Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:20:10 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      Revised Posting

Message-Id: <9212141936.AA01433@athens.eid.anl.gov>
To: CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@ANLVM.CTD.ANL.GOV, CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET
Subject: Re:  PCT and war
Cc: 73507.3564%compuserve@iha.compuserve.com, campbell@athens.eid.anl.gov,
        hculver@nis.naitc.com, mgabriel@athens.eid.anl.gov,
        russell@athens.eid.anl.gov

[gabriel to powers 921214 11:35 CST]

>Subject:      PCT and war

The CSGNET server barfed at this, perhaps recognising
the openeing few lines from Bill Powers' post. If it is a
duplicate post, pls excuse. Perhaps not all redundancy is
bad anyhow.

>[From Bill Powers (921213.1730)]

>John Gabriel (921213 16:52 CST) --

>I'm not against trying to cope with the world as it is and doing
>what's necessary to survive, within limits (survival is not
>necessarily the most important goal, as generations of heros and
>martyrs have shown). But when we go to war, I think we should
>just go to war and do our best to win. Forget the justifications.
>They're all hogwash. If someone's trying to kill you you try to
>kill him first. Why try to make more of it than that? As long as
>we find some nobility in lethal contests, we'll be reluctant to
>let go of that kind of social interaction. We have to remember
>that everyone fighting in a war has gone insane. We wouldn't let
>people run loose in the streets if they acted that way when they
>had a dispute with the neighbors.

Absolutely.

>So in answer to your question, if someone tried to harm my new
>grandson I would do my best to prevent it. I wouldn't stop to
>theorize. But I wouldn't try to pretty it up afterward. Nor would
>I then devote all my efforts to erecting an impregnable wall to
>keep the bad guys away from him -- and him inside.

Right On. And if you build a wall, you keep good things out
as well as bad. Had several friends killed and hurt mountaineering,
and they were not about to give up on account of the risks. I
still sometimes ride a (very fast) motorcycle. But I'd be a damn
fool to go out without my helmet any time, and without leathers
if I'm going fast of far.

>What I would do afterward is what I am doing now: trying to work
>toward a real science of human behavior. A real science of human
>behavior is the ultimate protection against bullets.

Think on that. And Heinlen's remark that an armed society is
a polite society, also on Roy Chapman's rule "Never point a gun
at anything/one unless you are willing to take personal
responsibility for its' their destruction." Don't really
understand personal responsibility like I understand control
theory, and perhaps nobody else does, but I know it's important.
Don't read me as a driving a pickup truck with an AR-15 in the
rack behind the seat either - I know you won't, even though I
have an AR and a Garand, as well as an SMLE.

>>But on lethal force etc. there are interesting issues in animal
>>behaviour - see the Altmans on Baboon Society, and Rolf
>>Peterson and others on Wolves.

I can't tell if you've read Peterson and the Altmans. The thing
that makes them interesting to me is the way the society where
the carnivores can do real harm to each other, but don't because
if they do they will be too torn up to catch the next moose,
moves gradually towards the chicken run where nobody has claws
and teeth, and it's fatal to be crowded and at the bottom of the
pecking order.

>I don't aspire to be either a baboon or a wolf. All violent
>confrontations, I suspect, are simply a matter of incompatible
>goals; it's not that we inherit aggression, but simply that we
>are all control systems. We do what works. If it doesn't work, we
>try harder or try something else.

>>Escalation is always a problem, witness what is happening in
>>the cities. Just exactly why I want to have better decision
>>making in Govt AND in Defense.

>Yes. Control theory shows why conflicts tend to escalate. It is
>the nature of conflicting control systems to raise their opposing
>outputs to the maximum possible level. The only permanent
>solution is to resolve, not win, the conflicts.

Perhaps. In many ways certainly. Let me say one thing that may
bring down a firestorm. Before the railroad and the telegraph
and good maps (Gauss's contribution) by and large wars had
a not unreasonable ecological function - they closed down
incompetent governments. Problem since 1870. How to close down
an incompetent government without unacceptable cost in lives,
misery, ....... Trade wars perhaps. Better to be laid off than
killed or badly mangled.

>>If you want, let's debate off line, but perhaps just let it
>>drop.

>No need for either. Control theory has a lot to say about
>conflict. But it won't be of much use until we get away from
>statistical generalizations and start getting real data with
>which to improve the theory. PCT can be effective if we decide to
>make it effective. The way to make it effective is to demand that
>it work every time, and accept nothing less. No more trends
>andtendencies and
> indications and probabilities and scenarios and
>situations. That approach doesn't work worth a hoot.

Right on. See my comment below about those in the advertising
business who have learned how to apply PCT.

>If we're
>going to apply PCT to the problem of war, let's find out what
>brings people into conflict and what can get them out of it
>again. And I mean REALLY find out, not just do a bunch of
>statistical studies. Give me one one-hundredth of a percent of
>the military budget and we'll get started. This is a solvable
>problem. If anybody really wants to solve it.

>A Happy Christmas back to you, and even happier ones ahead.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Best.

>Bill P.

Beautiful post. Perhaps we can do some of each. For the folk on
both sides getting shot at in Somalia some kind of better IFF
would help. Had a neighbour say yesterday "How can a few bullets
damage a helicopter?" I bit my tongue, but was tempted to explain
how one bullet in a critical hydraulic line could ground the bird
and get its occupants shot. Very ill conditioned equations of motion -
For the want of a nail .... Is a central issue in war and in
software. A small mistake early on if not recognised and fixed
leads to catastrophe because of large investement in bad strategy.
Does PCT have guaranteed fail safe sure fire solution? WELLLLL....
Easy to recognise and correct small error of hand position in picking
up glass of water. How about error of judgement in intial grip for a
bout of arm wrestling? HMMMM.  How do you learn to spot those small
mistakes soon enough without millennia of Darwin backing you up?
Increasingly critical problem when communication works faster, and
those who have been applying PCT in advertising agencies have a
substantial hand in deciding who gets to be president and C in C.
Perhaps it was better when it took three months to go from Oregon
to Washington to kick butt of elected rep.

Completely agreed - how do we keep people from wanting to shoot at
each other? No, I don't want to say that - don't believe in police/
baboon state. Why do people want to shoot at each other, and
WHAT might make them want to stop? There, that doesn't sound like an
ad for HCI and Sarah Brady. Law and Order aint as simple as its'
advocates on Right or in HCI would have us believe. This'll probably bring
down another firestorm - don't own a TV, believe it rots the brain
cells.  I still grieve for the London Times of 1938-1948 in spite of
the Astors (we all packed up and went to NZ in 1947 and things have
been going downhill in London ever since).


Sincerely Best

                John (gabriel@eid.anl.gov)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU