What do any of you think of this? This was brought up in class today. I
was wondering what any of you thought of this line of thinking.
Mark
Mr A (for annoying) wants to make Mr V (victim) angry.
Therefore Mr A provdes Mr V with input for his loops.
These input may or may not make Mr. V react, however, eventually, Mr A
will choose an input (disturbance) that will make Mr. V react.
Therefor Mr. A is responsible for providing Mr. V with something to react to.Mr Victim (according to PCT) will try to near his reference points.
When Mr. A pisses himi off, Mr. V can choose whether or not to react.
Case 1:Mr. Victim doesn't react----nothing can be said about whether the
stimulus was significant or if the refernce point of Mr. V had remained the
same.Case 2: Mr. V reacts. PCT says: He chose that action---SR says Mr. A made him
react.Botht theories are doing one thing in common: trying to assign the
responsibility of behavior to one side (Mr V or Mr A).Want a unified idea--why not say both. After All Mr. V could not behave if he
had nothing to react to, and Mr. A intentionally picked the disturbance. Looks
like both had a part in it. SR theory justifies the first half of the
experience (a disturbance affecting a loop) and PCT takes the second half of
the experience (the person trying to reach a NEW reference point).With this approach: Conmen, or anyone else, can not only HELP (influence, etc.)
a reference point to change---he or she is an integral part of the
relationship. To say that a changing refernce point is entirely individual
would neglet Mr. A's chosen disturbance.
By the way it is Con-men as in people who decieve you.