CONCEPTS MISSING? - RKC

[From Bob Clark (930528.1540 EDT)

Bill Powers (930518.0800 MDT)

In response to my remark (RKC 930516 @ 20:37 EST) about
"words/concepts that are included within the vocabularies of my
audience," you point out:

Control theory, however, contains concepts which are not already in
the vocabularies of many audiences, and the existing words usually
mean something that has to be overcome before the wanted meaning can
be communicated. By trying to make PCT concepts seem TOO familiar,
in the hope of getting a friendly reaction from the audience, one
can end up convincing them only that there's nothing new in it.

Of course, Bill, there are many ways that an approach can be
mishandled. Counter-productive strategies can result from poorly
selected long-term objectives. You suggest that a "hope for a
friendly reaction" might be such an objective that might "end up
convincing them only that there's nothing new in it."

Bill, do you think my objective is seeking "a friendly reaction?" I
think you know better. I enjoy a friendly reception as much as
anyone, but if that were my underlying purpose, I would not be
putting much time and effort into writing for the Net.

Rather, Bill, I think that the major components, concepts, and,
indeed, language of HPCT offer the most important and useful
developments in the field of "behavior" in a very long time.

To me, Bill, the problem is still one of establishing communication
with those (people, organizations) in a position to recognize, apply
and further develop the HPCT approaches. As you know, in the early
years I participated several times in these attempts -- the reception
even then was that the "experts" found "nothing new in it." What were
we doing wrong? Is the same strategic error being repeated? The
reports and comments I see on the Net suggest the need to reexamine
the strategy.

Dag Forssell, Ed Ford, and, I am sure, others are developing their
own approaches to devising new strategies and approaching different
kinds of organization.

Over the intervening years, I have not been concerned with "spreading
the gospel," Indeed, when I learned, through Greg Williams, about BCP
and the Net, I expected to find much more development of the basic
theory and a greater degree of general acceptance after some 30 years
of effort.

My own interest in PCT has had two directions: improvement of the
theoretical structure, and application of the theory to real life
situations in which I found myself. In general, I have found very
few individuals interested in any form of abstract discussion, much
less in ways to apply such ideas. However when I have been in a
position to observe, and sometimes influence, how people interact and
how they talk about what they are doing, I find the major concepts of
HPCT are already understood -- and expressed in their own ordinary
vocabularies. But any attempt to convert to more general and
abstract language is quickly rejected: "only theory," "already well
known," "not needed," etc.

Which are the "people, organizations" in a position to recognize, etc
HPCT approaches? These, apparently, are not those active in any of
the standard "theories of behavior."

There are several important areas where HPCT is badly needed. Some
of them include: education ("learning vs teaching"), management
(delegation, quality control, etc), marketing/sales (advertising,
public relations, etc), counselling (career, personal, mental health,
etc), rehabilitation (physical, mental), government (public
relations, politics, organization), medical (neurology, genetically
determined systems, etc). Specialists in these, and other areas
generally have some ability to work with abstract terms and concepts
and have already developed their own "short-hand" communication
methods.

How can we establish effective communication with such people? They
won't learn our language -- already demonstrated experimentally .

An alternative possible strategy is based on using CAREFULLY SELECTED
terms and concepts that are already accepted. And going on from
there to gradually introduce more formal language as needed while
further developing the HPCT conceptual structure expressed in
ordinary terms when it is possible to identify them.

Some of my posts attempt to demonstrate this process, while my
interactions with the City Government provide a source of situations,
terminologies and concepts on which to build.

Further discussion of "Pass the Salt" calls for a separate post.

Regards, Bob Clark