Why??

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.15.1627 MDT)]

Ted Cloak 2008.09.15
10:27 MDT �

Ancestors
schmancestors. The only way one can be Sarah Palin is to be Sarah
Palin. (But who would want to?)

That’s the essence of what I was trying to say, only it took me more
words. All this arose from the question (from Gary Cziko) about whether
if you had

Sarah Palin’s genome and her upbringing, you could do anything different
from what she does. That question begs another: it assumes that this
proposition could be tested. It can’t be tested. Even if you cloned Sarah
Palin as an embryo, so she had exactly the same genome as the original,
you could not arrange the environment in the same way – for example, you
couldn’t supply another 911 attack, or the same President as the one we
had when Sarah-I was a baby. You couldn’t arrange for the same sharp
elbow to Mommy’ abdomen on a crowded bus at the same stage of cell
division. And (to argue like a lawyer) even if you could somehow
magically recreate the same environment, you could not predict the
outcome of all the reorganizations that Baby Sarah I underwent, because
repeating a random process (like Brownian movements) does not repeat the
outcome of that process.

The example I like to think of is rolling a ball bearing lengthwise down
a piece of railroad rail. The rail has a rounded top forming a piece of a
cylinder. If you roll the sphere down a longitudinal line an inch to the
left or right of the high point of the rail and parallel to the highest
line, the sphere will very predictably fall off the rail to the left or
right after traveling only a short distance. But as you roll the ball
along a line closer and closer to the exact high point of the rail, it
goes farther and farther before falling off, and your predictions of
which side it will fall on become less and less reliable. In the limit,
the more precisely you try to place the ball on the exact centerline, the
more closely your prediction will approach 50% success – pure
chance.

Any process containing one or more time integrations has this property,
because integration errors are cumulative. The longer the integration
runs, the less certain the value of the integral becomes, and the more
precisely you measure that value, the less repeatable it becomes. This
has to be related to the Butterfly Effect of chaos theory. Richard
Kennaway, am I talking nonsense?

Anyway, if the effects of a long series of reorganizations is cumulative,
we would expect the two Sarahs to diverge farther and farther as time
goes on. So the question can only be answered YES – the second Sarah
would almost certainly act differently from the first one, the
differences increasing with time and number of reorganizations.

Best,

Bill P.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1110CDT]

I’ll skip all the intervening stuff, since we’ve already brought it as far as I think we are going to, and go right to your last statement:

···

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.15.1030CDT]

From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.14.1758EST

Since I don’t know you well enough, I am not sure if your last sentence about IQ is a sarcastic comment or genuine. If it’s sarcastic, what value does that bring to this forum?

Absolutely not. I meant it when I stated your posts show you are quite intelligent. I could spell that out, as you write well, present yourself with “ego-strength” ( as we say in the shrink trade) and present some of the evidence you base your judgments upon. So I Know you are capable of entertaining “conditions contrary to fact” (I like Martin’s way of saying it even more, and also hope you will respond to the rest of his beautifully laid out questions.)

When I asked what would make you change your vote, I meant it literally, because as I mentioned previously, we took off from Rick’s questions about Why you and he differ (as two articulate and intelligent persons). This has led to the interesting stream about nature and nurture, in which both Bill and Martin have made what I consider exciting new observations. But back to the WHY, I must say I don’t understand why you refuse to entertain (i.e. get into the opposite number’s shoes) CCFs. Despite what you have said about how you reach conclusions, when you decline this strategy it leaves me thinking you are, after all, more likely a Gut-reaction decider. I’m not saying that’s bad. A lot of good people seem to work that way. But it seem to me less constructive for reaching any kind of synthesis between opposed points of view, which I think our country needs a lot of right now. If I understand what you do for a living I would think that empathy–as the ability to take the point of view of someone with whom you don’t agree–would be important in your attempt to help find common grounds with your clients, so as to help then reach a better way of living.

Best,

Dick R
*

Best,
Dick R*

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1536EST)

When I asked what would make you change your vote, I meant it literally, because as I mentioned previously, we took off from Rick’s questions about Why you and he differ (as two articulate and intelligent persons). This has led to the interesting stream about nature and nurture, in which both Bill and Martin have made what I consider exciting new observations. But back to the WHY, I must say I don’t understand why you refuse to entertain (i.e. get into the opposite number’s shoes) CCFs. Despite what you have said about how you reach conclusions, when you decline this strategy it leaves me thinking you are, after all, more likely a Gut-reaction decider. I’m not saying that’s bad. A lot of good people seem to work that way. But it seem to me less constructive for reaching any kind of synthesis between opposed points of view, which I think our country needs a lot of right now. If I understand what you do for a living I would think that empathy–as the ability to take the point of view of someone with whom you don’t agree–would be important in your attempt to help find common grounds with your clients, so as to help then reach a better way of living.

I think you make an excellent point. However, maybe I missed it, I never heard you or Rick ask me to take on or put myself in your shoes. The question that was asked was “What would have to happen in order for me to change my vote?” I interpret that to focus on me. I think I answered that question. I believe we came to the conclusion that Obama would have to be McCain. In other words, there is no way I would vote for Obama.

But, is there anyway that we can go up a level and talk about values and principles to try to find some common ground?

I shared in a previous email that I value more freedom for people because I feel that will make a better society and better country. I think that is what all people really want deep inside: freedom to do as they please and go where they want. Perhaps if Rick shared what he values that may help me to find common ground, which would provide me with what you term “a synthesis between opposing viewpoints.” I am interested in doing that.

What makes Rick want to vote for Obama? Why does he want to go there? What does Rick value that tells him that Obama is the man for the job?

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1110CDT]

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.16.1440)]

>Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1536EST)

What makes Rick want to vote for Obama? Why does he want to go there? What
does Rick value that tells him that Obama is the man for the job?

What I value is a nuanced, critical and articulate intelligence
combined with a clear interest in the welfare of all human beings. I
will vote for Obama because he embodies all of these traits. His
opponents embody none of them. I am also inclined toward his policies.
But it is his intelligence, values and character that have closed the
deal.

I don't completely agree with all his policies. For example, I think
his health care policy is too favorable to the insurance industry -- a
single payer system would be superior in every way -- but his approach
is certainly better than that of his opponents (it is not as good as
Hillary's but I opposed her because she was too pro war -- which is a
sign that she cares about some people more than others). But I trust
that he will take an intelligent and measured approach to the
development of policy and will have the interests of all people in
mind as he does so.

I also like Obama because he seems to be a man who clearly wants to
minimize conflict, even in a political campaign. This was shown
clearly in the primary where he never went tit for tat against
Hillary's sleazy attacks. His finest moment was his speech in response
to the Jeremiah Wright incident -- a magnificent speech which he wrote
himself. That's when he closed the deal with me; it wasn't just that
he was a good speaker but that the content was brilliant --
informative, nuanced and completely non-hostile. He has also shown
his penchant for avoiding conflict in the way he has dealt with the
McCain lies and sleaze. He has simply continued to try to get people
to focus on the issues rather than try to ramp up the mendatious
personal charges and counter charges.

His acceptance speech at the convention was also a brilliant
demonstration of his interest in trying to resolve conflicts by trying
to find higher order solutions to problems. His position on abortion
and gun control, for example, seemed to approach these contentious
issues in a spirit of cooperation. On abortion, for example, he
doesn't want abortions to happen (who does?) but he recognizes that
the way to prevent them is not to outlaw them (there will still be
many, dangerous illegal ones) but to develop programs that would make
it easier for women to avoid having to make the choice (contraception)
or would make it easier for them to keep the child if there were an
accident (adoption).

I also like Obama because of his approach to religion. He's a
Christian who (like me) seems to really buy into Christ's message. Not
the message of the shrieking right-wing Christians but the message I
like; the one in the sermon on the mount; the one about not casting
the first stone; the one about the ugliness of the pursuit of wealth
per se (remember the camel and the eye of the needle?). Obama is the
kind of Christian I would be if I were able to be religious. As it is,
I'm an Obama type Christian without the institutional affiliation.

I also like Obama because his election would instantly make America a
respected (rather than feared) country again. If he is not elected,
then I think we will go from having little or no respect in the world
(other than fear of our military) to being a complete laughing stock
nation (and even more feared since we will have some potentially very
loose canons with their fingers on the trigger).

And finally, I like Obama for his courage. The courage to know that he
is, indeed, a great leader; and the courage to offer that leadership
to an electorate that he must know is made up of at least 50% of
people who haven't got the intelligence and nuance that he has in his
little finger. And the courage to have faith in that electorate to be
able to see how great he is (and, being a Christian, he must know that
the majority of people are not particularly good at seeing greatness
in their midst).

I don't know if the US can muster the wisdom to elect Obama. If not, I
guess we'll just have to hope that things somehow work out. I'm not
sure whether Obama, if elected, can fix the mess that Republican
policies have created over the last 8 years; but I am sure that if he
is not, things will certainly continue to get worse.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.16CDT]

From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1536EST)

When I asked what would make you change your vote, I meant it literally, because as I mentioned previously, we took off from Rick’s questions about Why you and he differ (as two articulate and intelligent persons). This has led to the interesting stream about nature and nurture, in which both Bill and Martin have made what I consider exciting new observations. But back to the WHY, I must say I don’t understand why you refuse to entertain (i.e. get into the opposite number’s shoes) CCFs. Despite what you have said about how you reach conclusions, when you decline this strategy it leaves me thinking you are, after all, more likely a Gut-reaction decider. I’m not saying that’s bad. A lot of good people seem to work that way. But it seem to me less constructive for reaching any kind of synthesis between opposed points of view, which I think our country needs a lot of right now. If I understand what you do for a living I would think that empathy–as the ability to take the point of view of someone with whom you don’t agree–would be important in your attempt to help find common grounds with your clients, so as to help then reach a better way of living.

I think you make an excellent point. However, maybe I missed it, I never heard you or Rick ask me to take on or put myself in your shoes. The question that was asked was “What would have to happen in order for me to change my vote?”

Well, there are two steps to the logic. In asking what would make you change your views, I thought it was implicit that you would have to think like Rick (or a generic Rick-person), and then contrast that with your true position.

I interpret that to focus on me. I think I answered that question. I believe we came to the conclusion that Obama would have to be McCain. In other words, there is no way I would vote for Obama.

Suppose McCain were arrested robbing the Bank of America, and Obama was hailed by the Wall street Journal as offering a better plan for recovery from the current financial meltdown? Would you still vote for McCain? A ridiculous supposition, of course, but that is what is means to entertain a “condition contrary to fact.” In order to reveal how you reached a conclusion the opposite from Rick’s you would of course think of a more reasonable scenario, but still opposite from the one you really hold.

You certainly could challenge Rick to do the same, if comparing notes about how each of you reached your position–which I thought Rick was asking when he initially asked for anyone holding a position opposite to his to reveal how they got there. (That is also why I attempted to censure his wording of his questions a bit, since I was concerned that if they seemed biased to you then you would have more reason to reply defensively rather than openly.

But, is there anyway that we can go up a level and talk about values and principles to try to find some common ground?

That might be great. I think Bill was trying to engage you on that issue. I hope you both do proceed. I’ll be happy to watch.

I shared in a previous email that I value more freedom for people because I feel that will make a better society and better country. I think that is what all people really want deep inside: freedom to do as they please and go where they want. Perhaps if Rick shared what he values that may help me to find common ground, which would provide me with what you term “a synthesis between opposing viewpoints.” I am interested in doing that.

See above.

What makes Rick want to vote for Obama? Why does he want to go there? What does Rick value that tells him that Obama is the man for the job?

Ditto

Time for me to bow out of this discussion I think.

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1110CDT]

Best,

Dick R

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.0523 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.09.16 CDT –

[Wuwert] I shared in a previous
email that I value more freedom for people because I feel that will
make a better society and better country. I think that is what all people
really want deep inside: freedom to do as they please and go where they
want. Perhaps if Rick shared what he values that may help me to
find common ground, which would provide me with what you term
“a synthesis between opposing viewpoints.” I am interested in
doing that.

…

What makes Rick want to vote for Obama? Why does he want to go
there? What does Rick value that tells him that Obama is the man for the
job?

[Robertson] Time for me to bow out of this discussion I
think.

The conflicts lurk just beneath the surface; the water is full of
sharks.

If all the conflicts were resolved, no one would end up with the same
beliefs and aims that they have now. There is no person in this
discussion who doesn’t need to reorganize. And right now, I’m all but
certain that there is nobody in this discussion or listening to it who
isn’t thinking, “Like hell I will reorganize. Let them
reorganize.” That is because nobody in this discussion is thinking
at a high enough level to, as the wise men say, rise above the
conflict.

There is nothing mysterious about the method of levels. It mainly
involves developing a sensitivity to signs of what is behind the current
topic of discussion. I have a pretty good ear for it, but it could be
better and a lot slips past me. And I for sure can’t develop it for
anyone else. It takes practice, but more than that it takes a will to do
it. When you’re the interviewee, the talent, you can say whatever comes
to mind, and in fact that’s the point of that role because you have to
look at what is actually in your mind, but when you’re the interviewer
you have no agenda or aims for the other person or points to make – your
only job is to keep the conversation at the highest level you can find,
and push for a higher one. If you think that’s easy or leaves you with
nothing to do, just try it. You’ll find that you’re a seething mass of
opinions and goals, and putting them aside is close to impossible until
you see the advantages of actually doing that. All you can do is try, and
spend time in both roles until it gets to be less of an effort.

When you’re the interviewee, you can discuss anything that arrives in the
field of awareness, but you have to realize, or will discover, that
nobody but you is listening to what you’re talking about. The interviewer
is trying to figure out where you’re coming from (amazing how many
popular phrases prove pertinent), and that’s what you’re supposed to keep
an eye out for, too. This is not a normal conversation. You aren’t just
talking; you’re exploring your own organization. Nothing you say matters
unless it shows you something about how you’re put together. The point
isn’t whether what you say is right or wrong; it’s why you say it. As
interviewee, however, you don’t really have to keep thinking that; the
interviewer will remind you by asking unexpected questions and apparently
changing the subject just when you’re really getting into it. Very
annoying, for a second or two.

I could take over this conversation, but what would anyone learn from
that? If I had a stroke tomorrow or fell under a bus, wouldn’t everything
go right back the way it was? What good would it do for me to fix one
person’s problem – even if I could? Jesus, it is claimed, raised Lazarus
from the dead, but after that, how many people who were impressed by that
turned around and started doing it for others? A little problem there
(other than the problem of overpopulation): they didn’t know how, and
there were lots of people they would have been happy to leave dead (maybe
even Lazarus).

So, Robertson, Marken, and Wuwert, keep talking – but only one person at
a time is permitted to be the explorer, and everyone else has to be an
interviewer. If you don’t keep the roles separated, you’ll just get into
conflicts. If you want to change roles, which I encourage, be sure
everyone else agrees to the change. Maybe it would work if anyone who
expressed an opinion about something is automatically treated as an
explorer, so that responses to that opinion would be interviewer
responses, not just explorer reactions to the content of what was said.
An explorer response to an explorer remark should immediately call for
the whistle to be blown: ten yard penalty and loss of down.

Well, you get the idea, work it out for yourselves. The real no-no is for
one person to say “I wouldn’t vote for Obama” and the next
person to say “Well, I sure wouldn’t vote for McCain.” There’s
nothing interesting about “I wouldn’t vote for X.” All that’s
interesting is why it was said. Competent interviewers don’t care (at
least while in that role) who you would or wouldn’t vote for.

OK, let’s get out there and win one for the Gipper. Remember what CSGnet
is about.

Best,

Bill P.

[Kennaway_Richard_Dr]

[From Richard Kennaway (2008.09.17.1432 BST)]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.15.1627 MDT)]
Any process containing one or more time integrations has this property, because integration errors are cumulative. The longer the integration runs, the less certain the value of the integral becomes, and the more precisely you measure that value, the less repeatable it becomes. This has to be related to the Butterfly Effect of chaos theory. Richard Kennaway, am I talking nonsense?

Chaos is a different effect, but they both amplify errors.

A long time ago I came across a couple of vivid illustrations of just how rapidly information is lost when predicting the future, even of deterministic systems. Suppose you want to predict the movements of air molecules in a box at standard temperature and pressure. If one ignores quantum mechanical randomness, then in principle, given sufficiently accurate information about the initial conditions and all the external influences (gravity at least will penetrate the box) one can compute all the trajectories of the molecules arbitrarily far.

However, consider what happens if the conditions are varied very slightly. Suppose that the gravitation field is changed by an amount equivalent to displacing one gram of matter by one centimetre somewhere in the vicinity of Sirius. The time before that minute change in the conditions results in all information about the velocities of individual molecules being lost is less than a microsecond.

An example on a more practical scale is a billiard table. Give the predictor the advantage by assuming that it is a perfectly smooth, flat table with perfectly round balls precisely moving according to Newtonian mechanics -- a billiard table out of a physics exam question. The player precisely strikes a ball to make multiple collisions with the other balls before entering a pocket.

What happens if, on striking the ball, the player walks from one side of the table to the other? It takes only about seven collisions before the effect of the player's own gravitational field renders the prediction useless.

Alan Kay said "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." (http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html)

We might say, "The best way to predict the future is to control it."

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

[Kennaway_Richard_Dr]

[From Richard Kennaway (2008.09.17.1444 BST)]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.15.1627 MDT)]
Any process containing one or more time integrations has this property, because integration errors are cumulative. The longer the integration runs, the less certain the value of the integral becomes, and the more precisely you measure that value, the less repeatable it becomes. This has to be related to the Butterfly Effect of chaos theory. Richard Kennaway, am I talking nonsense?

Chaos is a different effect, but they both amplify errors.

A long time ago I came across a couple of vivid illustrations of just how rapidly information is lost when predicting the future, even of deterministic systems. Suppose you want to predict the movements of air molecules in a box at standard temperature and pressure. If one ignores quantum mechanical randomness, then in principle, given sufficiently accurate information about the initial conditions and all the external influences (gravity at least will penetrate the box) one can compute all the trajectories of the molecules arbitrarily far.

However, consider what happens if the conditions are varied very slightly. Suppose that the gravitation field is changed by an amount equivalent to displacing one gram of matter by one centimetre somewhere in the vicinity of Sirius. The time before that minute change in the conditions results in all information about the velocities of individual molecules being lost is less than a microsecond.

An example on a more practical scale is a billiard table. Give the predictor the advantage by assuming that it is a perfectly smooth, flat table with perfectly round balls precisely moving according to Newtonian mechanics -- a billiard table out of a physics exam question. The player precisely strikes a ball to make multiple collisions with the other balls before entering a pocket.

What happens if, on striking the ball, the player walks from one side of the table to the other? It takes only about seven collisions before the effect of the player's own gravitational field renders the prediction useless.

Alan Kay said "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." (http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html)

We might say, "The best way to predict the future is to control it."

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.0753 MDT)]

Richard Kennaway (2008.09.17.1432 BST)]

Alan Kay said "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." (http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html)

We might say, "The best way to predict the future is to control it."

Elegant post, Richard. Thanks. One microsecond! (discounting the 8.6 years of lag until the gravitational wave reaches us).

I thought chaos arises mainly from incommensurate oscillations. Anyway, the butterfly effect, as I understand it, comes from "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," which does arise from the cumulative nature of integrations.

Best,

Bill P.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1025CDT]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.0523 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.09.16 CDT –

[Wuwert] I shared in a previous email that I value more freedom for people because I feel that will make a better society and better country. I think that is what all people really want deep inside: freedom to do as they please and go where they want. Perhaps if Rick shared what he values that may help me to find common ground, which would provide me with what you term “a synthesis between opposing viewpoints.” I am interested in doing that.

What makes Rick want to vote for Obama? Why does he want to go there? What does Rick value that tells him that Obama is the man for the job?

[Robertson] Time for me to bow out of this discussion I think.
The conflicts lurk just beneath the surface; the water is full of sharks.

Could you be more specific?

If all the conflicts were resolved, no one would end up with the same beliefs and aims that they have now. There is no person in this discussion who doesn’t need to reorganize. And right now, I’m all but certain that there is nobody in this discussion or listening to it who isn’t thinking, "Like hell I will reorganize.

That doesn’t fit me, as best as I can judge. True, I can’t be as neutral as an Andaman Islander about who gets into the US presidency, but I’ve tried as much as possible. I wasn’t trying to be either a mediator or an advocate. Rick had said, “Why don’t you take over.” In reference to trying to learn the data on which Jim had made his decision (the implication being, I think, that Rick couldn’t fathom how someone familiar with PCT could come to a position so opposite to his. I decided to turn it back to Rick when I concluded we had an much information as we were going to get from Jim.

Let them reorganize." That is because nobody in this discussion is thinking at a high enough level to, as the wise men say, rise above the conflict.

Wait, you’re posing “conflict” before it’s clear that we are still there. Don’t you take literally the position “Now I just want to understand.”?

There is nothing mysterious about the method of levels. It mainly involves developing a sensitivity to signs of what is behind the current topic of discussion. I have a pretty good ear for it, but it could be better and a lot slips past me. And I for sure can’t develop it for anyone else. It takes practice, but more than that it takes a will to do it. When you’re the interviewee, the talent, you can say whatever comes to mind, and in fact that’s the point of that role because you have to look at what is actually in your mind, but when you’re the interviewer you have no agenda or aims for the other person or points to make – your only job is to keep the conversation at the highest level you can find, and push for a higher one. If you think that’s easy or leaves you with nothing to do, just try it. You’ll find that you’re a seething mass of opinions and goals, and putting them aside is close to impossible until you see the advantages of actually doing that. All you can do is try, and spend time in both roles until it gets to be less of an effort.

True, true.

When you’re the interviewee, you can discuss anything that arrives in the field of awareness, but you have to realize, or will discover, that nobody but you is listening to what you’re talking about. The interviewer is trying to figure out where you’re coming from (amazing how many popular phrases prove pertinent), and that’s what you’re supposed to keep an eye out for, too. This is not a normal conversation. You aren’t just talking; you’re exploring your own organization. Nothing you say matters unless it shows you something about how you’re put together. The point isn’t whether what you say is right or wrong; it’s why you say it. As interviewee, however, you don’t really have to keep thinking that; the interviewer will remind you by asking unexpected questions and apparently changing the subject just when you’re really getting into it. Very annoying, for a second or two.

Yes, very good.

I could take over this conversation, but what would anyone learn from that? If I had a stroke tomorrow or fell under a bus, wouldn’t everything go right back the way it was? What good would it do for me to fix one person’s problem – even if I could? Jesus, it is claimed, raised Lazarus from the dead, but after that, how many people who were impressed by that turned around and started doing it for others? A little problem there (other than the problem of overpopulation): they didn’t know how, and there were lots of people they would have been happy to leave dead (maybe even Lazarus).

So, Robertson, Marken, and Wuwert, keep talking – but only one person at a time is permitted to be the explorer, and everyone else has to be an interviewer. If you don’t keep the roles separated, you’ll just get into conflicts. If you want to change roles, which I encourage, be sure everyone else agrees to the change. Maybe it would work if anyone who expressed an opinion about something is automatically treated as an explorer, so that responses to that opinion would be interviewer responses, not just explorer reactions to the content of what was said. An explorer response to an explorer remark should immediately call for the whistle to be blown: ten yard penalty and loss of down.

Well, you get the idea, work it out for yourselves. The real no-no is for one person to say “I wouldn’t vote for Obama” and the next person to say “Well, I sure wouldn’t vote for McCain.” There’s nothing interesting about “I wouldn’t vote for X.” All that’s interesting is why it was said. Competent interviewers don’t care (at least while in that role) who you would or wouldn’t vote for.

Well, maybe you perceive deeper levels than I thought we were working on. In that case, I think you do need to be involved too.

Best,

Dick R

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1010 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1025CDT --

[WTP] The conflicts lurk just beneath the surface; the water is full of sharks.

Could you be more specific?

...

That doesn't fit me, as best as I can judge. True, I can't be as neutral as an Andaman Islander about who gets into the US presidency, but I've tried as much as possible. I wasn't trying to be either a mediator or an advocate. Rick had said, "Why don't you take over." In reference to trying to learn the data on which Jim had made his decision (the implication being, I think, that Rick couldn't fathom how someone familiar with PCT could come to a position so opposite to his. I decided to turn it back to Rick when I concluded we had an much information as we were going to get from Jim.

That is what I call getting involved in the content. Suppose Jim gave you the "data" on which he based his decision. I'm sure you and Rick would feel you have the same data, and at least one of you would conclude that Jim drew the wrong inferences from it. Then the conversation turns to "But have you considered ..." and "But how do you deal with ..." and "I don't think that bit of data is true ...". All very polite and open-minded and "I could be wrong, but ...", and all at the same level we started at.

Let them reorganize." That is because nobody in this discussion is thinking at a high enough level to, as the wise men say, rise above the conflict.

Wait, you're posing "conflict" before it's clear that we are still there. Don't you take literally the position "Now I just want to understand."?

Not quite. Why are you having this conversation, if you don't hope that down the line Jim will discover his inconsistencies or misinterpretations or deep-down motivations, and come to agree with you? Is this just idle curiosity? That is the direction in which I see the conflict still lurking. What if Jim convinces you that he was right all along and you were wrong? A real possibility? Or not bloody likely?

And you're forgetting that the goal is not for you to understand Jim, but for Jim to understand Jim. And you to understand you and Rick to understand Rick. Jim has already reached a conclusion based on his data and his reference levels. So we just accept that. The next question (Jim, if you're here), is whether that conclusion is acceptable, and if so, why. The PCT why: what higher-level goals inside himself do those conclusions help him to achieve? He's already talked about those goals a bit. Why not ask him what's good about them (not in a doubting way -- just a reminder that they need to be accounted for)? That would be going up a level. Asking about the data is going down and asking about his reasoning is just confrontational: the tinder of conflict.

Well, maybe you perceive deeper levels than I thought we were working on. In that case, I think you do need to be involved too.

I am involved. But I'm not going to do all the work.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.17.0930)]

Dick Robertson (2008.09.17.1025CDT)

Bill Powers (2008.09.17.0523 MDT)--

The conflicts lurk just beneath the surface; the water is full of sharks.

Could you be more specific?

I agree, Dick. Could you be more specific Bill. It looks to me that
the conflicts are right on the surface.

If all the conflicts were resolved, no one would end up with the same
beliefs and aims that they have now. There is no person in this discussion
who doesn't need to reorganize. And right now, I'm all but certain that
there is nobody in this discussion or listening to it who isn't thinking,
"Like hell I will reorganize.

That doesn't fit me, as best as I can judge. True, I can't be as neutral as
an Andaman Islander about who gets into the US presidency, but I've tried as
much as possible. I wasn't trying to be either a mediator or an advocate.
Rick had said, "Why don't you take over." In reference to trying to learn
the data on which Jim had made his decision (the implication being, I think,
that Rick couldn't fathom how someone familiar with PCT could come to a
position so opposite to his. I decided to turn it back to Rick when I
concluded we had an much information as we were going to get from Jim.

Yes, I think you ended up in a difficult position, Dick. I think there
was some idea that I was trying to do MOL with Wuwert. I wasn't; I was
just trying to figure out why he was going to vote for McCain/Palin. I
found out and it was certainly no surprise; the most important things
to him are outlawing abortion and reducing his taxes. Unless Jim
makes more than $250,000 a year, Obama proposes reducing his taxes
more than McCain will so I would guess that it's really just about
outlawing abortion.

Bill said:

Well, you get the idea, work it out for yourselves. The real no-no is for
one person to say "I wouldn't vote for Obama" and the next person to say
"Well, I sure wouldn't vote for McCain." There's nothing interesting about
"I wouldn't vote for X." All that's interesting is why it was said.

Why doesn't "Because I want to outlaw abortion" count as an
explanation of why he said it. Why doesn't my last post count as an
explanation of why I say that I wouldn't vote for McCain?

Dick said:

Well, maybe you perceive deeper levels than I thought we were working on. In
that case, I think you do need to be involved too.

I agree Dick. I don't get why Bill thinks we haven't gotten to the "why"?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1042 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.09.17.0930) --

Yes, I think you ended up in a difficult position, Dick. I think there
was some idea that I was trying to do MOL with Wuwert. I wasn't; I was
just trying to figure out why he was going to vote for McCain/Palin. I
found out and it was certainly no surprise; the most important things
to him are outlawing abortion and reducing his taxes. Unless Jim
makes more than $250,000 a year, Obama proposes reducing his taxes
more than McCain will so I would guess that it's really just about
outlawing abortion.

Bill said:

>> Well, you get the idea, work it out for yourselves. The real no-no is for
>> one person to say "I wouldn't vote for Obama" and the next person to say
>> "Well, I sure wouldn't vote for McCain." There's nothing interesting about
>> "I wouldn't vote for X." All that's interesting is why it was said.

Why doesn't "Because I want to outlaw abortion" count as an
explanation of why he said it.

Because it doesn't explain why he wants to outlaw abortion.

Why doesn't my last post count as an
explanation of why I say that I wouldn't vote for McCain?

Because you don't explain what is wrong with the things you criticize him for.

Dick said:

> Well, maybe you perceive deeper levels than I thought we were working on. In
> that case, I think you do need to be involved too.

I agree Dick. I don't get why Bill thinks we haven't gotten to the "why"?

I think I just explained that.

Best,

Bill P.

[Dick_Robertson]

[FRom Dick Robertson, 2008.09.17.1300CDT]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1010 MDT)]

Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.1025CDT –

[WTP] The conflicts lurk just beneath the surface; the water
is full of sharks.

Could you be more specific?

That doesn’t fit me, as best as I can judge. True, I can’t be
as neutral as an Andaman Islander about who gets into the US
presidency, but I’ve tried as much as possible. I wasn’t trying
to be either a mediator or an advocate. Rick had said, “Why don’t
you take over.” In reference to trying to learn the data on which
Jim had made his decision (the implication being, I think, that
Rick couldn’t fathom how someone familiar with PCT could come to a
position so opposite to his. I decided to turn it back to Rick
when I concluded we had an much information as we were going to get
from Jim.

That is what I call getting involved in the content. Suppose Jim
gave you the “data” on which he based his decision. I’m sure you and
Rick would feel you have the same data, and at least one of you would
conclude that Jim drew the wrong inferences from it. Then the
conversation turns to “But have you considered …” and “But how
do you deal with …” and "I don’t think that bit of data is true

This is certainly a reasonable guess, based upon any our experience with conversations of this sort.
However, I was curious about how Jim (and maybe people for whom he might be speaking, if such there are) made his political decisions. I really don’t think I was secretly plotting to try to lead him to change his views. As we proceeded i did come to wonder if he was acting not only upon values that he was aware of, but maybe also some he was not aware of (some thing that any of us do at times: Consider the Hahnemann, et. al. research). If there was such, and he did gain an expanded awareness, that would be OK with me. I wouldn’t have expected that it would necessarily lead him to change his position.

…".
All very polite and open-minded and “I could be wrong, but …”,
and all at the same level we started at.

That part I will agree with unreservedly. I have to admit that I wasn’t thinking in terms of levels, as far as I can tell, but you are in the process of convincing me, that it might be a good idea always to keep that in either the back of my mind, or forefront.

Let them reorganize." That is because nobody in this discussion is
thinking at a high enough level to, as the wise men say, rise above the conflict.

Wait, you’re posing “conflict” before it’s clear that we are still
there. Don’t you take literally the position “Now I just want
to understand.”?

Not quite. Why are you having this conversation, if you don’t
hope that down the line Jim will discover his inconsistencies or
misinterpretations or deep-down motivations, and come to agree
with you? Is this just idle curiosity?

No, it’s not idle curiosity but it is curiosity. When my guard slips down and I find myself losing the stance of objectivity that I was trying to maintain I do have to admit that my position is closer to Rick’s (if I read him correctly) than to Jim’s. But then I would go back into telling myself to put that aside. You seem to think you have detected that I wasn’t doing a very good job of that. I will take that under advisement, but I’m not reached a place where I’m conceding that so far.
That is the direction in which

I
see the conflict still lurking. What if Jim convinces you that he was
right all along and you were wrong? A real possibility? Or not
bloody likely?

A perhaps remote–but I see it as a real possibility.

