This is from Phil Runkel on 3 Aug 95.
Rick Marken: I, too, am happy that you raised the idea of
collecting examples of applications. I am selfish. When I get to that
point in my book, I will be happy to have a list of applications of PCT
that I can compare with applications (for the reader's elucidation) of
the standard linear theories. But right now I don't want to sit and
invent some to contribute, because my conscience is hurting that I
haven't yet finished my letter to Charles Tucker. But I'll remember your
request and contribute at a later date.
From Ed Ford (950805.evening)
Bill Powers (950805.1350 MDT)
Here's something to chew over. If John were really answering the
question, he would describe the reference level for the perception he
is actually, right then, trying to control: "I'm trying to get Bill
to stop calling me a jerk and a sissy."
The questioning process has many advantages. One, it teaches the other
person to think. Secondly, it allows the person asking questions, providing
the other person is willing to go along with that process, it allows the
person to CONTROL IN WHICH DIRECTION THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TO GO. This
is critical. At the initial part of the conversation, I DON'T WANT THEM TO
DEAL WITH THEIR PRESENT REFERENCE LEVEL. IT MAKES IT EASY TO ESCAPE
RESPONSIBILITY. In our past conversations, you've always brought out the
why as necessary. I agree, BUT NOT AT THE BEGINNING. That provides them
the opportunity to escape responsibility and justify their output (actions).
I'll deal with John's present reference level BUT LATER ON. AFTER HE'S
TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HE'S DONE AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS, BOTH TEACHER AND STUDENTS. When I get into plan making, then I can
ask (although in most cases they've attempted to excuse what they've done
many times) "What is it that you wanted when you kicked Bill?" But when I
do, I will ask a question that will help John deal with his initial concern,
Bill's name calling. But then, during the plan making session, I will ask,
"How can you deal with Bill the next time he calls you a name without
breaking the rules?" But first John has to look at what he is doing, not in
relation to what he wants, BUT IN RELATION TO THE RULES OF WHEREVER HE IS.
He has to first recognize and reconfirm his willingness to follow rules,
regardless of other reference levels, if he wants to stay where he is and
enjoy the privileges that staying there offers, which includes being with
his friends.
In teaching anyone to take responsibility for his actions, it is necessary
to take the route of least resistence. If you allow John to establish what
he wants, then he will justify and defend his reference level, thus ignoring
the fact that he broke the rules and violated the rights of everyone else.
Having worked in the trenches for many years, my experience obviously leads
me to styles of questioning that work most efficiently.
I know this violates your principle of never asking why.., but it
brings out the goal that John was trying to accomplish.
See above explanation.
Of course you can remind him that kicking is not an allowable
choice.
I would never approach him as suggested. I would ask him, SO THAT HE DOES
THE THINKING, as follows: "What's the rule about kicking others in school?"
It seems to me that this gives more substance to the choice that the
kid has to think about. The teacher accepts the goal, but rejects
the particular means of getting to it. One step at a time.
As I said above, John isn't ready to deal with the reference level of why he
kicked Bill at the beginning. This leads off a cliff and into a pit of
excuses. And I'm not interested in the teacher's acceptance of a goal or
rejection of the means, but rather HOW JOHN THINKS. I'M TEACHING HIM TO
THINK IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE'LL DEAL WITH ALL THE RELEVANT REFERENCE LEVELS
THAT COME INTO PLAY, NOT JUST THE ORIGINAL ONE OF KICKING BILL TO GET HIM TO
STOP CALL HIM NAMES.
If all John knows is that he's supposed to stop kicking Bill, he has
no reason to stop except for a conflict with wanting to stay in
class. But if he gets the idea that there may be another way that
won't get him kicked out, he may see a trip to the social skills room
as a chance to settle something important to him.
Anyone, anywhere, has to respect rules or they won't be allowed to enjoy the
privileges of being where they are. I have to respect the various laws and
rules of wherever I find myself. Rules, as you so rightly have shown, are a
very part of the fabric that goes to make up our hierarchy. That "conflict
with wanting to stay in class" is crucial. That's what gets children back
into class, although I'd reword it to say "wanting to be with their
friends." It's the social desire to be a part of others, to be connected to
others, that is the critical reference level that allows my program to work
so well. That's the hook in school. They want to be with their friends.
That is their number one reference level in school. And that is exactly
what comes to their mind when they have to leave class. What they're doing
doesn't allow them to be with their friends. And what they're learning,
among other things, is that to stay with their friends, they have to respect
the rights of others. By asking why, you are distracting them from their
number one goal, to be with and get along with their friends. I'll teach
John how to get along with Bill, but for me to be able to do that John must
first be willing to follow the rules in school. Once he learns to follow
the rules, it will not only gain him access to his friends, but it will give
him constant access to his friends. To gain continual access to his
friends, he is more than willing to learn how to achieve a lower priority
reference level, namely, how to get along with Bill.
It will be easier for him to do this if he has a clear idea of what
the various goals are.
I agree. But from a very practical point of view, I think my approach is
far more efficient and effective. Explaining (telling) to children doesn't
teach them to think. When I tell someone something, I do the thinking.
When I ask, they do the thinking. Also, the higher the priority the
reference level, the stronger the hook.
Thanks for responding to my post, it forces me (as always) to think through
my ideas and to say more clearly what I mean. Best, Ed.
From Ed Ford (950805.evening)
resent because Bill's comments somehow moved to the edge of the page...
Bill Powers (950805.1350 MDT)
Here's something to chew over. If John were really answering the
question, he would describe the reference level for the perception
he is actually, right then, trying to control: "I'm trying to get
Bill to stop calling me a jerk and a sissy."
The questioning process has many advantages. One, it teaches the other
person to think. Secondly, it allows the person asking questions, providing
the other person is willing to go along with that process, it allows the
person to CONTROL IN WHICH DIRECTION THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TO GO. This
is critical. At the initial part of the conversation, I DON'T WANT THEM TO
DEAL WITH THEIR PRESENT REFERENCE LEVEL. IT MAKES IT EASY TO ESCAPE
RESPONSIBILITY. In our past conversations, you've always brought out the
why as necessary. I agree, BUT NOT AT THE BEGINNING. That provides them
the opportunity to escape responsibility and justify their output (actions).
I'll deal with John's present reference level BUT LATER ON. AFTER HE'S
TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HE'S DONE AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS, BOTH TEACHER AND STUDENTS. When I get into plan making, then I can
ask (although in most cases they've attempted to excuse what they've done
many times) "What is it that you wanted when you kicked Bill?" But when I
do, I will ask a question that will help John deal with his initial concern,
Bill's name calling. But then, during the plan making session, I will ask,
"How can you deal with Bill the next time he calls you a name without
breaking the rules?" But first John has to look at what he is doing, not in
relation to what he wants, BUT IN RELATION TO THE RULES OF WHEREVER HE IS.
He has to first recognize and reconfirm his willingness to follow rules,
regardless of other reference levels, if he wants to stay where he is and
enjoy the privileges that staying there offers, which includes being with
his friends.
In teaching anyone to take responsibility for his actions, it is necessary
to take the route of least resistence. If you allow John to establish what
he wants, then he will justify and defend his reference level, thus ignoring
the fact that he broke the rules and violated the rights of everyone else.
Having worked in the trenches for many years, my experience obviously leads
me to styles of questioning that work most efficiently.
I know this violates your principle of never asking why.., but it
brings out the goal that John was trying to accomplish.
See above explanation.
Of course you can remind him that kicking is now an allowable
choice.
I would never approach him as suggested. I would ask him, SO THAT HE DOES
THE THINKING, as follows: "What's the rule about kicking others in school?"
It seems to me that this gives more substance to the choice that
the kid has to think about. The teacher accepts the goal, but
rejects the particular means of getting to it. One step at a time.
As I said above, John isn't ready to deal with the reference level of why he
kicked Bill at the beginning. This leads off a cliff and into a pit of
excuses. And I'm not interested in the teacher's acceptance of a goal or
rejection of the means, but rather HOW JOHN THINKS. I'M TEACHING HIM TO
THINK IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE'LL DEAL WITH ALL THE RELEVANT REFERENCE LEVELS
THAT COME INTO PLAY, NOT JUST THE ORIGINAL ONE OF KICKING BILL TO GET HIM TO
STOP CALL HIM NAMES.
If all John knows is that he's supposed to stop kicking Bill, he
has no reason to stop except for a conflict with wanting to stay
in class. But if he gets the idea that there may be another way
that won't get him kicked out, he may see a trip to the social
skills room as a chance to settle something important to him.
Anyone, anywhere, has to respect rules or they won't be allowed to enjoy the
privileges of being where they are. I have to respect the various laws and
rules of wherever I find myself. Rules, as you so rightly have shown, are a
very part of the fabric that goes to make up our hierarchy. That "conflict
with wanting to stay in class" is crucial. That's what gets children back
into class, although I'd reword it to say "wanting to be with their
friends." It's the social desire to be a part of others, to be connected to
others, that is the critical reference level that allows my program to work
so well. That's the hook in school. They want to be with their friends.
That is their number one reference level in school. And that is exactly
what comes to their mind when they have to leave class. What they're doing
doesn't allow them to be with their friends. And what they're learning,
among other things, is that to stay with their friends, they have to respect
the rights of others. By asking why, you are distracting them from their
number one goal, to be with and get along with their friends. I'll teach
John how to get along with Bill, but for me to be able to do that John must
first be willing to follow the rules in school. Once he learns to follow
the rules, it will not only gain him access to his friends, but it will give
him constant access to his friends. To gain continual access to his
friends, he is more than willing to learn how to achieve a lower priority
reference level, namely, how to get along with Bill.
It will be easier for him to do this if he has a clear idea of
what the various goals are.
I agree. But from a very practical point of view, I think my approach is
far more efficient and effective. Explaining (telling) to children doesn't
teach them to think. When I tell someone something, I do the thinking.
When I ask, they do the thinking. Also, the higher the priority the
reference level, the stronger the hook.
Thanks for responding to my post, it forces me (as always) to think through
my ideas and to say more clearly what I mean. Best, Ed.
from Ed Ford (950806.1400)
Rick Marken (950806.1130)
....The desire to kick doesn't change because it conflicts with the
desire to be in class.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, the real reference level that has a
higher priority is to "be with their friends." Supposing a child refuses
to obey rules, goes to the social skills class, then decides to return.
Setting a reference level for being in class and following the rules, the
child has to, as a part of returning to class, create a plan. The plan is
going to cover those rules which he has a tendency not to follow, which will
obviously include kicking Bill as a way of dealing with someone when he is
called a name.
As Bill suggests, what might change the desire to kick is learning that
there are other ways (besides kicking) to achieve a goal.
The desire to be in class with his friends is what creates his desire to
want to be in class and be willing to make a detailed plan to return.
Incorporated in the plan making is how to deal with someone the next time
they call you a name in such a way that you don't break the rules.
I said "It's the social desire to be a part of others, to be connected to
others, that is crucial."
And you said:
This is not the impression I got while listening to the talks at the
meeting.......This policy is implemented non-punitively; the kids can
choose to stay in class and cooperate or leave.....
For those kids who decide to stay and follow the rules, the higher priority
reference level is that they want to be with their friends more than they
want to break the rules as a way of satisfying other reference levels. For
those kids who leave and eventually return, their decisions to return is
then supported by a teacher who helps them create a plan to remain in class
and satisfy within the prevailing rules all their reference levels.
The most important part of this program, which is easily missed, is that we
are teaching these children to think on their own, to respect the rights of
others, and (a feature I didn't perceive when we first implemented the
program) the students are learning to use their higher level thinking skills
in a much more organized and effective way, which in turn is supporting them
as they try to work through the more difficult demands of education, namely,
reorganization. We're also finding that those who effectively administer
the program, teachers, administrators, counselors, school psychologists,
etc., are themselves learning and developing the same thinking skills and
the respect for others that their students are learning. It is totally a
win-win-win process where everyone gains.
This is truly the remarkable part of this process. As we treat children as
living control systems, recognizing with our knowledge of PCT how to access
them and, at the same time, teaching them how to use their PCT system so
they can deal with their lives more efficiently and effectively, we have
helped them create for themselves a more responsible thinking system. It
isn't just the immediate problem that is being dealt with, but a human being
is learning the life long skill of satisfying their reference levels in a
cooperative way with other living control systems. It is having a profound
effect on the entire school. It is (as my new book will suggest) creating
the foundation for change where people learn to live cooperatively with
others. I think that is the end product of Bill Powers vision for PCT in
the future. That says a heck of a lot for his PCT model. It is also the
natural outcome of any process that properly reflects the model.
Best, Ed.
[Hank Folson 950812]
In glancing at the posts between Ed Ford, Rick Marken and Bill Powers, it
appears to me that Ed is unlikely to post on applications for much longer.
Whatever Rick and Bill are controlling for in their posts seems to me to be
in conflict with whatever Ed is controlling for in his posts.
It appears to me that helping children is a very high level goal for Ed. It
is a very difficult goal, because achieving his goal requires that large
numbers of kids who are independent living control systems develop goals
compatible with Ed's. Adding to the difficulty is that Ed is working
through intermediaries (teachers and principals) who are also independent
beings. When Ed sees results, though, they are validated independently by
all these people.
Posting to CSGnet must pale in comparison to the difficulty and the
satisfaction of his work. My guess is that Ed posts to the net because he
feels a part of the PCT community, wants to recognize its contribution to
his meeting his personal goals, share his knowledge, encourage others,
spread the word. But I don't think it will take much to make him wonder if
posting to the net is worth the time and hassles, compared to the
satisfaction he gets applying PCT principles.
This scenario probably fits most of the PCT practitioners. If we want a
steady flow of posts from practitioners, the goals of those posting
applications and those responding must be compatible, or the flow will
quickly shut off. The practitioners have better things to do with their
time.
I suggest that practitioners can help by stating why they are posting and
what sort of or level of discussion they want to engage in.
Sincerely, Hank Folson
[Avery Andrews 9508014]
(Hank Folson 950812)
I think Hank has a point, and have two suggestions:
a) people try to distil the sprawling expanse of discussion of
Ed Ford's program into a few key questions
b) the theoreticians make a serious effort to figure out how the
program might be exploiting PCT principles, utilizing their
full range of knowledge, and present their conjectures for
consideration, rather than just complaining that they have problems
with wording of individual sentences. I have been trying
to do this, but presumably people who have heard his talks,
had lunch with him at conferences, and maybe even read some of
his books can do a better job than I can.
For example, one feature of the traditional approach to discpline is the
idea that you should be able to get conformance to rules just by
announcing them and the schedule of penalties for breaking them.
Behaviorism is similar, except that you can leave out the announcement:
the subjects are supposed to afford a fairly unstructured soup of
behaviors which the experimenter/manipulator can selectively
reinforce or extinguish at will.
PCT says that you can't get results (as opposed to consequences) this way
because the behaviors are all side effects of controlling for reference-levels
which are not directly addressed simply by reacting to the (apparent,
from the point of view of the disciplinarian) behaviors that are produced.
Conventional discipline is then a bit like trying to jam a complicated
jointed object, like a bicycle, into a particular space just by shoving
on the bits that are sticking out, without regard to the higher-level
aspects of its state that might be relevant, except that its even worse
because people are smarter than bicycles.
My impression of Ed's program is that it works mostly by engaging and
strengthening some cognitive facilities that will help disruptive children
find reference levels more consistent with what's going on in school.
Then compliance with the rules follows more or less automatically, when
the child has some higher-level references, such as learning stuff,
for which not kicking, shouting and throwing things in class are required.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Hank Folson [950815]
28 words into my 284 word post (Hank Folson 950812), Rick Marken
(950812.1900), without offering a reason, comments:
>I don't think that's true; I bet Ed will start posting on applications as
>soon as he gets back. Why not?
Rick, doesn't the "Why Not" tell us you started your reply before reading
the complete post? If you had read the post, or even just the next
sentence, you would know "why not". If you start your comments before
reading the complete post, isn't your goal just to say what you already
think? It is a logical goal for you, but it is in conflict with any
practitioners' goals, which was my point.
>>Whatever Rick and Bill are controlling for in their posts seems to me to
>>be in conflict with whatever Ed is controlling for in his posts.
>I think there is some conflict in any discussion. If there were no
>conflict, there would be no discussion; people would just silently nod
>in agreement (and nodding doesn't make for very interesting discussions,
>especially on the Internet).
This is what I meant about conflicting goals. Rick accepts/wants conflict
in discussions as one goal, and also has another very personal goal to make
the net interesting. Rick, why does it take your comments to make someone
else's work interesting? Why is it so important to you to achieve these two
goals? Why do you think anyone else shares these goals?
>>I suggest that practitioners can help by stating why they are posting and
>>what sort of or level of discussion they want to engage in.
>Sounds like an _excellent_ suggestion; I second that emotion (sic).
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Are you going to post
what your goals are when commenting?
···
----------------
Rick Marken, you have asked for application posts, but you never post about
applying PCT in your work. I could understand this if your field were
Inorganic Chemistry or Geology, but your field is Human Factors, isn't it?
Learning curves, task speed, accuracy, fatigue effects and so on, lend
themselves to research based applications of PCT. "Why not?"
Sincerely, Hank Folson
[From Rick Marken (950815.2130)]
Hank Folson (950815) --
If you start your comments before reading the complete post, isn't
your goal just to say what you already think?
Perhaps. But it's also possible that I did read the complete post before
commenting (I did) and said "why not?" because I was too stupid to see
that you had already explained "why not".
Rick accepts/wants conflict in discussions as one goal,
Accepts? yes; wants? I don't think so. But you can test this; agree with
everything I say or say things that you know I agree with; see if I
protest:-)
and also has another very personal goal to make the net interesting.
Oh, I don't know about that. I think I've contributed my fair share to
making the net boring -- by posting models and stuff. Besides, I know for
sure that "interesting" is in the eye (and the reference signals) of the
beholder.
Rick, why does it take your comments to make someone else's work
interesting? Why is it so important to you to achieve these two
goals? Why do you think anyone else shares these goals?
I'm just discussing PCT because I enjoy it. If you don't like my posts
you can always delete them before reading.
Are you going to post what your goals are when commenting?
I can only say what I think they are. My main goal is to teach PCT.
Another goal is to learn more PCT . I find that I learn PCT by listening
to the discussions on CSG-L . These discussions often motivate me to
develop demonstrations, models and experiments that help me (and
hopefully some others) understand the nature of control.
Rick Marken, you have asked for application posts, but you never post
about applying PCT in your work.
Actually, I have posted a little about my use of PCT in my work. I think
the most systematic application of PCT was to the analysis of satellite
ground control operations. This "task analysis" was done to provide a
framework for the design of human-computer interface (HCI) software
for integrated (multiple) satellite control.
The PCT based task analysis was particularly useful for HCI design
because it centered around the specification of the variables that the
operator had to control (which would be the variables that had to be
displayed to the operator in some way) rather than on the (in practice,
unpredictable) sequence of actions that the operator should take to control
those variables (the typical approach to task analysis). The PCT based
task analysis also specified the disturbances that might affect the variables
to be controlled (component failures, electromagnetic interference,
scheduling conflicts, etc) and the actions (computer inputs from the
operator) that the operator would have to be able to take to counter
these disturbances.
This task analysis was done with the help of satellite controllers who
liked the whole approach very much; there was no resistance to this PCT
analysis because it didn't conflict with anyone's existing paradigms;
these were satellite controllers and they knew that their job was to
control variables represented on the computer display.
I think most people in my field (HCI engineers) work from a PCT
perspective whether they call it that or not (mostly not). Ultimately,
a good HCI designer learns to look at computer use from the user's
perspective -- which is one of the main things PCT would say they should
try to do.
Best
Rick
[From Rick Marken (950816.2135)]
Bill Powers (950816.0700 MDT) --
I am still waiting to see an application in which PCT is actually used as
the main organizing principle, with ALL older ideas that are contrary to
PCT put aside at least until the PCT-based approach can be given a fair trial.
Maybe it would help people understand the PCT model of behavior if you could
describe your vision of an application in which PCT is used as the
main organizing principle. Perhaps an application to education. What would
be your vision of an application of PCT in elementary (K through 6th grade,
say) education?
I would sure find it helpful if you would give this a try.
Thanks
Rick
[Avery Andrews 950817]
(Rick Marken (950816.2135), Bill Powers, various posting)
Well, unless I'm completely out in left field, one thing you'd expect
of a PCT-style reorganizing system is that it could get stuck, in
a situation where every small change to the perceptual hierarchy, etc.
leads to greater over all error. If you allow for `changes in
scenery' as in the Ford and Goldstein programs, this could help a lot
in letting the system get unstuck. So that aspect of these programs
strikes me as a pretty straightforward application.
The application that I'm actually interested in producing computer
programs that people will actually learn something by interacting with,
and furthermore learn what I want them to learn. I regard my lfg
system as pretty much a failure in that regard, since students who
use it tend to focus on just getting their grammars to produce the
right number of structures (0,1 2, or whatever) for the sentences in the
data, and they tend to do it just by fiddling with the rules until the
desired results appear: they develop a reference for a perception
that isn't the one I wanted them to develop, which is actually understanding
how the rules work. But I haven't figured out how to solve this problem.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
[Avery Andrews 95081300]
(Rick Marken (950818.0915))
>I think the problem is with the people using the program, not with the
>program itself. The people are probably perceptual control systems; such
>systems tend to be more interested in learning what they want to learn rather
>than what others want them to learn. Don't you hate that about control
>systems? 
But it is possible to write programs that alter the references of
the user in the direction desired by the author. A good example
is the computer game DooM; for susceptible people, to start playing
DooM quickly leads to a rather strong desire to be playing
DooM, to finish the episode, to finish the games, buy and play
the next release by Id Software, etc.
I actually had a small success in this area myself, a program
called `times tester' to drill my kids on math tables. It maintained
and displayed a score, which would go up if you answered
multiplication questions fast enough and correctly , down if
you were wrong or too slow. The idea was to answer the questions
until your score got to be 100. A correct answer produced a
victory sound (three triumphal beeps), an incorrect answer a
defeat sound (an explosion). The kids often objected to starting
to use it, but usually got into it quickly enough, and happily
pushed their score up to 100.
I think the program worked by catering to a relatively invariant
reference for perceiving yourself to be succeeding in a context
where failure is possible (the victory beeps versus the defeat
blast) and to be making progress at something (the rising score).
The speed you had to answer to get points was a tuneable parameter,
and it was important to set it correctly for the individual kids:
too hard and they would go into hysterics as their score plummetted,
too easy, no challenge. I suspect that the rising score played
a similar role in my program to the progress charts, etc., in
Ed Ford's, though I don't know enough about his to be sure.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
[From Rick Marken (950819.0830)]
Avery Andrews (95080824) --
I'd still be curious to hear from the actual psychologists on the net if
they think I'm more or less on target
I used to be an actual psychologist; do I count?
Behaviorism presents organisms...a fairly loosly structured `soup' of
potential behaviors which somebody (if they have the physical power)
can freely reinforce or extingish at will.
Yes. But behaviorists wouldn't say that you need any physical power to
control behavior; all you need are the reinforcers.
In PCT, the position is completely different, since the `behaviors'
observed by an intending manipulator are mere side-effects of the
workings of control systems...So when you try to extinguish one
`behavior', another nasty one might pop out, or the whole system
might start to reorganize in unpredictable ways, leading to possibly
undesireable consequences rather than the hoped-for results.
I'm not sure that the first observation (that what we typically call
'behavior' is a side effect of controlling) implies the second (that you
'extinguish' a behavior the reorganization system might replace the
extinguished behavior with a less desireable one). I don't think any
behaviorist would disagree with the second observation; but they would
be clueless about the meaning of the first.
To my ear, it continues to sound as if both the Ford and Goldstein
programs incorporate this principle, in that they involve changes of
scenery, plus direction of attention to the higher-level goals behind
the conflicts, rather than simply trying to reinforce some behaviors
and extinguish others.
I don't know what principle you are talking about here. But it doesn't
seem to me that the idea of a "change of scenery" (if it is really part of
both programs) can be considered an important contribution of PCT to
dealing with human problems. It's great if these programs do, indeed,
direct a person's attention to the higher level goals behind their
conflicts; it would be nice if this aspect of these programs were more
clearly described by their practitioners.
Avery Andrews (95081300) --
But it is possible to write programs that alter the references of the user
in the direction desired by the author.
You can influence the references that people select but you can't
reliably alter someone else's references in the direction you choose (as
you yourself note in your post). Your program seemed to alter
references (for doing multiplication problems) because your kids were
willing to alter those references in order to achieve another goal
(getting points). If, however, your kids had not been willing to do
multiplication to get points (a possible setting of their references) the
program have done nothing to alter their references. The program
doesn't alter references; only the kids do.
There are many PCT ideas that can contribute to "real life" attempts to
improve the human condition: the test for controlled variables, the
knowledge that most "behavior" is an irrelevant side effect of
controlling, the importance of trying to see behavior from the point
of view of the behaving system, the fact that the appearance of response to
stimulus and control by consequences is an illusion, the fact that
conflict is a natural consequence of controlling, the means of solving
conflict by seeing the problem from the point of view of the systems
that are creating the conflict, etc. But in order to apply these ideas
successfully, one must first admit that all previous ideas about
behavior are wrong. Programs that are based on an objective view of
behavior (seeing behavior only from the point of view of the person
running the program), that include elements of reward and punishment,
that have the goal of teaching people the "right" behaviors, etc --
these are not PCT programs; and they will only be as successful as any
program has ever been in the past; they may appear to work for a while
but, eventually, they will fail.
The only programs that can "work" (whatever that means) are the
one's that deal with people as what they are -- perceptual control
systems.
Best
Rick
from Ed Ford (950821.late evening)
Just to let all of you know that I'll be posting two replies to your
comments over the past weeks from LeEdna Custer, the school psychologist at
Clarendon, and also Joe Sierzenga, principal at Morrice Elementary School in
Michigan, both of whom many of you met during the past two CSG conferences
in Durango. I'm having to retype what they've written and fortunately this
week, I'll have the time. But it will be in a few days or so...Ed.
[From Rick Marken (950822.1100)]
Avery Andrews (950819.1115) --
How would behaviorism predict the second observation [that when you
'extinguish' a behavior the reorganization system might replace the
extinguished behavior with a less desireable one]?
The animal is seen as emitting all kinds of behaviors; some, because they
were reinforced, more frequently than others. When you stop reinforcing (or
start punishing) one of the emitted behaviors, it's frequency goes down but
some other behavior become relatively more frequent. You can't tell which
behavior will become more frequent unless you systematically reinforce a
particular behavior. This is why Skinner argued against punishment - -
punishment can eliminate a particular behavior but it doesn't necessarily
lead to the appearance of a more desireable behavior; the behavior that
becomes more frequent may be even less desireable than the one that was
punished. Reinforcement is not only nice (not punishing), according
to the behaviorists, but it is also the only way to produce the behavior you
want to see -- and not just eliminate the one you don't want to see. Of
course, PCT reveals just how "non-punishing" reinforcement actually is.
Phil Runkel (950821) --
I hope we are not going to get into a technical discussion of validity,
program evaluation, and all that.
No. I'm not interested in that approach to evaluation. But I do think that
it is important to articulate some basis for evaluating the effectiveness of
programs based on PCT.
I would suggest that the evaluation of any program should be in terms of its
ability to allow people to control their perceptions effectively. I think
we should try to describe how people could systematically go about evaluating
programs on this basis.
People who implement a program must have some reason for implementing it;
some goal for the program. Indeed, the goal for the program probably says a
lot about the nature of the program itself. If the goal for the program is
to get people to behave properly, it is probably not a PCT type program. If
the goal for the program is to help people control with grace, skill and
confidence -- with little or no conflict -- then it probably is a PCT type
program.
I think it is as important to know the goal for a program in order to
evaluate whether the program is compatible with a PCT understanding of
people. So what are the goals for some of the programs that have been
discussed? What, for example, is the goal for David Goldstein's program of
therapy for the little boy; what is the goal of Ed Ford's program of
discipline in the schools?
Best
Rick
[Avery Andrews 950823]
(Rick Marken (950822.1100))
>it's frequency goes down but
>some other behavior become relatively more frequent.
So is there the implicit idea that there's a sort of fixed amount of
behavior that must be being emitted at all times? On the one hand
this seems reasonable because an organism is always doing something,
if only sitting and staring at the wall; on the other hand I don't
don't think it makes much sense when you look at it hard, due to the
absence of any criterion for individuating behaviors; telling one from
another and saying how many are being produced at any given time.
At any rate I'm inclined to tak my original proposal as having been
refuted, not sure if I can resurrect anything viable from the remains ..
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au