Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:29:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      I disagree

From Greg Williams (920910)

>Chuck Tucker (92-09-09)

Chuck, your post makes several good points. Our remaining disagreements were
addressed by my last post (yesterday) -- I think. Let me know of particular
questions you still have, if any.

Bill Powers (920909.1430)

>I want to nitpick some more.

The manipulation (facilitation, I hope!) worked!!

>I think that we agree that deception is a form of manipulation.

Back to precision (Talmudicity?): Some kinds of manipulation, including
examples of ALL FOUR types I enumerated in my last post, can SOMETIMES MAKE
USE OF deception. They are NOT deception, just MAKE USE OF IT sometimes.

>We also seem to agree that rubber-banding is a form of manipulation...

Yes. It is a kind of purposeful influence (= manipulation) in my definition.

>But one of these forms [amended to be called disturbing actions associated
>with a controlled perception of the manipulee (rubber-banding) and altering
>certain of the manipulee's perceptions (suggestion? I don't really have a
>name for it, but it DOESN'T always involve deception!) -- GW (920910)] is
>control, while the other is not.

Both forms involve, we assume from the definition, control by the manipulator
of certain of his/her own perceptions, and so are "control" from that point of
view. But perhaps one or both aren't "control" from a different point of view.
At any rate, we need to be clear ABOUT the meaning of "control" here.

>When you manipulate action by applying a disturbance to a known
>controlled variable, the action will correlate with the disturbance
>somewhere close to -1.00, as long as the other person continues to
>control that variable relative to the same reference level.

Yes. Note the "as long as"!

>Accurate predictions can be made of individual actions over considerable
>periods if the reference level stays the same for a while, as it will usually
>do if you request it, or if the level is high enough.

SOME manipulees will "do as you request." Not all. Go up to a homeless person
on the street and ask him/her to stand on one leg for two minutes. Lots of
luck....

>When you manipulate action by deception, you are betting that your
>deception will create a perception in the other person that will lead
>to the action you want. This may work and it may not.

How true, how true.

>Furthermore, it's basically an open-loop process, in that deceptions
>typically follow a formula which is applied in the expectation that the
>predicted action will occur.

Sometimes it is "open-loop," but it is often CLOSED-LOOP: the "dance" of
manipulative interactions of which I have spoken in earlier posts. And the
same holds for instantiations of "suggestion" manipulations which DON'T use
deception. As noted above, there ARE such instantiations, particularly
prevalent, I might add, when the manipulations are "good" for the manipulee.
Ed's interactions with the offender "willing to work with him" alter the
offender's notions about being able to control outcomes of importance to
him/her -- and Ed doesn't DECEIVE the offender about the relationship between
(certain of) his/her actions and the (important to him/her) outcomes. And if
Ed finds that the offender is becoming, let's say, "hostile," then Ed will
modify his altering in ways which he thinks are appropriate.

>Deceptions clearly do not work on everyone;

Right again.

>those who employ them rely on population statistics to find people who do in
>fact behave as the manipulator wants.

This is true in some cases, i.e., when advertisers want to control for profits
generated by selling to a population en masse. But the encyclopedia
salesperson (Pat used to be one -- a POOR one, because she really thought it
wasn't huckstering) manipulates INDIVIDUALS. So do con men. Statistics would
be unhelpful, to say the least, for these manipulators, and many more -- but
not for ALL deceptive manipulators, of course.

>So manipulation by deception resembles an S-R phenomenon more than a PCT
>phenomenon.

No, per the above comments.

>A theory of manipulation by deception can't predict actions of an individual.

No, the theory says that prediction of actions of an individual requires
exploring (by the Test, in essence) the controlling of the individual. The
same holds for predicting that the rubber-banding manipulee will "cooperate"
sufficiently. Here, PCT is the theoretical basis for saying how such
predictions can be improved.

>Its predictions would be statistical, and therefore would apply only to a
>population.

They COULD be, but don't ONLY have to be. Here, PCT would NOT be the
theoretical basis for notions of how best to predict; rather, statistics math
would be.

>And proving that manipulation by deception actually works would be
>extremely difficult, because you have to take into account the people who
>would perform the wanted act (buy the car, drink the beer, hand over the
>money) even without the deception. A theory of manipulation by deception
>exists on the same plane as theories of diet and psychoanalysis.

Only the STATISTICAL theory of prediction of manipulation by deception working
or not. That is, it would be valid for a population of cases but not for
individual cases.

>Manipulation, therefore, seems to mean at least two things that are so
>different from each other than they don't intersect anywhere.

I think it does include two basically different kinds of "approach" by the
manipulator. (On the other hand, both "approaches" could be intertwined, and I
suppose that Ed, say, uses both at times.)

>The rubber-banding kind is reliable, precise, repeatable, and predictable
>from basic principles.

No more so than the other kind (construed more broadly than you have been
construing it: as NOT NECESSARILY making use of deception). To work, both
kinds require adequate predictions about another's controlling, which can be
made only (unless "luckily") by employing The Test. Many times The Test is
implicit, as when one predicts (almost always successfully) that a student --
THIS student, sitting HERE -- will "cooperate" in rubber-banding with ME, the
teacher. The student might suddenly go berserk. I've never seen it happen yet,
of course. The "of course" (of course) is related to my faith in continuing
uniformities of certain sorts in the world, as (to an extent) appropriately
criticized by Hume. If you want to rubber-band with a stranger and the
outcome (for you, the manipulator) is VERY IMPORTANT, you better talk with the
would-be manipulee and decide on the basis of what he/she says and how he/she
acts whether to TRUST the "truth" of his/her saying, "Yes, I will go along
with this."

>The deception kind is statistical, unreliable, and dependent on peculiarities
>of individual experience.

I disagree.

>It is possible to predict the outcome of the rubber-banding kind of
>manipulation for an individual.

Yes, often, based on using PCT ideas to guide the predicting.

>It is not possible to predict (in the same sense) the outcome of a deceptive
>manipulation of an individual, either from experience or from basic
>principles.

No. PCT ideas can be used to guide the predicting here, as well. Why do you
think a con man has to spend so much time interacting with a mark before
deciding whether the mark is suitable or not. It isn't just because it takes a
while to find out how big a bankroll the mark has. The con man must (in
essence) perform The Test with respect to whether the mark is greedy enough
(and has other properties of control) to give the exploitation a good chance
of success.

>Are there any forms of manipulation that have the qualities of a
>control-type manipulation? Or are the others all statistical and
>relevant only to populations?

I suspect that all forms of manipulation can involve predictions at EITHER the
individual level (based on PCT) OR at the population level (based on
statistics). Which is appropriate depends on whether you are manipulating an
individual or a population. The government loves epidemiology. I'd rather see
my family doctor.

-----

>I think we should start leaning on Pat and Greg Williams to get their
>simulation toolkit running.

You mean manipulating???? OK, we're thinking about it. In the interim, some
folks might be interested in TutSIM, which costs about $130 and is for IBM-
compatibles only. Non-graphical, somewhat "clunky," and slow (especially
without a math coprocessor), but very capable. It is a "block diagram"
language which requires less training in math than an "equation" language. I
can provide more info if wanted. The Cadillac of IBM (286 or better)
simulation programs is Granino Korn's DESIRE. I use it regularly. Blazing
speed!!! (Requires a math coprocessor.) The NEUNET version allows easy
construction of neural networks (PDP-type) which can be hooked into up to
1000 1st-order differential equations. (!) Unfortunately for novices, it is an
equation language. Unfortunately for just about everyone, it costs an arm and
a leg (ca. $500).

>They write in C, so someone with a Mac could adapt it for the Mac world.

Any MACees out there who want to get in on this from the start? Maybe it is
even possible to work toward a "stone soup" version (a la FRACTINT, the
world's best fractal plotter, done by cooperative efforts and offered as
"freeware")?

Best,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU