[From Bruce Gregory (980702.1145 EDT)]
Bruce Nevin (980702.1055 EDT)
Hmm. "Give me the strength to control the perceptions that can be
controlled, the courage to relinquish control of those that can't and try
something else, and the wisdom to know the difference." Nah. Doesn't have
the ring of old John Chrysostom's original. It'll never catch on.
I don't know, I kind of like it.....
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (980702.1440 EDT)]
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT)
Bruce Nevin (980702.1055 EDT)--
I can go along with most of that. I very much like the statement that your
analysis now makes possible: the RTP method is coercive but not punitive.
That is a very tricky tightrope to walk; perhaps the chief claim to fame
that Ed Ford has is that he has found a way to avoid falling off it. He
forces the children to accept the "choice" of following the rules or going
to the RTC. But he does it without relying on punishment --
causing harm to
them, as he wisely puts it. I think that is one of the secrets of his
success. You HAVE to remove the disrupters from the classroom quickly and
without fail; this is what allows the teachers to teach and the
learners to
learn 90% of the time instead of 10% of the time. But by doing this in a
non-punitive manner, with respect and without recrimination afterward, you
allow the greatest possible (under the circumstances) freedom to the will
of the student. And of course you also, in the RTC, use the full power of
PCT to teach children how to go up a level, how to modify goals
and actions
so as to avoid future confrontations and still get -- almost all
of -- what
they want. This reduces even the residual amount of time taken away from
teaching and learning when the RTC veterans are once again back in class
(and are welcomed).I think the argument is winding down now. A traumatic episode, for me.
Thanks for a critical contribution.
You might also look at why it took you so long to recognize what many of us
have been saying all along. I don't say this to be insulting. I think one
reason is that the PCT has, as yet, no successful models of cooperation or
socialization.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980702.1250)]
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) --
the RTP method is coercive but not punitive.
Bruce Gregory (980702.1440 EDT)
You might also look at why it took you so long to recognize what
many of us have been saying all along.
Actually, only two of "us" -- Bill and me -- have been saying
this all along. Most of "us" were busy trying to say (in some
arcane way or another) that RTP is _not_ coercive -- and I'm
pretty sure that most of "us" still think this is true.
I think one reason is that the PCT has, as yet, no successful
models of cooperation or socialization.
PCT doesn't build special models to account for certain kinds of
behavior; there is no special PCT model of cooperation, socialization
or posting silly comments to the net. PCT is a model of nervous
system organization that can produce _all_ the things we see
people doing. It is a successful model because, so far, it has
never been rejected by experimental test. And it _has_ been
successfully used to explain many different kinds of behaviors,
including "cooperation" (Bourbon et al), "socialization" (Plooij and
Plooij) and the posting of silly comments to the net (Marken et al).
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (980702.1800 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980702.1250)
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) --
> the RTP method is coercive but not punitive.
Bruce Gregory (980702.1440 EDT)
> You might also look at why it took you so long to recognize what
> many of us have been saying all along.Actually, only two of "us" -- Bill and me -- have been saying
this all along. Most of "us" were busy trying to say (in some
arcane way or another) that RTP is _not_ coercive -- and I'm
pretty sure that most of "us" still think this is true.
Right, Rick. You and Bill were right from the beginning. You are _always_
right. (Particularly since you pointed out the PCT is whatever Bill says it
is.) How silly of me to forget this. I'll try to do better in the future.
I'll even read B:CP again.
> I think one reason is that the PCT has, as yet, no successful
> models of cooperation or socialization.PCT doesn't build special models to account for certain kinds of
behavior;
That's odd. You mean there is one PCT model that accounts for all behavior?
Is it a spreadsheet? Is it posted on your site? I'm really impressed!
there is no special PCT model of cooperation, socialization
or posting silly comments to the net.
Your too hard on yourself, Rick. Not _all_ your comments are silly.
PCT is a model of nervous
system organization that can produce _all_ the things we see
people doing.
