Reminder to Author: Gödel <-> If Consistent, Then Not Complete.
Consistent -> ~Complete
Applied to this circumstance: Remember this is an attempt to communicate an individual situation. Stick with details without becoming too specific. Try to give the larger picture without losing focus.
Let us apply our Probability notation to our R/L/D Anger examples from Chapter 19.
First let us summarize some of the ideas that were presented. We suggested that there were a variety of responses to the expression of Anger. Specifically we were referring to R’s anger. Most of these inadvertently encouraged more Anger, while only one diminished the Anger to Balance the Universal Force. We presented the idea that an Angry/Violent or Fight response to Anger only encouraged the Anger. For L to respond to R with Anger or violence would only encourage R to behave in the same way or retreat until he could get Revenge. This perpetuates the Anger and does nothing to quench it.
On the other hand the Flight response was unsuccessful because it ratified the Anger behavior as successful. For D to ignore or run away from a confrontation with R only encouraged R to continue his Angry behavior because he was getting his way.
The only appropriate response is the Middle Ground, as always. Instead of responding aggressively or running away, one responds with an understanding of the root of the Anger of the Other. We called this Compassionate Confrontation. It is a type of non-violent communication. This style of response attempts to defuse the Anger and re-channel it rather than fight it or running away from it.
While these verbal black & whites eliminates the grays we’ll remain here in the duality to facilitate communication, with the implicit understanding that the edges are always fractalized.
In our Probability terminology and notation:
R performs his Fight response, RF.
L responds angrily but then backs down,
While D tries to ignore the whole thing.
Therefore the Fight response was successful, RF =1.
This encourages Robert’s fight response, RF. The probability of him performing his Fight response is greater at moment one, than at the initial moment, P1(RF) > P0(RF).
If Robert’s Fight response is successful, then it is more likely he will employ this response again. If (RF =1), Then P1(RF) > P0(RF).
This is because of the law of positive and negative reinforcement, which states that if a behavior is successful it is more likely to be repeated, while if it is unsuccessful it is less likely. In Notation for my own degenerating Brain
If (X = 1) Then PN+1 (X) > PN(X)
If (X = 0) Then PN+1 (X) < PN(X)
Let X be a specific type of behavior that can either occur or not occur. When it occurs and the result is successful, we will call it True = T = 1 = Success. Alternately when Behavior X occurs and the result is unsuccessful, we will call it False = F = 0 = Failure.
Reiterating once more for this general case.
Let X = Verbal Anger
Then XN = Verbal Anger at a specific moment specified by N
Then PN(X) = Probability of using X response at moment N
If XN = 1, the behavior was successful at achieving goals at moment N.
If XN = 0 the behavior was unsuccessful at achieving goals at moment N.
As a specific Example: Let’s just say that R’s probability of using Anger to defend his trailer was 80% at moment N. PN(RF) = PN(X) = .80 = 80% chance of Fight/Anger response.
Let us say that at the next moment N+1 that L suggested that R clear the driveway of his vehicles/trailer. While R could have cooperated, i.e. responded with ~X, its probability is only 20%. (In this system, P(X) + P(~X) = 1, by definition. Something happens or it doesn’t.) The point: at moment N+1 R's tendency is to respond with the Fight/Anger response, X.
We don’t know what the value of X is at this moment N is yet, XN = ?, because its value is determined by its success. Let us see how R defines success. R has claimed the driveway. Laurie wants it back. R is attached and L is attached.
If R can continue to occupy the Driveway, then he has won and XN = 1.
If R can’t continue to occupy the Driveway, then he has lost and XN = 0.
Let’s assume that R wins at moment N, then XN = 1.
So if PN(X) = .80 then PN+1(X) > .80
For illustration let’s use the Decaying Average Equation as the function which determines the relation between PN(X) and PN+1(X)
Decaying Average Formula
PN(X) = XN/D + K*PN-1(X)
Remember our scaling factor K = (D-1)/D < 1.
For computational ease, let D = 10. Then plugging in the equation
PN+1(X) = 1/10 + (9/10)*(PN(X) = .8) = 0.82
Similarly if the behavior is successful again then XN+1 = 1
Which means that PN+2(X) = .84
Note that every time that R wins or is successful when he performs behavior X that the probability of Behavior X continues to grow.
Further note that while X represents a specific behavior and ~X represents not performing this behavior, that the value of XN has nothing to do with the behavior itself and only is evaluated by the relative success of the behavior. Further the success is determined by the response of the environment to behavior X.
If the Environment does what is intended at moment N, then XN = 1.
If the Environment does not do what is intended, then XN =0.
Of course the environment might respond in an ambiguous fashion in which case XN would be in-between, 0 < XN < 1, depending upon how the relative success is evaluated.
A specific example
R responded with behavior X at moment N.
L gave in.
Therefore behavior X at moment N was successful, XN = 1.
Note that the response is only implied in the equation by the value of XN.
Thus while the response could have been infinite in its variety that the only thing that mattered to R is the relative success of behavior X. Further only R can determine the relative success or failure of behavior X. If the whole world determines that X leads to XN = 0, this doesn’t matter to R, if he evaluates XN = 1.
Therefore a feature of the above mechanism: The Response is only implied and the individual performing the behavior determines its relative success or failure.
Home The Firing Process V. Differentiation Previous Next Comments