Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!mtuxo!lzfme!jwi
From: jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: What would I do without you?
	 (Was Jim Winer violently agrees with Barry Kort)
Keywords: Observer, Feedback Loop, Values, Goals, Caring
Message-ID: <1350@lzfme.att.com>
Date: 16 May 89 17:36:28 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <53219@linus.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 83

In article <53219@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
| 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.

Mutual consent may not matter -- you spoke before reading the
parenthesized item in the next paragraph.

|  | 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.

A mutually agreed upon contract is not sufficient.  See paragraph
below.

|  | 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.

Even a mutually agreed upon goal and a competent coach does not solve
the problem of the irrational victim.  See (my) paragraph above.

|  | 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

Of course I care.  Who would I have to rant at if something happened
to you?  How would I express my violence if something happened to
you?  How could we both deal with our mutual need to be controlling
if we didn't have each other? (8-} for those who take this stuff
seriously and 8-{ for those who don't.) 

Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi 

I believe in absolute freedom of the press.
        Pax Probiscus!  Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89%
        of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter).
        Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully.
        The opinions expressed here are not necessarily  
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.