From: POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (William T. Powers)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Manipulation
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:11:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-To:         CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu

[From Bill Powers (920829.2130)]

RE: various posts on the subject of manipulation.

The context of Greg Williams' discussion of manipulation requires a
particular interpretation of the term. What is meant is one person
controlling another person's actions surreptitiously, leading to that
other person doing something one could not get the person to do simply
by asking. The implication is that the other is made to behave in some
way independent of his or her interests or wishes, without arousing a
direct conflict or direct resistance by the other person. The means of
manipulation are not the application of direct force, or a request for
the other to perform the act, but deceit, indirection,
misrepresentation of facts, false promises, ambiguous communications,
and (using the Test) disturbance of variables the victim is known to
be controlling in order to elicit an opposing response with
consequences unknown to or unpredicted by the victim. While
manipulation in this sense might be used for the benefit of the
manipulee, that is a judgement of the manipulator, not the manipulee;
it is the goals of the manipulator that are satisfied, while those of
the manipulee are ignored or bypassed.

Greg's thesis is that there are ways of controlling the behavior of
other people against their will or without their awareness other than
by the use of overwhelming physical force.

My thesis is that such apparent control (a) is an illusion, or (b) is
of no importance to the "victim", or (c) is carried out only with the
aid of the "victim," or (d) rests on a threat of force in the
background. I contend that a properly functioning control system
cannot be controlled from outside, so that any apparent success by a
manipulator results from some defect of organization in the control
system.

----------------------------------------
Martin Taylor (920829.1315) --

>One should never say that one "controls" the location of the car
within >its lane on the road.  One should say that one controls the
percept of >the location of the car....

The stages of Satori. Before I understood, I said that I controlled
the car within its lane. While I was understanding, I said that I
controlled the percept of the car within its lane. After I understood,
I said that I controlled the car within its lane (for I know only the
percept in any case).

>We need a different word for what happens to the CEV corresponding to
a >controlled percept.  For lack of a better word, I propose here to
use >X-control (externalized control). One can X-control passive CEV's
in >the real outer world.  One cannot control (P-control?) them.

I resist this terminology. If the (hypothetical) external CEV (complex
environmental variable) does not behave as the percept does, then the
CEV has been misdefined; it must entail aspects that are not matched
in the perceptual function of the controlling system. While I don't
object to speaking of a model of the physical reality as if it really
exists (practical considerations require this), I want to minimize
reification of that hypothetical reality. To speak of a CEV apart from
the perceptual system that defines it for a controlling system is to
give the CEV an independent existence of its own, to objectify it, and
to imply a third-party observer who can know the true form of the CEV
which may be partly misrepresented in the controlling system. There
may be many variables in the external world. But they are not
organized into CEVs.

It is the perceptual function that defines the true relationship
between the percept and that which is externally controlled. The
percept can't be incorrect. Only our understanding of its external
counterpart can be in error. That is, our assertion that we are
perceiving the world in the same way that the control system is
perceiving it is fallible. There are no CEVs independent of the
controlling system (or the observer). A correctly-defined CEV always
corresponds exactly to the percept.

There is only one form of control: control of the percept.

RE: manipulation of uncontrolled perceptions

>Wait a minute here...This is one of the things I was talking about
when >I said that the dynamics are important.  You are dealing with
steady >states, whereas the effect the attempting controller would
have is >transient.

A disturbance that has a transient effect only will not materially
affect the behavior (output) of the control system. If the control
system could react within the interval we classify as "transient," the
disturbance would be successfully resisted and there would be no
transient effect on the perception. Remember that the main means of
producing predictable outputs from a control system is to apply a
disturbance THAT IS CANCELED BY THE ENSUING ACTION. If the disturbance
is brief enough to qualify as a true transient that the control system
cannot counteract before it is over, then there will be no action that
is equal and opposite to the disturbance.

Control systems evolve and reorganize until they can react adequately
on the time-scale typical of normal disturbances. Don't think of
disturbances as transient "events." They are simply independent
variables that influence the controlled variable. They may be brief,
or like gravity they may be present permanently.

>Even in the steady state, when there is conflict, two controllers
>attempting to move a single CEV to different levels, each will show
>some persistent error, so even in the steady state one can influence
>the other's controlled percepts. How much the "controller" influences
>the "controlee"s percept will depend on who has the higher insistence
>(gain), and that could be interpreted as who applies the more
>overwhelming physical force.

I repeat that an influence (or disturbance) is neither control nor
determination. It is simply an influence, which may or may not have
any effect, depending on other influences that may be present at the
same time (such as the output of a control system).

With two systems balanced in conflict as you describe above, each
system is producing some amount of output that is canceling an equal
amount of the output of the other system. Varying either reference
signal will result in moving the balance point, but only until the
effort of the active system reaches its limit. Beyond that point,
neither system will have any control over the common variable. In
control systems with integrating outputs (which seem to be common in
real systems), both outputs will quickly reach saturation, and there
will be no effect from varying either reference signal.

As I pointed out at the start of this post, "manipulation" in the
sense that Greg Williams means does not include direct conflict, which
can't be brought about surreptitiously.

>Besides, does planting a fence constitute "overwhelming physical
force?"

If no matter how hard the control system tries it can't get past the
fence, yes. The overwhelming physical force is automatically applied,
to whatever extent is necessary, as soon as the control system sets
the reference level for its position to the other side of the fence
and attempts to correct the error. The fence totally overrides the
organism's efforts at control. Control systems can be prevented from
functioningd by overwhelming physical force, whatever the source of
that force. Of course we would not say it is "controlled" unless the
source of the force is intentional. It is not really the fence that
controls the child's behavior, but the person who put the fence there.

Because the child can't control its position relative to a place
outside the fence, it will reorganize so that it no longer desires to
be outside the fence. It will then continue to live, to greater or
lesser extent, as if it is inside a fence even when the fence is
removed. One of the great difficulties in growing up is that of
understanding which fences have been or should be removed, so there is
no longer any need to restrict one's desires to the region within
their confines.

Adolescents often rail against the constraints of "the system" (oh
rueful memories), not yet realizing that the constraints are in
themselves and that "the system" is largely a memory of the
restrictions, punishments, and fears of childhood -- to which they
adapted themselves all too expertly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,


Bill P. (Turned 66 today: happy birthday to me).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)