Power in PCT and scienctific applications

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1355CDT]

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.0806 MDT)]
Re: Rick Marken (2008.08.26.1900)–

But wasn’t the Republican position on abortion one of the social
policies you were against? What about all those other things you use
CSGnet to complain about, like the war in Iraq or Homeland Security
or White House lies, and so on?

Are those the kinds of questions PCT can address? And if not, why are you >addressing them on CSGnet?

Finally you blow the whistle!

I’ve been getting dizzy from all this debating about “what does PCT say about politics? About business organizations? About abortion? ETC.

PCT is a basic theory about behavior, not a behavioral engineering program. These questions are like asking, “What does special relativity say about abortion (etc.)? The answer is: Nothing (in either case.)

Certainly one can draw applications by using the understanding about behavior that we get from PCT. For example, if I were dictator I would declare a constitutional amendment that any proposed law would have to: begin by stating what result should be obtained by the law; an operational definition of how that result should be measured; an operational definition of the measure itself; an operational definition of what variable(s) are to be included in the measure; a specification of how long a time period would be allowed for the law to operate before the measure is taken as definite (there could be preliminary tests and tweaks of course); and finally a definition of the criterion for declaring the law effective or ineffective. In the latter case it would be immediately revoked.

I think you can see this as an attempt to apply what we know from PCT as to how control of a desired condition is achieved. But it doesn’t have anything to offer about whether Republicans are bad people (of course they are; they control for having it all for themselves—or not).

By the way, is it OK to use PCT as a justification for prejudices
about education and management policies? Is it just political or
economic policies that should not be discussed?

I think you know the answer to that. And who said anything against
discussing? What I’m arguing against is taking a position and
joining in the conflict, instead of trying to find out what is behind
the conflict. If, in spite of PCT, you think that having one side
pushing against the other side and the other side pushing back just
as hard is the best way to make matters better, then do it on your
own time, but don’t call your opinions scientific.

I am not, personally, against members of CSG net sometimes blowing off steam about events we might think reprehensible—and hoping to find who agrees with oneself, but I strongly agree that we need a way to keep that kind of message separate from when we are trying to be scientific.

Best,

Dick R.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.1353 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1355 CDT –

Finally you blow the
whistle!

I’m still learning how to talk about some things. The recent exchanges
with Rick have really made certain ideas clearer to me, particularly just
why going up a level is so important.

PCT is a basic theory about
behavior, not a behavioral engineering program. These questions are like
asking, �What does special relativity say about abortion (etc.)? The
answer is: Nothing (in either case.)

Correct. But it helps us to answer the question of whether
behavioral engineering is even what anyone would want to do, now
that we have a better notion of how people are organized. The behavior we
see people producing is simply the visible part of the process by which
they control what matters to them. Frequently, it also disturbs what
other people are doing, interfering with their ability to do the same.
It’s easy for people to fall into conflict with each other, and if they
don’t realize what is happening, or if they don’t automatically
reorganize, they’ll each push harder, not seeing that this is exactly
what makes the other person push harder, too. Gosh, that rock is heavier
than I thought it was – shove – but what’s this? Why it’s not a rock!
The main cause of conflict is someone trying to change someone else’s
behavior.

People having conflicts are beginning to look to me like those windup toy
robots that will happily walk forward wherever you put them, even
standing with their faces to a wall. They think they’re getting somewhere
because their arms are swinging and their legs are moving, but anyone
else can see that they’ll just go on marching into that wall until the
spring winds down, and end up in exactly the same place as if they had
done nothing. Except that the spring has stopped working.

Certainly one can draw
applications by using the understanding about behavior that we get from
PCT. For example, if I were dictator I would declare a constitutional
amendment that any proposed law would have to: begin by stating what
result should be obtained by the law; an operational definition of how
that result should be measured; an operational definition of the measure
itself; an operational definition of what variable(s) are to be included
in the measure; a specification of how long a time period would be
allowed for the law to operate before the measure is taken as definite
(there could be preliminary tests and tweaks of course); and finally a
definition of the criterion for declaring the law effective or
ineffective. In the latter case it would be immediately
revoked.

Nicely worked out, but I repeat: it is really behavioral
engineering (of lawmakers) that we want to be doing? I hate to sound like
a rabid libertarian, but if we’re after a conflict-free society, we have
to work toward making laws unnecessary, by tackling the problem of why
people come into conflict with each other. Even more to the point: the
problem of why people don’t just reorganize and resolve the problems
themselves before laws even come into play.

I think you can see this as an
attempt to apply what we know from PCT as to how control of a desired
condition is achieved. But it doesn�t have anything to offer about
whether Republicans are bad people (of course they are; they control for
having it all for themselves�or not).

