Responsibility (was Net Communications)

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Rick Marken (980220.0945)]

Marc Abrams (980219.20:03 EST)

Sorry Jeff. _Rick_ was not, is not, and _never_ will be the _cause_
of your_ perceptions. Or _ANYONE_ else's. _WE_ are responsible for
_OUR OWN_ perceptions. PERIOD.

Jeff Vancouver (980220.0910 EST) --

...perceptions are derived from the inputs from the environment
into the input functions. It is true that I am "responsible"
for my input functions, but I do not think it is unreasonable to
describe the nature of the inputs into those functions which
influence the results (i.e., the perception).

You are both somewhat right and somewhat wrong;-)

Marc is wrong because I do have an influence on some of Jeff's
controlled perceptions; what I say is a disturbance to those
perceptions and a disturbance is an independent variable (which
is an actual causal variable) in the control equations.

Marc is correct in saying that Jeff is responsible for the state
of his own controlled perceptions, but that doesn't mean that I
don't have a causal influence on those perceptions. In fact, I _do_
have a causal influence on those perceptions -- but my actual
influence on those perceptions is much smaller that it would be
if Jeff were not in pretty good control of those perceptions.

My causal influence on Jeff's controlled perceptions requires
compensatory actions on his part (posting replies to me) and this
disturbance resistance process involves a great deal of effort
on Jeff's part. Higher level systems in Jeff can see that I (and
Bill) am the _source_ of disturbance to his controlled variables
and these systems can see that if I would stop causing disturbances
(stop saying "No" and Nope" and what not) then Jeff wouldn't
have to work so hard to resist them. So Jeff is right in saying
that I am one cause of his problems. If generating the outputs that
protect a controlled perception from disturbance creates a problem
(if the outputs are a disturbance to other variables then there is a
problem) then I am the cause of these problems, and Jeff is not
responsible for that.

Jeff is wrong because we are not responsible for our input functions;
we are responsible for what comes out of those input functions --
controlled perceptual variables. The input function determines the
fact that Jeff perceives, for example, "the merits of psychological
research" in a particular way; based on our discussions I think Jeff's
input function produces a perception of the "merits of psychological
research" that is about the same as mine; our input functions are
essentially the same.

People are not really "responsible" for their input functions becuase
they don't control for what they will be; people don't aim to perceive
things in a particular way. What we _are_ responsible for is the level
at which we maintain the perceptions that are the outputs of these
input functions. Jeff is responsible for the fact that he maintains
his perception of the "merits of conventional psychology" at the
level "high"; I am responsible for the fact that I maintain my
perception
of the "merits of conventional psychology" at the level "low".

We are responsible for what we control.

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 Tim Carey (980221.0735)]

[From Rick Marken (980220.0945)]

Marc is wrong because I do have an influence on some of Jeff's
controlled perceptions; what I say is a disturbance to those
perceptions and a disturbance is an independent variable (which
is an actual causal variable) in the control equations.

Is it fair to say though Rick that the kind of disturbance a disturbance
will be is defined by the particular reference a person has? What you have
been saying on the net would have been a different kind of disturbance to
different people because of the different references they have. In fact, if
someone had a goal of learning about how to assess conventional research
through PCT, couldn't your comments have even been part of their feedback
function?

I'm probably a bit fuzzy on this. I understand that the disturbance is an
independent variable, it just seems to me that for something to be a
disturbance it has to effect the cv and whether or not something is a cv is
determined by the person doing the controlling.

Cheers,

Tim

3

[From Bruce Gregory (980220.1712 EST)]

Rick Marken (980220.0945)

We are responsible for what we control.

An interesting idea, but not at all obvious. What does
"responsible" mean in this context? Simply that our reference
levels are internal? Or something more?

Bruce

4

This is an interesting topic to me. However, isn't the idea of
responsibility a concept from outside PCT?

I know there is a legal slant on this.

I know there is a moral/ethical connection.

However, consider the speed control system of a car. Does the concept
of responsiblity apply to this mechanical system? What would an
irresponsible speed control system be like? The question does not even
make sense.

However, suppose that we had a speed control system in a car which
selected its own preferred speed. In this case, the concept of
responsiblity makes more sense. An irresponsible speed control system
might be one which chose a reference speed which lead to some kind of
undesireable result, for example, the destruction of the car to which
it was attached, and therefore, its own destruction.

Generalizing to a person, an irresponsible person is one who selects
goals which leads to results which are bad for the physical survival of
the person.

To answer my own question, in B:TCP, there is a specified relationship
between the Reorganization System and the Perceptual Control Hierarchy.
If we want to label this relationship responsiblity, then the concept
is part of the theory.

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re:Responsibility; Rick Marken (980220.0945)
Date: 2/20/98

5

i.kurtzer (980220.2300)

[From Bruce Gregory (980220.1712 EST)]

Rick Marken (980220.0945)

We are responsible for what we control.

An interesting idea, but not at all obvious. What does
"responsible" mean in this context? Simply that our reference
levels are internal? Or something more?

and form D.Goldstein (980220)

This is an interesting topic to me. However, isn't the idea of
responsibility a concept from outside PCT?

I agree with both David and Bruce G. in that such a connection is at least
non-obvious, maybe a term outside of PCT, or maybe a very poor term that might
be better replaced by more specific considerations. There was alawyer that
wrote about this in Justifying Law (i think) and another case history. I'll
post the source, but it can be found at the PCT Web page.

isaac

6

[from Jeff Vancouver 980221.1425 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980220.0945)]

Marc Abrams (980219.20:03 EST)

Sorry Jeff. _Rick_ was not, is not, and _never_ will be the _cause_
of your_ perceptions. Or _ANYONE_ else's. _WE_ are responsible for
_OUR OWN_ perceptions. PERIOD.

Jeff Vancouver (980220.0910 EST) --

...perceptions are derived from the inputs from the environment
into the input functions. It is true that I am "responsible"
for my input functions, but I do not think it is unreasonable to
describe the nature of the inputs into those functions which
influence the results (i.e., the perception).

You are both somewhat right and somewhat wrong;-)

Marc is wrong because I do have an influence on some of Jeff's
controlled perceptions; what I say is a disturbance to those
perceptions and a disturbance is an independent variable (which
is an actual causal variable) in the control equations.

And I hate that you have that influence :wink:

Jeff is wrong because we are not responsible for our input functions;
we are responsible for what comes out of those input functions --
controlled perceptual variables. The input function determines the
fact that Jeff perceives, for example, "the merits of psychological
research" in a particular way; based on our discussions I think Jeff's
input function produces a perception of the "merits of psychological
research" that is about the same as mine; our input functions are
essentially the same.

People are not really "responsible" for their input functions becuase
they don't control for what they will be; people don't aim to perceive
things in a particular way. What we _are_ responsible for is the level
at which we maintain the perceptions that are the outputs of these
input functions. Jeff is responsible for the fact that he maintains
his perception of the "merits of conventional psychology" at the
level "high"; I am responsible for the fact that I maintain my
perception
of the "merits of conventional psychology" at the level "low".

THis post sparked several messages about the meaning of responsibility. It
is a difficult concept. I put it in quotes in my response to Marc because
I was not sure what it meant. I think it is a concept outside of PCT, but
I also think PCT can be informative in understanding where it might be
vacuous and where it might be useful. But that is a hugh conversation on
which I will pass.

This (my engagement in the net) has been stimulating as usual, but what I
have been putting off is the construction of a second layer in my simulated
control systems. I hope to retreat to that (and other activities) for some
time to come. Please remember me when I come back (maybe after several
months hiatus). It seems every time I come back I have to defend that I
understand PCT. I am getting tired of that. (Bruce A. was surprised to
learn that I have been on this net for some 6 years, it might be 5). Maybe
it is my own fault because after interacting with the non-PCT populations
for long periods of time, I lapse too much in their language.

Later,

Sincerely,

Jeff