[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0455)]
[From Rick Marken (01.01.09.1750)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1719) --
> I have a few questions [re: Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)]
I think these are all fair questions but I think it would be best if
people other than myself (and even Bill Powers) tried to answer the
ones they can. Bruce Nevin (2001.01.09 17:55 EST) has already made a
nice start.
I like the approach. I'll let others explain my views, too.
BG
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0508)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.09.1715 MST)
Following Rick's lead, I'm leaving it to others to explain my views.
However, I'll start the ball rolling.
I don't follow that. If an attempt is made to _force_ kids to behave
correctly, doesn't that imply a conflict between the people involved? What
would the internal conflict be about, and in which party would it exist?
I want to drive at 100 mph on the MassPike to get to a meeting in Boston. I
don't speed because I don't want a ticket and higher insurance rates. What
is internal about this conflict? What is the conflict about? Where does it
exist?
BG:
>Perhaps the conflict is simply internal in "other schools".There must be something you're not saying here. I don't understand how you
get "internal" conflict out of people pushing against each other.
See above example. Who am I pushing against?
"Respect" for another person means, to me, granting the other the same
independence I expect for myself, and understanding that the other person
has goals and tries to acnieve them just as I do. The opposite of respect
would be to make the other do as I wish, bringing to bear as much force as
necessary. This is why I agree with Rick's assessment. But perhaps you mean
something different by this term. Is that the case?
Any scientific theory that I am aware of is value neutral. PCT is no
different. Respect is fine, but the world is full of people who have
respect each other and know nothing of PCT. There are considerably fewer
people who understand PCT, but they often demonstrate little respect. How
could it be otherwise?
I would think that good teaching is far more concerned with shaping
students' perceptions than their behavior. Once students understand how
their perceptions will look when they succeed, they can learn what actions
to perform mostly on their own. Isn't it possible to determine what a
student is perceiving (and controlling) without requiring that a specific
behavior be produced?
And exactly how do you go about shaping a student's perceptions while
ignoring his or her behavior?
BG
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0513)]
Bruce Nevin (2001.01.09 17:55 EST)
I think Tom's report of observations in the Appendix that he contributed to
_Making Sense of Behavior_ (MSOB) is one reference for both of these points.
Good example. I'll leave it to others to respond.
BG
from Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1453 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0508)--
I want to drive at 100 mph on the MassPike to get to a meeting in Boston. I
don't speed because I don't want a ticket and higher insurance rates. What
is internal about this conflict? What is the conflict about? Where does it
exist?
Yes, I agree that in this example you have an internal conflict because of
conflicting goals: wanting to be at the meeting, and wanting not to get a
ticket etc. and driving so as to _not_ be at the meeting. I presume that in
this case there is no external conflict because you agree that speeders
ought to be stopped and given tickets even if the speeder is you. In other
words, you don't consider yourself to be in conflict with the lawmakers who
devise or law enforcement agents who enforce speed laws.
In a school, there are often some students who disagree with school
authorities who lay down rules of conduct and provide the means for
enforcing them. A student who refuses to go to the RTC, I would say, is in
conflict with the authorities or the enforcers because it is impossible to
satisfy both the authorities' or enforcers' reference conditions and those
of the student: to satisfy either reference condition is to cause a
deviation from the other, the definition of conflict.
This verges on the argument we had some time ago, concerning coercion. But
it's not quite the same argument, so I'll leave it there.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Stefan Balke (01.01.09)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.09.1715 MST)
"Respect" for another person means, to me, granting the other the same
independence I expect for myself,
This is an interesting aspect of respect, which is new for me. How do you
value this in the case of a teacher student relationship. Do you think that
the teacher and the student have the same degree of independence?
Best regards,
Stefan
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.1747)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1453 MST)
Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0508)--
>I want to drive at 100 mph on the MassPike to get to a meeting in Boston. I
>don't speed because I don't want a ticket and higher insurance rates. What
>is internal about this conflict? What is the conflict about? Where does it
>exist?Yes, I agree that in this example you have an internal conflict because of
conflicting goals: wanting to be at the meeting, and wanting not to get a
ticket etc. and driving so as to _not_ be at the meeting. I presume that in
this case there is no external conflict because you agree that speeders
ought to be stopped and given tickets even if the speeder is you. In other
words, you don't consider yourself to be in conflict with the lawmakers who
devise or law enforcement agents who enforce speed laws.
Even if I thought that the speed limit was too low, I don't see why you
would say that there is external conflict. Apparently external conflict is
associated with the thought, "I am being compelled to do something against
my will" even if the compulsion is imagined, i.e., not physical. Presumably
God compels believers if they act because of the fear of Hell. Is this what
you mean by external compulsion?
BG
[From Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1548 MST)]
Stefan Balke (01.01.09)--
"Respect" for another person means, to me, granting the other the same
independence I expect for myself,This is an interesting aspect of respect, which is new for me. How do you
value this in the case of a teacher student relationship. Do you think that
the teacher and the student have the same degree of independence?
As control systems, yes. Both operate their own arms, legs, and vocal
apparatus. Neither can reach inside the other to manipulate reference
signals. This is because both are (I assume) hierarchies of control
systems: they operate independently of each other, although of course they
both influence the physical world they have in common, and thus can disturb
the perceptions of the other.
I suspect that you were using the term "independence" in a more practical
way than I was. Can the student feed and clothe himself, earn money, claim
rights, and be responsible in the same way and to the same degree that the
adult can? No, I wouldn't claim that. The adult obviously has power over
the student that the student does not have over the adult. The adult is
probably more likely to feel responsible for the student's welfare than the
student is concerned about the adult's welfare. And up to some age,
probably around puberty, the student is probably not controlling skilfully,
or at all, at the highest levels that the adult perceives and controls.
Children are not just small adults.
Adults usually assume not only the right but the duty to shape children's
ideas and behavior as they grow up. This has accounted not only for the
preservation of civilization, but for the perpetuation of prejudices,
misinformation, superstitions, and blind hatreds. I hope that some day we
will learn not just how to guide the growth of children to the greater
benefit of civilization, but where and how to keep our hands off of them
and avoid trying to make them into mere copies of ourselves.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1608 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.1747)]
Even if I thought that the speed limit was too low, I don't see why you
would say that there is external conflict. Apparently external conflict is
associated with the thought, "I am being compelled to do something against
my will" even if the compulsion is imagined, i.e., not physical.
That is not my definition of conflict. My definition is, I think, clear:
conflict is a situation in which satisfying either of two goals makes
achieving the other one impossible. The two goals may be in two people, or
in the same person. External conflict exists if the goals are in different
people.
If you have the goal of driving, say, 60 miles per hour, and a lawmaker has
the goal that nobody shall drive faster than 55 miles per hour in the same
place, there is a potential conflict between those two goals. To satisfy
either one is to necessitate a deviation from the other. Of course the
background assumption is that both parties are actively trying to see their
own goal met. If you just think it would be nice to drive 60 mph but don't
actually try to get away with doing it, the conflict between goals would
never be realized (made real).
Presumably
God compels believers if they act because of the fear of Hell. Is this what
you mean by external compulsion?
I didn't use the word compulsion. What do I mean by the word? To "compel"
someone to do something is to take away all possibility (as far as you can)
that the person can do anything else. Now let's see what my old dictionary
says:
Compel (v.t.) 1. To drive or urge with force; to constrain. 2. To take by
force; to exact or extort. 3. To drive together or gather in a crowd. 4. To
force to yield; to overpower.
OK, I left out the explicit mention of force. The threat of force is
implied by the term "extort."
If a robber holds a gun on me and says, "Your money or your life," I would
class that as compulsion. It's not that the robber exerts any actual force
on me that makes my hand pluck out my wallet and hand it over. I do that
myself. But the robber has presented me with a choice, the outcome of which
he strongly expects to be surrender of my money. I never gave him the right
to present me with that choice; in fact, I object seriously to his doing
so. So he is infringing very strongly on my autonomy. That is why I can
claim that he did me a wrong, and ask that he be arrested and that, if
possible, he be compelled (by similar means) to return my money to me. Even
if he never even touched me.
Behind most forms of compulsion, of course, there must lie a credible
threat of the use of force, as in the case of the robber's pointing the
gun. Or to be more exact, the person who is threatened must believe that
the force will be used, whether or not that belief is credible to anyone
else (i.e., the gun doesn't actually have to be loaded, as long as I think
it is or might be loaded).
If I recall correctly what your position on this was, there is no
compulsion to behave in a certain way unless one person literally takes
hold of another and through superior physical force operates that person's
limbs. At least that's how I remember what you said.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.2030)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1608 MST)
If you have the goal of driving, say, 60 miles per hour, and a lawmaker has
the goal that nobody shall drive faster than 55 miles per hour in the same
place, there is a potential conflict between those two goals.
But in the case of speeding, the "other" doesn't have to be a control
system. It can simply be a statute. One can be coerced by laws or customs,
it seems.
Behind most forms of compulsion, of course, there must lie a credible
threat of the use of force, as in the case of the robber's pointing the
gun. Or to be more exact, the person who is threatened must believe that
the force will be used, whether or not that belief is credible to anyone
else (i.e., the gun doesn't actually have to be loaded, as long as I think
it is or might be loaded).
So acting out of a fear of damnation _is_ being coerced, because the
believer finds the threat of Hell credible. It's not clear to me who the
coercer is, however. Unless one can be coerced by a belief.
If I recall correctly what your position on this was, there is no
compulsion to behave in a certain way unless one person literally takes
hold of another and through superior physical force operates that person's
limbs. At least that's how I remember what you said.
I suspect that I said that there is no coercion (absent direct force)
unless you believe that you are acting some way _because_ you are afraid
that if you do not, superior physical force will compel you to do so.
BG
[From Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1854 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.2030)--
But in the case of speeding, the "other" doesn't have to be a control
system. It can simply be a statute. One can be coerced by laws or customs,
it seems.
No, only by other people, as I use the word. If you remove all the people,
statutes or customs can't do anything. It takes a person to arrest you and
take you to court, and still more people to argue for or against you and to
judge whether you are guilty, and even more to make you pay or put you in
jail.
Behind most forms of compulsion, of course, there must lie a credible
threat of the use of force, as in the case of the robber's pointing the
gun. Or to be more exact, the person who is threatened must believe that
the force will be used, whether or not that belief is credible to anyone
else (i.e., the gun doesn't actually have to be loaded, as long as I think
it is or might be loaded).So acting out of a fear of damnation _is_ being coerced, because the
believer finds the threat of Hell credible. It's not clear to me who the
coercer is, however. Unless one can be coerced by a belief.
I would call it coercion only if a _person_ (that is, a control system)
used the threat of damnation to force another person to do or not so
something: a priest, a parent, a teacher, and so on. Coercion is a
relationship between real people. A threat is only a means of control (when
it works).
If I recall correctly what your position on this was, there is no
compulsion to behave in a certain way unless one person literally takes
hold of another and through superior physical force operates that person's
limbs. At least that's how I remember what you said.I suspect that I said that there is no coercion (absent direct force)
unless you believe that you are acting some way _because_ you are afraid
that if you do not, superior physical force will compel you to do so.
Oh. I didn't understand you to be saying that. If I understand what you're
saying now, you apparently would not call being robbed (or being made to
sing Yankee Doodle) at gunpoint being "coerced." I'm sure you would give up
your money or sing the song when told to _because_ you're afraid of being
shot, but being shot would not force you to hand over your wallet or sing.
It would make it impossible to do either.
I'm not sure why you insert "you believe that" in that sentence. Why not
just "unless you are acting in some way because you are afraid ..."? Are
you getting back to another point, which is that a person is being coerced
only if the person believes he or she is being coerced? If you don't like
"being afraid," we could substitute "because you're performing an action
that you believe will keep superior force from being used on you."
Anyway, I thought we had sort of agreed to drop the discussion of coercion.
Nobody could agree with anybody else about what the word means. Why not
just stick with one person offering another person an arbitrary choice,
neither alternative being anything the other person would want to do? Which
do you prefer, to give me all your money or for me to shoot you? It's up to
you, I'll go along with either one, you're perfectly free to choose, says
the robber, generously.
And even that isn't what we started talking about, which was conflict,
wasn't it? I'm losing track. Conflict is a relationship between
goal-seeking systems, whether they be in separate persons or in the same
person. Both parties to a conflict have to be control systems, as I
formally define conflict. Maybe you want to use your own definition, in
which case we'd have to talk directly about the situation without using
that word, which is possible. I don't really care what you call it, as long
as we both recognize that we mean a situation in which neither control
system can achieve its goal without preventing the other from achieving its
goal.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (01.01.10.2040)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1854 MST)
And even that isn't what we started talking about, which was
conflict, wasn't it? I'm losing track.
Me too. I'm losing track of what this whole discussion was about.
Are there objections to something I said in my post about PCT and
RTP [Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)]? If so, what are those objections
and what is the basis for those objections? As I've been reading
the exchanges that have occurred after my (01.01.09.0930) post I
sometimes thought I was picking up the unpleasant scent of argument
corpses from the dead past. I was hoping we might take Bill Powers'
(2001.01.09.1421 MST) advice and use my (01.01.09.0930) post to mark
the grave of the dead past.
Anyway, my post was a reply to Ray Bennett (09:01:01 1315 CST. Aust.).
So I would be very interested in hearing what you, Ray, thought of my
post [Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)], when you get a chance to reply.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0652)]
Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1854 MST)
Both parties to a conflict have to be control systems, as I
formally define conflict. Maybe you want to use your own definition, in
which case we'd have to talk directly about the situation without using
that word, which is possible. I don't really care what you call it, as long
as we both recognize that we mean a situation in which neither control
system can achieve its goal without preventing the other from achieving its
goal.
That's fine so long as each system is static (unchanging goals). If goals
are dynamic, it is unclear, without an agreed upon model, whether conflict
is the appropriate description.
BG
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0111.0706)]
[From Rick Marken (01.01.10.2040)
Bill Powers (2001.01.10.1854 MST)
> And even that isn't what we started talking about, which was
> conflict, wasn't it? I'm losing track.Me too. I'm losing track of what this whole discussion was about.
They say memory is the second thing to go. (I forgot what the first thing is.)
BG
From Ray 01:01:12 CST
0030 Aust.
" 6. I would like to hear of more classroom experiences [reflections]
and have Rick, Bruce, Tom, Tim, Bill, Bruce etc…
clarify their
theoretical base.
Thanks Rick for the reply. I found it
helpful and clear. I actually made an error in my request. It should
read " I would like to hear more of classroom experiences and have Rick,
Bruce, Tom, Tim, Bruce etc… clarify the (there) theoretical base."
The experiences wouldn’t have to be classroom experiences, just real life
ones so that upon reflection we could decide what theory was behind what
we did.
*For example, I got
annoyed the other day when the work handed up by a number of my students
was poor and minimal. I told them what I thought and how I felt. The next
lot of work on the same subject showed little change and once again I told
them what I thought and how I felt. The theoretical base here is stimulus
- response. I have told them off as I consider that being told off will
result in a change. How would you explain the theoretical basis for this
kind of behaviour Rick? I am sure it could be explain from a PCT base and
by doing so may help me to understand why the situation was as it was.*
Of course, my theoretical base is PCT. This gives me a particular
perspective (not necessarily the right perspective, mind you; it’s
just the perspective that results from my theoretical base, in which
I do have considerable confidence) on classroom discipline in general
and the RTP in particular.
From my perspective, I see that in most societies kids from about
5 to 18 years old are required to attend school. Most adults (like
me, for instance) accept this goal and send their kids to school.
So adults generally control for their 5-18 year olds being in school,
studying in class. Some kids don’t want to be in school or to study
in class; these kids try to leave school or they do things that disrupt
class. These things are a disturbance to some of the perceptions most
adults (and probably many kids) are controlling. These disturbances
are called “discipline problems”.
