Responsibility III

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.0955 EST)]

Rick indicated that he was having trouble translating what he saw as
descriptions of attitude (whatever that might be) into descriptions of
controlled variables. In case anyone else has a similar difficulty, I
offer the following attempt at a translation. I said:

One is powerful to the extent that one takes responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of one's actions.

This claim translates into the terminology of Bill's Theory (to the best
of my understanding of Bill's Theory) as, "If you control the high-level
perception 'I am responsible for the unintended consequences of my
actions,' you will discover that the domain in which you experience
successful control will enlarge." I hope it obvious that anyone who
wishes to can test this claim. I would expect some will find it useful
and others will not.

Bruce Gregory

2

[From Rick Marken (991122.0900)]

Bruce Gregory (991122.0955 EST)--

One is powerful to the extent that one takes responsibility
for the _unintended_ consequences of one's actions.

This claim translates into the terminology of Bill's Theory
(to the best of my understanding of Bill's Theory) as, "If
you control the high-level perception 'I am responsible for
the unintended consequences of my actions,' you will discover
that the domain in which you experience successful control
will enlarge." I hope it obvious that anyone who wishes to
can test this claim. I would expect some will find it useful
and others will not.

Ok. Let me try looking at this statement from the point of
view of Bill's theory.

1) The number of unintended consequences of any control
action is large, probably infinite. Any one of these myriad
consequences could be something another person wants the
controlled to take responsibility for.

2) Taking responsibility for _any_ consequence means setting
up a system to control a perceptual representation of that
consequence. It also implies that the consequence will be
controlled at a particular level. For example, one unintended
consequence of opening the refrigerator door may be a
squeaking sound. One takes responsibility for this consequence
by controlling for it. But "taking responsibility" also implies
controlling the consequence at a particular level. I would
not be seen as "taking responsibility" if I controlled for a
loud squeak; the assumption is that I am "taking responsibility"
when I am controlling the consequence (squeak) at the level
desired by the person wanting me to "take responsibility".

3) When a person is asked to take control (and set a particular
reference for) any particular unintended consequence of a
control action, they are being asked to set up a new control
system (with a fixed reference for the controlled variable)
in an existing hierarchy of control systems. Based on my models
of hierarchies of control systems, inserting a control system
with a fixed reference into this hierarchy is almost certain
to lead to conflict between control systems. For example, if one
tried to insert the squeak control system (with a reference of
zero, say) into their existing hierarchy of control systems,
it is likely that the actions that had to be taken to keep
the squeak at zero (very slow movement of the door) would
conflict with other systems that are controlling for things
like getting a glass of milk.

4) So my conclusion, based on my understanding of what is
involved in "taking responsibility for unintended consequences
of one's actions" and of Bill's theory of behavior, is that
it is not wise to expect that asking a person to "take
responsibility for the _unintended_ consequences of their
actions" will necessarily increase their power (in terms
of the number of variables they are controlling). In fact,
it is far more likely (given the large number of unintended
consequences that one might want a person to become responsible
for and their arbitrary relationship to that person's existing
control hierarchy) that "taking responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of one's actions" is more likely
to reduce one's power (breadth of control) by creating internal
conflict that will reduce one's ability to control variables one
was previously able to control successfully.

You can check this analysis using my spreadsheet hierarchy model,
which is downloadable in Mac or PC format from:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

Just add a control system (at any level) that controls (relative
to a fixed reference) some variable that is an uncontrolled
side effect (unintended consequence) of the actions of the
hierarchy.

Best

Rick

···

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

3

[From Rick Marken (991122.0930)]

Me:

4) So my conclusion, based on my understanding of what is
involved in "taking responsibility for unintended consequences
of one's actions" and of Bill's theory of behavior, is that
it is not wise to expect that asking a person to "take
responsibility for the _unintended_ consequences of their
actions" will necessarily increase their power (in terms
of the number of variables they are controlling). In fact,
it is far more likely (given the large number of unintended
consequences that one might want a person to become responsible
for and their arbitrary relationship to that person's existing
control hierarchy) that "taking responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of one's actions" is more likely
to reduce one's power (breadth of control) by creating internal
conflict that will reduce one's ability to control variables one
was previously able to control successfully.