Unfortunately, the desired condition for which this proposal controls is
someone else’s behavior. If you happen to know of a different
behavior they could produce that would satisfy you and at the same time
not cause significant errors in ANY of their own control systems, you
could put such measures into effect without fear of causing conflict.
Interpersonal conflict starts with causing intrapersonal conflict: I’d
like to do as you ask, but if I do, I’ll damage myself.

There are three hundred million people in this country and twenty times
that number in the world, and there’s no way all of them could behave as
you wish without unnumerable conflicts appearing. It’s a hopeless
undertaking.

I really, really think that the solutions we’re looking for can come only
from trying to find out what it is that people want that leads to
conflict, and then why they want those things, and then why they want
those things, and so on until there’s no place left to look. It’s a
finite task; it’s not impossible. People don’t just keep backing off and
going up a level indefinitely. There’s a top. And it’s at the top where
reorganization can work the best, because there’s no higher control
system to disturb.

Furthermore, as David Goldstein reminded me today, simply interviewing
people to find out what they want etc. seems to have some interesting
side-effects – namely, resolving conflicts that they run into in the
course of trying to answer your questions. This made me wonder if another
name for an MOL practitioner should not be “interviewer.” David
pointed out that it’s a biased interview in that the interviewer is
always looking for higher-level answers (or rather, always trying to get
the interviewee to look for them). But that’s exactly what we want, isn’t
it? Whether we’re trying to solve the problem of social conflict or that
of individual conflict, we have to do the same thing: track the causes to
higher levels of goals. We can examine the problem of conflict and at the
same time start doing something about it. And teaching others how to do
something about it. If each one teaches two, we will reach all 6 billion
in 32 steps. Something’s wrong with that, but it’s an interesting
thought.

We might also, at last, spin off definitions of the levels that have some
research behind them.

This looks to me like a doable project, which is why I’m sending a
special CC to Kent McClelland, and hoping that McPhail and Tucker are
listening in. Shouldn’t sociologists be the ones to take the lead here?
Of course they’ll have to work with the clinicians. And educators.

And everyone else, in the end.

Best,

Bill P.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1605CDT]

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.1353 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1355 CDT –

Finally you blow the whistle!

I’m still learning how to talk about some things. The recent exchanges with Rick have really made certain ideas clearer to me, particularly just why going up a level is so important.

Well, I can’t argue with that then.

PCT is a basic theory about behavior, not a behavioral engineering program. These questions are like asking, “What does special relativity say about abortion (etc.)? The answer is: Nothing (in either case.)
Correct. But it helps us to answer the question of whether behavioral engineering is even what anyone would want to do, now that we have a better notion of how people are organized. The behavior we see people producing is simply the visible part of the process by which they control what matters to them. Frequently, it also disturbs what other people are doing, interfering with their ability to do the same. It’s easy for people to fall into conflict with each other, and if they don’t realize what is happening, or if they don’t automatically reorganize, they’ll each push harder, not seeing that this is exactly what makes the other person push harder, too. Gosh, that rock is heavier than I thought it was – shove – but what’s this? Why it’s not a rock! The main cause of conflict is someone trying to change someone else’s
behavior.

Agreed. I was thinking in terms of what the folks on the net (Rick and others), who were wanting to see X in other people, would do if they stop talking in sentences like “What does PCT say about x?”
I was trying to take the discussuion one step at a time…

People having conflicts are beginning to look to me like those windup toy robots that will happily walk forward wherever you put them, even standing with their faces to a wall. They think they’re getting somewhere because their arms are swinging and their legs are moving, but anyone else can see that they’ll just go on marching into that wall until the spring winds down, and end up in exactly the same place as if they had done nothing. Except that the spring has stopped working.

Sure, that strikes me as a good way to see such situations.

Certainly one can draw applications by using the understanding about behavior that we get from PCT. For example, if I were dictator I would declare a constitutional amendment that any proposed law would have to: begin by stating what result should be obtained by the law; an operational definition of how that result should be measured; an operational definition of the measure itself; an operational definition of what variable(s) are to be included in the measure; a specification of how long a time period would be allowed for the law to operate before the measure is taken as definite (there could be preliminary tests and tweaks of course); and finally a definition of the criterion for declaring the law effective or ineffective. In the latter case it would be immediately revoked.
Nicely worked out, but I repeat: it is (sic) really behavioral engineering (of lawmakers) that we want to be doing? I hate to sound like a rabid libertarian, but if we’re after a conflict-free society, we have to work toward making laws unnecessary, by tackling the problem of why people come into conflict with each other. Even more to the point: the problem of why people don’t just reorganize and resolve the problems themselves before laws even come into play.

Agreed again. But that’s going to take some doing, and for sure you are right to propose that PCT scientists should be working on it–as perhaps the only ones who have the tools for it. But in the mean time, congress is going to be passing a lot of laws, and we know from experience that a lot of them will be wastes of devotion, money and energy, and if not that there will be those that make things much worse, as implicit in your discussion about conflict. My intermediate-time proposal was to see how it would work if congressmen (among others) began at least to think in terms of controlling variables (instead of trying to control people).

I think you can see this as an attempt to apply what we know from PCT as to how control of a desired condition is achieved. But it doesn’t have anything to offer about whether Republicans are bad people (of course they are; they control for having it all for themselves—or not).
Unfortunately, the desired condition for which this proposal controls is someone else’s behavior.

Hey, not so fast. Sure, you are right in the abstract, but let’s take this to some concrete examples. Assuming it true that a majority of people in this country would like to see much less heroine bought and used, then, taking that as a desired condition how many different proposals might be put forward to see a significant decrease in the measured variable? Bomb the fields in South America? (Been tried); Restart the WPA to give meaningful work to people who are currently sitting around, feeling depressed and angry? (Some small local efforts have been tried I believe, with mixed results); Decriminalize use, but tell people that when they are starting to waste away, the rest of us won’t pay to send them to the hospital (sounds cruel, doesn’t it, but some Libertarians would be for it, if I understand them correctly.

Any of these proposals do contain ambitions for other people’s behavior, generically, but so far they don’t necessarily call for anyone to try to force any particular action out of particular other. In the end it would depend upon the beliefs about how behavior works on the part of the “front line” workers in the program, wouldn’t it?. What if Ed Ford were training all the people employed by an "Administration for Reduction of Heroine Use in the USA? Or a project of ED Ford and Tim Carey?

If you happen to know of a different behavior they could produce that would satisfy you and at the same time not cause significant errors in ANY of their own control systems, you could put such measures into effect without fear of causing conflict.

Right. So a program designed by PCT experts to call out a law such as I proposed above-- might that not be a step on the way to everybody-wins anarchy? (Which BTW I don’t think is humanly possible, because those few finding themselves with the power to take what they want from their environment without caring what the others in that environment want will do it. Isn’t that sufficiently proven?)

There are three hundred million people in this country and twenty times that number in the world, and there’s no way all of them could behave as you wish without unnumerable conflicts appearing. It’s a hopeless undertaking.

Like I said, I’m starting with short steps along the way.

Furthermore, as David Goldstein reminded me today, simply interviewing people to find out what they want etc. seems to have some interesting side-effects – namely, resolving conflicts that they run into in the course of trying to answer your questions. This made me wonder if another name for an MOL practitioner should not be “interviewer.” David pointed out that it’s a biased interview in that the interviewer is always looking for higher-level answers (or rather, always trying to get the interviewee to look for them). But that’s exactly what we want, isn’t it? Whether we’re trying to solve the problem of social conflict or that of individual conflict, we have to do the same thing: track the causes to higher levels of goals. We can examine the problem of conflict and at the same time start doing something about it. And teaching others how to do something about it. If each one teaches two, we will reach all 6 billion in 32 steps. Something’s wrong with that, but it’s an interesting thought.

That is interesting–and maybe doable, imperfectly and on a small scale, but it strikes me as a good enough start that I am going to try to remember to apply it in every situation where it comes to mind as a way to communicate. (I put it that way because I know it would require breaking a lot of habits–i.e. reorganizing) but a worthy goal.)

We might also, at last, spin off definitions of the levels that have some research behind them.

This looks to me like a doable project, which is why I’m sending a special CC to Kent McClelland, and hoping that McPhail and Tucker are listening in. Shouldn’t sociologists be the ones to take the lead here? Of course they’ll have to work with the clinicians. And educators.

And everyone else, in the end.

Bill P.

Sounds good to me.

Best,

Dick R.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.1723 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1605 CDT --

Agreed again. But that's going to take some doing, and for sure you are right to propose that PCT scientists should be working on it--as perhaps the only ones who have the tools for it. But in the mean time, congress is going to be passing a lot of laws, and we know from experience that a lot of them will be wastes of devotion, money and energy, and if not that there will be those that make things much worse, as implicit in your discussion about conflict. My intermediate-time proposal was to see how it would work if congressmen (among others) began at least to think in terms of controlling variables (instead of trying to control people).

Well said. I should interject that the present way we do things is not a total failure. If it had totally failed it wouldn't exist. For a long time we will have one foot in the old world and one in the new, with most of the weight on the old ground. So your idea of small steps is very realistic and that's obviously the way we have to do it. But we can start, however tentatively, introducing and teaching the new way.

Sure, you are right in the abstract, but let's take this to some concrete examples. Assuming it true that a majority of people in this country would like to see much less heroin bought and used, then, taking that as a desired condition how many different proposals might be put forward to see a significant decrease in the measured variable? Bomb the fields in South America? (Been tried); Restart the WPA to give meaningful work to people who are currently sitting around, feeling depressed and angry? (Some small local efforts have been tried I believe, with mixed results); Decriminalize use, but tell people that when they are starting to waste away, the rest of us won't pay to send them to the hospital (sounds cruel, doesn't it, but some Libertarians would be for it, if I understand them correctly.

There's another way. The fact is that people take heroin and other such substances to feel better, and it works. It does make them feel better. So the MOL interviewer would naturally ask what might not occur to others with a more conventional point of view to ask. Better than what? How were you feeling before you started with the junk? And why? What was your life like before, that simply feeling good for a while was such a thrill? What did you feel good about before? Did you ever feel really good? People don't just snap their fingers one day and say "Hey, I know, I'm going to be a junkie!" I think the term is "self-medication." Self-medication for what illness?

Once you get serious about that question you have to realize that the cause of addiction is in whatever was happening just before it started. I tried pot one weekend with a bunch of other people, and it was a terrific happy party. But afterward I knew that I never wanted to feel that way again: it was totally phoney, chemical-induced, and dangerous. But most of all, I was feeling perfectly happy about my life before that, so it didn't seem to cure anything that needed curing. It didn't suddenly make a lot of bad feelings go away. Not enough to make me think my god why didn't anyone tell me about this?

It took me another 20 years or so to quit drinking and smoking. I didn't know the right questions.

One the enquiry starts up this road, the other approaches look pretty pointless. The answer to drugs is in the causes, not the effects. I don't know where this route would lead, but I think we have to find out rather than just not trying it.

Any of these proposals do contain ambitions for other people's behavior, generically, but so far they don't necessarily call for anyone to try to force any particular action out of particular other.

Unless the particular other won't go along with the program. Then you do what is always done: you force them. Unless you'd rather give up the program.

In the end it would depend upon the beliefs about how behavior works on the part of the "front line" workers in the program, wouldn't it?. What if Ed Ford were training all the people employed by an "Administration for Reduction of Heroine Use in the USA? Or a project of ED Ford and Tim Carey?

I'd rather see them running an "Administration to find out why people feel so bad that they take drugs." That would probably have the effect of reducing heroin use, but not through persuading people to use less heroin. Fewer people would need it.

So a program designed by PCT experts to call out a law such as I proposed above-- might that not be a step on the way to everybody-wins anarchy? (Which BTW I don't think is _humanly_ possible, because those few finding themselves with the power to take what they want from their environment without caring what the others in that environment want will do it. Isn't that sufficiently proven?)

Sure. So explain why they do that. I don't mean to guess at why they do that, or make up plausible reasons, but find out why, actually why, they do that. They don't do it just to be doing it. It's a means to some other end. When you find out what that end is, you'll be up a level, and so will your informant. Then you can ask why they want that end. What is it a means to? Up another level. Now it's getting interesting. Now, if something reorganizes accidentally or on purpose, more important things will start to happen. You won't be just trying to oppose their selfishness or whatever you call what they're doing. They'll be finding out what they really want, and chances are excellent that they'll also be changing right before your eyes.

That's what I'm talking about. In the old world, we just try to oppose whatever is wrong. We think up strategies or advice or exercises or rewards or punishments or catchy phrases or parlor tricks like talking to chairs. We're like the beavers who use mud and sticks to plaster up loudspeakers playing the sound of running water. We just try to make whatever we want to happen happen. Simple and direct, and mostly ineffective.

The new way is to accept that nobody just does anything. It's always done for a purpose, and the purpose is at a higher level. So we forget about the behavior (if we can) and go after the purpose. And if we find a purpose, we don't stop there; we treat it as an intermediate means for achieving yet some other purpose, probably still higher in the hierarchy of control. You don't have to go more than one or two steps like this to see the entire character of the conversation changing.

That is interesting--and maybe doable, imperfectly and on a small scale, but it strikes me as a good enough start that I am going to try to remember to apply it in every situation where it comes to mind as a way to communicate. (I put it that way because I know it would require breaking a lot of habits--i.e. reorganizing) but a worthy goal.)

I know, I'm reminding myself of the same things these days. Wait until you see what Warren Mansell is up to over in England, and Tim Carey in Oz. We're all heading in similar directions. I think the train is leaving the station.

Best,

Bill P.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson.2008.08.27.1940CDT]

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.1723 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.08.27.1605 CDT –

I should interject that the present way we do things

is not a total failure. If it had totally failed it wouldn’t exist.
For a long time we will have one foot in the old world and one in
the new, with most of the weight on the old ground. So your idea of
small steps is very realistic and that’s obviously the way we have to
do it. But we can start, however tentatively, introducing and
teaching the new way.

Right.

There’s another way. The fact is that people take heroin and
other such substances to feel better, and it works. It does make them
feel better. So the MOL interviewer would naturally ask what might
not > occur to others with a more conventional point of view to ask.
Better than what? How were you feeling before you started with the
junk? And why? What was your life like before, that simply feeling good
for a while was such a thrill? What did you feel good about before?
Did you ever feel really good? People don’t just snap their fingers one
day and say “Hey, I know, I’m going to be a junkie!” I think the
term is “self-medication.” Self-medication for what illness?

Very good stuff. Now how best to get it to the substance abuse counselors?
I think it’s happening a bit here and there, as with New View training programs?

Once you get serious about that question you have to realize
that the cause of addiction is in whatever was happening just before it
started. I tried pot one weekend with a bunch of other people,
and it was a terrific happy party. But afterward I knew that I never
wanted to feel that way again: it was totally phoney, chemical-induced,
and dangerous. But most of all, I was feeling perfectly happy about
my > life before that, so it didn’t seem to cure anything that needed
curing. It didn’t suddenly make a lot of bad feelings go away.
Not enough to make me think my god why didn’t anyone tell me about this?

Yeah, I had a similar experience.

It took me another 20 years or so to quit drinking and smoking.
I didn’t know the right questions.

One the enquiry starts up this road, the other approaches look
pretty pointless. The answer to drugs is in the causes, not the
effects. I don’t know where this route would lead, but I think we have to
find out rather than just not trying it.

I think you ought to publish that.

In the end it would depend upon the beliefs about how behavior
works >on the part of the “front line” workers in the program,
wouldn’t it?. What if Ed Ford were training all the people employed by
an "Administration for Reduction of Heroine Use in the USA?
Or a >project of ED Ford and Tim Carey?

I’d rather see them running an “Administration to find out why
people feel so bad that they take drugs.” That would probably have the
effect of reducing heroin use, but not through persuading people to
use less heroin. Fewer people would need it.

Point taken.

So a program designed by PCT experts to call out a law such as
I proposed above-- might that not be a step on the way to
everybody-wins anarchy? (Which BTW I don’t think is humanly
possible, because those few finding themselves with the power
to . >take what they want from their environment without caring what
the > >others in that environment want will do it. Isn’t that
sufficiently proven?)

Sure. So explain why they do that. I don’t mean to guess at why
they > do that, or make up plausible reasons, but find out why,
actually > why, they do that. They don’t do it just to be doing it. It’s a
means > to some other end. When you find out what that end is, you’ll be
up a > level, and so will your informant. Then you can ask why they
want > that end. What is it a means to? Up another level. Now it’s
getting interesting. Now, if something reorganizes accidentally or on
purpose, more important things will start to happen. You won’t
be just trying to oppose their selfishness or whatever you call
what > they’re doing. They’ll be finding out what they really want, and
chances are excellent that they’ll also be changing right before
your eyes.

Sounds like a good goal for substance cslr training program.

The new way is to accept that nobody just does anything. It’s
always
done for a purpose, and the purpose is at a higher level. So we
forget about the behavior (if we can) and go after the purpose.
And
if we find a purpose, we don’t stop there; we treat it as an
intermediate means for achieving yet some other purpose,
probably
still higher in the hierarchy of control. You don’t have to go
more
than one or two steps like this to see the entire character of
the
conversation changing.

That is interesting–and maybe doable, imperfectly and on a
small
scale, but it strikes me as a good enough start that I am going
to
try to remember to apply it in every situation where it comes
to
mind as a way to communicate. (I put it that way because I know
it
would require breaking a lot of habits–i.e. reorganizing) but
a worthy goal.)

I know, I’m reminding myself of the same things these days. Wait
until you see what Warren Mansell is up to over in England, and
Tim > Carey in Oz. We’re all heading in similar directions. I think
the > train is leaving the station.

Yes, that’s exciting.

Well, I’m ringing off for a week. Going to Minnesota. Won’t be going near any conventions.

Best,

Dick R