[From Rick Marken (940613.0830)]
Bill Leach (940612.18:06 EST(EDT)) --
I accept was I see as your point (that there is not a single complete
definition of "successful",
My point was that complex social interactions (complex from an observer's
perspective) may by a side effect of individuals controlling rather "simple"
variables. This is what we see in Powers' "Gatherings" program; some rather
complex social "appearances" (like the formation of perfect "rings" of
people) result as a side effect of individuals controlling for just their
proximity to other people and objects (no individual is controlling for the
perception of a ring, for example).
The best experimental demonstrations of my point were done by Tom Bourbon. I
think that Tom's apparently simple experiments on two person interactions
should be studied and comtemplated very seriously by all people interested in
how social behavior might work. Tom has shown, for example, that two people
can control a variable that could not possibly be controlled by either
individual alone; and they can do this without "trying" to cooperate (that
is, without trying to control a complex higher order variable); they do
it simply by learning to control the appropriate lower level variables. Tom
has shown some of the remarkable things that happen when two or more
control systems interact in the same environment; Tom's experiments are
really the beginning of a new sociology -- the science of interacting control
systems. The phenomena that result when control systems interact are quite
different than the phenomena that result when inanimate objects interact so
they deserve a special field of study -- sociology, the study of interacting
control systems.
I have a real "sore spot" with the "tree huggers". In the most extreme
cases, "anything natural is good and anything related to mankind is bad".
I have a problem with this too because I consider mankind, and the
controlling done by mankind, to be part of nature. An understanding of
all living systems as controllers could, I think, temper the dispute between
extreme presevationists and extreme "exploitationists" (I just made that
term up). After all, the preservationists are trying to control things as
much as the exploitationists are; they are exerting control, for example,
when they decide to keep a forest pristine and act to keep it that way. The
preservationists and expoitationists are in conflict because they are trying
to keep the same variables at different reference levels. The conflict
between these two groups will still be tough to resolve even after they have
learned PCT - - both groups will have to go up a couple of levels to see why
they are setting their goals where they are -- but at least both groups will
see that the issue is not whether people should or should not control nature;
we are ALL controlling nature, relative to different references, however.
Best
Rick