PCT of McCarthyism

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Rick Marken (981224.0900)]

OK. I've expressed my opinion of McCarthyism. But that's just
my opinion. I'm sure many people think McCarthyism is just fine.
PCT certainly doesn't tell us whether McCarthyism is good or
bad; only our own reference signals tell us that. But PCT
does tell us what McCarthyism _is_.

McCarthyism is a form of control by disturbing a controlled
variable; it doesn't work unless both the victim and the
controller are control systems. McCarthyism is a clear
example of a control phenomenon.

I will illustrate the Starr-Clinton version of McCarthyism
in terms of the famous rubber band game (it's amazing how
this simple little game can be used to show how PCT applies
to so many different purposeful behaviors). Here's a little
diagram of the situation:

Starr Sex Story Clinton Law re:
Query Truthfulness "Lie" Perjury

r1------------->Knot<--------r2 X Hot Iron
                  ^ ^
                  > >
               reference reference
             for Knot/Story for r2/Truthfulness

Starr is equivalent to the person holding the end of one rubber
band (r1) and Clinton is equivalent to the person holding the
end of the other (r2). Both people are controllers; Clinton is
equivalent to the person controlling the position of the knot
that connects the two rubber bands; Starr is equivalent to the
person controlling the location of r2 by disturbing the knot
(by asking questions: Starr's queries).

In the rubber band game, Starr can control Clinton's behavior
(r2) if Clinton is controlling the position of the knot; all
Starr has to do is produce disturbances to the controlled variable
(by varying r1); then r2 = - r1. In the real world, Starr knew
that Clinton would be controlling his story about sex with
Lewinsky; the story is a variable (like knot position) and Starr
knew that Clinton's would want to keep that story in a reference
state that we could call "innocent". Starr also knew that in order
to control the sex story variable (protect it from disturbances
like questions and accusations) Clinton would have to vary the
truthfulness of what he said about his relationship with Lewinsky
(analogous to varying the position of his end of the rubber bands).

So Starr could control Clinton's truthfulness by asking questions
like "did you have sex with Monica?". If he could get Clinton to
vary his truthfulness so that it was at position X, say, then he
could expose Clinton as a liar because people would see Clinton's
behavior (r2 at the value X) as a "lie". But this would not have
been an impeachable offense. So Starr had to get Clinton to lie
under oath. The supreme court gave him that opportunity; they
said that Clinton had to testify about this under oath.

The law is equivalent to placing a hot soldering iron in the path
of Clinton's outputs (r2). If, in order to protect the sex story
from Starr's disturbances (questions) Clinton varies his truthfulness
too far from a certain point the law will call his answer "perjury"
and he will be (literally) burned. So Starr put Clinton into a conflict
situation; if Clinton wanted to control both the sex story and the
perjury possibility he was limited in the outputs he could produce
to protect the sex story from disturbance.

Clinton did a masterful job of avoiding perjury and protecting his
story. But, of course, this didn't matter to Starr because Clinton
still had to vary his truthfulness to a point where most people
would see his behavior (r2) as "lying under oath".

Now, many people have pointed out that Clinton could have avoided
his problems -- and kept Kenneth Starr from controlling him -- if he
had simply changed his reference for the sex story (or simply
stopped controlling that variable). This would be equivalent to
the victim in the rubber band game (the one holding r2) changing
his reference for knot position or giving up control of knot
position altogether. It's certainly true that Clinton could have
solved his problem this way. But it's also true that Starr could
have stopped causing Clinton problems if he had just stopped trying
to control Clinton's behavior (r2).

Conventional morality seems to incline toward blaming Clinton for
not abandoning control of the sex story; by abandoning control of
that story, Clinton would have been free to control r2 (truthfulness),
setting it wherever he liked.

But I think PCT gives us a different perspective. Looking at
McCarthyism in terms of the rubber band game shows that it's
really the person pulling on r1 who is the "problem". This is
the person who is actively controlling the behavior of another
person without consideration of that other person's internal
structure of goals (the other person's autonomy). Starr wanted
to control Clinton's behavior no matter what -- making Clinton
vary his truthfulness in such a way that people would see him
as a liar.

While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with controlling other
people like Starr did, this approach to dealing with others is not
conducive to minimizing conflict (and, hence, pain) in human
interactions. If one values minimizing pain in human interactions,
I think one would have to value Clinton's controlling over Starr's.
Clinton's control of his sex story really interfered with no one
else's autonomy. But Starr's controlling of Clinton's behavior
certainly did interfere with Clinton's autonomy. So even if one
doesn't value Clinton as a human being I think one has to recognize
that, from a PCT perspective, Clinton has done no wrong in this
whole episode (in terms of interfering with the ability of another
autonomous control system to control) while Starr obviously has.

I think the rubber band game shows that McCarthyism is not a
good model for interpersonal relationships between autonomous
control systems.

Best

Rick

···

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

2

[From Bill Powers (981225.0510 MST)]

Rick Marken (981224.0900)-
Samuel Spence Saunders (981224) --

A very nice analysis, Rick, of the conflicts involved in Clinton's attempt
to keep his affairs secret.

Samuel Spence Saunders' analysis, too, reminds us of what we should know --
that tolerance of diversity is essential in our system, and understanding
that diversity exists should temper all statements about mass phenomena.

I think that both posts somewhat miss the nature of the impeachment
process, which is an accusation, not a conviction. The opposite of
impeachment is not acquittal, but simply dropping the charges before trial.
As I understand the Constitution, the House is not constitutionally
empowered to apply _any_ penalties to the President: that is the
prerogative of the Senate. Henry Hyde understood this and tried to explain
it, but few of his colleagues on either side seemed to get the point.

That, of course, assumes that logic is the highest level of human
organization, and it is not. A legislator in the House can vote to do
anything at all, including punishing the President, no matter what the
Constitution says or fails to say. When you make the laws, the only excuse
you need to flout them is that you have the votes. Our system is what our
lawmakers and judges and executives say it is -- we can argue for certain
interpretations (and even make it sound as if they are objective givens),
but the effective interpretation is the one on which the three branches of
government agree today, and tomorrow, and each day after that. If they want
to say that all men are created equal but the rich are more equal, that is
what they will say and that will be what our system is.

I got the impression from TV that the Republicans understand this. Having
the votes, they saw no need whatsoever to compromise. This is a very
short-term view of things; it fails to take into account the possibility
that two years from now, the other side might have the votes, and might
adopt the same attitude in reprisal. Of course one might argue that what
they are doing now is itself reprisal for what the Democrats have done in
the past.

It's hard to bring oneself to view the proceedings in these august halls of
government at a level of sophistication that is sufficiently childish to
explain what is going on.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Bruce Gregory 9981225.0835 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981225.0510 MST)

Our system is what our
lawmakers and judges and executives say it is -- we can argue for certain
interpretations (and even make it sound as if they are objective givens),
but the effective interpretation is the one on which the three branches of
government agree today, and tomorrow, and each day after that. If
they want
to say that all men are created equal but the rich are more equal, that is
what they will say and that will be what our system is.

Hear! Hear!

I got the impression from TV that the Republicans understand this. Having
the votes, they saw no need whatsoever to compromise. This is a very
short-term view of things; it fails to take into account the possibility
that two years from now, the other side might have the votes, and might
adopt the same attitude in reprisal. Of course one might argue that what
they are doing now is itself reprisal for what the Democrats have done in
the past.

This would be difficult to make a case for. Democrats certainly intensely
disliked Reagan, but they never dreamed of undermining the Constitution with
the reckless abandon the Republicans have adopted.

Bruce Gregory

4

[Martin Taylor 981225]

From Rick Marken (981224.0900)

Happy Christmas, or other reason for celebration, to all. There isn't much
reason in US federal politics at the moment, though, is there:-(

I will illustrate the Starr-Clinton version of McCarthyism
in terms of the famous rubber band game (it's amazing how
this simple little game can be used to show how PCT applies
to so many different purposeful behaviors). Here's a little
diagram of the situation:

Starr Sex Story Clinton Law re:
Query Truthfulness "Lie" Perjury

r1------------->Knot<--------r2 X Hot Iron
                 ^ ^
                 > >
              reference reference
            for Knot/Story for r2/Truthfulness

....[a fine analysis]...

Clinton did a masterful job of avoiding perjury and protecting his
story. But, of course, this didn't matter to Starr because Clinton
still had to vary his truthfulness to a point where most people
would see his behavior (r2) as "lying under oath".

I haven't been away, just busy (and still am). But Rick's lucid PCT analysis
deserves a comment about the difference (in PCT terms) between lying and
perjury.

Lying refers to human communication. Communication is behaviour, which
means the purposeful control of perception. Perjury refers to law, and law
(mostly) refers to overt action, not behaviour. In law, you should not ACT
thus and so, whatever the purpose the action was supporting. Purpose,
when it is considered, is usually taken only as a mitigating factor when
the actions are considered. Law is an ass, indeed, when seen through
PCT-coloured glasses.

All human communication has the purpose that the other person be perceived
to change in some way. The communicative ACTIONS are part of the
process that influences the actor's perception of the person to whom the
communication is made. If one is informing someone of something, then the
controlled perception is that the other person accepts/believes the
information. One may request something of another person, and then the
controlled perception is of the person ACTING in such a way that the
request is fulfilled. (All this is expanded in boring and excruciating
detail in my contribution to the IJHCS special issue--all of which, by
the way, went to the General Editor several weeks ago, though I haven't
heard back as to publication).

When one is lying, one has a current perception of some state of the world,
and a reference perception of a belief one wants to see held by someone
else, and the two differ. One wants to perceive someone else as believing
something one does not oneself believe. In Clinton's case (speaking as
a non-US person bombarded with US news on the topic) I guess that he
believed that most people would define what he did as "having sex," and
wanted them to believe that he did not do that. So he was lying, in that
sense.

Perjury, however, is different. Clinton carefully obtained an agreed
definition of "having sex" as part of the procedure of giving testimony.
Under the agreed definition, he correctly denied doing it. He did not lie
to anyone who accepted the legally agreed definition. But how many people
accept that definition? With an eye to the majority of the public, he
lied. With an eye to the lawyers and the grand jury, he didn't, even though
he used the same words. The words--the ACT--were accurate, in the same
sense that a mathematical formula or logical syllogism can be accurate
even though the words used to represent the variables might have connotations
outside the formula.

x = 2, y = 2, x - y = 0 gives no problem to most people.

Apples = 2, Oranges = 2, Apples - Oranges = 4 might be problematic, because
you can't compare apples and oranges, can you?

Yes you can, if "apples" has been defined as the name of a variable whose
value is 2, and so has "oranges." It's not my fault if you read something
more into "Apples," is it? I told you that it didn't mean anything outside
the formula, didn't I?

If, as a communicator, your object is to perceive your listener to be
confused, label your variables as "apples" and "oranges." You can
state a legally accurate formula in a way that the casual listener will
think to be nonsense.

Many elementary texts give example of accurate syllogisms that seem
nonsensical for similar reasons. All turkeys are birds; all birds fly; I
cannot carve an object that flies; therefore I cannot carve my Christmas
turkey. The syllogism is accurate. The connotations are what make it
nonsense, since the premises do not hold for the objects normally
represented by the words used to label the variables in the syllogism.

In the same way, you can lie under oath without committing perjury. In
Clinton's case, you can try to protect your family (and your political
position and programs) without running into Rick's hot iron. He found a
extra degree of freedom in the situation, and the public seems, by and
large, to be wanting him to use it.

Martin

5

[From Greg Wierzbicki (981225.1530 EST)]

Rick Marken (981224.0900)

        Ok. Thanks. for an eloquent and insightful analysis of how Clinton might
be caught-up in Starr's rubber band game. But, I think it might be beneficial
to develop an alternative yet comparable anlysis of how Starr might be caught-up in
a Clinton rubber band game. If this is so, then your points loose a bit of
their edge, at least for me. Bear with me as I attempt, not so elegantly as
you, to make some analagous counter points.

        First, imagine that Clinton publicly supports sexual harrassment legislation
and the independent counsel statutes, and works diligently to cultivate a modern
day "wunderkind" image. And imagine that while Clinton is under investigation
for possible Whitewater misdeeds that he is also the defendant in a sexual
harrassment lawsuit. And, imagine that conviction or admission of any or all
guilt in either case would tarnish/damage said public image.

        Further, imagine that Clinton repeatedly makes the case over several years that
he is relentlessly dogged by his political enemies; a.k.a. "right wing
conspirators". And imagine that Clinton's Attorney General and 3 judge panel
appoints Starr to investigate his possible misdeeds, and then legally expands
Starr's jurisdiction to include Jones v. Clinton. And imagine that Starr is a
real stickler for "the rule of law", whatever that might mean to him, and
Clinton, _knows_ it!

        Well, isn't it possible that he (Clinton) might, just might, use the
predictably of Starr's witless pursuit of miniscule legal transgressions to lay
a trap of his own to "out" Starr as an unfair prosecutor (nay persecutor!) with
allegiance to the ultra right? For sure, such a strategy might backfire if it
energizes the forces of impeachment, so it's a bit risky. But, the political
capital which could be gained if it succeeds just might make it worthwile
(albeit wreckless?) to Clinton. Who's to judge?

        Now, what if suddenly and unexpectedly Clinton's rubber band loses some of it
elasticity, or breaks, or other rubber bands held by the House Judiciary
Committee members come into play? For sure things might get a little dicey, and
a lot more complicated. And things might just move beyond even Clinton's
ability to control them. Kinda like "real-life"--no?

        Please do not hear me to be saying that I find conclusive evidence to support
this imagined chain of events. I just advance them as comparably plausible to the
chain of imagined events which you advanced. Surely, others could come up with their
own rubber-band theories.

        And, this gets to my point, finally. While your explanation is, to be sure,
plausible, I can imagine countless other similarly plausible explanations which
are consistent with PCT. As I suspect you'd agree, the world's a pretty complex
place with many more than one rubber band in play at any given time. Therefore,
accepting your explanation as singularly conclusive seems not only a bit of a
"stretch" (nice pun, eh?), but a wee bit "disturbing" to my understanding of PCT
in a practical social setting. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now, many people have pointed out that Clinton could have avoided
his problems -- and kept Kenneth Starr from controlling him -- if he
had simply changed his reference for the sex story (or simply
stopped controlling that variable). This would be equivalent to
the victim in the rubber band game (the one holding r2) changing
his reference for knot position or giving up control of knot
position altogether. It's certainly true that Clinton could have
solved his problem this way.

        Concur. Also, he could have taken the 5th, or not testified at all, or told
the truth, or any of a wide variety of alternative behaviors. What compelled
him to stay in Starr's game? Maybe your explanation is correct, or maybe
Clinton wanted to "out" Starr and things got out of his ability to control them.
Who knows?

But it's also true that Starr could
have stopped causing Clinton problems if he had just stopped trying
to control Clinton's behavior (r2).

        Perhaps. But, by reversing the logical roles in your hypopthetical argument of
Clinton as Starr's victim to those in the hypothesized scenario of Starr as
Clinton's victim suggests Starr had no choice either. Could it be that both of
these points of view: "Clinton-as-victim-without-a-choice" or
"Starr-as-victim-without-a-choice" are riddled with fallacy and absurdity? It
seems that both players chose what appear to be idiotic behaviors to me because
they seemingly subscribe to referents which I find idiotic (eg: Starr's
righteous contention that there is one and only one truth; and Clinton's endless
attempt to hair-split the system so as to manifest his wizardry and maintain his
image--like some school kid in a power struggle with the school's principle).
Who cares who the more masterful idiot was/is?

        Finally, the McCarthist name calling leaves me rather cold. I hope it does you
some good.

        Happy Holidays to All,

Greg Wierzbicki

6

[From Bill Powers (981226.0748 MST)]

I'm beginning to realize that the "98" above is about to change to "99",
and that not long after that we will be in what the science fiction of the
1940s considered to be the far distant future.

···

---------------------------------------------
Bruce Gregory 9981225.0835 EDT)]

one might argue that what
they are doing now is itself reprisal for what the Democrats have done in
the past.

This would be difficult to make a case for. Democrats certainly intensely
disliked Reagan, but they never dreamed of undermining the Constitution with
the reckless abandon the Republicans have adopted.

Sure they have: how about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but
what you can do for your country:" isn't that called Fascism? And how many
times have the Democrats in Congress used their majorities to squash
legislation the Republicans wanted? Who invented "filling the tree" so that
no further items could be placed on the agenda? Which party proposed the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution? While we're cleaning house, let's not exempt
anyone.

Best,

Bill P.

7

I'm trying to send this from an unfamiliar mailer. I am sorry if this is
a repeat.

[From Rick Marken (981225.2200)]

Greg Wierzbicki (981225.1530 EST)]

* imagine that Starr is a real stickler for "the rule of law",
whatever that
* might mean to him, and Clinton, _knows_ it!

        I think this is a reasonable assumption. Starr is controlling a
perception
        of "rule of law".

* Well, isn't it possible that he (Clinton) might, just might, use the
predictably
* of Starr's witless pursuit of miniscule legal transgressions to lay
a trap of his
* own to "out" Starr as an unfair prosecutor (nay persecutor!) with
allegiance
* to the ultra right?

        Sure. So Clinton controls Starr's prosecutorial behavior by
disturbing Starr's
        perception of "rule of law". But how does Clinton disturb this
perception? By
        getting Linda Tripp to tape Monica; by getting the supreme court to
        rule that he can be sued while in office? By getting Paula Jones to
wait
        to sue him until he was president? It seems like we have to assume a
        _lot_ in order to imagine that Clinton was acting to _make_ Starr
prosecute
        him.

* Now, what if suddenly and unexpectedly Clinton's rubber band loses
some
* of it elasticity, or breaks, or other rubber bands held by the House
Judiciary
* Committee members come into play?

        I think your whole proposal is quite unlikely. To test your
hypothesis we just
        have to look for evidence that Clinton acted to disturb Starr's
perception of
        "rule of law" when it looked like Starr's prosecutorial behavior was
waning.
        I don't recall seeing any overt "anti-rule of law" actions on
Clinton's part
        when Starr said he was going to quit and go to Pepperdine. If
Clinton
        was acting to force Starr's prosecution by disturbing Starr's
perception of
        the "rule of law" he was doing it incredibly subtly (conspiring with
Linda
        Tripp to tape Monica being one of his most subtle moves). I just
don't
        See it. Clinton seemed to be making every effort to _avoid_
prosecution
        (doing what Starr called "obstruction of justice"). Maybe the entire
effort
        to _not_ be prosecuted was part of Clinton' s plan to disturb
Starr's
        perception of "rule of law". It just seems incredibly implausible.
But I
        suppose it's possible; Clinton may be the cleverest behavior
controller
        of all time.

        But Starr's control of Clinton is quite clear; Starr was clearly
controlling for
        getting Clinton to vary his truthfulness by asking questions about
Clinton's
        relationship with Lewinsky.

* I just advance them as comparably plausible to the chain of
imagined
* events which you advanced

        You really find Clinton's control of Starr's behavior just as
plausible as Starr's
        control of Clinton's? That's amazing. Clinton seemed to make every
effort
        _not_ to be prosecuted. I'm quite sure that Clinton would have made
_no_
        effort to restore Starr's prosecution (the variable Clinton is
presumably
        controlling, according to you) if Starr had stopped the prosecution.
On the
        other hand, it's quite clear that Starr went to quite some lengths
to make
        sure the Clinton testified re: Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case and
to
        the Federal grand jury. He went to considerable efforts to prevent
any
        circumstance that would keep Clinton from testifying It's pretty
clear
        that Starr was controlling for Clinton testifying, knowing that
Clinton would
        shade the truthfulnss of his testimony in order to protect a
controlled
        variable (the sex story re: Lewinsky) from Starr's disturbance
(questions).

* And, this gets to my point, finally. While your explanation is, to
be sure,
* plausible, I can imagine countless other similarly plausible
explanations
* which are consistent with PCT. As I suspect you'd agree

        You can think of plausible _hypotheses_ about what's being
controlled.
        But your example of Clinton controlling Starr's prosecution shows
that it's
        hard to come up with hypotheses that are plausible because they are
        supported by the _evidence_. Starr's control of Clinton's behavior
was
        obvious; Starr resisted anything that would have kept Starr from
controlling
        Clinton's behavior. Clinton's control of Starr's behavior requires
the
        development of conspiracy theories (such as Clinton conspiring with
        Tripp to get the tapes) that are implausible and for which there is
no
        evidence at all.

* Therefore, accepting your explanation as singularly conclusive seems

* not only a bit of a "stretch" (nice pun, eh?), but a wee bit
"disturbing"
* to my understanding of PCT in a practical social setting. Maybe I'm

* wrong.

        I think you need to work on your understanding of PCT. There is no
        "stretch" in my analysis. There is quite a bit of very obvious
evidence that
        Starr was trying to control Clinton's truthfulness by applying
disturbances
        (questions) to a variable (the Lewinsky sex story) that Starr knew
(from
        the Linda Tripp tapes) that Clinton would likely want to control by
varying
        his truthfulness. If this was not what Starr wanted to do (and if
Starr was
        _not_ really interested in controlling Clinton's behavior) he would
have told
        Clinton, as soon as he got the Tripp tapes, that the tapes existed
and that
        he had better testify truthfully. Instead of helping Clinton follow
the "rule of law"
        as Starr saw it, Starr just applied his disturbances and watched
(with no
        evident pain) as Clinton violated Starr's "rule of law". Starr
wanted to control
        Clinton rather than help him. That's a fact, based on data, not an
interpretation
        based on wishful thinking.

* Could it be that both of these points of view:
"Clinton-as-victim-without-a-choice"
* Or "Starr-as-victim-without-a-choice" are riddled with fallacy and
absurdity?

        Sure. And the way to tell is by testing for the controlled variable.
As I said,
        the existing data make a compelling case for the hypothesis that
Starr was
        controlling Clinton's behavior (truthfulness) by disturbing
(questioning) his
        sex story. I can see no evidence at all that Clinton was controlling
Starr's
        behavior (prosecution); indeed, there seems to be plenty of evidence
        that Clinton would have loved to have a _stopped_ the prosecution
(control
        Starr's behavior at a reference of zero) but was unable to do it;
and Clinton
        Never did anything to stop Starr's prosecution (he could have had
him fired -
        as Nixon did with whoever - but he didn't). No, Clinton was not
controlling
        Starr's behavior; Starr, however, was clearly trying to control
Clinton's.

* Finally, the McCarthist name calling leaves me rather cold. I hope
it
* does you some good.

What McCarthyist name calling? I showed you what McCarthyism is; it's
control of behavior by disturbance to a known controlled variable; usually
a story someone doesn't want to tell because, though legal, it would
be embarassing (a story about being a communist or having sex or having
said "nigger"). I don't think it's a good thing to do McCarthyism because
I think it's based on a misunderstanding of the nature of behavior; As Bill
Powers said in one of his posts, it's probably based on a punitive approach
to dealing with behavior. You _expose_ the communist or the liar so you
can punish him and deter others. McCarthyism is just applied S-R
psychology. It's not morally wrong; it's just well intentioned ignorance.

Merry Christmas from the beautiful redwood forest of Santa Cruz, CA

Rick

8

[From Bruce Gregory (981226.1205 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981226.0748 MST)

Sure they have: how about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but
what you can do for your country:" isn't that called Fascism? And how many
times have the Democrats in Congress used their majorities to squash
legislation the Republicans wanted? Who invented "filling the
tree" so that
no further items could be placed on the agenda? Which party proposed the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution? While we're cleaning house, let's not exempt
anyone.

Quite true. But considering this is only the second time in history that a
President has been impeached, and considering _what_ he is being impeached
for (even former DOJ officials from Republican administrations due not
believe the "offenses" merit impeachment), the Democrats have a lot of
catching up to do.

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Bruce Gregory (981226.1215 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981225.2200)

McCarthyism is just applied S-R
psychology. It's not morally wrong; it's just well intentioned ignorance.

Sort of like Hitler, right? After all he thought Jews really were the cause
of all Germany's problems. He was engaged in a misguided, but well
intentioned, program of civic improvement. (You don't suppose he was a
Republican, do you?)

Bruce Gregory

10

Bill Powers says today (the 26th) that he is confronted with the strange
fact that he will soon be encountering the Far Distant Future. Me, too.
When I was a youth, I thought it would be nice if I could live until the
year 2000 -- it would be unusual, but not impossible -- because then I
would actually be alive in THE FUTURE. And humankind would be engaged in
all those marvelous, glamorous activities -- living in cities that had
bridges between skyscrapers! -- and going in rockets to MARS and even
JUPITER! -- and exploring the galaxy with Dr. E. E. Smith and The Lensman
(see the magic lens on his wrist, sort of like Dick Tracy?)! Well, here I
am! Let that be a lesson to me.

11

[From Rick Marken (981226.1820)]

Me:

McCarthyism is just applied S-R psychology. It's not morally
wrong; it's just well intentioned ignorance.

Bruce Gregory (981226.1215 EDT)

Sort of like Hitler, right? After all he thought Jews really
were the cause of all Germany's problems. He was engaged in a
misguided, but well intentioned, program of civic improvement.

Yes. That's correct. _I_ judge Hitler's (and McCarthy's and
Starr's and the OJ defense team's) behavior immoral. But I'm
quite sure that all these people did _not_ judge their own
behavior immoral. Indeed, I'm sure that these people did what
they did in order to make the world a better place: by trying to
purge the world of the plague of Jewishness, communism, another
President from the south and a police detective who forgets what
he said 10 years ago.

I don't think guys like Hitler or Starr wake up one morning,
cackle like the phantom of the opera and say "I think I'll
do something really immoral today". That's the problem with
looking at this from a moral point of view; some people think
Hitler, McCarthy, Starr or the OJ defense team did wonderful
things; that they are perfectly moral. What people consider
moral depends on what people want (what variables they control
for). All I'm trying to do with the McCarthyism thing is show
what's going on -- from an _amoral_ perspective. As I said in
my previous post, McCarthyism is

control of behavior by disturbance to a known controlled
variable; usually a story someone doesn't want to tell because,
though legal, it would be embarassing (a story about being a
communist or having sex or having said "nigger").

I think I also made a pretty strong case (with what evidence I
have from the newpaper stories) for the fact that Starr was
doing McCarthyism (as I defined it) on Clinton. As I said in my
previous post, I think this way of interacting with people sucks
because it increases conflict and, hence, pain. But others
obviously think that this kind of McCarthyism is fine and dandy
and that Clinton is wrong for controlling a variable (the sex
story) that allowed Starr to control him.

Fortunately, about 70% of the US population seems to agree that
whatever Clinton was controlling for -- and how -- it hardly
merits the kind McCarthyism to which he has been subjected; most
people are apparently (from my point of view) pretty decent.

By the way, I hope I am making it clear that I personally
find Starr's behavior immoral becuause I don't like McCarthyism
(behavior control); _not_ because Starr supports some Republican
agenda. I am currently anti-Republican only because it's
mostly the Republicans who seem to be condoning Starr's
McCarthyism. In the OJ trial it was only a few brave Republicans
who protested the horrible McCarthyism aimed at Mark Fuhrman. I
liked those Republicans. Indeed, it was a right wing Republican
publishing house that published Fuhrman's excellent book; I say
kudos to that right wing Republican for doing that.

Since the McCarthyism against Fuhrman was condoned, if not
orchestrated, by "Mr. Liberal" Alan Dershowitz, I am appalled
that he had the chutzpah to write a book protesting the "sexual
McCarthyism" that has been used against Clinton. If Mr. Dershowitz
were able to look at the phenomenon of McCarthyism through a
scientific model (like PCT) instead of a political agenda he
might be able to see that what he did to (or condoned with)
Fuhrman is precisely what Starr is doing to Clinton. Then if
he didn't like McCarthyism he could object to it in _all_ it's
superficially different incarnations.

Best

Rick

···

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

12

[From Bruce Gregory (981226.2210 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981226.1820)

Since the McCarthyism against Fuhrman was condoned, if not
orchestrated, by "Mr. Liberal" Alan Dershowitz, I am appalled
that he had the chutzpah to write a book protesting the "sexual
McCarthyism" that has been used against Clinton. If Mr. Dershowitz
were able to look at the phenomenon of McCarthyism through a
scientific model (like PCT) instead of a political agenda he
might be able to see that what he did to (or condoned with)
Fuhrman is precisely what Starr is doing to Clinton. Then if
he didn't like McCarthyism he could object to it in _all_ it's
superficially different incarnations.

I'm with you up to here. I'm not sure why you think understanding PCT would
alter Dershowitz's behavior, however. He could perfectly well say that he
uses whatever tool he finds most effective to achieve his intended outcomes.
His intended outcomes were to defend OJ and Clinton. If Clinton is
exonerated as OJ was, Dershowitz would have achieved his goals. That's what
an intention system--achieve its desired outcomes.

Bruce Gregory

13

[From Greg Wierzbicki (981227.1200 EST)]

Rick Marken (981224.0900)

...I'm sure many people think McCarthyism is just fine.
PCT certainly doesn't tell us whether McCarthyism is good or
bad; only our own reference signals tell us that. But PCT
does tell us what McCarthyism _is_.

Sorry to take us back to the beginning, but how would you characterize the
disturbance you perceived which prompted this thread about McCarthy-speak ala PCT?

McCarthyism is a form of control by disturbing a controlled
variable; it doesn't work unless both the victim and the
controller are control systems.

So then, is football (a game in which each team attempts to control for
possession of the ball in their opponent's endzone) a form of McCarthyism? How
about chess?

...But I think PCT gives us a different perspective. Looking at
McCarthyism in terms of the rubber band game shows that it's
really the person pulling on r1 who is the "problem". This is
the person who is actively controlling the behavior of another
person without consideration of that other person's internal
structure of goals (the other person's autonomy).

Is this to say that one player is entitled to an unchallenged set of knot
positions while another player is not? Else the other player is a McCarthyist?

It's becoming "curiouser and curiouser" whether the McCarthy under discussion
has really been the one and only former Senator Joe from Wisconsin, or Puppet
Charlie from Edgar Bergen-land ...or...or...or...

Thanks,

Greg

14

[From Rick Marken (981227.1430)]

Greg Wierzbicki (981227.1200 EST)--

Sorry to take us back to the beginning, but how would you
characterize the disturbance you perceived which prompted
this thread about McCarthy-speak ala PCT?

I guess the disturbance was people blaming Clinton for the current
ugliness in DC. This may have been a disturbance because I am
controlling for a perception of fairness. The perception of
people blaming the victim of control for their problems is quite
a ways a way from my reference for the perception of fairness.

McCarthyism is all about getting people to blame the victim by
getting them to focus on the victim's behavior (taking the
5th, shading the truth about a private affair, "lying" etc) that
is being controlled by the McCarthyite. I don't blame the victim
of this kind of control and I will speak out on behalf of the
victims of such ugly abuse whenever I see it happening.

So then, is football (a game in which each team attempts to
control for possession of the ball in their opponent's endzone)
a form of McCarthyism? How about chess?

Neither one is McCarthyism; both are just flat out conflict. Look
at the basic rubber band game diagram again:

S1 --> r1------------->Knot<--------r2 <--S2

In McCarthyism the controller, S1, disturbs the position of the
variable controlled by the controllee, S2, (the "knot" or the sex
story) in order to control S2's behavior, r2 (position of rubber
band, truthfulness). In games like football or chess both parties
are trying to control the same variable (the "knot", the field
position of the ball, the status of the king). There may be
elements of McCarthy type control in such games (trying to fool your
opponent into making bad moves to oppose disturbances to variables
you knows your opponent is controlling) but the games themselves
are just pure conflict.

Also, both parties to the game have _volunteered_ to participate;
this is obviously not the case in McCarthy-type control. In
McCarthy-type control you don't ask if the person would like to
play; you just find something out about the person that the
person would like to keep private and just ask questions about
it. In order to control that perception, the controllee _must_
behave in a certain way (shade the truth or take the 5th or
whatever).

Me:

...But I think PCT gives us a different perspective. Looking at
McCarthyism in terms of the rubber band game shows that it's
really the person pulling on r1 who is the "problem". This is
the person who is actively controlling the behavior of another
person without consideration of that other person's internal
structure of goals (the other person's autonomy).

Greg --

Is this to say that one player is entitled to an unchallenged
set of knot positions while another player is not?

No. People are only "entitiled" to what other control systems are
willing to let them be entitled to. If I find out that you whack-
off with your left hand and I know you would like to keep that
private then I can control your behavior (make you lie) by asking
you whether you whack-off with your left hand. I am entitled to do
this for the same reason that Starr was entitled to do what he
did to Clinton - because I can.

I don't value the McCarthyist's "entitlement" to control his
victim's behavior because I think that violates the autonomy
of the victim. I take the side of the victim in the McCarthyite
control scenario because what the victim is controlling -- the
privacy of an embarassing story about themselves -- doesn't
interfere with someone else's autonomy. Clinton (and Monica)
hurt no one by controlling for the privacy of the story of
their relationship. Starr hurt many people with his little
McCathyite control game. So my sympathies are completely with
Clinton -- he did no harm and was crucified for it. Call me
crazy but I think the guy who did the crucifying -- not the
guy who was crucified -- is the bad guy.

Best

Rick

···

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

15

[From Greg Wierzbicki (981228.0945 EST)]

Rick Marken (981227.1430)

McCarthyism is all about getting people to blame the victim by
getting them to focus on the victim's behavior (taking the
5th, shading the truth about a private affair, "lying" etc) that
is being controlled by the McCarthyite.

Is this to say that whenever someone acts to control other people in order to
get them to blame/focus on the victim, they are behaving McCarthy-like? If so,
then a few questions, please: (1) how does an observer decide who the victim
is? (2) isn't it essential to perform "the test" in order to determine whether
the controller S1 (below) is actually controlling for the behavior of people
other than S2? (3) shouldn't the schematic (below) in some way account for the
other "blamers" (S3, S4, S5...Sn) who are integral to the situation?

