[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.0910)]
Kenny Kitzke (2003.07.01)–
Without getting into the middle of
this bifurcation, I would like to ask you Rick about your repeated plea,
“Why are you doing this?”
It seems to me to be a PCT related
question, i.e., searching for the variable the action of Bruce is attempting
to control by countering a disturbance he perceives about what you claim
about PCT or HPCT explanations of behavior.
So, as a PCT expert, why don’t you
conduct the test for the controlled variable?
To some extent the entire discussion with Bruce G. is a test to determine
what variables are being controlled. But these variables are at a pretty
high level, probably involving principles and system concepts. This means
that any testing will require applying many disturbances over a long period
of time and that the results will not be particularly precise, anyway.
But my main interest in these discussions is not in finding out what
other people are controlling for. My main interest is in helping people
learn to control for the same thing I am controlling for – understanding
human nature from a PCT perspective – under the assumption that that is
what they want to do, too. I assume that people join CSGNet because that’s
what they want to do: learn how to understand human nature from a PCT perspective.
It often turns out that I am wrong; that, in fact, people have joined CSGNet
just to carp about something or, after an initial infatuation with PCT,
have realized that PCT is not their thing. There’s not much I can do about
people who are or who become disenchanted with PCT. I think it’s best to
just assume that people want to learn it and then proceed along those lines.
Why would you ask
this question of Bruce knowing all too well from PCT that his answer may
very well not reveal the true controlled variable anyway?
I was just asking it out of exasperation. Bruce was saying some awfully
cruel and ignorant things about PCT that, I imagined, would be very hurtful
to Bill, especially coming from someone who seemed, at one time, to be
an enthusiastic supporter of PCT. I asked “Why are you doing this”
for the same reason that a person might ask a child who is hitting another
child “What are you doing”? In the hopes of stopping the behavior when
the person goes up a level and thinks about why he is doing what he is
doing.
I have this hope
that the discussions and interaction on CSGNet might be useful for learning
about behavior and helping people converge on understanding and assisting
one another as scientists; rather than for expressing accusatory sentiments
leading to divisions so evident in the most recent dialogue with Marc,
and now potentially with Bruce. Can’t we be nice and respectful to
one another? Or is that too deep for PCT/HPCT to handle?
It’s something that PCT handles quite well. The main thing PCT says about
this is that you can’t make other people nice and respectful. PCT also
implies that it will be hard to act nice and respectful to people who are
busy being mean and disrespectful to you. But PCT does say that the
latter (one’s own response to meanness and disrespect) is all one has control
of. So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a choice that
each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face
of extreme cruelty and abuse.
Best regards
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.07.01)]
<From Rick Marken (2003.06.30.0940)>
Here is an excerpt from a recent interchange between Bruce and Rick in the “Ruminations on Importance” thread:
Rick:
My point was that your embarrassment comes from the fact
that our comments expose your ill-informed hostility towards PCT, not from
their being love notes.
Bruce:
Ill-informed, possibly. Hostility? I assume that you find me hostile
when I point out that most PCT explanations are simply hand-waving.
Rick:
<Yes. I do.>
Bruce:
No data (except the notoriously suspect ‘introspection’) and no
quantitative models.
<Saying such things doesn’t make them true. Why are you doing this?>
I assume that you agree since you keep pointing to
same few papers written a decade or more ago.
<Of course I don’t agree. Those papers contain data and quantitative models that are ust as valuable today as they were when first reported. Why are you doing this?>
Without getting into the middle of this bifurcation, I would like to ask you Rick about your repeated plea, “Why are you doing this?”
It seems to me to be a PCT related question, i.e., searching for the variable the action of Bruce is attempting to control by countering a disturbance he perceives about what you claim about PCT or HPCT explanations of behavior.
So, as a PCT expert, why don’t you conduct the test for the controlled variable? Why would you ask this question of Bruce knowing all too well from PCT that his answer may very well not reveal the true controlled variable anyway?
I have this hope that the discussions and interaction on CSGNet might be useful for learning about behavior and helping people converge on understanding and assisting one another as scientists; rather than for expressing accusatory sentiments leading to divisions so evident in the most recent dialogue with Marc, and now potentially with Bruce. Can’t we be nice and respectful to one another? Or is that too deep for PCT/HPCT to handle?
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1100)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0701.1251)--
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.0910)]
It's something that PCT handles quite well. The main thing PCT says about this is that you can't make other people nice and respectful. PCT also implies that it will be hard to act nice and respectful to people who are busy being mean and disrespectful to you. But PCT does say that the latter (one's own response to meanness and disrespect) is all one has control of. So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a _choice_ that each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse.
I'm surprised to hear you say that from a PCT perspective people have to make a choice at every instant in their lives. How is choice modeled in PCT?
I was using the word "choice" to refer to the selection of a goal, reference or output, which, of course, is done automatically as the means by which a higher level system control their perceptions. In the situation I was discussing I meant to say that, in order to control for niceness and respectfulness, one often has to chose not to react to disturbances created by people who are neither nice nor respectful. I can imagine various ways to implement this choice. One would be to learn to control for niceness by acting (choosing) to reduce the
gain on systems that would ordinarily react to meanness in ways that are not nice themselves. Another approach would be to set up a conflict between a not so nice system (one controlling for vengeance, say) and a nice one (one controlling for niceness).
What does this choosing? The Observer? The Chooser? Tell me more.
The choosing I was talking about is, as I said, the normal setting of lower order references by systems controlling their own perceptions.
By the way, I do understand the spreadsheet better. I had forgotten the way perceptions are modeled in it. I'm having some trouble coming up with real-world examples of perceptions as linear combinations of inputs. Could you suggest a few examples to get me started? Thanks.
Sensations like color, smell and timbre are probably close to linear combinations of the intensity signals on which they are based. The spreadsheet actually uses three types of perceptual variable that correspond roughly to three types of perceptual variable in the proposed HPCT hierarchy. Level 1 is scalars, which correspond to intensities, level 2 is linear combinations of scalars, which correspond to sensations and level 3 is logical combination of sensations, which correspond to the logic or program perceptions. The perceptual nature of
conflict can be demonstrated using any of the three types of perceptions. If you have two level 1 systems control the same intensity perception you get conflict (neither system can control the intensity; if you have two level 2 systems control the same sensation perception you get conflict; and if you have two level 3 systems control the same logical relationship you get conflict.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0701.1251)]
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.0910)]
It's something that PCT handles quite well. The main thing PCT says about this is that you can't make other people nice and respectful. PCT also implies that it will be hard to act nice and respectful to people who are busy being mean and disrespectful to you. But PCT does say that the latter (one's own response to meanness and disrespect) is all one has control of. So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a _choice_ that each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse.
I'm surprised to hear you say that from a PCT perspective people have to make a choice at every instant in their lives. How is choice modeled in PCT? What does this choosing? The Observer? The Chooser? Tell me more.
By the way, I do understand the spreadsheet better. I had forgotten the way perceptions are modeled in it. I'm having some trouble coming up with real-world examples of perceptions as linear combinations of inputs. Could you suggest a few examples to get me started? Thanks.
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1330)]
Bruce Gregory wrote:
It would be clearer, to me at least, to say that you react to meanness
with meanness if that is the way you are organized.
That strikes me as being too broad. Control systems are organized to react to
disturbances to controlled variables. An observer might see those disturbances
and/or the reactions to them as "mean" but disturbances are just disturbances and
reactions are just reactions. I don't think anyone reacts to meanness with
meanness. People react to disturbances with compensating actions.
If a person is able to see that some of those compensating actions are,
themselves, "mean", in the sense that they are hurtful to another person, and the
person wants to be nice instead of mean, then that person has to do something that
is very difficult: he or she has to learn to turn down the gain on control of the
variable which, when disturbed, leads to the "mean" compensating action. This is
what is involved in "turning the other cheek". If you're controlling for not
getting slapped (as most people usually are) a normal reaction to a hand coming at
your face (the disturbance) is dodging (the compensating action). But dodging can
hurt the slapper (causing a a dislocated shoulder, for example) which could be
seen as "mean". So the nice thing to do is not to resist. This requires overcoming
the normal functioning of the control loop, which can be done if another system,
controlling for "niceness" say, lowers the gain on the slap control system.
It's tough to achieve this level of niceness but I think worth aspiring to it.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1340)]
Marc Abrams (2003.07.01.1355)
Is
there any theory of human behavior that says you have control over someone
else?
Of course. Behaviorism, certainly. Also, many applications of control
theory assume that the cause of control system actions ( error) is in the
environment. These theories say that you have control over someone else
to the extent that you can control that person’s environment.
Me:
So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a choice that
each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face
of extreme cruelty and abuse. So would Folk Psychology
I don’t know about that. But it’s certainly what is said by Christianity
– the original version, anyway – much to its credit, I think.
Best regards
Rick
···
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1100)]
I was using the word "choice" to refer to the selection of a goal,
reference or output, which, of course, is done automatically as the
means by which a higher level system control their perceptions. In
the situation I was discussing I meant to say that, in order to
control for niceness and respectfulness, one often has to chose not to
react to disturbances created by people who are neither nice nor
respectful. I can imagine various ways to implement this choice. One
would be to learn to control for niceness by acting (choosing) to
reduce the
gain on systems that would ordinarily react to meanness in ways that
are not nice themselves. Another approach would be to set up a
conflict between a not so nice system (one controlling for vengeance,
say) and a nice one (one controlling for niceness).
It would be clearer, to me at least, to say that you react to meanness
with meanness if that is the way you are organized. In order to react
to meanness with kindness, your hierarchy (or the hierarchy that is
you) must reorganize. Such a reorganization will only take place when
the hierarchy persistently fails to exercise control by responding to
meanness with meanness.
Sensations like color, smell and timbre are probably close to linear
combinations of the intensity signals on which they are based. The
spreadsheet actually uses three types of perceptual variable that
correspond roughly to three types of perceptual variable in the
proposed HPCT hierarchy. Level 1 is scalars, which correspond to
intensities, level 2 is linear combinations of scalars, which
correspond to sensations and level 3 is logical combination of
sensations, which correspond to the logic or program perceptions. The
perceptual nature of
conflict can be demonstrated using any of the three types of
perceptions. If you have two level 1 systems control the same
intensity perception you get conflict (neither system can control the
intensity; if you have two level 2 systems control the same sensation
perception you get conflict; and if you have two level 3 systems
control the same logical relationship you get conflict.
Very clear. Thanks.
···
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 11:01 US/Eastern, Richard Marken wrote:
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.01.1355) ]
···
----- I was just asking it out of exasperation. Bruce was saying some awfully cruel and ignorant things about PCT
Like what?
that, I imagined, would be very hurtful to Bill,
Why?
especially coming from someone who seemed, at one time, to be an enthusiastic supporter of PCT.
Do you mean to say that if you are a ‘supporter’ of PCT you have no critisism’s of PCT nor questions about some of the aspects of the theory? I thought this was science, not a religion.
I asked “Why are you doing this” for the same reason that a person might ask a child who is hitting another child “What are you doing”? In the hopes of stopping the behavior when the person goes up a level and thinks about why he is doing what he is doing.
I am having a hard tiime understanding exactly what Bruce G did besides make a few statements about the limbic system. What is the big deal?
It’s something that PCT handles quite well.
Could have fooled me.
The main thing PCT says about this is that you can’t make other people nice and respectful. PCT also implies
PCT implies anything you want it to imply.
that it will be hard to act nice and respectful to people who are busy being mean and disrespectful to you.
Interesting. Where does PCT say that? Where does PCT talk about ‘respect’?
But PCT does say that the latter (one’s own response to meanness and disrespect) is all one has control of.
Is there any theory of human behavior that says you have control over someone else?
So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a choice that each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse.
So would Folk Psychology.
later,
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0701.1723)]
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1330)]
Bruce Gregory wrote:
It would be clearer, to me at least, to say that you react to meanness
with meanness if that is the way you are organized.
That strikes me as being too broad. Control systems are organized to react to
disturbances to controlled variables. An observer might see those disturbances
and/or the reactions to them as "mean" but disturbances are just disturbances and
reactions are just reactions. I don't think anyone reacts to meanness with
meanness. People react to disturbances with compensating actions.
I agree (at least as far as PCT is concerned).
If a person is able to see that some of those compensating actions are,
themselves, "mean", in the sense that they are hurtful to another person, and the
person wants to be nice instead of mean, then that person has to do something that
is very difficult: he or she has to learn to turn down the gain on control of the
variable which, when disturbed, leads to the "mean" compensating action.
I think you are being too metaphorical. You are describing conflict between "I want to be nice" and "I want to get even" (perhaps). You can't "turn down the gain" you can only reorganize in a way that removes conflict. That reorganization may, of course, involving adjusting the gain, but reorganization is doing the heavy lifting, not "you".
It's tough to achieve this level of niceness but I think worth aspiring to it.
