[From Rick Marken (950815.1010)]
David M. Goldstein (950815) --
Welcome back to the net, David.
At the residential treatment center where I work, in the school, we have a
version of Ed Ford's discipline program.
I think your description of this program graphically illustrates why it is
very important for Ed to do what Bill Powers suggests, which is to DESCRIBE
his "discipline" program more carefully so that one can clearly seen how it
is based on an understanding of people as perceptual control systems. If the
program David describes can be viewed as a version of Ed Ford's program, then
there has been some SERIOUS misunderstanding of what Ed's program is about
(I hope).
Joel Perkin (950809.0945 EDT) said:
responsible thinking is the willingness and ability to follow set rules and
standards
Rick Marken (950809.1200) replied:
The only rules and standards a person can ever follow willingly are
one's own. ...
Hans Blom (950815) --
A thought, that arises quite naturally in the context of model-based
control: We can control better if the world is more law-like... It seems to
me, therefore, that in a social context we WANT rules:
This is true for a real control system as well, but it is important to be
clear about what is meant by the "world". In a control system the controlled
input, p, is a function of outputs and disturbances; p = f(o,d). The "world"
determines the nature of f() and d. Real control works best when f() is "law-
like" (monotonic, at least) even if d is random. In model-based control,
of course, both f() and d must be rigidly law-like and stable over time.
In the kind of "social control" you seem to be talking about, one person is
in the role of f() with respect to a perception that another person is
controlling. In this case, the behavior of the person in the role of f() (how
the person reacts to the other person's outputs as well as to external
disturbances) must be law-like or there will be no control. This happens in
football (your kind or ours), for example, when a play is run; when I say
"hike" (o) I expect you to run a post pattern and be at position X (f(o)) a
few seconds after I blindly (due to the linebacker in my face) throw the
pass. If you ran anywhere you wanted after I said "hike", I wouldn't be
likely to complete the pass (and I would be understandably inclined to send
you to the social skills room;-))
It would be my guess that we would be the best controllers in a world/
culture where no random (unpredictable) actions occur.
That was Hitler's guess too.
And, Rick, you ALWAYS accept some rules, even if it is your rule not
to accept rules.
What gives you the impression that I am against accepting rules? I love
accepting rules as much as (maybe more than) anyone. I like it when other
people accept the rules that I accept. All I'm saying is what you said
earlier in your post: the rules are arbitrary; people make them up or learn
them and then decide to follow them (control for following them) or not all
on there own.
Societies do work better when people agree to follow certain rules. But you
can't coerce people into following rules (not for long, anyway). It is
understandable that people would WANT to coerce others into following the
rules -- people are controllers. But succumbing to this want is a recipe for
conflict (which eventually happens in all societies when some segment of the
population, for whatever reason, stops following certain rules).
PCT shows that people will follow the rules only if they want to (have a
reference for following them); and adults will have a reference for following
the rules only if doing so satisfies one of their higher level goals.
Best
Rick