S1 --> r1------------->Knot<--------r2 <--S2

In McCarthyism the controller, S1, disturbs the position of the
variable controlled by the controllee, S2, (the "knot" or the sex
story) in order to control S2's behavior, r2 (position of rubber
band, truthfulness).

Is this to say that it's really S1's perception of r2 (not the knot!) that S1 is
working to control in your rendition of McCarthyism ala PCT? If so, then isn't
the schematic a bit oversimplified, if not "misleading"?

In games like football or chess both parties
are trying to control the same variable (the "knot", the field
position of the ball, the status of the king). There may be
elements of McCarthy type control in such games (trying to fool your
opponent into making bad moves to oppose disturbances to variables
you knows your opponent is controlling) but the games themselves
are just pure conflict...
...In
McCarthy-type control you don't ask if the person would like to
play; you just find something out about the person that the
person would like to keep private and just ask questions about
it.

Is this to say that whenever a defensive linebacker attempts to provoke an
opposing lineman to jump the snap or distract him from his blocking assignment
by inquiring into, or attesting to the lineman's family life, national/ethnic
heritage, sexual proclivities with his own mother (or father or sister?), mental
faculties, or other potentially embarrassing situation, then the linebacker's
behavior is consistant with McCarthyism? Would it also be the case whenever the
defense "fakes" a blitz, or the offense "fakes" a handoff or punt?

Thanks,

Greg

16

[From Rick Marken (981228.0815)]

Greg Wierzbicki (981228.0945 EST)--

Is this to say that whenever someone acts to control other
people in order to get them to blame/focus on the victim, they
are behaving McCarthy-like?

No.

If so, then a few questions, please:

I'll answer them anyway;-)

(1) how does an observer decide who the victim is?

I explained this in a previous post [Rick Marken (981225.2200)].
In that post, I described some of the evidence that suggests
that Starr was controlling Clinton, not vice versa. This
evidence is only anecdotal; as I said, it's still possible
that Clinton was controlling Starr in order to expose Starr's
hateful cruelty. But it strikes me as highly unlikely based on
the evidence (or lack of it) that Clinton conspired to do the
things that kept Starr's prosecution going.

(2) isn't it essential to perform "the test" in order to determine
whether the controller S1 (below) is actually controlling for
the behavior of people other than S2?

Not really. I'm only concerned about whether he is controlling
the behavior of S2; that is, I'm only testing (via anecdotal
evidence) whether r2 is being controlled by S1.

(3) shouldn't the schematic (below) in some way account for the
other "blamers" (S3, S4, S5...Sn) who are integral to the situation?

Yes. In the real world, S1 is Starr and all his little helpers
(including the magnificently stupid Supreme Court, Paula Jones,
her lawyers and financial backers, etc).

Me:

S1 --> r1------------->Knot<--------r2 <--S2

In McCarthyism the controller, S1, disturbs the position of the
variable controlled by the controllee, S2, (the "knot" or the sex
story) in order to control S2's behavior, r2 (position of rubber
band, truthfulness).

Greg --

Is this to say that it's really S1's perception of r2 (not
the knot!) that S1 is working to control in your rendition
of McCarthyism ala PCT?

Yes!!

If so, then isn't the schematic a bit oversimplified, if not
"misleading"?

Why? The schematic only shows the relationship between variables
in the environment. It doesn't show diagrams of the control
systems (S 1 and S2) themselves. Is that what you find "misleading"?
If you want to see what I am describing, try my "Control of Behavior"
demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Coercion.html

In that demo, you can act like Starr and control the behavior of
a control system (the position of the upper cursor) by disturbing
a variable it is controlling. If you were doing this to call public
attention to the embarassing fact that the control system is
keeping the cursor aligned with the target then you (by my
definition) would be doing McCarthyism.

Is this to say that whenever a defensive linebacker attempts to
provoke an opposing lineman to jump the snap or distract him from
his blocking assignment by inquiring into, or attesting to the
lineman's family life, national/ethnic heritage, sexual
proclivities with his own mother (or father or sister?), mental
faculties, or other potentially embarrassing situation, then the
linebacker's behavior is consistant with McCarthyism?

Similar. But the victim (the opposing lineman) is not in a
situation where his refusal to answer or his denial (assuming
it's a lie and he actually is the things he was called) is
elicited by the controller (defensive linebacker) for public
scrutiny.

Would it also be the case whenever the defense "fakes" a blitz,
or the offense "fakes" a handoff or punt?

Again, this is similar. But it is done for different higher-
level reasons. McCarthyite controlling is done to expose the
victim to public contumily. The controlling you describe uses
the same techniques as McCarthyite control (disturbance of a
variable that the victim is assumed to be controlling) in order
to produce a particular control action (move offsides, delay
after the snap, follow the blitz, etc) but it is done for a
different higher level reason. And, again, the participants
in these games have _agreed_ to participate knowing full well
(after a couple weeks in high school football) the kinds of
control to which they will be subjected. Until now, I don't
think anyone thought that winning the presidency meant that
you could be legally subjected (courtesy of the Supreme Court)
to McCarthyite control based on questions about your sex life.

Best

Rick

···

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

17

[from Greg Wierzbicki (981228.1300 EST)]

Rick Marken (981228.0815)

Yes. In the real world, S1 is Starr and all his little helpers
(including the magnificently stupid Supreme Court, Paula Jones,
her lawyers and financial backers, etc).

