social stuff

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bill Powers (970517.2014 MDT)]

In a brief off-line discussion with Tom Bourbon, the subject of power came
up again. I was thinking that no one person actually has any power over
another, discounting one-on-one combat. Power is something that has to be
given by others: I'll help you control what you want controlled if you'll
help me similarly. But the situation gets asymmetrical when one person is
trading control with several others who aren't doing the same with each
other. Then the person in the middle starts having more power than the
surrounding individuals have. There are lots of things to ask about how a
person gets power -- how it starts, where the resources come from, and so
on. I'd like to know more about that.

But that isn't the main thing I've been thinking about, if you could call
musings while cutting down dead trees thinking. It's really Society that's
been on my mind -- the strange disparities between what PCT tells us and
what we find in the real world. PCT tells us that we're all basically
self-controlled, yet in social situations we seem to have not only some
people controlling others, but the ones who are being controlled acting as
if this is only natural and right. Of course I'm averaging over the
impressions of a fairly long life, and there is less of the doormat attitude
nowadays. But there is still a class structure, we still have royalty, we
still have heros and gurus and mentors and people who expect deference from
others and get it. We still have people who think they have a right to run
the lives of others; to judge them, to tell them what to do or think or
both, to arrange our social customs and laws for the benefit of some and at
the expense of others. And more puzzling, we have people who grant them this
right.

Cosmologists have been worried about the structure of matter in space. If
everything started with a single point-source bang, how could any
inhomogeneities ever have arisen? I have a similar problem with Society. Why
do not all people demand to be treated equally? Why is any person willing to
view another as somehow deserving better treatment? How do the imbalances
and inhomogeneities arise? And why are they, apparently, self-sustaining?
How do the have-nots conspire with the haves to keep the situation not only
the same, but increasingly inequitable?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. It seems to me that
sociological research using PCT ought to be able to answer them. But the
more I think about this problem, the less I understand about it. Any ideas?

Best,

Bill P.

2

[From Hugh Petrie (970519.1030 EDT)]

[Bill Powers (970517.2014 MDT)]

But that isn't the main thing I've been thinking about, if you could call
musings while cutting down dead trees thinking. It's really Society that's
been on my mind -- the strange disparities between what PCT tells us and
what we find in the real world. PCT tells us that we're all basically
self-controlled, yet in social situations we seem to have not only some
people controlling others, but the ones who are being controlled acting as
if this is only natural and right. Of course I'm averaging over the
impressions of a fairly long life, and there is less of the doormat attitude
nowadays. But there is still a class structure, we still have royalty, we
still have heros and gurus and mentors and people who expect deference from
others and get it. We still have people who think they have a right to run
the lives of others; to judge them, to tell them what to do or think or
both, to arrange our social customs and laws for the benefit of some and at
the expense of others. And more puzzling, we have people who grant them this
right.

Cosmologists have been worried about the structure of matter in space. If
everything started with a single point-source bang, how could any
inhomogeneities ever have arisen? I have a similar problem with Society. Why
do not all people demand to be treated equally? Why is any person willing to
view another as somehow deserving better treatment? How do the imbalances
and inhomogeneities arise? And why are they, apparently, self-sustaining?
How do the have-nots conspire with the haves to keep the situation not only
the same, but increasingly inequitable?

A group of us have been doing some reading this semester on critiques of
modernism and some of the material there gave me what might be the
beginnings of an insight into how this question could be approached. In
terms of successful control, the outputs have to be able to affect the
external environment in such a way as to bring one's perceptions under
control. In the natural world, this puts some limits on what we can
control, and, over time, and with evolution, we come to have control
systems that are compatible with the natural world.

I think something similar takes place in the social world. Insofar as we
simply have to negotiate everything wtih other control systems, it is much
more complicated and possibly likely not to always involve successful
control. I can well imagine a trial and error reorganization hitting at
some point on the notion of simply following the wants of a leader and
finding that I am getting most of my reference signals satisfied, if not
all, and the pace of my reorganization slowing down.

At a minimum, my having the ability to predict how the feedback loops will
work when they run through the external social world gives a certain amount
of stability to my efforts to control. Thus, tradition plays for the
social world the same role as the stability of nature plays for the natural
world.

In fact, both are changing more and more. We are changing the way in which
the natural world, through technology, affects us, and folks are more and
more questioning tradition. This means that stable parts of the external
environment are no longer so stable and we have to renegotiate how we, as
independent control systems, will operate.

Hobbes' old justification of life as nasty, brutish, and short in the
absence of government can be given a fairly straightforward PCT gloss and
may suggest why people do, in fact, give over power to others.

As for why does this become more inequitable, those in power see that they
are getting their reference signals satisfied and so, when threatened, they
try to arrange things so that they continue to do so even if others are not
getting as much. They tend to do this in ways that make the arrangements
look as if they are NOT modifiable. Divine Right of Kings, Everyone's
natural place in society, e.g., Smith's son, the "natural" place of women.
In more recent times, the notion of a meritocracy has also been used by
those in power to be sure that merit is defined as they want it and that
other ways of looking at merit get less attention. At the same time, if
you can get lots of people to believe that we do live in a meritocracy,
then I will be less inclined to think that I could, in principle satisfy my
reference signals for certain things if I don't have the capacity (merit)
for getting there.

None of this goes very far. But the key insight that social traditions can
provide a more or less stable environment through which feedback loops can
travel and can then result in some level of satisfying ones goals, is, I
think an important one.

···

===========+++++++++++===========***********===========+++++++++++===========

Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-2491
367 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2479
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

3

[From Bruce Gregory (970519.1810 GMT)]

Bill Powers (970517.2014 MDT)

Take a look at this. I think it bears on the questions you are
asking.

http://www.slate.com/Dismal/97-05-15/Dismal.asp

Regards,

Bruce

4

[From Bill Powers (960519.1310 MDT)]

Hugh Petrie (970519.1030 EDT)]

In terms of successful control, the outputs have to be able to >affect the

external environment in such a way as to bring one's >perceptions under
control. ...

I think something similar takes place in the social world. >Insofar as we

simply have to negotiate everything wtih other >control systems, it is much
more complicated and possibly >likely not to always involve successful
control. I can well >imagine a trial and error reorganization hitting at
some point >on the notion of simply following the wants of a leader and

finding that I am getting most of my reference signals >satisfied, if not

all, and the pace of my reorganization >slowing down.

I think that's the direction in which we have to look. But the way this is
usually done is by implication, under the table, by tacit agreement, and so
on. It's as though many social interactions are carried out according to
certain rules, but nobody is supposed to mention what the rules are. Or is
this just the result of not understanding PCT? Surely, there are people who
come right out and say, "If you'll support my candidacy [for example], I'll
see that you're taken care of." The power transaction is right out in the
open and it's clearly understood. But why aren't all interactions like this?
What's wrong with saying, "If you join my church, I'll patronize your
store?" What are all those background considerations that keep people from
just laying out the bargain? Why not just "If you'll treat me like a really
important professor, I'll give you an A?"
Could it be that some of the deals we would like to make would create
conflicts if stated too clearly?

At a minimum, my having the ability to predict how the feedback >loops will

work when they run through the external social world >gives a certain amount
of stability to my efforts to control. >Thus, tradition plays for the
social world the same role as the >stability of nature plays for the natural
world.

Right. Kent McClelland talked about this in connection with "social
contingencies," which are the analog of laws of nature.

In fact, both are changing more and more. We are changing the >way in

which the natural world, through technology, affects us, >and folks are more
and more questioning tradition. This means >that stable parts of the
external environment are no longer so >stable and we have to renegotiate how
we, as independent >control systems, will operate.

Wouldn't it make a difference if everyone knew that controlling one's own
life in a society requires the acquiescence, cooperation, or at least
non-interference of others?

None of this goes very far. But the key insight that social >traditions

can provide a more or less stable environment >through which feedback loops
can travel and can then result in >some level of satisfying ones goals, is,
I think an important >one.

I agree. Somewhere in here are the beginnings of a manual called "How to
live with other people."

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Hugh Petrie (970519.15;45 EDT0]

Bill Powers (960519.1310 MDT)]

Wouldn't it make a difference if everyone knew that controlling one's own
life in a society requires the acquiescence, cooperation, or at least
non-interference of others?

Absolutely! Although they might be much more complicated than current
understandings and much harder to agree to, the social contracts that might
result would almost certainly be much more reasonable and stable than when
they are based on unexamined tradition, women's place in the world, etc.

···

===========+++++++++++===========***********===========+++++++++++===========

Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-2491
367 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2479
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

6

[From Bill Powers (970519.1636 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (970519.1810 GMT)--]

Take a look at this. I think it bears on the questions you are
asking.

http://www.slate.com/Dismal/97-05-15/Dismal.asp

URL doesn't exist; access to www.slate.com/Dismal and other parts of the
address is forbidden. What's it about?

The animated logo for www.slate.com/ is funny.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Richard Kennaway (970520.1640 BST)]

[From Bill Powers (970519.1636 MDT)]
URL doesn't exist; access to www.slate.com/Dismal and other parts of the
address is forbidden. What's it about?

The link works for me. It's an article by Paul Krugman, an economist,
arguing that democracy is subject to the free rider problem: an informed
electorate would be in most people's interest, but for each individual,
it's enough that others be informed while they themselves apply their
limited time to matters that affect them more directly, like how to make
more money. Most people take that attitude, resulting in an uninformed
electorate and a political process subject to pressure groups and
corruption. The latter goes largely undetected because no-one is looking.
It's in politicians' interest to do people good turns of varying degrees of
legality in return for financial support.

His conclusion is that "there is ultimately no way to make government by
the people truly be government for the people. That is what rat choice
teaches, and nobody has yet proved it wrong--even in theory." "Rat" is
short for "rational", BTW.

There's a collection of articles by Krugman at that site, applying basic
economic theory to everyday life. (Did you know that monogamy can increase
the spread of sexually transmitted diseases?)

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
   School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

8

[From Bruce Gregory 9970520.1210 EDT)]

Bill Powers (970519.1636 MDT)

>
>http://www.slate.com/Dismal/97-05-15/Dismal.asp

URL doesn't exist; access to www.slate.com/Dismal and other parts of the
address is forbidden. What's it about?

The animated logo for www.slate.com/ is funny.

If you wait a few seconds, the table on contents appears. Then
click on 12. the dismal scientist. The current column deals with
the virtues and great limitations of democracy in terms of
special interests.

Bruce

9

[From Bill Powers (970520.1133 MDT)]

Richard Kennaway (970520.1640 BST)--

[From Bill Powers (970519.1636 MDT)]
URL doesn't exist; access to www.slate.com/Dismal and other parts of the
address is forbidden. What's it about?

The link works for me.

Today it worked for me, too, and I read the column.

This seems to me like a place where a PCT model could show us some
interesting things. "Rational choice" theory is really a theory about how
people control for what matters to them. The "rationality" of the choices is
secondary; what matters is that they take action to control some set of
variables, by whatever means is most readily available to them.

This really cries out for some modeling. My approach would be bottom-up: I'd
set up a lot of individuals controlling for some mix of variables, put them
in an environment where certain actions affect those variables, and set the
program in motion to see what happens. I think you'd get what LOOK like
social laws and relationships, but nobody would be controlling for them --
they'd be totally emergent. I haven't thought much beyond that; it's just a
way to start.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[Hans Blom, 970521]

(Hugh Petrie (970519.1030 EDT))

... the key insight that social traditions can provide a more or
less stable environment through which feedback loops can travel and
can then result in some level of satisfying ones goals, is, I think
an important one.

Yes, I think so too. The quality of control increases when the world
in which one lives is better predictable and more devoid of
"disturbances". That is why beavers build dams and humans roads --
and all those social institutions. Many animals make their
environment more predictable by changing it, but humans seem to do
this most. One may speculate about causes. Humans are, maybe, less
automata than other species which are more "instinctive", i.e. whose
behavior is more along fixed, unmodifiable action patterns. Humans
are better able, maybe, to tune their internal control system, and
also to modify their world and make the "environment function" more
noise-free.

Another insight is, maybe, that our goals are never truly satisfied.
One reason is that there are still disturbances, and that therefore
control is an active process that does not allow us to relax, just
like that thermostat must be "unstable" and keep switching the burner
on and off to achieve the "stability" of the sensed room temperature.
Another reason is that once we have gained the capability to control
one perception, immediately another goal seems to catch our
attention. We're much like hill-climbers, never satisfied with the
peak we find ourselves on, believing there must be even higher peaks
elsewhere. And that is not an unreasonable thought.

Greetings,

Hans

11

[From Bill Powers (970521.0530 MDT)]

Hans Blom, 970521 --

Another insight is, maybe, that our goals are never truly satisfied.
One reason is that there are still disturbances, and that therefore
control is an active process that does not allow us to relax, just
like that thermostat must be "unstable" and keep switching the burner
on and off to achieve the "stability" of the sensed room temperature.

Only the lowest-level goals can be achieved in a way that permits you to
relax afterward. The goal of making a living, or learning about the world,
or even just avoiding starvation, is not of that nature. When you're driving
a car, you can't say, "There -- the car is in its lane, so I can stop
steering now." People whose goal is to make a lot of money somehow never get
to the point where they have achieved the goal and can stop trying.
Goal-states or reference conditions are not just "achieved" as the end-point
of a process; they have to be _maintained_.

Another reason is that once we have gained the capability to control
one perception, immediately another goal seems to catch our
attention.

You're still speaking as if there were only one goal at a time.

Best,

Bill P.