Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!apple!versatc!mips!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: Jim Winer violently agrees with Barry Kort
Keywords: Observer, Feedback Loop, Values, Goals, Caring
Message-ID: <53219@linus.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 89 12:24:33 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <1309@lzfme.att.com>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Kort)
Organization: Electronic Peaceware Project
Lines: 57

In article <1309@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com
(Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes:

 > In article <52019@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org
 > (Barry W. Kort) writes:
 
 > >  [Technical stuff deleted.]
   
 > >  To summarize, in order to empower ourselves to achieve high levels
 > >  of autonomous self-control, we have to pay close attention to each
 > >  other.  Another word for that is Caring.
 >            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
 > Another word for that is not *caring.*  The word is *manipulation.* 
 > It depends entirely on whether the *victim* of this *observation*
 > perceives the attempted behavior modification as in the victim's own
 > interest or not, and on the victim's personal reaction to
 > manipulation attempts.

Oops.  Somebody stole my consent.  Please be good enough to return
my concept of mutual consent.

 > The problem with your approach is that it assumes a rational
 > victim.  There are those who will react negatively to any attempt to
 > manipulate them without their prior permission (or even with it) and
 > who will not just simply hide from the _observer_ or _witness_, but
 > execute revenge against being controlled (even if the control is in
 > their own interest, and even if the revenge is against their own
 > interest).
  
I am not in favor of victimizing people against their will.  In the
examples I gave (Drama and Athletic Coaching), there is a mutually
agreed upon contract between consenting parties.

 > You cannot assume that agreement about the desirability of achieving
 > a goal will be sufficient for acceptance of a witness.  The actual
 > presence of the witness may invoke negative reactions that will
 > subvert the achievement. In short, there are some people who cannot
 > be controlled.  There are some people who will react violently
 > to attempts to control them regardless of your reasons for doing
 > so.  There are some people who will cooperate with you unless you
 > attempt to control them.

The adoption of a mutually agreed upon goal is a necessary prerequisite,
not a sufficient one.  The coach also has to be competent.  I have
plenty of incompetent self-appointed coaches who can tell me that I
failed, but who cannot enable and empower me to succeed.

 > Remember that feedback control theory is statistically based as far
 > as humans are concerned.  Statistics include all possibility.  Reality
 > can get you killed.

It sounds like you are talking from experience here, Jim.  (I presume it
was a near-miss. :-)   Anyway, I thank you for Witnessing for me, even
if it wasn't by mutual consent.  It's nice to know you care.

--Barry Kort