Where Do We Go From Here?

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
61

from [ Marc Abrams (991203.0944) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (991203.0721 EST)]

Bill Powers (991202.2121 MDT)
>
>
> But I thought you were relying on the child's committment as your reason
> for saying that the child "chose" the consequence. If the child is no
> longer committed to the rule, then the choice was definitely not the
> child's. That's why I thought it appropriate at least to check and see

if

> the child was still in favor of the rule.

That's a perfectly reasonble assumption since Bruce N. and Marc seem to

have

this view.

Not quite :-). I actually align with Bruce G's view.

Marc

62

[From Bill Powers (991203.0729 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991203.0721 EST)--

That's a perfectly reasonble assumption since Bruce N. and Marc seem to have
this view. I, however, do not. I view the teacher in much the same way as I
view the state trooper. Both are carrying out responsibilities. Neither is
particularly concerned with whether an individual is committed to the
principles they are applying. (Both are normally flexible in carrying out
their responsibilities.)

I seem to detect here an underlying idea that responsibilities simply
exist, rather than being chosen and adopted. My view is that, so to speak,
everyone is personally (rather than institutionally) responsible for the
responsibilities they adopt. If, as a state trooper, you agree to carry out
unfair and useless laws, that is your choice, and if the results are not
what you would have wanted to create, you can blame only yourself for them.
Actually, I have known quite a few state troopers, in part through my UFO
investigations in the 60s, and I can report that they are VERY flexible in
enforcing the laws. In fact, they create a definite appearance that they
use laws very selectively as a way to justify their enforcement of their
own private versions of what is right and wrong. For example, it is illegal
in most states I know of to drive a car in which the rear window is blocked
by objects such as suitcases, elves with bobbing heads, or toys. It is
illegal to drive with a rear license plate obscured by dirt, or a
burned-out running light. So if a trooper wants to stop a driver for some
other reason (for example, to get a better look at the hot babe driving
it), he can always use those laws as a defensible reason. And if he doesn't
want to come on as a nasty guy, he can just issue a warning instead of a
citation. But don't make him mad; he can retaliate, espensively, if he
wants to. However, most of the time he watches cars and trucks go by with
lots of illegal things going on with them, and shrugs them off. You can't
stop them all, so why stop any of them?

Or are you taking Kenny's line, and saying "Sure, RTP is coercive. So

what?"

Again, I feel that all societies must ultimately rely on the threat of
coercion.

I think that shows an uncharacteristic lack of imagination on your part.
Are human beings doomed to live in coercive societies for ever and ever?
Couldn't we at least try to think of ways to reduce the degree of coercion
used, or to confine it more and more to special cases or emergencies? Isn't
there some system concept under which people might find the disavantages of
coercion to outweigh any short-term apparent advantages?

If the police were unarmed and did not attempt to physically
coerce people, I believe that the vast majority of citizens would obey the
laws. Certainly that seems to be the experience in countries like England.

They would obey most of the laws, but never all of them. If someone invites
you over for dinner, do you report the value of that gift to the IRS? In
declining numbers, I think people obey laws that (a) make sense to them,
seem fair, and address a wrong, (b) are widely enforced, whether approved
of or not, so that breaking them with impunity is hard to do, and (c) are
unfair, frivolous, or unenforceable. Deciding which is which can be done
only by each individual.

The only objective existence the rules have are as lines of type in books,
or memories in people's brains.

An interesting interpretation and one that lies close to heart of your
argument. I don't happen to share it, but since it is not testable in any
way I can see, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not necessarily. If you could show me where these rules exist other than on
paper or in people's heads, or if you could show me how they get enforced
without some active agent doing the enforcing, or if you could describe the
mechanism by which they operate without human aid, I could be persuaded
that they have objective existence. My interpretation is heavily influenced
by what I perceive as facts of nature. On what is your interpretation based?

What the government can't legitimately offload onto you is the decision to
punish you for whatever infraction the IRS employee chooses to lay at your
door. They can't say you chose to be punished; it was the government
employee, not you, who chose to punish you.

You can certainly adopt that principle.

True, I can. But can I equally well justify NOT adopting it, on grounds of
an understanding of how the natural world works? If you don't want to adopt
that principle, what are your reasons for not wanting to? Are they also
based on an understanding of natural law?

Why does this seem so simple to me and so complicated to you?

Your interpretation is not complicated. As I said, I can live with it. We
cannot tell whether someone has chosen something or not. Just as we cannot
tell the control structure leading to specific actions. (If we could, life
would be a lot simpler.)

I think it is reasonable, on the basis of the logic and observations that
led to PCT, to adopt the default assumption that _all_ behavior is
intentional in some terms. Some effects of behavior are clearly not
intended, but it is reasonable to assume, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, that there is NO behavior that is not produced for the purpose of
carrying out SOME intention. In my mind at least, the pendulum has swung,
or is swinging, to where we can assume that any S-R interpretation of
behavior requires definite proof before it can displace a control
interpretation. And since I am of the school that says there is no magic, I
do not believe in causes that are not embodied in physical mechanisms. Thus
I don't believe in "unseen hands" of any sort -- not unless they are made
visible. Of course I have a quite liberal view of what constitutes a
"mechanism."

Re: teaching by example:

Sure. But they can equally say, "That sucks! You'll never catch me doing
that." It seems to me that both outcomes appear about equally.

Don't you want to leave that option open if people choose it? I'm not
speaking of forcing people to agree with the way I think would be good for
people to live with each other. If my example doesn't appeal to them, then
obviously my example is not a practicable one, and I have to go back to the
drawing board. If only half of the people find my concept of a society
attractive, then the concept is a failure; you need a much bigger majority
than that to create a viable society. If you see both outcomes about
equally, then it seems to me that you haven't seen any viable suggestions
for how a society might work better.

It depends on how much I want to avoid the consequences. Many people who
speed are willing to pay the fines if caught. For them it is just an
economic tradeoff.

True. The richer you are the less you care about piddling monetary
penalties. It would be better, therefore, if we tried persuasion and
education as a way of getting people to take it easy on the road, while
leaving them free to go as fast as they need to. Of course we would have to
have a way to do that effectively before putting it into practice.

Look at what Bruce Abbott has made of it: it's nothing but a successful
application of the principles of behavior modification.

I don't read Bruce A. that way, but that's niether here nor there. Bruce can
explain himself perfectly well.

I thought so, too.

This has proven more difficult that either of us imagined. Many of the words
we use have a non-obvious translation into CT terms.

Yes. It's better not to start with the words, but with the phenomenon we
try to describe with the words. It's a principle that language teachers
know well. You don't say that "Pferd" means "horse." You say that "Pferd"
and "horse" both mean that big thing snorting away over there. "Trying to
decide" means the same thing that "being in conflict" means in PCT: both
refer to a situation in which there are two incompatible goals that require
mutually exclusive courses of action, so neither course can be taken until
one goal is eliminated or altered (or both are).

if what you think is true, the child will experience a disruption of his
own, and push back just as you are doing.

Isn't that CT enough?

Yes. But a more complex CT model may be required to adequately reflect the
interaction.

Of course. But don't we always start with a simple approximation, which we
can then make more complex as we discover its _specific_ shortcomings?

Best,

Bill P.

63

[Norman Hovda (991203.0850)]

[From Bruce Gregory (991203.0721 EST)]

> Bill Powers (991202.2121 MDT)

[snip]

> >Boy, do I wish we could stick to CT. I can see it's going to be an
> >unfulfilled wish. I'll adjust the gain.
>
> Do we have to speak only in jargon like "input fuction, reference
> signal, output quantity" for you to recognize when we're talking
> about CT? I said
"we
> don't want, at the same time, to create the appearance of criticism
> or punishment or devaluation which the child will try to defend
> against." Would it have been any clearer if I had said "We don't
> want to apply disturbances to the child's perception of well-being
> and worth which would result in opposing actions from the child as
> the child acts to correct the errors"? Would it have been clearer if
> I talked about "conflicts between different reference conditions in
> different people" instead of saying "adversarial relationship?" I
> said "If you have in mind that sending the child to the RTC is going
> to deprive him or her of the company of friends, you have punishment
> in mind...". Would it have been clearer if I had said "If your goal
> is to cause an error signal by preventing the child from maintaining
> his preferred level of companionship with his peers, as a way of
> causing
better
> behavior, then you are subscribing to the cause-effect or S-R theory
> of behavior instead of CT."

Yes. Then I would know exactly what you meant.

Yes, yes and yes. As a layman monitoring this listserv, trying
diligently to learn PCT, keeping the language consistent with CT
helps greatly. I find it difficult enough to follow as it is, but when the
language reverts to "everyday terms" murkiness sets in big time...
for me anyway.

> You can assume I am thinking in CT, and choosing words which may
> help in translating from the language of the model into everyday
> terms. I don't know if they do help; but at least I can try. It also
> helps if the reader makes an effort to use a CT filter for hearing
> the words, instead of just relying on common meanings.

This has proven more difficult that either of us imagined. Many of the
words we use have a non-obvious translation into CT terms. > > >> if

[snip]

My CT filters, such as they are, are fighting against years of a
particular mind set, filled with SR/Cognitive ruts. Bottom line... they
are still too weak to be relied on for sorting the fluff from the stuff.

Whatever all of you hair splitting academics <g> can do to keep
the language consistent with PCT, BT, CT, HPCT etc. the easier
it'll be for this student.

Seasons Greetings,
nth

64

[From Bill Powers (991203.1042 MDT)]

Norman Hovda (991203.0850)--

As a layman monitoring this listserv, trying
diligently to learn PCT, keeping the language consistent with CT
helps greatly. I find it difficult enough to follow as it is, but when the
language reverts to "everyday terms" murkiness sets in big time...
for me anyway.

This is very interesting to me; my assumption had been that using technical
language would be a turn-off. I see what you mean, though. I'll try to find
a way to do what you ask.

Best,

Bill P.

65

[From Bruce Gregory (991203.1317 EST)]

Bill Powers (991203.0729 MDT)

I seem to detect here an underlying idea that responsibilities simply
exist, rather than being chosen and adopted.

They exist to the extent that this particular classroom will have a
teacher even if the present teacher decides to quit. That is to the
extent that societies create roles and ways to keep them filled.

My view is that,
so to speak,
everyone is personally (rather than institutionally)
responsible for the
responsibilities they adopt.

I think this a good principle to adopt for yourself (always perceive
yourself as responsible for the responsibilities you adopt) but not
necessarily a good way to treat others (do not always perceive other as
responsible for the responsibilities they adopt). If this is not clear,
I can elaborate.

I think that shows an uncharacteristic lack of imagination on
your part.
Are human beings doomed to live in coercive societies for
ever and ever?

Yes. (Because human beings are autonomous control systems and autonomous
control systems conflict with each other). We can adopt the principle of
not conflicting with another control system, but most of us are unable
to extend that principle beyond those that we love.)

Couldn't we at least try to think of ways to reduce the
degree of coercion
used, or to confine it more and more to special cases or
emergencies?

Sure. I'm all for it.

Isn't
there some system concept under which people might find the
disadvantages of
coercion to outweigh any short-term apparent advantages?

Probably, but there is no way to ensure that everyone will adopt that
principle. Recall the story of the scorpion and whatever it was that
agreed to carry it across the river. As long as there are those who
perceive that they can achieve their ends by coercion, coercion will be
needed to prevent them from bending things to their ends while ignoring
the ends desired by others.

Not necessarily. If you could show me where these rules exist
other than on
paper or in people's heads, or if you could show me how they
get enforced
without some active agent doing the enforcing, or if you
could describe the
mechanism by which they operate without human aid, I could be
persuaded
that they have objective existence. My interpretation is
heavily influenced
by what I perceive as facts of nature. On what is your
interpretation based?

You are, of course, correct. But that's not the way it shows up in our
lives. The speed limits exist in the statute books and in the memories
of the state troopers. But if we eliminated both, I'm willing to bet
that speed limits would be reestablished and new people would be
assigned to ticket violators. The laws and their enforcement increases
our ability to control by eliminating certain forms of conflict.

True, I can. But can I equally well justify NOT adopting it,
on grounds of
an understanding of how the natural world works? If you don't
want to adopt
that principle, what are your reasons for not wanting to? Are
they also
based on an understanding of natural law?

I can say that the policeman chose to ticket me (although he probably
didn't in the sense that he experienced no conflict before turning on
his lights and siren). But I can also say that any other policeman in
the same situation is likely to have done the same thing. I can also say
that when I got car up to ninety mph I should have anticipated that I
would be pulled over. If I _had_ experienced conflict, I might have
avoided the ticket by controlling my perception of speed at a new
reference level.

I think it is reasonable, on the basis of the logic and
observations that
led to PCT, to adopt the default assumption that _all_ behavior is
intentional in some terms. Some effects of behavior are clearly not
intended, but it is reasonable to assume, in the absence of
proof to the
contrary, that there is NO behavior that is not produced for
the purpose of
carrying out SOME intention.

I agree. That's the approach I try to take.

In my mind at least, the
pendulum has swung,
or is swinging, to where we can assume that any S-R interpretation of
behavior requires definite proof before it can displace a control
interpretation. And since I am of the school that says there
is no magic, I
do not believe in causes that are not embodied in physical
mechanisms. Thus
I don't believe in "unseen hands" of any sort -- not unless
they are made
visible. Of course I have a quite liberal view of what constitutes a
"mechanism."

I've tried to make them visible. When the cop gives me a ticket, it is
not personal. If it is personal, I can rightfully claim harassment.

Don't you want to leave that option open if people choose it? I'm not
speaking of forcing people to agree with the way I think
would be good for
people to live with each other. If my example doesn't appeal
to them, then
obviously my example is not a practicable one, and I have to
go back to the
drawing board. If only half of the people find my concept of a society
attractive, then the concept is a failure; you need a much
bigger majority
than that to create a viable society.

You need everyone. That's my point. It only takes one person who doesn't
want to play by the rules to create a situation where the rules are
mandatory.

If you see both outcomes about
equally, then it seems to me that you haven't seen any viable
suggestions
for how a society might work better.

You got that right!

True. The richer you are the less you care about piddling monetary
penalties. It would be better, therefore, if we tried persuasion and
education as a way of getting people to take it easy on the
road, while
leaving them free to go as fast as they need to. Of course we
would have to
have a way to do that effectively before putting it into practice.

Indeed. That's the problem, isn't it?

Of course. But don't we always start with a simple
approximation, which we
can then make more complex as we discover its _specific_ shortcomings?

Indeed we do.

Bruce Gregory

66

[From Bill Curry (991206.1700 EST)]

Mary Powers 991206

... take a moment to consider whether the self-indulgence of such free

expression is

damaging to PCT. Presumably we are here because we believe that PCT is a
good thing, flawed and incomplete though it may be. I think most of us
share the hope that PCT will become better known, and eventually replace
other, less successful models.

Your up-a-level post was appreciated, Mary. Focusing on CSGnet's relationship
to the future of PCT, can provide an entirely different perspective on the
entity, CSGnet, and our relationship to it.

So what is the role of CSGnet? Is it merely an electronic communicating
medium to thrash out the issue of the day irrespective of any side effects, or
is it an integral component of a system, i.e., the Control Systems Group?
If, as I believe, it is part of a system, what is the function of that system?
  My guess would be that the system, CSG, exists for at least two purposes:
1) to model, test and elaborate Perceptual Control Theory in any applicable
field of knowledge, and 2) to disseminate information and promote awareness of
PCT throughout the thinking world.

If, indeed, these are the functions, then the purposes of CSGnet should align
with those of its system, CSG. This implies that CSGnet is more than a
communications medium, it is also one of the CSG's vehicles for advancement
of PCT as an area of inquiry. In this light, the role of our little CSGnet
fish bowl is recast as _the_ place where interested people around the globe
can view PCT under development, and actually converse the with the top
theorists and modelers. Wow! Reorganization Central! What a great way to
bring others on board and build PCT momentum.

So is this a supportive and exciting welcome center for prospective
colleagues? Yes, at times it certainly is--it is very obvious everyone here
finds important values in the PCT framework--different views to be sure, but a
shared respect for the power of PCT nonetheless. Another tremendous asset is
that nearly everyone on CSGnet bends over backwards to answer questions from
new posters [speaking as a grateful recipient of such help on numerous
occasions]. There are lots of great teachers here. And it's exciting to see
new views tested and explored with a collaborative, respectful vigor [Bob
Christensen's thread on Understanding the Hierarchy being a notable recent
example for me]. And there are lots of examples of selfless dedication to
making PCT more accessible [Dag's tapings, Rick's website and books, Bill's
tutorials, Marc's archive work, etc.].

Where it all falls apart, in my estimation, is when messenger and message are
confused, and unsuspecting guests are treated to a gruesome spectacle akin to
seeing an urchin cut the wings off a butterfly. It's enervating. It steals
our MOJO. It detracts from the CSG purpose. This kind of communication
breakdown is not a product of "passion" for PCT, in fact, it's effects are
rather the antithesis of that. It appears most often to be a passion for
being RIGHT no matter what--as if volume, invective, and innuendo will carry
the day. Passion channeled into a respectfully conveyed and clearly worded
analysis is what persuades. Anything less is less.

Rick states in a recent post that "CSGNet is not (and was not expected to be)
a love in", and he urges those objecting to tantrums on CSGnet to just to
ignore it [but don't "Just Say No!"]. My respectful rejoinder is that many
know full well how to ignore it, and have taken that route by leaving CSGnet.
While CSGnet is not a love-in, it is not a lynching ground either [to use a
similarly strained metaphor]. Perhaps it will help to remember that "The
whole world is watching".

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

67

[From Rick Marken (991206.2200)]

Bill Curry (991206.1700 EST) --

Rick states in a recent post that "CSGNet is not (and was
not expected to be) a love in", and he urges those objecting
to tantrums on CSGnet to just to ignore it [but don't
"Just Say No!"]. My respectful rejoinder is that many
know full well how to ignore it, and have taken that route
by leaving CSGnet.

Yes. That is unfortunate. I guess I said "ignore it" because
I don't know of any way to avoid tantruming completely.

People are going to disagree; they will argue forcefully for their
points of view. And they will occasionally "lose it". If people
are leaving CSGNet because of these "tantrums" then I agree that
it would be nice if the tantrums would go away. But how do we get
rid of the tantrums? Obviously, people have to _want_ to be nice
to others. And I think they also have to respect others as fellow
human beings. But my guess is that everyone who posts to CSGNet
_does_ want to be nice to others and does respect others as
fellow human beings. I've met many of the most intense posters
in person and every one has been very nice to me and has given
every indication that they respect me as a fellow human.
Nevertheless, we get "tantrums".

So how do well-intentioned people discuss topics about which
they may deeply disagree without ever doing something that an
observer might see as "tantruming"?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

68

[From Rick Marken (991207.1050)]

Richard Kennaway (991207.1734 GMT)--

I don't have an answer, beyond cultivating my own garden.

Thanks. I completely agree with everything you say in this
post. I will try to get better at avoiding those communication
patterns that obstruct communication. I know I have succumbed
to (at least) two that you mention (satire and irony) -- and
(at least) one you didn't mention (sarcasm). I'll keep working
on it.

Thanks again for a very helpful post.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

69

[From Rick Marken (991207.1310)]

Bill Powers (991207.1131 MDT)]

I think that what has to be given up first is the desire to
set that person straight.

I agree. My desire has always been (if anything) to try to
set the _record_ straight. But it's obviously impossible to
to do this and not appear to be trying to set a person
straight when the record is being created by a person.

Correcting their wrong ideas (as we see them) is probably
at the bottom of the list of ways to get them to understand
PCT better.

I agree. My aim in correcting their wrong ideas (as we
see them) has never been to try to get them to understand
PCT better; it's to make the correct ideas available to
to people who _do_ want to understand PCT better. Actually,
that's what I thought (and think) CSGNet was for; not to
force people to accept PCT against their will but to place
the facts before people who _do_ want to learn PCT.

It was deciding that I didn't have to set people straight
that has left me with all this time and energy to devote to
what I perceive as work on PCT.

But I'm not controlling for setting people straight. In order
for me to stop wasting time and energy on CSGNet I have to
convince myself that I don't have to set the _record_ straight.
I haven't been able to convince myself of this yet, I'm afraid.

If there are other people who want to devote their time and
energy to furthering PCT, I welcome them as co-workers. But I
really have no time for people who obviously haven't done their
homework and just want to sit back and snipe or philosophize.

I agree. But then we have to abandon CSGNet as a medium of
communication and do it the old fashioned way: meet at your
house or give each other a call occasionally.

Let people make their own mistakes and either realize that
they are mistakes and fix them, or go their own ways. If they
want to go our way, great; if they don't, they just join all
the billions of other people who would rather go somewhere else.

Yes. Of course. I feel exactly the same way. So we just ignore
what is said about PCT on CSGNet? I'm willing to try, but it's
not going to be easy.

I thought CSGNet was going to be a forum for developing research
ideas, models and discussions of "real world" implications of PCT.
That is, I thought CSGNet was going to be the PCT Institute in
cyberspace. Have the snipers and philosophizers finally shut
us down?

Don't worry. When I'm not posting (and working) I am devoting
my time and energy to furthering PCT. I'll work on the baseball
program. But I think part of furthering PCT is having it
represented reasonably accurately in the one place in the
universe dedicated to understanding living systems as
perceptual control systems: CSGNet. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

70

[From Samuel Saunders (19991207:1340 EST)]

[From Rick Marken (991207.0900)]

Me:

> So how do well-intentioned people discuss topics about which
> they may deeply disagree without ever doing something that an
> observer might see as "tantruming"?

Richard Kennaway (991207.1637 GMT)--

> What works for me is wanting not to, noticing when I am about
> to, and deciding not to.
>
> Which I didn't mean to come out as a description of a control
> loop, but there it is: reference, perception, and output function.

But what is the controlled perception? That is, what is it that
you want and act to not perceive? I assume it's "tantruming".
But suppose that someone says "X is true" and you know that
X is false and you know why X is false. Suppose you want to
explain that X is false. How do you do this without being seen
as "tantruming" by those who are committed to the belief that
X is true?

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

I think it is not strenuous argument and support for ones point that is at
issue, but ad hominum attacks. It is possilbe to attack another's position
without questioning their motives, history, parentage, or scholarship. If
there is a problem in CSGnet dialog, it is in the tendency for debates to
degenerate into personal attacks. Remember how the recent RTP discussion
degenerated into a "what's wrong with Rick" thread for one side ? That is
the sort of thing I mean. On your part, consider your frequwnt tendency to
question the motives of those whith whom you disagree.

There can always be misunderstandings; in the middle of debate, disagreement
with ones point can often seem like a personal attack. When that happens,
perhaps the best course is to assume the other party has the same motives as
you, and so probably meant to question a position rather than the person
holding that position.

···

On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 01:04:43AM -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
ssaunde@ibm.net

71

[From Richard Kennaway (991207.1637 GMT)]

Rick Marken (991206.2200):

So how do well-intentioned people discuss topics about which
they may deeply disagree without ever doing something that an
observer might see as "tantruming"?

What works for me is wanting not to, noticing when I am about to, and
deciding not to.

Which I didn't mean to come out as a description of a control loop, but
there it is: reference, perception, and output function.

-- 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.

72

[From Richard Kennaway (991207.1734 GMT)]

Rick Marken (991207.0900):

Richard Kennaway (991207.1637 GMT)--

What works for me is wanting not to, noticing when I am about
to, and deciding not to.

Which I didn't mean to come out as a description of a control
loop, but there it is: reference, perception, and output function.

But what is the controlled perception? That is, what is it that
you want and act to not perceive? I assume it's "tantruming".

The perception is to not engage in various communication patterns that I
believe, on the basis of experience, obstruct communication: satire, irony,
imputing to people caricatures of their beliefs, telling them they're
stupid, setting myself above them in any way, dismissing their words on
account of tantrums they may be throwing, and so on -- I could probably
think of a whole lot more. Anything, in short, other than directly
addressing the points at issue in plain speech. Along with that goes
listening for what they are saying, and putting aside any rhetorical stuff
or tantrums they may be doing.

But suppose that someone says "X is true" and you know that
X is false and you know why X is false. Suppose you want to
explain that X is false. How do you do this without being seen
as "tantruming" by those who are committed to the belief that
X is true?

Don't ask me, you've got a lot more experience than I have. :slight_smile:

Off the top of my head, what occurs to me is that telling someone that X is
false won't work. Telling them why X is false won't work. They believe
that X is true, so their first reaction will be to work out why you're
wrong. If you believe you're right, your response to their demonstration
that you're wrong will be to show that it's wrong. They respond the same
way. Eventually either side or both will go off the rails and start
accusing the other of stupidity, dishonesty, wilful ignorance, talking to
hear the sound of their own voice, and so on. This can happen regardless
of who is really right or wrong.

I don't have an answer, beyond cultivating my own garden.

And some people are going to throw tantrums anyway. This is not intended
as a reference to anyone on CSGNET. There's a newsgroup I read in which
there is someone who is awesomely well-informed about the subject of the
newsgroup, and doesn't hesitate to point out when someone is flat wrong
about something. Usually this is about simple matters of verifiable fact
on which there is no room for discussion. He doesn't throw tantrums at
them, neither does he wrap his words in cotton wool. He comes in for a lot
of flak from the people he corrects.

-- 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.

73

[From Bill Powers (991207.1131 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991207.0900)--

Richard Kennaway (991207.1637 GMT)--

What works for me is wanting not to, noticing when I am about
to, and deciding not to.

Which I didn't mean to come out as a description of a control
loop, but there it is: reference, perception, and output function.

Rick:

But what is the controlled perception? That is, what is it that
you want and act to not perceive? I assume it's "tantruming".
But suppose that someone says "X is true" and you know that
X is false and you know why X is false. Suppose you want to
explain that X is false. How do you do this without being seen
as "tantruming" by those who are committed to the belief that
X is true?

I think that what has to be given up first is the desire to set that person
straight. If someone wants to believe something, the only _possible_ way to
stop wanting to believe it is to go above the level of the specific belief
to the reason for which that believe seems desirable. If the reason
changes, the belief will, or may, change. I don't think we can influence
what people want to believe, very much. Correcting their wrong ideas (as we
see them) is probably at the bottom of the list of ways to get them to
understand PCT better.

I've been busy trying to learn how to work the GNU C compiler DJGPP, and
struggling with JAVA and Visual C++, and working out the next phase of the
Crowdv3 program, and learning more about image processing, and looking into
the MathEngine physical simulator. These pursuits all have something to do
with increasing my skills for further developments in PCT, and I hope they
will lead to some useful results somewhere down the road. I read all the
CSG email, but it's amazing how little motivation I feel, lately, for
correcting statements that look false to me, or making people behave
better. It was deciding that I didn't have to set people straight that has
left me with all this time and energy to devote to what I perceive as work
on PCT. If there are other people who want to devote their time and energy
to furthering PCT, I welcome them as co-workers. But I really have no time
for people who obviously haven't done their homework and just want to sit
back and snipe or philosophize.

Marc Abrams, with Dag Forssell and others, is moving toward making PCT more
learnable; I agree that there is probably plenty of material in the
archives to form a base of resource materials. This would work toward
helping people learn enough to decide whether they want to join the
developers or just observe from the sidelines. If we just get on with the
work and abandon the attempt to reform everyone else, something useful will
get done.

Let people make their own mistakes and either realize that they are
mistakes and fix them, or go their own ways. If they want to go our way,
great; if they don't, they just join all the billions of other people who
would rather go somewhere else.

Best,

Bill P.

By the way, Mark, I still owe you a curriculum and haven't forgotten it.
It's just hard to get down to it -- I think it will consist mainly of
things I learned, plus a list of the things I _wish_ I had learned.

