home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!AERO.ORG!MARKEN
- X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
- Posted-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 10:37:50 PDT
- Message-ID: <199209081737.AA05199@aerospace.aero.org>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:37:50 PDT
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: marken@AERO.ORG
- Subject: control and children, connections
- Lines: 112
-
- [From Rick Marken (920908.1030)]
-
- Ed Ford (920906:1415) says:
-
- >Rick Marken (920906)
-
- >>The parent has no choice, right?
-
- >I have no idea what you mean by this statement.
-
- What I was responding to was the following statement by you:
-
- >All this means the parent must set standards and rules which
- >reflect the parent's own values and beliefs (systems concepts
- >level)
-
- It sounded to me like you were suggesting that parents set references
- for standards and rules FOR THEMSELVES -- since we know that nobody
- can set references for other people (kids in this case).
- So the parent can only control his or her own system concepts by
- varying (setting) the references for standards (principles) and
- rules (programs) as necessary to keep their perception of system concepts
- matching their reference. Thus, it SOUNDED like you were saying that it
- was important to tell parents to control their system concepts. Thus, I
- was puzzled and said "the parent has no choice, right" meaning there is
- no choice but to control system concepts by setting references for
- lower level perceptions (assuming the parent can perceive and has a
- reference for a particular level of a system concept -- not always a
- reasonable assumption).
-
- Your answer to my suggestion that you don't need to teach control
- systems to control was absolutely beautiful; worth a second quote:
-
- >Like any group of people organized to live or work together such that
- >they can cooperatively get along, many parents seek help and
- >instruction (I was one of them) on the best way to set standards in
- >such a way that everyone would cooperatively get along. Control
- >systems naturally control, but in any community or between any two
- >individuals, part of growing and maturing is to learn to control in
- >such a way that you do no harm to yourself and that you learn to
- >respect the rights of those in your environment. That is not something
- >we do naturally, and thus, in a family setting, I believe it is the job
- >of the parent to teach their children in as patient and loving way as
- >possible how to use their control systems to their greatest advantage
- >and with the least amount of violence to anyone's system.
-
- This is an EXCELLENT paragraph. It captures what, to me, is the big problem
- that is made palpable (and understandable) by PCT, namely; how do
- you teach (NOT MANIPULATE OR CONTROL) control systems to get
- along with other control systems, knowing full well that you cannot
- arbitrarily control these systems nor stop them from controlling.
-
- I guess I get hung up on one little point. In your statement above it is
- where you say "the best way to set standards". The way you have stated it
- here it sounds OK to me because I can hear it as a recommendation to vary ones
- own references at all levels so as to avoid conflict and act cooperatively.
- This can often be achieved only by reducing the gain of certain control
- systems or seeing the situation from a higher level so that lower level
- possibilites for reference variations become apparent.
-
- Maybe it is a communicaton difficulty, but I sometimes get the impression
- from your writing, Ed, that you think that there is some RIGHT
- setting for "standards" (which I take to mean references for principles
- and/or programs) that will produce good results (which I take to mean lack
- of intra or interpersonal conflict). The paragraph above suggests that
- I might just be laboring under a misconception -- so that I think we
- can agree that ANY setting for a standard that eliminates intra and
- interpersonal conflict is "good". I think, then, that we can also agree
- that it is impossible for an outside observer to know what the setting
- of any standard should be that would accomplish this result. The way you
- discuss standards in "Freedom from stress" I get the uncomfortable
- impression that you imagine that there is some particular set of standards
- (values, beliefs, whatever you want to call them) that is "best" in a general
- sense (meaning, for all people, not just for Ed Ford). The paragraph above
- suggests that maybe my interpretation of your position is wrong and that
- we can agree that references for standards can only be set situationally
- (due to varying disturbances) and contextually (context provided by the
- continuously changing values of other references in the system).
-
- I think that it is more consistent with the PCT model to say that "the best
- way to set standards" means: always be able to VARY your references for
- the perception of "standards" in such a way that no malfunctions
- (conflicts) are created in one's own or other people's control systems.
-
- Greg Williams (920906 - 2) says --
-
- > another part
- >of my ideology is my belief that more work on PCT can be fostered by
- >emphasizing how it connects to other ideas, rather than how everybody else is
- >wrong.
-
- I think my "Blind men" paper fills that bill. It says that psychologists are
- right in the sense that control DOES look like response to stimulation, adapt-
- ation to constraint (reinforcement) and output generation. But these appear-
- ances, taken at face value, give a misleading impression of how behavior works.
- At no point in the paper do I say that anyone is "wrong" -- just that they have
- missed one little thing: the fact that all these appearances are aspects of
- the phenomenon of control. The paper also connects current approaches to
- psychology with the PCT approach. Is this consistent with your ideology?
- I hope so.
-
- 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)
-