[From Bill Powers (2008.05.02.0945 MDT)]
Keith Daniels (2008.05.01.2350 PDT) –
I can accept that we attempt to
control our behavior based on our
perceptions compared against a reference signal (please let me know if I
still haven’t got the basics down)…
OK, I will. A basic principle of PCVT is that we vary our behavior as a
means of making our perceptions match internal specifications, reference
conditions, that are adjusted by higher systems. The higher systems
adjust the reference standards of lower systems as their means of
making higher-level perceptions match higher-level reference standards,
and so on. At only two levels must something different happen. One is the
highest level where there are no higher systems to adjust the reference
signals. At that level, some other process, perhaps reorganization, must
slowly and experimentally adjust the reference signals. The other is the
lowest level, the spinal control systems (or “reflexes” in
old-fashioned terminology). At that level the control of perception is
achieved by adjusting muscle contractions, which affect the world outside
the nervous system and thus, potentially, alter all other
perceptions.
Your way of putting it – "we attempt to control our behavior based
on our
perceptions compared against a reference signal" – states that it
is our behavior that we attempt to control. In PCT, it is perception that
we attempt to control, while the behavior we use to do that is of no
interest (except to other people) unless it has side-effects that disturb
other perceptions we are controlling. The obvious exception is the case
where the perception we are trying to control is a perception of our own
actions – and even then, the means of controlling that behavior, the
individual joint angle changes or the muscle contractions that cause limb
movements, are of no interest to us. A dancer is consciously or
automatically controlling the way the feet, legs, hands, arms, body,
head, and face are behaving, but the joint and muscle behaviors by which
this control of perception is brought about are produced automatically by
the midbrain, brainstem, and spinal control systems. The point is to
create a body configuration in the dancer’s perceptions, not to create
any particular set of joint angles or muscle tensions, which are the
actual behavior of the body.
What sticks for me a little is
in the actual perception/s or reference
signals that we use to compare perception against.
What misleads here is the idea that reference signals are like lifelong
goals that remain the same forever. Exactly the opposite is the case.
Reference signals are adjustable in real time as required to maintain
some higher-level perception in its momentary reference condition. If a
reference signal remains constant for any length of time, that is because
it is necessary for that perception to remain constant as a way of
maintaining a higher-level perception close to its reference condition,
which is determined by still a higher-level system, or by the demands of
the reorganizing system. Even then, disturbance of a higher-level system
can require a change in a lower-level reference signal to counteract the
effect of the disturbance at the higher level. When a three-year old
shows you a scribble and says it is a doggie, your higher-level systems
quickly adjust your reference-principles concerned with lying, and you
say “That’s a wonderful picture of a doggie.” Your rational
program-level systems respond to this change of principles by finding a
way of reasoning that supports the new setting: “This is a fib, not
a lie, and it is true within the child’s own frame of reference.”
That’s what we call “rationalizing,” and its purpose is to make
any given behavior turn out to be rational. Without that adjustment,
telling a lie would cause an error in other principle-level systems:
there would be a conflict at the principle level.
Remember that “control of perception” does not mean control of
which kind of perception will be experienced, but control of how much
of a given kind of perception will be experienced. We do not use
behavior to control honesty: we use behavior to control how much
honesty we will perceive at a given time. Of course setting the
reference level for a particular kind of perception to zero has the
effect of avoidance of that perception, and raising the reference level
above zero for a different kind of perception causes behavior to
change so as to bring that perception into being. For this to happen, we
must already have acquired the ability to perceive both ways. The
hierarchy, as presently conceived, does not bring any new kinds of
perception into being; it controls only perceptions we are already
organized to have. Creating new kinds of perceptions or revising old ones
requires reorganization, a far slower process than those involved in
ordinary behavior, and one that occurs automatically when prolonged large
errors persist in the hierarchy.
Obviously, we don’t all perceive
things the same way nor are our reference
signals the same. If that statement is true, then there must be
perceptual biases or “errant” reference signals that cause our
control
system to make errors of choice/control/reorganization,
etc.
The only internal error that is possible is for the control systems not
to operate properly. Conflict, illness, or genetic defects (among other
problems) can cause that to happen. Each person reorganizes independently
of every other person, but the categories within which reorganization
takes place are apparently similar or even the same across people. It’s
as if we have the raw material to create 11 (?) levels of perceptions,
but few if any input functions exist at those levels at conception. We
don’t have to insist that NO perceptions are genetically determined, but
even perceptual-motor systems that work from birth, or even the fifth
month, can be reorganized and cease to exist (like the Babinski reflex
and many others). Most specific examples of perceptions at each level
(particularly the higher levels) come into being as we interact with the
specific world into which we are born, in Guangzhou, Manhattan or
Calcutta. So goes the picture suggested by PCT.
We can, of course, be mistaken about external correlates of perceptions.
We can also disagree about those external correlates under conditions
where nobody actually knows the reality underlying perception (i.e.,
normally).
If I subscribe to PCT (and even
if I didn’t), my real concern as a
potential therapist is not so much in knowing that we are controlling our
behavior given our perceptions vs. reference signal but in how and why we
obtain the biases/errant reference signals that we may have and what to
do
about that.
What is errant or biased is a matter of opinion and preference.
Differences of opinion or preference between people are social problems,
not psychological problems; they can be dealt with by negotiation or
brute force, but not by therapy. A person can get rid of internal
problems through therapy, but that does not mean the person will get
along with everyone else: A happy and conflict-free Adolph Hitler would
be more of a menace, not less, and means other than therapy would be
required for the rest of us to deal with him. We would have been better
off if Hitler had experienced severe conflict about the idea of killing
all the Jews. Hitler would have been worse off, psychologically, but in
that case, who cares?
The only person who can do something about errors of internal
organization is the person whose own reorganizing system can change that
organization. And the only problem that cognitive therapy can address is
the problem of internal inconsistency – that is, conflict. This is done
not by pointing out inconsistencies but by helping the person explore the
organization of that person’s hierarchy, looking to see how lower-level
problems arise from higher-level systems, and how higher-level systems
create problems by demanding mutually-exclusive perceptions from lower
systems. The method of levels, currently still under construction, is a
way of helping in that manner without creating resistance, noncompliance,
or discouragement.
Being a newborn to the PCT world
and the listserve, has this been
addressed to anyone’s satisfaction here?
My gut tells me that unless we address the perceptual bias issues (and
I’m
talking about people who are experiencing distress (whether we choose to
call it mental illness or personality disorder, or something else) solely
because their perceptions are invalid (and I know “who am I to judge
that”)
If the issue deserves the comment “who am I do judge that …”,
then it’s not a psychological issue but a social one, and must be
resolved through respectful negotiation (when possible), not therapy.
One-sided therapy is just another kind of coercion – viz, the uses of
mental hospitals under the old Soviet regime.
As to the last part of your post, Richard Kennaway expresses my position
exactly about neuropsychological voodoo.
Best,
Bill P.