Did you really intend to include Paula Jones in the list? It seems to me that
if anyone qualifies to be canonized with the rites of "Victimhood", that Ms
Jones has a pretty strong case on numerous counts. I'll mention just a few
which come quickly to mind in order to make my point. First, there's the
possible (admittedly "unproven" but now "settled") abuse she alleged at the
hands of the Guv-nuh. Second, there's the possible abuse at the hands of her
"financial" glad handlers and others of the supposed cult of "right wing
conspirators" who might have taken advantage of the situation, and her in the
process. Third, there's her public pillory at the hands of the shameless
apollogists for da Prez. Fourth, there's her bloodthursty lawyers who seem
unable to get beyond their monetary lust for their share of the booty. And,
fifth but not last by a long stretch, there's the almost complete abandonment of
her (and her position) by Women's rightists.

But, I guess my problem with your contention of how an observer might decide who
is the victim goes beyond your choice of methods. It's not at all clear to me
that the phenomena of victim actually exists at all outside the role which
someone might _choose_ for themselves or attest to for others in order to
manipulate a chosen situation to their personal advantage. If I can get you to
believe I'm a victim, then I might just try to behave as I think you think a
victim behaves in order to elicit what I want you to do; whether there is
anything to the notion of being a victim beyond my own and your own imaginings
(overtones here of Harvey's Abilene Paradox). In this sense, the victim's
behavior is a little McCarthy-esque, at least as I likely (mis)understand your
meaning. No?

The schematic only shows the relationship between variables
in the environment. It doesn't show diagrams of the control
systems (S 1 and S2) themselves. Is that what you find "misleading"?

Perhaps.

If you want to see what I am describing, try my "Control of Behavior"
demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Coercion.html

In that demo, you can act like Starr and control the behavior of
a control system (the position of the upper cursor) by disturbing
a variable it is controlling. If you were doing this to call public
attention to the embarassing fact that the control system is
keeping the cursor aligned with the target then you (by my
definition) would be doing McCarthyism.

Thanks for the lead. I'll look into it after the holidays upon my return from
NYC where I'll be struggling to keep the Times Square ball from falling on NY Eve.

...But the victim (the opposing lineman) is not in a
situation where his refusal to answer or his denial (assuming
it's a lie and he actually is the things he was called) is
elicited by the controller (defensive linebacker) for public
scrutiny.

Well, I'm not so sure that the lineman wouldn't feel as if his choice of actions
weren't being scrutinized by the public. Admittedly he might have a hard time
persuading us ordinary (sedintary?) non-jocks that his situation was as grave as
impeaching the president or bombing Sadam, but I suspect _he_ might think it's
pretty important how _his_ public (fellow ballplayers, coaches, fans...) might
scrutinize his response.

Again, this is similar. But it is done for different higher-
level reasons. McCarthyite controlling is done to expose the
victim to public contumily.

...after pausing for a momentary trip to Webster's Unabridged (contumely??) I
seem to have lost my train of thought...

So, I'll close by asserting that I suspect we're in pretty close agreement that
coercive behavior is not to be regarded highly, if not outright deplored. And,
if this is what you generally mean by McCarthyism, then why not just call it
coercive behavior and be done with it? Does the McCarthyist label add
anything? It strikes me a bit like an attempt to coerce a response from others...

Further, I happen to see coercive behavior on both sides of issues like this
(Democrats v. Republicans, Clinton v. Jones, Carville v.Madlin, US v. Sadam,
Marken v. Wierzbicki??, etc.) and struggle to understand (misunderstand?) why
those on both sides can't seem to see it, or don't seem to care. Admittedly I
might be misinterpreting the signals to resolve (maintain?) my own mental
infirmities, but it's at least possible that others are ignoring some of the
signals in order to control for their's.

Thanks for the conversation,

Greg

18

[From Rick Marken (981228.1345)]

Greg Wierzbicki (981228.1300 EST) --

Did you really intend to include Paula Jones in the list [of
Starr's cohorts]. It seems to me that if anyone qualifies to
be canonized with the rites of "Victimhood", that Ms Jones has
a pretty strong case on numerous counts.

Ms. Jones was not the victim of the kind of abuse to which I
object; controlling another person in order to cause them pain.
Jones doesn't even allege that she was abused in this way; she
only said she was offended. She doesn't allege that Clinton
forced her to look, ot that he kept her from leaving, ot that
he tried to extort sex from her. All Clinton is accused of here
is being extremely poor at making a pass.

The Jones suit was a nuisance aimed at hurting another person
(Clinton). By the way, I feel the same way about what was done
to Clarence Thomas; even if he did what he was accused of doing,
the accusation and public "trial" was far more abusive than
the alleged acts. In that case, the Democrats (and some very
mean women) were the abusers.

It's not at all clear to me that the phenomena of victim actually
exists at all outside the role which someone might _choose_ for
themselves or attest to for others in order to manipulate a chosen
situation to their personal advantage.

Try the rubber band game. Then you will see how one person can be
a victim and the other a controller.

If I can get you to believe I'm a victim, then I might just try
to behave as I think you think a victim behaves in order to
elicit what I want you to do;

You're over thinking this. Clinton was a victim of control; Starr
was the controller. This is really not that tough. It's basic PCT.

So, I'll close by asserting that I suspect we're in pretty close
agreement that coercive behavior is not to be regarded highly

Starr did not coerce; he controlled without using coercion. Clinton
was free to reveal all when he was first questioned about Lewinsky.
Starr probably would not have done anything to force a lie from
Clinton. Starr didn't need to use coercion because Starr wins
either way; if Clinton tells the truth then he's bad because he
cheated on his wife (and no one was going to ask whether Hillary
cared or not); if he shades the truth he's bad because he's a
liar _and_ a cheat. A nice person -- one who was not interested
in hurting another person by forcing them into a conflict like
this -- just wouldn't have asked the question. Jesus understood
this; the current crop of Christians could sure learn a _lot_
from their savior.

Further, I happen to see coercive behavior on both sides of
issues like this

That's one of the values of PCT; it helps us see when coercion
(and other forms of control of behavior) is involved in human
interactions and when it is not.

Happy New Year

Rick

···

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