Bruce Gregory (991122.1212 EST)--

Thanks. I now understand why Bill's Theory leaves something to be
desired when it comes to understanding or managing interpersonal
relationships.

This is a good example of what Bill Powers (991121.0633) was talking
about when he said:

Instead of engaging in counter-arguments showing how my use of
the theory is wrong, or needs to be modified, they have indulged
in sneering, vituperation, appeals to "common sense", and other
such means that show a minimum of interest in control theory and
a maximum desire to preserve their existing beliefs and practices.

Apparently your common sense tells you that there is something
wrong with control theory when it comes to understanding or
managing interpersonal relationships. That's fine. But all
your comment tells me is that you don't like my conclusion.
Why don't you like it? Was my description of the control model
of this situation wrong? Was I not correctly mapping the model
to the situation? Did I come to the wrong conclusion based on
a correct application of the model? Is the model itself wrong
in some way? Is there some phenomenon that is being missed? Did
you try my spreadsheet hierarchy and get a different result than
I predicted?

I think there are more productive ways to express your
disagreement than by simply saying "the model is inadequate".

Best

Rick

···

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

4

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.1212 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.0900)

4) So my conclusion, based on my understanding of what is
involved in "taking responsibility for unintended consequences
of one's actions" and of Bill's theory of behavior, is that
it is not wise to expect that asking a person to "take
responsibility for the _unintended_ consequences of their
actions" will necessarily increase their power (in terms
of the number of variables they are controlling). In fact,
it is far more likely (given the large number of unintended
consequences that one might want a person to become responsible
for and their arbitrary relationship to that person's existing
control hierarchy) that "taking responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of one's actions" is more likely
to reduce one's power (breadth of control) by creating internal
conflict that will reduce one's ability to control variables one
was previously able to control successfully.

Thanks. I now understand why Bill's Theory leaves something to be
desired when it comes to understanding or managing interpersonal
relationships.

Bruce Gregory

5

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.1302 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.0930)

Apparently your common sense tells you that there is something
wrong with control theory when it comes to understanding or
managing interpersonal relationships.

No, my experience tells me this. Look at CSGnet if you want an example.
Is this an example of Bill's Theory in practice?

That's fine. But all
your comment tells me is that you don't like my conclusion.
Why don't you like it?

I didn't say that I didn't like your conclusion. Apparently you did not
like my statement that Bill's Theory leaves something to be desired when
it comes to understanding and managing human relationships. I take it
that you believe that Bill's Theory leaves nothing to be desired in this
arena. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. I have never made any
progress in the past when questioning applications of Bill's Theory.
What makes you think things would be any different now? Both you and
Bill have made your positions clear--anyone who differs with Bill's
Theory is defending outmoded and indefensible beliefs. I may be wrong,
but that does not sound like a sincere invitation to dialog.

Was my description of the control model
of this situation wrong?

How do I know? I assume you understand Bill's Theory, so I accept what
you say as a proper implementation of Bill's Theory.

Was I not correctly mapping the model
to the situation? Did I come to the wrong conclusion based on
a correct application of the model? Is the model itself wrong
in some way? Is there some phenomenon that is being missed? Did
you try my spreadsheet hierarchy and get a different result than
I predicted?

I think there are more productive ways to express your
disagreement than by simply saying "the model is inadequate".

I once believed that too. Unfortunately, I've been unable to come up
with any evidence to support this view. I know that you and Bill are
satisfied with the adequacy of the model. I think you will agree that it
has yet to lead either of you to act in ways that expand rather than
contract the number of people working with the model. You have your own
interpretations why this is so (see above). Nothing I or anyone else has
said has shaken your confidence in those interpretations. An old
expression from my undergraduate days was, "When your dead, lie down." I
seems to apply to me in this case.

Bruce Gregory

6

[From Rick Marken (991122.1230)]

Me:

Was I not correctly mapping the model to the situation? Did I
come to the wrong conclusion based on a correct application
of the model? Is the model itself wrong in some way? Is there
some phenomenon that is being missed? Did you try my spreadsheet
hierarchy and get a different result than I predicted?

I think there are more productive ways to express your
disagreement than by simply saying "the model is inadequate".

Bruce Gregory (991122.1302 EST)

I once believed that too...

Well, I tried.

Best

Rick

···

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

7

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.1429 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.0930)

I should have noted in my last response that, as far as I can tell, your
behavior and Bill's are completely consistent with the model you
present. Neither of you appears willing to take responsibility for the
unintended consequences of your actions. Now I understand that the
reason is that you believe that to do so would interfere your ability to
exercise control. This makes perfect sense to me. It would be pointless
for me to expect you to do anything else under the circumstances.

Bruce Gregory

8

[From Rick Marken (991122.1300)]

I'll try a little more:

Me:

Apparently your common sense tells you that there is something
wrong with control theory when it comes to understanding or

> managing interpersonal relationships.

Bruce Gregory (991122.1302 EST)]

···

No, my experience tells me this. Look at CSGnet if you want an example.
Is this an example of Bill's Theory in practice?

> That's fine. But all
> your comment tells me is that you don't like my conclusion.
> Why don't you like it?

I didn't say that I didn't like your conclusion. Apparently you did not
like my statement that Bill's Theory leaves something to be desired when
it comes to understanding and managing human relationships. I take it
that you believe that Bill's Theory leaves nothing to be desired in this
arena. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. I have never made any
progress in the past when questioning applications of Bill's Theory.
What makes you think things would be any different now? Both you and
Bill have made your positions clear--anyone who differs with Bill's
Theory is defending outmoded and indefensible beliefs. I may be wrong,
but that does not sound like a sincere invitation to dialog.

> Was my description of the control model
> of this situation wrong?

How do I know? I assume you understand Bill's Theory, so I accept what
you say as a proper implementation of Bill's Theory.

> Was I not correctly mapping the model
> to the situation? Did I come to the wrong conclusion based on
> a correct application of the model? Is the model itself wrong
> in some way? Is there some phenomenon that is being missed? Did
> you try my spreadsheet hierarchy and get a different result than
> I predicted?
>
> I think there are more productive ways to express your
> disagreement than by simply saying "the model is inadequate".

I once believed that too. Unfortunately, I've been unable to come up
with any evidence to support this view. I know that you and Bill are
satisfied with the adequacy of the model. I think you will agree that it
has yet to lead either of you to act in ways that expand rather than
contract the number of people working with the model. You have your own
interpretations why this is so (see above). Nothing I or anyone else has
said has shaken your confidence in those interpretations. An old
expression from my undergraduate days was, "When your dead, lie down." I
seems to apply to me in this case.

Bruce Gregory

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

9

[From Rick Marken (991122.1330)]

I'll not only try harder; I'll try to keep my finger off the
send button until I'm done.

Bruce Gregory (991122.1302 EST)--

Look at CSGnet if you want an example. Is this an example of
Bill's Theory in practice?

Yes. In principle, all behavior is explained by control theory.
CSGNet is clearly what we expect to see when control systems
are in conflict over the state of perceptual variables that
are important to them.

I didn't say that I didn't like your conclusion. Apparently
you did not like my statement that Bill's Theory leaves something
to be desired when it comes to understanding and managing human
relationships.

Actually, I liked it _alot_. What was missing was an explanation
of _why_ Bill's Theory leaves something to be desired. I was
hoping you would explain what was wrong with my application of
the model; tell me what data you knew of that seemed inconsistent
with the model.

I take it that you believe that Bill's Theory leaves nothing to
be desired in this arena.

I don't know what Bill's theory leaves to be desired (or where
it needs to be revised) until I have done the research. So far,
the research is consistent with the basic model so I feel confident
using that model as a basis for understanding phenomena (like
giving and taking responsibility).

I have never made any progress in the past when questioning
applications of Bill's Theory.

What is "progress"? If you want to progress toward showing that
an application of Bill's Theory is wrong you have to show how it
is wrong. In the case at hand, if you want to progress towards
convincing me that my model of "taking responsibility for
unintended consequences" is wrong you have to show me how
it is wrong.

Both you and Bill have made your positions clear--anyone who
differs with Bill's Theory is defending outmoded and indefensible
beliefs.

Then we have not made our positions clear. My position is that
anyone who differs with control theory should explain what's wrong
with it in terms of the model and (if possible) data that tests the
model. I know, for example, that you don't like my conclusion
about the likely result of taking responsibility for unintended
consequences (that it will result in conflict). That's fine with
me. But how about explaining why -- what model of human behavior --
leads you to the conclusion that taking responsibility for unintended
consequences is empowering.

By the way, what I take issue with is your proposal that taking
responsibility for (control of) unintended consequences is _always_
a good (empowering) thing for a person do. In fact, society works
because people _do_ take responsibility for (control of) unintended
consequences when they find out that these consequences interfere
with other people. People do this because they have learned that
the benefits of controlling for this kind of courtesy outweigh the
minor loss of control that may result from doing it. I am happy to
take responsibility for how high I sit in my seat (within limits)
if I find that an unintended consequence of sitting in that seat
is blocking the view of the person behind me. What my control theory
analysis shows is that you can't assume that a person should (or
can) take control of any arbitrarily noticed unintended consequence
of their actions. For example, another unintended consequence of
sitting in my seat is that I make it impossible for the person
next to me to use the seat as a table for his popcorn and soda. If
I took responsibility for this unintended consequence it would
seriously conflict with some of my other goals (like seeing the
movie; sitting next to my wife, etc).

Anyway, if you want, we can try to talk about this one more time.
I hope my comments above make it clear that my control theory
analysis doesn't mean that taking control of unintended consequences
will always and necessarily lead to internal conflict. All the
model suggests is that the quality of taking responsibility for
unintended consequences cannot be strained (enforced); it must
droppeth like the gentle rain. It shows that you cannot assume
that a person can take responsibility for (control of) every
unintended consequence of their actions that inconveniences or
disturbs you. It comes down to negotiation and cooperation --
an interaction where each control system takes into account
(respects) the will of the other.

Best

Rick

···

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

10

[From Rick Marken (991122.1400)]

Bruce Nevin (991122.1637 EST)--

I frequently observe people taking responsibility for unintended side effects

        (Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes.)

... and charging others with responsibility for unintended side effects

        (Outch! Watch where you're going!)

Am I to understand that observations like these are not behavioral data to
be accounted for?

Does [Rick Marken (991122.1330)] help?

Bruce Gregory (991122.1620 EST)--

I'm am not taking exception with your description of the
predictions of Bill's Theory. In fact, the model describes
your behavior better than any model I could come with.

Does that mean that you would feel empowered taking
responsibility for every unintended consequence of
your actions? Would you feel empowered leaving the
only seat in the theater if I leaned over and
said "Excuse me, sir, but you are sitting where I
had planned to place my popcorn and soda"?

Best

Rick

···

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

11

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.1620 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.1300)

I'll try a little more:

Sorry, I couldn't follow this post.

I'm am not taking exception with your description of the predictions of
Bill's Theory. In fact, the model describes your behavior better than
any model I could come with. I'm not sure why you seem to find this
disturbing. Would you be happier if I said that the model based on
Bill's Theory failed to describe the behavior in question?

I can also now understand why you see the interactions in the RTP
classroom as you do. Your interpretation is completely consistent with
Bill's Theory.

Bruce Gregory

12

[From Bruce Nevin (991122.1637 EST)]

I frequently observe people taking responsibility for unintended side effects

  (Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes.)

... and charging others with responsibility for unintended side effects

  (Outch! Watch where you're going!)

Am I to understand that observations like these are not behavioral data to
be accounted for?

  Bruce Nevin

13

[From Bruce Gregory (991122.1656 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.1330)

I'll not only try harder; I'll try to keep my finger off the
send button until I'm done.

O.K. I'll try harder too.

Bruce Gregory (991122.1302 EST)--

> Look at CSGnet if you want an example. Is this an example of
> Bill's Theory in practice?

Yes. In principle, all behavior is explained by control theory.
CSGNet is clearly what we expect to see when control systems
are in conflict over the state of perceptual variables that
are important to them.

Agreed.

> I didn't say that I didn't like your conclusion. Apparently
> you did not like my statement that Bill's Theory leaves something
> to be desired when it comes to understanding and managing human
> relationships.

Actually, I liked it _alot_. What was missing was an explanation
of _why_ Bill's Theory leaves something to be desired. I was
hoping you would explain what was wrong with my application of
the model; tell me what data you knew of that seemed inconsistent
with the model.

No data. Now that I understand the model I see that if an attempt to
control for unintended consequences threatens the existing control
structure, no one interested in preserving his or her ability to
exercise control would attempt to control for unintended consequences.

> I take it that you believe that Bill's Theory leaves nothing to
> be desired in this arena.

I don't know what Bill's theory leaves to be desired (or where
it needs to be revised) until I have done the research. So far,
the research is consistent with the basic model so I feel confident
using that model as a basis for understanding phenomena (like
giving and taking responsibility).

Fine.

> I have never made any progress in the past when questioning
> applications of Bill's Theory.

What is "progress"? If you want to progress toward showing that
an application of Bill's Theory is wrong you have to show how it
is wrong.

I never said Bill's Theory was wrong. My general experience is that
there is no agreement on the data to be modeled--say in the RTP
classroom, so it is premature to say that Bill's Theory will not
accommodate this yet-to-be gathered data.

In the case at hand, if you want to progress towards
convincing me that my model of "taking responsibility for
unintended consequences" is wrong you have to show me how
it is wrong.

I say again, it is not wrong, therefore I cannot show you how it is
wrong. I have no data that contradicts the prediction of your model.

> Both you and Bill have made your positions clear--anyone who
> differs with Bill's Theory is defending outmoded and indefensible
> beliefs.

Then we have not made our positions clear. My position is that
anyone who differs with control theory should explain what's wrong
with it in terms of the model and (if possible) data that tests the
model. I know, for example, that you don't like my conclusion
about the likely result of taking responsibility for unintended
consequences (that it will result in conflict). That's fine with
me. But how about explaining why -- what model of human behavior --
leads you to the conclusion that taking responsibility for unintended
consequences is empowering.

I hope this is clear by now.

By the way, what I take issue with is your proposal that taking
responsibility for (control of) unintended consequences is _always_
a good (empowering) thing for a person do. In fact, society works
because people _do_ take responsibility for (control of) unintended
consequences when they find out that these consequences interfere
with other people. People do this because they have learned that
the benefits of controlling for this kind of courtesy outweigh the
minor loss of control that may result from doing it. I am happy to
take responsibility for how high I sit in my seat (within limits)
if I find that an unintended consequence of sitting in that seat
is blocking the view of the person behind me. What my control theory
analysis shows is that you can't assume that a person should (or
can) take control of any arbitrarily noticed unintended consequence
of their actions. For example, another unintended consequence of
sitting in my seat is that I make it impossible for the person
next to me to use the seat as a table for his popcorn and soda. If
I took responsibility for this unintended consequence it would
seriously conflict with some of my other goals (like seeing the
movie; sitting next to my wife, etc).

Fine. I have no argument with any of this.

Anyway, if you want, we can try to talk about this one more time.
I hope my comments above make it clear that my control theory
analysis doesn't mean that taking control of unintended consequences
will always and necessarily lead to internal conflict. All the
model suggests is that the quality of taking responsibility for
unintended consequences cannot be strained (enforced); it must
droppeth like the gentle rain. It shows that you cannot assume
that a person can take responsibility for (control of) every
unintended consequence of their actions that inconveniences or
disturbs you. It comes down to negotiation and cooperation --
an interaction where each control system takes into account
(respects) the will of the other.

Good. Again I have no argument with your position as stated.

Bruce Gregory

14

from [ Marc Abrams (991122.1909) ]

[From Rick Marken (991122.1400)]

Does that mean that you would feel empowered taking
responsibility for every unintended consequence of
your actions? Would you feel empowered leaving the
only seat in the theater if I leaned over and
said "Excuse me, sir, but you are sitting where I
had planned to place my popcorn and soda"?

_KEY POINT_. Rick it is not the _first time_ that you discover that
inadvertent side effects are causing a problem. It's a_after_ acknowledging
that they ( the side effects ) do and you continue to ignore them that a
problem is created.

For instance, In your example above. If the person was told that that was
the last seat in the theater and he continued to insist that he put his
popcorn and soda on the seat. I would think that he could be considered a
jerk. Do you disagree with this?

Marc

15

[From Bruce Nevin (991122.2257 EST)]

Rick Marken (991122.1400)

Bruce Nevin (991122.1637 EST)--

I frequently observe people taking responsibility for unintended side

effects

        (Oops! Sorry, I didn't mean to step on your toes.)

... and charging others with responsibility for unintended side effects

        (Outch! Watch where you're going!)

Am I to understand that observations like these are not behavioral data to
be accounted for?

Does [Rick Marken (991122.1330)] help?

Clearer, yes.

Bruce Gregory (991121.1525 EST)--

It is obvious that to take I(ntended)-responsibility for a variable a
control structure for that variable must already be in place. This perhaps
not always true for U(nintended)-responsibility. A socalled "tone deaf"
person might take U-responsibility for whistling out of tune, as reported
by a tune-competent person who found it painful. But demanding adult
responsibility of a child who has not yet developed the required control
structures is clearly wrong. So there is a gray-area gradation, and ethical
pronouncements (and we are almost forced into making them when we use words
like "responsibility") are difficult to sustain. But in any case the field
of side effects to be considered is considerably narrowed. Those unintended
side effects which no member of the population could control as a CV in the
given situation (which includes ongoing control of other CVs with intended
consequences, with resolution of conflict if necessary) are excluded.

I'm referring back here to Rick Marken (991122.0900) "The number of
unintended consequences of any control action is large, probably infinite,"
"Taking responsibility for _any_ consequence means setting up a system to
control a perceptual representation of that consequence," and so on.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:57 PM 11/22/1999 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

16

[From Rick Marken (991122.2230)]

Me:

Does that mean that you would feel empowered taking
responsibility for every unintended consequence of
your actions? Would you feel empowered leaving the
only seat in the theater if I leaned over and
said "Excuse me, sir, but you are sitting where I
had planned to place my popcorn and soda"?

Marc Abrams (991122.1909)

_KEY POINT_. Rick it is not the _first time_ that you
discover that inadvertent side effects are causing a
problem. It's a_after_ acknowledging that they ( the
side effects ) do and you continue to ignore them that a
problem is created.

For instance, In your example above. If the person was
told that that was the last seat in the theater and he
continued to insist that he put his popcorn and soda on
the seat. I would think that he could be considered a
jerk. Do you disagree with this?

I honestly don't know what you are asking.

If you are asking whether I would think the fellow
could be considered a jerk, I would say "yes, he could
be". If you are asking whether _I_ would think the fellow
is a jerk, I suppose I would.

But neither of these two questions seems relevant to
what I was talking about, which was this: what does Bill's
control theory model say will happen if a person takes
responsibility for (takes control of) any of the many
unintended consequences of his control actions. I [Rick Marken
(991122.0900) presented what I think is a fair representation
of Bill's control theory model of "taking responsibility for
unintended consequences". My conclusion was that, if a
person took responsibility for (control of) any particular
consequence of his control actions, it was likely that
this would lead to debilitating intra-personal conflict
(between the system controlling the once unintended
consequence and systems in the person's existing control
hierarchy).

This analysis has nothing to do with whether or not taking
responsibility for (control of) the unintended consequence
seems reasonable, responsible, moral or even possible
to an outside observer. For example, suppose I sit down in
a nearly empty theater and you ask me to move because my
choice of seats had the unintended consequence of blocking
the place where you had planned to set your nachos. From
an observer's point of view, it seems reasonable and
possible for me to move; so you might see no reason
why I should not take responsibility for the unintended
consequence of my actions and change seats. But Bill's
model shows that the reasons why it might not be good for
me to take responsibility for my actions are invisible to
an outside observer; they are my existing hierarchy of
control systems. For example, I may have the goal of seeing
the movie from the exact angle provided by that seat because
I am the director of photography and I need to see how a
particular scene looks from a particular angle. So if I
take responsibility for (control of) the unintended consequence
of my actions and move to let you put your nachos down I will
be losing control of another variable -- one that may not
seem important to an outside observer but, still, is one
of my goals.

Having respect for another person means, to me, acknowledging
the fact that the person has an existing hierarchy of control
systems, no matter how ridiculous or dysfunctional you might
judge any of those control systems to be. That's why I mentioned
negotiation in my previous post. If you want me to move to
give you room for your nachos, you ask me if I would please
move. In all likelyhood I will say "sure" and that's that;
changing seats interfere's with nothing in my existing hierarchy.
But if I say no, then moving _does_ conflict with _some_ goal in
my existing hierarchy. It may not be a goal you like (like the
goal of seeing the movie from one particular angle). But it's
my goal and if I did what you wanted I would lose control of the
corresponding perception. Now you can either force me to "take
responsibility" and make me move or we can negotiate; I might
not end up moving but you might end up understanding why I'm
not and see that it's better for me if I don't.

The control model I presented shows what would happen if
a person automatically took control of unintended consequences
of control actions. But, obviously, people often _do_ take control
of the unintended consequences of their control actions (as
Bruce Nevin noted) when they discover that those consequences have
bad effects on others -- and they do this all the time. I suggested
in a previous post why I think people are able to do this; it's
because they have learned the value of controlling for things like
courtesy and cooperation. People who have learned to control for
these perceptions have learned what I would call _responsible
thinking_. They have not learned to take responsibility for
every unintended consequence that creates a problem for
another person; they have learned to take responsibility for
those unintended consequences that they can take responsibility
for without losing control of other perceptions they care
about; and they have learned to _not_ take responsibility for
unintended consequences when doing so would result in loss
of control of perceptions they care about; they have learned
responsible thinking.

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 [ Marc Abrams (991123.0832) ]

[From Rick Marken (991122.2230)]

But neither of these two questions seems relevant to
what I was talking about, which was this: what does Bill's
control theory model say will happen if a person takes
responsibility for (takes control of) any of the many
unintended consequences of his control actions. I [Rick Marken
(991122.0900) presented what I think is a fair representation
of Bill's control theory model of "taking responsibility for
unintended consequences".

You don't take resposibility for all your unintended side effects. You
can't, because you don't know about them all. But when you are notified that
a side effect you caused is causing a problem you have the choice of taking
control of that variable. Now even if you choose not take control of that
variable I believe you should be held responsible because you are no longer
causing _unknown_ side effects. Now that you know these are effects you are
choosing to create.

Marc

18

Chuck Tucker (991123)

Rick Marken (11/22/99 12:05:08 PM Eastern Standard Time) writes:

<< For example, if one tried to insert the squeak control system (with a
reference of
zero, say) into their existing hierarchy of control systems, it is likely
that the actions that had to be taken to keep the squeak at zero (very slow
movement of the door) would conflict with other systems that are controlling
for things like getting a glass of milk. >>

The "squeak control system" does not have to be in conflict with any other
system since it runs parallel to the other systems. I had a squeak in
opening my frig door the other day and it did not conflict with any other
system except the one I have which considers squeaks and dripping noises as
disturbances. In fact, I opened the squeaking door several times getting
several things out of the frig before I went and got my can of WD-40,
squirted the hinge and stopped the squeak. The major problem with your
computer program of a control system (this is also the case for CROWD V2 as
I have noted in our article in the special issue edited by Martin) is that
they cannot simulate what I do as a human being; it is a characture.
Apparently, you can't even describe what you would do as a human being.

Regards,
                  Chuck

19

[From Rick Marken (991123.0730)]

Marc Abrams (991123.0832)--

You don't take resposibility for all your unintended side
effects. You can't, because you don't know about them all.
But when you are notified that a side effect you caused is
causing a problem you have the choice of taking control of
that variable. Now even if you choose not take control of that
variable I believe you should be held responsible because
you are no longer causing _unknown_ side effects. Now that
you know these are effects you are choosing to create.

OK. I take it, then, that you would agree that you should also
be held responsible when you are no longer causing _unknown_
side effects. I am now letting you know that a side effect of
your posts is that they make me feel depressed and hopeless.
I now hold you responsible for that side effect. So I am
giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for that
side-effect and control for making me feel happy and hopeful
or go to the nearest RTC room.

Best

Rick

···

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

20

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1050 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.0730)

OK. I take it, then, that you would agree that you should also
be held responsible when you are no longer causing _unknown_
side effects. I am now letting you know that a side effect of
your posts is that they make me feel depressed and hopeless.

Perhaps this is the intended effect of Marc's posts.

I now hold you responsible for that side effect.

What does it mean in Bill's Theory "to hold someone responsible"?

So I am
giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for that
side-effect and control for making me feel happy and hopeful
or go to the nearest RTC room.

Sounds coercive to me.

Bruce Gregory