ࡱ> Z\Y7 P/bjbjUU o7|7|P+ld2zzzz <2.G$  @j?}  `{+2Hz0.!!22Blaming is natural and good, so learn to do it right.  Blaming, accountability, causation, and engineering  Parallels to blaming in science, law & religion 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 questions do not statisfy a basic desire to have an answer to the question of why, what caused this event to happen. Another part of the motivation for such an account 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 is 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 action 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 the 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 terminating 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 symbolic 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 with a collection of such events and we select relevant events, i.e., events involving the right actors at the appropriate times and places. 2. We group the events into a time (and location) sequence. To simplify, let us assume a single 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 associate 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 might be seen as a law of nature, a habit, a cultural imperative, or one of many other types of motivating forces leading to actions and events. The if components and/or the then components might involve conjunctions of events from the same group. 4. Using the implicative pairs we can cluster selected events from the groups into causal 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. 6. In general we tend to simplify the causal chain by differentiating between important events and unimportant events. The important events are seen as main causes for the chain of events. Furthermore, we commonly abbreviate the causal sequences 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 cause for a chain of events. Therefore, preventing a particular "sufficient cause" from happening will decrease the likelihood of the chain of events, 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 event, which becomes the root cause of the causal chain. It is common to see 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 cause event as not being caused or determined by previous events, but rather as being 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. 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 are three main types of stories reported in the journals: Reports on experiments which support or cast doubt on a model or theory Exposition of a theory or model to account for some phenomena Applications of a theory or model to build something Law, especially the court system, deals with the human side of "blaming" 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 & intent). Unlike science, the focus tends to be on singular chains of events. Instead of experimentation it has its own theory and methodology for evidence. 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 the anger of gods. Religious laws and customs Historical and legendary 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 mature. Causing mental pain - hurt feelings Bad things happen, why 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 section 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 The blamee, main agent, focus of the story Interpersonal a specific, named person a specific group a group defined by attribute: race, gender, etc. Science ? Law a specific, named person a specific group, organization a group defined by attribute: race, gender, etc. Religion a specific, named person a specific group, organization a group defined by attribute: race, gender, etc. The fault/event: Interpersonal Science Law Religion 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, eplanation, paradigm Law new interpretation of existing law new law novel application of law Religion The connection from the fault to the blamee: Interpersonal Science Law Religion The blamer: Interpersonal gossip: 2nd hand accounts Science Law blamee has right to confront accuser blamer has to experience loss or damage (be a victim) liability for wrongful accusation, libel Religion prophet Alternative stories: Interpersonal give benefit of the doubt Science null hypothesis as mandatory alternative -- random and unconnected until proven to be connected comparisons with theories or models from other schools of thought Law innocent until proven guilty Religion 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 but 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 fully 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 seen as heresies. No generally accepted process to compare and choose between competing accounts (stories) Evidence: Interpersonal Science Law Religion Authority: Interpersonal Science Law Religion Public stories & privacy: Interpersonal Science Law Religion 67lm  S b 4:hrP\ X=@ a""#$P/غغغغغغغغغغغʪتتتت5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH 6CJOJQJ]aJmH sH 5CJOJQJ\mH sH CJOJQJaJmH sH jUmHnHu5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH +68lnjk@ A   z{^_^@&d$@&a$P/_67VWX<=f U  & F `@&^ !!!1"`"a"x####$$g%%%%%%%&!&#&'&@&_&  & F `  & F `$@&a$  & F `_&&&&&'''"'*'.'/'8'9'Z'h''''(6(:(](e(~(((  & F `  & F `  & F `((((((((( )))>)t)))))))))T*****  & F `  & F `  & F `*****D+{++,,-j----[.........../  & F `  & F `  & F `////,/:/B/F/O/P/  & F `  & F ` +0P/ =!p"p#$%. 00P/ =!p"p#$%. 00P/ =!p"p#$%. 00P/ =!p"p#$%. 00P/ =!p"p#$%. 00P/ =!p"p#$% i@@@ Normal1$7$8$H$_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font4&@4 Footnote Reference2O2 Level 20^`02O2 Level 10^`02O"2 Level 3p0^p`0JY@2J Document Map-D M OJQJ^J /#&P+n-n]nnnn68lnjk@A z { ^ _ 67VWX<=fU1`ax  g!!!!!!!"!"#"'"@"_"""""###"#*#.#/#8#9#Z#h####$6$:$]$e$~$$$$$$$$$$$ %%%>%t%%%%%%%%%T&&&&&&&&&D'{''(()j))))[***********++++,+:+B+F+O+R+0000800n0n0n0n0n0000000000`0000000000000`00000000X0X 0X 0X 0X0X0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X0X`0X0X 0X 0 X 0 X 0 X0X0X 0 X 0 X0X00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 `0 0!0 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0-0 0. 0/ 00 01 020 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0: 0; 0<0 0= 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E0`0 0F 0G 0H 0I 0J 0K 0L 0M 0N 0O 0P 0Q 0R 0S0 0T 0U 0V 0W 0X0 0Y 0Z 0[ 0\ 0]0 0^ 0_ 0` 0a 0b0P/._ _&(*/P//123456P/08@~(  n  s *? #" n  s *? #" B S  ?6lP+p`'rp`'rRainer von KnigslwS:\Rainer\papers\BLAME_1.doc6Z|* (    @ 0^`0OJQJo("4  @ 0^`0OJQJo(!  @ p0^p`0OJQJo(-@Lexmark Optra plus PS2\\SERVER-7\LexmarkLEXPSLexmark Optra plus PS2Lexmark Optra plus PS2KS odXLexmark Optra plus PS2XT(None)(None)(None)(None)XZZ e,,XXXX$ldef  ,Lexmark Optra plus PS2KS odXLexmark Optra plus PS2XT(None)(None)(None)(None)XZZ e,,XXXX$ldef  , dP+P@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :ArialG,Goudy Old Style5& :TahomaSWP TypographicSymbols" heeC#L! xx+P+2Q 4Blaming is natural and good, so learn to do it rightRainer von KnigslwRainer von Knigslw Oh+'00 P\ x  5Blaming is natural and good, so learn to do it rightwlamRainer von Knigslwd gainain Normal.dotKRainer von Knigslwd g2inMicrosoft Word 9.0w@F#@"X+@"X+C# ՜.+,04 hp  Task Re-engineering Inc.lL+ 5Blaming is natural and good, so learn to do it right Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345679:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWX[Root Entry F`7+]1Table8!WordDocumentoSummaryInformation(IDocumentSummaryInformation8QCompObjjObjectPool`7+`7+  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q