# Commitment to Controlling Perceptions

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/commitment-to-controlling-perceptions/2698>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [December 11, 1999, 3:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/commitment-to-controlling-perceptions/2698 "1999-12-11T15:54:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 3:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/commitment-to-controlling-perceptions/2698/1 "1999-12-11T15:54:42Z")

</div>

From Fred Nickols (991211.1035 EST)] --

> Rick Marken (991210.1940)

\<snip\>

> The point of the exercise was to show what \_could\_ happen (and,  
> indeed, is very likely to happen) if a child actually managed to  
> commititself to controlling a perception at some reference level  
> selected by some outside agent. Commiting to keep a perception  
> at some level may seem like a good idea to the agent but it may  
> end up being a very poor idea for the hierarchical control  
> system (child) who commits to it. Getting a child to commit  
> to control some perception -- for reasons other than those of  
> the child itself-- can wreck the child's ability to control (if  
> the child is a hierarchical input control system).

Question 1: If I substitute "adult" for "child" in the preceding, it would  
seem to follow that managers who try to get employees to adopt or commit to  
management's reference levels for certain perceptions (i.e.,  
goals/objectives/standards/etc) as a way of getting people to exercise self  
control in the service of the organization are asking for trouble. Do I  
have that correct?

Clearly, when these requirements of management (an external agent's  
preferred reference levels for certain perceptions) are imposed on  
employees through blatantly coercive measures such as the fear of being  
fired (or through the basic economic transaction of work done for hire),  
you could run into situations where the employee's commitment to the aims  
of the organization conflicts with higher order perceptions (be a good  
person) or even lower order perceptions (as I think would be the case when  
an employee commits to a task for which she or he lacks the requisite  
repertoire) could wreak havoc with what we ordinarily call self-image,  
self-esteem and so on.

Question 2: However, whether I am dealing with a child or an adult, if the  
reference levels for the perceptions to be controlled are negotiated,  
discussed and adopted in an atmosphere of fairness and understanding,  
especially an appreciation of the person's limitations, stages of  
development and competencies, does the adoption of externally-posed  
reference levels wreak the same kind of havoc?

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Fred Nickols  
> The Distance Consulting Company  
> "Assistance at A Distance"  
> [http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
> nickols@worldnet.att.net  
> (609) 490-0095

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 6:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/commitment-to-controlling-perceptions/2698/2 "1999-12-11T18:06:30Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (991211.1307 EST)]

> From Fred Nickols (991211.1035 EST)] --

> Question 2: However, whether I am dealing with a child or an adult, if the  
> reference levels for the perceptions to be controlled are negotiated,  
> discussed and adopted in an atmosphere of fairness and understanding,  
> especially an appreciation of the person's limitations, stages of  
> development and competencies, does the adoption of externally-posed  
> reference levels wreak the same kind of havoc?

Regarding special personal limitations in particular, and "fair" process in  
general, this may be relevant:  
[http://www.respthink.com/special.htm](http://www.respthink.com/special.htm)

An excerpt:

............................. begin quote .............................

A real test of the validity of the responsible thinking process for many  
educators is how well the process works with special ed students. As I've  
traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I've heard both teachers and  
administrators claim over and over again that many special ed children  
cannot think and decide for themselves how to deal responsibly with their  
peers and adults. Some educators claim that a number of these children  
really can't distinguish right from wrong, and so teachers and parents are  
held responsible for the children's actions.

Erin Powell, without a doubt one of the most competent special ed teachers  
I've ever met, at one time believed that her students were limited with  
regard to personal responsibility. For many years, she had trained others  
in the use of behavior modification. But Erin was willing to challenge her  
own beliefs and what she had learned from others. I often recall the day I  
was visiting Erin's class when little Jimmy refused to line up. I was  
overwhelmed by what she did with Jimmy and the other children. Even to  
write these words brings tears to my eyes.

Erin had seven students in class that day, all between five and eight years  
old. Jane was six years old, with mild mental retardation. She tried to  
speak in complete sentences, but others had great difficulty understanding  
what she said. Vanessa and Amy were seven years old and were also mildly  
mentally retarded. Sheryl was an eight-year-old non-verbal autistic child  
who used communication overlays and signing to communicate. Oscar was also  
an autistic eight-year-old. He communicated verbally using at least  
three-word sentences. Eddy was five years old, with severe mental  
retardation. He was microcephalic and used a wheelchair that gave him  
maximum support. He could roll on the floor to go small distances in the  
classroom, and other individuals pushed him in his wheelchair. He was  
working to express himself by using a switch connected to a loop tape.  
Finally, there was six-year-old Jimmy, who was labeled severely mentally  
retarded. He had difficulty speaking but was beginning to use single-word  
phrases. Jimmy used a walker to move around.

Erin asked the students to line up for lunch. All except Jimmy formed a  
line; Jimmy started walking around the room. Erin guided him to a wall with  
a poster depicting the classroom rules and a board with "Yes" and "No"  
communication symbols on it. Using RTP, she guided him through the  
questions, and Jimmy finally committed to following the rules and began to  
make his plan, using the symbols to communicate. While Jimmy was working  
with Erin, the other students waited patiently in line listening to Jimmy.  
There wasn't one disruption. When Jimmy was done answering Erin's  
questions, excited by having made a plan, he turned to walk toward the  
other students in line. In his excitement, he bumped into a desk, laughed,  
then took his place at the end of the line. He was smiling at us and,  
unintentionally, bumped into the person in front of him. Erin suggested to  
Jimmy that he take his place at the front of the line and lead the class to  
the cafeteria.

Jimmy was so proud that he was being responsible by leading the class to  
the cafeteria, he often looked back and smiled at the adults. Sometimes  
when he looked back, he bumped into a post or a wall. And when he did, he  
would laugh and then proceed onwards. Meanwhile, the rest of the class  
followed Jimmy, staying in line without any adult telling them what to do.  
Jane, hardly reaching the top of Eddy's wheelchair, was pushing him while  
staying in line. This was her classroom job. At the cafeteria, some of the  
children, on their own or with some assistance, took their appropriate  
seats at the table. Others went through the line to get food for those who  
couldn't manage it on their own. Remarkable!

So many educators suppose that children like those in Erin's classroom  
could not do many of the things they did on that day (or any other day).  
They couldn't learn to respect the rights of other students. They couldn't  
learn to help others when the need presented itself. I saw, firsthand, how  
children with severe disabilities could be successful and responsible for  
their actions using higher-order thinking. On that day, Erin Powell taught  
me far more than I could have ever taught her.  
.............................. end quote ..............................

> **···**
>
> At 10:54 AM 12/11/1999 -0500, Fred Nickols wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 1999, 10:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/commitment-to-controlling-perceptions/2698/3 "1999-12-12T22:31:26Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991212.1730 EST)]

Fred Nickols (991211.1035 EST)

> Question 1: If I substitute "adult" for "child" in the preceding, it

would

> seem to follow that managers who try to get employees to adopt or commit

to

> management's reference levels for certain perceptions (i.e.,  
> goals/objectives/standards/etc) as a way of getting people to exercise

self

> control in the service of the organization are asking for trouble. Do I  
> have that correct?

I hope you'll report back to us on your experience making use of this new  
found PCT-based management. I think we'd all find it enlightening.

Bruce Gregory