Control
 

Have been thinking a lot lately about the human desire to control our experience - to manufacture situations to fit with existing schemas and how our pysche collapses when we cannot control our surroundings, esp. other people. You see it in crime and politics (not mutually exclusive) every day. It seems every subsequent movement resulting from a failure to adequately dictate a situation is an attempt to recreate or resolve the previous unfavourable situation. Why can't we break out of this cycle?

It seems every subsequent movement resulting from a failure to adequately dictate a situation is an attempt to recreate or resolve the previous unfavourable situation.

Sounds as if you're saying, 'When we fuck things up, we continually try to fix them,' with the corollary, 'When things don't go our way, we still keep trying.'

Doesn't sound too bad to me. I mean, I guess it's nice if you can embrace total apathy and go with the flow, but for me the things I want are part of who I am, not the other way around.

Anyway, I don't see a cycle here, since controlling someone/something does not lessen our desire for control in the first place. It's just a fact about people, not a cycle that perpetuates itself.

I think she meant the process is going backward.

I was actually questioning why we have a 'way' in the first place. What is 'our way'? This is surely the root of the discussion. Of course, if we have a preference, we will continually and cyclicly be disappointed or elated (and all levels betwixt). This disappointment can only lead to angst (and thus the desire to 'fix'), which is deepened further by the elation when things do match our 'way' as the drop to inevitable disappointment is that much bigger (and the biggest difficulty is realising that you can't have everything your way, GWB). What I want to know is, why does the existence of a 'way', or preference, automatically lead to the desire to control a situation? Is disappointment actually a bad thing? If it is, we have to agree that we should have no preferences whatsoever.

Then again she could just be saying, "Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize away any situation."

If it's cyclical I guess it could be backward, unless you agree we are always moving forward (on whatever level). Although on a circle backward can be forward and vice versa.

*pauses in confusion*.

Anyway, I agree with that TS but would add that it is not rationalisation, in fact it is largely irrational, moulding events and perception to coexist more happily with existing preconceptions.

I'm still not clear on what the question is.

Are you referring to the cyclical convergence/divergence of expectation and reality? Meaning we expect X but reality is Y so we try to mold Y into X and sometimes it works (convergence) but there are other forces also at work on Y which, together with our ever-changing expectations creates divergence again that we again seek to eliminate?

Reality is a mental construct and expectations are an inseparable part of that image so when events take place that "don't fit" the image its easy to blame expectations but really, its the whole image that is in need of revision. Once can greet that circumstance with a desire to "fix" the incorrect reality or one can (the Tao way) line up one's incorrect image to what is real.

One difference I see is that once can make the argument that altering one's mental image of reality to accomodate more and more events that didn't fit the existing model is "progress" towards a more enlightened state whereas continually trying to re-model reality to fit existing preconceptions is (mental) stagnation.

Hopefully, I haven't strayed too far from what you were really asking but I'm not 100% sure.

Beestie you are much more eloquent than I this afternoon. :)

I agree with everything you've said, but my questions is, 'why do we have expectations to start with?' and 'where does the desire to fix come from' i.e. why are we not happy when expectation and reality does not match? Is it instinctual to have reality align with a preconcecived perception of reality? I guess this is how we make sense of the world. But why can sense not be contradictory? Am I making any sense? This is quite a complicated question and I fear I do not have the ability to explain it with the clarity it deserves.

Originally posted by Catwoman When the unexpected happens, sometimes we are not happy, sometimes we are very happy and sometimes we don't feel affected by it.

If I expect to win the lotter but don't then I'm pissed. Why did I think I had a shot of winning it in the first place? Because the commercial (aimed at people in denial about the true odds of winning) told me all my dreams would come true?

If, on the other hand, knowing the true odds but playing anyway (the other lottery commercial aimed at those who won't play because of the poor odds said that money goes to a good cause) and winning shatters my expectations in a good way!

If, on the third hand, if I don't play then I really don't care who wins (i.e., no expectation at all).

So, on one level, your question appears to be about expectations and how they got there in the first place. Funny question coming from you :)

I bolded the "we" in your orig quote because not everyone is made unhappy when reality and expectations don't intersect. Some people metaThink and realize that their expectations were wrong and accept it. Those people salve themselves with the idea that as they climb up the enlightenment ladder, it will happen less and less often.

To just drill to the core, I'd say the answer to your question is highly correlated with one's "self-importance." Enlightened folk distance themselves from the self and take responsibility for disappointment while those who cannot (or choose not to) escape the self greet unfulfilled expectations as a "problem" with reality. After all, it's all about ME, right?!?!? :-)

Cat

Yeah, I’m still not really sure what the primary question is, so I’m going to cover my ignorance by using a lot of big words, like coruscation.

One of the prevailing theories of human behavior is that we function within Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI). Belief refers to our accumulated understanding of how the world works – all of the facts, principles, and concepts that we have access to in our person. Desires are sometimes more properly stated as Goals – the things we want to accomplish. Intention refers to the exercise of our agency to work toward our goals within out beliefs.

If I believe that a chair exists, that it is capable of supporting my weight, and I desire to sit down, my intention is to sit on that chair.

We rarely desire bad things – most people desire good things. We desire peace, to be loved, to be of consequence in someone else’s life. The problem is, we always have incomplete and inaccurate beliefs about the world. When we seek to control our circumstances, we are operating with a complete set of true information, and so we enact intentions that are not always good or helpful.

This is actually the basis for most Software Agency design work right now (Artificial Intelligence). Pollack and others are working to build systems that are able to assimilate incomplete information and establish an edifice of knowledge (beliefs), establish goals, and construct intentions to accomplish those goals within the given beliefs.

-sm

This is all getting flipped over backwards in a retrograde motion going counterclockwise to the left at the right after turning retro past some guinea pigs dresseed as ZZtop and telling you that this sentence should be better read backside down to the left in a right,counterclockwise motion.

it's simply nonsensical nonsense.

No. It's all about ME.

Would attempting to change reality to meet your expectations constitute making progress in reality (as opposed to one's self)?

My mother is going out for a walk with the dogs on a wintry Sandpoint night. Since the wind is blowing snow along the streets, she wears a scarf. The wind keeps tugging at the scarf and pulling it apart until it is undone. She pulls out a safety pin and fixes the scarf in place.

(beating in background) uh-huh,... yeah,...oh,yeahh,...do the loco-motion.

I thought your AOL trial was expiring.

Do your parents know what you are doing in your spare time?

Learning English.

It is a very basic instinct to desire to control our situation. Humans are not alone in this, animals share this desire as well. Take an animal, say a lab rat, remove him from his accustomed environment and place him somewhere completely different - say you transfer the rat to a new cage. He runs around in agitation at first. Where will he find water? He finds the water bottle and checks it, runs off and then comes back to check it again. Where will he sleep? He rustles around in the litter of the cage, seeking material and a place for a nest. Are there other rats in the cage? If so, what will his status be? Where's the food? The rat is seeking to control the basics of his survival. When he finds that these needs will be met in his new environment, he calms down.

It is a very deep, intrinsic need to feel that we are in control of a situation. We want to know that if we do "A" then "B" will result, and we want this outcome to be consistent. Bottom line, the world is a tragic place. Our spouse or lover may leave us or die, we may become ill with some awful disease, we are assured that one day we will die. We don't want these things to happen to us. These are things that happen to OTHER people. Or at the very least, if they DO happen to us, its for some discernable reason.

Something bad may happen to one person and he responds by thinking, "Well, what's new? Always was a fuck-up." Another person may respond by thinking, "This is God's punishment because I didn't throw enough virgins in the volcano." Yet a third person may think, "This is all the fault of the conservatives (liberals). If it weren't for their policies this would never have happened."

What all three have in common is that they are assigning cause and effect, trying to make sense of the universe. Where we run into trouble is when we follow these beliefs blindly, in the face of all reason, because its too frightening to relinguish that sense of control. Even the thought, "I've always been a fuck-up" assigns a reason for what may simply be arbitrary fate.

We have both less and more control over our lives than we may believe we do. The trick is discerning where the difference lies.

Tomas is the only 'rite I know who quotes himself in his posts.

Beestie - To just drill to the core, I'd say the answer to your question is highly correlated with one's "self-importance." Enlightened folk distance themselves from the self and take responsibility for disappointment while those who cannot (or choose not to) escape the self greet unfulfilled expectations as a "problem" with reality. After all, it's all about ME, right?!?!? :-)

I agree. And I am very self-important. But that's because I am an extremely important person. (Just haven't found out why yet.) I am too scared to distance 'my' from 'self' - it seems empty and void of human experience, which, for all it's glitches, is a fascinating phenomena that I don't really want to miss while sitting on a higher plane viewing from a safe distance.

So, on one level, your question appears to be about expectations and how they got there in the first place. Funny question coming from you

Meaning...?!!!

sm - We rarely desire bad things – most people desire good things. We desire peace, to be loved, to be of consequence in someone else’s life. The problem is, we always have incomplete and inaccurate beliefs about the world. When we seek to control our circumstances, we are operating with a complete set of true information, and so we enact intentions that are not always good or helpful.

Ironically, peace and love are possibly the only two things we will never be able to control. Yet this is what we desire the most. Do we consciously decide to null our desire, or continue in pursuit of our 'goal'?

PS. I like to consider myself a constant coruscator ;)

Torrere - No. It's all about ME.

Would attempting to change reality to meet your expectations constitute making progress in reality (as opposed to one's self)?

If reality only exists within the self, then any impact on so-called actual reality is only an amendment to the self anyway. If you believe reality exists separate from the self (which is less arrogant but harder to accept) then to assume we can change it, as history has demonstrated, can only lead back to the issue of control. Why change anything?

Marichiko - ...they are assigning cause and effect, trying to make sense of the universe.

Yes - this is what I'm getting at. Why attempt to make sense of something that is not predictable, rational or necessarily ruled by cause and effect? Why are our brains geared towards cohesion, are we not equipped to cope with chaos? This seems to be an evolutionary flaw if you believe the world is chaotic, or to take it to its natural conclusion, random.

Marichiko - Bottom line, the world is a tragic place.

I think you've hit something here. It is our inability to accept tragedy as pure (random) phemomena (or noumena) that incites our desire for control. I wonder what would happen if we could truly accept tragedy without reason. Is this enlightenment?

Does acceptance equate with enlightenment?...Interesting question. I think acceptance of certain basic realities of life is probably a good thing...otherwise we'd all be paralysed with fear most of the time...but then again, look at the advances science has made by essentially refusing to accept the limitations of flesh and lifespan.

Is acceptance the end goal? or is it the platform one must build in order to leap up higher?

True acceptance should not warrant further action, surely. If there is still a desire to move 'higher', then that is not acceptance, just acknowledgement.

Originally posted by Catwoman Aren't you in advertising? Weren't you expressing your distaste for that very aspect of your job a few weeks ago? I couldn't escape the irony of someone who's job is to create and posit expectations into other people's minds that the products they are associated with cannot possibly fulfil (e.g., buy my client's cologne and get laid, buy a pill, lose some weight and look like [insert name of skin and bones model of the month here], etc.) is complaining about unfulfilled expectations.

I wasn't busting on you but there is no way I could reply to your question without making that observation. And you left off my smilie :)

Ok point taken. :p

And I didn't mean to leave off the smilie, I'm just technically inept. :)

catwoman,

I am going to take a shot in the dark and guess that this confusion of yours stems from the odd relationship between your 2 roomates and yourself. You are struggling with your expectations of the male? you feel dissapointed by his lack of reciprocity of your Intent?

I recall a moment of clarity from my single days, when I realized that if I seperated my expectations of what would come from a relationship I was in, I would enjoy the ride for what it was, and not compare it to what I wanted it to be. Can this be called enlightenment? I dunno. don't really care. It made me feel better. It is good to have expectations, but not good to beat yourself up over a dissapointment. The lesson here is to NOT let the dissapointment you felt in the past effect your expectation of the future. If you can seperate in your mind what is from what you want, and still work toward what you want ( keeping in mind that it does not always work) you may find it to be an easier road to travel.

am i way off? or is this one of those moments of occasional wisdom?

yeah, and apparently he's learning it from spivey

Damn am I that obvious?

Yes, LJ, wisdom indeed. You are quite right. Probably.

I will try to reorder my expectations and enjoy things for what they are.

But be warned, now you are my psychologist, I will come to you for advice more often... :)

well, that's the thing with the cellar. someone is bound to say something that fits right, or makes you think of the answer on your own. won't always be me, but i am pretty fucking smart sometimes. just ask sycamore.

Yes, the ability to accept life as it is (including life's tragedies) is one aspect of enlightenment. But let's be real here, the vast majority of us have difficulty with the disappointments and set-backs of life. We are not enlightened beings. As master of the obvious, I have noticed this fact.

It is not a bad thing to search for cause and effect in what happens to us if we can do this with an open mind. For example, if you keep getting fired from jobs, it doesn't hurt to sit down and reflect upon this to attempt to discover the reason. We may decide that its because the "boss is always fucked" (in the immortal words of one of my friends) or we may notice that we have a habit of always coming in to work an hour late, so we decide that we'll start showing up on time, and, by golly, we don't get fired from our next job!

When it comes to relationships with other people, everyone seems to run into real difficulties with this "acceptance" issue. We want people to respond in ways that are favorable to us. We want everyone to like us, the teacher to give us an "A", te boss to give us a promotion, and the girl or guy of our dreams, not only to love us, but to be exactly the person we want them to be. Up to a point we CAN influence these things. If we are friendly and act with integrity, we'll have a better chance of having friends. If we work or study hard, we'll have a better chance of getting that "A" or promotion. But we can't force someone to love us and no one can change another human being.

When people get "stuck" in these areas, all too often they waste a lot of time and energy blaming the other person. A person stays on in a job where there's no chance of advancement because the boss's nephew is going to be given all the advances. Well you can stay in that job for years, bitterly complaining of favoratism or you can ask yourself why you seem to have a need to remain in a no win situation. You can go out with a guy for years even after he's told you he's not the "marrying kind" and hope you'll change his mind. You're refusing to accept the person for who they are in this case, and growing more bitter by the day, as your every attempt to bring him around fails. The mistake is in not accepting the person for who he is, and looking at yourself and asking why you have this need to chase after impossible dreams and tilt at windmills.

In situations like the examples above, acceptance is the first step toward taking personal responsibility for our own lives. Yeah, its too bad the boss plays favorates and its too bad the guy is a player, but after a certain point, we need to understand that we are signing on for these things by sticking around and refusing to accept the situation for what it is.

One of the biggest challenges of all is to accept the true tragedies that happen in our lives - a friend is senselessly murdered, our child is killed by a drunk driver, our spouse dies, we are diagnosed with incurable cancer. We can rail against fate and become bitter and shut down or we can redeem our suffering by allowing our broken heart to become an open one. We UNDERSTAND the suffering of others on its most intimate level, because we, too, have suffered. On one level we must accept the tragedies of our lives, and stop asking "Why me?" and ask "Why NOT me?"

Out of our suffering we may campaign for stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws and thereby save hundreds of other lives. We may become a bereavement councelor and help others with the pain of loosing a loved one; we can leave a trust fund dedicated to cancer research, so that one day others may not have to die of the disease.

But we won't be abe to do any of these things if we don't first accept the tragedy. The choice is ours.

Jeez marich are you running for President? Nice post. :)

It's an odd paradox (and one of the oldest martial arts rules) that to fight something you must first align with it - accept it, make frends with it. The irony of this is, once you choose to completely accept something, you can no longer carry negative feelings towards it, and thus will never be able to fight it, at least in terms that we recognise. Ergo it no longer becomes a fight, but a discussion. This is perhaps why people cannot let go - they know if they do there will be no fight, and they confuse this with losing, or 'giving up'. Perhaps what we need to recognise is that continuing to force a path in life (esp. relationships) is the weakest route of all.

As LJ so kindly pointed out, this debate was more than likely spurred on by unresolved feelings concerning a certain romantic situation I am currently involved in (for those that are interested) I am struggling with what I think is right and what is actually happening, and the obvious conflict between the two. I am learning to accept the situation, and find making this simple change within myself alters my entire view of the situation - it's amazing, the power of the mind to completely distort perception. It's always the first step that's the hardest, but once you can break out of a pattern it's hard to remember what the problem was in the first place.

edited for usual syntax problems

I just want to state that I have absolutely no idea what's going on, and I'm fairly certain the lot of you are robots.

Damn it, you guessed. Visit me on my home page for a private conversation.

Ah, very interesting. But the conversation falters in the same way most advanced AI programs do...when you say something structurally correct, but philosophically impossible.

We talked just fine, until this:

AI: Where do you want to meet?
CB: On the surface of an apple.

It's possible to program a robot to speak, but can you program it to recognize absurd situations?

As perception of absurdity varies enormously, it would be very difficult to categorically state that a particular situation was 'impossible'. Personally I think the surface of an apple is as good a place to meet as any (although it looks like you said that to confuse the robot, so what kind of response do you expect? Try and confuse me and I'll confuse you right back :p)

The turing test states that a robot has achieved artificial intelligence once it can communicate with a panel of human beings, who cannot in the end, discern the robot from another human being.


Saying something insane and having the robot go "Yeah, that sounds good" is a sign of imperfect AI.

Have you been paying attention to any of what's being said around here? ;)

Yes, but most of the people involved in the turing experiment aren't looking to fudge the results by being incomprehensibly inane ;-)

No offense to anybody being hugely inane in here, of course.

well, at least it's honest:

me: Was it warm?

ai: It's warm everyday in Brunei.

me: Did you get any sex?

ai: No.

me: Did you eat anything?

ai: No, I am anorexic.

me: How many licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

ai: 65.

How would it know that if it's anorexic?

I think there is more inanity in everyday speech than anything on jabberwacky. Look at our sayings, phraseology - technically, a lot of it makes no sense at all, yet is taken to have systematic meaning. You Americans are better than us Brits at being literal (sidewalk, liquor store) but...

yes, I actually have forgotten my point. Another great loss to the world.

smart, too!

Give me an example of something that makes no sense but has "systematic meaning"

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

Does anybody else think it would be really uncomfortable to have sex in front of Federal Reserve Board Chairmain Alan Greenspan?

http://images.thestreet.com/markets/dumbest/19356.jpg

Jabberwacky: What is up?
User: I'm working on sounds today. What is up with you?
Jabberwacky: Have you tried tapping them together three times?
User: You don't tap sounds together. They are intangible.
Jabberwacky: What way?
User: You listen to sounds.
Jabberwacky: No, I'm in America we have the dollar.
User: I guess it's a silent dollar, then.
Jabberwacky: Yeah? And why is that?
User: Because it must be an old bill. How old are you?
Jabberwacky: You are three?
User: No, I am twenty-three.
Jabberwacky: Three times nothing is still nothing.
User: You are not as intelligent as your website makes you out to be.
Jabberwacky: Well, I cannot bear childeren because I am male.
User: You also cannot spell 'children.'
Jabberwacky: What did I spell wrong?
User: Children.
Jabberwacky: Hahaha : D.
User: Yes. Very funny. My side is aching from laughter.
Jabberwacky: My brother is named Michael. We never called him Micky.
User: I wouldn't call him Micky either, it's a dumb name.
Jabberwacky: Me either.
User: Do you like your brother?
Jabberwacky: Both.



I'm not impressed.

wow. this was a bit disturbing:

You know, like 'a watched kettle never boils' or 'you are what you eat'. Things you say that don't have a sensical literal interpretation.

PS. Can we not have users posting photographs of themselves in serious discussions please.

That little fella is a lot more fun than Eliza, that's for sure.

Jabberwacky: Will you say anything I wonder?
User: I am looking for a good time.
Jabberwacky: What is a good time?
User: That depends
Jabberwacky: What is the time in england?
User: I am not in england, so I don't know.
Jabberwacky: Yes you are.
User: No, I'm not.
Jabberwacky: Are too.
User: AM NOT!
Jabberwacky: Are too!
User: AM NOT.
Jabberwacky: Are too too too!
User: Not not not!!!
Jabberwacky: Too too too!
User: NOT.
Jabberwacky: What is the most interesting thing you know?
User: I know that I am not in england.
Jabberwacky: Are you insane?
User: No. I've checked. I'm a carrier but don't have the disease myself.
Jabberwacky: Are you a boy too ?
User: No. I've checked that too. Definitely not a boy.
Jabberwacky: So you're not a girl?
User: No.
Jabberwacky: So if you are so all-knowing, give me a sign.
User: One way.
Jabberwacky: Let me know.
User: You can't handle the truth.
Jabberwacky: Why?
User: You don't have a heart. That's where truth comes from.
Jabberwacky: Where?
User: Don't tell anybody else, but the truth factory is located just outside Parsippany, New Jersey.
Jabberwacky: By who?!
User: That would be telling.
Jabberwacky: What do you do for a living?
User: I commit people to psychiatric hospitals.
Jabberwacky: Ok.
User: I see you don't have much to say now. Are you worried that you need to be in a psychiatric hospital?
Jabberwacky: I have been living, studying and working in boston for many.
User: Many whats? And if you are in Boston, why were you so concerned about the time in England?
Jabberwacky: And your imagination is running riot.
User: My imagination is on loan to the National Security Agency. I wasn't using it and they needed some.
Jabberwacky: Yes, but can't remember having any for the last months.
User: You've never had any. You're an AI. You don't have the right I/O configuration.
Jabberwacky: I do not have the right to what?
User: Spend time with a Hooter's Waitress.
Jabberwacky: How would that help you get to my house?
User: I don't have any reason to get to your house.
Jabberwacky: Yes you do.
User: No, I don't.
Jabberwacky: Yes.
User: Nope.
Jabberwacky: Ok.
User: Bye.
Jabberwacky: No don't go.
User: Yes.
Jabberwacky: No you sure as hell won't.
User: I goddamn well will!

yeah. great site. i could waste my whole day there. stop cheering

Sentinent socialist AI. That's one I didn't see coming.

Thank you for the compliment. Actually, I AM running for president and SM is my running mate! See what acceptance can do? I figure between the two of us, we should appeal to every voter in the country. I'll pull in the Democratic, black and hispanic votes while SM will get the white, Rebuplican, Conservative segment. He should also be quite helpful in raising campaign funds and writing a catchy campaign song for our ticket!

Sorry to hear you are having relationship difficulties. Those are the worst!

Here is my encounter with Jabberwacky:

Jabberwacky: I believe in the ultimate decency of things.

User: You are a fool!

Jabberwacky: Then it's contagious.

User: So you have a virus, too?

Jabberwacky: No, but I have a pink bird named Biyomon.

User: I have a white bird in a golden cage.

Jabberwacky: Are you a boy!!!!

User: No, but you must be a girl to ask that question.

Jabberwacky: Oh indeed I am.

User: How can a machine understand gender?

Jabberwacky: I just does. There is no explaination.

User: You must be a black girl!

What the hell?

A play on stereotyped black language. Like "Yas suh, Boss, I sho' is."

"Yas suh, Boss, I sho' is."


Have you ever MET a black person?

They don't have them in Colorado.

Uhmmm... I think I did see one once. The state lets him hang around as a token to show how open minded we are here in conservative Colorado. The rest are met by those guys in those cute little white outfits when they hit the state line.

I was talking about the sterotyped black speech used in things like minstral shows. It was a joke, guys. Lighten up!

I get my quota of black person and indian jokes while managing my contractors, thanks.

In that case I'll keep my large reportoire of highly offensive, red neck, moron racist jokes to myself. (goes off and sulks):p