I’m sorry to be such a pest but I’m in an RV in California and my library is in Ohio. What are the levels in the current version of the hierarchy? Also, is there a web site where these are listed so I won’t have to keep asking this question every other year or so?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
Please see the attached.
Ted
Hierarchy Poster.doc (19.5 KB)
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 5:28 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: The Levels
I’m sorry to be such a pest but I’m in an RV in California and my library is in Ohio. What are the levels in the current version of the hierarchy? Also, is there a web site where these are listed so I won’t have to keep asking this question every other year or so?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1900 PDT)]
Thanks, Ted. From the look of the eleven levels, beliefs would fit into level 10 – principles. If that’s the case, level 11, Systems, would set the reference conditions for level 10. In other words, according to PCT, systems establish reference conditions for beliefs. I have this gnawing feeling that it’s the other way around.
Fred Nickols
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Ted Cloak
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:04 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: The Levels
Please see the attached.
Ted
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 5:28 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: The Levels
I’m sorry to be such a pest but I’m in an RV in California and my library is in Ohio. What are the levels in the current version of the hierarchy? Also, is there a web site where these are listed so I won’t have to keep asking this question every other year or so?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.16.0705 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1900
PDT) –FN: Thanks, Ted. From the look of the eleven levels, beliefs would
fit into level 10 principles. If thats the case, level 11,
Systems, would set the reference conditions for level 10. In other
words, according to PCT, systems establish reference conditions for
beliefs. I have this gnawing feeling that its the other way
around.
BP: Try it this way: you tell me what a belief is, and I will try to tell
you where beliefs fit into the proposed levels.
For example, if I say I believe that today is Sunday, I might put that
belief at the category level – the name of a kind of perception. But how
is that different from saying I “know” today is Sunday, or I
“think” today is Sunday, or I “doubt” that today is
Saturday? Also, does what I believe make a difference in the
meaning of the word? Is the word “believe” the same in these
two sentences? (1) I believe today is Sunday, and (2) I believe in
God.
See also the post to Kenny Kitzke which I am about to write.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Fred Nickols (2012.09.16.0705 PDT)]
Good question, Bill. Let me see if I can sharpen what I mean by “belief.”
Case in point: A terrorist who believes it is right and appropriate to blow himself up and in the process kill lots of others.
Case in point: An executive who believes it is right and appropriate to pay himself millions of dollars and to pay workers a pittance in wages.
Case in point: A writer who believes it is acceptable to plagiarize the works of others.
Case in point: Another writer who believes it is important to credit the works of others on which he draws.
Case in point: Me, who believes that PCT is a valid and useful way of viewing and examining human behavior.
I suppose someone might say I’m talking about “values” and maybe I am. What I’m getting at is something that puzzles me, a gap in my understanding of PCT. I understand that higher levels set the reference conditions for lower levels but, when you get to the higher levels, especially the highest level, what sets the reference conditions at that level. In other words, it seems to me that PCT says when a terrorist blows himself up, a reference condition is met/satisfied. Where did that reference condition come from? Is it something akin to the terrorist “believing” that it is a good thing to do? In what belief is that notion of “goodness” rooted?
There’s probably a simple answer to this so I look forward to your response.
Fred Nickols
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:12 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: The Levels
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.16.0705 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2012.09.15.1900 PDT) –
FN: Thanks, Ted. From the look of the eleven levels, beliefs would fit into level 10 – principles. If that’s the case, level 11, Systems, would set the reference conditions for level 10. In other words, according to PCT, systems establish reference conditions for beliefs. I have this gnawing feeling that it’s the other way around.
BP: Try it this way: you tell me what a belief is, and I will try to tell you where beliefs fit into the proposed levels.
For example, if I say I believe that today is Sunday, I might put that belief at the category level – the name of a kind of perception. But how is that different from saying I “know” today is Sunday, or I “think” today is Sunday, or I “doubt” that today is Saturday? Also, does what I believe make a difference in the meaning of the word? Is the word “believe” the same in these two sentences? (1) I believe today is Sunday, and (2) I believe in God.
See also the post to Kenny Kitzke which I am about to write.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2012.09.16.1009 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2012.09.16.0705 PDT)]
Good question, Bill. Let me see if I can sharpen what I mean by
belief.Case in point: A terrorist who believes it is right and appropriate to
blow himself up and in the process kill lots of others.Case in point: An executive who believes it is right and appropriate to
pay himself millions of dollars and to pay workers a pittance in
wages.Case in point: A writer who believes it is acceptable to plagiarize the
works of others.Case in point: Another writer who believes it is important to credit the
works of others on which he draws.Case in point: Me, who believes that PCT is a valid and useful way of
viewing and examining human behavior.I suppose someone might say Im talking about values and maybe I
am.
BP: Those are common-language terms, yes. But what technical term do we
use in PCT to refer to some definition of the right or desired result a
person wants to get through his actions? We could say that the person
wants to perceive a particular outcome – what, in a control system,
specifies a particular outcome that is to result from actions such as as
blowing oneself up, paying oneself millions, plagiarizing, etc.?
A few years ago, there were reports that young men were being encouraged
to become suicide bombers by being told that they would go to Paradise
immediately, where each of them would be given 72 virgins to
ravish. Of course most Muslims I have read about have denied that
translation, but the Koran is said (by Muslims) to depict Paradise as
entailing a healthy amount of sexuality. Even without the sexual
flavoring, the story continues to be one of immense rewards for martyrdom
in the service of Allah ( or God, in Christian stories). So what we see
as an act of mass murder can generate a reward(imagined or anticipated)
for being faithful to Allah. If a young or ignorant person believesthat story, we can see the terrorism simply as a means to creating a
desired result.
Of course we can also see violence and cruelty by other people, including
ourselves, as simply what is necessary to serve a higher goal or God. In
that case the action itself is exempt from criticism even though in other
cirumstances we would condemn it. Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as
to war, and so forth. Roasting people alive with flame throwers in
defense of patriotism is, if not pleasant, OK.
So once again we come back to what “believe” means.
What I was asking about is not any particular belief, but the nature of
belief itself, whatever it’s about, good or bad. What’s the difference,
for example, between believing something is true, hoping it is true,
knowing it is true, and doubting it is true?
You use terms like right, appropriate, acceptable, important, valid, and
useful. Could those words have something to do with “no
error”?
FN: What Im getting
at is something that puzzles me, a gap in my understanding of PCT.
I understand that higher levels set the reference conditions for lower
levels but, when you get to the higher levels, especially the highest
level, what sets the reference conditions at that level. In other
words, it seems to me that PCT says when a terrorist blows himself up, a
reference condition is met/satisfied. Where did that reference
condition come from? Is it something akin to the terrorist
believing that it is a good thing to do? In what belief is that
notion of goodness rooted?
BP: Goodness, as far as I have been able to tell, means “matching
the reference level I have set for an experience.” This means we can
see goodness at any level of perception, doesn’t it? We give more
importance to good at higher levels, but it’s the same idea at any
level.
I do realize that this will not satisfy those who are looking for some
absolute definition of goodness. I’m not.
Best,
Bill P.