The Benefits of Religion

Bryan_Thalhammer · April 27, 1999, 12:46am

[From Bryan Thalhammer (990426.1848 CDT)]

Kenny,

Man, here we go again, eh? The net gets all bent outa shape when certain
highly cherished perceptions are disturbed. I am sorry that worthy topics
such as beliefs are excluded from discussion in CSGnet. As Rick stated,
and I agree, studying how people maintain such and other perceptions is a
valid topic of discussion here. But perhaps it is the *way* perceptions
are discussed here that seems to irk some of us. Perhaps what is irksome
is the naturally human focus on one's personal committment to these
perceptions rather than the more objective analysis of how (move down the
hierarchy) and why (move up the hierarchy) people defend and offend them.
What is also important to note, I think, is that the same rhetoric can at
times be simultaneously heroically defensive and vehemently offensive. So a
myopic subjective analysis just won't do in these cases, yes? Finally,
while everyone has the right to their sundry beliefs, acting on those
beliefs in the company of others can be extremely disruptive, and as recent
news points out, often fatal.

Unfortunately, we may often discuss the various merits of one system of
beliefs vs. another (note: versus), and I think that gets us off the
track. I don't want to say what we should discuss in these matters (I'm
not an advocate of censored speech), but there are times when perhaps some
restraint could be used which might make the whole discussion more
palatable (wisely self-censored speech).

Well, there has been a great use of test of the controlled variable
recently, hasn't there? If the few messages I have run into tell me
anything, Ouch!

please take all religious controversies
off-line. It is likely important but not appropriate. That goes for
believers, non-believers, and especially smug quotables.

Are catholics allowed?...

typical of Jewish anti-Christian rhetoric...

Xxx, are you a fascist? You wouldn't happen to
run a certain club for boys in Littleton, Col would you?

"christian" consulting
business. No jews allowed. How about people of color? Do you start the day
by saying the pledge of allegance to the flag?

Just wondering why we *have* to do this to ourselves here....

Bryan

Marc_Abrams5 · April 28, 1999, 3:37am

from [ Marc Abrams (990427.2300) ]

I have been unable to respond to this until now. I will say no more about
this thread.

>From [ Kenny Kitzke (990423.1000EDT) ]

These personal accusatory words reveal an angry heart.

Good start,

I can't imagine what you would have written if my post was sent to you or

was written about >you or with you in mind--which it was not.

It was. I took it personnally, _very personally_. I was responding to my
perception of your myopic, narrow, bigoted, view.

Your post reveals a controlled variable at high gain.

You bet your sweet ass

I won't indulge you with a reply in kind.

How thoughtful and kind. ( I am being sarcastic )

Isaac had a good suggestion. I
hope you read it, agree and sent this insulting tirade before his post.

As a matter of fact, I did send it before Isaac sent his post, but I would
have sent it anyway
I _responded_ to a huge _disturbance_. As I said in my opening sentence I
really should not have responded to your rantings, but your _superficial_
concern masks a _deep_ seated dislike, and unwillingness to accept, any
other thinking then your own, as being _valid_. Kind Ken, will save the
world from itself. Hallelujah. God, am I thankful there are folks out there
like you.

He also thought the posted quote by Steven that I responded to had no place

on

CSGNet. IMHO, it was not credible, nor appropriate. That was the only

point

I really wanted to make.

So why not just make _that_ point. That other crap was uncalled for.

To refresh your memory, I responded to this:

Steven's statement (But for good people to do evil things, that takes
religion.) is typical of Jewish anti-Christian rhetoric which Bruce

Gregory,

for some reason, wanted for us on CSGNet to see.

Have you personally done a study on "typical jewish anti-christian
rhetoric"? What are some other kinds of "typical anti-cristian jewish
rhetoric" your aware of?

Let me give you another view on Bruce's post. It had to do with the
dogmatic deeply held beliefs _people_ have. It had to do with the fact that
PCT does _not_ distinguish between right and wrong. _People_ do, and more
blood and violence ( read that as "harm" ) is shed in the name of religon
than anything else, _THAT IS FOR ALL RELIGONS ( ie, People with deeply held
dogmatic beliefs of _all_ persuasions, jews included ) Who the hell said
_anything_ about christians?

