From: marken@AERO.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: standards, degrees of freedom
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:55:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:55:04 PST

[From Rick Marken (921117.1000)]

Martin Taylor (921116 17:30)

> If I do not conform to your standards, we both experience
>conflict

Not necessarily true. Here you are talking about interpersonal conflict;
we "experience it" only in terms of the success (or lack thereof) of our
efforts to control variables (in my case, perceiving you as conforming to
my standards, in your case, perceiving no loss of control as a result
of my efforts -- beating you, starving you, locking you up, etc --
to get you to conform to my standards). If one person is a lot stronger
than the other, they will "experience" no conflict at all in this
conflict; they will just get the result they want. If both
people are about equally strong, they will experience loss of
control -- ie. error with respect to some variables they are trying
to control. Of course, being people, they will also be able to per-
ceive the cause of their lack of control -- the other person.

> But sets of standards probably fit together in clusters
>that are stable as a group that can be taken into or left out of a total
>system of standards.  Different sets of precepts based on the teachings
>of long-lasting religions probably form such groups.  I would imagine
>that the number of such sets that could be stable is unlimited, but the
>societies of the world may have found only a few tens of them.

I basically agree with this. 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. Herds of animals,
for example, work together just fine without agreement on (or ability
experience) standards, system concepts, principles, categories or
whatever. Most everyday conflicts between people are usually over
control of perceptions that are a lot lower level than "standards" --
and people work them out just fine.

I think organisms in groups "get along" when there are a sufficient
number of perceptual degrees of freedom to be controlled -- and sufficient
environmental degrees of freedom to allow all members of the group to
control their perceptions. This means that the organisms must be able
to perceive the environment in a way that allows simultaneous solution
of the perceptual df problem in the constraints of the environmental
df. Tom Bourbon's studies of two people controlling the relative
distance between lines on a screen contributes more to our understanding
of what makes it possible for multiple control system to "get
along" than does all our blathering about standards setting. Standards
are just one thing people have to be able to control -- no more or
less important than controlling sensations, configurations, transitions,
etc. When people can control their perceptions -- and when each individual
in a group can control his or her own perceptions -- then there will be
no interpersonal conflict -- no crime, no creeps, no assholes. This is
an achievable goal -- but to get there we have to look in the right
place; NOT at figuring what standards people should set, but at
figuring out how to provide people -- ALL PEOPLE - with the degrees of
freedom necessary to control their own perceptions. We already know
how to do this, actually -- PCT just shows WHY this is important: The
way to do it is 1) POPULATION CONTROL (to preserve the available df)
2) EDUCATION (to learn about the available df for controlling our
own perceptions -- and how to control those perceptions more effectively).

People have tried to solve their problems by finding the right standards
for centuries (from the beginning of recorded history) -- it not only
doesn't work; it is the cause of most of our intractable problems (nationalism,
religious wars, etc). 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".

Best regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)