Science and Slowing Down

[From Fred Nickols (981125.0700 EST)]--

Bill Powers (981124.0615 MST)--
Someone remarked recently that the motivation for
many scientists, these days, is no longer the pursuit
of knowledge, but the hope of getting rich.

Chris Cherpas (981124.1111 PT)
I guess if it really gets us more knowledge, I'll buy it.

Bill Powers (981224.1343 MST)
I rather suspect that it slows us down. Science depends on the free and
open exchange of information. If information is held back to obtain a
commercial advantage, science loses.

That's a thorny problem for many companies. At my company,
there is considerable tension between the researchers, who
want the "free and open exchange of information" to which
Bill refers, and the more business-oriented managers and
executives who are looking to capitalize on that research
and to obtain commercial if not competitive advantage.

Bill's remark prompts me to ask if it might be possible to
split R&D, to focus R on the research and the free and open
exchange of information, and to focus D on the exploitation
of the fruits of that exchange.

It seems to me that to accomplish this would require three
different casts of characters: the researchers, the exploiters,
and the folks who could operate at the interface between the
two. Assuming this organizational arrangement might work,
success would then depend on the three sets of characters.
In PCT terms, what do you think each of the three would or
should be controlling for?

···

--

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

[From Bill Powers (981126.0741 MST)]

Fred Nickols (981125.0700 EST)--

Bill's remark prompts me to ask if it might be possible to
split R&D, to focus R on the research and the free and open
exchange of information, and to focus D on the exploitation
of the fruits of that exchange.

It seems to me that to accomplish this would require three
different casts of characters: the researchers, the exploiters,
and the folks who could operate at the interface between the
two. Assuming this organizational arrangement might work,
success would then depend on the three sets of characters.
In PCT terms, what do you think each of the three would or
should be controlling for?

You're forgetting the fourth player in this scheme: the one who enforces
it. That's the problem with planning societies. Unless the society emerges
naturally from the interactions among real diverse people, it can't be kept
in the same shape except by force.

Of course ideas are powerful and if enough people accept an idea, the shape
of social interactions will shift to a new equilibrium state. Here's one
that I think would have a lot of beneficial effects if many people adopted
it. The idea is to stop admiring people just because they're rich, and of
course to stop wanting to be one of them who is admire for that reason
only. In fact, we ought to treat people with very large amounts of money
the way we treat people who have big horrible tumors.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (981126.1028 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981126.0741 MST)

Of course ideas are powerful and if enough people accept an idea,
the shape
of social interactions will shift to a new equilibrium state. Here's one
that I think would have a lot of beneficial effects if many people adopted
it. The idea is to stop admiring people just because they're rich, and of
course to stop wanting to be one of them who is admire for that reason
only. In fact, we ought to treat people with very large amounts of money
the way we treat people who have big horrible tumors.

We don't admire the rich so much as we want to be like them--rich. Money
allows an intentional being to achieve more of its intentions. You are
counseling intentional systems to have fewer intentions. There's a long
history of trying to tell intentional systems what they ought to be
intending. The results are not encouraging. But you know that....

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (981126.0850)]

Bill Powers (981126.0741 MST)

The idea is to stop admiring people just because they're rich,
and of course to stop wanting to be one of them who is admire[d]
for that reason only.

Bruce Gregory (981126.1028 EDT)

We don't admire the rich so much as we want to be like them--rich.

Bill's idea (with which I completely agree) includes the (good,
I think) suggestion that we stop wanting to be like the rich, too.

Money allows an intentional being to achieve more of its
intentions.

True. But "rich" means having more money than one can possibly
use to satisfy tone's intentions. Being rich is like having 7000
ripe bananas in your pantry. You might be able to eat 100 or so
before they all rot. But you can't use all your "banana richness"
to satisfy your intention; your richness just deprives others of
bananas. Rich is just wasted wealth (leakage).

You are counseling intentional systems to have fewer intentions.
There's a long history of trying to tell intentional systems what
they ought to be intending. The results are not encouraging. But
you know that....

It was just a suggestion. As Bill said in the beginning of his
post, he is well aware of "the fourth player"...the one who
enforces [the idea]. That's the problem with planning societies."

PCTers are well aware of the fact that enforcing a good idea
is just as bad as letting a lousy idea prevail voluntarily.
Nothing but problems would result from trying to enforce
adoption of the idea of not admiring or emulating the rich. But
don't you think it would be great if people adopted this idea
voluntarily, based on their scientific (data and model-based)
understanding of how people and economies work, for instance?

Best

Rick

···

---

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