I don't think "aspiring" is well-defined in PCT terminology. In the words of that great PCT guru, Yoda, No! Try not . . . Do or do not. There is no try.
Can’t we be nice and respectful to one another? Or is that too deep for PCT/HPCT to handle?
[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.07.01.2121)]
<Rick Marken (2003.07.01.0910)>
<It’s something that PCT handles quite well.>
Yes, I agree. It is something people don’t handle too well.
<The main thing PCT says about this is that you can’t make other people nice and respectful.>
Now, I think you are being a bit too casual with your words, as I was. In terms of making other people act nice and respectful, coercion will work most of the time. I might bow my nose to the ground as you pass, rather than experience the power of you M-16.
Does PCT really imply that? In what way? I thought it implies there are many ways to achieve a desired perception. I think this is more a philosophical implication? Have you not seen or observed or read about people who are masterful at this and find it quite easy?
<But PCT does say that the latter (one’s own response to meanness and disrespect) is all one has control of. So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a choice that each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse.>
Yeppers. I too see it as choice that is dictated by beliefs and systems references. And, I think those are choices as well. It is the nature of the human spirit to make such choices and no random “reorganization system” connected to intrinsic physiology is required IMHO for such choices. Just imagining and learning what we perceive to be right and wrong about who we want to be as observed by others. Or something like that…
BTW, I am leaving tomorrow for Illinois where my oldest son Chris (also a student of PCT) is being married on July 5. I am not sure I will get on the computer for a week. So, if there is no response, do not assume there is no interest in your views.
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2000)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0701.1723)--
I think you are being too metaphorical. You are describing conflict between "I want to be nice" and "I want to get even" (perhaps). You can't "turn down the gain" you can only reorganize in a way that removes conflict. That reorganization may, of course, involving adjusting the gain, but reorganization is doing the heavy lifting, not "you".
OK. I'll buy it.
I don't think "aspiring" is well-defined in PCT terminology. In the words of that great PCT guru, Yoda, �No! Try not . . . Do or do not. There is no try.�
I think "aspiring" refers to something people do -- an actual phenomenon -- and that is readily explained in terms of PCT. People set goals that they know they can't reach and then work until they either can achieve those goals or they give up. I've certainly aspired to achieve (control) things that I could not yet successfully achieve
(control).
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2015)]
Kenny Kitzke (2003.07.01.2121)–
Does PCT really
imply that? In what way?
In the sense that, as a controller, it is hard to resist acting to compensate
for disturbances to controlled variables. Those actions can often appear
to be mean and rude.
I thought it implies there are many ways to achieve a desired
perception. I think this is more a philosophical implication?
Have you not seen or observed or read about people who are
masterful at this and find it quite easy?
Yes. I think people can learn to deal with disturbances created by mean
people in a way that doesn’t itself seem mean. I think it’s wonderful when
people can do this. But I think it’s very rare and I’ve really never met
anyone who can pull it off consistently.
<But
PCT does say that the latter (one’s own response to meanness and disrespect)
is all one has control of. So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect
are a choice that each individual has to make every instant of their
life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse.>
Yeppers.
I too see it as choice that is dictated by beliefs and systems references.
And, I think those are choices as well. It is the nature of the human
spirit to make such choices and no random “reorganization system” connected
to intrinsic physiology is required IMHO for such choices.
I agree that whatever is doing this choosing is quite mysterious.
BTW,
I am leaving tomorrow for Illinois where my oldest son Chris (also a student
of PCT) is being married on July 5. I am not sure I will get on the
computer for a week. So, if there is no response, do not assume there
is no interest in your views.
Congratulations. Have a great time. Give Chris my regards.
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.01.2008) ]
···
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.01.1340)]
Marc Abrams (2003.07.01.1355) --
Is there _any_ theory of human behavior that says you have control over someone else?
Of course. Behaviorism, certainly.
Not quite. I asked if there was any theory that says YOU or ANYONE ELSE has direct control over anyone else. I did not ask if anyTHING else might. It was not a trick question.
Also, many applications of control theory assume that the cause of control system actions ( error) is in the environment.
OK, Where do errors originate from? If I percieve the environment and imagination, and it is these signals that ultimately get ‘compared’, where do I get my perceptions from? If error does not exist in the environment, it can only exist elsewhere in memory. What am I missing here?
These theories say that you have control over someone else to the extent that you can control that person’s environment.
Actually to the exrtent you can control the environment AND know what to do to get them to do what you want them to do.
Me:
So I think PCT would say that niceness and respect are a _choice_ that each individual has to make every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and abuse. So would Folk Psychology
I don’t know about that. But it’s certainly what is said by Christianity – the original version, anyway – much to its credit, I think.
Folk psychology is not a new discipline. It’s a term used to denote ‘psychological facts’ that have been handed down for thousands of generations. Things like;
When your thirsty you generally ask for some liquid.
When you feel pain you sometimes grimace.
It’s ‘folk’ wisdom that try’s to explain and account for why we do the things we do. As far as I know, _All_religions, except for Islam have a benevolent god. But what does that have to do with the price of a subways token?
later,
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0702.0524)]
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2000)]
>
> I think "aspiring" refers to something people do -- an actual
> phenomenon -- and that is readily explained in terms of PCT. People
> set goals that they know they can't reach and then work until they
> either can achieve those goals or they give up. I've certainly
> aspired to achieve (control) things that I could not yet successfully
> achieve (control).
I assume that you mean that higher-order system sometimes attempt to
establish reference levels that lower-order systems cannot maintain.
Then reorganization either allows these lower order systems to control
the appropriate perceptions or it fails to do so. In the latter
situation, the higher order system must reorganize. Is that correct?
···
--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.
www.joincanadanow.org
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0702.0717)]
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2015)
<But PCT does say that the latter (one's own response to meanness and
disrespect) is all one has control of. So I think PCT would say that
niceness and respect are a _choice_ that each individual has to make
every instant of their life, often in the face of extreme cruelty and
abuse.>
Yeppers. I too see it as choice that is dictated by beliefs and
systems references. And, I think those are choices as well. It is
the nature of the human spirit to make such choices and no random
"reorganization system" connected to intrinsic physiology is required
IMHO for such choices.
I agree that whatever is doing this choosing is quite mysterious.
I'm surprised to hear you say this. I thought that as far as PCT is
concerned, the hierarchy is doing the "choosing." A choice involves
setting the reference level of a lower-level system at one of several
distinct reference states. Which outcome is chosen depends on how the
reference state of the choosing system is set by higher order control
systems. Or did I miss something?
···
--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.
www.joincanadanow.org
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.02.0800)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0702.0524)--
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2000)--
> I think "aspiring" refers to something people do -- an actual
> phenomenon -- and that is readily explained in terms of PCT. People
> set goals that they know they can't reach and then work until they
> either can achieve those goals or they give up. I've certainly
> aspired to achieve (control) things that I could not yet successfully
> achieve (control).
I assume that you mean that higher-order system sometimes attempt to
establish reference levels that lower-order systems cannot maintain.
I mean that they _do_ (not attempt to) establish reference levels that
lower-order systems cannot maintain.
Then reorganization either allows these lower order systems to control
the appropriate perceptions or it fails to do so.
Yes. Though I would say "specified perceptions" rather than "appropriate
perceptions".
In the latter
situation, the higher order system must reorganize.
Not necessarily. The higher level system could just control for another
perception, one that the system can control successfully.
Is that correct?
I think so.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.02.0810)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0702.0717)--
Rick Marken (2003.07.01.2015)--
> I agree that whatever is doing this choosing is quite mysterious.
I'm surprised to hear you say this. I thought that as far as PCT is
concerned, the hierarchy is doing the "choosing." A choice involves
setting the reference level of a lower-level system at one of several
distinct reference states. Which outcome is chosen depends on how the
reference state of the choosing system is set by higher order control
systems. Or did I miss something?
No. You are absolutely right. In my reply to Kenny I switched to a different
understanding of the word choosing, one more like arbitrarily "willing" a
particular result. Bill discusses this in B:CP in chapter 13 (I think), in the
section on "Consciousness, awareness and volition". So choosing seems to be done
arbitrarily, as when I choose to point at the picture on my desk. I choose to have
this perception for no obvious reason; it's just selected arbitrarily. This kind
of choosing seems to be independent of the hierarchy; Bill views it (I believe) as
signals injected arbitrarily into the hierarchy by the reorganizing system. Since
we don't know much about how the reorganizing (or volition) system works, I see it
as mysterious. I have experienced this mysterious volitional choosing at work in
my own life. It happened when I somehow managed to choose to go down the PCT path
instead of what might have been the far more comfortable path of conventional
psychology. It's the mystery of volitional choosing that is captured in Frost's
"The Road Not Taken".
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org