home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!bcm!convex!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA!MMT
- Message-ID: <9211171613.AA00677@chroma.dciem.dnd.ca>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:13:03 EST
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
- Subject: Re: pasking levels
- Lines: 27
-
- [Martin Taylor 921117 11:00]
- (Avery Andrews 921117.1125)
-
- >I'll have to mull this over, but a random remark:
- >
- >>I don't think there are "strong social constraints on serious checking of
- >>comprehension" when lack of comprehension would probably lead to serious
- >>perceptual error in the Originator of the message.
- >
- >I'm not sure, but I bet there are plenty of cases where nasty consequences
- >follow from (some ?) people's reluctance to really make sure they've been
- >understood, tho probably not in cases as clear cut as you bomb example.
-
- Nasty consequences can follow from any act, and it is not always possible to
- control the perceptions that they disturb. But if nasty consequences normally
- followed from some actions that were the result of error in soem ECS, the
- individual would probably have reorganized. "Nasty consequences" = high
- error -> reorganization.
-
- If there are social constraints against ensuring understanding, either there
- would tend to be more error in other perceptions if people pressed for full
- understanding, or the social system (standard set) is unstable and evolving.
- Perhaps both. Social conventions presumably evolve toward actions that tend
- to result in minimum overall error in the individuals who use them in
- interactions.
-
- Martin
-