Responsible encounters

[Richard_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (950207.0915)]

Bruce Buchanan (950206.2130 EST) --

Traditionally rigorous "hard" science is an imappropriate model by which >

to understand all aspects of human nature and life.

What is the "hard" science model? If you mean the cause-effect model, then I
agree. If, however, you mean that human nature cannot be understood using the
methods of science, then I could not disagree with you more. The reason
psychology has done such a lousy job of explaining human behaivor is
precisely because it has NOT adopted the methods of the "hard" sciences --
while screaming that it IS a science. Scientific psychology is definitely
NOT scientific -- so "traditionally rigorous 'hard' science" has not failed
as an approach to understanding ANY aspects of human nature because it has
not yet been TRIED.

Me:

Staddon is trying to weasal out of this implication of the cause-effect
[model] by saying that the model is right but irrelevant in the "real world";

Bruce:

Well, I will not try to argue on behalf of Staddon, but I did _not_ think
he said that Skinner's model, as the behaviorist paradigm, was _right_.
Indeed he said that it was a mistake to assume that all questions about
human action fall within the domain of psychology or that all such
questions are amenable in principle to answers by science. Moreover the
mistake is serious and involves an acceptance of determinism which sees
science (incorrectly) as opposed to any possibilities of personal
responsibility.

You might want to try reading Staddon's article again. Staddon said that
human behavior IS determined by external events (like punishment), that
social responsibility DEPENDS on this determinism and that people can still
be help responsible because, even though their behavior is determined, they
"feel free" when they are doing it.

I sometimes feel, Rick, that you are talking to yourself, not to me,

I almost always feel like I'm talking to myself. I'd go in for treatment if
there were no Bill Powers, Mary Powers, Tom Bourbon, Gary Cziko and a few
others.

But to me your question indicates that your use of the term "responsible" is
inflexible and tendentious.

Gee, I gave three different meanings (cause, control and "good") -- that
seems pretty flexible. And I wasn't being tendentious; it just seems like it
because I'm not saying what you want to hear.

The sense I get from you is that goals can never be agreed upon >

voluntarily, they can only be imposed, and therefore never so >incorporated,
but my impression also is that you would not explicitly push >it that far.

What in the world ever gave you this "sense"? Please post where I said
anything like this. If I did say something like this maybe I should go in
for treatment;-)

The PCT model shows that seperate control systems can ONLY select common
goals voluntarily and that goals cannot be imposed from outside of either
system.

But there is a problem which concerns us both. What is a valid basis for >

social life?

A "valid" basis for social life? I have no idea what that means. Please
tell me what a "valid basis for social life" might be. It sounds a little
scarry to me.

Do you accept that there might be any morally and scientifically acceptable >

concept of social responsibility?

Yes. The "morally acceptable concept of social responsibility" is the one
defined by your own reference for a particular percpetion of "social
responsibility". I already gave what I consider a "scientifically acceptable
concept of social responsibility"; social responsibility refers to control of
"social" perceptual variables.

Perhaps you might agree that, in the pursuit of the goals of a civil

society, >possible objectives might include the creation of joint win-win
situations.

I personally like that goal; but all PCT says about that goal is that it is a
perception (of a win-win situation) that can be controlled.

Me:

The fact that we think of some behaviors as more responsible than others
doesn't mean that some behaviors are REALLY more responsible than >others

Bruce:

Well, here is another side of the problem. How do we break out of a circle >

of perception and interpretation which threatens to be solipsistic?

We don't. We just recognise that we are in it.

Look, I know what' good social values are; all people should only listen to
Bach (J.S. of course), turn all churches into taxable community centers and
exile Republicans to a remote island in the Pacific. But I also know that
those are just my looney goals. I know that they are perfectly arbitrary (in
the "objective sence") but non-arbitrary in the personal sense -- because
they are goals that fit harmoniously into the context of my OWN hioerarchy of
goals. I know that other people will have different goals -- they will listen
to Rap music (which I consider an oxymoron), go to church and vote for
Republicans. Those goals make perfect sense to them, in the context of their
own control hierarchies.

Looking for the objectively "right" set of goals (responsibilities) is
ridiculous from a PCT perspective since responsibilities can only be "right"
or "wrong" in the sense of helping or hindering, respectively, the ability of
an organism to control. The search for an objectively "right" set of goals
(responsibilities) typically leads to Ayatollas, Hitlers, Stalins and
Gingriches.

Me:

His [Staddon's] article is living, breathing proof that at least one person
(the writer of the article) cannot possibly be the kind of person described
by behaviorist models of human nature. The article reveals that John >

Staddon, behaviorist, is actually John Staddon, living control system.

Bruce:

I simply did not have that reaction to the article. I have some doubt that
your reaction was typical or very common.

The only people who could have had my reaction to the article would be people
who understand PCT. So, I agree, my reaction was far from typical.

By the way, saying that Staddon's controlling was evident in the article is
not a criticism of Staddon. My controlling should be evident in what I write
as well, as is yours. My point was simply that people are controllers -- all
the way. That's a GOOD thing -- except, of course, when the objects of their
control are other humans.

