[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1650)]
Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)
One caveat is in how you phrase the first of the potentially
conflicting goals. The student has a goal of engaging in behavior,
which additionally the teacher views as disrupting the class.
Whether the student's goal is actually to disrupt (which is
certainly possible), is an empirical matter in a given situation.
Yes, I quite agree. Some students intend to disrupt, but I suspect that in most cases disruption is a side effect of achieving other goals.
I suspect that those previous instructions of saying "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room," were a gentle way of helping
to induce the conflict.
Yes, I think that makes sense. (Bill and Rick will think differently.)
There was also a "buy-in" component, coming from the class
supposedly agreeing at the beginning of the year to use such
procedures, for behaviors that could be classed as "disruptive."
The effect of such a buy-in, if it occurred, would be to help
make the leaving itself one of the student's (admittedly peripheral)
goals -- in a sense saying, "fairness dictates that I go along
with what I previously agreed to." If this component is operative,
it would increase the internal conflict further -- i.e., "I both
want to be with my classmates, and have agreed not to be."
Yes, indeed. Good point.
Another way of describing this component of the process would be
as follows. It attempts to enlist the student him/herself as
an enforcer of the procedure of leaving, thus minimizing the
very real potential for a power struggle between the student
and teacher. Admittedly, the teacher is a back-up enforcer,
asserting the rule if the student will not.
As an aside, it is this latter feature which led to PCT assessments
of RTP as, technically, "coercive." While legitimate, I believe
that was an overly narrow focus on the relevant dynamics. And
I believe the indiscriminate use of that term led to some
misunderstandings and/or hurt feelings, among those that have
seen RTP do a lot of good.
I agree.
One other point should be noted, or at least flagged for further
consideration. In the RTP process, I believe there may also be
an additional "up a level" component, related to the teacher's
question of "What are you doing?" However, as we've recently
noted (again), that component has yet to be defined very well,
in terms of a model.
I suspect that asking, "What are you doing?" is unlikely to be taken as anything more than a covert accusation. The teacher knows full well what the student is doing in most cases.
In general I agree with you, that the mechanism is reorganization,
not realization. The "aha" realization, where it occurs, is an
event that follows _after_ reorganization, and may even serve as a
marker (of decreasing error) that reorganization has successfully
occurred.
But let's nor forget the standard no-need-for-reorganization
operation of the hierarchy, in terms of altering reference signals.
(E.g., "That behavior is not acceptable. Do something different.")
I think the "What are you doing?" question might lead to such
run-of-the-mill changes in reference standards for the student --
unless, of course, by that point it's too late in the process,
and any changing (by reorganizing or by switching references)
will have to take place in the RTC room.
As far as the model is concerned, there seems to me no alternative to reorganization. Telling the student to do something different will have no effect unless the student is organized in such a way is a well defined alternative to achieving the same goals. Switching references can only happen if the hierarchy contains some logic of the form If A do B or C.
Thanks for the post.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.