ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/09/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 8, 1986 10:50PM
Volume 6, Issue 14.2
Today's Topics:
See 12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 15:38:04 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: Re: cybernetic process
Paul,
Apology accepted.
I think you underestimate the extent to which "individuals in government"
are constrained by the characteristics and ongoing evolutionary change
of their nations as systems, as well as by more immediately comprehensible
institutions of government, regional and stratal elements of their society
and culture, and so forth, all of which are subsystems in which they
participate. It should be completely obvious that Gorbachev and Reagan
are not "free agents".
I have training and experience with family systems therapy, and it is
that perspective that I bring to bear here. Family therapy grew
predominantly out of work that Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, and others
did beginning in the early '50s understanding the etiology of
schizophrenia. In their delineation of patterns of communication
characteristic of families in which one or more members is diagnosed as
schizophrenic, they helped initiate the main stream of a field of
clinical study and therapy that is quite well developed, accepted, and
successful today. Bateson was extending work that he had begun as an
anthropologist with Margaret Mead (his wife) and others, and later with
Warren McCulloch and other founders of the field of cybernetics. In
family therapy, it is the family that is the patient. The `sick' member
or members are serving some vital function in the family. One seeks
other ways for the family to satisfy those needs, so that the symptoms
can go away. These symptoms often include illness normally treated with
medical means. One becomes accustomed to communicating with the family
as an entity on one level while communicating in "ordinary" ways with
the individual members of the family. For examples, I would refer you
to the literature, as for example in the journal Family Process.
You are quite right to be disturbed if someone attributes the identical
properties to nations that they do to individuals. The reasons are
twofold, as I see it. First, messages to a system are of a different
logical type from messages to entities (subsystems) in that system, and
this even though the latter messages are the _means for communicating
the former. I won't try to explain this here in this brief message
because I am not out to convince you of anything and because this is not
what they pay me to do here at BBN. If you are interested, look into
the references to Bateson that I sent in an earlier message.
Second, the metaphors that we use to understand behavior of individuals
are often inappropriate, not only as applied to nations, but even as
applied to individuals. For example, we typically use physical force
metaphors (influence, impact, force, etc.) from a naive Newtonian
physics. This kind of causal explanation (billiard ball a strikes
billiard ball b at angle A with force f . . .) is inappropriate whenever
the `impacted' system contributes its own energy to the ongoing
transmission of information, living things being the paramount example.
(You can predict the behavior of billiard ball b, but you cannot predict
the behavior of, say, a cat when struck by billiard ball a.) Again,
more on this in Bateson, Watzlawick, et al. Watzlawick in particular
has written some things that relate to espionage that I should think
would be particular interest to people on this list.
Amplifying the second point a bit, I believe that, when viewed from a
systemic or cybernetic perspective, the behavior of individuals,
families, communities, and nations is much more highly analogous.
Indeed, I believe that is the only possible way to understand any one of
these types of systems. (Or did you not realize, my friend, that your
body/mind is a cybernetic system, with feedback loops, homeostatic
mechanisms, etc.? And that you share these fundamental characteristics
with nations?)
The reason that warfare seems a stubborn, unchanging fact of human
existence is that we are still rather stupid when it comes to thinking
and understanding in systemic, cybernetic terms. Given the fact that
small differences of input to a system can constitute messages that
ultimately get a big response, the intuition that change is possible
seems more plausible. Since it is the message that war is obsolete that
can give rise to the appropriate behavior and metamessages, can you see
how I might believe the slogan `war is obsolete' is pretty effective?
Someone commented that warfare will always be potential human behavior.
So will cannibalism, human sacrifice, sado-masochistic practices, and
much else. At present, only small minorities of our culture practice
these horrors (I believe that all three occur in the United States
today), and I think none of us is too worried about being a victim. I
would like to see warfare reduced to the same degree of likelihood, and
I believe this is possible. The dogmatic opinion that it is not
possible will certainly not help to bring it about. The rational
conclusion that warfare is obsolete seems to me very likely to
contribute to that end.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
[Disclaimer: my opinions may reflect those of many, but no one else
need take responsibility for them, including my employer.]
------------------------------
Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 21:00:49-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Goals Worth Perusing
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Jim McGrath writes: "... Rather, the fault lies with the
voters. Unlike many of my friends in the social sciences, I do
not concentrate on the "oughts" of the world. I focus on the
empirical evidence. Perhaps it is the scientist in me."
Perhaps the fault (for the less-than-ingenuous quality of
politicians) should also be laid on the shoulders of those
scientists who feel that because of the "fact" that the
political system "...punishes frank and honest talk about some
issues..." that it is not worth the bother to "...waste time
decrying it" because of not being able to "... change human
nature".
Why are so many scientists able to offer their "objective
views" while losing sight of the political implications of
their views or even acknowledge that the latter exist? C'on
Faust, WHY did you sell your soul to the Devil anyway? (And
why is the rest of the world's population hanging on your
every word as we travel down the road to a high-tech death?)
I really wish that people would refrain from quoting people out of
context in order to make their point. Specifically, what I actually
said was:
Unlike many of my friends in the social sciences, I do not
concentrates on the "oughts" of the world. I focus on the
empirical evidence. Perhaps it is the scientist in me. So when I
observe a political system that punishes frank and honest talk
about some issues (usually those, like nuclear war and taxes, that
are too horrible to contemplate), I acknowledge this as a fact,
and do not waste time decrying it. My decrying it is not (to the
first approximation) going to change human nature. Thus my
comment "we have to make do with what we have."
Note the important use of the term "first approximation," which was
obmitted in the latter message. Scientists, engineers, and policy
planners have much more influence in their professional capacities
than as individuals. While one random individual has a very low
probability of changing the world, a policy expert has a significantly
greater chance.
However, these professionals cannot exercise their influence through
decrying such things as the non-transitive nature of the utility
functions of voters. Their influence comes through their expertese,
which is not (and cannot) be applied in the type of moral wailing that
many seem to accept as a substitute for rational thought. It may be
morally satisfying to decry that "the masses" (or "the leaders")
really don't know what is in their own interest, but it does not have
a very high probability of getting anything done. However, providing
technical and policy options that will both satisfy the people (and
their leaders), while still being "rational" in your own mind might
just accomplish a great deal. This is a non-trivial task, but at
least it is one worth persuing.
Jim
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************