🚀 go-pugleaf

From [ Marc Abrams (990504.1240) ]


> [From Rick Marken (990504.0920)]
>
> Kenny Kitzke (990504.0100 EDT)--
>
> > we need to think of behavior not in terms of right or wrong
> > but as the control of perceptions which are often unknown and
> > unknowable even by the person (much less an observer).  We do
> > not need to change peoples behavior, in fact, short of coercion
> > you can't.  We need to help them change their reference
> > perceptions.  Cooperation is the way.  Coercion and conflict
> > are not.
>
> Very nicely put, Kenny!

Sounds great. Unfortunately, in Ken's statement there is one nit I have.
When Ken says " We need to help them change their reference perceptions".
Are you talking about reference levels or Perceptions? Further, _how_ would
you go about "helping" someone change those things?

When we use the MOL, do we necessarily go up a level on _all_ the CV's we
are controlling for at that time ( I don't think so )?, or are we going up a
level with a related group of "behavioral modules", or simply one module?
If the latter, how do we determine the significance or importance as it
relates to the rest of our ability to control other "modules"? Room for
plenty of research and modeling here.

What does it mean to "cooperate"? Can someone be "cooperating" and posing
the threat of coercion at the same time? Can someone be trying to "help"
someone while they are coercing them? ( this one has been beaten into the
ground :-) ) Looking at basic behavioral modules is necessary to understand
what might and might not be controlled. The logic follows. If this
phenomenon _is_ controlled, then ( PCT ) is how it must happen.

Whenever we talk about a behavioral phenomenon, I think we need to be aware
of what kinds and types of CV's ( that's an s, as in _multiple_ :-) ) may be
involved. Treating these high level concepts with basic control models will
not be satisfactory to anyone. ( that's my prediction, anyway :-) )

I do think something can be done about this. Modeling can take many forms.
_ALL_ modeling does not have to be of the "rigorous, theory generating" kind
( although this is always preferable :-) )I think for some of the higher
level concepts. "Plausibility" can be an important thing to see, especially
given the multiple nature of control. We need some "anchors" for some of
these concepts, and words alone don't seem to be sufficient.

Any thoughts?

Marc