Priorities in CVs or Levels?

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Fred Nickols (2001.08.29 0929)] --

I've snipped a bit of an interaction between Bill Powers
and Bruce Nevin (see below) about which I have a
question. I've put the question after the snippet.

Bill Powers (2001.08.29.1526 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.08.29 16:02 EDT)--

>Yes. The question is, what else are they controlling

that matters more to

them?

Lots of things. If you're criticized by someone you

love, the loss of

control from agreeing to change the criticized

behavior might be outweighed

by your desire for the other to go on loving you -- an

internal conflict

decided in favor of the subsystem with the highest

loop gain. When people

criticize your behavior, they don't usually know (or

care) what you were

using it for; they don't know what they're asking you

to give up control

of, at least by that means. It's like being criticized

for scratching an

excruciating itch in public. The critic doesn't care

about the itch; only

about the scratching.

>The proposal is that the CV might be ability to rely

on others for

>cooperation, which is related reciprocally in the

course of time to them

>being able to rely on you.

Yes, that would be one reason for deciding to change

the behavior, even

though it was serving some other purpose for you. But

we don't rely on

_all_ others for cooperation, do we? Some we care

about, some we don't care

about. Excessive social conformity is as much a

disorder as too little.

Whether we give in to social pressure to change our

behavior depends a

great deal on just what change is being demanded. An

honest cop might be

ostracized by his colleagues for not being on the

take, but if honesty is

that important, he will probably not change his

behavior.

When PCTers talk about "caring more" or "weight" with
respect to CVs, are we talking about ordinary priorities
or are we talking about CVs at different levels. In the
case of the "honest cop" above, are we talking about
honesty mattering more (in commonplace language) but in
PCT-speak, indicating that being honest is at a higher
level in the hierarchy than getting money? Just trying
to understand...

···

--
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2001.08.30 1330 CDT)]

Fred,

We often think about priorities in terms of a hierarchy, such as Maslow's
hierarchy needs. But using that image to conceive of how it would be
represented with a PCT framework might be troublesome. Surely, honesty
seems a higher concept ethically than making money using well-known
frameworks from ethics, religion, psychology and philosophy. But those are
"externally" represented ratings which may or may not map to the individual
living control system (e.g., "human" being). Also, higher level control
systems set the reference levels of lower level control systems which
operate to send outputs downward into the hierarchy. Lower level control
systems send perceptual signals up the hierarchy, for comparison with
reference settings.

What the PCT framework represents is a hierarchy of control systems that
send their outputs to other lower control systems, and on down, until the
outputs may emerge as a collection of outputs or behaviors that can be
measured in the environment. (It might be that outputs don't reach the
environment, tho.)

As one poster had noted, PCT is not necessarily a moral framework. It is a
way to describe control as a hierarchy of control systems. Thus, being
honest is no different internally than accumulating money/power/influence.
Each of those CVs might be mutually independent (not likely) or they may
set reference levels of lower level reference levels for a lot of common
lower control systems. The thing you might be hinting at is that as a
person acting in their socio-economic environment can either become
conflicted (guilt = good) or not conflicted (antisocial = bad). (Note those
last parenthetical comments are part of the common sense evaluation, not
PCT.)

So, a person acting in their socio-economic environment honestly is acting
to maintain a smaller error between their reference and perceptual levels
for "honesty" than they are the error between their reference and
perceptual levels for "enough money." However, this is completely
relative, since the reference levels are internal to the living control
system, not something that can be directly compared from the social
environment. Caring more means that there is a control system that is
outputting more to reduce its larger error (I think that's right).

So, yes, Fred (and Kenny), PCT does not describe ethics in the ordinary
sense, and should be rather distinct from ethical, religious, psychological
and philosophical descriptions of those things. But it never was
conceieved as I understand to care directly about the central issues of
ethics, etc., only how those processes might be described in action.

Now, folks, I may not have gotten it perfect, but I have tried here. It is
amazing though, that the PCT explanation (with all the jargon trimmings)
seems to take so much text, vs. the behavioral descriptions which often
sound like "x results in y". I find a greater consistency between PCT
descriptions and the evidence than the (almost 100 year old) linear S/R
descriptions. But the parsimony rule is still preserved, when one maps
example after example of a PCT description: No generalities need be
changed except the CV.

Cheers,

Bryan

[Fred Nickols (2001.08.29 0929)]

···

When PCTers talk about "caring more" or "weight" with
respect to CVs, are we talking about ordinary priorities
or are we talking about CVs at different levels. In the
case of the "honest cop" above, are we talking about
honesty mattering more (in commonplace language) but in
PCT-speak, indicating that being honest is at a higher
level in the hierarchy than getting money? Just trying
to understand...
--
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

3

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.08.30.1525)]

Fred Nickols (2001.08.29 0929)

When PCTers talk about "caring more" or "weight" with
respect to CVs, are we talking about ordinary priorities
or are we talking about CVs at different levels. In the
case of the "honest cop" above, are we talking about
honesty mattering more (in commonplace language) but in
PCT-speak, indicating that being honest is at a higher
level in the hierarchy than getting money? Just trying
to understand...

I can't speak for PCTers, but when I say "honest cop" I mean a cop who is
controlling the perception "I am honest" with a high gain, no matter where
this particular perception is in the hierarchy. If the cop is also
controlling the perception "making a decent living", a conflict may arise.
In this situation the system with the higher gain prevails. Conflict can
only be avoided if some high-level perception can reset the reference level
for "making a decent living" when bribery is in the offing.

4

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.30.1250)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.08.30.1525)--

when I say "honest cop" I mean a cop who is controlling the perception
"I am honest" with a high gain...If the cop is also controlling the
perception "making a decent living", a conflict may arise. In this
situation the system with the higher gain prevails. Conflict can
only be avoided if some high-level perception [I think you meant to type
"system"] can reset the reference level for "making a decent living"
when bribery is in the offing.

I think this describes the conflict nicely. I would just like to point
out a couple other ways in which this conflict could be solved. One is
for a higher level system to _lower_ the reference level for honesty.
Another is for the cop to be provided with other, honest means (such as
higher pay) of bringing the perception of how much he makes for a living
to the reference level, "decent". The latter approach works by
increasing the gain of the "making a decent living" control system by
increasing the gain of the external feedback connection between output
and input (input/output = money/work).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

5

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0831.1222)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.30.1250)

Bruce Gregory (2001.08.30.1525)--

> when I say "honest cop" I mean a cop who is controlling the perception
> "I am honest" with a high gain...If the cop is also controlling the
> perception "making a decent living", a conflict may arise. In this
> situation the system with the higher gain prevails. Conflict can
> only be avoided if some high-level perception [I think you meant to type
> "system"] can reset the reference level for "making a decent living"
> when bribery is in the offing.

I meant to type "perception," but I _should_ have meant to type "system". I
appreciate your application of "the principle of charity" in this case. I
concur with the rest of your post.

6

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.31 1000)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0831.1222)--

I meant to type "perception," but I _should_ have meant to
type "system". I appreciate your application of "the principle
of charity" in this case. I concur with the rest of your post.

Actually, I was _misapplying_ my own principle, which could be stated
as: For a _skilled performer_, an OE occurs because there is no
corresponding SE. Your behavior exemplifies this principle perfectly:
You meant to (and _did_) type "perception", hence no SE. But the result
("perception") you produced (sans SE) seemed wrong to me, an observer,
hence an OE. You (actually, a higher level system in you) now
recognizes that you _should have meant_ to type "system". So now that
system in you can see that the result that produced no SE was one that
_should have_ produced an SE.

I think this is the kind of thing that happens with prescription errors.
An observed error (OE) occurs when the physician experiences no
corresponding subjective error (SE).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0831.1309)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.31 1000)

Actually, I was _misapplying_ my own principle, which could be stated
as: For a _skilled performer_, an OE occurs because there is no
corresponding SE. Your behavior exemplifies this principle perfectly:
You meant to (and _did_) type "perception", hence no SE. But the result
("perception") you produced (sans SE) seemed wrong to me, an observer,
hence an OE. You (actually, a higher level system in you) now
recognizes that you _should have meant_ to type "system". So now that
system in you can see that the result that produced no SE was one that
_should have_ produced an SE.

I think this is the kind of thing that happens with prescription errors.
An observed error (OE) occurs when the physician experiences no
corresponding subjective error (SE).

_Very_ nice!