74

[From Tim Carey (991208.0530)]

[From Bill Powers (991207.1131 MDT)]

developers or just observe from the sidelines. If we just get on with the
work and abandon the attempt to reform everyone else, something useful will
get done.

Thanks for this post Bill, it was wonderful. Your thoughts expressed above
have, for me, been one of the real gems of PCT .... and it's been pretty
useful in the real world too :wink:

Cheers,

Tim

75

[Norman Hovda (991207.1350 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (991207.1131 MDT)]

[snip]

Let people make their own mistakes and either realize that they are
mistakes and fix them, or go their own ways. If they want to go our
way, great; if they don't, they just join all the billions of other
people who would rather go somewhere else.

Best,

Bill P.

"Hell, there are no rules here -- we're trying to accomplish
something." Thomas Alva Edison.

<g>
nth

76

[From Bruce Nevin (991207.1858 EST)]

To continue dispassionate discussion at the risk of one or another
convenient label being applied to me ...

Bill Powers (991202.0333 MDT)

The problem here, Bruce, is that you're thinking of the situation as a
legal contract between adults who are free to enter into it or opt out of
it. [...]

No, that is not how I am thinking of the situation. I view this as a
situation of teaching children (plural) how to make and keep a commitment
not to interfere with one another when they are learning.

What I want to know is why it's too much trouble to ask whether the child
is still committed to a rule you thought [she] was committed to earlier.

Because this would teach the opposite. It teaches that no commitment made
by the child can be or need be relied upon. It asserts the teacher's
mistrust of the child's competence to make and keep a commitment. And it
demonstrates that the teacher cannot keep a commitment, made just moments
or minutes before.

I say again, I am not happy with the "I see you have chosen" formulation,
but any proposed alternative must serve the same purpose. Making it solely
the teacher's rule, imposed under threat of coercion, is quite the opposite
of what is intended.

If you say that the RTP process could be abused as a cover for bullying,
you are quite right. No verbal formula or definition of process is
guaranteed to protect everyone from that. But just because education is
compulsory it does not follow that every relationship and interaction
within a school is coercive. It seems to me that at some point you have to
trust the teachers in the RTP school. An alternative is to abandon the
enterprise if you believe it is too deeply flawed.

But what you propose guarantees what you fear. It guarantees that the
relationship between teacher and student in the classroom will be coercive.
You propose making the RTP process a mere naked assertion of despotic
authority by the teacher ("I'm enforcing that rule, now," etc.), apparently
because you are convinced that this is the ineluctable character of the
teacher-student or adult-child relationship regardless of good intentions,
good training, and the cultivation of good relationships. This is human
nature, you seem to be saying, and it is incapable of change. With all due
respect, Bill, I don't buy that.

I view the disruptions in terms of a conflict within the child.

On one side is control of the sequence "distract someone then go to the RTC
to develop skill in not distracting people from learning". (I accept that
all the children as well as the teacher are controlling this. It is no more
complex than control of "If you are still moving when 'it' says 'red light'
and opens his eyes, then you're out." Note that it requires distinguishing
when people are learning from when they are not; distraction is fine at
other times in the RTP classroom, we are told.)

On the other side of the conflict is control of something else which has
the forseeable effect of distracting others. (Something that is clearly an
accident, like unintentionally dropping a book on the floor, is not
perceived as a disruption.)

The intent, as I see it, is to frame events in terms of this conflict
within the child. This conflict is the basis for a choice. The child
resolved the conflict by lowering the gain on control of "no distractions".
The reason for the verb "choose" is to affirm the child's responsibility
for controlling both sides of the conflict, not just the side that resulted
in distracting someone. So maybe there is some less objectionable way to do
that.

I hope this clarifies why calling RTP teachers lying hypocrites was just
way off base. I think we already know that it was terribly destructive.

Calling the interaction coercive appears to me to be an outgrowth of your
underlying assumptions about the nature of school and the nature of
adult-child relationships. Whether or not we agree about those assumptions,
they are a separate matter from use of the verb "choose" and what it
signifies. If the interaction is coercive, that is not affected one way or
another by the words used, and the recommendation of a different verbal
formula will not prevent the possibility of coercion. However, the
formulation you have recommended, on the contrary, guarantees it.

What
you should say, to get the lesson you're trying to teach across, is "The
rule I thought you had agreed to is that if you disrupt a second time, you
must go to the RTC. I'm enforcing that rule, now, and I hope you can work
out a way of not disrupting in the future, because if you do it again, I'll
enforce the rule again. I hope you do work it out, because I like having
you in my class. See you later."

Even this has punitive overtones.

Indeed it does. It points to the effect of distracting others, labelled as
a disruption. It doesn't point to the conflict in the child and nudge the
child to go up a level. It re-frames that conflict as an authoritative
confrontation between the child and the teacher enforcing the rule. Good
luck to the RTC teacher!

Here is one place I got an impression of some of your assumptions:

We're talking about a person who is in what we all agree
is a fundamentally coercive system, not by choice but by law. We're
talking about helping the [child] learn to live in that system, to see
its (supposed) advantages, and to avoid coming afoul of its hooks and
snares. I would also say we're teaching the person how to tolerate the
system, how to deal with it, and how to remain rational in the midst
of irrationality.

I read here your profound distrust of schools and teachers. I read here
your conviction that they lay ill-intended traps for children ("hooks and
snares"), that the apparent advantages of schools are illusory, and that
the school environment is filled with irrationality. I read that the best
that teachers can do is to help the child to slip through as little touched
by the experience as possible.

Is it possible, Bill, that these perceptions are not universal? And not
because those who do not share your view are duped or dull?

It seems to me that at some point you have to trust the teachers in the RTC
school. An alternative is to abandon an enterprise that you appear to
believe is deeply flawed.

We're talking, too, about a person who can be forgetful, who can be
distracted, who has volatile intentions that are not yet built into a
logical, orderly, and consistent structure -- a child.

Yes. And the child is learning to keep a commitment no more complex than
commitments kept on the playground -- which side you're on, what happens if
you play out of turn, what happens if you're caught off base, and so on.
These are not rules made up by a bully and imposed on everyone else.

The teacher is helping the child to build control structures for making and
keeping social commitments and for reducing conflict with others.

You say "When the rules constrain the choices to two, depending on the
value of a variable, you know much more than you would otherwise. The
person is making one choice, or the other, or they are no longer in the
game."

I think you're forgetting that the child does not have a choice about being
in the game.

Being out of the game is expulsion from school. I grew up with kids who
definitely, and by their own explicit statement of intention both before
and after, chose to be expelled from school. Their means was to persist in
disrupting and destroying things until they were sent home. I grew up in a
trailer park in Florida cracker country. I am not naive about these things.

I would like to see my children taught that rules, if they are fair to all
and needed to preserve good relations with others, should be freely adopted
and faithfully obeyed even if nobody else requires you to do so. And no
rule that is unfair and that leads to bad relations should be adopted and
obeyed except merely to avoid any bad consequences from others who take it
on themselves to enforce it. I would certainly not want them taught that
rules are to be accepted just because somebody thought them up.

I see no conflict between this and RTP. Do you?

If you choose to stay disentangled from this, that's fine. We are talking
about an area of application projected beyond what has been solidly
demonstrated in PCT. I am pushing back against what seem to me to be
unwarranted conclusions. If we are content to say "We don't really know
yet. Let's watch what happens in RTP schools, and see if we can get some
good data." that would be a good outcome requiring no further debate here.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 04:52 AM 12/02/1999 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

77

[From Rick Marken (991207.1700)]

Samuel Saunders (19991207:1340 EST)

I think it is not strenuous argument and support for
ones point that is at issue, but ad hominum attacks.
It is possilbe to attack another's position without
questioning their motives, history, parentage, or
scholarship. If there is a problem in CSGnet dialog,
it is in the tendency for debates to degenerate into
personal attacks. Remember how the recent RTP discussion
degenerated into a "what's wrong with Rick" thread for
one side ? That is the sort of thing I mean.

Yes.

On your part, consider your frequwnt tendency to
question the motives of those whith whom you disagree.

Mea culpa. Point taken. I will assiduously try to avoid
ever doing this again. Thank you for the very wise and
gentle advice. I really appreciate it.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

78

[From Bill Powers (991207.2147 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991207.1310)--

I agree. My desire has always been (if anything) to try to
set the _record_ straight. But it's obviously impossible to
to do this and not appear to be trying to set a person
straight when the record is being created by a person.

If you tell someone that he's an idiot for believing in God, are you
setting the record straight or telling the person he's an idiot? If you
call RTP coercive, same question. Statements of value always rub someone
the wrong way because even people controlling the same variable can differ
as to the reference level.

PCT is about factual properties of people and other living systems. If I
announce that the best delay factor in a model of a particular kind of
tracking behavior is 10/60 of a second, I don't expect to get into
arguments with anyone. I measured it; I announced the result. I might have
measured it wrong, but if so, someone will explain in what way, and I can
try to do it right.

Where we get into difficulties is in talking about subjects that _nobody_
knows anything about, and therefore about which _everybody_ has an opinion.

···

==========================================
Big breakthrough tonight. I got the DJGPP C compiler (from the Free
Software people) to compile and run all the test programs that came with
it, including the ones that control graphics modes and the mouse. This took
an incredible amount of experimenting and trying to find information on the
Web -- the documentation is worth every penny it costs. If anyone wants to
acquire it and get it running I will be glad to help: you have to obtain a
graphics library that was compiled under an earlier version of the C
compiler. And you have to figure out that the name of the library expected
by the Integrated Development Environment is not the file name, but the
file name with the initial "LIB" and the final ".a" stripped off, so if the
file is LIBGRX20.a, the name of the library is GRX20.

This program has versions that run under Linux and on several other
platforms, so Richard, you might want to look into it. I will be trying it
now with the MathEngine simulator.

Best,

Bill P.

Correcting their wrong ideas (as we see them) is probably
at the bottom of the list of ways to get them to understand
PCT better.

I agree. My aim in correcting their wrong ideas (as we
see them) has never been to try to get them to understand
PCT better; it's to make the correct ideas available to
to people who _do_ want to understand PCT better. Actually,
that's what I thought (and think) CSGNet was for; not to
force people to accept PCT against their will but to place
the facts before people who _do_ want to learn PCT.

It was deciding that I didn't have to set people straight
that has left me with all this time and energy to devote to
what I perceive as work on PCT.

But I'm not controlling for setting people straight. In order
for me to stop wasting time and energy on CSGNet I have to
convince myself that I don't have to set the _record_ straight.
I haven't been able to convince myself of this yet, I'm afraid.

If there are other people who want to devote their time and
energy to furthering PCT, I welcome them as co-workers. But I
really have no time for people who obviously haven't done their
homework and just want to sit back and snipe or philosophize.

I agree. But then we have to abandon CSGNet as a medium of
communication and do it the old fashioned way: meet at your
house or give each other a call occasionally.

Let people make their own mistakes and either realize that
they are mistakes and fix them, or go their own ways. If they
want to go our way, great; if they don't, they just join all
the billions of other people who would rather go somewhere else.

Yes. Of course. I feel exactly the same way. So we just ignore
what is said about PCT on CSGNet? I'm willing to try, but it's
not going to be easy.

I thought CSGNet was going to be a forum for developing research
ideas, models and discussions of "real world" implications of PCT.
That is, I thought CSGNet was going to be the PCT Institute in
cyberspace. Have the snipers and philosophizers finally shut
us down?

Don't worry. When I'm not posting (and working) I am devoting
my time and energy to furthering PCT. I'll work on the baseball
program. But I think part of furthering PCT is having it
represented reasonably accurately in the one place in the
universe dedicated to understanding living systems as
perceptual control systems: CSGNet. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

79

[From Bill Powers (991207.2204 MDT)
Bruce Nevin (991207.1858 EST)--

I say again, I am not happy with the "I see you have chosen" formulation,
but any proposed alternative must serve the same purpose. Making it solely
the teacher's rule, imposed under threat of coercion, is quite the opposite
of what is intended.

My reason for insisting that the nature of the situation be recognized is
very simple: I hope that a teacher who realizes that the situation is
coercive will be bothered by that and try to invent new ways of achieving
the desired final result that do not rely on the threat of physical force
in the background. If the teacher denies that any coercion is involved, and
continues to lay off responsibilities on the child, then the teacher will
be happy and will not be looking for better ways.

If we are content to say "We don't really know
yet. Let's watch what happens in RTP schools, and see if we can get some
good data." that would be a good outcome requiring no further debate here.

Sounds like an excellent suggestion, which allows us both to disentangle.

Best,

Bill P.

80

[From Rick Marken (991208.0800)]

Bill Powers (991207.2147 MDT)

If you tell someone that he's an idiot for believing in God,
are you setting the record straight or telling the person
he's an idiot?

Sounds like you're telling the person he's an idiot. Not nice.

If you call RTP coercive, same question.

I think you are telling the person that he is being coercive
if he carries out certain RTP practices. I don't think this
is anything like calling a person an idiot; it's "setting the
record straight" by making a factual point. Apparently you
believe this too since, in your reply to Bruce Nevin [Bill
Powers (991207.2204 MDT)], you say:

My reason for insisting that the nature of the situation
be recognized is very simple: I hope that a teacher who
realizes that the situation is coercive will be bothered
by that and try to invent new ways of achieving the desired
final result that do not rely on the threat of physical
force in the background.

So here you are _insisting_ that the RTP situation be
recognized as coercive. And you give a very nice reason
why it's good to "set the record straight" in this way: so
that alternative approaches can be tried (if the desire is
to avoid being coercive). I completely agree with you
conclusion (about coercion) and your reasons for insisting
that it be recognized when it is occurring.

Bill:

Where we get into difficulties is in talking about subjects
that _nobody_ knows anything about, and therefore about
which _everybody_ has an opinion.

I don't think this is true. We also get into difficulties
even when we do know (based on the model) something about
what we are talking about. The coercion example is a good
one; you (first, and then me) got into a ton of trouble
simply for making the point you make above about coercion.
It's not because you were talking about a subject you
knew nothing about; it's because people didn't like what
you were saying. We have the same problem with technical
points, too. For example, you say:

PCT is about factual properties of people and other
living systems. If I announce that the best delay factor
in a model of a particular kind of tracking behavior is
10/60 of a second, I don't expect to get into arguments
with anyone.

Well, you can expect all you want but you _will_ get arguments.
I showed that a model that controls vertical acceleration
cannot catch balls that are caught by a model that controls
vertical velocity. Still, I got arguments about this from
reviewers who just _knew_ that an acceleration control model
is equivalent to a velocity control model.

It's not talking about things nobody knows about that is
the problem (in my opinion); it's saying things that people
don't want to hear that is the problem. Many of the things
you (and I) have said about applied PCT are perfectly legitimate
conclusions based on the model. Nevertheless, they set off a
firestorm. I think the only way to avoid this is to simply
avoid coming to any conclusion that might offend anyone.
That's fine with me, but I'm pretty sure that will mean that
we end up saying nothing at all on CSGNet because even
conclusions like yours, about the best delay factor in a
model of tracking, are bound to offend someone (recall the
debate with Hans Blom, for example; models were of no
help at all).

Let me run a test case by you (and the net) and see if you
think discussions like this should be avoided. After reading
Bruce Nevin's (991207.1858 EST) post I was inclined to "set
the record straight" regarding the following:

I view this [the teacher saying "I see you have chosen to
go to the RTC room" after the second disruption as a
situation of teaching children (plural) how to make and
keep a commitment not to interfere with one another when
they are learning

Ignoring for the moment the question of how a statement like
"I see you have chosen..." can teach a child how to make
and keep a commitment, I think we know enough about how
hierarchical control systems work to see that "making and
keeping a commitment" requires that the child give up
control of perceptions that are controlled by varying
the perception to which the child has committed. I think you
understand what I'm talking about so I won't explain this
in any detail. I'm just bringing it up to ask if you think
this is an example of a subject "_nobody_ knows anything
about, and therefore about which _everybody_ has an opinion"?

Is it inappropriate to discuss the implications of "teaching
a child to make and keep a commitment" in the context of
the PCT model? Don't you think it's legitimate to discuss
alternative teaching goals (such as teaching _reasons_ for
controlling perceptions at certain levels versus teaching
_commitment_ to controlling perceptions at those levels)
in the context of the PCT model?

I know we need more PCT science. But the people who are doing
the science are going to do it with or without CSGNet. Most
of what gets discussed on CSGNet is the implications of the
model for real life. If we PCT scientists remove ourselves
from the real life discussions because we don't want to
offend anyone or because "nobody knows anything about it anyway"
then I think PCT will become (for those who are using it in
the "real world", which is about 99% of the people who call
themselves PCTers) just a bunch of "humanistic" words to
justify the same old ways of doing things.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken