Ship of Fools

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.21.0900)]

Bill Powers (2007.08.21.0658 MDT)--

What I'm thinking of as a substitute is reorganization (by everybody). But
to sustain reorganization, there must be something to be gained by it, for
everyone. And perhaps even more important, everyone must be perceiving the
situation from a high enough level of organization (individual, not group,
organization).

And I think one way to get people up a level is through humor.
Particularly satire but just blustering will do. We've been assuming
that "pushing" leads only to "pushing back". But when the pushing
points out foolishness or error it can lead to reorganization, as it
did when you "pushed" me into seeing that my framing of the problem
with psychological research in terms of IV-DV was wrong (after an
initial period of pushing back against your criticisms); and the
result was a reorganization of my thoughts that led to a much improved
paper. This is why I think consistently "pushing" against selfish and
destructive ideas using facts and humor can lead to reorganization. As
long as it's still OK to make fun of our leaders (and it is) then I
think the US is OK. Real dictators don't put up with being made fun
of.

Do you think Bush liked seeing himself portrayed as
Alfred E. Neuman, or as a stupid monkey? Do you think he wasn't embarrassed
by seeing his own mangled language in print, or hearing it quoted on comedy
shows?

I don't know whether he cares or not but, fortunately, someone is
portraying him that way. That's a wonderful thing. And that's why I
will continue to make fun of selfish and destructive ideas in this
forum. Most people who hold such ideas will push back -- anyone who
holds such ideas is not going to be able to go up a level anyway --
but I think it's important to keep making fun of these ideas, just so
that we know that we can. Humor is like the miner's canary; once
those in power start trying to prevent it then you know fascism is,
indeed, in the air. But as long as I can say "Bush and his cronies are
the biggest idiots, the most corrupt leaders and the ugliest, most
hypocritical, genocidal farts to ever have held office" without the
secret police showing up, I'll know things are still OK in the USA.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1140)]

Bravo!

--Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2007.08.21.0900)]

> Bill Powers (2007.08.21.0658 MDT)--
>
> What I'm thinking of as a substitute is reorganization (by everybody). But
> to sustain reorganization, there must be something to be gained by it, for
> everyone. And perhaps even more important, everyone must be perceiving the
> situation from a high enough level of organization (individual, not group,
> organization).

And I think one way to get people up a level is through humor.
Particularly satire but just blustering will do. We've been assuming
that "pushing" leads only to "pushing back". But when the pushing
points out foolishness or error it can lead to reorganization, as it
did when you "pushed" me into seeing that my framing of the problem
with psychological research in terms of IV-DV was wrong (after an
initial period of pushing back against your criticisms); and the
result was a reorganization of my thoughts that led to a much improved
paper. This is why I think consistently "pushing" against selfish and
destructive ideas using facts and humor can lead to reorganization. As
long as it's still OK to make fun of our leaders (and it is) then I
think the US is OK. Real dictators don't put up with being made fun
of.

> Do you think Bush liked seeing himself portrayed as
> Alfred E. Neuman, or as a stupid monkey? Do you think he wasn't embarrassed
> by seeing his own mangled language in print, or hearing it quoted on comedy
> shows?

I don't know whether he cares or not but, fortunately, someone is
portraying him that way. That's a wonderful thing. And that's why I
will continue to make fun of selfish and destructive ideas in this
forum. Most people who hold such ideas will push back -- anyone who
holds such ideas is not going to be able to go up a level anyway --
but I think it's important to keep making fun of these ideas, just so
that we know that we can. Humor is like the miner's canary; once
those in power start trying to prevent it then you know fascism is,
indeed, in the air. But as long as I can say "Bush and his cronies are
the biggest idiots, the most corrupt leaders and the ugliest, most
hypocritical, genocidal farts to ever have held office" without the
secret police showing up, I'll know things are still OK in the USA.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

And I think one way to get
people up a level is through humor.

Particularly satire but just blustering will do.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1045 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.21.0900) –

I don’t recall humor as being one of the intrinsic error signals. When
you use humor, you amuse mainly those who are already on your side; the
ones you’re mocking or ridiculing treat it as an attack, and what they do
in return is not likely to be funny. The only people who will go up a
level when made fun of are those who like you already, and want to please
you, and thus try to overcome their fear or embarrassment and avoid doing
anything that moves you to humor. Hostile humor is simply hostile; you
may think it’s funny, but the victim doesn’t.

When you try to make someone else reorganize, the first thing you have to
do is cause error in that person. You can say, “I’m doing this for
your own good,” but the other person will not believe you. When
humor is used as a weapon, its entertainment value shrinks to zero for
the person it is being used against. It’s simply a way of causing
suffering. Certain other people, of course, enjoy seeing someone suffer,
particularly if they can tell themselves that the other person is bad and
deserves it. That’s the main rationalization that torturers and bullies
use, isn’t it? They keep telling us that those prisoners down in
Guantanamo are the worst of the worst terrorists, so dangerous they have
to be kept in chains and under physical restraint whenever they’re
outside their cages. They deserve any discomfort we want to give them,
right?

Torture does work: it makes people reorganize whether they want to or
not.Is that your plan?

We’ve been
assuming

that “pushing” leads only to “pushing back”. But when
the pushing

points out foolishness or error it can lead to reorganization, as it

did when you “pushed” me into seeing that my framing of the
problem

with psychological research in terms of IV-DV was wrong (after an

initial period of pushing back against your criticisms); and the

result was a reorganization of my thoughts that led to a much
improved

paper.

Did I do that by using humor to make you feel small and ridiculous for
having mistaken IV-DV for stimulus-response? Did I call you names for
being so wrong?

This is why I
think consistently “pushing” against selfish and

destructive ideas using facts and humor can lead to reorganization.

It can, but the error that is driving the reorganization is not the one
you hope it will be. It’s their error, not yours. The outcome of the
reorganization is likely to be a more effective way of counteracting your
desires, or getting rid of you. Reorganization by someone else does not
correct your errors; it corrects the errors that the other person is
experiencing. What you want to happen is irrelevant.

When you push against others to make them change, you forget that from
their standpoint, you are the one making the mistake and being selfish,
wanting everything your way. When you find the system concept point of
view, it no longer matters who is right or who did what. What matters is
what is wrong with the system and what can be changed to fix it, whether
the change occurs in someone else or in you. Since you are equipped to
make changes only in your own organization, that is where the most useful
reorganization will always occur. That’s true of everyone. The internal
reorganization processes in the White House cadre made the changes we
have seen happening. That’s the only possible place those changes could
have been made. We still don’t know exactly what the changes were – all
we see are the outward signs and overt actions. I think it would be a
good idea to try to find out.

Do you think
Bush liked seeing himself portrayed as

Alfred E. Neuman, or as a stupid monkey? Do you think he wasn’t
embarrassed

by seeing his own mangled language in print, or hearing it quoted on
comedy

shows?

I don’t know whether he cares or not but, fortunately, someone is

portraying him that way. That’s a wonderful
thing.

So what you’re saying is “I don’t know and I don’t care.” If he
suffers, good, he deserves to suffer. His suffering doesn’t
matter.

And that’s why
I

will continue to make fun of selfish and destructive ideas in this

forum. Most people who hold such ideas will push back – anyone who

holds such ideas is not going to be able to go up a level anyway –

but I think it’s important to keep making fun of these ideas, just
so

that we know that we can. Humor is like the miner’s canary;
once

those in power start trying to prevent it then you know fascism is,

indeed, in the air. But as long as I can say "Bush and his cronies
are

the biggest idiots, the most corrupt leaders and the ugliest, most

hypocritical, genocidal farts to ever have held office" without
the

secret police showing up, I’ll know things are still OK in the
USA.

So as long as things are OK for you, if I understand what you’re saying,
it doesn’t matter that they aren’t OK for Bush and the people who support
him. Is it OK if Bush and his supporters adopt the same principle with
respect to you and those who agree with you? Or do you say that you don’t
have to be fair, so he doesn’t have to be fair, either? I don’t see
exactly the principles that you’re offering here.

Best.

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.21.1530)]

Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1045 MDT)--

> Rick Marken (2007.08.21.0900) --

And I think one way to get people up a level is through humor.
Particularly satire but just blustering will do.

I don't recall humor as being one of the intrinsic error signals.

Anything I say in reply to your excellent points would just be
defending the indefensible. I give. I'll just muddle along doing the
best I can.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

Anything I say in reply to your
excellent points would just be

defending the indefensible. I give. I’ll just muddle along doing the

best I can.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1735 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.21.1530) –

Yes. It really is true: one person can’t reorganize another person. Not
only that, when the other person does reorganize, the result is generally
unpredictable by anyone.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1940 CDT)]

Rick,

Don't give up so soon. You are forgetting: Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Bill Mauldin
(cartoonist during WW2), Sid Caesar, Lenny Bruce, Mel Brooks, Bill Cosby (then I
go blind from the sheer talent during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s,... [anyone chime
in with your favorites, I can't look on Wiki right now]), and all the comics who
have been on stage with an agenda. That agenda being to shed light on some
apparently immovable belief, stereotype or antagonistic agenda.

These comics clearly took their best verbal or visual weapons out and laid waste
to idiocy, bigotry, and stupidity. I think we are better for it, and we may even
be ALIVE NOW because humor was able to disturb the right people and enough that
they stopped and did some hasty reorganization.

Yes, it will undoubtedly lead to digging in of heels, an arms race and perhaps
some shunning. Lenny Bruce found that out. But Bill Cosby transcended it, now
didn't he? And let us not forget the yearly ribbing that leaders get from
Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Leno, and other popular observers (and
reflectors) of human behavior. They eventually get proven right. I cannot think
of a single comic who was proven wrong, even when condemned for being wrong with
the current regime and sent to his or her death.

No, don't discount the disturbance to the word space called humor.

--Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2007.08.21.1530)]

> Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1045 MDT)--
>
> > Rick Marken (2007.08.21.0900) --
>
>> And I think one way to get people up a level is through humor.
>> Particularly satire but just blustering will do.
>
> I don't recall humor as being one of the intrinsic error signals.

Anything I say in reply to your excellent points would just be
defending the indefensible. I give. I'll just muddle along doing the
best I can.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

These comics clearly took their
best verbal or visual weapons out and laid waste

to idiocy, bigotry, and stupidity. I think we are better for it, and we
may even

be ALIVE NOW because humor was able to disturb the right people and
enough that

they stopped and did some hasty reorganization.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1850 MDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1940 CDT) –

I see. So that has got us where we are today?

Maybe so. Or maybe mean humor is just mean.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1950)]

It could very well have stopped us from going beyond midnight on the doomsday
clock. No guarantee, but a survey of history would show that, until the regime
resorted to killing, humor rises with the seriousness of the situation one is
in. It is perhaps a behavior that reduces the error of being up to your ears in
it. Maybe humor needs to be mean to cause internal conflict.

I think we are up to our ears in it, but I wouldn't say that humor took us
there.

--Bryan

···

[Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1850 MDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1940 CDT) --

>These comics clearly took their best verbal or visual weapons out
>and laid waste
>to idiocy, bigotry, and stupidity. I think we are better for it, and
>we may even
>be ALIVE NOW because humor was able to disturb the right people and
>enough that
>they stopped and did some hasty reorganization.

I see. So that has got us where we are today?

Maybe so. Or maybe mean humor is just mean.

Best,

Bill P.

Hey, this is Jim Wuwert! I am new to the group, but I have read your archived posts and I have found them very thought provoking. In regards to the humor issue, Michael Savage frequently asks , “Where has satire gone in this nation? Everyone is so offended by it.” I have often found in my own life that satire and mean humor only alienates the people that I am trying to persuade to my thinking. It has never worked long term for me, but I agree at the time it is fun.

Bill mentioned in a different post that the justice system should be based on the search for truth. I agree. What do you envision as the perfect system? I believe that we should reduce the role of government and let the people/individuals run the system. Get the gov’t out of welfare, public education, licensing marriages, etc. They only step in if someone is going to get physically hurt. I think if the restrictions are reduced the perfect system will rise up as people will learn that they do not have to run over each other to get what they want.

I work in a high poverty school. Why shouldn’t the kids at my school have a choice to go to a better school.?If you loosen restrictions, then individuals will have more freedom to make that a reality. The more we tighten, the more the teachers and students act out and get aggressive.

Many professions have based everything on gaining power rather than adding life. For example, attorneys are growing in large numbers and scientists are shrinking in numbers. We would rather fight for power than discover how we can experience more joy, live longer, and be healthier.

What does the new system in our conutry look like? Does it involve chucking the Constitution and rewriting a new document that accounts for all people (white, black, latino, women, etc.)? With the least restrictive society? What does that picture look like?

Jim Wuwert
School Counselor
Cook Elementary School
336-727-2784 (work)
336-727-8458 (fax)

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Bryan Thalhammer bryanth@SOLTEC.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 08/21/2007 08:56PM
Subject: Re: Ship of Fools

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1950)]

It could very well have stopped us from going beyond midnight on the doomsday
clock. No guarantee, but a survey of history would show that, until the regime
resorted to killing, humor rises with the seriousness of the situation one is
in. It is perhaps a behavior that reduces the error of being up to your ears in
it. Maybe humor needs to be mean to cause internal conflict.

I think we are up to our ears in it, but I wouldn’t say that humor took us
there.

–Bryan

[Bill Powers (2007.08.21.1850 MDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.21.1940 CDT) –

These comics clearly took their best verbal or visual weapons out
and laid waste
to idiocy, bigotry, and stupidity. I think we are better for it, and
we may even
be ALIVE NOW because humor was able to disturb the right people and
enough that
they stopped and did some hasty reorganization.

I see. So that has got us where we are today?

Maybe so. Or maybe mean humor is just mean.

Best,

Bill P.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[From Bruce Nevin (2007.08.21.1900 PDT)]

These discussions of humor are pretty funny. When someone is the butt of a joke, it is generally a situation they would control not to be in, hence error, hence possibly conflict leading to reorganization, possibly conflict without reorganization, but there’s no particular reason I can see that they might become aware of what is behind the conflict (“go up a level”) unless maybe the humor is also the sort of communication that makes that suggestion in a way acceptable to them (as in the Sufi teaching stories). That’s not the butt of the joke kind of humor, though, is it. Even the bullying of a Gurdjieff isn’t set up to make the followers laugh at some unlucky schmoe’s expense. That kind of manufactured schadenfreude excludes the butt of the joke, the us vs. them of the sycophants’ shared snicker, we’re better than you. Conversely, work crew pranks as on a construction site are a form of hazing, a social leveller to a lowered common standard, we’ve seen you compromised so you’re no better than us.

/Bruce

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.22.0522)]

Just a second here.

It is storming and so I am up at 5am. This whole thing of humor has been
bothering me... There is incontrovertible evidence of how humor has been used to
defuse serious situations and issues. I cited some authors, but at this early
hour I am not going to provide a list of citations.

The point here is not that humor may or may not be mean, or that it may or may
not have its uses. What hit me like a flash of lightning is that Rick and I (and
perhaps other lurkers) are making assumptions about who uses humor and for what
tactical use. It is simple. We are talking here about BULLIES and how humorists
set out to deflate them. Check out your bully literature and you will see that
the parallels are very good.

Humor, when used BY bullies to harm their victims, is bad. Point to Bill. But
that is not what Rick and I were talking about. Our use of humor is defensive
ONLY, and SPECIFICALLYH against bullies (schoolyard, academic, business,
religious zealots, political, etc.) or those not paying attention who act like
bullies. Therefore, humor, when used against bullies to get them to stop harming
their victims, is social sanction used when advice to those bullies about
ethics, morality and common sense seems to fail.

Take whatever example you wish, but the goal is to expose the bully, as in the
case of the Emperor's new clothes, in order to short-circuit the bullying,
denial about bullying, the support of the bully by his allies, and recruiting of
additional allies in the search for justice. Humor exposes the subterfuge when
all else fails. I mean, when Nixon said, "Well, when the president does it that
means that it is not illegal," then you just had to push that idea over by a
hundred jokes, since it is patently false. Oh wait, now we have that idea going
forward again.... Bring out the humor and slog on...

* Likewise with illegal and unethical occupations of Iraq....
* Likewise with Libertarians who think they could exist in a vacuum, while they
drive on our roads, use our facilities and enjoy our community...
* Likewise with christianists, islamists, and zionists (even christo-zionists)
who would subvert and sacrifice our Constitution for their own cultic beliefs...
* Likewise with pyramid schemes who would take advantage of stupid people (our
relatives, friends and neighbors)...
* Likewise with all social dominators who would fail to respect members of the
community in which they live....

So, I therefore maintain: Humor, when used against social dominators (bullies,
in other words) can be very effective and used with accountability, is not only
ethically all right, but may be ethically required in many circumstances, even
when intimidation and death is at risk on the part of the humorist. Point to me
and Rick (we can share it).

There.

Peace,

--Bryan

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.0945)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.22.0522)--

Humor, when used BY bullies to harm their victims, is bad. Point to Bill. But
that is not what Rick and I were talking about. Our use of humor is defensive
ONLY, and SPECIFICALLY against bullies

But then Bill will point out (correctly) that whether one is a bully
or not is just a perception. Heck, I was (probably still am) seen as a
bully by some who I saw as bullies. Bully is in the eye of the
beholder.

I think we're just stuck and we will have to just muddle along as we
have been. PCT provides no solution; indeed, I think it shows that
there _is_ no solution, in the sense that there is some action one can
take to turn the people who one perceives as controlling for hurtful
system concepts (I agree with your list: Iraq invaders, Libertarians,
christianists, islamists, and zionists, pyramid schemers, social
dominators; I'd also add liberals like us who make life unpleasant for
those people;-)) into people who control for system concepts that are
actually best for the system. I once thought that an understanding of
human nature would lead people to control for good system concepts but
since 90% of PCTers control for system concepts I find appalling, I've
even given up on that. Now I'm just waiting for the rapture so that I
can live down here in peace;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.0935 MDET)]

Bruce Nevin
(2007.08.21.1900 PDT) –

These discussions
of humor are pretty funny. When someone is the butt of a joke, it is
generally a situation they would control not to be in, hence error, hence
possibly conflict leading to reorganization, possibly conflict without
reorganization, but there’s no particular reason I can see that
they might become aware of what is behind the conflict (“go up a
level”) unless maybe the humor is also the sort of communication
that makes that suggestion in a way acceptable to them (as in the Sufi
teaching stories). That’s not the butt of the joke kind of humor, though,
is it. Even the bullying of a Gurdjieff isn’t set up to make the
followers laugh at some unlucky schmoe’s expense. That kind of
manufactured schadenfreude excludes the butt of the joke, the us vs. them
of the sycophants’ shared snicker, we’re better than you. Conversely,
work crew pranks as on a construction site are a form of hazing, a social
leveller to a lowered common standard, we’ve seen you compromised so
you’re no better than us.

I think what it all comes down to is intent. If your intent is to
humuliate, you can choose a kind of humor that humiliates the victim
while amusing anyone else who is amused by someone else’s humuliation. If
you want to debas,e and ostracize someone, there is humor for that, too
– think of all the jokes about dumb niggers or Polacks, or for that
matter rednecks or the real Alfred E. Neuman. And if you want to
gently chide while reminding a person that there are higher values that
we share, you can find jokes and stories that carry that kind of message.
The kind of humor you use shows a lot about your intentions.

One of my favorite dubious jokes (everyone knows it by now) goes like
this: Cheney: Good news, 100 Brazilian troops are going to Iraq. Bush:
That’s wonderful! How many is a brazillion?

The switch in meaning of Brazilian to brazillion, so close to the common
“gazillion,” is a nifty little shock that is amusing by itself;
if the joke were changed so the innocent party was a six-year-old, we
would laugh but not in a hostile way. I’m giving you 10 Brazilian reales
for your birthday. Oh, gosh, thanks, how many is a brazillion, and what’s
a ray-all? But the party is the President, and the background point is
that Bush is an ignorant adult we want to slam, so the humor – the very
same joke, funny for the very same reason – becomes malicious. The
intent is to mock Bush for his ignorance, the way some children mock a
cripple for the gimpy way he walks.

In case anyone has somehow missed it (and this seems to be the case for a
few at least), in control theory conflict is not a good thing. It ties up
and removes from action at least two control systems, whether they are in
the same person or different people. Simply trying to overpower another
control system is a crude and ineffective way of getting what you want.
Changing the reference level works much better than trying to cancel the
maximum output that the control system can produce. That’s what we keep
saying about and to the Bush administration, but when I look around me I
see people who are nominally control theorists enthusiastically trying to
overpower the Bush administration to get what they want. I don’t care
whether they’re doing this with fists, bumper stickers, humor, or
bull-horns, it’s still crude and ineffective. It works, but we’re still
paying the costs for the way that method works, costs left over from
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and so on. Even the Civil War.
We’re paying the cost of overpowering those in the Middle East that we
have tried to force into our ways of life, and will continue to pay it as
long as resentment and the desire for revenge persist – which can be for
hundreds of years. Defeated human control systems don’t just go away.
They hate being defeated and they try to come back, and often they do
come back. So one defeat necessitates another, and the chain just adds
another link.

Smart solutions means long-term solutions, not solutions that are undone
as soon as you relax and turn your back. Not solutions that leave more
people than ever hating you and out to bring you down. A temporary
victory now can leave you dead tomorrow.

Since we can reorganize only ourselves, we can get others to do as we
want only by helping them see what they can reorganize, and listening to
what they say about what we can reorganize. We still have to decide for
ourselves what we need to change, and do the changing, and we have to let
others be free to do the same. If someone pushes back against something
you do, you’re disturbing something the other person is controlling, and
you need to stop and assess the situation to see if there’s another way
to get what you want, or something else equally valuable to want. If that
doesn’t work, you need to discuss the problem with the other person, to
find out what that person really wants, and find some way to satisfy both
of you. Not to satisfy yourself and to hell with what anyone else
wants.

The smart solution is not the one that wins the conflict, but the one
that removes its cause.

Best,

Bill P.

I think we’re just stuck
and we will have to just muddle along as we

have been. PCT provides no solution; indeed, I think it shows that

there is no solution, in the sense that there is some action one
can

take to turn the people who one perceives as controlling for hurtful

system concepts –
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1050 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.22.0945) –

At least when you’re discouraged you’re doing something different. To
paraphrase someone, solutions are like streetcars; if one of them doesn’t
work out, another one will be along soon. The important thing is to get
discouraged about the solutions you should be discouraged about and start
waiting for the next one.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1015)]

Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1050 MDT)--

At least when you're discouraged you're doing something different.

There's not really that many different things to do. The only thing
I'm doing different now is being discouraged.

To paraphrase someone, solutions are like streetcars

Yes. They are all basically the same. Actually, I can think of only a
few different solutions: fighting, reasoned discussion, humor, data
based discussion, discouragement. I've tried all of them and they are
equally ineffective. The only new solution possibility I've thought of
is the rapture idea, which may turn out to be the best;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

So, Rick paints a grim picture for PCT when he states that the only thing he is waiting on is the rapture. That makes me say, what’s the point? What’s the point in even trying?

My personal control system tells me that I was put on this earth for a reason and to fullfill a divine plan. I understand and accept that there will be people and things that do stuff that I do not like. They may even try to destroy my control system. I cannot eliminate them. I can only learn how to coexist with them. Isn’t that okay? It makes life interesting. It’s the world we live in. If a plant needs more water, it is going to seek it out. If a plant needs more sunlight it is going to seek it out. However, water and sunlight are not always going to be present at the exact time when the plant wants it. Hopefully, the plant will get it when it needs it.

Isn’t the point of the control system to get creative in finding the water and sunlight? Isn’t that the joy of life?

I see PCT as truth. I see it as factual. It is…whether you or I like it or not. It is the system.

Jim Wuwert
School Counselor
Cook Elementary School

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 08/22/2007 12:47PM
Subject: Re: Ship of Fools

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.0935 MDET)]

Bruce Nevin (2007.08.21.1900 PDT) –

These discussions of humor are pretty funny. When someone is the butt of a joke, it is generally a situation they would control not to be in, hence error, hence possibly conflict leading to reorganization, possibly conflict without reorganization, but there’s no particular reason I can see that they might become aware of what is behind the conflict (“go up a level”) unless maybe the humor is also the sort of communication that makes that suggestion in a way acceptable to them (as in the Sufi teaching stories). That’s not the butt of the joke kind of humor, though, is it. Even the bullying of a Gurdjieff isn’t set up to make the followers laugh at some unlucky schmoe’s expense. That kind of manufactured schadenfreude excludes the butt of the joke, the us vs. them of the sycophants’ shared snicker, we’re better than you. Conversely, work crew pranks as on a construction site are a form of hazing, a social leveller to a lowered common standard, we’ve seen you compromised so you’re no better than us.

I think what it all comes down to is intent. If your intent is to humuliate, you can choose a kind of humor that humiliates the victim while amusing anyone else who is amused by someone else’s humuliation. If you want to debas,e and ostracize someone, there is humor for that, too – think of all the jokes about dumb niggers or Polacks, or for that matter rednecks or the real Alfred E. Neuman. And if you want to gently chide while reminding a person that there are higher values that we share, you can find jokes and stories that carry that kind of message. The kind of humor you use shows a lot about your intentions.

One of my favorite dubious jokes (everyone knows it by now) goes like this: Cheney: Good news, 100 Brazilian troops are going to Iraq. Bush: That’s wonderful! How many is a brazillion?

The switch in meaning of Brazilian to brazillion, so close to the common “gazillion,” is a nifty little shock that is amusing by itself; if the joke were changed so the innocent party was a six-year-old, we would laugh but not in a hostile way. I’m giving you 10 Brazilian reales for your birthday. Oh, gosh, thanks, how many is a brazillion, and what’s a ray-all? But the party is the President, and the background point is that Bush is an ignorant adult we want to slam, so the humor – the very same joke, funny for the very same reason – becomes malicious. The intent is to mock Bush for his ignorance, the way some children mock a cripple for the gimpy way he walks.

In case anyone has somehow missed it (and this seems to be the case for a few at least), in control theory conflict is not a good thing. It ties up and removes from action at least two control systems, whether they are in the same person or different people. Simply trying to overpower another control system is a crude and ineffective way of getting what you want. Changing the reference level works much better than trying to cancel the maximum output that the control system can produce. That’s what we keep saying about and to the Bush administration, but when I look around me I see people who are nominally control theorists enthusiastically trying to overpower the Bush administration to get what they want. I don’t care whether they’re doing this with fists, bumper stickers, humor, or bull-horns, it’s still crude and ineffective. It works, but we’re still paying the costs for the way that method works, costs left over from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and so on. Even the Civil War. We’re paying the cost of overpowering those in the Middle East that we have tried to force into our ways of life, and will continue to pay it as long as resentment and the desire for revenge persist – which can be for hundreds of years. Defeated human control systems don’t just go away. They hate being defeated and they try to come back, and often they do come back. So one defeat necessitates another, and the chain just adds another link.

Smart solutions means long-term solutions, not solutions that are undone as soon as you relax and turn your back. Not solutions that leave more people than ever hating you and out to bring you down. A temporary victory now can leave you dead tomorrow.

Since we can reorganize only ourselves, we can get others to do as we want only by helping them see what they can reorganize, and listening to what they say about what we can reorganize. We still have to decide for ourselves what we need to change, and do the changing, and we have to let others be free to do the same. If someone pushes back against something you do, you’re disturbing something the other person is controlling, and you need to stop and assess the situation to see if there’s another way to get what you want, or something else equally valuable to want. If that doesn’t work, you need to discuss the problem with the other person, to find out what that person really wants, and find some way to satisfy both of you. Not to satisfy yourself and to hell with what anyone else wants.

The smart solution is not the one that wins the conflict, but the one that removes its cause.

Best,

Bill P.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/962 - Release Date: 8/20/2007 1:08 PM

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Martin Taylor 2007.08.22.14.37]

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.0935 MDET)]

...we're still paying the costs for the way that method works, costs left over from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and so on. Even the Civil War. We're paying the cost of overpowering those in the Middle East that we have tried to force into our ways of life, and will continue to pay it as long as resentment and the desire for revenge persist -- which can be for hundreds of years. Defeated human control systems don't just go away. They hate being defeated and they try to come back, and often they do come back. So one defeat necessitates another, and the chain just adds another link.

Smart solutions means long-term solutions, not solutions that are undone as soon as you relax and turn your back. Not solutions that leave more people than ever hating you and out to bring you down. A temporary victory now can leave you dead tomorrow.

You could offer an example of a smart solution: the Marshall Plan, which probably saved all of Western Europe from going Communist after World War II, and gave the USA tremendous credit and goodwill in Europe, credit which lasted two or three decades. It probably was financially the best investment the USA ever made. But the goodwill was badly dissipated over the last several decades by the kinds of action Bill cited, until now the USA is generally seen simply as a bully to be avoided when possible, and placated when not.

The smart solution is not the one that wins the conflict, but the one that removes its cause.

Amen to that!

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1200]

Hi Jim. Welcome to CSGNet. The custom here is to put headers like the
above on posts, I guess so we can reference them more easily. Maybe
you could say a couple of words about yourself, how you found CSGNet
and about your interest in PCT?

So, Rick paints a grim picture for PCT when he states that the only thing he
is waiting on is the rapture.

Actually, it was another modest attempt at humor, though given the
religious climate in America today I can see how you might think I was
serious.

I understand and accept that there
will be people and things that do stuff that I do not like. They may even
try to destroy my control system. I cannot eliminate them. I can only learn
how to coexist with them. Isn't that okay?

Sounds good to me!

Isn't the point of the control system to get creative in finding the water
and sunlight? Isn't that the joy of life?

That's one point. But I would say the main point of a control system
is to control. Control systems will reorganize (be creative) if they
are in a situation where control is failing. But reorganization is not
necessarily successful or pleasant to be around. If you put a lily in
a desert then all the reorganization (creativity) in the world won't
allow it to control what it needs to control; it will not survive.

So I really think it's best to think of the point of control systems
as being to control their own experience. Control systems that are in
control are the easiest to get along with. Control systems that are
reorganizing ("being creative") are not in control while
reorganization is going on and they can be very difficult to get along
with.

I would say that PCT implies that the best society is one where all of
the individual controllers in the society are controlling pretty well,
rather than reorganizing. The things that lead to reorganization are
the things that reduce people's ability to control: competition,
poverty, conflict in general. So a good society, from a PCT
perspective, would be one where the things that lead to reorganization
are reduced or eliminated. And that's the thing that's hard to do
because, just by trying to eliminate these sources of poor control, we
come into conflict with other controllers who don't want to eliminate
them. Hence, my (hopefully temporary) feelings of discouragement about
making society better; just by trying to do this one is likely to be
making things worse.

I see PCT as truth.

I think it's better to see it as a model that, so far, does a very
good job of explaining what we observe about behavior. I think it's a
poor idea to think of anything as truth. It's best, I think, to be
skeptical. Good way to avoid fanaticism.

I see it as factual.

A theory can't really be factual; it can only explain the facts. And
PCT does do a very good job of this, yes.

Best regards

Rick

···

On 8/22/07, Jim Wuwert <JDWuwert@wsfcs.k12.nc.us> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1210)]

Martin Taylor (2007.08.22.14.37)

You could offer an example of a smart solution: the Marshall Plan,
which probably saved all of Western Europe from going Communist after
World War II, and gave the USA tremendous credit and goodwill in
Europe, credit which lasted two or three decades. It probably was
financially the best investment the USA ever made.

I agree! But domestically, the best investment was surely the GI Bill,
which produced an educated middle class and paid itself back many fold
in increased productivity and GDP growth. I'd say that my generation
crapped things up but it was really started by Reagan, of my parents
generation. But Reagan was nothing compared to Bush II, who is of my
generation. The guys who got left out of the drugs, sex and rock and
roll were really pissed, I guess.

But the goodwill
was badly dissipated over the last several decades by the kinds of
action Bill cited, until now the USA is generally seen simply as a
bully to be avoided when possible, and placated when not.

When I was in Europe back in 1963 it was like being in heaven; they
loved Americans! Now when I go back I say I'm Canadian;-)

>The smart solution is not the one that wins the conflict, but the
>one that removes its cause.

Amen to that!

Amen, indeed. But how do you remove the cause of conflict without
getting into conflict? There's the rub!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

From Jim Wuwert (2007.08.22.1217PST)–I am on the east coast.

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 08/22/2007 02:56PM
Subject: Re: Ship of Fools

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1200]

Hi Jim. Welcome to CSGNet. The custom here is to put headers like the
above on posts, I guess so we can reference them more easily. Maybe
you could say a couple of words about yourself, how you found CSGNet
and about your interest in PCT?

I am a school counselor in Winston-Salem, NC. I have gone through ACT 1 training with Perry Good’s group–IAACT. I work in a low SES school. Most of the students come from bad situations. I have found success in applying PCT to working with the students. I am considering getting my PHd. I am not sure in what, either health psych or sports psych or counseling. I am not settled on what I want to study in depth. I am interested in engaging in this discussion to hopefully learn more about myself and what I want to do in the future. I have found the posts to be thought provoking and challenging. I hope they will help me decide what I will do in the future. I don’t see myself being a school counselor for the next 25 years. Thanks for having an open system and letting me join in.

So, Rick paints a grim picture for PCT when he states that the only thing he
is waiting on is the rapture.

Actually, it was another modest attempt at humor, though given the
religious climate in America today I can see how you might think I was
serious.

I understand and accept that there
will be people and things that do stuff that I do not like. They may even
try to destroy my control system. I cannot eliminate them. I can only learn
how to coexist with them. Isn’t that okay?

Sounds good to me!

Isn’t the point of the control system to get creative in finding the water
and sunlight? Isn’t that the joy of life?

That’s one point. But I would say the main point of a control system
is to control. Control systems will reorganize (be creative) if they
are in a situation where control is failing. But reorganization is not
necessarily successful or pleasant to be around. If you put a lily in
a desert then all the reorganization (creativity) in the world won’t
allow it to control what it needs to control; it will not survive.

So I really think it’s best to think of the point of control systems
as being to control their own experience. Control systems that are in
control are the easiest to get along with. Control systems that are
reorganizing (“being creative”) are not in control while
reorganization is going on and they can be very difficult to get along
with.

I would say that PCT implies that the best society is one where all of
the individual controllers in the society are controlling pretty well,
rather than reorganizing. The things that lead to reorganization are
the things that reduce people’s ability to control: competition,
poverty, conflict in general. So a good society, from a PCT
perspective, would be one where the things that lead to reorganization
are reduced or eliminated. And that’s the thing that’s hard to do
because, just by trying to eliminate these sources of poor control, we
come into conflict with other controllers who don’t want to eliminate
them. Hence, my (hopefully temporary) feelings of discouragement about
making society better; just by trying to do this one is likely to be
making things worse.

It seems to me like it is impossible not to be in a constant state of reorganization. Is it possible even to have perfect control on earth? Given the world we live in, can we only reduce the likelihood of reorganization, but not eliminate it entirely? Isn’t reorganization on this earth a given, a constant?

I see PCT as truth.

I think it’s better to see it as a model that, so far, does a very
good job of explaining what we observe about behavior. I think it’s a
poor idea to think of anything as truth. It’s best, I think, to be
skeptical. Good way to avoid fanaticism.

I see what your saying. Even whether people use models, but they can’t predict that it will rain on a given day and time with 100% accuracy all the time. Do you think it’s a poor idea to think God is truth? Can God be truth? What if I am not fanatical, meaning that I believe God is truth, yet I don’t force it on you, I let you work it out yourself? Even if you may do things that I think are harmful of untrue. It’s your control system, not mine.

I see it as factual.

A theory can’t really be factual; it can only explain the facts. And
PCT does do a very good job of this, yes.

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

···

On 8/22/07, Jim Wuwert JDWuwert@wsfcs.k12.nc.us wrote: