Starting Over

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
21

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.0541)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.05.2230)

That's impossible, from my point of view. But I can see how it might seem that
way to you. The person who can sell people anything is often considered the one
who really knows people. I think the person who really knows people is the one
who will offer but will not sell.

I have no idea what your last statement means. If you are less than
effective as a salesman, it is only because you have a tendency to
assume that you know what someone's goals are without applying the Test.
For example, neither I nor anyone else seems to have succeeded in
convincing you that the goal of an RTP teacher might be something other
than removing disruptive students from classrooms. Our loss.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

22

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.06.0830)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.0541)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.05.2230)

> That's impossible, from my point of view. But I can see how it might seem that
> way to you. The person who can sell people anything is often considered the one
> who really knows people. I think the person who really knows people is the one
> who will offer but will not sell.

I have no idea what your last statement means.

I think of sales as involving a lot of manipulation. You try to get a person to do
what you want, which is to buy a particular product. The manipulation technique most
often used in sales (from my experience) is deception, or at least shading the
truth. For example, implying that you will be swarmed over by hot babes if you drink
Miller Beer is, I believe, is shading the truth (all I got were dogs, though they
did look pretty hot after a few Millers). Or that we will keep al Queda from
getting WMD if we liberate Iraq. I think a person who really understands people as
controllers will refrain from trying to manipulate them using deception.

If you are less than
effective as a salesman, it is only because you have a tendency to
assume that you know what someone's goals are without applying the Test.

I meant to imply in my comment to which you refer that I don't think one's
effectiveness as a salesman is a measure of how well one "knows people". I agree
that salesmen have to know something about people in order to manipulate them. What
you have to know is basically what Skinner knew about rats: that they will do
whatever is necessary to get food, sex and safety. So if you can get control (real
or apparent) of a person's ability to get food, sex or safety you can get that
person to do (ie. buy) what you like. Beer companies use deception to convince
people that their product is the way to get sex. The Bush administration uses
deception to convince people that support of their policies is the only way to be
safe from terrorists.

What I was trying to say in the sentence you didn't understand is that I think a
person who "knows people" not only knows what Skinner, advertisers and the Bush
administration knows -- how to manipulate people using deception -- but they also
know why _not_ to use it.

For example, neither I nor anyone else seems to have succeeded in
convincing you that the goal of an RTP teacher might be something other
than removing disruptive students from classrooms.

Then you have misunderstood me. I never needed any convincing about this. I have no
doubt that the goals of the RTP teacher (like those of all good teachers) include
something other than removing disruptive students from class. All I've said is
that, whatever the goals of the teacher might be, one of the most effective aspects
of the program is that disruptive kids are removed from the class promptly and with
minimal commotion.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

23

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1035 EDT)] --

Rick Marken (2003.05.05.0940)]

Fred Nickols (2003.05.05.1132 EDT) --

>Where that takes me, then, is I see the sense of your statement
> below about spending the day maintaining a series of r states and I also
> see the sense of what Marc says about spending the day dealing with
> errors. ...We could also say that we spend the day varying our behavior
> so as to keep things under control ... In short, I'm of the
> opinion that you are both saying the same thing using different words and
> from a different angle with respect to the basic PCT model.

But it seems to me that this doesn't explain why Marc says that people are
often
correcting errors _rather than_ maintaining control (reaching goals). I
kind of
like the explanation of this that I gave in my last post (Rick Marken
(2003.05.04.2215)). What Marc seems to be describing when he says that
people are
correcting errors rather than reaching goals is the experience one has
when one is
in conflict. When one is in conflict one actually _does not_ have control
of the
perceptions involved in the conflict. So it _feels like_ one is not reaching
goals. What one does notice is that sometimes one's actions combine with
circumstances to produce one of the perceptions involved in the conflict
(food or
the inability to get at food). So it _feels like_ there has been error
correction
(even though error remains in the system controlling for the other
perceptions).
Doesn't this sound like what Marc is getting at?

I don't know. Marc's response to what I said above was that I "nailed it"
so I'm left with your remarks above which, in light of Marc's response to
my post, suggest that you read his original remarks different than I
did. The key difference seems to be what you say above about correcting
errors RATHER THAN maintaining control. I didn't see the "rather than"
implication, although it might be there (and only Marc can say for
sure). I simply saw it as talking about the same thing from two different
perspectives (kind of like the blind men and the elephant although, in the
case, all the blind men know a heck of a lot more about this particular
elephant [PCT] than the fabled blind men knew about their elephant).

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

24

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1040 EDT)] --

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503) ]

> Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1130)]

There has to be a better way. It took 3 days to communicate a realtively
minor point. I think it prove useful to have a "tighter" reign on our
"definitons". It's not required but merely helpful. Do you disagree with
this?

Some of the difficulty owes, I suspect, to the medium (i.e., the written
word). I suspect the same understanding (whatever it might be) could have
been reached in almost no time in a face-to-face conversation.

> I think this has been a very successful communication, based on our mutual
> familiarity with the english language.

I agree. But it should happen more often on the net. We used a lot of energy
and time in "resollving" this issue. Others have not been as patient as you
and I were. It takes work to communicate effectively and is not always easy.
A good lexicon can only help.

Maybe, maybe not. "Definitions are in the dictionary," said some wag, "and
meanings are in people." Many sciences and areas of professional practice
have sought a precise, stable, unambiguous language as a means of ensuring
clean, clear communications, yet clarity often eludes them. People, even
(or especially) professionals still read things into other things. So, a
lexicon might help but, in my opinion, it won't eliminate the problems
arising from written communications.

I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
sufficent enough answer. :slight_smile:

That depends, Marc. It might be perfectly sufficient for Rick and not so
for you.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

25

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1047 EDT)] --
\

Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1345)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503) ]
>
> I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
> reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
> sufficent enough answer. :slight_smile:

Yes, I agree that a good lexicon can help. But I think we already have a good
lexicon: Webster's dictionary and the OED cover the word thing nicely, I
think.
And Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ covers the sentence and higher
level
nicely. We also have the B:CP glossary and the glossary at the end of the ABS
issue I edited. Commuication is a very complicated process. It takes
great skill
to do it well. I think learning the skill of communication -- how to write
clearly
-- would make a far greater contribution to effective communication on
CSGNet than
would developing a tighter lexicon.

Perhaps we should require that people prove that they have taken (and
passed with
a B or better) a writing course before they start trying to communicate on
CSGNet. I prefer that solution to a tight lexicon.

To what Rick says above I would add one thing: "Chill out before sending
out." Far too many emails -- on this list and on many others -- strike me
as having been composed and sent in the heat of an intensely negative
reaction to something someone else wrote. That leads to flaming and all
sorts of negative things, none of which seem particularly productive.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

26

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1052 EDT)] --

>From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1715)]

"Communication" begins and ends with a common "understanding" of
words and concepts.

Actually, that's contrary to everything I was taught and think I know about
communication. Certainly, such a common understanding has always been
believed to be desirable but it is an elusive goal, even among scientists
and professionals who consciously strive toward a precise language. I
think successful communication begins with different understandings of
whatever is being discussed and ends with the parties satisfied that their
understandings sufficiently correspond to one another for practical
purposes. I also don't know anyone who's studied interpersonal
communications who believes that one-to-one correspondence of understanding
is ever reached between two people let along among more than two.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

27

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1255 EDT)] --

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1151)

> [From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1047 EDT)] --

> To what Rick says above I would add one thing: "Chill out before sending
> out." Far too many emails -- on this list and on many others -- strike me
> as having been composed and sent in the heat of an intensely negative
> reaction to something someone else wrote. That leads to flaming and all
> sorts of negative things, none of which seem particularly productive.

Is this directed at me? What do I have to "chill out" from if it is? I see
nothing in my response except a smiley to denote that the above statement
was said with a smile on my face. Maybe a convention of a smiley _before_
and _after_ the word or statement would help signify that kind of "attitude"
surrounding the word or passage. What do you think?

I think making statements and not asking questions of clarification lead to
flames. Rick ,Bruce Nevin and I showed what can happen when people Inquire
instead of simply trying to out talk or shout each other. I really liked
what happened. How did you see it?

Yes, it's kind of directed at you -- but not you only. I've seen what I
consider inflammatory remarks by you (and by others) -- even when they
weren't directed at me. Whether or not they were justified I can't say but
my take on them is that they seemed to generate more heat than light.

I agree with your assessment of making statements vs asking questions.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

28

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1300)] --
\

Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1202) ]

> [From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1040 EDT)] --

> Some of the difficulty owes, I suspect, to the medium (i.e., the written
> word). I suspect the same understanding (whatever it might be) could have
> been reached in almost no time in a face-to-face conversation.

I don't think so. I understand what you are saying here, and in _most_ cases
I would agree 100%, but not, in this particular case. It certainly would not
have taken 3 days. But it was the _process_ that was effective not the way
( i.e. by voice or written word ) we communicated. We needed to uncover
meanings about other meanings, etc. That required inquiry. That inquiry
required _listening_ and _reflection_ on what was really "meant" by what we
"mean" :slight_smile: and It was "required" by _both_ of us. This takes time, insight,
patience, and lots of practice. I think Rick and I did a yeoman job of it
actually. I was more impressed with Ricks willingness to go through the
process then I was with his PCT argument. :slight_smile:

Well, I was a spectator not a participant so I can't judge from the
participant's perspective. I will say this: The smiley-face symbol [ :slight_smile: ]
is suspect in my mind most of the time because it is so often used to cover
snide remarks. For the most part, I ignore it and focus on the words --
which I tend to take at face value unless I have good reason to do otherwise.

> Maybe, maybe not. "Definitions are in the dictionary," said some wag,
"and
> meanings are in people." Many sciences and areas of professional practice
> have sought a precise, stable, unambiguous language as a means of ensuring
> clean, clear communications, yet clarity often eludes them.

I see this differently. _All_ sciences, proffessions, clubs, cities,
regions, jobs, company's, etc. have their own lexicon. It may not always be
published, and it may not always be widely disseminated, but they are there.
The purpose of a lexicon is not to facilitate "definitions". It's to
facilitate "understanding" _between_ people not for an individual. For that
we each have our own set of perceptions and ideas about things.

Hmm. It seems to me that I've said that the purposes served by a lexicon
(i.e., ensuring clear communications) aren't always well served by a
lexicon and that you're saying that a lexicon facilitates understanding
between people. I think that's what a lexicon does, too, but not as
reliably as we might like. I'm not sure where that leaves us.

There is no such animal as a "precise" word. In fact the word "precise" has
7 different "meanings" in the dictionary

I think that my use of "precise" with respect to language refers to what I
think Bill P is talking about when he talks about "technical"
usage. Perhaps a better example can be drawn from my days in naval
ordnance and gunnery. There, we had what were called a set of standard
commands. "Load," for example, meant one thing and one thing only. "Load
and shoot" meant something else but only one thing else. "Commence fire"
meant something else and so on. And, of course, these various
single-meaning terms could be strung together to form still more unique
commands (e.g., six rounds, rapid continuous fire, commence fire). Perhaps
"unambiguous" would be a better label than "precise" (but I suppose the
definitions of unambiguous and numerous -- and ambiguous to boot).

>People, even
> (or especially) professionals still read things into other things. So, a
> lexicon might help but, in my opinion, it won't eliminate the problems
> arising from written communications.

The purpose is not to "eliminate". That is impossible. It is to _reduce_
both the frustration and time and to _increase_ our "learning" in
"communicating" with one another.

That sounds reasonable to me.

> >I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
> >reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
> >sufficent enough answer. :slight_smile:
>
> That depends, Marc. It might be perfectly sufficient for Rick and not so
> for you.

I made the above statement with a smile on my face of incredulousness. Of
course it might be sufficient for Rick. I just can't believe that would be
sufficient.

See my remarks about the smiley-face above. Ditto for LOL and ROTFL and
ROTFLOL.

What are your thoughts on my response to this post? I am interested in
knowing.

My responses are set forth above. If you want something else, you'll have
to be more specific.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

29

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1320)] --

Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1253) ]

> [From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1052 EDT)] --

> > >From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1715)]
> >
> >"Communication" begins and ends with a common "understanding" of
> >words and concepts.
>
> Actually, that's contrary to everything I was taught and think I know
about
> communication. Certainly, such a common understanding has always been
> believed to be desirable but it is an elusive goal, even among scientists
> and professionals who consciously strive toward a precise language. I
> think successful communication begins with different understandings of
> whatever is being discussed and ends with the parties satisfied that their
> understandings sufficiently correspond to one another for practical
> purposes. I also don't know anyone who's studied interpersonal
> communications who believes that one-to-one correspondence of
understanding
> is ever reached between two people let along among more than two.

How do you interpret what I said to be any different then what you said? I
quoted understanding for that very reason. I agree with you statement
completely.

Hmm. Allow me to be a little picky here. What you agree with isn't really
my statement but whatever meaning you've attached to my statement. Left
unknown is whether or not your meaning and mine are the same, highly
similar, or dissimilar enough to be problematic at some point.

In making the original post, I was focusing on the distinction between
words and meanings. Take "blue" for example. That word/concept covers a
host of instantiations. I can also talk about a "blue car" and conjure up
another set of instantiations. I can talk about "royal blue" and "robin
egg blue" and invoke still more possibilities. So, if I'm relying on words
to convey to you something that I have seen, I don't really know if what
you're imagining is anywhere close to what I've seen. If we're lucky and
that something happens to be at hand, I can point to it and we can both
look at it and I can say, "See what I mean?" Absent the referent, we're
off in the abstract world of symbols (visual in the case of the written
word and audial in the case of the spoken word). So, although we might
shoot for a "common understanding," most of the time I think we settle for
something that is often jokingly referred to as, "Close enough for
government work" (in other words, an approximation).

Where I think I might have missed your point is that your original
statement says that " 'Communication' begins and ends with a common
'understanding' of words and concepts." I took you to be saying that the
foundation of communication is a common language. Why? Because your use
of "begins and ends with." Although the aim of communication is generally
a common understanding (whether of words and concepts or of other matters),
it rarely begins there. I had difficulty seeing how a common understanding
could be the beginning point and the ending point of communication.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

30

from [Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1151)

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1047 EDT)] --
\
>Rick Marken (2003.05.05.1345)]
>
> > Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1503) ]
> >
> > I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain

your

> > reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
> > sufficent enough answer. :slight_smile:

To what Rick says above I would add one thing: "Chill out before sending
out." Far too many emails -- on this list and on many others -- strike me
as having been composed and sent in the heat of an intensely negative
reaction to something someone else wrote. That leads to flaming and all
sorts of negative things, none of which seem particularly productive.

Is this directed at me? What do I have to "chill out" from if it is? I see
nothing in my response except a smiley to denote that the above statement
was said with a smile on my face. Maybe a convention of a smiley _before_
and _after_ the word or statement would help signify that kind of "attitude"
surrounding the word or passage. What do you think?

I think making statements and not asking questions of clarification lead to
flames. Rick ,Bruce Nevin and I showed what can happen when people Inquire
instead of simply trying to out talk or shout each other. I really liked
what happened. How did you see it?

Marc

31

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1202) ]

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1040 EDT)] --

Some of the difficulty owes, I suspect, to the medium (i.e., the written
word). I suspect the same understanding (whatever it might be) could have
been reached in almost no time in a face-to-face conversation.

I don't think so. I understand what you are saying here, and in _most_ cases
I would agree 100%, but not, in this particular case. It certainly would not
have taken 3 days. But it was the _process_ that was effective not the way
( i.e. by voice or written word ) we communicated. We needed to uncover
meanings about other meanings, etc. That required inquiry. That inquiry
required _listening_ and _reflection_ on what was really "meant" by what we
"mean" :slight_smile: and It was "required" by _both_ of us. This takes time, insight,
patience, and lots of practice. I think Rick and I did a yeoman job of it
actually. I was more impressed with Ricks willingness to go through the
process then I was with his PCT argument. :slight_smile:

Maybe, maybe not. "Definitions are in the dictionary," said some wag,

"and

meanings are in people." Many sciences and areas of professional practice
have sought a precise, stable, unambiguous language as a means of ensuring
clean, clear communications, yet clarity often eludes them.

I see this differently. _All_ sciences, proffessions, clubs, cities,
regions, jobs, company's, etc. have their own lexicon. It may not always be
published, and it may not always be widely disseminated, but they are there.
The purpose of a lexicon is not to facilitate "definitions". It's to
facilitate "understanding" _between_ people not for an individual. For that
we each have our own set of perceptions and ideas about things.

There is no such animal as a "precise" word. In fact the word "precise" has
7 different "meanings" in the dictionary

People, even
(or especially) professionals still read things into other things. So, a
lexicon might help but, in my opinion, it won't eliminate the problems
arising from written communications.

The purpose is not to "eliminate". That is impossible. It is to _reduce_
both the frustration and time and to _increase_ our "learning" in
"communicating" with one another.

>I can't imagine you disagreeing with this. If you do, please explain your
>reasoning. Simply stating the fact that we were successful is not a
>sufficent enough answer. :slight_smile:

That depends, Marc. It might be perfectly sufficient for Rick and not so
for you.

I made the above statement with a smile on my face of incredulousness. Of
course it might be sufficient for Rick. I just can't believe that would be
sufficient.

What are your thoughts on my response to this post? I am interested in
knowing.

32

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1253) ]

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1052 EDT)] --

> >From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1715)]
>
>"Communication" begins and ends with a common "understanding" of
>words and concepts.

Actually, that's contrary to everything I was taught and think I know

about

communication. Certainly, such a common understanding has always been
believed to be desirable but it is an elusive goal, even among scientists
and professionals who consciously strive toward a precise language. I
think successful communication begins with different understandings of
whatever is being discussed and ends with the parties satisfied that their
understandings sufficiently correspond to one another for practical
purposes. I also don't know anyone who's studied interpersonal
communications who believes that one-to-one correspondence of

understanding

is ever reached between two people let along among more than two.

How do you interpret what I said to be any different then what you said? I
quoted understanding for that very reason. I agree with you statement
completely.

Marc

33

from [Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1259)]

Purpose: I'm butting in here to address a passage of Rick's in his reply to
B. Gregory.

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.06.0830)]

I think of sales as involving a lot of manipulation. You try to get a

person to do

what you want, which is to buy a particular product.

Yes, _BAD_ sales people and crooks think they can "persuade" others to do
what they want. Sometimes by being dishonest and pretending that what they
are selling is what the person is actually looking for are one in the same,
the "buyer" is "taken". But to paint all salespeople with the same brush is
not useful. Real good sales people can be of tremendous help if they are
honest. The same btw, be said of anyone in any profession.

The manipulation technique most
often used in sales (from my experience) is deception, or at least shading

the

truth. For example, implying that you will be swarmed over by hot babes if

you drink

Miller Beer is, I believe, is shading the truth (all I got were dogs,

though they

did look pretty hot after a few Millers). Or that we will keep al Queda

from

getting WMD if we liberate Iraq. I think a person who really understands

people as

controllers will refrain from trying to manipulate them using deception.

Your are confounding "sales" with _advertising and promotion_. Sorry.
Different animals. Yes adverising and prromotion are geared toward the
largest audience with what the manufacturer or producer of the product feel
is the biggest appeal of the product. Beer of course has nothing to do with
babes direstly but the implications are clear. Look at car ads, cosmetic
ads, etc. It is the job of both advertising and promotion to make people
aware of the availabilty of a product. It is sometimes unfortunate when
people are not honest in their presentation of benefits. The job of the
"marketer" is to "understand" which "markets" and demograhics are suitable
for this product and maximize the interaction of the two. It is the job of
the salesperson to see if any one individaul might benefit from the use of
the product. Successful sales people spend lots of time with people who want
what they are sellin g and the salespeople have lots of things the people
want. That is how it works. (usually :-))

I meant to imply in my comment to which you refer that I don't think one's
effectiveness as a salesman is a measure of how well one "knows people".

I agree

that salesmen have to know something about people in order to manipulate

them.

_WRONG_. I`don't have to know "jack" about you to "manipulate" you. People
are in general _VERY_ greedy. They want as much as they can get of something
for as little as they can get it for. It is these people who are most
exposed to cons and thieves. They are the ones who "buy" into the "fabulous"
"deals". If you expect a salesperson to _tell_ you what you should think,
you deserve what you get. Of course if someone is very cleverly _lied_ to,
there is little anyone can do, but again that holds true _EVERYWHERE_.

Marc