We had a long discussion about beliefs on the CSGNet (including system

level

beliefs, such as religion) and how they affect behavior. It was done with
respect for the most part. I think this is legitimate for the CSGNet.

But,

discussing the merit (right or wrong) of an individual's system beliefs,
whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, etc., or Democrat, Republican,
Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Freedom, Independent is best left to
other forums or private communications.

Good, I agree, So why did you feel the need to introduce it? ( this is a
rhetorical question. I am not interested in knowing. )

So, shall it be for me regarding this awful thread. Isaac's request is

fair.

I could not, nor would I let a statement like that go by without a comment.
I would do it again in a heart beat faced with similar nonsense.

Marc

Marc_Abrams5 · April 28, 1999, 11:01pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990428.1633) ]

I am responding to this because upon some reflection, I think it might be
helpful for others to see PCT in action ( My thought process about Ken's
posts ). In doing so I will also try to address some of Bryan's concerns.

First Bryan,

[From Bryan Thalhammer (990426.1848 CDT)]

Kenny,

Man, here we go again, eh? The net gets all bent outa shape when certain
highly cherished perceptions are disturbed.

The "net" didn't get bent out of shape. I did. exactly what "highly
cherished perceptions were disturbed"?. I don't recall you performing the
test, or even asking me What the big deal was about

I am sorry that worthy topics
such as beliefs are excluded from discussion in CSGnet.

I don't believe they are. But if we are going to talk about beliefs then our
_opinion_ of them ( read, good/bad, right/wrong ) has _no_ place on _this_
list. Your _personal_ beliefs are of no interest to me. _HOW_ you aquired
them ( the mechanism, not the actual belief itself ) by _WHY_ you retain
them, _HOW_ you change them are.

As Rick stated, and I agree, studying how people maintain such and other

perceptions is a

valid topic of discussion here. But perhaps it is the *way* perceptions
are discussed here that seems to irk some of us. Perhaps what is irksome
is the naturally human focus on one's personal committment to these
perceptions rather than the more objective analysis of how (move down the
hierarchy) and why (move up the hierarchy) people defend and offend them.

See my comment above. As Bruce Gregory has pointed out. When the discussion
turns to "theological" arguments ( i.e. arguments that are un testable ) it
is nothing but BS. That diesn't necessarily mean it's worthless. It just
means that _no_ reasonable conclusion can be seen for or against, except
what resides _totally_ in our heads. Sort of fruitless.

What is also important to note, I think, is that the same rhetoric can at
times be simultaneously heroically defensive and vehemently offensive. So

a

myopic subjective analysis just won't do in these cases, yes?

Huh?, Can you elaborate on this. I don't have a clue as to what you are
referring to here

Finally,

while everyone has the right to their sundry beliefs, acting on those
beliefs in the company of others can be extremely disruptive, and as

recent

news points out, often fatal.

Thanks Bryan. a great lead in to my thought process with regard to Ken's
posts. Your view _as stated_ represents the S->R school. Are you aware of
this? Does it matter? ( these are _not_ fascious questions ). The above was
my initial reaction to _why_ I posted what I did to Ken. But that turned out
to be _WRONG_.

My reflection

Kens initial statement:

typical of Jewish anti-Christian rhetoric...

My initial reaction was I was "responding" ( acting ) to this statement
the environment, or for Bruce A, the "diasturbance" ) Upon some reflection
I realized that I had a number of _goals_ that were being disturbed. I have
come up with a few but probablly not all of them. I am not even sure if I
am capable of being aware of most of them. But some of the higher level
goals have to do with Intolerance on my part for what _I_ perceive to be
anti-semetic attitudes. My goal is to _eliminate_ them. I am not a religous
person but that would make no difference to someone who "dislikes' jews. I
am what I am. So a "CV" of mine might be "Do not get involved with
anti-semites it may not be good for your health". That statement was a
disturbance to that goal. My reference level, real or imagined was
disturbed. I acted to "eliminate" that error. So I could reduce my error.
But the fact of the matter is KKK ( Ken K, Kitzke ) until he proves
otherwise is on my shit list. This _ALL_ comes from _ME_. If Ken _never
posted again. I would continue to feel this way. The _ONLY_ way this would
change is if I perceived Ken _not_ to be anti semetic or I lowered my
reference level and didn't care if he was anti-semetic. One of the important
points here is that I am not sure what Ken could do to convince me he was
_not_ anti semetic. I don't think he could. So Ken is who Ken is and I will
have to reduce my reference level if I am to deal with him over the net.
This is something _I_ must do. Ken at this point can do nothing. I would not
believe, nor do i think an apology would be forth coming.

The reason for this is the follow-up remark that was made to Bruce G
following Bruce's statement that Ken was anti-semitic.

Ken said
I'm not surprised. I love Jewish people, even those who see every religion
but their own as evil.

Yes and some of _my_ best friends are black.
This was another disturbance to that or a similiar goal. But on some more
reflection, it was his original statement that absolutely _floored_ me.
Because _I_ was taken by _surprise_. I knew Ken was deeply religous, and as
such, carried certain baggage ( all religous people, are extremely
dogmatic ) but I did not think he was anti-semitic. So what other "goal"
might have been disturbed? Was there another? I think maybe yes :-). This
one might be a more universal one. I don't like surprises. I thought ( real
or imagined ) My perception of Kenny was _wrong_. How could I have been so
stupid as not to have "seen" the handwriting on the wall. ( My reference to
his consulting firm ) ie:

"christian" consulting
>business. No jews allowed. How about people of color? Do you start the

day

>by saying the pledge of allegance to the flag?

I was _PISSED_. But at who? as it turns out, it was _AT MYSELF_ for being
taken for a fool. ( all in my own head of course ) When I realized I was
_not_ duped. Ken never made any statements that would have led me to believe
he was or was not "anti-semetic". Except for his refusal to work with jews
in his firm. ( I do not believe that that alone would be reason to be
considered anti-semitic. I can see the need to present one-self as a
"christian" firm with "christian" values ) I realized I was angry at being
"surrprised". Ken will no longer "surprise" me, the disturbance has been
eliminated and my perception of Ken has changed. My anger with regard to
this has disappaited along with the error signal.

Unfortunately, we may often discuss the various merits of one system of
beliefs vs. another (note: versus), and I think that gets us off the
track.

This is where it brcomes a "theological" pissing contest. My belief is
better then yours.

I don't want to say what we should discuss in these matters (I'm
not an advocate of censored speech), but there are times when perhaps some
restraint could be used which might make the whole discussion more
palatable (wisely self-censored speech).

Why not try and stick with _terstable_ ascertians. That would make life real
simple. If ya can't model it then it is a theogogical discussion. As long as
all parties are agreeable no problem. But i think if we started out a post
with _what_ the _testable_ hypothesis might be, things might be a bit more
interesting. Thats not to say that theological discussions should be
eliminated. It would simply mean that people like Bill and Rick might not
want to be a part of that thread, And if it's known up front that the views
expressed are untestable and/or unknowable. the thread is strictly for the
entertainment of those involved :-).

Well, there has been a great use of test of the controlled variable
recently, hasn't there? If the few messages I have run into tell me
anything, Ouch!

Actually, there has been no the test. You have proposed a hypothisis for a
number of CV's that _could_ be tested.

Are you up to it?

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · April 30, 1999, 12:27am

In a message dated 4/26/99 8:45:52 PM, bryan-th@UIUC.EDU writes:

<< Just wondering why we *have* to do this to ourselves here.... >>

Hi Bryan!

I am not sure exactly what you are wondering about?

� Is it whether people in general, or us on the CSGNet, really *have* to lash
out (as compared to having a choice) to demean and ridicule someone because
their words or deeds make you very angry (whether intended by the someone or
merely a perceived side effect of them doing something for other reasons)?

I would say that PCT predicts that people may try to get even for being hurt
by spewing hatred and ridicule (or shooting kids in a library at school)
because this is what they perceive will best get them what they want at the
moment.

Unless coerced, people have a choice (probably many different choices) of how
to respond (behave) to control their own perceptions when they are angry.
But, they may not see the choices clearly or consider them carefully while in
a state of anger. I would say hate and anger are clear signs of an out of
control error signal, wouldn't you? When angry, people may well pick a
knee-jerk behavior out of a dire need to retaliate. Perhaps this would not
be their behavioral choice if they were calm and in a considerate state of
mind.

� Is it why people, who supposedly know PCT, would behave like this on CSGNet?

You might think that having PCT as a reference perception for how behavior is
generated would more readily subjugate retaliatory behavior, knowing the
futility of open-loop behavior and its potential of escalation in acrimony.

But, we have some pretty cruel things being said from time to time here. I
guess it is all PCT; but people's behavior seems more dependent on their
higher level reference perceptions (beliefs) than their knowledge about the
process of behavior.

I don't think they are excluded Bryan. Indeed, I took quite a drubbing about
my moral beliefs as a Christian some time ago. And, I asked people to stop
partly because it hurt but mostly because it did not seem to advance the
cause of PCT which is the reason I come to the site. But, I never became
angry with anyone even if they did not stop. I think we gave up out of
futility.

I am on several Christian forums where we argue doctrine tooth and nail and I
wish I could say without acrimony. But Christians lose control too and try
to ridicule those who dare to believe different from them about whether or
not women can speak or pastor in church, yada, yada, yada as Isaac would say.

Both the points and the way of making them may produce significant distress
in other people. Some on this net are very good at expressing critique
(subjective and affective) in a "kinder and gentler" way. (That Republican
talk will drive Rick up a palm tree, I predict).

Anyway, I too think that discussions of the hierarchy, and the roles of
beliefs and systems concepts, is talked about way too little on CSGNet.
These high level categories primarily separate humans from ants. If our
study of PCT stays stuck on ants and rats, instead of live human being
interactions such as MOL intervention experimentation, it will retard
whatever value that understanding PCT can bring to humanity.

How humans react to computer simulations (or how we catch frisbees for my
friend Rick's sake) is a necessary step forward in the science. But it is
how we humans deal with each other (rather than with inanimate objects) that
seems to be the greater challenge and opportunity. This is where the most
severe conflicts reside.

Fifteen dead at Littleton. If Littleton was an RTP school, if Bill Powers
was the tutor for the Trenchcoat Mafia, would a different choice of behavior
been made? I wish I knew it would.

Bryan, set aside some "belief" discussion time at the conference. Bring no
guns, please. Words can hurt enough.

Kenny

Marc_Abrams5 · April 30, 1999, 1:43am

from [ Marc Abrams (990429.2124) ]

···

From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>
To: <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: The Benefits of Religion

Anyway, I too think that discussions of the hierarchy, and the roles of
beliefs and systems concepts, is talked about way too little on CSGNet.

There is a reason for this. At least from a PCT perspective. It is a
difficult thing to model. Having theological arguments ( meaning non
testable ) about these things generally winds up getting into discussions
that are better held on those other lists. Having discusssions about _how_
to model the higher levels might prove to be a useful one. Provided we stay
away from the _content_ of those structures.

These high level categories primarily separate humans from ants. If our
study of PCT stays stuck on ants and rats, instead of live human being
interactions such as MOL intervention experimentation, it will retard
whatever value that understanding PCT can bring to humanity.

_I_ agree with this. Others on this list would dispute it. :-). To remedy
it, we would need to _model_ it. This is _not_ an easy exercise.

How humans react to computer simulations (or how we catch frisbees for my
friend Rick's sake) is a necessary step forward in the science. But it is
how we humans deal with each other (rather than with inanimate objects)

that

seems to be the greater challenge and opportunity. This is where the most
severe conflicts reside.

Again, I agree. The answer lies in our ability to model the interaction. A
good case in point was the old coercion thread. The model represented
_coercion_. _PERIOD_ :-). It did not, nor was it intended to represent the
_entire_ interaction of two people. It became a theological argument and
_everyone_ lost.

Fifteen dead at Littleton. If Littleton was an RTP school, if Bill Powers
was the tutor for the Trenchcoat Mafia, would a different choice of

behavior

been made? I wish I knew it would.

If it didn't happen at Littleton it would have happened somewhere else. And
_unfortuneately_, I do not believe we have seen the end of this.

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · April 30, 1999, 4:22pm

In a message dated 4/29/99 9:43:33 PM, msa@PANIX.COM writes:

[From Kenny Kitzke (990430.1215EDT) ]

Marc:

I am pleasantly surprised that you would talk to me again - ever - based on
what you said about me. About all you missed was accusing me of being one of
the Boys from Brazil.

One of my system moral beliefs is forgiveness. For if I cannot forgive, why
would anyone forgive me? This was a line used recently by Mr. Bill
(Clinton). But, I read it somewhere before he too leaned on it so his own
behavior would get him what he wants (whatever that was).

I also note we agree on some major PCT things that at least you perceive are
not uniformly shared on CSGNet. These are fertile ground for learning - for
everyone. It also seems that acknowledging agreement and common ground
builds a human bond that can withstand the differences so as not to destroy
the relationship.

I am not sure it is any more difficult to model than how an ant chooses to
travel across the ground as it does. Are not high-level system beliefs
(whether or not religious or moral in nature) easily testable variables?

If some Nobel Prize winning psychologist says, "PCT only looks like it
explains behavior (an illusion which appeals to the idiots on CSGNet),
whereas I know that all behavior is a result caused by a stimulus," I think
you will see big-time, high gain resistive behavior from members of this net.

That would sort of show that beliefs about how behavior is generated would
follow the closed loop model of PCT, no? And, as Bryan implied, I included
both an objective claim along with an affective manner. I don't think we can
tell which would be resisted most by any particular person without doing a
better test on them.

Some of our system religious belief references are so dearly held, that just
a single word can produce a large error signal and a high-gain response,
i.e., Catholic, Christ Evangelical, Polack, Jew, Sabbath, Messiah, Muslim,
mosque, abortion, Christmas, Sunday worship, guns, gays, Marilyn Manson,
etc., yada, yada yada. This can be true regardless of "how" a statement is
made. But, "how" seems to be able to add significantly to the magnitude of
the error signal sensed.

But, if it could have been prevented there, why are you of a mind that it, in
theory, could not be prevented everywhere? I feel it could have been
prevented. But, the things needed to prevent such behavior are unlikely to
be adopted on a massive scale.

In fact, I agree such violence and force in our society are likely to get
worse. Our President sets an interesting example of what to do when you
can't get what you want in his conflict resolution behavior and coercion of
Serbia. Kids, do as I say, not as I do. I am getting my flack jacket on
right now.

Kenny

Marc_Abrams5 · April 30, 1999, 10:20pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990429.1718) ]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990430.1215EDT) ]

I am pleasantly surprised that you would talk to me again - ever - based

on

what you said about me. About all you missed was accusing me of being one

of

the Boys from Brazil.

Ken, you are who you are. I do not believe you are evil, nor do I believe
you have any harmful intent. We do not agree about certain issues and we
seem to agree on others. I can live with that.
My interest on this list is PCT. If I want to discuss religous doctrine I
will be sure to ask you for those other lists. :-). ( hint, Don't hold your
breath )

One of my system moral beliefs is forgiveness. For if I cannot forgive,

why

would anyone forgive me?

Because _they_ wanted to. I understand what your trying to say Ken, but each
of us has our own "reasons" for doing what we do. I'm more interested ( at
least on this list ) in trying to understand _how_ this takes place.

I also note we agree on some major PCT things that at least you perceive

are

not uniformly shared on CSGNet. These are fertile ground for learning -

for

everyone. It also seems that acknowledging agreement and common ground
builds a human bond that can withstand the differences so as not to

destroy

the relationship.

I agree.

<Having theological arguments (meaning non testable) about these things
generally winds up getting into discussions that are better held on those
other lists. Having discusssions about _how_to model the higher levels

might

prove to be a useful one. Provided we stay away from the _content_ of

those

structures.>

I am not sure it is any more difficult to model than how an ant chooses to
travel across the ground as it does. Are not high-level system beliefs
(whether or not religious or moral in nature) easily testable variables?

No, Absolutely not. We have different "working" definitions of "testing".
When I talk of something being "testable" I mean that you can _show_ that
something exists or doesn't exist. If something is not testable it doesn't
necessarily invalidate it. It just means that it becomes a theological
rather then "scientific" argument that will go in circles forever. That also
is not necessarily bad, It just has no place on this list. We have a theory
that provides us with a way of _testing_ certain assumptions. Some things
are not currently testable because we simply have not yet developed the
appropriate tests, other things are _currently_ not testable. It's
important that we look for ways to test our assumptions.

If some Nobel Prize winning psychologist says, "PCT only looks like it
explains behavior (an illusion which appeals to the idiots on CSGNet),
whereas I know that all behavior is a result caused by a stimulus," I

think

you will see big-time, high gain resistive behavior from members of this

net.

It's unfortunate you missed the point of the post. At least the point Bruce
was trying to convey. The point was _very_ appropriate to PCT. People are
not _inherently_ anything, the post conveyed the message that good people
will do good things, bad people will do bad things, and people unwilling to
tolerate others make it miserable for everyone else. :-). it nothing to do
with any _religous_ affiliations.

That would sort of show that beliefs about how behavior is generated would
follow the closed loop model of PCT, no? And, as Bryan implied, I

included

both an objective claim along with an affective manner. I don't think we

can

tell which would be resisted most by any particular person without doing a
better test on them.

Ken, I admire your enthusiasm. But some of it is mis-placed. Behavior is
"generated" by the interaction of who knows how many control loops. You are
making a mistake by looking at the PCT model as a _sequential_ one. It
isn't. It's sorta like the atom. The popular picture of an atom is , like a
little solar system. Atoms do not really "look" like that. Ken, you use the
word objective often, I'd like to know what you mean by it? What makes
something objective rather then subjective?

Some of our system religious belief references are so dearly held, that

just

a single word can produce a large error signal and a high-gain response,
i.e., Catholic, Christ Evangelical, Polack, Jew, Sabbath, Messiah, Muslim,
mosque, abortion, Christmas, Sunday worship, guns, gays, Marilyn Manson,
etc., yada, yada yada. This can be true regardless of "how" a statement

is

made. But, "how" seems to be able to add significantly to the magnitude

of

the error signal sensed.

When I speak of "how" you make my point for me. What does "dearly held"
mean? _I_ know what your intent is, but how would you define it in PCT. Just
saying something has high gain and is "dearly held" is not sufficent to
understand _how_ something _becomes_, _remains_, or _changes from_, "dearly
held". Notice it doesn't matter _what_ is being "dearly held". You speak of
'how' strictly as an "action".

<If it didn't happen at Littleton it would have happened somewhere else.

And

_unfortuneately_, I do not believe we have seen the end of this.>

But, if it could have been prevented there,

How?

why are you of a mind that it, in
theory, could not be prevented everywhere?

Because we can't "prevent" people from doing _anything_ they want. Unless of
couse we either kill everyone, or lock everyone up. Neither one of those
things seem to deter to many people anyway. We also don't have a clue, nor
will we ever ( they are gone ). _what_ they might have been controlling for.

feel it could have been
prevented. But, the things needed to prevent such behavior are unlikely

to

be adopted on a massive scale.

How?

In fact, I agree such violence and force in our society are likely to get
worse. Our President sets an interesting example of what to do when you
can't get what you want in his conflict resolution behavior and coercion

of

Serbia. Kids, do as I say, not as I do. I am getting my flack jacket on
right now.

Not a bad idea :-).

Marc

Tim_Carey1 · May 2, 1999, 9:17pm

[From Tim Carey (990503.0725)]

From [ Marc Abrams (990427.2300) ]

I think the current exchanges on religion going back and forth across CSG
are pretty good evidence that knowledge of PCT in and of itself will _not_
necessarily make the world a better place.

People will just have more scientific explanations for the things they do.

Cheers,

Tim

Marc_Abrams5 · May 2, 1999, 11:58pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990503.1956) ]

[From Tim Carey (990503.0725)]

>>From [ Marc Abrams (990427.2300) ]

I think the current exchanges on religion going back and forth across CSG
are pretty good evidence that knowledge of PCT in and of itself will _not_
necessarily make the world a better place.

People will just have more scientific explanations for the things they do.

Tim, Although I agree with both you and the quote above, that was not from
my post.

Marc