X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:43:17 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Prolegomenon; Misc
X-To:         CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu

[From Bill Powers (920828.1800)]

Greg Williams (920828-2) --

RE: Prolegomenon. I didn't know that Machiavelli was Greek.

>... why not join with me in constructing a general treatment of
>manipulation from the point of view of PCT -- a general treatment
which >will show the scope and limits of manipulation?

While we're at it, let's be sure to examine hidden assumptions.

Definition 1 and Axiom 1 state that control consists of comparing
perceptual signals with reference signals and acting to maintain them
in a match. Axiom 2 states that people can't alter each others'
reference signals. The definition and the two axioms thus indicate
that there is no way for people to alter each others' perceptual
signals if those signals are under control. We exclude, I assume, the
application of overwhelming physical force as being outside the
meaning of "manipulation."

This conflicts with:

>Axiom 3. Other persons CAN, in general, directly ("causally")
generate
>disturbances which alter a given person's current perceptual signals.

The only way to resolve this conflict is to insert the word
"uncontrolled" between "current" and "perceptual signals."

Disturbances in the sense of Axiom 3 (distinguished from any
alterations they may create) are independent variables under the
control of the disturber. They must be elastically linked to the
perceptions they affect if those perceptions are under control;
otherwise we have a case of simple conflict, not manipulation. In
speaking of either disturbances or influences, we must distinguish
between the independent variable (the potential cause of a change) and
its actual effects at the other end of the link.

The same problem arises with:

>Definition 2. Influence is one person's controlling his/her actions
so >as to alter another person's perceptual signals.

There will be an alteration, by Definition 1 and Axioms 1 and 2, only
if the perceptual signals in question are not under control. Thus we
need to change Definition 2 to end with "uncontrolled perceptual
signals."

We now have a non-sequitur in Definition 3 (mislabelled as a repeated
Definition 2):

Definition [3]. Manipulation is a given person's (the influencer's)
altering of another person's (the influencee's) current perceptual
signals so as to affect the influencee's current control processes in
such a way that the influencee acts so as to enable matching of
certain reference signals and perceptual signals of the influencer
(that is, to enable certain control processes of the influencer).

Altering the influencee's UNCONTROLLED perceptual signals will not
affect the influencee's control processes. By Definition 1 and the
first two Axioms, controlled perceptual signals cannot be altered
(without escalating the situation beyond the definition of
"manipulation"). So if manipulation occurs, it does not occur through
alteration of the manipulee's controlled perceptions. It can occur
only through altering uncontrolled perceptions.

This brings us to The Test.

>Axiom 4. Information about the influencee's current control structure
>(that is, structure of reference signals) cannot be obtained
directly, >given current and forseeable technology, but can be
obtained >indirectly, by the Test for the Controlled Variable.

The Test reveals not only the reference signal, but the perceptual
signal that is under control. At the same time, it identifies
something that is, at the level of concern, NOT under control: the
action taken by the person. The disturbances used during the Test
succeed in altering the action, but not the perception. It is the
failure to alter the perception that reveals the controlled
perception. So the Test, aside from identifying reference levels and
controlled perceptions, also shows what variables the person will
freely alter as necessary. This identifies the variables that are, in
the context, of no importance to the person.

We thus arrive at a conclusion: it is possible for one person to
manipulate aspects of another person's behavior as long as those
aspects are of no importance to that other person. The Test does,
therefore, enhance the chances of successful manipulation, as your
Theorem proposes. However, it does not enhance the chances of
manipulating anything of importance to the manipulee. The Test
identifies those behavioral variables that can be manipulated
(actions) and those that cannot (controlled perceptions).

I think that the Definitions and Axioms need to be modified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Going back to the opening of your post:

>OK, Bill, I could counter your lurid family-relations examples
showing >the ineffectuality of influence with lurid con-game and
advertising >examples showing the effectuality of influence, but
what's the use?

The use would be to take these counterexamples apart and show that in
every case they require the active cooperation of the manipulee.
Consider a con man, and the Pigeon Drop.

The con man says that he has just found this folder full of bearer
bonds, but he can't cash them in because he's adversely known at the
bank. Will you do it for him? Of course you have to put up some
security before he hands over the bonds. At the bank, you find that
the folder is full of newspaper. Tsk, tsk.

He manipulated your perceptions, right? No. YOU manipulated your
perceptions; you're the only one who can.

Now the con man goes to his next victim. The next victim listens
carefully, and calls a cop. What made the difference?

The difference was in the manipulees, not in the manipulator. The
first guy could have been just as skeptical -- but the first guy
wanted to get something for nothing, and simply refused to consider
any information that would disappoint him. The first guy played the
con man's game with him in order to get something he wanted. The con
man makes a living by playing this game with people who want to play
it. The con man can cheat poor little old ladies out of their life
savings not because he can manipulate them, but because he looks for
greedy little old ladies who are only too ready to play the game. That
is one reason that they are POOR little old ladies.

Now this may sound like blaming the victim, and in a way it is just
that. I am not very interested in developing a manual for
manipulators. I'm interested in teaching people how to avoid being
manipulated, which would obsolete any such manual. I can't teach them
to do this by showing how to make con men change their ways. If your
reference signal whispers "Get Rich Quick" in your mental ear, nobody
else in the world can change that, and you will suffer the
consequences that you make for yourself all by yourself, even without
the help of a con man. What you have to learn is that manipulation
can't work on you unless you actively help it along.

A very long time ago, the Buddha put his finger on the problem: it's
the wheel of desire. Whatever you want determines what you will do to
get it. The more intensely and inflexibly you desire something, the
less control you have over your own actions. The wheel of desire looks
something like the CSG logo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John van Loon (920828)

The top level obviously can't change its own reference signals; they
are inputs to it, not outputs from it. If they change we have to look
elsewhere for the mechanism. Knowing as little as we do, all we can do
is entertain possibilities.

One possible mechanism is memory. What you have experienced at this
level becomes the reference-state of perceptions at this level. This
has some explanatory power: it suggests that the world we live in
becomes the status quo, and then the desired status quo.

Another is reorganization. The highest levels of reference signal are
picked at random, the one you finally settle on being the one that
leads to the least intrinsic error in your reorganizing system. This,
too, has some explanatory power, particularly with respect to how
"upbringing" leads you to adopt system concepts that lead to the least
pain, rejection, and conflict.

Another -- which works only for some system concepts -- is to say that
there are no reference signals at the highest level, which is
equivalent to saying that they are set to zero. This explains the
automatic rejection of system concepts with which one has had little
experience.

Another is to say that God sets your highest reference signals, so if
they don't work out it's not your fault.

In the meantime, there are several problems we could work on at the
lower levels while we wait for the explanation of the highest level to
become clear.

By the way, have you ever looked carefully at how you get from sitting
down to standing up balanced directly over your feet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Rick Marken (920828) --

While I was reading Dennis Delprato's post I was wishing you would
volunteer your Mac expertise. Bully for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU