Responsibility

[Caroline_B_Young]

From Caroline Young (17 Jan 97 21.10 CST)

I want to let you all know that I haven't forgotten my resolution to post
regularly! : ) We have had unusually bad weather down here in Houston, and the
power in our apartment was out for two days due to an ice storm. (Dad went to
Phoenix just in time!) I had to wait to get back on-line. Those of you who
live in colder climates would probably laugh at us down here, because no one
knows how to cope with the cold, especially if there is ice involved!! The
freeways are even scarier than usual, because everyone tries to drive the way
they always do. Naturally this leads to a few fender benders! I just stayed in
and bundled up because school was cancelled.

Anyway, I was happy to see that there has been some discussion going. Joe, you
were brave and jumped right in. Good for you!

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, my dad, <tbourbon@sprynet.com>, responded to Joe's (
"Joseph T. Sierzenga III" <ladys@alpha.shianet.org> ) message of the 16th. I
want to respond to both!

Joe:

Our elementary goal states, "Students will demonstrate personal

responsibility." What does

this really mean?

Tom:

My first guess would be that, in the case of RTP, "being responsible" means

functioning as a

living control system, in such a manner that you are not disrupting teachers

when they teach, and > not disrupting or harming other students when they are at
school. Those are the stated ideals in > Ed's books.

I agree with my dad that this is how "being responsible " is defined in RTP
terms. Ed discusses in "Discipline for Home and School" the difference between
behaviors that disturb the rights of others and those that are merely
undesirable. For example, if a student forgets to turn in homework, this may be
undesirable to the teacher yet it is not a behavior that infringes on the rights
of others in the class. I think this is an interesting point to bring up
because I think this relates to Joe's concern about the use of the word
"responsible." I will explain!

Joe:

I consider myself a responsible person but at times find myself being accused

of just the

opposite.

Tom:

That sounds familiar. I think it is part of living among other people, who

don't perceive our

perceptions of ourselves and they don't experience the perceptions that we are

controlling for.

What they see are the outward appearances of our actions, which we do not

perceive

ourselves. Those observers also see many of the unintended consequences

produced by our > own actions -- consequences we might not even know exist. I
believe the comments from

people who observe us are a big part of the process by which we reorganize

ourselves (learn)

so that we can control our perceptions while not disturbing others while they

control their own

perceptions.

I think that Joe is concerned about the use of the word responsible as it
relates to students following the rules. (Joe, don't let me put words in your
mouth! : ) ) As teachers and administrators, when we talk about students
being responsible, we usually mean that we want students to behave in a way that
makes our classroom or school match our own perceptions of what a "good" school
should look like. We are often using our own observations of the outward
behaviors of students to determine why the students acted in a certain way.
Yet we are not inside the heads of our students anymore than they are in ours.
We do not experience the perceptions they are controlling for. I frequently
work with children age 3 to 5 who have physical or mental handicaps. I kept
thinking that one three year old boy was either angry or acting defiant because
he was throwing toys. Now, this little boy is totally blind, and I had not had
much experience with blind children before. The other teacher in the room told
me about some training she had attended recently where she learned that very
young blind children often throw things because they have little physical
concept of the space around them. That is very different than throwing out of
anger, and my response to him is now different. I still do not know if that is
exactly what he is doing, as he has limited verbal communication, but the idea
of whether he is "behaving responsibly" has taken on some new meaning for me.

I think that the important thing about RTP is that teachers and students learn
about how all living creatures function as control systems. If a teacher can
use the questions to help a student see that he or she is infringing on the
rights of others, the behavior may stop right there. As Dad said, the student
is able to reorganize (learn) and find another way to get what he or she wants.
That student may not have been aware of the apperances of his actions. Along
those lines, the teacher also is able to reorganize. I have found that my
experiences teaching in special education classrooms have changed my personal
perception of the "ideal classroom." I am much more tolerant of noise and
movement. I have had a collegue who literally screamed at a student for
standing up while working, because she felt that in her ideal room all students
should sit. I finally decided that as long as my students were learning and not
disturbing others, it didn't bother me if they stood, sat at a desk, or sat on
the floor. Was the behavior merely annoying, or did it truly infringe on the
rights of others?

I think that in schools where teachers and administrators really understand PCT,
the idea of "behaving responsibly" comes down to whether or not students, or
staff members, are functioning without disrupting those around them.

Dad, let me tell you what I think Joe meant when he said :

Being perceived as a "Responsible Person" is relative to the reference

perceptions that are

being controlled by others.

He said that "personal responsibility" is relative to the reference perception
being controlled at the time. To me this means that I know whether I am doing
what I need to, because I know what I am controlling for. (Ex. I ran the red
light because I had to get you to the hospital right away.) Yet being perceived
as a "responsible person" by others depends not on your reference perceptions
and what you are controlling for, but on the outward actions that the other
person sees. (Ex. I ran a red light, so I am not a "responsible" person,
meaning not a good person.) To me, it seems that this is almost two different
meanings for the word "responsible": 1) answerable or accountable for something,
2) reliable or dependable. Do you see the slight difference in the way the word
is used, or am I just reading too much into this? : )

Let me know what you think. Joe, was this what you were thinking about, or did
I just take us off on a wild tangent? I put words in your mouth twice in one
post!

Behaving responsibly, as always, ; )

Caroline

[Dennis_Dunlap]

As I read, I have a question. Who is responsible for the homework
assigned by the classroom teacher??? The teacher, the student, or
the parent. We must remember…The more we try to control the
more responsible we are for the behavior…

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (970119.0930]

Tom Bourbon:

in the case of RTP, "being responsible" means functioning as a
living control system, in such a manner that you are not
disrupting teachers

Caroline Young (17 Jan 97 21.10 CST)

I agree with my dad that this is how "being responsible " is
defined in RTP

Dennis Dunlap --

We must remember......The more we try to control the more
responsible we are for the behavior...

Can't you folks think a little more responsibly and keep this
stuff in the responsible thinking group;-)

You're disrupting the silence over here on CSGNet;-)

Best

Rick

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (970119.1550 EST)]

Rick Marken (970119.0930)

You're disrupting the silence over here on CSGNet;-)

Zzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzz. Zzzzzz.....

Bruce Gregory

[David1]

So far what I am understanding is that responsibility means: not
disturbing others (teacher and students).

What about the idea of: doing what is in a person's longer term
interests rather than immediate interests.

Take a recent case of a student who spray painted a wall at school,
vandalism. As a result of doing this, the student moved himself
further from his stated goal of attending a public high school and then
college. The student was angry because he felt as though the
administrators of the school lied to him. He felt as though he was
promised a trial at the local high school if he did well at the school.
He believes that he did well and the promise was not kept. The vandalism
was an act of revenge(short term interests). What did this student gain
from his behavior. Something, I am sure. Was it in his longer term
interests? Probably not. The school administrators will probably not
take a chance and place him in a public school setting. In fact this
student was " sent back " to the other school associated with our
residential treatment center for more difficult students.

It seems to me that PCT emphasizes the first person view. This means
that we should define it in terms of self interest rather than other
interest. If we are creating problems for other people, teachers or
students, they may become angry and want to create problems for us.
Therefore, it is in our own best interests to be very careful about
creating problems for other people, especially ones who have power over
us, such as teachers. Or, other students who may not want to be our
friends or associate with us.

···

To: all interested in this subject
From: David M. Goldstein
Subject: Responsibility
Date: 1/19/97

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (970201.2000 PST)]

First, a big thanks to David Goldstein for pointing out a big error
at my Web demo site. I managed to overwrite the server version of the
write-up of the Conflict demo with the write-up for another demo.
Then I managed to overwrite all my local versions of the Conflict
write-up with the incorrect server write-up. The result is that I
had to completely re-write the Conflict demo write-up. But I think
it was a blessing in disguise because I think the new write-up makes
more sense in terms of what the demo actually shows.

I can see that I've also got to re-write many of the Java programs
so that they are more consistent with each other. So now I get to
deal with the problem of software versions. I wonder what nightmare
I can create for myself with that;-)

Robert Kosara (970131.1815 MET) --

if we could only be held responsible for what we know from
first-hand experience, no civilized life would be possible!

I think civilized life is _only_ possible when people don't "hold other
people responsible". People who hold other people responsible just want
control over those people. Civilized people know what responsibility is
so they know what people ARE responsible for (controlled results of
their actions) and what they ARE NOT responsible for (uncontrolled
results of their actions). No
"holding" necessary;-)

Best

Rick

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (970202.0820 EST)]

Rick Marken (970201.2000 PST)

First, a big thanks to David Goldstein for pointing out a big error
at my Web demo site. I managed to overwrite the server version of the
write-up of the Conflict demo with the write-up for another demo.
Then I managed to overwrite all my local versions of the Conflict
write-up with the incorrect server write-up. The result is that I
had to completely re-write the Conflict demo write-up. But I think
it was a blessing in disguise because I think the new write-up makes
more sense in terms of what the demo actually shows.

Glad to see you are taking responsibility for the uncontrolled results of
your actions

Bruce Gregory

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (970202.0830 MST)]

I think civilized life is _only_ possible when people don't "hold other
people responsible". People who hold other people responsible just want
control over those people.

Do I take it that you're not in favor of holding people responsible for such
uncontrolled side-effects of their actions as burning cigarette holes in
your carpet, polluting the environment, killing children by speeding through
school zones, impoverishing the poor and enriching the rich, driving the
wrong way up exit ramps, and so on?

There are really two questions to ask about a side-effect: the first is, was
it really unintended? And the second is, does it really matter to me? When a
person's actions have unintended side effects that really matter to me, I am
going to say, for example, "Please move or sit down, I can't see the movie,"
or "Please remove your foot, it's hurting my neck." If someone in my
neighborhood speeds through streets that my children have to cross, I am
going to hold that person responsible even for uncontrolled side effects
that haven't happened yet. I want to control that person's behavior.

When you tell another person about an uncontrolled side effect of behavior
that is encroaching on your own desires, it is no longer an uncontrolled
side-effect, because the person now perceives that it is happening. If the
person goes on with the same behavior, you're justified in assuming that the
side-effect on you is now intended (making, initially, due allowances for
forgetting and preoccupation).

In Ed Ford's RTP program, the basic problem of discipline occurs when a
child disrupts a class, which infringes on the desire of other children to
learn and of the teacher to teach. The disrupting child is given a choice:
change your behavior or leave. The reasons for this are made perfectly
clear: all people under this system have an equal right to be free to pursue
their own goals, and you are making enough of a disturbance to prevent them
from doing so. Even stopping to deal with the disturbance, enquiring about
why and so forth, leaves the disturbance just as effective as ever. So
whatever the reasons, they will be discussed elsewhere.

Elsewhere, the child can be asked, "Is what you're doing getting you what
you want? Is there some other way of getting what you want that doesn't
infringe on other people's rights under our social system? Would you like
help in making a plan for a way of handling your problems that will work
better? Do you just need to cool off for a while?" There is a perfectly
clear process for getting back into the class: make a plan for how you are
going to avoid disrupting the class, and offer it to the teacher. No need
for apologies or debasement or punishment; just work it out with the
teacher, and you'll be welcome back into the class.

Is this "controlling people?" Yes, of course it is. I have just as much
right to control my environment as you have to control yours, and if you're
not willing to grant me that right, I'm going to push back. When there are a
lot of us pushing back, you're going to lose, so you need to work out a
better way of gettng what you want. Nobody says you have to change what you
want -- that's up to you. All you have to do is stop bugging other people,
and they'll stop bugging you. That's the deal here.

The best part of Ed's program is that it shows children that they are really
in control of what happens to them, even in the midst of a lot of other
people who are also controlling their own lives. It's not all that obvious
how independent people can manage to get along together; look at us -- here
is a bunch of grownups still trying to figure it out. But we weren't raised
in schools where this problem was brought out in the open and dealt with
realistically, without punishment, recrimination, or anger, but firmly
nevertheless. Respect for the will of others is the key, respect given and
respect expected. Not "I'm the teacher and you're the student so sit down
and shut up."

Implicit in a PCT-oriented society is the right to hold people responsible
for what they do to you -- or "others" -- more than once. Of course you have
to let them know they're doing it.

Best,

Bill P.

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (970202.1100 PST)]

Me:

I think civilized life is _only_ possible when people don't "hold
other people responsible". People who hold other people
responsible just want control over those people.

Bill Powers (970202.0830 MST) --

Implicit in a PCT-oriented society is the right to hold people
responsible for what they do to you -- or "others" -- more than
once. Of course you have to let them know they're doing it.

Yes. Of course.

My beef with the phrase "holding people responsible" is that
it is typically used to place the blame for one's own control
problems on someone else. I've never heard someone who knows that
OJ killed two people say "I hold him responsible". He just IS
responsible. I never heard someone say to a kid who is disrupting a
class "I am holding you responsible for disrupting this class". The kid
IS responsible for disrupting the class and no "holding" is necessary.

Whan I hear people talk about "holding people responsible" it's
usually in a sentence like: "I hold you responsible for ruining a
promising career in conventional psychology with the publication of your
book B:CP" or "I'm holding you responsible for the fact that
I drink two quarts of vodka a day". People "hold other people
responsible" when they, themselves, don't want to acknowledge their own
responsibility for controlling the variables they control. This
is why I said that civilized life is _only_ possible when people
don't "hold other people responsible".

Best

Rick

[Robert_Kosara]

[From Robert Kosara, 970202.2130 MET]

[From Rick Marken (970202.1100 PST)]

My beef with the phrase "holding people responsible" is that
it is typically used to place the blame for one's own control
problems on someone else.

[...]

People "hold other people
responsible" when they, themselves, don't want to acknowledge their own
responsibility for controlling the variables they control. This
is why I said that civilized life is _only_ possible when people
don't "hold other people responsible".

  Excuse me for using a phrase that apparently has a meaning that I didn't
know about, or at least is usually used in a different context. That was
not my intention (but probably one that I could have known about, so I am
responsible ...).

  What I would like to know, however, is what the difference is between
the two cited examples in my last mail on that topic. In the first one, my
car (or that of Bruce Gregory, who brought the example up, I believe )
hits that of another person, because she didn't look before turning. It
was not her intention (or so we presume) to get hit.
  The second example is you talking on the phone so loud your wife is
disturbed in listening to the radio. Your point --- as far as I understand
--- was that when your wife tells you to lower your voice, and you don't
do it, then you are responsible for that 'unintended side-effect', and
all its consequences.

  Now I believe that the lady in the first example is responsible
for me hitting her car (given that I had no way of avoiding the accident),
because she had to pass a test in order to get her driving license, and
there she had to prove that she understands the effects of her steering a
car.

  I do believe that people must be responsible not only for effects they
can experience first-hand, or that they can easily see, but also for what
they have learned in school and elsewhere. If I ram a knife into my
sister's chest, I can't say 'Sorry, but I have never experienced something
like that before, therefore I am not responsible.' I am, because I know
about the effect of doing this, not because I have done it before, or
because I have seen somebody else doing it, but because I have heard that
somewhere (probably on tv, but that's another story ...).

  This is why I don't understand the difference between the first example
and the one you gave. The only difference I can see is that the lady
probably never had such an accident, and so didn't have the relevant
first-hand experience. She did, however, have the obligation to look
before turning, and so is fully responsible for the consequences: as
responsible as you are if you continue shouting into the telephone.

  The reason why I continue bugging you about this is the following: About
six month ago, three Neo-Nazis killed a young man here in Austria by
kicking him with their steel-clad boots. The verdict was man-slaughter in
the second degree, not homicide or first-degree murder. Why not? If three
people, wearing shoes that you can break walls with, kick somebody who is
already lying on the floor --- how can they go on doing that without
considering the possibility of killing him? Their intention definitely was
to kill him, but they got away with a five-year sentence. In my opinion,
they are fully responsible at least of man-slaughter, but the court
apparently didn't trust in three young men being able to know about the
consequences of their doing.
  If you hit a burglar with a baseball bat, and he dies, you can hardly be
blamed. But if you continue hitting him until he is dead, you are fully
responsible. There are certain limits to what you can do, and if we didn't
have these, no civilized life would be possible.

  Prove me wrong.

      Robert

···

***************************************************************************
Remember: A friend in need is a pest indeed.
***************************************************************************
   _ PGP welcome! email: rkosara@wvnet.at
  /_)_ / __ __ 7 //_ _ __ __ __ or: e9425704@student.tuwien.ac.at
/ \(_)/_)(- / / /\(_)_\(_// (_/ http://stud2.tuwien.ac.at/~e9425704/
Student of Computer Science at the University of Technology Vienna, Austria
***************************************************************************

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (970202.1730)]

Richard Thurman, Chris Cherpas, Bruce Gregory, Bruce Abbott, Hugh Petrie
and everyone else involved in the discussion of applications
of PCT to education:

Keep up the good work!! I'll contribute to this thread if I can think of
anything that I might be willing to be held responsible for;-)

Robert Kosara (970202.2130 MET) --

What I would like to know, however, is what the difference is
between the two cited examples in my last mail on that topic.
In the first one, my car...hits that of another person, because
she didn't look before turning...The second example is you
talking on the phone so loud your wife is disturbed in listening
to the radio.

There is really no difference between between these two cases. In
both cases one person's controlling is interfered with by the unintended
side effects of another's controlling.

Your point --- as far as I understand --- was that when your
wife tells you to lower your voice, and you don't do it, then
you are responsible for that 'unintended side-effect', and
all its consequences.

Not quite. I become responsible for what had been an unintended
side effect if (in order to satisfy a higher level goal -- like
getting along with my wife) I start controlling for the loudness
of my voice when I talk on the phone. I become responsible when I
_take responsibility_ by controlling the variable that _had been_ an
uncontrolled side effect. The lady driver could do the same thing if,
after the accident, she took your advice and (to satisfy her own higher
level goals) took control of her perception of the "recklessness" of her
driving.

Now I believe that the lady in the first example is responsible
for me hitting her car (given that I had no way of avoiding the
accident)

And I would still say she is _not responsible_ for you hitting her
car unless she were _controlling for_ you hitting her car. I would
also be reluctant to say that she was responsible for you hitting her
car if she were driving recklessly and she knew it. She is
responsible for driving recklessly, but not for your hitting her car.
But, in this latter case, since she is intentionally doing something
that society (rightly) frowns on (because it is dangerous) it's
reasonable to consider her _legally_ responsible for the accident.

I do believe that people must be responsible not only for
effects they can experience first-hand, or that they can
easily see, but also for what they have learned in school
and elsewhere.

I would say that people must become responsible for (control for)
certain side effects of their actions if they want to get along (control
successfully) in the society of other control systems. So I think I
agree with what you say here. All I'm saying is that people can only, in
fact, _be_ or _become_ responsible for (control for) what they can
perceive (that includes the reactions of others to the un-perceiveable
side effects of their controlling).

If I ram a knife into my sister's chest, I can't say 'Sorry, but
I have never experienced something like that before, therefore I
am not responsible.'

I would say that if you are controlling your perception of the
relationship between the knife and your sister then you are responsible
for that perception whether you have experienced it
before or not.

This is why I don't understand the difference between the first
example and the one you gave. The only difference I can see is
that the lady probably never had such an accident, and so didn't
have the relevant first-hand experience.

Again, the only difference is in whether or the person takes control
of the perception that was a side effect. If the lady driver takes
control of the recklessness of her driving then she has become
responsible for that (previously uncontrolled) perception just as I took
control of the loudness of my voice on the phone when my wife
is in the room reading.

The reason why I continue bugging you about this is the following:
About six month ago, three Neo-Nazis killed a young man here in
Austria by kicking him with their steel-clad boots. The verdict
was man-slaughter in the second degree, not homicide or
first-degree murder. Why not?

Because the jury decided that they did not intend to kill him.

If three people, wearing shoes that you can break walls with, kick
somebody who is already lying on the floor --- how can they go
on doing that without considering the possibility of killing him?

I agree that it seems pretty unlikely that their intent was not to
kill. But, apparently, the jury decided that killing was not their
intent. At least the legal system does recognize the fact that
these assholes are intentional systems -- that they intended _some_
result and that they didn't do what they did because their histories of
reinforcement caused them to do it (in which case they would not
be responsible for -- be controlling for -- anything at all).

The jury decided, however, that these jerks were not controlling for the
perception of having the kid be dead. No one can know what perceptions
there guys were _really_ controlling for without doing
The Test for the Controlled Variable and, unfortunately, it was too late
for that.

Their intention definitely was to kill him

You can't know that this was their intention any more than the jury can
know that this was _not_ their intention. It's a judgement call.
I lean towards your conclusion (based on the little I know about
what happened) but I can _conceive of the possibility_ that their
intent was only to cause great pain and fear -- not death.

In my opinion, they are fully responsible at least of man-slaughter

Isn't that what the jury concluded?

but the court apparently didn't trust in three young men being
able to know about the consequences of their doing.

Even if you know the possible consequences of your actions, you
may not be responsible for (controlling for) those consequences if they
occur. I know that a possible consequence of driving to the
coffee shop this evening is getting in an accident. Neverhteless, I will
probably drive to the coffee shop. If I actually _do_ get in
an accident on the way am I responsible for it becuase I knew it
was a possible consequence?

There are certain limits to what you can do, and if we didn't
have these, no civilized life would be possible.

No argument there.

I hope you don't think I am saying that we are only responsible for
ourselves and everyone else be damned. I'm not. What I am trying to say
is hard to express without sounding like a raving libertarian.

I am, personally, a big fan of community. I control for getting along
with people as best as I can. It's very important to me that side
effects of my controlling not interfere with the controlling of others.
When people tell me that a side effect of what I am doing
is a problem for them or others I (usually) try to bring that side
effect under control (after a little protest, maybe;-)). Cooperation is
a system concept perception that I try to control for (with
varying degrees of success). All I am saying is that all this
controlling is _my responsibility_. I can't _make_ other people
responsible for anything and other people can't make me responsible for
anything.

I would like other people to be take responsibility for controlling for
some degree of cooperation; I believe that taking responsibility for
being cooperative is better for everyone involved. And I automatically
act to protect what I am controlling from interference from
uncooperative controllers. But I _hope_ that people will control in a
cooperative way; I will work to try to show people why controlling
cooperatively is better for everyone; and I am willing
to try to teach people how to control cooperatively if they want to
learn. But I feel unconfortable about "holding people responsible"
for controlling in a particualr way. It's a responsibility I
don't want;-)

Best

Rick

[Robert_Kosara]

[From Rick Marken (970202.1730)]

And I would still say she is _not responsible_ for you hitting her
car unless she were _controlling for_ you hitting her car. I would
also be reluctant to say that she was responsible for you hitting her
car if she were driving recklessly and she knew it. She is
responsible for driving recklessly, but not for your hitting her car.

  I see! That was my problem.

But, in this latter case, since she is intentionally doing something
that society (rightly) frowns on (because it is dangerous) it's
reasonable to consider her _legally_ responsible for the accident.

  So she is punished not only for what she has control over (reckless
driving), but also for the side-effects (accident). But if there were no
accident, she would not be punished at all! However, if she didn't drive
recklessly, and still got into an accident, it would not be considered her
fault. So it makes sense to not drive recklessly, no matter how unlikely
this would cause an accident.

[three young guys kicking another one to death]

The jury decided, however, that these jerks were not controlling for the
perception of having the kid be dead. No one can know what perceptions
there guys were _really_ controlling for without doing
The Test for the Controlled Variable and, unfortunately, it was too late
for that.

  That is one of the main problems with our legal system, I believe. The
three men were interested in minimizing their jail sentence, and so
claimed they did not want to kill him. Nobody will ever know, there are no
proofs, only witnesses.

>Their intention definitely was to kill him

You can't know that this was their intention any more than the jury can

  That's true, of course.

>In my opinion, they are fully responsible at least of man-slaughter

Isn't that what the jury concluded?

  Oops, that should have read 'homicide' of course ...

Even if you know the possible consequences of your actions, you
may not be responsible for (controlling for) those consequences if they
occur. I know that a possible consequence of driving to the
coffee shop this evening is getting in an accident. Neverhteless, I will
probably drive to the coffee shop. If I actually _do_ get in
an accident on the way am I responsible for it becuase I knew it
was a possible consequence?

  But you didn't cause the accident only by driving somewhere. An accident
doesn't just 'happen', but usually somebody must make a mistake. Otherwise
all the laws and rules would be useless! When you speed or look at your
radio instead of at the street, you must be aware that the likelihood of
your causing an accident increases. The young guy in my example didn't
just die. He was beaten to death. People actively hit and kicked him until
he was injured so badly that there was no way of saving him anymore. Those
people were a direct cause of his injuries. They were not responsible
because they went to that place where they killed him, but for the actions
that directly caused his injuries.

I am, personally, a big fan of community. I control for getting along
with people as best as I can. It's very important to me that side
effects of my controlling not interfere with the controlling of others.

  I believe these side-effects usually don't involve injuring people
badly, do they? You are a decent man because the 'errors' you cause on
the perceptions of other people are small, and you are able to correct
them if required.

When people tell me that a side effect of what I am doing
is a problem for them or others I (usually) try to bring that side
effect under control (after a little protest, maybe;-)).

  But this is only possible as long as these side-effects don't cause
irreversible damage.

  I don't want to sound like I want to make everybody responsible for
everything they do --- intended or not. Everybody has the right to make
mistakes. But the distinction is very difficult, and in the end it usually
boils down to a question of defining words.

  Live long and prosper,

    Robert

···

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Richard Marken wrote:

***************************************************************************
Remember: Better dead than mellow.
***************************************************************************
   _ PGP welcome! email: rkosara@wvnet.at
  /_)_ / __ __ 7 //_ _ __ __ __ or: e9425704@student.tuwien.ac.at
/ \(_)/_)(- / / /\(_)_\(_// (_/ http://stud2.tuwien.ac.at/~e9425704/
Student of Computer Science at the University of Technology Vienna, Austria
***************************************************************************

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980220.2110)]

Tim Carey (980221.0735)--

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.

Yes. But that was not really my point. My point was that
disturbances are independent variables; there is no sense in
which a controller is responsible for them. Jeff is not
responsible for the fact I am a disturbance to the perceptions
he is trying to control; I am, though;-)

Maybe what you are getting at is that a person can determine
whether a disturbance will be "disturbing" by changing the
setting of his reference signal; a wind that blows your car
to the right is "disturbing" if you are trying to go straight;
it is not disturbing if you change your reference for direction
and try to go right. But I still don't see this as having
"responsibility" for the disturbance; the wind is still independent
of what the driver does; I wouldn't say that the driver is
"responsible" for the direction of the wind. I (and I'm sure
Jeff will heartily concur) am like an ill wind that blows no
good for conventional psychologists;-)

Me:

We are responsible for what we control.

Bruce Gregory (980220.1712 EST) --

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?

I think we are "responsible" for what we make happen _on
purpose_. OJ was responsible for killing his wife and her
friend; he was not responsible for leaving his blood all
over the place (that was an accidental side effect). This is
just my interpretation of what "responsible" means, at least
when the word is applied to the behavior of living things.
I know that we also say things like "rain was responsible
for the leak in the ceiling". I think control theory helps
us see that there is a subtle difference between these two
uses of "responsible"; when applied to a person "responsible"
implies intent: that the result was controlled. When applied
to an inanimate object "responsible" implies _causality_;
that the result was _caused_.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Cyvchoate]

i.kurtzer (980220)

i found the reference for anyone interested.

Hugh Gibbons _Justifying Law_, 1989, Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH.

and The Case of Jeffrey Stapleton:Exploring the Ways Lawyer's Think, Franklin
Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH.

i have not read these, but they have been recommneded and maybe someone might
find them relevant.

i.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980221.1250 EST)]

Rick Marken (980220.2110)]

I think we are "responsible" for what we make happen _on
purpose_. OJ was responsible for killing his wife and her
friend; he was not responsible for leaving his blood all
over the place (that was an accidental side effect).

My inclination is to say that OJ intended to kill his wife and her friend and
did not intend to leave his blood all over the place. I seem to use the word
intention if I feel that I have access to determining a reference level. I
can't always be sure that someone else has access to their corresponding
reference levels, however. (I've had access to my reference level for smoking
for some twenty years. My impression is that Bill is just gaining access to
his. I'm not at all sure about OJ and his rage.) MOL is one approach to
expanding access to reference levels. When responsibility takes the form of
blame or guilt , as Bill points out, it imposes pressure from outside. When I
adopt the position that I am responsible even when I lack access to a
reference level, I do so in an attempt to empower myself to discover access to
a reference level that has so far escaped my efforts to control.

Bruce

[Martin_Taylor4]

[Martin Taylor 980221 17:45]

Rick Marken (980220.2110)

Maybe what you are getting at is that a person can determine
whether a disturbance will be "disturbing" by changing the
setting of his reference signal; a wind that blows your car
to the right is "disturbing" if you are trying to go straight;
it is not disturbing if you change your reference for direction
and try to go right.

This is very disturbing:-)

Surely it is irrelevant whether the disturbing influence is in a direction
to reduce or to increase the (transient) error. It is still a disturbing
influence. As I see it, a person can control whether a disturbance will
be "disturbing" by deciding whether to control the affected perceptual
signal.

I suppose oen could reduce the error signal by changing the reference
signal to match the perception, but that's not the usual definition of
"control", is it? And clearly it is not something that could be done by
the kind of Elementary Control Unit that is ordinarily considered to
be an atom of the HPCT hierarchy.

Martin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980221.0253 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980221.1250 EST)--

When I
adopt the position that I am responsible even when I lack access to a
reference level, I do so in an attempt to empower myself to discover

access to

a reference level that has so far escaped my efforts to control.

You seem to be using "responsible" here in the sense of being held
responsible, rather than the sense of simply describing causation. And your
use of "empower" seems to be similar to "drive" or "motivate" rather than
just to make it possible to do something should you choose to do it. By
"access" to a reference level I presume you mean awareness of it via
imagination (one assumes that a reference signal is being produced by a
higher system if it exists at all, so the higher system always has "access"
to it).

In the case of my smoking, I think one of the main problems in carrying out
vague wishes to quit was one of misperception. It's hard to give up doing
something that one perceives as making one feel better.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980222.0830 EST)]

Bill Powers (980221.0253 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980221.1250 EST)--

When I
adopt the position that I am responsible even when I lack access to a
reference level, I do so in an attempt to empower myself to discover

access to

a reference level that has so far escaped my efforts to control.

You seem to be using "responsible" here in the sense of being held
responsible, rather than the sense of simply describing causation.

I meant as causation.

And your
use of "empower" seems to be similar to "drive" or "motivate" rather than
just to make it possible to do something should you choose to do it.

Good point. Empower relates to the ability to do something if you choose to do
it.

By
"access" to a reference level I presume you mean awareness of it via
imagination (one assumes that a reference signal is being produced by a
higher system if it exists at all, so the higher system always has "access"
to it).

I'm not sure. Perhaps I mean awareness directed to the control I am exercising
Or perhaps, as you say below, I mean creation of a new "distinction" a new
perceptual organization that allows me to exercise control.

In the case of my smoking, I think one of the main problems in carrying out
vague wishes to quit was one of misperception. It's hard to give up doing
something that one perceives as making one feel better

Might you have been asking what perception you needed to control in order to
quit smoking? In this case, you now have a new distinction -- a new way to
perceive smoking that makes control possible. Misperception may not be the
best way to describe this since it seems to carry a judgement with it.

Thanks for your response. It has given me a lot to think about.

Bruce

[R_Marken]

{From Rick Marken (90222.0740)]

Martin Taylor (980221 17:45) --

Surely it is irrelevant whether the disturbing influence is in
a direction to reduce or to increase the (transient) error.

Absolutely right! This is exactly what I was trying to say
last night [Rick Marken (980221.2030)].

I suppose oen could reduce the error signal by changing the
reference signal to match the perception, but that's not the
usual definition of "control", is it? And clearly it is not
something that could be done by the kind of Elementary
Control Unit that is ordinarily considered to be an atom
of the HPCT hierarchy.

Absolutely correct and very clearly said (that's why I quote
the whole thing).

You're very good, Martin, as long as you stay away from
conventional research and psychophysics;-)

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Marken_Richard_S]

[From Rick Marken (950201.0810)]

Bill Powers (950131.1515 MST) to me:

Your commentary on Staddon's Atlantic article is beautifully
constructed. I hope you send it off right away.

Thanks. I plan to go through a couple of iterations with help from Tom
Bourbon and send it off ASAP as a joint paper (so Staddon will know, if it's
published, that there are at least two confused nitwits out here).

Gary Cziko (950201.0357 GMT) --

Please explain how a PCT view of behavior makes me responsible (and
therefore blamable and punishable) for my behavior.

A responsible person is one who can be regarded as the agentive "cause" of a
particular result. I take the word "behavior" to refer to a "controlled
result of action". A control system is responsible for controlled results
of its actions (in the sense that it keeps thses results in reference states)
but, of course, not for the actions that produce them, which also depend on
disturbances.

PCT shows that the everyday notion of "responsibility" does apply to behavior
(control), but only in a relative manner. A control systems is responsible
for the reference state of the controlled perception, in the sense that it's
own reference signal selects or causes a particular level of the perception,
but it is not responsible for the means used to cause the perception to be at
that level. Since, in a hierarchy of control systems, a reference signal is
a cause of the value of a controlled perception at one level and a means of
achieving perceptual reference states of higher level systems, responsibility
in a hierarchy of control systems is relative.

I hope I didn't seem like I was implying (in my review) that I advocate blame
or punishment. All I meant to say is that an honest understanding of the
behaviorist model of human natuire allows no room for seeing people as
responsible for (ie. the agentive cause of) the results of their actions.
Control theory shows that people are "responsible", in a relative sort of
way. Control theory helps us understand, scientifically, notions like
"purpose", "intention" and "responsibility", that are only understood in an
intuitive way by lay people and behaviorists.

Control theory shows that "responsibility" is not such a simple notion. What
responsiblity "means" from a control theory perspective can really only be
gleaned by watching a hierarchical control systems in action. The meaning of
"responsibility" is in the model of hierarchical control. The model doesn't
say that blame and punishment are right or wrong; the model doesn't say
whether society should cut of the hands of thieves or give them bigger
welfare payments. All it says is that certain results only happen because
people made them happen -- the results are controlled; the control systems is
responsible for those results. If you want to give the control system the
chair because it was responsible for a particular result, great. I personally
find punishment liek that obnoxious but that's just because I'm controlling
(responsible for) my OWN perceptions.

I hope I didn't sound (in my review) like I was supporting Staddon's apparent
convervative political agenda; I don't really care about that. I was just
reviewing his claims about what behaviorism implies about "responsibility",
which is really a synonym for purposefulness. Staddon was saying that
behaviorism is not inconsistent with the idea that people a purposeful
("responsible") agents. This, along with ending sentences with prepositions,
is an idea up with which I will not put.

Best

Rick