Rick that's like saying that Newton's laws can produce all the things
macroscopic bodies are producing. True, but not very helpful. Can you
produce a PCT model that demonstrates cooperation starting from independent
HPCT systems with uncoordinated goals? That's the challenge isn't it? Let's
see the model and cut back on the hot air. Where's the beef?
It is a successful model because, so far, it has
never been rejected by experimental test. And it _has_ been
successfully used to explain many different kinds of behaviors,
including "cooperation" (Bourbon et al), "socialization" (Plooij and
Plooij) and the posting of silly comments to the net (Marken et al).
Could you give me the references? I don't want hand waving (everyone admits
you're the master of that) I want models. Surely you know what I am talking
about.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980702.1600)]
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) --
the RTP method is coercive but not punitive.
Bruce Gregory (980702.1440 EDT)
You might also look at why it took you so long to recognize what
many of us have been saying all along.
Me:
Actually, only two of "us" -- Bill and me -- have been saying
this all along.
Bruce Gregory (980702.1800 EDT)
Right, Rick. You and Bill were right from the beginning.
It's not a question of being right or not. I just thought your
comment was a tad insulting considering the fact that Bill has
been taking a substantial amount of heat from RTP people on (and
off) this net for explaining that RTP, though coercive, exercises
this coercion in a non-punitive manner.
Me:
PCT doesn't build special models to account for certain kinds of
behavior;
You:
That's odd. You mean there is one PCT model that accounts for all
behavior?
I was unclear. There is one PCT model in the sense that PCT is
a closed-loop control model of all behavior. But it's true that
the model, when applied in different situations, may have be
tailored to give it the appropriate perceptions, references, outputs
and control parameters. But all PCT models are the same inasmuch
as they all have the same _organization_ of perceptions, references,
outputs and control parameters; it's all control of perception.
Can you produce a PCT model that demonstrates cooperation starting
from independent HPCT systems with uncoordinated goals? That's the
challenge isn't it?
I'll try. But you'll have to give me more than that; what is
the behavioral phenomenon that you call "cooperation"? More to
the point, perhaps: what is the behavioral phenomenon that
Axelrod calls "cooperation"? What are "uncoordinated goals"?
How do I know when I'm seeing cooperation?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Nevin (980702.2000 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980702.1250) --
I think one reason is that the PCT has, as yet, no successful
models of cooperation or socialization.PCT doesn't build special models to account for certain kinds of
behavior; there is no special PCT model of cooperation, socialization
or posting silly comments to the net. PCT is a model of nervous
system organization that can produce _all_ the things we see
people doing. It is a successful model because, so far, it has
never been rejected by experimental test. And it _has_ been
successfully used to explain many different kinds of behaviors,
including "cooperation" (Bourbon et al), "socialization" (Plooij and
Plooij) and the posting of silly comments to the net (Marken et al).
"Model" is ambiguous. You're saying "model" meaning the theory as a model
of behavior, PCT vs. S-R; Bruce Gregory is saying "model" meaning a model
of specific behavior such as ball-catching, arm movement, or balancing an
inverted pyramid, to pick three particularly nice examples that I know about.
What are you doing, Rick?
Is it accomplishing what you want?
.....................................
To illustrate the ambiguity, here are a few quotes from fairly recent posts:
Bill Powers (980622.0928 MDT)--
the case of interest in PCT involves a model of the following form:
Richard Kennaway (980623.1151 BST)--
Wolfgang Zocher presented a model of eyeball tracking, with a comparison to
the observed behaviour of real eyeballs.
Rick Marken (980623.1310)--
See [Bill Powers (980623.1111 MDT)]
for a better explanation (than mine) of the control model of Al.
[Cousin Al, the guy who was nutso about triple axels.]
Rick Marken (980624.0730)--
According to Bill and me, coercion is control of behavior; therefore
it has gain and intention; fear of punishment and the universal
error curve have nothing to do with our model of a coercer (these
may have to be part of a model of the coercee). I'm trying to
understand your (and Bruce's) model of coercion, which seems
impossible; however Bill and I understand it, we seem to be wrong.
Our model, on the other hand, is rather straightforward; if you
understand the basic PCT model then you understand our model of
coercion
[You used both senses of "model" in the same sentence (the last).]
Bill Powers (980624.1001 MDT)--
The model of the two
control systems controlling as they do is already a model of coercion;
there is no separate model of coercion needed.
Bill Powers (980624.1142 MDT)--
This post concerns the program for an inverted pendulum control system....
First I'll describe the strategy of the model and how to run it
[...]
An overview of the model
In this program it is assumed that the control systems can sense
[...]
Rick Marken (980624.2200) --
Bill and I tend to agree because we both
understand (from working with models and using these models to
mimic behavior) how the PCT model works and how it applies to
behavior.
[Both senses in the same stentece again.]
Rick Marken (980625.0830)--
I am attaching a little Excel model of a coercer and coercee
interacting.
Bill Powers (980625.1536 MDT)--
Blah, blah, blah. Show me the model.
Bill Powers (980625.1549 MDT)--
Oh, heck. I finally started trying to run the spreadsheet model and
discovered that I have Excel 4.0 and can't read Rick's program.
And so on and on.
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Nevin (980702.2020 EDT)]
Bruce Nevin (980702.2000 EDT)--
Can I take that last back? I really don't want to pursue it. Rick's got his
own horses to pluck.
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Gregory (980703.0720 EDT)]
Bruce Nevin (980702.2000 EDT)
"Model" is ambiguous. You're saying "model" meaning the theory as a model
of behavior, PCT vs. S-R; Bruce Gregory is saying "model" meaning a model
of specific behavior such as ball-catching, arm movement, or balancing an
inverted pyramid, to pick three particularly nice examples that I
know about.
I might be clearer if we consistently referred to PCT as a set of negative
feedback control principles that we use to construct models of behavior or
actions. In the limited number of situations where these principles have
been deployed, the resulting models are in remarkable agreement with
observed behavior. He expect and hope this success will carry over to other
situations we have yet to model. One very good reason for this hope is that
the principles of PCT are, at present, the only game in town when it comes
to modeling behavior!
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (980703.0725 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980702.1600)]
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) --
> the RTP method is coercive but not punitive.
Bruce Gregory (980702.1440 EDT)
> You might also look at why it took you so long to recognize what
> many of us have been saying all along.Me:
> Actually, only two of "us" -- Bill and me -- have been saying
> this all along.Bruce Gregory (980702.1800 EDT)
> Right, Rick. You and Bill were right from the beginning.
It's not a question of being right or not. I just thought your
comment was a tad insulting considering the fact that Bill has
been taking a substantial amount of heat from RTP people on (and
off) this net for explaining that RTP, though coercive, exercises
this coercion in a non-punitive manner.
The problem, in my view, is the Bill felt it appropriate to introduce
coercion into a discussion of RTP. We now seem to be in agreement that
coercion is the _least_ interesting feature of RTP. Coercion is the basis
upon which _all_ human and most animal societies are built. Having said that
perhaps we can move on to modeling the interesting features of RTP so we can
be _really_ helpful to the folks in the trenches.
Me:
> PCT doesn't build special models to account for certain kinds of
> behavior;You:
> That's odd. You mean there is one PCT model that accounts for all
> behavior?I was unclear. There is one PCT model in the sense that PCT is
a closed-loop control model of all behavior. But it's true that
the model, when applied in different situations, may have be
tailored to give it the appropriate perceptions, references, outputs
and control parameters. But all PCT models are the same inasmuch
as they all have the same _organization_ of perceptions, references,
outputs and control parameters; it's all control of perception.
On this we all agree.
> Can you produce a PCT model that demonstrates cooperation starting
> from independent HPCT systems with uncoordinated goals? That's the
> challenge isn't it?I'll try. But you'll have to give me more than that; what is
the behavioral phenomenon that you call "cooperation"? More to
the point, perhaps: what is the behavioral phenomenon that
Axelrod calls "cooperation"? What are "uncoordinated goals"?
How do I know when I'm seeing cooperation?
Why don't you start with Bill's recent one paragraph description of the RTP
process-- Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT)?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980703.0830)]
Bruce Gregory (980703.0725 EDT)
The problem, in my view, is the Bill felt it appropriate to introduce
coercion into a discussion of RTP. We now seem to be in agreement that
coercion is the _least_ interesting feature of RTP. Coercion is the
basis upon which _all_ human and most animal societies are built.
Bill introduced coercion into the discussion because one of the
"interesting" features of RTP (from the point of view of it's
practitioners) is that the teacher lets the disruptive student
_choose_ what he wants to do. Bill suggested that the RTP teacher
would be more honest if she told the disruptive student he is not
really free to choose anything _he_ wants to do; he can only choose
between the two options offered by the teacher. If he didn't freely
select one of those two options, he would be _forced_ to select one
(not by the teacher, necessarily, but by some agent of the school
system). This is coercion.
Bill felt it appropriate to introduce coercion into the discussion
because he felt (as do I) that you can't think of alternatives to
coercion until you see that coercion exists. No RTPers seemed to want
to agree that coercion exists in RTP (or anywhere else, apparently)
so no one has suggested any alternatives; if coercion is not
interesting I guess there's also no interest in changing the RTP
program to reduce it (see no evil, hear no evil, change no evil).
Having said that perhaps we can move on to modeling the interesting
features of RTP so we can be _really_ helpful to the folks in the
trenches.
I don't think we need to build computer models of the complex behavior
that occurs in the RTP program in order to be able to contribute to
the development of RTP; building complex models (which would mainly
be complex in terms of the perceptual computations needed, I suspect)
would require a lot of effort for what I believe would be the same
payoff that could be derived from applying PCT informally. Bill and
I did that; we both (independently) gave a PCT analysis of what
we think is the most "interesting" (and important) aspect of the
RTP program: the teacher uses low gain (non-punitive) methods to
quickly remove disuptive kids from the classroom; sustained,
disruptive in-class conflicts are avoided. The RTP teacher is not
required to "make the kid behave" in the classroom. This
"interesting" feature of RTP is what accounts for 99% of its
success (in terms of producing schools where kids can learn in
peace). There has _still_ been _no discussion_ of this analysis
of RTP by RTP people (or anyone else). I guess what's intresting
and important to PCTers is not interesting or imnportant to RTPers.
This seems rather strange coming from a program (RTP) that is
presumably based on PCT.
Me:
How do I know when I'm seeing cooperation?
Bruce:
Why don't you start with Bill's recent one paragraph description
of the RTP process-- Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT)?
I don't see anything in there that I would call cooperation. Why
not just tell me how Axelrod describes cooperation and we can go
from there. I already have my own idea of what cooperation is.
But it's heavily influenced by my understanding of behavior in
terms of PCT so you may think it's biased. That's why I want
you to tell me what you think cooperation is. What phenomenon
do you want me to model?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (980703.1245 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980703.0830)
I don't think we need to build computer models of the complex behavior
that occurs in the RTP program in order to be able to contribute to
the development of RTP; building complex models (which would mainly
be complex in terms of the perceptual computations needed, I suspect)
would require a lot of effort for what I believe would be the same
payoff that could be derived from applying PCT informally. Bill and
I did that; we both (independently) gave a PCT analysis of what
we think is the most "interesting" (and important) aspect of the
RTP program: the teacher uses low gain (non-punitive) methods to
quickly remove disruptive kids from the classroom; sustained,
disruptive in-class conflicts are avoided. The RTP teacher is not
required to "make the kid behave" in the classroom. This
"interesting" feature of RTP is what accounts for 99% of its
success (in terms of producing schools where kids can learn in
peace). There has _still_ been _no discussion_ of this analysis
of RTP by RTP people (or anyone else). I guess what's interesting
and important to PCTers is not interesting or important to RTPers.
This seems rather strange coming from a program (RTP) that is
presumably based on PCT.
Just a bunch of ingrates, if you ask me. This analysis points to a dramatic
simplification and cost reduction. Do away with the plans and the teacher in
the RTP room. Heck do away with the RTP room altogether. Put the disrupting
student in a closet until he is ready to renter the classroom. Three strikes
and your out. PCT again points the way to the simplest solution. Perhaps you
are missing something, eh?
I don't see anything in there that I would call cooperation. Why
not just tell me how Axelrod describes cooperation and we can go
from there. I already have my own idea of what cooperation is.
But it's heavily influenced by my understanding of behavior in
terms of PCT so you may think it's biased. That's why I want
you to tell me what you think cooperation is. What phenomenon
do you want me to model?
Fair question, I'll get back to you in the next day or so.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980703.1540)]
Me:
I guess what's interesting and important to PCTers is not
interesting or important to RTPers. This seems rather strange
coming from a program (RTP) that is presumably based on PCT.
Bruce Gregory (980703.1245 EDT)--
Just a bunch of ingrates, if you ask me.
Well, they never really asked for a PCT analysis of RTP so I don't
think it's fair so say that they are being ungrateful when they
reject the one we give.
This analysis points to a dramatic simplification and cost
reduction. Do away with the plans and the teacher in the RTP
room.
The plans, sure, but not the teacher. I talked about the value
of the teacher in the RTP room in my original PCT analysis of RTP.
Heck do away with the RTP room altogether.
That's a possibility. What's your alternative?
Put the disrupting student in a closet until he is ready to
renter the classroom.
Not a good alternative. This could lead to serious disruption of
the school; this is the kind of punitive approach to coercion that
the RTP program wisely avoids.
PCT again points the way to the simplest solution.
Why are you doing this? Making up a ridiculous scenario and
then attributing it to PCT? In fact, PCT doesn't point to any
particular solution; it just suggests what will be the likely result
of doing one thing rather than another. Locking a kid in a closet
is punitively coercive; what PCT leads us to expect is maximum
resistive output from the kid; this may not get the kid what he
wants (out of the closet) but it's bound to lead to actions that
will disrupt school activities.
Perhaps you are missing something, eh?
Why don't you just tell me what I am missing instead of being
coy?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (980703.1945 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980703.1540)
Why don't you just tell me what I am missing instead of being
coy?
My dear Richard, you are missing almost _everything_ important about RTP.
The fact that you are so clueless makes a better case than I ever could
about the primitive state of modeling social interactions based on PCT
principles. I'll repeat was has been said here before but I have no reason
to believe that it will make any more impression than it did in the previous
n iterations. If Ed and Tom had as narrow a vision as you do, I am appalled
to think what RTP would look like.
You are absolutely correct that removing the disrupting influence from the
classroom is a key element in allowing teaching and learning to occur, but
what you fail to have a way of seeing given the present state of PCT-based
modeling is _why_ this process changes the climate in the school. The reason
is that the staff now has a way to empower the disruptive student to
successfully return to the classroom--not as punished (or coerced)
disruptive influence, but as an autonomous individual capable of making _and
executing_ plans to allow her or him to meet her or his goals _and_ to be
successful in the classroom. From a PCT perspective the problem with most
"immature" or "disruptive" students is that they lack the ability to
"think"-- to imagine the consequences of their actions and to determine the
_future_ errors these actions are likely to lead to. By allowing the
students to carry out this process in written plans _and_ by working to
insure that these plans are successful, RTP literally gives kids their lives
back. Not only are disruptive students supported, but the "good" students
see the changes and react positively to them. The result is what Tom sees in
RTP schools.
Bill is the unquestioned genius of PCT, but Ed is the genius of RTP. If PCT
models are unable to reflect how the RTP works, so much the worse for the
models, _not_ so much the worse for RTP. Having said this, I hasten to add
that if you ever took what is happening in RTP schools seriously, I have no
doubt you could develop models that would allow Ed and Tom to make the
system even more effective. Just as significant, you would take PCT modeling
to the level above where you left it in _Mind Readings_. Nothing I can
imagine would make me happier.
Un-coy enough for you?
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Nevin (980703.1937)]
Rick Marken (980703.1540) --
Bruce Gregory (980703.1245 EDT)--
Bruce, Rick is giving us a fine demonstration of a constructive way to
respond to this kind of rhetoric. Something worth bearing in mind.
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Gregory (980703.2245 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980704.1850)
> Un-coy enough for you?
A real eye opener.
Let's stop wasting your time and mine, O.K.? Its been fun, but as Bill would
say, it's a game I'm no longer willing to play. You're the last man
standing, once again. I don't know what you're trying to prove and to whom,
but good luck. The only downside is the ironic fact that you are PCT's worst
enemy. But you knew that, didn't you?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980704.1850)]
Bruce Gregory (980703.1945 EDT) --
My dear Richard, you are missing almost _everything_ important
about RTP. The fact that you are so clueless makes a better case
than I ever could about the primitive state of modeling social
interactions based on PCT principles.
You are absolutely correct that removing the disrupting influence
from the classroom is a key element in allowing teaching and
learning to occur, but what you fail to have a way of seeing given
the present state of PCT-based modeling is _why_ this process
changes the climate in the school.
Bill and I already gave the PCT based explanation for the improved
climate in the school. The teacher removes the student _gently_;
so the student doesn't create a disturbance (in the PCT sense) by
resisting the teacher's efforts to remove him; a teaching climate
without constant disturbance is "calm".
The reason is that the staff now has a way to empower the
disruptive student to successfully return to the classroom
Is this a fact to be explained by PCT -- the fact that the staff
_empowers_ disruptive students? If so, I have to know what
you mean by _empower_?
--not as punished (or coerced) disruptive influence, but as an
autonomous individual capable of making _and executing_ plans
to allow her or him to meet her or his goals _and_ to be
successful in the classroom.
You mean the kid was _not_ an "autonomous individual capable of
making and executing_ plans to allow her or him to meet her
or his goals _and_ to be successful in the classroom" prior to
being "allowed" to go to the RTP room? Is this another fact to
be explained by PCT?
From a PCT perspective the problem with most "immature" or
"disruptive" students is that they lack the ability to "think"
-- to imagine the consequences of their actions and to determine
the _future_ errors these actions are likely to lead to.
This is not the PCT perspective at all. Disruptive behavior is
a side effect of the fact that the kid is controlling various
perceptual variables. Some kids may not know the consequences
of their actions but others may know and they may not care. The
idea that the only problem with disruptive kids is that they are
unable to imagine the consequences of their actions strikes me
as ridiculous beyond belief. Over 200 years ago today, a disruptive
student named Thos. Jefferson wrote a very disruptive "Declaration
of Independance" to his British "administrators". He did this
despite the fact that he was able to imagine, rather precisley,
the consequences of his actions. Do you think Jefferson et al
should have been sent to the British RTP room?
What you describe above is not the PCT perspective; it looks to
me like the conventional Western religious perspective.
By allowing the students to carry out this process in written
plans _and_ by working to insure that these plans are successful,
RTP literally gives kids their lives back.
I admit that I can't explain, using PCT, how "allowing" students
to write plans and work to make them successful gives kids "their
lives back". From your perspective you've given them their lives
back; that may actually be true in many cases; but some may be
making do as best as they can with the continuous error that
results from being made to stay and cope in school instead of
being allowed to do what they really want to do (like run off
and become a folk singer in the Village).
Un-coy enough for you?
A real eye opener.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (980703.2140)]
Bruce Gregory (980703.2245 EDT)
Let's stop wasting your time and mine, O.K.?
I don't consider it a waste of time. I think this discussion can
be very educational. You [Bruce Gregory (980703.1945 EDT)] said
some things about RTP and PCT that, I think, represent significant
(and common) misconceptions about the PCT model of human nature
(and, hence, about human nature itself). I think it's worth
discussing what's going on here. Why, for example, do you think that
it makes sense, from a PCT perspective, to talk about staff people
_empowering_ students or giving them autonomy? Why do you think
PCT says that kids misbehave because they can't imagine the
consequences? I think these issues are worth discussing.
I don't know what you're trying to prove and to whom, but good luck.
Thank you. I am trying to explain what I know of human nature from
my understanding of PCT. I thought you were on CSGNet to learn PCT.
Now you're getting mad at me because you don't like what I'm
teaching. I don't get it. Did you get on CSGNet to teach me PCT?
Have you done a lot of PCT modeling and research that convinces
you that I have it wrong?
The only downside is the ironic fact that you are PCT's worst
enemy.
I suppose I am the enemy of _your_ version of PCT. Anyway, I seem
to disagree with many things you say about PCT. Sometimes what you
say seems not only wrong but _seriously_ wrong. I think, for
example, the idea that the kids disrupt because they are unable
to imagine the consequences of their actions is not only wrong
from a PCT perspective but it's the very kind of misconception
about human nature that PCT is trying to dispell in the hopes
of suggesting more civil ways for people to interact. If I
have to talk about PCT the way you did in [Bruce Gregory
(980703.1945 EDT)] in order to not be considered its enemy then
I suppose you'll just have to go on thinking of me as PCT's
worst enemy.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
I have not been following the discussion. We do use a Post Critical Incident
Counseling at the residential treatment center where I work which follows the
same sort of format as Ed Ford's program.
Consider your statement: From a PCT perspective the problem with most
"immature" or "disruptive" students is that they lack the ability to
"think"-- to imagine the consequences of their actions and to determine the
_future_ errors these actions are likely to lead to.
Do you really mean that they lack the ability?
When the Post Critical Incident Counseling is done, it seems that they have the
ability. They just don't apply it when the incident of misbehavior took place.
What this is all about is an interesting question which we should discuss.
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: coercion concurrence
Date: 7/4/98
[From Bill Powers (980704.0354 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (980703.2245 EDT)--
Let's stop wasting your time and mine, O.K.? Its been fun, but as Bill would
say, it's a game I'm no longer willing to play. You're the last man
standing, once again. I don't know what you're trying to prove and to whom,
but good luck. The only downside is the ironic fact that you are PCT's worst
enemy. But you knew that, didn't you?
I can't let that ridiculous statement about Rick pass without comment,
although that's what it deserves. If you prefer to use trendy layman's
terms like "empowerment" instead of the technical language of PCT (with
which you can say what you mean far more precisely, if you want to), that's
your business. But it is not Rick, who always fights for precision of
terminology and meaning, who is the enemy of PCT. The real enemies of PCT
are those who cling to their pre-PCT prejudices and superstitions, and have
no intention whatsoever of letting any revolution happen in _their_ back yard.
Best,
Bill P.
P.S. Bravo for your reply, Rick.
[From Bruce Gregory (980704.0910)]
David Goldstein 7/4/98
Consider your statement: From a PCT perspective the problem with most
"immature" or "disruptive" students is that they lack the ability to
"think"-- to imagine the consequences of their actions and to
determine the
_future_ errors these actions are likely to lead to.Do you really mean that they lack the ability?
No, I "misspoke". I meant to say skills. The ability comes with the
hardware. The skills need to be developed and practiced. This process, like
all learning, requires trial and error-elimination. RTP is a way of coaching
students to develop these skills.
Bruce Gregory