[From Rick Marken (950518.2045)]
Hank Folson (950518) --
Funny you should ask! One area in which I have been practicing the
principles of PCT is the CSGnet itself.
How does one not practice the principles of PCT? If PCT is right, every
person is an instantiation of the principles of PCT, right?
I saw little sign of the researchers who post regularly to the CSGnet
applying the principles of PCT in their posts and research techniques
What are the principles of PCT ? How would we _apply_ them? We just
ARE them, no?
The assumed benefits [of applying the principles of PCT] would be
faster more effective communication and faster development of
Who assumes this? As you note later, Bill Powers, according to your
evaluation, does practice what he preaches (I presume that means that
you find that he "applies the principles of PCT"). Yet look at the speed
and effectiveness of Bill's dialog with Martin Taylor. By Bill's own
(accidentally posted) testimony, those communications have been
slow, painful and ineffective.
I think the key thing that led to a big personal error signal for me was
my naive assumption that people who understood the basics (and
well beyond) of perceptual control theory would naturally apply the
lessons of PCT.
What are the lessons of PCT? What makes you think that people (like
me) who understand PCT don't apply those lessons?
You seem to be talking in innuendo. Why not just come out and say
what you think we researchers should be doing differently on CSG-L?
I was quite relieved to see on closer examination that Bill Powers does
practice what he preaches
What does he practice (other than PCT science)? What does he preach
(other than PCT science)? Why all the mystery?
With the other researchers, the topics of discussion are always PCT
related, but the styles and techniques of communication _appear_ on
the surface to be primarily pre-PCT in nature.
What is a pre-PCT style of communication? A post- PCT style?
I posted to CSGnet asking if anyone had diagrammed controlling via
written communications between two people
There was a good response. The test results:
>1. Everyone said they had long ago done such a diagram.
2. No one commented on the significance of this control system
I recall some discussion of interpersonal communication some time
ago (like two years) but I don't recall your request for this particular
diagram or the response to it. If no one commented on the significance
of the diagram it might have been because no one considered it
The first result made it clear that these researchers could perceive the
difficulties of communication. The second result raised more
problems for me: Did they not care?? Were they controlling just to
make statements and not to communicate and exchange ideas??
So your problem was that you didn't know what variable was being
controlled. I presume that you tested to determine what it was.
...To be continued...