Accepting PCT

[From Rick Marken (2007.03.26.1200)]

Bruce Nevin ( 2007.03.26 13:32 EDT)

I changed the name of the subject line since this is really on a different topic.

Rick Marken (2007.03.26.1000) –

Certainly some “big time” psychologists control for preserving their privileges (or, more likely, status) and some may even maintain a belief in the controllability of others as a means of carrying out this control. But I don’t think this is a particularly prevalent view, even among the “swells” of the discipline.

Yes, I readily understand that, and it accords with my limited experience with the “high priests” of academic psychology.

I was thinking of their “customers,” for whom “human resources” are a lively concern, from command and control to fix him and make him productive again with minimum cost.

Yes, I agree. The problems that PCT suggests will arise from trying to control people do get in the way of its acceptance by potential “customers”.

Conversely, once accepted, PCT can be coopted in ways that would seem perverse to me and I think to many of us, exploiting an understanding of counter-control, for example, and adapting prior expertise in conditioning to the “shaping” of reorganization.

I don’t think so. I doubt, for example, that PCT could help expert counter-controllers (like terrorists) counter-control any better than they already can. Perhaps it could help people avoid being counter-controlled. But the people who are most easily counter-controlled (like Bush) are probably incapable of understanding PCT anyway.

As it says of God in the Good Book, “to the pure thou seemest pure and to the perverse thou seemest perverse”.

I guess I am one perverse guy. The God described in the “Good Book” condones genocide and the murder of innocent children, among other things. So now I know that the fact that I am appalled by this is because I am perverse. I think I just perversevere.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
marken@mindreadings.com

Re: Accepting PCT
[Martin Taylor 2007.04.14.18.07]

[From Rick Marken (2007.03.26.1200)]

Bruce Nevin ( 2007.03.26 13:32
EDT)

I changed the name of the subject line since this is really on a
different topic.

Rick Marken (2007.03.26.1000) –
Certainly some “big time”
psychologists control for preserving their privileges (or, more
likely, status) and some may even maintain a belief in the
controllability of others as a means of carrying out this control. But
I don’t think this is a particularly prevalent view, even among the
“swells” of the discipline.

Yes, I readily understand that, and
it accords with my limited experience with the “high priests”
of academic psychology.
I was thinking of their
“customers,” for whom “human resources” are a
lively concern, from command and control to fix him and make him
productive again with minimum cost.

Yes, I agree. The problems that PCT
suggests will arise from trying to control people do get in the way of
its acceptance by potential “customers”.

I don’t think that there’s much, though there may be some,
controlling for maintaining influence or privilege involved in the
relative non-acceptance of PCT by conventioanlly trained
“big-time” psychologists. I think the problem is simpler
than that, and harder to deal with.

Systems: a system consists of a whole lot of interdependent
structures. What you learn as a conventional psychologist is a system
that gives right answers in lots of situations, is complicated, and
has lots of components that work on the foundation of other components
and that complement yet others that use parts of the same foundations.
Break one element of this complex system and many other parts fail.
Unless you have a complementary supporting structure that can sustain
some of the system while slowly eliminating other parts, it’s very
hard to change.

What PCT does is to destroy a very fundamental component of the
conventional structure, without offering the support to other elements
that the potential convert may “know” to be true. After all,
the convert has probably learned that under condition X, Y and Z, B
follows A much of the time, at least if you test second-year
psychology students after lunch (though this last set of conditions is
usually forgotten). If you now say that although this observation may
well be true, X and Y have nothing to do with it, but it’s really a
function of P and Q that he’s never heard of, and that don’t link with
anything else he knows, it’s going to be hard to persuade him that P
especially, and Q to some extent, are really important, and that if
you start from P and Q, then it will be clear that B following A is
just a special case of a much more general effect that will be
observed outside the lab, not just among second-year psychology
students after lunch.

I know that’s a longer sentence than is normally recommended by
writers on writing. I hope it’s still intelligible. The point is that
complexity matters, trendy or not, and complex systems can be at the
same robust against some structural change, while being very fragile
in other ways. There are certain kinds of background that can
predispose people to understand and then accept (or worse, to accept
and then not understand) PCT, whereas other backgrounds may make it
very hard.

As I said above, to some extent there may be a control for
“priesthood” among the establishment psychologists, but I
think it is a very minor component, in contrast to the situation with
respect to the early PCs, when IT “specialists” realized the
only way they would keep their jobs would be to ensure that their
workplaces used Microsoft software that needed specialist support,
rather than one of the several better operating systems that were
available at the time. That doesn’t apply in the case of PCT.
Their jobs would be just as safe teaching PCT-based psychology.

So, I think the issue is more one of the intrinsic difficulty of
altering complex system structures than of control for maintaining
“priest” status.

Martin

PS. I hope this is coherent – I still am a bit
foggy-headed.

from [ Marc Abrams (990729.2057) ]

In my continuing odyssey through the Archives I came across this part of a
post from Rick to Greg Williams. This was an ongoing debate between Greg and
Rick about how newcomers and non PCTer's we're treated on the net. I think
it's still as valid today as it was back then

[From Rick Marken (930721.1300)]

<lots of stuff :slight_smile: )>...
You see, I don't think there is a "right way" to deal with nonPCTers -- that
is, a way that will accomplish what I think is Greg's goal --of getting the
nonPCTer to see the merits of PCT.

I don't think that that was Greg's intention. And to this day I sincerely
believe that Rick believes that criticism aimed at his posts are about
"getting nonPCTer's to see the merits of PCT". _WRONG_ Rick. ( at least from
this camp ) It's about _influence_. It's about your ability to help or
hinder someone trying to understand something _alien_. Something that can be
quite disturbing to someone.

PCT is a disturbance to many perceptions that nonPCTers seem to be

controlling quite >successfully.

Sure, but weren't we _all_ non PCTer's once. It was a disturbance to you,
me, Bruce's Nevin & Gregory, Issac, Tom B, Gary C, Dag, Ed, Phil, Dick,
David,Tim etc. etc. and countless others who nevertheless saw something
important in Bill's work. Most of them have not abandoned PCT, most have
abandoned _actively_ participating on CSGnet.

What can make a person dismantle successful control systems?

Over an extended period of time, _Only_ that person. But we can certainly
_influence_ what a person chooses to control. Just look at the rubber band
experiment. We don't make it easy for people to communicate their ideas on
the net. This is a _very_ tough medium to hold a reasonable conversation on.
Patience is required. I believe Dag tried to foster the idea of trying to
find "common ground" _first_. Recognize that the other party has _valid_
at least to himself ) ideas about things. Try to keep the hyperbole to a
minimum and explain the differences in ideas. Whether the person "accepts"
them or not is out of our hands.

Why would one try to dismantle another person's successful control systems,

anyway?

You wouldn't

The only "right" way to change a nonPCTer's mind is to present the

scientific evidence -- the >models, the data, etc.

No Rick. _You_ can't change somebody's mind. Again, you can influence it,
but _only_ if the other party _allows_ it. For that to happen there must be
some trust about the goodwill and intentions of the other party. Throwing
numbers at them may not be the best way of gaining that "trust"., and
supplying hyperbole can only hurt it.

There isn't much of it (as Greg notes) but what there is of it is EXTREMELY

strong (how much

data did Galileo have with which to revolutionize physics?). If the

nonPCTer is non swayed by >this data (and most are not) then that's pretty
much the end of the conversation as far as I'm >concerned;

Yep. And you have been true to your word. People are "swayed" ( influenced )
by how people treat them and their ideas. Not by "facts". Those only
"enhance" the trust that _already_ exists it does not ( in my opinion )
start it.

Marc