I had not really thought it would a great problem for PCT to take a
positive approach in offering a responsible account of social interactions.

The PCT appoach to social interactions has been explained over and over again;
the basic ideas are embodied in Tom Bourbon's elegant invetigations of the
interactions between human control systems. You don't see PCT as having taken
"a positive approach in offering a responsible account of social
interactions" because we have not come out and said "PCT says that people
ahould have the kind of social interactions that seem obviously "responsible"
to Bruce Buchanan". That's because PCT says that people should have the kind of
social interactions that seem obviously responsible to Rick Marken;-)

Best

Rick

[Tom_BOURBON3]

Tom Bourbon [950207.1219]

[From Rick Marken (950207.0915)]

Bruce Buchanan (950206.2130 EST) --

. . .

I sometimes feel, Rick, that you are talking to yourself, not to me,

I almost always feel like I'm talking to myself. I'd go in for treatment if
there were no Bill Powers, Mary Powers, Tom Bourbon, Gary Cziko and a few
others.

I hear you, Rick. I'll verify that you are not talking to yourself. (Maybe
both of us should go for treatment.

But to me your question indicates that your use of the term "responsible" is
inflexible and tendentious.

Gee, I gave three different meanings (cause, control and "good") -- that
seems pretty flexible. And I wasn't being tendentious; it just seems like it
because I'm not saying what you want to hear.

Three distinct meanings, one of which is in accord with Bruce B.'s. That
certainly doesn't look "inflexible and tendentious" to me. But I am not
Bruce, and I perceive these things from my hierarchy, not his.

The sense I get from you is that goals can never be agreed upon >

voluntarily, they can only be imposed, and therefore never so >incorporated,
but my impression also is that you would not explicitly push >it that far.

What in the world ever gave you this "sense"? Please post where I said
anything like this. If I did say something like this maybe I should go in
for treatment;-)

I'll second that, Rick. Neither you, nor any other PCT modeler, has ever
said, or tried to imply, such a thing. Never.

The PCT model shows that seperate control systems can ONLY select common
goals voluntarily and that goals cannot be imposed from outside of either
system.

Now *that* is something we *have* said, many, many times.

Rick:

The fact that we think of some behaviors as more responsible than others
doesn't mean that some behaviors are REALLY more responsible than >others

Bruce:

Well, here is another side of the problem. How do we break out of a circle >

of perception and interpretation which threatens to be solipsistic?

We don't. We just recognise that we are in it.

Look, I know what' good social values are; all people should only listen to
Bach (J.S. of course), turn all churches into taxable community centers and
exile Republicans to a remote island in the Pacific. But I also know that
those are just my looney goals.

And I believe good social values include all people listening to a list of
composers that includes but is not limited to J.S.; all church property
other than sanctuaries being taxed; and all radical liberal Democrats going
into exile at the South Pole, where they can tremble in perpetual fear of
the vanishing ozone layer over their heads.

So, Rick and I disagree on some of our ideas about "good social values."
But I believe we agree as completely as two people can on the idea that each
of us is simply describing his own "looney goals," not something that is
objectively "good" in Boss Reality. We agree that those looney views are:

. . . perfectly arbitrary (in
the "objective sence") but non-arbitrary in the personal sense -- because
they are goals that fit harmoniously into the context of my OWN hioerarchy of
goals.

Other people will have goals that:

. . . make perfect sense to them, in the context of their
own control hierarchies.

Looking for the objectively "right" set of goals (responsibilities) is
ridiculous from a PCT perspective since responsibilities can only be "right"
or "wrong" in the sense of helping or hindering, respectively, the ability of
an organism to control. The search for an objectively "right" set of goals
(responsibilities) typically leads to Ayatollas, Hitlers, Stalins and
Gingriches.

And Janet Renos and Bill Clintons and . . .. And all of us, if we don't
watch out. No one is assured of immunity on this count.

If the ideas of PCT are legitimate, the world each person knows is the
product of a unique perceptual hierarchy. No other person can directly
insert reference perceptions into another person's hierarchy. On the other
hand, any person can adopt (personally adopt and be responsible for)
reference perceptions that originated in memories of earlier perceptions, or
in imagined combinations or modifications of earlier perceptions. Those
earlier perceptions can include many that pertain to what we call "society"
or the "social context" or some equivalent term. But, for each of us,
memories and imaginings about the society, or the social context, always
reduce to memories and imaginings about other individuals, and about our
interactions with those individuals. Other than through that indirect, and
for many theorists unsatisfactory, route, no social "system" or social
"structure" can "impart" reference perceptions to any individual.

Me:

His [Staddon's] article is living, breathing proof that at least one person
(the writer of the article) cannot possibly be the kind of person described
by behaviorist models of human nature. The article reveals that John >

Staddon, behaviorist, is actually John Staddon, living control system.

Bruce:

I simply did not have that reaction to the article. I have some doubt that
your reaction was typical or very common.

The only people who could have had my reaction to the article would be people
who understand PCT. So, I agree, my reaction was far from typical.

Welcome to the funny farm!

By the way, saying that Staddon's controlling was evident in the article is
not a criticism of Staddon. My controlling should be evident in what I write
as well, as is yours. My point was simply that people are controllers -- all
the way. That's a GOOD thing -- except, of course, when the objects of their
control are other humans.

Rick, this seems to be one of the hardest ideas for people to accept when
they begin to flirt with PCT. It seems difficult, and sometmes impossible,
for them to think that their own preferences and beliefs are "just
perceptions" -- that *everything* is perception. In that light, your remark
about Staddon was a positive one: you acknowledged not only Staddon's
humanity, but also his existence as a living control system, than which
there is nothing finer. (That last remark reveals another of my
idiosyncratic goofey ideas.) It's a shame that what we mean as the highest
compliment, the idea that all people are perceptual controllers, even when
it comes to their most cherished beliefs, is so often taken as derogatory.

I had not really thought it would a great problem for PCT to take a
positive approach in offering a responsible account of social interactions.

The PCT appoach to social interactions has been explained over and over again;
the basic ideas are embodied in Tom Bourbon's elegant invetigations of the
interactions between human control systems. You don't see PCT as having taken
"a positive approach in offering a responsible account of social
interactions" because we have not come out and said "PCT says that people
ahould have the kind of social interactions that seem obviously "responsible"
to Bruce Buchanan". That's because PCT says that people should have the kind o

f

social interactions that seem obviously responsible to Rick Marken;-)

Thanks for the positive review, Rick. It was a lot nicer than the ones from
journal reviewers who said those studies had *nothing* to do with real
interactions between people. I finally accepted their word for it and
stopped sending manuscripts to them.

One big problem people have with a PCT treatment of social interactions is,
exactly as you say, the fact that PCT does not weigh in on the side of any
particular ideas about morality, or responsibility. It does not weigh in
for, or against, *any* particular way of organizing social systems; for, or
against, *any* particular set of "social practices." On the other hand, we
have made a little progress exploring the possibility that "social
interactions" of all kinds, those some of us like and those some of us
abhor, occur between independent perceptual controllers, each of them
with its own reference perceptions, all of them affecting certain
environmental variables in common. To me, that means we are taking a,
". . . positive approach in offering a responsible account of social
interactions." But I'll be the first to admit that what we are doing isn't
very sexy work, not when you compare it to all of the really big, really
neat, things genuine social scientists like to do. So it goes.

Later,

Tom

[Richard_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (950207.2200)]

Me:

Staddon's article reeks of his own references for the way people
should behave. He writes it as though "responsible behavior" (third
sense) is an objective phenomenon.

Bruce Buchanan (950207.1910 EST) --

My perception (there I go again ;-)) was that Staddon was speaking of
responsible behavior in the way more commonly understood, that is,
some predictable behavior in social relationships of a kind that allows
society to continue to work.

Yes. So we know that Staddon has a reference for a society that
"works"; not for one that doesn't. For Staddon, responsible behavior is
not just any predictable behavior; it is predictable behavior that
matches Staddon's reference for the kind of behavior that allows
society to work. Predictable is NOT enough.

References like this are ubiquitous; everything in the world "reeks" of
them. We are surrounded by so much evidence of references -- of
preferred states of perceptual variables. It seems to go without saying,
for example, that having a working society is a "good thing". It hardly
seems possible that any other state of the perception of society could be
desired; yet there are obviously people who do desire other states of society
besides "working". Sometimes such people are retrospectively celebrated,
like those old rich guys who didn't like the workings of the society in some
colonies in the Americas and proceeded to violently make that society
stop working for a time -- something called a "revolution".

The issue is simpler, that of achieving common practical goals of
tolerable social conditions, hopefully by voluntrary agreements, but
sometimes coercive for the protection of you and me and our
children.

Great. All we are saying (besides "give peace a chance") is that this issue
has to be delt with in the context of the FACT that all people (including
those of us considering this issue) are perceptual control systems. The
only hope we have of improving society is to have a good, scientific
understanding of the nature of the systems that make up the society we
want to improve -- and the nature of the systems (ourselves) who are
trying to do the improving. Without such an understanding, we can't
even know what "improving society" might mean. With such
undertanding, we know that "improving society" can only mean
"reducing the ambient level of error experienced by every individual
living control system in that society"

It's not WHAT people control that matters (except, of course, to the
extent that such controlling interferes with what we are controlling) ;
it's HOW WELL they are able to control it. Successful solutions to
social problems (such as Ed Ford's program for dealing with social
problems in schools) are based on an understanding of fact that ALL
people -- those who make up the society to be improved and those who
want to do the improving --are living control systems. If this fact is
ignored (as, of course, it often is in conventional political approaches
to solving social problems) the result of even (especially?) the best-
intentioned social improvement program is bound to be immediate
(and sometimes fatal) conflict.

Now, back to the OJ trial.

Best

Rick