Building A Following

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[Fred Nickols (980406.1715 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980405.1200)

Fred Nickols (980405.1345 EDT)

So why not focus on practical applications and build a following
there.

Why do people keep assuming that PCTers want a following? I certainly
don't want one. I'm sure that Bill Powers doesn't want one. All we
want are people who understand PCT and can advance PCT science on
the basis of that understanding.

Hmm. I might have miscommunicated. As I understand the issue, Powers,
Marken, et al, are a wee bit dissatisfied with the degree to which PCT
is influencing mainstream psychology and psychologists -- the academics.

My view of the way the world works suggests that academics pay attention
to threats from without (e.g., practical applications that have high
payoffs and claim a different theoretical basis). They don't pay much
attention to threats from within because they can suppress dissent just
like every other norm-referenced outfit does.

So, what I was proposing wasn't building a following amongst academics,
but, rather, building a following amongst the "laity," as it were and,
based on that, get the academics' attention and interest. Get a couple
of important and respected businesspeople interested in PCT in a big way
and the academics will start to pay attention. (At which point, the
Bill Powers/Bruce Abbott discussions will multiply like rabbits -- not
because the mainstream psychologists will all gang up on Bill P. but
because lots will take up the cudgels on both sides.)

Anyway, to be perfectly honest, I haven't the slightest interest in
advancing the theoretical underpinnings of PCT. I'm no scientist or
researcher. My aim is understand what currently exists well enough to
identify some practical uses for it. If there are none, or none in view,
then I'm wasting my time and yours.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

2

[From Rick Marken (980406.1600)]

Fred Nickols (980406.1715 EDT)--

As I understand the issue, Powers, Marken, et al, are a wee bit
dissatisfied with the degree to which PCT is influencing
mainstream psychology and psychologists -- the academics.

Very dissatisfied. But there's nothing anyone can do about it so
why worry?

Get a couple of important and respected business people interested
in PCT in a big way and the academics will start to pay attention.

I have no idea why respected business people would become interested
in PCT. If their interest is in getting richer then PCT won't help
them. If their interest is in getting greater productivity from
their workers then PCT won't help them. What Bill said about
academics also applies to respected business people. Paraphrasing
Bill: Interest in PCT will appear only if the "successes" of PCT
are defined in terms that are recognizeable to the successful
business people. This is a dilemma because the problems that
successful business people are trying to solve are defined by
their existing frames of reference.

Do successful business people define success in terms of 1)
providing satisfying work for more people by increasing the
work force (thus lowering productivity, interms of output/worker)
increasing the pay of employees so that all employees can have
better control over their own perceptions (while lowering the
company's profit margins and considerably reducing the salaries
and benefits paid to the successful business people who are the\ CEOs
and managers of the company)?

People evaluate the practical value of an idea by how much
control it gives them! That's why behaviorism was such a smash
hit; it promised business people control over their workers;
it promised therapists control over their patients; it promised
parents control over their kids.

PCT not only has to convince people that nothing but problems
result from their attempts to control each other but it also
has to convince people that, when it comes to human behavior,
success itself cannot be measured in terms of how well you
can control people. Talk about selling a theory that is solving
a problem that is outside an existing frame of reference! PCT
solves a problem that most people don't even realize exists --
the problem of their own _controlling_.

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

3

[From Fred Nickols 980407.1656 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980406.1600)responding to Fred Nickols (980406.1715 EDT)--

I have no idea why respected business people would become interested
in PCT.

I do. It holds the promise of a new approach to improving performance.

If their interest is in getting richer then PCT won't help them.

I disagree.

If their interest is in getting greater productivity from
their workers then PCT won't help them.

I disagree again.

What Bill said about
academics also applies to respected business people. Paraphrasing
Bill: Interest in PCT will appear only if the "successes" of PCT
are defined in terms that are recognizeable to the successful
business people. This is a dilemma because the problems that
successful business people are trying to solve are defined by
their existing frames of reference.

So what? PCT should help them get off those horns.

Do successful business people define success in terms of 1)
providing satisfying work for more people by increasing the
work force (thus lowering productivity, interms of output/worker)
increasing the pay of employees so that all employees can have
better control over their own perceptions (while lowering the
company's profit margins and considerably reducing the salaries
and benefits paid to the successful business people who are the\ CEOs
and managers of the company)?

Your comments above suggest to me you might study economics as well
as PCT. They also suggest you might have it in for business people,
but let's set that aside for now -- it smacks of "sour grapes."

Since the time of Frederick Winslow Taylor, it has been known that
wages should not be confused with the costs of production, and that
wages can go up, as can profits, and costs and prices can come down,
all as the result of increased productivity. If you don't understand
that and how it can be made to happen, then you're missing out on one
of the great fun things in life, known to me as a win-win-win.

People evaluate the practical value of an idea by how much
control it gives them!

Some people do, perhaps most. So what? That's only one criterion.
There are many others.

That's why behaviorism was such a smash
hit; it promised business people control over their workers;
it promised therapists control over their patients; it promised
parents control over their kids.

I will agree in large measure; however, I will also stipulate that
just as many saw it on a larger scale as an instance of "social
engineering" (close, but not quite the same thing), and no small
number saw it more broadly as a way of helping lots of people with
lots of problems. (I've already indicated that behaviorism quickly
reached the limits of its power so I'm not going to get involved in
any debate about the merits or shortcomings of the Pavlovian, Watsonian,
Skinnerian points of view.)

PCT not only has to convince people that nothing but problems
result from their attempts to control each other but it also
has to convince people that, when it comes to human behavior,
success itself cannot be measured in terms of how well you
can control people.

You've got a lot of "stuff" lumped in the paragraph above. Good
things come from our attempts to control one another, not just bad
things. Similarly, good things -- and bad -- stem from our attempts
to control ourselves. "Success" hasn't even been defined here, let
alone defined in terms of a single criterion such as "how well you
can control people." Nor, for that matter, has "controlling people"
been defined.

Talk about selling a theory that is solving
a problem that is outside an existing frame of reference! PCT
solves a problem that most people don't even realize exists --
the problem of their own _controlling_.

You sure as heck live in a different world than I do. Most people I
know are quite concerned about their attempts to control others and
the negative effects such efforts have -- on themselves and on others.

Rick (and I say this good naturedly), I'm beginning to think you
live in a cave, far removed from interaction with ordinary people. :slight_smile:

Anyhow...I'm convinced there is tremendous, powerful (and profitable)
potential in PCT, and I'm gonna keep on lookin' for it. Ciao, baby...

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm