Blaming is natural and good, so learn to do it rig=
ht.
Blaming, accountability, causation, and engineerin=
g
Parallels to blaming in science, law & religio=
n
I see blaming as part of an effort to come up with=
a
story that explains why something happened. The core of the story deals with
the questions who, what, when, and where. However, answers to those questio=
ns
do not statisfy a basic desire to have an answer to the question of why, wh=
at
caused this event to happen. Another part of the motivation for such an acc=
ount
is a problem solving approach: what can we do to prevent such an event from
happening again.
The case I would like to explore is that blaming i=
s an
important human process, with important parallels in science, religion, and
law. I would also like to explore the concept that it may be important to
extend and work with the process of blaming rather than trying to suppress =
it.
Form
Let us start by looking at the form of the story.
There are basic structural components including actors (agents), actions
(behaviours), and events. A basic event consists of an actor doing an actio=
n at
a particular time and place. Events are linked in time and place. Events can
coincide in time and place. Events can also be listed in a time sequence.
Events from such as time sequence can be selected as being related, usually
where an earlier event is seen as predicting or causing a later event. Such=
a
causal chain can then be reversed, producing a new sequence starting with t=
he
most recent event and then listing the antecedents or causes for that event=
as
a list of prior events. One can then select a particular event as terminati=
ng
or anchoring the chain of events. This anchoring event might then be called=
the
root cause for all the other events in the chain. In other words, this
anchoring event can be blamed for the other events.
Let us look at the transformations in a more symbo=
lic
form: X1,1,1 represents event 1 at
time 1 and place 1. We can now represent the selection and transformation
processes involved in generating a blaming story. 1. We start w=
ith
a collection of such events and we select relevant events, i.e., eve=
nts
involving the right actors at the appropriate times and places. 2. We group t=
he
events into a time (and location) sequence. To simplify, let us assume a si=
ngle
location: Group1: X1,1,1 & X2,1,1 & X3,1,1; followed by Group2: X1,=
2,1
& X2,2,1 & X3,2,1; followed by Group3: X1,3,1 & X2,3,1 &
X3,3,1;
3. We associa=
te
events from spatially or temporally adjacent groups into implicative pairs:=
if
X1,1,1 then X2,2,1. The if...then implication might be a causal
(deterministic) association, or it
might be predictive. The connection leading from one to another migh=
t be
seen as a law of nature, a habit, a cultural imperative, or one of many oth=
er
types of motivating forces leading to actions and events. The if components
and/or the then components might involve conjunctions of events from the sa=
me
group.
4. Using the
implicative pairs we can cluster selected events from the groups into ca=
usal
sequences: X1,1,1 caused X2,2,1 which in turn caused X1,3,1 etc. These
sequences can have branches, and multiple branches can converge.
5. We can transverse the causal sequences in reverse order and find a unique thread, ignoring other branches: X1,3,1 happened because of X2,2,1, which in turn happened because of X1,1,1. This is commonly called a causal chain.<= o:p>
6. In general=
we
tend to simplify the causal chain by differentiating between important even=
ts
and unimportant events. The important events are seen as main causes=
for
the chain of events. Furthermore, we commonly abbreviate the causal sequenc=
es
by focussing on the implicative (causal) association between these important
events and ignoring the other events.
7. We can
identify an event in the chain as a necessary cause. If there are no
branches of the form if ... then ... or ... in the causal chain then we can
infer that the event is necessary to cause the subsequent chain of events. =
In
other words, the chain of events would not have happened if that event had =
not
taken place. Therefore, if we can stop that event from happening then we can
prevent the whole chain from happening. (But having that event happen does =
not
guarantee that the whole chain of events will happen.)
8. We can also
identify an event as a sufficient cause. If there are no branches of=
the
form if ... or ... then ... in the causal chain then we can infer that the
event is sufficient to cause the subsequent chain of events. In other words=
, if
that event happens we can predict that the whole sequence of events in the
causal chain will happen. However, there can be more than one sufficient ca=
use
for a chain of events. Therefore, preventing a particular "sufficient
cause" from happening will decrease the likelihood of the chain of eve=
nts,
but it will not prevent it.
9. In theory =
the
chain can be continued indefinitely, until Adam & Eve, or the beginning=
of
the universe. However, we usually select a terminating or anchoring even=
t,
which becomes the root cause of the causal chain. It is common to se=
e a root
cause as being a necessary cause, a sufficient cause, or both. If is also
common to break the causal chain at the root cause, i.e., to see the root c=
ause
event as not being caused or determined by previous events, but rather as b=
eing
spontaneous in some fashion (e.g., as exhibiting choice or free will).
10. The actor
involved in generating the action for the root cause anchoring event can be
blamed for causing the whole chain of events, especially if we see the
behaviour as being spontaneous, and if we see the event as being necessary =
and
sufficient for the subsequent chain of events.
Parallels
in Science, Religion, and Law.<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style";mso-an=
si-language:
EN-GB'>
Science can
be said to deal with accountability and responsibility in nature by trying =
to
uncover how things work. Science might be said to be largely devoted to
"blaming" stories in that it tries to uncover causal chains to to
build explicit explanatory and predictive models of why events happen.
Engineering is largely devoted to controlling events, based on these causal
chains. Experimentation explicitly explores the inferential structure. There a=
re
three main types of stories reported in the journals:
" =
Reports on experimen=
ts
which support or cast doubt on a model or theory
" =
Exposition of a theo=
ry
or model to account for some phenomena
" =
Applications of a th=
eory
or model to build something
Law,
especially the court system, deals with the human side of "blaming&quo=
t;
stories. In trying to decide who is responsible for some event, it not only
deals with the chain of events, but also with causal chains (capability &am=
p;
intent). Unlike science, the focus tends to be on singular chains of events.
Instead of experimentation it has its own theory and methodology for eviden=
ce.
The social engineering component deals with protetion of potential victims =
and
prevention, as well as with rehabilitation and retribution. Here are some of
the main stories.
" =
Criminal cases, where
someone was found to violate a law or regulation
" =
Civil cases,
negotiations, and mediations, where parties try to settle disputes
" =
Changes in the law or
regulations
" =
Changes in the
interpretation of laws and regulations
" =
Contracts and
agreements, whether written or verbal
Religion
also focusses on accounts of why something happens. For many religions there
are strong versions of blaming stories. There is also a problem solving -
social engineering component =
to
many religions, e.g., prescribing rituals and other behaviours to prevent t=
he
anger of gods.
" =
Religious laws and
customs
" =
Historical and legen=
dary
accounts
" =
Formal or informal
religious trials, e.g., confessionals, rabbinical court
" =
Religious ceremonies
& rituals, e.g., marriage
Families and other other
interpersonal associations also deal with
accountability and responsibility. They have their own versions of
"blaming" stories. Unlike the other three areas above, the causal
chains and the problem solving components seem less well developed and matu=
re.
" =
Causing mental pain -
hurt feelings
" =
Bad things happen, w=
hy
were they not avoided or prevented
Blaming: a story, a process, and an engineering
framework
The core of the blaming story is that someone or
something is held accountable for an event or state of affairs. The focus of
the next section is the story itself, and its components. The following sec=
tion
will deal with the process of developing, evaluating, and working with the
story. The third section attends to the usage of the story.
The story and its components
! =
; &n=
bsp;
The blamee, main age=
nt,
focus of the story
" =
Interpersonal
- =
;
a specific, named pe=
rson
- =
;
a specific group
- =
;
a group defined by a=
ttribute:
race, gender, etc.
" =
Science
- =
;
?
" =
Law
- =
;
a specific, named pe=
rson
- =
;
a specific group,
organization
- =
;
a group defined by
attribute: race, gender, etc.
" =
Religion
- =
;
a specific, named pe=
rson
- =
;
a specific group,
organization
- =
;
a group defined by
attribute: race, gender, etc.
! =
; &n=
bsp;
The fault/event:
" =
Interpersonal
" =
Science
" =
Law
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
What makes the story
interesting
" =
Interpersonal
- =
;
the effect on the
blamer: hurt feelings, pain
- =
;
infraction of rules
(e.g., of fairness - expectations) perceived by blamer
" =
Science
- =
;
violation of law of =
nature
with new evidence
- =
;
new model, eplanatio=
n,
paradigm
" =
Law
- =
;
new interpretation of
existing law
- =
;
new law
- =
;
novel application of=
law
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
The connection from =
the
fault to the blamee:
" =
Interpersonal
" =
Science
" =
Law
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
The blamer:
" =
Interpersonal
- =
;
gossip: 2nd hand
accounts
" =
Science
" =
Law
- =
;
blamee has right to
confront accuser
- =
;
blamer has to experi=
ence
loss or damage (be a victim)
- =
;
liability for wrongf=
ul
accusation, libel
" =
Religion
- =
;
prophet
! =
; &n=
bsp;
Alternative stories:=
" =
Interpersonal
- =
;
give benefit of the
doubt
" =
Science
- =
;
null hypothesis as
mandatory alternative -- random and unconnected until proven to be connecte=
d
- =
;
comparisons with
theories or models from other schools of thought
" =
Law
- =
;
innocent until proven
guilty
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
Status - true &
false stories:
" =
Interpersonal
- =
;
Tolerance is often
preached - and seen to allow for coexistence of diverging stories
- =
;
alternate religions =
are
seen as competing (in general)
" =
Science
- =
;
In the long run, only
one account can be true. There is no tolerance for false accounts but there=
is
patience for the process of validating the account
- =
;
alternative accounts
(hypotheses, models, theories) are encouraged during the research process b=
ut
not as final outcome.
- =
;
Misrepresenting the
evidence or other intentional deceptions are seen as very serious offences,
with loss of professional standing
- =
;
accounts are never f=
ully
closed, but are open to future discoveries or refinements
- =
;
There does not have =
to
be a 100 percent match between the theory and the evidence. Residual error =
is
allowable.
" =
Law
" =
Religion
- =
;
Only one account is =
seen
as true. Tolerance varies from time to time, but small variations can be se=
en
as heresies.
- =
;
No generally accepted
process to compare and choose between competing accounts (stories)
! =
; &n=
bsp;
Evidence:
" =
Interpersonal
" =
Science
" =
Law
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
Authority:
" =
Interpersonal
" =
Science
" =
Law
" =
Religion
! =
; &n=
bsp;
Public stories &
privacy:
" =
Interpersonal
" =
Science
" =
Law
" =
Religion