And you’re forgetting that the goal is not for you to understand
Jim, but for Jim to understand Jim.

I wasn’t aware of that as my goal. I might change my mind about that, as you continue your exposition, but I’m not there yet.

And you to understand you and Rick to understand Rick. Jim has already reached a conclusion based on his data and his reference levels. So we just accept that. The next question (Jim, if you’re here), is whether that conclusion is acceptable, and if so, why. The PCT why: what higher-level goals
inside himself do those conclusions help him to achieve? He’s already talked about those goals a bit. Why not ask him what’s good about them (not in a doubting way – just a reminder that they need to
be accounted for)? That would be going up a level. Asking about the data is going down and asking about his reasoning is just confrontational: the tinder of conflict.

A very good prescription for where to go next in potentially reducing conflict, increasing mutual respect and all that good stuff. I wasn’t there yet, but you are getting me to think about it.

Well, maybe you perceive deeper levels than I thought we were
working on. In that case, I think you do need to be involved too.

I am involved. But I’m not going to do all the work.

Best,

Dick R

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.17.1215)]

Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1042 MDT)]

>Rick Marken (2008.09.17.0930) --

Why doesn't "Because I want to outlaw abortion" count as an
explanation of why he said it.

Because it doesn't explain why he wants to outlaw abortion.

So? It explains why he wants to vote for McCain/Palin. I could care
less why he wants to outlaw abortion. I'm not going to argue with the
guy. It would be like Feynman arguing with the rabbis about their use
of electricity on the sabbath; he's wipe the floor with me;-)

Why doesn't my last post count as an
explanation of why I say that I wouldn't vote for McCain?

Because you don't explain what is wrong with the things you criticize him
for.

I'm done criticizing (if I ever sis). I just wanted to know why he's
voting for McCain/Palin. I found out. Problem solved.

I agree Dick. I don't get why Bill thinks we haven't gotten to the "why"?

I think I just explained that.

So you just want to keep going? OK, Jim, why do you want abortion to
be illegal (I have my guess of Jim's answer written down on a card
here; if I'm wrong I'll donate $25 to Obama)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Jim_Wuwert]

FRom Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1615EST

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.17.1215)]
So you just want to keep going? OK, Jim, why do you want abortion to
be illegal (I have my guess of Jim’s answer written down on a card
here; if I’m wrong I’ll donate $25 to Obama)
I guess I am the explorer on this journey, so I will continue in that role until Rick and Dick agree that I can ask questions. I admittedly jumped the gun and started asking Rick questions. Rick, perhaps we can go back to your post about OBAMA there when you are done being “interviewer?” I have lots of questions to ask at the appropriate time.

But, until then, I am comfortable being the explorer and I will continue in that role.

So, why do I want abortion to be illegal? I value life and I think it is important to protect it. I am concerned that others are not. I think a society should protect it in its laws. I think the only way that we can protect it is by making it illegal. I think making it illegal sends a message that you will go to jail if you committ this act. It will say to them “its bad to have an abortion” You will be punished if you do that.

Additionally, I think it is important to reach out to people who may want to violate this law. I certainly would not want someone who is entertaining abortion to feel alone or like there is not any other options. I feel that preserving the life of an unborn child helps to ensure the future of our country (i.e. population). It helps maintain family units which I value. It helps to build a safe society where children are protected. I want the unborn children to feel protected and safe.

I think outlawing this will put some fear into people that they will try to take extra precautions with promiscous behavior and will seek out adoption if they do get pregnant. I think it will help build a wiser society and help others value life. I feel that it will help our country value life and protect it. I don’t think our country values life enough. It is an important value to me.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1438 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1615 EST

Don’t apologize for whatever you wrote. I just made up those rules to see
if anyone would follow them. I’ll jump in here now that you’ve restarted
us and try to illustrate what I’ve been talking about. You said:

So, why do I want
abortion to be illegal? I value life and I think it is important to
protect it. I am concerned that others are not. I think a society should
protect it in its laws. I think the only way that we can protect it is by
making it illegal. I think making it illegal sends a message that you
will go to jail if you committ this act. It will say to them “its
bad to have an abortion” You will be punished if you do
that.

I see a couple of hints here about subjects we could look at if you
think they’re relevant. What you say about abortion is essentially what
many poeple say about murder, and I think you said once that abortion is
murder.

My question for now isn’t about that subject. It’s about your thoughts on
the subject of dealing with people who are doing things you consider to
be wrong. If a person has an abortion, what will punishing that person
accomplish that will be satisfying to you, or that will make things
better for you – you know, the “PCT Why”. When I ask a
question like that, I don’t mean that I want a logical or satisfactory
answer that I will judge. The question is a signal for you to look inside
yourself to see if an answer comes up, or if some thought comes up
that is about the question or the answer. Or maybe I should be
asking what comes to your mind when you read what you wrote in the quoted
paragraph above.

Best,

Bill P.

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.1747EST

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1438 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1615 EST

So, why do I want abortion to be illegal? I value life and I think it is important to protect it. I am concerned that others are not. I think a society should protect it in its laws. I think the only way that we can protect it is by making it illegal. I think making it illegal sends a message that you will go to jail if you committ this act. It will say to them “its bad to have an abortion” You will be punished if you do that.

My question for now isn’t about that subject. It’s about your thoughts on the subject of dealing with people who are doing things you consider to be wrong. If a person has an abortion, what will punishing that person accomplish that will be satisfying to you, or that will make things better for you – you know, the “PCT Why”.

I am hoping that it will scare others into not wanting to engage in abortions. I feel like they will have a consequence for their action. I feel like we will be getting even with them. But, perhaps the act is a punishment in itself? I.e. emotional guilt. I am hoping that if people see that other people are punished for this act that they will think twice before engaging in that type of behavior. I think it will reduce the number of abortions. I also think that outlawing it is the right thing to do. I think it is the morally correct thing to do. I think our society is bad if we do not outlaw it. Punishing them will make me feel like we will have a good society because we will be punishing bad behavior. It would make me feel like we are doing the right thing. It would make me feel better about myself if we punished these people. It would make me feel like I did something to help prevent someone from killing a baby. I need to feel like I am doing all I can to prevent an abortion from taking place. I feel that I am responsible for helping to prevent it. I feel like outlawing it will take care of that need.

Jim

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1608 mdt)]

Jim Wuwert 2008.09.1747 EST –

My question for now isn’t about
that subject. It’s about your thoughts on the subject of dealing with
people who are doing things you consider to be wrong.

I am hoping that it will scare others into not wanting to engage in
abortions.

Are you saying that the beneficial effect of the punishment will be
mainly on other people than the person being punished for having the
abortion? Or is there some good effect on that person, too?

I feel like they will have a consequence for their action. I feel
like we will be getting even with them.

But, perhaps the act is a punishment in itself? I.e. emotional
guilt. I am hoping that if people see that other people are punished for
this act that they will think twice before engaging in that type of
behavior. I think it will reduce the number of abortions.

When you think of a person being punished, what comes to mind?

I also think that outlawing it is the right thing to do. I
think it is the morally correct thing to do. I think our society is bad
if we do not outlaw it. Punishing them will make me feel like we will
have a good society because we will be punishing bad behavior.

Talk about that some more: we will have a good society because we will be
punishing bad behavior.

It would make me feel like we are doing the right thing. It would
make me feel better about myself if we punished these
people.

It would make me feel like I did something to help prevent
someone from killing a baby.

Does it seem to you that you’re not doing enough to prevent
abortions?

I need to feel like I am doing all I can to prevent an abortion from
taking place. I feel that I am responsible for helping to prevent it. I
feel like outlawing it will take care of that need.

You anticipated my question. You feel responsible for helping to prevent
abortions. Does it bother you when you don’t feel you’re helping
enough?

I probably asked twice as many question as I should have, but see where
this leads. Just pick out what seems most important to you, right as
you’re reading this.

Best,

Bill P.

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1923EST

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1608 mdt)]

Are you saying that the beneficial effect of the punishment will be mainly on other people than the person being punished for having the abortion? Or is there some good effect on that person, too?

Yes, I feel that the benefit of the punishment will be mainly for other people. They will see that other people are punished for this act and therefore they will stop doing it. I think that it will help the other person because they will realize through the course of their punishment that what they did was wrong. They will then not do it again and tell others not to do it.

As I write this, I am not sure I want to feel this way, but I feel this way. I am hoping through punishment that there will be some good effect on that person. For some reason I think this is not in line with PCT, but the above is what I feel right now.

I think that through punishment the person will recognize that she is wrong and change her ways. Again, not sure I want to feel this way, but I do.

When you think of a person being punished, what comes to mind?

A financial penalty or some solitary confinement. Alone time where the person has to reflect on his/her behavior. Isolation away from the amenities of life. Not sure if that will work, but it is how I feel. As a matter of fact, it probably will not work because they could play the system, do the time, and then leave and do the same thing again. It would make me feel better if they had some solitary confinement, but does that really solve the problem of too many abortions?

I also think that outlawing it is the right thing to do. I think it is the morally correct thing to do. I think our society is bad if we do not outlaw it. Punishing them will make me feel like we will have a good society because we will be punishing bad behavior.

Talk about that some more: we will have a good society because we will be punishing bad behavior.

Punishing bad behavior sets down the bottom lines. It gives us limits as a society. It lets me know what I can do and what I can get away with doing and what I can’t get away with. A good society is one where people respect each other and when you don’t you get punished by the law. Punishing bad behavior is a way that we can get rid of the bad in this world. We can contain it and put it in a box/jail. If we put the bad in jail, then our society will be good and respectful and safe.

Does it seem to you that you’re not doing enough to prevent abortions?

I need to feel like I am doing all I can to prevent an abortion from taking place. I feel that I am responsible for helping to prevent it. I feel like outlawing it will take care of that need.

You anticipated my question. You feel responsible for helping to prevent abortions. Does it bother you when you don’t feel you’re helping enough?

I am bothered and annoyed that this happens far too often and there is no reason for it to. These people can choose adoption. Perhaps they don’t know how to choose adoption. It does bother me when I don’t feel that I am helping enough because I have time to complain about it, but in some ways I feel that I have not taken my time to take action to prevent this from happenning. I am frustrated that I have not even tried to help these people beyond wanting to enact a law that would put them in jail. Perhaps they are nice people that just made a bad choice and then got pregnant as a result. Maybe if I could talk to them they would realize that they had options. But then again, where do I find them? I can’t save the world, but it does annoy me when they choose abortion over adoption.

I want to eliminate abortion. That is what I ultimately want. I want people to stop choosing it as an option. I don’t think punishing them will work. Jail does not seem effective to me. I am reflecting on what i wrote above. I don’t know of any other method besides jail time to help eliminate people choosing abortion. I feel like it is my only choice. I don’t believe in the social programs that are out there. They don’t seem effective. I feel stuck at this point. I want to eliminate people having abortions, but I am unsure of an effective way of doing that that does not involve jail.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER