From: mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: standards, degrees of freedom
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:22:42 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[Martin Taylor 921117 17:00]
(Rick Marken 921117.1000)

> My problem with this whole analysis is just
>the emphasis on "standards" setting as a basis for harmonious interactions
>in groups of control systems. I think this is almost certainly a crock.
>As humans we do happen to be able to perceive at the system level but
>that doesn't mean that controlling perceptions at this level is any more
>important than controlling perceptions at other levels.

I'm a bit confused.  I knew this was foolhardy territory to get into, but
I can't see what the discussion of interaction procedures that evolve into
conventions known as standards has to do with the system level.  You seem
to be implying throughout your response that the only place where standards
exist is at the system level.  I intend the term to apply at all levels
relevant to interactions among people, and I think it applies probably more
to actions than to behaviour (using the PCT distinction that behaviour is
the control of one's own perceptions, whereas actions are not).  Standards
include greeting patterns, dress codes, thank-you notes for gifts, and all
sorts of things for which the external appearance is what matters.

If I can act according to the standards of my community, and nevertheless
control my perceptions with little error, I won't reorganize much, and will
continue to act according to the standards.  If I don't act according to
the standards, and nevertheless am able to control my percepts (like the
GodFather example you give), I won't reorganize.  But in most cases, if the
standards matter to many of the people with whom I interact, I will find
that not acting according to the standards may impede my control (I may
not get the job because I didn't wear a suit to the interview;  I may not
get a gift from Aunt Mabel because I didn't send a note thanking her for the
last one), and I am likely to reorganize.  When my reorganization leads me
to act in such a way that I maintain control of my percepts, I will no longer
reorganize.

Real community standards are those that tend to induce reorganization in
people who don't act according to them.  As I said before, their stability
is determined by the degree of conflict occasioned on average in people who
abide by them, because error will lead to reorganization and if there is a
set of standards not very different from the current set but that tend to
lead to less error, then the community standards will drift in the direction
of that set.  The word "community" is diffuse here.  It is clearly weighted
by the probability of interacting with any particular person, so for most
people I suspect the standards one develops will be closest to those of the
parents and older siblings, at least when interacting with them, though other
sets of standards may be developed for interaction with others (such as the
local gang).

> Standards
>are just one thing people have to be able to control -- no more or
>less important than controlling sensations, configurations, transitions,
>etc.

As you can see, I don't think standards are anything that people control
(or other herd animals, for that matter).  They are the products of
reorganization, not percepts.  They are the ways that percepts can be
controlled when other people are involved in the actions that together
form the controlling behaviour. All the same, I suppose that people can model
desirable organizations, talk about them, and explicitly teach them to
the young.  But the problem here is a generic one with how you teach any
behaviour deliberately.  The "standard" that you can talk about is a model
of a simulation, not the result of a structural reorganization.

> I suggest that we approach the problem of interpersonal
>interaction from a PCT perspective; if people really are input control
>systems, then PCT should have some scientifically and practically useful
things to say about how multiple control systems can get along without
>conflict. I think the answer is "degrees of freedom" -- not "standards".

Precisely what I am trying to do.  "Standards" is the result, not the
instigator.  It is the manifestation of the dynamics of an uncontrolled
interaction among control systems, not a prescription for what should happen.
It becomes a prescription by methods fully intelligible within classical PCT.

Does this seem even more at cross-purposes with what you are talking about,
or does it make things clearer?

Martin