Some kids (I prefer to call them students)
are happy to be at school and do things that disrupt. Would you call these
disturbances “discipline problems”?
Programs like RTP are designed to
solve these discipline problems, which means they are designed to bring
perceptions (such as perceptions of kids being in school and studying
in class) under control. That is, these programs are designed to get
the behavior of the kids under control.
PCT tells us that if this control were exerted arbitrarily – if anattempt were made to simply force the kids to behave correctly without
any consideration of the kids’ own goals – there would be violent
conflict. And, indeed, in many school there is quite a bit of violent
conflict between misbehaving students and the teachers who are trying
to keep them under control. There is very little such conflict in other
schools, in particular, according to reports, schools that approach
discipline (control of student behavior) using RTP. Since violent
conflict interferes with everyone’s education, its avoidance in
RTP schools represents a great success for that program.
So why does the RTP program work so well? Since I have never seen the
program in action, I have to base my guesses on descriptions of how
the program is to be conducted and on reports of how it is actually
conducted. These descriptions and reports lead me to the conclusion
that there are three aspects of the RTP program that are crucial to
its success: 1) teachers are freed from the burden of having to try
to discipline (control) disruptive students in class because they
are taught to send these students to a special room (RTC) where
someone else can deal with them in a humane and non-disruptive
manner 2) the teachers are taught to “respect” rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather
thanresort immediately to raised voices or physical force, and 3) the
person in the RTC can counsel students having difficulties,
possibly helping these kids come to terms with the fact that they
must stay in school.
These are the things that make RTP work (from my perspective).
But some of the teachings in the RTC literature strike me as
being inconsistent with a PCT perspective on human nature. I
don’t think these teachings are necessarily a problem for the
program, which obviously works despite there “flaws” (from my
perspective). But I think that’s because any discipline program,
even a behavior modification program, when implemented by decent,
caring people, will work. They work because, in practice, these
people will simply abandon (or augment as necessary) practices
that don’t work out and will improvise, if necessary, practices
that do work.
I would not agree here. I presume that
you mean a discipline program works when disruptions cease or become less
and there is is no violent conflict. Decent caring people are often the
ones who seem to experience violent conflict. I think it would have more
to do with the strategies used than the qualities of the peolpe using them.
I have met some very decent and extremely caring parents whose children
run amuck and act in disruptive and violent ways.
So, for example, one of the RTP teachings that I think of as
a flaw is the recommendation to say “I see you have chosen…”
after a student disrupts the second time. This recommendation
is only a flaw from my PCT perspective. It is unlikely that
the use of this phrase would actually create any difficulties.
And, as you, Ray, note, the kids don’t seem to care about it much.
I would imagine that only older kids might be affronted by it;
and even if they were, what can they do? I only suggest removing
this teaching because it would make the program more clearly
consistent with PCT; it would show a better understanding of PCT
by the RTP program and, hence, a more respectful attitude toward
the students themselves.
The asking students “What are you doing?”
is a critical strategy. The other questions that follow are also very important
as they assist the student to reflect on the situation. Programs that assist
students to reflect may possibly be ones that work. However if a student
doesn’t want to reflect and wants to create a disturbance, they will, no
matter how nicely or how accurately these questions are asked. If they
are not able to control the situation because they leave it when asked
or told, or because the other people leave them, they may reflect on what
is happening. If they are given help with their reflecting (such as what
happens in the RTC) they may do things differently next time. If they are
hit or yelled at, they may reflect on the situation and also do things
differently. The latter is not as appropriate in most schools as it raises
stress levels and involves violence.
Another RTP teaching that I think of as a “flaw” from a PCT
perspective is the recommendation that students write a teacher
approved plan in order to get back into class. Again, in practice,
this recommendation probably doesn’t create much of a problem;
some students may abuse it (as Stefan notes) and it may not be
the best way for the RTC person to spend time with the kids. But
doing it probably won’t cause the schools to descend into chaos.
It’s just that there are probably better ways, based on PCT, for
the RTC teacher to spend his or her time with the students.
John Smyth (a teaching theorist, uni
professor and author from South Australia) said that we don’t know what
we know until we say it or write it. I actually think that saying and writing
makes it clearer to us as to what we know, and so the writing of a plan
can be of help as it clarifies what is wanted and how we think we can achieve
it. If the person doesn’t wish to do a plan and yet does one to fulfill
the conditions, the plan is of no use. I would think that for a lot of
students the planning is of help. Students who have made a number of plans
and have been unsuccessful are likely to the ones who complain about having
to do a plan as they are not a help. There is a need to be flexible and
also discriminating.Finally, another RTP teaching I have questioned is the notion that,
in RTP, teachers are not really controlling student behavior. Again,
there is probably nothing wrong with saying this. The only problem
I see is that it may be confusing to teachers who notice that
theyare controlling the students when they send them out of class or
ask them the questions. I think the teaching of RTP would be more
effective (and there would be fewer failed schools – schools that
return to the chaos of in-class control) if teachers were taught
that they are going to control some aspects of student behavior,
Teachers are taught this and if they are
not, it is certainly a demnd made of them here in SA. One of the ways teachers
are judged here is how well they control students.
in particular, whether or not the kids are going to be able to
remain in class or not, but not others, such as whether or not
the kids actually behave in certain ways in class. RTP does relieve
the teacher of the responsibility of forcing kids to behave in
particular ways in class; this alone probably eliminates most
in-class conflict and allows the teacher to spend time teaching
kids rather than trying to shape their behavior. I would just suggest
a clear, honest teacher training program that explains what the
teacher is and is not supposed to do (control) in RTP.
My experience is that RTP courses do
just that. They also explained PCT and how it informs the processes used
by RTP. We did lots of activities to show how PCT works.
Have my comments helped
clear up where I am coming from? I really appreciate you having asked me
to do this Rick. Thanks.
- Do any of the
others reading this have some comments and questions or experiences?*
Regards, Ray
[From Bill Powers (2001.01.11.0842 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0110.0652)--
... as long
as we both recognize that we mean a situation in which neither control
system can achieve its goal without preventing the other from achieving its
goal.That's fine so long as each system is static (unchanging goals). If goals
are dynamic, it is unclear, without an agreed upon model, whether conflict
is the appropriate description.
You make a good point, that in a normal hierarchical control system goals
are generally being adjusted all the time. But one of the main bad effects
of conflict is that disturbances (from the opposing system's actions) force
actions to their limits, which means that fine adjustments of reference
signals have no effect on the actions. The loss of control caused by
conflict affects not just the conflicted systems, but any higher-level
systems that would normally use the systems in conflict as a means of
action. I'm thinking here of systems that have roughly equal capabilities.
If one system is much stronger than the other, then of course it is the
weaker system that loses control, while the stronger one merely loses some
part of its range of action (the rest still being available to counteract
other disturbances). The application to adult-child conflicts is obvious.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (01.01.11.1000)]
Ray Bennett (01:01:12 CST 0030 Aust.)
...I got annoyed the other day when the work handed up by a number
of my students was poor and minimal. I told them what I thought
and how I felt. The next lot of work on the same subject showed
little change and once again I told them what I thought and how I felt.
The theoretical base here is stimulus - response. I have told them
off as I consider that being told off will result in a change. How
would you explain the theoretical basis for this kind of behaviour
Rick?
I agree with your analysis.
I am sure it could be explain from a PCT base and by doing so may
help me to understand why the situation was as it was.
Yes. From a PCT perspective I would say you were controlling for
the perception of better papers from the kids and you were acting
to control this perception by yelling at the kids. Apparently, the
kids themselves were not controlling for pleasing you so your yelling
was not a disturbance to _their_ controlled perceptions. If they
were controlling for pleasing you, your yelling might have been a
disturbance that they could correct by producing better papers for
you; in that case, it would have looked to you like yelling causes
the students to produce better papers, a behavioral illusion.
Some kids (I prefer to call them students) are happy to be at school
and do things that disrupt. Would you call these disturbances
"discipline problems"?
Sure. They are (I presume) discipline problems from the point
of view of those charged with maintaining discipline: the teachers
and administrators.
Me:
_any_ discipline program, even a behavior modification program,
when implemented by decent, caring people, will work. They work
because, in practice, these people will simply abandon (or
augment as necessary) practices that don't work out and will
improvise, if necessary, practices that do work.
Ray.
I would not agree here...Decent caring people are often the
ones who seem to experience violent conflict. I think it would
have more to do with the strategies used than the qualities of
the peolpe using them.
Yes. That's what I meant to say. I meant that people who care about
students and want the program to work will adopt strategies -- not
necessarily strategies described as part of the program -- that make
the program work. Bill Powers mentioned one example of this: behavior
modification programs that work because the practitioners first ask
for the participants' permission. "Asking permission" is not part of
reinforcement theory, on which behavior modification is based. So
practitioners who really want to help people have found ways to
achieve this goal within the confines of a program (behavior
modification) that is based on a gross misconception of human nature.
Me:
So, for example, one of the RTP teachings that I think of as
a flaw is the recommendation to say "I see you have chosen..."
after a student disrupts the second time.
Ray:
The asking students "What are you doing?" is a critical strategy.
Yes. I have no problem with this strategy. In fact, I think it's
an ingenious alternative to other approaches to getting students to
stop doing whatever they are doing. What I think is a "flaw" is
recommending that the teacher say "I see you have chosen..." after
a student disrupts the second time. As I said, this recommendation
(if taken) will not necessarily keep the program from working; but
it may keep some readers of the RTP literature from seeing how RTP
is derived from PCT.
Me:
Another RTP teaching that I think of as a "flaw" from a PCT
perspective is the recommendation that students write a teacher
approved plan in order to get back into class.
Ray:
John Smyth...said that we don't know what we know until we say it or
write it...I would think that for a lot of students the planning is
of help.
I think Smyth's analysis could be used to justify a lot of practices
that may or may not actually be of benefit to a lot of students. For
example, Smyth's analysis suggests that writing "I will not disturb
the class again" 100 times on the board may be of benefit to a lot
of students.
My problem with the recommendation that students write a teacher-
approved plan is not that it doesn't sometimes work. I think it's a
"flaw" because I don't see how it is derived from an understanding
of students as perceptual control systems. For example, it assumes
that RTC students really want to return to class and behave properly
and that their only problem is that they doesn't know how to do this.
While this may certainly be true for some students, I think PCT
suggests that students control all kinds of perceptions and we can't
_assume_ we know that any particular student is controlling any
particular perceptions. Some students may be willing to write a
plan to get back into class; some may not. PCT would recommend (I
think) against a "one size fits all" practice like "writing a plan".
I agree that having student "write a plan" in the RTC is probably
always a lot better than using having the students do nothing and just
using the RTC as a jail. I'm just not convinced that "writing a plan"
is necessarily the only (or best) way for every student to spend
his time in the RTC. Also, the "writing a plan" practice seems
(to me) to be described in a rather behavioristic way in the RTC
literature. In particular, it is recommended that the plan be
approved by the teacher if the student is to get back into class.
This makes it sounds like the plan is a behavioral output which, if
acceptable, is "selected" by the reinforcement of teacher approval
and return to class. Again, a person reading this description might
have some difficulty seeing how RTP was derived from PCT.
Have my comments helped clear up where I am coming from?
Yes. Very much so. Have mine?
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0111.1340)]
Rick Marken (01.01.11.1000)
I'm just not convinced that "writing a plan"
is necessarily the only (or best) way for every student to spend
his time in the RTC.
What would it take to convince you?
BG
[From Rick Marken (01.01.11.1240)]
Me:
I'm just not convinced that "writing a plan" is necessarily the
only (or best) way for every student to spend his time in the RTC.
Bruce Gregory (2001.0111.1340) --
What would it take to convince you?
I should have said "I'm not convinced that the _recommendation_ to
write a plan and to make the student's return to class contingent
on teacher acceptance of that plan are consistent with an under-
standing of people as perceptual control systems".
It may be that "writing a plan" really is the best way for every
student to spend his time in the RTC. But I doubt it, based on my
understanding of people as perceptual control systems. It might also
be that making potentially rewarding events, such as returning to
class, contingent on the occurrence of desired behaviors, such as an
acceptable written plan, is the best way to treat students. But,
again, assuming that students are perceptual control systems, I doubt
it.
I think that, for many reasons, it's difficult to get convincing
evidence as to the merits of these kinds of practices from exper-
ience with their use in the real world. Perhaps the main reason
is the one I mentioned in an earlier post: because practitioners
will abandon or augment practices as necessary so that those practices
do work "as expected". RTC teachers may have students "write a plan"
but they may have also found that doing this in a very encouraging
and respectful way works best (or at all). The teachers themselves
may conclude that "writing the plan" was essential when, in fact,
what was essential was the respectful and encouraging relationship
between teacher and student.
I would like to see empirical evidence that particular practices
are the best possible (or not). But I doubt that such evidence
can be found and, if found, that it would be very convincing due
to all the confounding circumstances that exist in applied situations.
Indeed, this is why I think it's important to base practice on theory.
Since it is hard (or impossible), due to the confounding variables,
to determine what it is one is doing that is actually effective, one is
safest to conclude that the effective practice is the one consistent
with a model of human nature that has strong empirical support. One
like, say, PCT.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Stefan Balke (01.01.11)]
Rick Marken (01.01.11.1000)]
Yes. From a PCT perspective I would say you were controlling for
the perception of better papers from the kids and you were acting
to control this perception by yelling at the kids. Apparently, the
kids themselves were not controlling for pleasing you so your yelling
was not a disturbance to _their_ controlled perceptions. If they
were controlling for pleasing you, your yelling might have been a
disturbance that they could correct by producing better papers for
you; in that case, it would have looked to you like yelling causes
the students to produce better papers, a behavioral illusion.
This leads to the conclusion that it´s important to know about the
controlled variables of the person one deals with if one wants to be a
creator of a behavioral illusion.
PCT would recommend (I think) against a "one size fits all" practice like
"writing a plan".
Yes, you are right. Sometimes the plans are useful. Most times I have the
impression, that the students judge it as a traditional 100times task.
One possibility of another (not really new) way is that the teachers give
voluntarily some extra lessons only for all of those students who have
qualified themselves during the normal lessons by non-disturbing,
cooperative behavior. In this case the teacher can make sure that those who
want to learn have the possibility to have enough undisturbed learning time
where they can experience flow instead of stop and go. (remember the
starting idea of this thread is: changing teachers). The students have to
decide whether they want to take part in this extra lessons to the cost of
minimizing disturbances during the normal lessons. The teacher shows
responsibility and engagement and can become a model for this virtues. It
depends on the controlled variables of the teacher. And that is the
important point: in this idea the success depends on the teacher. He is in
control.
I remember of a class journey, where we were skiing in the alps. Before the
journey the teacher made clear to us that it wasn't his duty to do the risky
travel and he wanted us to behave well. It was clearly a special journey,
none of the other classes went to learn skiing. Of course, in the age of
15-16 I can remember many jokes (we tried to impress the girls with some
success) that wouldn't have pleased the teacher if he would have been aware
of. But at all there was a strong sense of commitment to the teacher,
because we know, we were not allowed to learn skiing without his idealism.
The trip was a really good for all of us.
Best regards,
Stefan
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0111.1759)]
Rick Marken (01.01.11.1240)
Since it is hard (or impossible), due to the confounding variables,
to determine what it is one is doing that is actually effective, one is
safest to conclude that the effective practice is the one consistent
with a model of human nature that has strong empirical support. One
like, say, PCT.
Well that's clear enough. I'll leave for others to decide how persuasive it
is. The empirical support for PCT is by most standards quite limited in
domain. As a model of control, PCT is without question very powerful. The
conclusion that _all_ human behavior can best be modeled using control
theory requires a giant leap of faith at this time. (All human behavior is
consistent with physiology, but the physiological perspective does not
prove very illuminating for understanding learning and social interactions.)
BG