roughly like "how well does this reference value
for this perception benefit those who share it, and for how long?" -- for
perceptions having to do with human relationships -- could well have a
bearing.

Bruce Nevin

bnhpct · February 21, 1998, 3:18pm

[From Bruce Nevin (980221.0955 EST)]

I should add that ethics is probably outside the scope of PCT. PCT is about
necessary properties of organisms, properties that arise from fundamentals
of physics and biology, in particular from negative feedback control of
input. I say probably because we don't know how ethical standards arise.
And because despite or perhaps as an evolutionary consequence of those
necessary properties we have the capacity to choose. People typically
perceive social givens as natural necessities. Possibly they are for
infants. Perhaps social givens are always just a way to resolve conflict
without looking further.

I realize "social givens" is a vague term. It includes known shibboleths
like manners and picking your nose, and also the much vaster realm of
folkways, "body language," styles, and expectations that go unnoticed. From
this ore we forge who we appear to be. Each is a reduction in options, a
narrowing of degrees of freedom, presumably by control, but what is on
purpose and what is a byproduct is unclear. Especially when the examples of
others are evidently the basis for setting one's own reference perceptions
for e.g. mannerisms. Or when and why it's OK to lie.

Perhaps the setting of one's reference perceptions according to someone
else's example is outside the scope of PCT?

Bruce Nevin

Bill_Powers1 · February 21, 1998, 5:15pm

[From Bill Powers (980221.0957 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (980221.0955 EST)--

I should add that ethics is probably outside the scope of PCT. PCT is about
necessary properties of organisms, properties that arise from fundamentals
of physics and biology, in particular from negative feedback control of
input.

...

Perhaps the setting of one's reference perceptions according to someone
else's example is outside the scope of PCT?

The particular reference perceptions one accepts are probably not directly
within the scope, but it is relevant to ask how one goes about using
someone else's example, given that people occasionally do this. It's the
same with language. PCT has nothing to say about which language a person
will speak, but it is of interest to ask how any language can be spoken.

I'm not certain about ethics. It's of interest to PCT because it involves
the perception and control of principles and system concepts. But there may
be something beyond that, in that ethics is something that comes about
through interactions with other people. It's possible, I think, that some
ethical principles might represent a kind of minimum-error condition in a
society.

For example, keeping your word is probably important among people who have
frequent and sustained interactions, while it may be less important in
transient dealings with strangers. "Nice" principles like the Golden Rule
might be prevalent in societies where there are no great disparities in
power, but less so where there is a great assymetry in power. In a
subculture like gambling, lying is considered a virtue in that bluffing is
an important strategy, but cheating is an extreme violation that calls for
extreme sanctions, even the death penalty.

I wonder whether it would be possible to study ethics by predicting the
outcomes of adopting or not adopting various ethical principles under
different social circumstances.

Probably nothing new.

Best,

Bill P.

bnhpct · February 21, 1998, 11:44pm

X-UIDL: ee4d9d37493a4fa683af916a3b3b2d36

[From Bruce Nevin (980221.2239 EST)]

Bill Powers (980221.0957 MST)--

Reminds me -- on my last trip to SJ I heard this guy Rush Kidder giving a
talk that was broadcast on NPR. He used to be with the Christian Science
Monitor, and has founded an organization for the study and promotion of
ethics, particularly in business and government. I read a piece by him in
the Boston Globe last June. Here's a quote from it that I sent to someone
in a letter, a passage that follows discussion of an in-depth investigation
into what went wrong at Chernobyl, at the Barings Bank, and elsewhere:

"If corporations, governments, organizations donï¿½t pay attention to their
ethics they may very well go the way of Chernobyl or the Barings Bankï¿½, not
because of some great flaw in their overall direction, but because of
single individuals who simply didnï¿½t have any kind of moral compass and
didnï¿½t get it that what they were doing as they sat tapping at their
keyboards was in fact going to destroy a whole corporation.

"I think weï¿½re going to see some very sad collapses in the not too distant
future of corporations that at this point seem to have everything going for
them ï¿½ a lot of those corporations arenï¿½t going to be around, because they
will have built a deliberately resistant strain of unethical individual
employees who will be opportunists and when the moment comes will do
whatever they can to get themselves ahead. That will destroy the corporation."

This gives you an idea what he's working on. Anyway, what I was remembering
from the broadcast was the result of asking many people in many different
countries what their top ethical principles were. There was remarkable
consistency in their answers, things like honesty and trustworthiness. I
wish I had been able to write down his list of 5 principles about which
everybody seemed to agree, I was driving in traffic at the time.

Ah, I just did a web search and found what seems to be a summary at
http://www.globalethics.org/gvs/summary.html

Another thing that interested me was his discussion of how ethical problems
arise, not when the choice is whether or not to satisfy some ethical value,
but when there is a conflict between two good, positive ethical
values--e.g. tell the truth vs. don't rat on your friends. This is what he
means by "right vs. right" dilemmas on that web page. Their main page looks
very interesting

http://www.globalethics.org/

Here's an example dilemma from that page, next to a link to discussion of
dilemmas:

"If you were a guide for a ski expedition company that was counting on a
particular trip to avoid bankruptcy, and the snow conditions were
"bordering on avalanche" but probably safe, would you give the go-ahead for
the group to ski the mountain?"

Bruce Nevin

Martin_Taylor4 · February 22, 1998, 5:58am

[Martin Taylor 980221 17:50]

Bruce Nevin (980220.2356)

A PCT ethic would be rooted at a higher level than this... But
synergy-related questions roughly like "how well does this reference value
for this perception benefit those who share it, and for how long?" -- for
perceptions having to do with human relationships -- could well have a
bearing.

That question is precisely the reason I suggested people read Stuart
Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe." And it was the theme of the talk
I gave on coupled control systems to the University of Toronto Math group
in October, which I mentioned on CSGnet at the time. The basic notion is
that reorganization within individuals tends (probabilistically) to
improved control by the individuals. When the environment of each
individual includes other individuals all of whose actions influence
the others, then the best control will happen when the actions of one
individual more often help another than disturb another. Reorganization
of individuals who mutually influence each other will eventually
settle in some pattern in which the control by each individual on average
minimally disturbs, or helps, the others. We call the perceptual controls
that result "socialization" or "the development of ethics and morality."

"Help," by the way, is often misunderstood. In PCT, it can occur in only
a few ways, such as (1) adding physical power to aid the control system's
output; (2) providing information to aid the perceptual input, as does
a microscope or a speedometer; (3) most importantly, shielding the CEV
from disturbances, as oil on the water shields a ship from the disturbances
of wind-driven waves. Help is not (usually) help when the helper attempts
to influence the CEV directly as in case (1); it is help only when the
control system has insufficient force to achieve control on its own. Types
2 and 3 relate more to society, 3 especially. It is through type 3 help
that social roles and rules become established.

I think you have hit upon the core issue of morality and ethics. However,
the properties of coupled control systems are not simple, and depend
sensitively on the coupling constants (is the idea of "coupling constant"
allied to the idea of "synergy"?).

Martin

bnhpct · February 22, 1998, 8:00pm

From Bruce Nevin (980222.1114)

[Martin Taylor 980221 17:50]--

the properties of coupled control systems are not simple, and depend
sensitively on the coupling constants (is the idea of "coupling constant"
allied to the idea of "synergy"?).

Don't know. What's a "Coupling constant"? It sounds like a term in an
equation defining a model.
......................

Ethical dilemmas, Kidder's "conflict of right vs. right", appear to be
conflicts on the Principle level. If so, their resolution is on the level
of System Concepts. Perhaps they are the occasion for developing new System
Concepts. If so, then and at some point in maturation they could be the
occasion for initiating a System Concept level with the development of a
first System Concept.

If synergy is a description of something inherent in the properties of
"coupled control systems" as you suggest -- perhaps what John Lilly liked
to call the interlocking of systems -- then you have to account for the
widespread existence of cultures that are low in synergy. They aren't
especially transient.

If on the other hand synergy is a System Concept, it is a prescriptive
basis for conscious choice rather than an "emergent property" inherent in
the coupling of control systems. Not so many people consider synergy,
though there is some resurgence through training in how to find "win-win"
resolutions to interpersonal conflict.

There are other System Concepts on which people base their choices in
ethical dilemmas. Kidder's web page mentions three: utilitarianism
(maximizing benefits for the greatest number of people), the Kantian
categorical imperative (establishing a rule that everyone should follow),
or the Golden Rule (reflecting the way you would like to be treated by
others). If these are used to resolve Principle-level conflicts, perhaps
they are System Concepts.

If they are System Concepts, what of conflicts among them? Do we step aside
from the perceptual hierarchy into verbal constructs to resolve them? Have
we already done so above, so that those are not System Concepts after all?
How can we tell? System Concepts often are learned first as precepts. We
remember them or are reminded of them while we are experiencing the
discomforts of having "done wrong" and got caught at it. Perhaps this is a
case of learned verbal constructs constraining or influencing the process
of reorganization.

We would have to get into actual cases with the Method of Levels. Suppose
someone refers to utilitarianism to resolve ethical dilemmas but is unhappy
with the fate of minorities. Maximizing benefit to a majority no longer
cuts it if minorities get stiffed. Do they consider alternatives among the
verbal constructs, like "do unto others"? Do they reorganize until
something new emerges? There may be insights into these processes of
"character development" in the confessionals and projections of novelists
and storytellers.

I can't take this any farther just now. I'm supposed to be writing a
dissertation.

Bruce Nevin

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 24, 1998, 2:33pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980223.1706 EST)]

<Here's an example dilemma from that page, next to a link to discussion of
dilemmas:

"If you were a guide for a ski expedition company that was counting on a
particular trip to avoid bankruptcy, and the snow conditions were
"bordering on avalanche" but probably safe, would you give the go-ahead for
the group to ski the mountain?">

Where is the dilemma? Corporations who would intentionally put their
customers in danger should go out of business, shouldn't they?

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 24, 1998, 4:46pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980224.1100 EST)]

<I'm not certain about ethics. It's of interest to PCT because it involves
the perception and control of principles and system concepts.>

This has been my understanding for some time. I'm not certain about why
you are uncertain.

Ethics, morals and religious beliefs are part of the principles and systems
reference perceptions of people per HPCT. Having them or not having them
is not crucial to understanding PCT. However, such principles or beliefs,
regardless of their source, may be the variables that through our behavior
we try to control.

Thus, all three of the following behaviors can be explained by isolating
the principle or system the person controls for to achieve the desired
perception:

A Moslem leader issues a death decree for an infidel who writes a critical
book about Moslem beliefs in Allah and written by Mohammed in the Koran.

A Jewish leader commands retaliation even unto death based on Jehova and
the OT Mosaic Law of an eye for an eye.

A Christian leader refuses to retaliate or kill in either case based on
Jesus Christ and the NT commandments.

PCT explains all three behaviors; it makes no determination of which
reference perception is correct, ethical, or moral. Is this right or wrong
in terms of PCT?

<I wonder whether it would be possible to study ethics by predicting the
outcomes of adopting or not adopting various ethical principles under
different social circumstances.

Probably nothing new.>

Since principle and system reference perceptions in fact control lower
level perceptions, I wish there was a way to test behavior as to whether
people are controlling these perceptions. I also think these high levels
are uniquely human which make them of greatest interest to us as humans.

Understanding PCT on the human level may have a much greater chance for
interest by other people than on the behavior of e-coli, mice or humans
tracking cursurs for low level physically sensed perceptions.

If we could do that, I think it would be something new, revolutionary and
convicting for people and psychologists. I wish I knew how to do this
experimentally, but don't.

Take care and enjoy a smoke-free day,

Kenny

bnhpct · February 24, 1998, 5:17pm

[Bruce Nevin (980224.1212 EST)]

From Kenny Kitzke (980223.1706 EST)--

Where is the dilemma? Corporations who would intentionally put their
customers in danger should go out of business, shouldn't they?

Are you saying that from the point of view of the hypothetical ski guide?
It sounds like the POV of an outside observer with no stake in the company.
Suppose the owner of the company is your brother or sister, or a dear
friend. Suppose it's you, the guide, and dear friends and family depend on
the business staying afloat. Maybe your mother (sibling, child) needs money
for cancer treatments. This ups the ante on the loyalty side. Is there a
conflict now between two "right" values? Remember, snow conditions are
"probably safe". Skiing under the best of conditions entails risk. Suppose
you inform them of the risk and they undertake it voluntarily, would't that
shift the balance too?

Ethical dilemmas arise not because of choice between right and wrong but
because of choice between two "rights" that happen to conflict. You have
converted this one into a choice between right and wrong. I believe this is
a common way to resolve ethical dilemmas. The rejected alternative is
demonized, moral indignation helps energize what might otherwise be
lackluster and indecisive performance.

I don't know how closely you have been following the discussion of the
Method of Levels (MOL). That is part of the context here. A stronger
resolution requires going up a level from the moral principles "safeguard
life" and "be loyal to the company" (to those dependant on its success, etc.)

If this ski expedition scenario is not a good example for you, fine,
substitute another. What are the principles that are in conflict, the two
"rights"? Then what is behind or above them? Is there a resolution at a
higher level of the perceptual hierarchy?

Bruce Nevin

Martin_Taylor4 · February 24, 1998, 7:31pm

[Martin Taylor 980224 14:25]

Kenny Kitzke (980223.1706 EST)
<Bruce Nevin (980221.2239 EST)>

<Here's an example dilemma from that page, next to a link to discussion of
dilemmas:

"If you were a guide for a ski expedition company that was counting on a
particular trip to avoid bankruptcy, and the snow conditions were
"bordering on avalanche" but probably safe, would you give the go-ahead for
the group to ski the mountain?">

Where is the dilemma? Corporations who would intentionally put their
customers in danger should go out of business, shouldn't they?

"Should"? Perhaps. Do? Can you find any example of a company who intentionally
puts customers in danger and has not gone out of business?

How about car manufacturers? Ski makers? Travel agents? Electricity supply
companies? ...

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Can you think of any company long
in business who never adds the slightest bit of risk to their customers'
lives?

It's always a question of balance, whether between two incompatible
opportunities, an opportunity coupled with a danger (the usual way
opportunities show up), or two risks, only one of which must be faced.

In the example question, how "probably" safe? It's quite safe if there is
no snow--well, it isn't, because a skier might turn an ankle--but then
the group has not much fun--a loss of opportunity for them as well as
of revenue for the company. On the other hand, people who outfit groups
trying to climb Everest without oxygen do so knowing that there is perhaps
a one in ten chance the client will die. Should such companies go out
of business?

Martin

R_Marken · February 24, 1998, 8:31pm

[From Rick Marken (980224.1220)]

Kenny Kitzke (980224.1100 EST)

Since principle and system reference perceptions in fact control
lower level perceptions

Higher level "reference perceptions" don't "control" lower level
perceptions. Higher level systems control their perceptions (of
principles and system concepts) by _varying_ (not controlling)
the reference inputs to systems controlling lower level perceptions.

I wish there was a way to test behavior as to whether people are
controlling these perceptions.

There is. We do it constantly on CSGNet, though, perhaps, not as
systematically as might be possible (I plan to remedy that situation
soon). Notice the resistance to statements critical of conventional
psychology from Bruce A., Martin and Jeff. Clearly, there is a
principle level perception being controlled here -- the principle
that Bruce A. would call "scientific method" and that I call
"methods based on a lineal causal model".

It's easy to see when people are controlling for religious,
ideological or nationalistic variables. Just say things that
are a disturbance to these variables and watch what happens. But
do this carefully or you'll end up like Salmon Rushdie (other
systems inside people are often able to detect the source of
the disturabance that is affecting these controlled variables).

Understanding PCT on the human level may have a much greater
chance for interest by other people than on the behavior of e-coli,
mice or humans tracking cursurs for low level physically sensed
perceptions.

This might be true. But I don't think people can really grasp
what's going on with this "human level" controlling until they
understand the principles of control illustrated in the e-coli
and tracking tasks. It's the _principles_ illustrated by these
simple demos that are important, not any particular instance of
behavior. The principles of control apply to all behavior --
whether it's moving a finger, pulling a trigger or killing a
Commie for Christ. It's all control.

If we could do that, I think it would be something new,
revolutionary and convicting for people and psychologists.

The revolution is in the first two demos at
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html. The relationships seen in
these demos prove
that the causal model of behavior -- which is the current model of
ALL behavior -- is wrong. If people aren't revolutionized by those
little demos (and obviously people are not) then whatever
revolutionary convictions they develop about the more interesting
"human level" behaviors are bound to be misconceptions.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 25, 1998, 2:37pm

[From Kenny Kitzke, 980225 0930 EST]

I'm sorry for the loose terminology. Thanks for correcting me. I think
what I thought when I said what was wrong was still correct.

Higher level systems can override the lower level systems, can't they? A
parent would override any errors in their lower systems steming from the
danger and displeasure of being burned themselves in order to enter a house
on fire to save the life of an sleeping child.

Can lower level systems override higher level systems? When people pass
gas in an elevator, what do you suppose is happening in the hierarchy?

You have made a good point that often you suspect a principle level
variable is being controlled in responses on this net. But, how do you
know specifically (systematically) without doing the test? I have a hunch
Bruce, Martin or Jeff might be controlling for other variables such as
personal credibility and it just looks to you that it might be S-R or
scientific methods.

<It's easy to see when people are controlling for religious,
ideological or nationalistic variables.>

I guess it can happen subjectively when you know their reference values in
advance. Often you don't know these higher level variables and reference
values even for collegues or friends. You just see the behavior and if
elevated you sense they are controlling some big error in their mind that
may not be the one you suspect.

I just found out that a man I've worked with very effectively for five
years is an atheist while I am a Christian. I had asked him to partner
with me in a new Christian oriented venture. By telling me his religious
reference perception, I understood his decline. Had he wrote a letter
saying he wasn't interested at this time, I would have to guess all over
the place why he doesn't want to be my partner.

You may be right. All behavior is undertaken to control perceptions. All
I'm saying is that at the higher human levels, it may be evident that a
girl I made a pass at walked away in apparent disinterest, but how would
you know what variable or level really made the difference? Was she in a
hury, was she engaged, did she dislike my pass or could she percieve I was
Polish and took off quick?

Your own parenthetical statement hits at my point. If your demo showed that
you cannot motivate or educate (primarily human issues) anyone else to
behave differently, then you can help them to quit trying and save all the
frustration that stems from a .3 correlation.

One example was a company that wanted to reduce absenteeism. They were
well over the industry average. They started with all the positive and
negative reinforcement theories. There was some improvement but it didn't
last long.

Then, we worked on a higher level. Was it wrong for a company to not pay
you when you worked? Yes. Was it wrong for you to let the company pay you
when you called in sick when it was untrue? Yes. Absenteeism dropped
almost in half and has stayed well below the industry average ever since.

Somehow, I still think that people need to see proof that your
revolutionary PCT really makes a difference in people's lives. Then, they
will become interested in PCT. It does not seem to work the other way
around though I see the logic. Maybe many people just dislike theory?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 25, 1998, 2:37pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 980225, 0930 EST]

ME:Where is the dilemma? Corporations who would intentionally put their
customers in danger should go out of business, shouldn't they?

YOU: Are you saying that from the point of view of the hypothetical ski
guide?

ME: Of course. Ethics would suggest that people have a right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Businesses have no right to exist.
They have to earn that privilige. Ethics will probably help.

Perhaps, but now you are changing the dilemma originally given. Now assume
my only son is a skier in the party? This ups the ante on the other side.

I suppose it is possible to have two right values that are incompatible. I
know this causes internal conflict and reorganization. Example: help the
boss versus attend the little league game. I guess the example just didn't
strike me as to convicting.

It seems to me that in comparing two goods, ethics would help you make your
behavioral choice as one being better than the other in perceiving to meet
the reference value.

Would you say that a smoker is comparing two goods when he is faced with a
stop or continue decision?

PCT can't tell us what is ethical and what isn't. All it can do is
acknowledge that a human will act to control his own perceptions which can
include his understanding of ethics and right and wrong.

I have enjoyed those discussions. I like the idea. I can move up a level
from enjoying the taste of the chocolate pie to knowing my weight will rise
and make a decision to pass.

<What are the principles that are in conflict, the two "rights"? Then what
is behind or above them? Is there a resolution at a higher level of the
perceptual hierarchy?

I just disagree with thinking ethics applys mostly to conflicts between two
rights. I think ethics can also apply to two wrongs. Should I kill the
guy I robbed or just knock him unconscious?

I think ethics most often apply to deciding what is right or wrong. And,
when two human control systems have different reference values for right or
wrong, there is a problem that MOL may be able to help. I like it.

Thanks Bruce for your work on MOL.

Kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 25, 1998, 2:37pm

[Kenny Kitzke 980225 0930EST]

<<Where is the dilemma? Corporations who would intentionally put their
customers in danger should go out of business, shouldn't they?>>

<"Should"? Perhaps. Do? Can you find any example of a company who
intentionally puts customers in danger and has not gone out of business?>

No. I think you supported my point? There is no dilemma.

I don't think companies intentionally design or sell products that will
harm or kill their customers. It is bad for long-term business!

<Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Can you think of any company long
in business who never adds the slightest bit of risk to their customers'
lives?

No, but this is not the question. A maker of steak knives doesn't intend
for a wife to use it to remove a cheatin' husband's equipment. It may
happen but it has little to do with the ethics of the company.

Only if they hide such information from the customers and it happens. Have
you had an clinical operation lately? Doctors tell you that anethesia can
kill some patients. Then the patient decides and assumes the risk.

It is a principle to be honest with such information. Then the customer
can decide. If not many buy, it's time to change your product.

I was responding to the theory proferred that the ethics problem is
choosing between ethical (good) goals, not good and bad goals. If the
former is true, so is the later, I think.

Best regards,

Kenny