Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:39:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Sciences and Ideologies - I

From Greg Williams (920904)

>Bill Powers (920904.0700)

>The problem with reading all those quotes from Skinner (for which
>labor many thanks!) is that one mistakenly tends to put meanings into
>his words that make common sense (and in our case that jibe with PCT).
>Skinner arranged his choices of words this way deliberately. Common
>sense generally sides with control theory. But it is possible to talk
>what is heard as good control theory in words that are defined by the
>speaker in absolute contradiction with control theory. This makes it
>seem that the speaker was ahead of his time, when in fact he was
>crusading against the purposive overtones of common-sense descriptions
>in part by trying to pre-empt the language.

I hope that netters will not misunderstand my purpose in posting the Skinner
quotes. I did not want to make it seem as if Skinner was a control theorist.
Rather, as I said to Dennis Delprato in my previous post, I wanted to show
that Skinner's ideas are essentially -- radically -- in opposition to those of
(at least some) PCTers. (I also wanted to counter the claims that Skinner was
(a) stupid/incoherent and/or (b) inconsistent.) To be more precise about my
claims about the radical opposition (I'm beginning to think of it as a
complementarity, wherein each pole is self-consistent and, to its supporters,
seems complete and in a sense "finished," yet each is only part of a larger,
more complete story) between Skinner's ideas on "control" and -- to make it
concrete -- Bill's ideas:

I think Skinner's IDEOLOGY of radical environmentalism wrongly (because he
can't get as far as he could otherwise in explaining behavior) downplays what
is happening in the present moment. I also think Bill's IDEOLOGY of radical
autonomy wrongly (because he can't get as far as he could otherwise in
explaining behavior) downplays what has happened up to now. These two
ideologies are complementary -- they are actually two mutually incompatible
world-views which are each self-consistent but, I think, fundamentally
inadequate to the task of explaining behavior.

So what is adequate to the task? Skinner's SCIENCE, as opposed to his
IDEOLOGY, is certainly NOT adequate. I believe he allowed his ideology to sway
his notions of an adequate science of behavior to the degree that he was self-
defeating.

PCT SCIENCE -- again, not IDEOLOGY -- IS, I think, adequate. Skinner was
model-less; PCT is based on models. And those models, aside from confirming
folk notions of how organisms "work," are constructed in such a way as to make
the two mutually incompatible "complementary" world-views described above fit
together in a plausible way. I think the science could heal that ideological
rift, and lead to a new sort of ideology noting the importance of BOTH history
and the present situation. PCT SCIENCE is capable of doing this because it is
a sufficiently DETAILED, MECHANICAL (by which I simply mean LAWFUL) model for
explaining behavior. Yet there is the tendency of Bill (also Rick, and others)
to see PCT science as supporting the ideology of radical autonomy and denying
an ideology of radical environmentalism. I have little hope of changing their
opinion on this; but others without ideological axes to grind might see some
merit in my arguments. I would not like to see the potential of PCT science
sacrificed on the altar of ideology, as Skinner sacrificed his "science of
behavior."

So much for the outcome of my argument. It will take some time for my outputs
to lead (I hope) there.

>>Greg Williams (920903 - 3) --

GW>>1. Is controlling a person possible with THREAT of force (which might
GW>>be included in what you mean by "direct use of force")?

BP>Yes, I think so. It doesn't even have to be an offered threat; it can
BP>simply be a perceived threat.

All right, then, I THINK we arrive at the following more complete formulation
of your definition: "Controlling another person" means altering variables
associated with that person so as to maintain certain of your perceptions as
you desire. Another person's output variables (actions) can be so controlled
(I have been calling this "manipulation") if you have appropriate knowledge
(or adequate prediction) of the person's control structure, without the threat
of or direct use of overwhelming physical force by you. Another person's
control structure (reference signals) cannot be so controlled regardless of
the threat (or perceived threat) of or direct use of overwhelming physical
force by you. Nor can another person's CONTROLLED (by him/her) perceptions be
so controlled without the threat (or perceived threat) of or direct use of
overwhelming physical force by you.

Question: Do you have any problems with the above paragraph? I need to
know whether it is OK before proceeding further. Thanks!

To be continued,

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