[Fred Nickols (980307.1245 EST)]
Bill Powers (980306.2029 MST) --
Fred:
Suppose I'm controlling for a perception of myself at work as "respected,
valued, and influential." Suppose that I receive signals from my world
indicating that I'm doing okay on that score. (Or if you prefer, "my
perceptions align with my reference condition.") Then, someone tells me
that so-and-so is going around making statements that, intended or not,
strike me as having the effect of besmirching my reputation. In turn, I
confront so-and-so, inquiring as to the purpose and aims of such statements.
In this case, am I aware of a disturbance and its source?
Bill:
Yes, you're aware of the source of the disturbance, as well as experiencing
an error in some perception you want to control.
In this case, the controlled variable is "reputation," meaning what other
people say and believe about you. If someone is _deliberately_ besmirching
you, it will not do much good to confront that person (unless you have a
very big club at hand, like a hotshot lawyer).
Fred:
Well, we clearly have different views on that score. Confronting
back-stabbers has proven effective in my experience.
In PCT terms, let's say I have a reference condition that says, "Other
people should not be going around trying to besmirch my reputation." When
someone does that, it seems to me that behavior putting an end to such
activities restores the disturbed perception.
Bill:
In any case, your most
direct route to correcting the error is to deal with the people whose
perceptions of you you want to change. Act directly on the variable you
want to control.
In this particular case, I'm worried that some perceptions of me MIGHT
change but I'm more intent on putting an end to what I would define as a
potential disturbance. Again, in PCT terms, I'm intent on convincing the
back-stabber to adopt a reference condition that might be stated as
"Behavior on my part that might be interpreted as besmirching Fred's
reputation is something to be avoided."
Bill:
Note that my assertion is that control does not depend on perceiving the
causes of error signals. This by no means says that control cannot involve
going after the cause of the perturbation. It can, and sometimes it can be
improved by this means. It's much easier to replace the washer in the
faucet than to keep mopping the floor every morning.
This is a very important point to me because, until now, my understanding of
your position (and Rick's) was that "going after the cause of the
perturbation" was not only not necessary but also not possible. That, I
couldn't fathom for consciously controlled perceptions (although I can grasp
that view for lower levels of control).
Bill:
What I argue against is any theory that says control can work ONLY by
perceiving the causes of a perturbation, or that it generally works BETTER
by that means.
Again, an important point. Presumably, the flip side is true, too; namely,
that there are occasions when going after the cause of a perturbation is a
smart thing to do (e.g., your example of the washer in the faucet). In that
vein, and to use that example, it seems to me that one reference condition
might pertain to something like "no water on the floor" or somesuch, and
another, perhaps at the same or higher level, might be something like "treat
underlying causes as well as presenting symptoms."
Thanks for responding...
By the way...from B:CP (which I've started to re-read):
"Behavior is the process by which organisms control their
input sensory data. For human beings, behavior is the
control of perception." (p.xi)
Is it then fair and accurate to also say, "Behavior is the process by which
human beings control their perceptions."
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm