[From Bob Christensen (991217.1900 PT)]
While I think PCT is the best psychological model I've come across, something
has been bugging me about PCT ever since I started to learn about it. I
don't think it is necessarily a problem in the model, but perhaps the
frequent understanding of it. What bugs me is that, why someone does
something is nearly always explained as ultimately due to the highest level
reference perception. I think there is some mischaracterization about this,
so now I'll try to carefully explain why I think this.
We often have unwanted lower level perceptions at levels of sensation,
configutation, event etc., and in order to bring these perceptions into a
more wanted state, the perception has to be incorporated into higher
perceptions (and reference perceptions) that relate the lower perception into
the context/meaning of the higher perception. From the higher perceptions we
can often see a means for satisfying the lower mismatched perception. Often
this entails controling a set of perceptions by going down a branch of the
hierarchy that does not include the unwanted perception but has the intended
side effect ( as Martin has pointed out) of diminishing it. This process can
be summed up by going up, over, down, & satisfied (sometimes via side
effect). Often the unwanted perceptions that need to be integrated upward
come from within ones body (from stomache, bladder, thirst receptors) and the
downward branch often entails some manipulation of the outside world. But
it's not always the case that the upward branch comes from within the body.
If I get a fish hook stuck in my hand, this is quite an unwanted perception
and I likely have to go up over and back down to have it taken out without
the barb taking a big piece of flesh with it. The same applies with the
unwanted perception a loud repetative annoying noise from my neighbors house.
I think that explaining why in terms of the highest perception only
represents understanding of the process from the highest level on down the
output side branch but not the unwanted or wanted perceptions on the input
side. I also think it makes the theory appear top heavy in principles (often
of the moral variety), or system concepts. Here is why I think this. I
think that it is safe to say that lower level control systems evolved (and
developed) before higher ones and that they can exist w/o the higher level
control systems, but the opposite is not true. So, why do higher level
control systems evolve/develop at all? I think it is because they do a
better job of satisfying multiple lower level perceptions (and ultimately
intrinsic references). This is the utility of going up. It also explains why
higher perceptions, when disturbed might be more annoying, because it also
means multiple lower level errors relating to unwanted perceptions on the
input side will occur which when summed amount to more total error. But
higher level control systems becoming organized to reduce lower errors turns
the explanation of why some one does something on its head. The reason
some-one organizes a sequence is that it satisfies desired events A, B, and C
(all lower perceptions) without them conflicting. The reason someone
formulates a program may also be to satisfy events A, B, and C. Reasons one
might adopt a self-concept (other than accuracy) might be to be accepted and
feel cared for, to gain recognition, to develop skills, to make a living
(money), to improve reputation, to attract a mate, to make friends, to look
formidable, to gain social status, to avoid hell and have eternal life, etc.
Why does someone decide to keep a committment? Maybe because one is tired of
cases of not being able to get lower level wants because no one will
cooperate with them because others perceive them as rarely keeping their end
of a deal. Why does one adopt a rule or moral principle. In the less
fortunate case, because it reduces the frequency of an authority figure
giving them a hard time, threateaning them, trying to convince them they'll
go to hell. In the more fortunate case, because the person understands that
if all members of a group adhere to such a principle everyone will enjoy the
abundance (many wanted perceptions) of the non-zero-sumness of win-win
interactions. Going up levels can be quite useful in helping people find
better ways to satisfy multiple lower level reference perceptions by reducing
intrapsychic as well as inerpersonal conflicts. It may be that some high
level reference perceptions are not very dependent on unwanted lower
perceptions. Examples of such references might be to appreciate music and to
organize accurate models of the world. (the latter has utility with respect
to lower perceptions). However, higher references often are organized to
reduce lower order mismatched perceptions.
I think that asking why and how questions both lead up and down the
hierararchy. If we define asking why as what end purpose(s) does some action
serve, then this lead us up to the highest level and then down to any wanted
perceptions that the highest level is organized to satisfy. Often times a
high level perception is organized to "kill several birds with one stone."
Asking how can lead up the hierarchy and then back down. How to get the
fish hook out of my hand entails seeing ratationships, sequences, and
programs, and then executing downward.
Asking why also has other meanings to people besides end purposes.
Asking why someone thinks/ believes/ perceives something can lead to the
lower
order evidence that substantiates the belief. Also, since people are prone
to think in terms of linear cause and effect, they often try to look for some
prior event in trying to answere why they did something or how they got to be
the way they are.
Bob C.