[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1830 MDT)]
Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1923 EST
I will reply tomorrow – if I respond too quickly I miss things, and I
want to deserve the trust you are showing me.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Dick Robertson,2008.09.17.2040CDT]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1830 MDT)]
Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1923 EST
I will reply tomorrow – if I respond too quickly I miss things, and I want to deserve the trust you are showing me.
Much as I think I have learned about MOL it’s always exciting for me to see the expert operate. As I said previously I was not trying to do MOL with Jim, but you are beginning to convince me that maybe all conflict-conversations should be conducted in this manner.
Keep it up.
Dick R
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.17.23.20]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1010 MDT)]
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.
That's exactly what I did ask him [Martin Taylor 2008.09.15.12.20], but I got no response.
I am following your MOL session on the abortion question with interest.
Separately, I get the impression that Jim has higher-level reference values quite similar to those of Rick (and me), but has come to radically opposed conclusions as to what methods would bring his higher-level perceptions nearer their reference values if they were to be implemented. That, in itself, is interesting, if true. But I don't want to interfere in your MoL to follow it up.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.18.0703 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.17.23.20 –
[From Bill Powers
(2008.09.17.1010 MDT)]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.That’s exactly what I did ask him [Martin Taylor 2008.09.15.12.20], but I
got no response.
Possibly because you sneaked an argumentative accusation into your list
of possibilities:
The three things you mention
suggest you are controlling perceptions of variables which we can label
“government spending”, “access to abortion”, and
“taxes I pay”. For these you have reference values respectively
of “50% less than at present”, “only backstreet”, and
“50% less than at present”.
The “only backstreet” is not, of course what his reference
condition is; it’s your accusation that this will be the result of his
forbidding abortions. Also, your questions may have seemed similar to
what I had said the previous day, in my post of 2008.09.14.1750:
OK. These are “reference
conditions”, then, for three variables: government expenses (50% of
current level), abortion rate (0% of current rate), and taxation rate
(50% of current rate). The two “50%” values might be preceded
by “not greater than”, I would guess. Whoever promises (most
believably) to meet these criteria would have your vote. Is that
right?I want to ask “why” about each of these, not in the sense of
implying that you need to defend your reference conditions, but in the
PCT sense. What goals of yours would come closer to being satisfied if
each of these criteria were actually met by whichever party wins? That
question calls for a small digression.
… and so on. I assume you missed reading that post, which implies more
of the unspoken agreement that exists between us.
I am following your MOL session
on the abortion question with interest.Separately, I get the impression that Jim has higher-level reference
values quite similar to those of Rick (and me), but has come to radically
opposed conclusions as to what methods would bring his higher-level
perceptions nearer their reference values if they were to be implemented.
That, in itself, is interesting, if true. But I don’t want to interfere
in your MoL to follow it up.
I don’t see any point in speculating about Jim’s reference conditions or
choices of actions when he is right here to tell us about any of them he
cares to discuss in public. I am sure that we will find, in the end, that
Jim is very much like the rest of us, but that’s only to say that we’re
all human, each with his own private crop of warts. Jim is granting the
spectators here an enormous favor which I hope will be treated with
appropriate respect.
Best ,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.18.0743 MDT)]
Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1923 EST –
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.
First I should ask if any additional thoughts have shown up since you
wrote that post. I may be lagging behind you with my questions! But I’ll
go ahead anyway:
Could you expand somewhat on this dilemma? You’re feeling that certain
actions are appropriate, but as you consider what you’re saying, you’re
not sure you want to feel that way. This theme continues through this
post to the end.
What are the good reasons for hoping that punishment will have some good
effect, and the good reasons for not wanting to feel that way? If you
could just sum up the two sides, giving the arguments each way, I can ask
more about it when you’ve finished. Remember not to construct new or more
convincing reasons; just look inside and see what reasons are already
there. You’re just observing and reporting on the territory.
Incidentally, any time you have second thoughts about doing this on
CSGnet, we can cut it off or switch to private posts.
Best,
Bill P.
From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.18.1534EST.
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.18.0743 MDT)]
Jim Wuwert 2008.09.17.1923 EST –
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.
Could you expand somewhat on this dilemma? What are the good reasons for hoping that punishment will have some good effect, and the good reasons for not wanting to feel that way? If you could just sum up the two sides, giving the arguments each way, I can ask more about it when you’ve finished. Remember not to construct new or more convincing reasons; just look inside and see what reasons are already there. You’re just observing and reporting on the territory.
I want to be in line with what I understand about PCT. I want to live it out and the whole punishment thing seems so Skinnerian. So not PCT. It’s (punishment) useless from what I have seen, but what other option do we have? Everything is so rushed, how do we eliminate abortions without punishing people and have it really work. I wonder if punishment will really work. If it doesn’t, then what option do I have?
The good reasons for hoping that punishment will have some good effect is that it will solve the abortion problem much easier. If we punish them, then I don’t have to take that much time to deal with it. I can put them in jail and leave them there for X amount of time. It is efficient and quick and orderly. If someone does X, then they have to go to Y. I feel at peace when I know that will happen. If we can put someone in jail, then I don’t have to take the time to talk them out of it or develop a new social program. It is simpler.
The good reasons for not wanting punishment is that using a different approach besides jail would involve more time and investment. If I took the time to talk with people in these situations maybe I could help them, thus I would be helping to prevent them from getting an abortion. I could see them as real people with real feelings and real circumstances rather than viewing them as “those people” who believe in abortion. Maybe talking to them or using something other than punishment would help save them from having an abortion, but also it may help them have a better life. It may have a better long term effect. In other words, abortions may decrease.
This would me I would have to actually apply some things I learned instead of talking about it. I would have to live it out which would take time and effort. It may not be efficient all the time. But, I may get what I want–elimination of abortions. I don’t think a program would solve it, but perhaps if I talked with them it may solve it. If I was able to engage in some form of communication with them, perhaps in our conversation they would discover better ways to deal with a pregnancy besides abortion. That takes time. I am bothered that that could take time, but I want abortions to be eliminated. But will talking to someone who is about to have an abortion actually help? How much influence or how many young lives will we really save by a conversation? Will it be as effective as punishment?
But on the other hand, if we don’t put them in jail, then we will not be adding to the problem of the guilt that they may be feeling. Perhaps we can say that God will judge them one day and it is not my role to add fuel to a fire of guilt that they may feel one day. That makes no sense to me because it goes against everything that I have learned. If you do X you will get Y. How can they do X and get A? Have an abortion and then just go on with life. It does not seem fair to me. Then I think put them in jail. I think they should get Y. It’s unfair for them not to get Y. They did this horrible thing, they should get Y.
I wish there was a more efficient way of eliminating abortion besides jail. I am not convinced that talking about it with the person will work. I feel stuck at this point.
Incidentally, any time you have second thoughts about doing this on CSGnet, we can cut it off or switch to private posts.
I realize the risk involved here with replying to your questions. I am willing to take the risk it with the hope that it will help me grow personally and professionally and perhaps help others. If I am no longer willing to take that risk, I promise I will let you know and we can cut it off or switch to private posts.
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
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.10.57]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.18.0703 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.17.23.20 --
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.17.1010 MDT)]
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.
That's exactly what I did ask him [Martin Taylor 2008.09.15.12.20], but I got no response.
Possibly because you sneaked an argumentative accusation into your list of possibilities:
The three things you mention suggest you are controlling perceptions of variables which we can label "government spending", "access to abortion", and "taxes I pay". For these you have reference values respectively of "50% less than at present", "only backstreet", and "50% less than at present".
/
/The "only backstreet" is not, of course what his reference condition is; it's your accusation that this will be the result of his forbidding abortions. A
It's hardly an accusation, is it? If abortions are made illegal, the only abortions will be backstreet. Its a synonym, intended not as an accusation, but as a restatement in fewer words of Jim's reference level that abortions should be illegal. That abortion rate be 0% of the current rate is an inferred higher-level reference value, for which his stated reference that abortions should be illegal is a lower-level mechanism. Jim later did report that his higher-level reference value was that the number of abortions should be zero, but at the time, he had not yet done so, as far as I recall.
I rather suspect that we all agree with the higher-level reference value, while I, for one, profoundly disagree with the lower one that Jim originally propounded as one of his three original wishes.
Also, your questions may have seemed similar to what I had said the previous day, in my post of 2008.09.14.1750:
As I mentioned in my post, I was unsure whether my message was a duplicate of yours, as I did not know whether I had interpreted yours correctly. As the subsequent thread has developed, it turns out that it was only a partial duplicate. You asked Jim for his higher-level reference values in order to progress further up his hierarchy of "Why?". I asked in order to progress down different lower-level controlled perceptions whose reference values might be affected by changes in the higher-level ones.
So far as I have noticed in the thread so far, Jim has mentioned his higher-level reference only for the case of abortion. It is unclear to me what higher-level controlled perceptions lead to the reference values "government expenses at 50% of current level" and "taxes at 50% of current level".
I asked him to describe what kind of a world he wanted to see that led to the conclusion that these would be reference values consistent with that world. I then asked what other perceptions he controlled that would have their reference values affected by a world that was like what he wanted. I was expecting that at some level we would find that Jim's controlled perceptions and reference values would be quite similar to those held by people with whom Jim strongly disagrees.
This is quite different, or at least I think it is quite different, from the objective you are pursuing. I find your interchanges very interesting and I don't want to disrupt them, which is why I have not pursued my own interest in the PCT issues that have developed from Rick's original question of why some people would vote for a government with whose principles and methods he profoundly disagrees.
OK. These are "reference conditions", then, for three variables: government expenses (50% of current level), abortion rate (0% of current rate), and taxation rate (50% of current rate). The two "50%" values might be preceded by "not greater than", I would guess. Whoever promises (most believably) to meet these criteria would have your vote. Is that right?
I want to ask "why" about each of these, not in the sense of implying that you need to defend your reference conditions, but in the PCT sense. What goals of yours would come closer to being satisfied if each of these criteria were actually met by whichever party wins? That question calls for a small digression. ...
I am following your MOL session on the abortion question with interest.
Separately, I get the impression that Jim has higher-level reference values quite similar to those of Rick (and me), but has come to radically opposed conclusions as to what methods would bring his higher-level perceptions nearer their reference values if they were to be implemented. That, in itself, is interesting, if true. But I don't want to interfere in your MoL to follow it up.
I don't see any point in speculating about Jim's reference conditions or choices of actions when he is right here to tell us about any of them he cares to discuss in public. I am sure that we will find, in the end, that Jim is very much like the rest of us, but that's only to say that we're all human, each with his own private crop of warts. Jim is granting the spectators here an enormous favor which I hope will be treated with appropriate respect.
I agree with all that, but again I am talking about something different. My point is that we might have an example here of a kind of conflict not explicitly recognized in previous discussions, and that cannot be resolved by "standard" means. Two control systems have the same reference values for perceptions of a given function of the environment, and observe the same current values for that function. They both want to influence it in the same direction, and yet use mechanisms (lower-level control systems with particular reference values) that work in opposed directions.
How can this conflict be resolved? Clearly not by MoL, going up to higher levels above the level at which the conflicted systems agree totally as to the current state and the reference state. The conflict seems to lie in the imagination loop, which pseudo-replicates the environment. One sees the "What-if I can achieve X" (e.g. making abortion illegal) as leading to the desired objective (e.g. no abortions) with no undesirable side-effects influencing other controlled perceptions, whereas the other sees the same action as not leading in the direction of the desired objective (as well as influencing other controlled perceptions -- e.g. the number of unloved children and unhappy couples -- in the direction of increased error).
The conflicted systems are clearly organized differently, which means that the conflict cannot be resolved without some kind of reorganization. In Science, the question of which mechanism actually does influence the higher-level variable in which direction would be answered by experiment. In politics, no experiment is possible, since only one method is tried within any specific jurisdiction. If it fails, its proponents often say "we didn't do enough of it" (personally I think this is the case with tax cuts), and usually do not say "Let's try the other approach".
So, the PCT questions I addressed in my earlier message asking Jim for his higher-level reference values were designed to address the inter-related lower-level mechanisms, since I assumed that his answers would show he held higher level reference values quite similar to mine (and I believe to Rick's). I had intended then to refer back to the discussion Bill P and I had on the interrelation of Law and Freedom. It was not intended as the start of a MoL session.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.19.1111 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.10.57 --
It would be well to remember that the subject of this discussion is sitting with us while he is being talked about.
The "only backstreet" is not, of course what his reference condition is; it's your accusation that this will be the result of his forbidding abortions.
It's hardly an accusation, is it? If abortions are made illegal, the only abortions will be backstreet.
In your opinion. Sure, it's an accusation. You're saying "If you get your way, abortions will still be done but only under unsafe circumstances." You're accusing him of being in favor of unsafe abortions.
Its a synonym, intended not as an accusation, but as a restatement in fewer words of Jim's reference level that abortions should be illegal.
That's nonsense. If you think Jim would agree that he wants a lot of unsafe abortions to happen, you're mistaken.
Jim is gradually working out what he wants and how to get it. Right, Jim? Why not just relax and let him get on with it? And thank him for letting you listen in.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.19.1111 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.10.57 --
It would be well to remember that the subject of this discussion is sitting with us while he is being talked about.
I am happy that this is so, because I think the technical discussion is one worth pursuing, and the MoL exercise you are conducting is technically very interesting, too. From what little I have learned of Jim from prior discussions, I imagine he is likely to feel the same way.
The "only backstreet" is not, of course what his reference condition is; it's your accusation that this will be the result of his forbidding abortions.
It's hardly an accusation, is it? If abortions are made illegal, the only abortions will be backstreet.
In your opinion. Sure, it's an accusation. You're saying "If you get your way, abortions will still be done but only under unsafe circumstances." You're accusing him of being in favor of unsafe abortions.
Not at all. If I was "accusing" him of anything, which I wasn't, it was of having a reference value for abortions of "all illegal", as he himself stated. Whether a backstreet abortion (the only possibility for an illegal abortion) is necessarily unsafe is a separate question. In the days when all abortions were backstreet, I believe there were both clean and safe, and devastatingly nasty operations. It is true, however, that I could have simply used the phrase "illegal abortion", which would have had much the same connotations, but might not have aroused your indignation.
Its a synonym, intended not as an accusation, but as a restatement in fewer words of Jim's reference level that abortions should be illegal.
That's nonsense. If you think Jim would agree that he wants a lot of unsafe abortions to happen, you're mistaken.
I do believe that (not that my statement is "nonsense", because it isn't. It's a statement of fact, whether you choose to believe it or not). I believe Jim when he says he wants no abortions, which is not exactly the same thing as saying he wants a lot of unsafe abortions.
Jim is gradually working out what he wants and how to get it. Right, Jim? Why not just relax and let him get on with it? And thank him for letting you listen in.
Yes, I do thank Jim. It isn't easy to work out your desires in public. And as I have said, I had not wished to interfere with your MoL process by following up (yet) the problem of how to resolve conflicts in an HPCT control structure when at a high level both conflicted parties want the same thing and perceive the same current state of affairs. To follow up that question would demand both theoretical (from the PCT practitioners) and practical (from Jim or anyone else) work. The time for that is after the MoL work has been done.
Martin
From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.19.2145EST
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.10.57]So far as I have noticed in the thread so far, Jim has mentioned his
higher-level reference only for the case of abortion. It is unclear to
me what higher-level controlled perceptions lead to the reference values “government expenses at 50% of current level” and “taxes at 50% of
current level”.I asked him to describe what kind of a world he wanted to see that led
to the conclusion that these would be reference values consistent with
that world. I then asked what other perceptions he controlled that would
have their reference values affected by a world that was like what he
wanted. I was expecting that at some level we would find that Jim’s
controlled perceptions and reference values would be quite similar to
those held by people with whom Jim strongly disagrees.I can’t speak for people who disagree with me, but it seems that we may have an agreement ( through this session in my eyes) that we want an elimination of abortion. Perhaps outlawing it is not the best way of accomplishing it. It would be nice if we could try one way and then try a different way if the first way did not work. I think that if the two parties in this country could get to the fact that they want abortion eliminated and focus on that. I think we could make it happen and we could probably make it happen without putting people in jail, although we may need to try that as one of the solutions. Just to show that it would not work. What’s the harm in it. With the people that disagree with me I would rather stay focused on eliminating abortion and developing things that we can both agree on to reach that end. I discovered that by doing this.
I think we should cut government expenses because we have a deficit and because much of what we are spending is not really helping people. I think that if we cut those expenses and paid down our debt and gave it back to the taxpayers we could help more people. I want to be able to help those that really want help with getting a job, finding food, and finding a home. I feel that with my money going to the government for excess taxes that I am not able to help these people. Helping these people would make my neighborhood a better place and I think other people would be happier. I am mad because the government is taking my money that I could use to really help people. I feel that they are impeding me from helping those people that really want help. I feel the same way about taxes. I want my taxes cut because I feel that I could do a better job helping people than the government.
I want to help those people that want help.
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
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0318 MDT)]
Jim Wuwert 2008.09.19.2145EST
I’m stepping out of my interviewer shoes.
[Jim] I can’t speak
for people who disagree with me, but it seems that we may have an
agreement ( through this session in my eyes) that we want an elimination
of abortion. Perhaps outlawing it is not the best way of accomplishing
it. It would be nice if we could try one way and then try a different way
if the first way did not work. I think that if the two parties in this
country could get to the fact that they want abortion eliminated and
focus on that.
I think this might work better if we could first agree on why we want to
minimize or eliminate abortions. I have reasons of my own, probably
different from yours.
First, when does abortion amount to killing a sentient, aware being who
is struggling to survive? I think we could agree about not killing
sentient, aware beings struggling to survive – or at least sentient,
aware human beings, if not cows or plants. But at what point does
such a being come into existence? Not knowing when that is makes me want
to see abortion rates reduced – my imaginings of what it would be like
to be the victim shows me what an awful thing it would be. But when would
it be awful? Before the sperm has reached the egg? I doubt it. I wouldn’t
have a problem with preventing conception, though others would. Of course
I could just get a law passed to throw those others in jail if they
wouldn’t change their minds, but unfortunately if it’s OK for me to do
that, it would be OK for them to do the same to me, so I hesitate to
recommend that solution.
There’s a completely separate issue, which branches off when the subject
of contraception comes up. It seems to me that the world as it is right
now is pretty seriously overpopulated. Being such an old geezer, I can
remember how it was to go camping and not have the tent ropes overlapping
the ropes of the tent next door. Hunger exists and is going to get worse;
resources are running low and are going to get lower. We’re starting to
be poisoned by our own waste products, like a colony of bacteria in a
Petrie dish. So I think we should cut the birth rate significantly until
the world population is down to, say, one billion. What a paradise that
would be! Using the method I would prefer, we can lower abortion rates
and the population, which seems like a great solution to me.
I think we could make it happen
and we could probably make it happen without putting people in jail,
although we may need to try that as one of the solutions. Just to show
that it would not work. What’s the harm in it.
OK, but I would like to put the people in jail who are against
contraception, just to see how that would work. After all, lack of
contraception leads to a great many abortions, which both of us want to
reduce. Can you see any harm in your going to jail if you don’t believe
in contraception and won’t change your mind? Maybe that would show you
that you need to change your mind.
The greatest difficulties of social life are those that arise from
wanting to give everyone equal respect, an equal chance to do what they
want and be heard when they express their desires. When one group decides
it is right and wants to make everyone else agree, or at least behave
correctly, the inevitable result is violence and destruction. It
may be delayed or suppressed for a while, but it always, always comes
back. How are those who want something else, but don’t believe in
coercing other people, to survive? Whoever solves that problem will take
all the Nobel Prizes for that year, and many more.
With the people that
disagree with me I would rather stay focused on eliminating abortion and
developing things that we can both agree on to reach that end. I
discovered that by doing this.
So we got somewhere? Good.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0704 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32 --
Jim stated that he wanted there to be no abortions. That is his reference condition. He also said, at one point, that the means of doing this should be to make them illegal. That is an action, not a reference condition. He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers. Are you now trying to apply a sufficient disturbance to encourage him to go back to the way he was thinking before? I don't think he will, but I do wonder what result you're trying to achieve here.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2008.09.20.0820)]
Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0704 MDT)
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32 --
Jim stated that he wanted there to be no abortions. That is his reference condition. He also said,
at one point, that the means of doing this should be to make them illegal. That is an action, not a
reference condition.
It's an action relative to the reference condition of wanting no
abortions but it is a reference condition for abortion being illegal.
He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did
that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers.
That's great. So he must now be for Obama since McCain (and even more
so, Palin) wants to make them illegal.
Nice going, Jim.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0924 MDT)[
From Rick Marken (2008.09.20.0820) --
He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers.
That's great. So he must now be for Obama since McCain (and even more
so, Palin) wants to make them illegal.
No, I don't believe Jim is a one-issue voter. Are you? I don't get your point here. Do you WANT Jim to vote for McCain? If you do, I'd say your tactics are very likely to work. Not that I believe he is influenced by you.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.10.54]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0704 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32 --
Jim stated that he wanted there to be no abortions. That is his reference condition. He also said, at one point, that the means of doing this should be to make them illegal. That is an action, not a reference condition. He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers. Are you now trying to apply a sufficient disturbance to encourage him to go back to the way he was thinking before? I don't think he will, but I do wonder what result you're trying to achieve here.
Bill, you are obviously seeing something I am not. I'm not clear what that might be, but certainly we don't see the progression of this thread in the same way. What I was afraid of was disturbing your and Jim's perception of the state of the MoL session, not of disturbing Jim's perception of anything political. It seems, to my regret, that my fear has been realized.
Just for the record, however, Jim's first comment on abortion was not that the abortion rate should be zero, but: "/Morally, I think it should be outlawed because I view it as murder. It's black and white to me. There are so many people in this country who want to adopt. Abortion is something that destroys society. That unborn child however inconvenient could hold the idea that allows us to find a cure for cancer. Let's do our best to preserve an innocent life. I don't think legalizing that helps us preserve life or decrease the abortion rates. I feel like if it remains legal I am contributing to the murder of innocent children. It's an innocent life."/
As I said initially and in the message to which you are replying, I am interested in the issue of resolving conflicts in situations where the conflicted parties agree both on the reference conditions for a given function of environmental variables and on the current value of that function. The reference condition for perceived abortion rate (= 0) is one with which I, and I think many others, would agree. As you note, in the course of the MoL session Jim has reflected on the possibility that other mechanisms for achieving this state may exist.
For PCT theory this is an interesting development. It looks very much like a kind of reorganization that is not induced by the conflict itself, but by a perception (necessarily in some other part of the system) that the conflict may not be necessary, given that the "opponent" system has the same objectives. It does look, also, as though this induced reorganization has a similar "e-coli" quality as does the reorganization that depends on an inability to influence a perception one wants to control. If there existed a controlled perception of "level of conflict" with a desire for it to be zero, and there was no available mechanism to achieve this, then the situation would be more similar to the classical one, although the reorganization is closely confined to one small region of the hierarchy, a region not intrinsically connected to the perception of level of conflict.
In Jim's most recent message [From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.19.2145EST] in response to me, he mentioned another high-level reference value that relates to both the two other lower-level ones he initially introduced as reasons for intending to vote Republican: "I want to be able to help those that really want help with getting a job, finding food, and finding a home." Reducing government expenses and taxes are imagined as mechanisms for influencing the perception that he can do this in the desired direction.
Here again is a high-level perception with a reference value that matches my own, and here again are lower-level mechanisms that I believe would influence the perception away from its reference value. Here again, there are mismatches in imagination. Jim imagines the effect of lowering taxes and cutting government spending would be the opposite of what I imagine it would be. Therefore, we have common objectives, and (looking from a logical level) it would seem that conflict would be eliminated if we could determine from available data or from plausible theory which imagination would be more likely to match the results if cutting (or raising) taxes and cutting (or raising) expenses were to be implemented. (Parenthetically, if one does want lower government spending and smaller deficits, on the evidence of the last half century one really should vote Democrat).
Beyond this issue of what we might call "structural" conflict resolution, there was another line of PCT-theoretic argument I wanted to follow in my original set of questions to Jim, and that was the ability of other systems to imagine the side-effects of achieving the desired state of a controlled variable, and the consequences of that imagining for "directed reorganization". What would, for example, the world be like if taxes and government spending were halved? What would be the state of roads, schools, water systems, food safety, and so forth? If abortions were to be illegal, would there be more or fewer happy families (imagining that side-effect is distinct from imagining the direct effect, that the abortion rate would go to zero). Would changes in those variables be or cause changes in any other of the vast set of perceptions being controlled?
I find it fascinating that these significant PCT issues arise in the very practical environment of immediate political decisions.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.1204 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.10.54 --
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0704 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32 --
Jim stated that he wanted there to be no abortions. That is his reference condition. He also said, at one point, that the means of doing this should be to make them illegal. That is an action, not a reference condition. He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers. Are you now trying to apply a sufficient disturbance to encourage him to go back to the way he was thinking before? I don't think he will, but I do wonder what result you're trying to achieve here.
Bill, you are obviously seeing something I am not. I'm not clear what that might be, but certainly we don't see the progression of this thread in the same way. What I was afraid of was disturbing your and Jim's perception of the state of the MoL session, not of disturbing Jim's perception of anything political. It seems, to my regret, that my fear has been realized.
Then why did you suggest in his hearing, in your review of his reference levels, that he was in favor of illegal abortions? He most certainly was not and is not. He said a lot of things while considering new ideas, including things he also said he didn't wholly support. That's how reorganization looks from outside.
Just for the record, however, Jim's first comment on abortion was not that the abortion rate should be zero, but: "/Morally, I think it should be outlawed because I view it as murder. It's black and white to me. There are so many people in this country who want to adopt. Abortion is something that destroys society. That unborn child however inconvenient could hold the idea that allows us to find a cure for cancer. Let's do our best to preserve an innocent life. I don't think legalizing that helps us preserve life or decrease the abortion rates. I feel like if it remains legal I am contributing to the murder of innocent children. It's an innocent life."/
Right. Is that where you stopped paying attention to the succession of thoughts through which Jim then began working? That's where he started. It's not where he ended.
As I said initially and in the message to which you are replying, I am interested in the issue of resolving conflicts in situations where the conflicted parties agree both on the reference conditions for a given function of environmental variables and on the current value of that function. The reference condition for perceived abortion rate (= 0) is one with which I, and I think many others, would agree. As you note, in the course of the MoL session Jim has reflected on the possibility that other mechanisms for achieving this state may exist.
Resolving interpersonal conflicts comes down to resolving internal conflicts. The solutions are not arrived at by reason and logic, but by reorganization. I see nothing unusual about resolving a conflict by reorganizing an output function, the means of control. Jim's conflicts were internal; it just happened that when he resolved them the result was to lessen conflicts with others, too. It could have gone the other way. That wasn't his concern or mine. I wasn't trying to get Jim to agree with you or Rick or anyone else.
For PCT theory this is an interesting development. It looks very much like a kind of reorganization that is not induced by the conflict itself, but by a perception (necessarily in some other part of the system) that the conflict may not be necessary, given that the "opponent" system has the same objectives.
Reorganization is not driven by conflicts, but by error. Conflicts cause error, but errors can arise without conflict.
I doubt whether Jim's cogitations had very much to do with his differences or agreements with others on CSGnet, except for his preference to align with PCT. What do you say, Jim? Do any of us out here have even a vague idea about what really went on inside of you in these little exchanges?
It does look, also, as though this induced reorganization has a similar "e-coli" quality as does the reorganization that depends on an inability to influence a perception one wants to control.
As far as my model is concerned, reorganization arises from error, nothing else, not even what the error is about. Reorganization is not a cognitive function.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.14.23]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.1204 MDT)]
It does look, also, as though this induced reorganization has a similar "e-coli" quality as does the reorganization that depends on an inability to influence a perception one wants to control.
As far as my model is concerned, reorganization arises from error, nothing else, not even what the error is about. Reorganization is not a cognitive function.
OK. I defer to the proprietor.
Martin
[Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.14.29]
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.1204 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.10.54 --
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0704 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.19.13.32 --
Jim stated that he wanted there to be no abortions. That is his reference condition. He also said, at one point, that the means of doing this should be to make them illegal. That is an action, not a reference condition. He has since changed his mind, upon reflection, about what action would be effective. He did that with no help from us intellectual giants, or dictionary lawyers. Are you now trying to apply a sufficient disturbance to encourage him to go back to the way he was thinking before? I don't think he will, but I do wonder what result you're trying to achieve here.
Bill, you are obviously seeing something I am not. I'm not clear what that might be, but certainly we don't see the progression of this thread in the same way. What I was afraid of was disturbing your and Jim's perception of the state of the MoL session, not of disturbing Jim's perception of anything political. It seems, to my regret, that my fear has been realized.
Then why did you suggest in his hearing, in your review of his reference levels, that he was in favor of illegal abortions? He most certainly was not and is not.
Actually, he said that what he wanted was for all abortions to be illegal.
He said a lot of things while considering new ideas, including things he also said he didn't wholly support. That's how reorganization looks from outside.
Just for the record, however, Jim's first comment on abortion was not that the abortion rate should be zero, but: "/Morally, I think it should be outlawed because I view it as murder. It's black and white to me. There are so many people in this country who want to adopt. Abortion is something that destroys society. That unborn child however inconvenient could hold the idea that allows us to find a cure for cancer. Let's do our best to preserve an innocent life. I don't think legalizing that helps us preserve life or decrease the abortion rates. I feel like if it remains legal I am contributing to the murder of innocent children. It's an innocent life."/
Right. Is that where you stopped paying attention to the succession of thoughts through which Jim then began working? That's where he started. It's not where he ended.
Clearly not, but it's where my asking him to think about what higher-level referenced might lead to this lower-level perceptual control started, and you specifically said he did NOT start at that point. I was merely correcting the record. If you wish I would read your threads more carefully, you may be right, though I think I do read them carefully. I certainly wish you would read mine and not simply dismiss my thinking as that of an insufficiently tutored pupil.
Reorganization is not driven by conflicts, but by error. Conflicts cause error, but errors can arise without conflict.
How about responding to the point that the issue is with the imagination part of the loop, instead of restating the obvious?
I doubt whether Jim's cogitations had very much to do with his differences or agreements with others on CSGnet, except for his preference to align with PCT.
I agree with that, and I don't think I have written anything intended to suggest the contrary. In fact I explicitly discounted the possibility that conflict with the other party (e.g. Rick and me) was involved, because the issue that interests me here is that each party can observe that the other is controlling "the same" perception at the same reference value, and perceives the current value of the perception to be the same. Hence there is no conflict at the higher level. Nor is/was there any internal conflict overtly expressed initially by Jim. Only after it was stated that others imagined the possibility of achieving the goal by other means did Jim express any kind of internal conflict, and I'm not at all sure that what he said did indicate an internal conflict. Only Jim will know whether it did.
It does look, also, as though this induced reorganization has a similar "e-coli" quality as does the reorganization that depends on an inability to influence a perception one wants to control.
As far as my model is concerned, reorganization arises from error, nothing else, not even what the error is about. Reorganization is not a cognitive function.
That is as good a way of cutting off further exploration of PCT as you could choose. It is simply saying "I KNOW the truth, so stop thinking about other possibilities." or perhaps "MY model is the correct one, and don't try any other". Unworthy of you. Prove that Reorganization cannot be directed from inside the hierarchy as well as from persistent intrinsic error, and I'll stop thinking that it might. Until then, I choose to contemplate whatever possibilities occur to me that are consistent with PCT (not necessarily with BP-HPCT) and to express publicly those that seem worthy of informed critiquing.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.1445 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.14.29 --
As far as my model is concerned, reorganization arises from error, nothing else, not even what the error is about. Reorganization is not a cognitive function.
That is as good a way of cutting off further exploration of PCT as you could choose. It is simply saying "I KNOW the truth, so stop thinking about other possibilities." or perhaps "MY model is the correct one, and don't try any other". Unworthy of you.
I didn't mean to cut you off. If you want to develop another model I would strongly encourage you to do so. Let me know when you have it running and we can think up some test cases to help us choose between the candidates. I wouldn't be at all surprised if something more than my model is needed.
Best,
Bill P.
From Jim Wuwert 2008.09.20.1807EST
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.0318 MDT)]
I think this might work better if we could first agree on why we want to minimize or eliminate abortions. I have reasons of my own, probably different from yours.
First, when does abortion amount to killing a sentient, aware being who is struggling to survive? I think we could agree about not killing sentient, aware beings struggling to survive – or at least sentient, aware human beings, if not cows or plants. But at what point does such a being come into existence?
at conception.
Not knowing when that is makes me want to see abortion rates reduced – my imaginings of what it would be like to be the victim shows me what an awful thing it would be. But when would it be awful? Before the sperm has reached the egg? I doubt it. I wouldn’t have a problem with preventing conception, though others would.
I am okay with preventing conception.
With the people that disagree with me I would rather stay focused on eliminating abortion and developing things that we can both agree on to reach that end. I discovered that by doing this.
So we got somewhere? Good.
I think we got somewhere. At least, I think I got somewhere that may be much more beneficial for 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