Testing for "Right Wing" Controlled Variables

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 20 0649 MDT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.19.14.02]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 19 1111 MDT]

Rick,

Would it be fair to say that value some of the European societies more
than the one you are continuing to live in for some reason? Is it
lack of language skills that keeps you here, or their closed door
policies there? For me, the US is closer in practical political terms
to achieving the type of society I prefer, although I can't say I'm
optimistic.

Regards,
    -- Martin L

Rick is trying to find out what kind of society you prefer -- what would
be the various reference values for states you would act to bring about
if you had the power, regardless of their practicability in actual
economics. For example:

1: For children suffering from starvation, is your reference value that
these should be a high or low proportion of all children?

Everything being equal, it should be higher. That is one of the reasons I
don't have pets that require high quality protein. It is one of the
reasons I am an outspoken opponent of the ethanal mandates and subsidies,
and and one of the reasons I agree with the Gates Foundation, and the
economist Lomborg that intensive agriculture is to be preferred over
"sustainable" agriculture. I oppose high levels of mandatory government
financed "charity", because such programs are often nationalistic, tying
up resources that some private decision makers might more productively
employ overseas.

But obviously, I have other competing values demonstrated by the decisions
I make daily. I'm not willing to become a vegetarian myself for instance,
or to ban ownership and feeding of pets requiring high quality protein.
BP mentioned Kant's principle of universalizability, and I agree, I'm not
willing to impose on others restrictions or mandates, I wouldn't want
imposed on myself.

But reducing suffering of children from starvation is not the beall and
endall. I'd like to think that like the west Berliners during the
blockade and airlift, that I would be willing to starve my own children
than take the offer of the Russians to crossover to east Berlin for food.
I'm not willing to sacrifice the future and feed the starving seed corn.
I'm not willing to give up all R&D for current consumption, even when
others are starving. Even if children are starving, I still hope to be
able to start my children off with a safe, reliable vehicle when they get
married.

A tough issue for me also is the preservation of habitat for other
species, excluding poor people from exploiting resources and farming in
wildlife preserves in Africa. As much as I'd hate to lose species such as
elephants, rhinos, giraffes, lions, hyenas, etc. I think at the limit,
I'd have to come down on the side of the children.

2: For children living in luxury, is your reference value closer to "all
children" or to "no children"? (I consider "few children" to be closer
to "no" than to "all", and "many children" to be closer to "all" than to
"no".

It is much closer to "all".

2a: How do you define "luxury" when deciding your answer to 2?

I'd say access to public libraries, internet and cable and satellite TV.

3: For adults in general, considering "rich" to be "having the ability
to control most important perceptions" and "poor" to be "having the
ability to control only a few of the most important perception", is your
reference value for the proportion of people who are "poor" that it
should be high or low?

4: Same question as 3, but asking about the proportion of people who are
"rich"; should it be high or low?

I'm not sure I understand these two questions. Everything being equal, I
prefer that everyone be able to control most important perceptions. But
I'm not sure this is necessarily related to "poor" or "rich" in material
terms. It depends on what people are controlling for.

5: Are the above questions asking about perceptions for which you have
reference values?

I'm not sure about 3 and 4. I probably do have reference values for most
things, based up what I understand of your earlier questions. But I'm not
willing to force indigenous poor people off reservations and to acquire
decent jobs skill and assimilate. I'm not willing to force poor people
who work for the peace corp to give up their passion and seek higher
paying jobs. Is that what you mean?

I know my answers to these questions, and I can guess what Rick's
answers might be, but from your messages in this and other threads, I
cannot guess what yours might be. To know those answers might ease
future conversation about PCT in general.

I suspect that Rick and I are not far apart on these.

···

On 8/19/12 12:14 PM, "Martin Taylor" <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET> wrote:

Martin T

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.20.09.56]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 20 0649 MDT]

Your answers to my questions are encouraging. They suggest that the differences between you on the one hand and Rick, Bill P., and me on the other are more in our understanding of how the world works than in what we would like to see as the result of acting on the world.

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.19.14.02]

1: For children suffering from starvation, is your reference value that
these should be a high or low proportion of all children?

Everything being equal, it should be higher.

That's all I wanted to know.

But obviously, I have other competing values demonstrated by the decisions
I make daily.

Quie so. As do we all. Resolving such conflicts is what reorganization is all about. If Bill P. is right about the machinery of reorganization, no two people are likely to arrive at precisely the same organization, especially in respect of perceptions on whose levels our own actions have little influence.

We are all likely to arrive at similar organizations at reasonably low levels of the hierarchy, because there, out actions directly and rapidly influence the level of the controlled perception. At higher levels, this is not so, and our control is largely in imagination -- we may believe that if everyone voted the way we vote, the perceived state of the world would move closer to the way we would like it to be, but we will never know, in part because those who vote the other way inhibit the ability of those who vote our way to act fully as we would wish, in part because the people who we vote in do not act exactly as we would wish, and in part because usually the effects we hope for would take years or decades to become apparent.

But reducing suffering of children from starvation is not the beall and
endall.

Of course not. I could have asked for reference values on a lot of things, and thought of doing so in my post. I asked only about a few things that seemed to me to be salient in Rick's view of what you had as reference values. Bringing other controlled perceptions into play introduces the possibility of conflict. I wanted to avoid that consideration in asking the questions, which was why I excluded "practicality" in asking for your answers.

2: For children living in luxury, is your reference value closer to "all
children" or to "no children"? (I consider "few children" to be closer
to "no" than to "all", and "many children" to be closer to "all" than to
"no".

It is much closer to "all".

2a: How do you define "luxury" when deciding your answer to 2?

I'd say access to public libraries, internet and cable and satellite TV.

That's a very interesting selection. It's very different from how I would have defined "luxury". I probably wouldn't have included any of those in my list, which would at least have included things like access to whatever food might be desired, ability to go wherever one wanted at one's choice of timing, assurance that one would not be physically or mentally attacked, and things like that.

3: For adults in general, considering "rich" to be "having the ability
to control most important perceptions" and "poor" to be "having the
ability to control only a few of the most important perception", is your
reference value for the proportion of people who are "poor" that it
should be high or low?

4: Same question as 3, but asking about the proportion of people who are
"rich"; should it be high or low?

I'm not sure I understand these two questions. Everything being equal, I
prefer that everyone be able to control most important perceptions. But
I'm not sure this is necessarily related to "poor" or "rich" in material
terms. It depends on what people are controlling for.

Of course. I defined "rich" and "poor" without reference to "material terms", specifically because in Western society the ability to control many perceptions is directly correlated to the access to money, whereas in other societies that correlation may be less important, and the perceptions deemed important to control may be less tied to material circumstances. I consider someone to be "rich" if they consider their life to be fulfilling and have a low level of sustained and uncorrectable error. For some people that may mean having a lot of money, whereas for others it could mean having a lot of good ideas that prove out as hoped.

5: Are the above questions asking about perceptions for which you have
reference values?

I'm not sure about 3 and 4.

Does my explanation help? Your answer in the sentence "Everything being equal..." was what I was looking for.

  I probably do have reference values for most
things, based up what I understand of your earlier questions. But I'm not
willing to force indigenous poor people off reservations and to acquire
decent jobs skill and assimilate. I'm not willing to force poor people
who work for the peace corp to give up their passion and seek higher
paying jobs. Is that what you mean?

Not at all. Your examples deal with possible action mechanisms that some people with particular kinds or reorganized structures might use to try to reduce error in their higher-level perceptions. So far as I can see, your example come out of left field, or to change the metaphor, out of a clear blue sky. At least, I've never thought of either one in this context. Parenthetically, I suspect that the peace corps people you describe would think themselves quite rich.

I know my answers to these questions, and I can guess what Rick's
answers might be, but from your messages in this and other threads, I
cannot guess what yours might be. To know those answers might ease
future conversation about PCT in general.

I suspect that Rick and I are not far apart on these.

I can't speak for Rick, but your expressed values are not far from mine, though your preferred means of bringing your perceptions nearer their references differ drastically from mine. We seem to have different ideas of the way the world works, rather than different ideas as to how we would like the world to be. Also we may differ in our reference values for other high-level perceptions, a difference that would lead to our resolving conflicts differently.

Martin T

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.20.1840)]

Martin Lewitt (2012 Aug 20 0649 MDT)–

MT: 1: For children suffering from starvation, is your reference value that

these should be a high or low proportion of all children?

ML: Everything being equal, it should be higher.

RM: That’s sounds wrong. Did you really mean that; you want a high proportion of kids suffering from starvation?

ML But reducing suffering of children from starvation is not the be all and

end all.

RM: Ah, OK you meant you wanted fewer children suffering from starvation. Good for you!

MT: 2: For children living in luxury, is your reference value closer to "all

children" or to “no children”? (I consider “few children” to be closer

to “no” than to “all”, and “many children” to be closer to “all” than to

“no”.

ML: It is much closer to “all”.

RM: On this one, I’m much closer to “I could care less” regardless of how you define luxury.

MT: 3: For adults in general, considering “rich” to be "having the ability

to control most important perceptions" and “poor” to be "having the

ability to control only a few of the most important perception", is your

reference value for the proportion of people who are “poor” that it

should be high or low?

MT: 4: Same question as 3, but asking about the proportion of people who are

“rich”; should it be high or low?

MI’m not sure I understand these two questions. Everything being equal, I

prefer that everyone be able to control most important perceptions. But

I’m not sure this is necessarily related to “poor” or “rich” in material

terms. It depends on what people are controlling for.

RM: This is interesting. If you prefer that everyone be able to control the perceptions most important to them then we do share a higher level system concept. Maybe we just disagree about what being in control means in a modern society and the function of money in people being able to maintain that control.

ML: I suspect that Rick and I are not far apart on these.

RM: That may be. If you really want what everyone in society to be able to effectively control then perhaps all we differ on is what are the appropriate societal measures of the ability of everyone to control. For example, I consider rates of child poverty are a good measure of how well a society is able to allow all its members to be in control. I also consider aggregate measures of the quality of/access to health care like, infant mortality and adult lifespan, tobe reasonable measures of how well a society of allow all its members to be in control.

I presume you don’t agree on those.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com