X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:26:24 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:26:24 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      The paradox of control

[From Rick Marken (920827.1230)]

Martin Taylor (920827 13:30) says;

>All I am saying is that when looking for paradox, one should not take two
>simultaneous viewpoints.

But that is precisely what the Behaviorists (a la Skinner) are doing!!
In order to avoid the paradox, they use "control" in the PCT sense when
they claim to be able to control behavior, and they use control in the
"causal" sense when when they say that behavior is controlled by the
environment.

>So don't worry about whether I support the S-R position.  It is intrinsically
>unsupportable, and needs no spurious paradoxes to show its problems.

Let me try to explain what the paradox is and why I think it is not
only not spurious but genuinly important (worth meditating on a bit).

The paradox is like that of the man who claimed to be from Crete, where
all men are liars.

Skinner is saying that people are controlled and that he (a person) can
control them.

If he means control in the PCT sense then this is paradoxical
because it implies that he can "control a person" (bringthe person's behavior
to an intended state) even though his (Skinner's) own behavior is controlled
and, hence, being brought to an intended state that may be different than
"control that person". If Skinner can control (meaning that he can select a
particular behavior for a person to exhibit) then he cannot also be controlled
(which would open the possibility that he would have no choice but to do some-
thing other than select THAT particular behavior for the other person to do).
So, for Skinner's claim to be true (and non-paradoxical) Skinner would have
to be the only person who is NOT controlled (in the PCT sense), in which case
there is no possibility that that which is controlling Skinner could get
Skinner to do anything other than control the other person. The same applies
to the Cretin; for his statement to be true, he would have to be the only
non-lying Cretin.

If Skinner means "control" in the causal sense then the paradox does seem
to evaporate. But then it seems a bit ridiculous for Skinner to encourage
us to control other people -- since this will happen anyway and the results
of our influence will be what they will be -- we have no PCT control over
the outcome. But Skinner is not using control in this way (obviously)
when he claims to be able to control people (as Bill explained) and when
he recommends that we control people in order to produce a particular
result; viz. a good society full of well behaved people.

So I think the paradox of control is very informative. It helps one
get their arms around what it really means to control (which is
the PCT meaning -- ie. produce an intended outcome despite the existence
of influences on that outcome that would tend to make it different
than intended). Control (as Skinner understood about his own efforts at
control) is made of sterner stuff than are causes and influences. Control is
VERY purposeful -- in fact, it is purpose.

The paradox of control reveals the fundemental problem with any scheme for
improving the world by controlling people. If you attribute to all people
the same capabilities that you assume for yourself (the ability to control
people) then you are denying yourself the very ability you claim. For if you
can control, then you cannot be controlled -- and neither, then, can those
who would be the objects of your control.

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