from Ray Bennett (2000.12.9. 2000 CST Aust)
Rick Marken wrote:
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to be quiet? No.
You are going to control that kid’s behavior; out of the class he
goes.
Where does he/she go Rick?
One of the reasons the students at the school where I teach are
there is because schooling is compulsory by law for children under 15 .
They are not necessarily there to learn or be taught. Some may be, but
a lot can’t wait until they are 15 to leave school.
Ray
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0900)]
Me:
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to
be quiet? No. You are going to control that kid's behavior;
out of the class he goes.
Ray Bennett (2000.12.9. 2000 CST Aust)
Where does he/she go Rick?
I don't know. When I was in school these kids (who sometimes
included me;-) were sent to "study hall" which was set up in
the cafeteria. I don't understand why you ask the question.
Me:
The job of the teacher is to teach.
Ray Bennett(2000.09.11.2250 CST Aust.)
It's easy to say something like this.
Yes. It's a lot easier than describing all the perceptions a
teacher controls. And different teachers probably control
somewhat different collections of perceptions. So, yes, it
is a lot easier to say that the job of the teacher is to
teach. But I said this because I wanted to make it clear that
I also think that it is _not_ the job of the teacher to
make kids behave nicely in class. When kids misbehave, the
teacher should be able to remove them from class so that
someone else can deal with that problem.
As the teacher sets the basis for being with the class, not disturbing
others, and has them leave when they persist in doing this, they begin
controlling for this at school.
Yes. All I'm saying is that this is clearly an example of control. The
teacher is controlling for a perception of a class in which kids are
not disturbing others. Kids who persist in disturbing are a disturbance
to this perception and the teacher acts to bring her perception of
the class back to its reference by having the student leave. How
the teacher does this is not important; the teacher may beg, pray,
cry, push the kid, bring in armed thugs, whatever. But however
it is done, the process of trying to bring the perception of the
class back to "undisturbed" is a process of control; the teacher
is controlling the class. I am not saying this because I have
anything against what the teacher is doing. I'm saying it because
PCT shows us that this what is happening. If we want to improve
teaching based on PCT it seems like we should be willing to admit
that control is happening when it's happening and work from there.
Teachers often try to change the behaviour of students.
I would say they _always_ try to change students behavior. If they
didn't care about how kids behaved, why would they be teachers in
the first place?
They tell them to stop doing certain things and to do others.
They make them miss out on play etc. They give them rewards when
they act how the teacher asks them to act like stickers.
These are some of the actions teachers take to produce intended
perceptions (to control). But teachers may also be controlling
when they are asking questions, giving respect or sitting quietly
behind their desks. Control is the _process_ of bringing perceptual
variables to intended states. How this is done varies depending
on what the controller has learned to do, can do, is willing to do
and needs to do. Teachers who have learned only to use rewards and
punishments will do this to bring the perception of classroom order
to the desired state. Teachers who have learned to say "what are
you doing" and "I see you have chosen" will use these actions,
when necessary (when there is a persistently disturbing child)
to bring classroom order. Teachers who taught at my high school
in the 60s rarely had to do anything _at all_ to maintain classroom
order because they were teaching middle class overachieving
Jewish kids who valued education more than lox and bagels. But those
teachers were controlling for classroom order just as much as the
teachers who are continually offering rewards and punishments
for good behavior.
They [students] control for what they want, and usually this is
to be with the others.
You seem to have a very good understanding of controlling when it
is being done by students. That's great. All I'm trying to do is
point out that the teacher, such as yourself, is controlling
too. PCT helps us see the controlling done by others _and_ by
ourselves!
Teaching requires that the teacher control behavior; this
means that there is always the danger of conflict in teaching
situations. But some ways of teaching (controlling) are obviously
less conflict-producing than others. We can start understanding
why some ways are better than others, but only, I think, when we
are willing to see that teaching involves control. If the solution
is for a teacher to give up control then I see no need for teachers
at all since no control implies no goal (reference) for how kids
behave. No control means we ignore the kids or, at most, watch and
just appreciate whatever the kids do. If the kids end up like
those on the Island in Lord of the Rings, that shouldn't matter
at all. No control means no concern about how kids end up
behaving.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0912.1230)]
Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0900)
I would say they _always_ try to change students behavior. If they
didn't care about how kids behaved, why would they be teachers in
the first place?
Why you old rascal! So under all this PCT stuff you're a card-carrying
behaviorist. Who would have thunk it?
BG
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.1000)]
Me:
I would say they _always_ try to change students
behavior. If they didn't care about how kids behaved,
why would they be teachers in the first place?
Bruce Gregory (2000.0912.1230)--
Why you old rascal! So under all this PCT stuff you're
a card-carrying behaviorist. Who would have thunk it?
Actually, I think PCT shows that the behaviorists' big mistake
was not their belief that behavior can be controlled (it can);
their big mistake was their failure to notice that they themselves
(as well as the organisms they were trying to control) are
the ones doing the controlling. Skinner, for example, concluded
that behavior (including his own) is controlled by the environment.
This, of course, is nonsense because the environment of which
he spoke -- the inanimate world of food pellets and electronic
switches - is not a control system. PCT shows that it is
another environment -- the animate world of control systems
like the behaviorists themselves-- that is doing the controlling.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0912.1431)]
Rick Marken (2000.09.12.1000)
Actually, I think PCT shows that the behaviorists' big mistake
was not their belief that behavior can be controlled (it can);
their big mistake was their failure to notice that they themselves
(as well as the organisms they were trying to control) are
the ones doing the controlling. Skinner, for example, concluded
that behavior (including his own) is controlled by the environment.
This, of course, is nonsense because the environment of which
he spoke -- the inanimate world of food pellets and electronic
switches - is not a control system. PCT shows that it is
another environment -- the animate world of control systems
like the behaviorists themselves-- that is doing the controlling.
Nicely stated. There may be hope for you after all 
BG
[From Bill Powers (2000.09.12.1512 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0900)--
If we want to improve
teaching based on PCT it seems like we should be willing to admit
that control is happening when it's happening and work from there.
Just a word from one who is staying out of this.
What's under discussion is not teaching but social relationships between
teachers and students. PCT has some suggestions to offer about teaching,
but they are not concerned with how discipline or order is maintained. In
this case the social relationships are those that make it possible or
impossible for a teacher to teach, but once the situation is judged
conducive to teaching, nothing further is said about what constitutes good
teaching or bad teaching. That's a different subject.
Best,
Bill P.
“Richard S. Marken” wrote:
···
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0900)]
Me:
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to
be quiet? No. You are going to control that kid’s behavior;
out of the class he goes.
Ray Bennett (2000.12.9. 2000 CST Aust)
Where does he/she go Rick?
I don’t know. When I was in school these kids (who sometimes
included me;-) were sent to “study hall” which was set up in
the cafeteria. I don’t understand why you ask the question.
Rick, at our school no student is to be outside a classroom without
teacher supervision. We have have only “buddy classes” (another teachers
class we have made arrangements with for them to go) BUT what happens if
a number of students start yelling. Where do they all go? What if there
is a mellee with many students fighting and threatening to fight? How do
you get them to go? It is far easier to control yourself isn’t it?
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0850)]
Me:
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to
be quiet? No. You are going to control that kid's behavior;
out of the class he goes.
Ray & Merry Bennett (2000.09.13?) wrote:
Rick, at our school no student is to be outside a classroom
without teacher supervision...BUT what happens if a number of
students start yelling. Where do they all go? What if there
is a mellee with many students fighting and threatening to
fight? How do you get them to go? It is far easier to
control yourself isn't it?
I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that at your
school a kid who keeps yelling in class will not be removed from
class? Or are you saying that it's no use to remove disruptive
students because there is no one to look after them outside of
class? Or are you saying that removing disruptive students
is pointless because there will just be more and more coming
at you in a melee? Or are you saying that you can't get
disruptive kids to go anyway so why not just sit there and
control yourself (I blush at the image I am having of a teacher
"controlling himself" in front of a class that is turning into
a yelling, fighting melee). Or are you suggesting that teachers
remove disruptive students by controlling themselves (I could see
that working; in fact, I could see a teacher clearing the whole
class out by controlling himself in the way I am imagining).
I look forward to getting some clarification on this. You seem
to have a problem with my analysis of maintaining classroon order
as a control process. But I don't know what's causing the problem
or why.
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Shannon Williams (2000.09.12.2350)]
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0850)]
I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that at your
school a kid who keeps yelling in class will not be removed from
class?
Sometimes you do not have the means to remove the student. If you
leave the room to take the student somewhere, what do you do with
the remaining 29 students? You can leave the student in the
hallway or ask him to walk to the principal's office if he
behaves well-enough. But if he behaves so well, he is not
usually a big problem to begin with.
Shannon
from Ray B (2000.9.13.2230 CST Aust)
Bill Powers wrote:
PCT has some suggestions to offer about teaching,
but they are not concerned with how discipline or order is maintained.
OK Bill what are they or where are they to be found?
from Ray B (2000.9.13.2240 CST Aust)
Rick Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.12.0850)]
Me:
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to
be quiet? No. You are going to control that kid’s behavior;
out of the class he goes.
Ray & Merry Bennett (2000.09.13?) wrote:
Rick, at our school no student is to be outside a classroom
without teacher supervision…BUT what happens if a number of
students start yelling. Where do they all go? What if there
is a mellee with many students fighting and threatening to
fight? How do you get them to go? It is far easier to
control yourself isn’t it?
I don’t understand your reply. Are you saying that at your
school a kid who keeps yelling in class will not be removed from
class? Or are you saying that it’s no use to remove disruptive
students because there is no one to look after them outside of
class? Or are you saying that removing disruptive students
is pointless because there will just be more and more coming
at you in a melee? Or are you saying that you can’t get
disruptive kids to go anyway so why not just sit there and
control yourself (I blush at the image I am having of a teacher
“controlling himself” in front of a class that is turning into
a yelling, fighting melee). Or are you suggesting that teachers
remove disruptive students by controlling themselves (I could see
that working; in fact, I could see a teacher clearing the whole
class out by controlling himself in the way I am imagining).
I look forward to getting some clarification on this. You seem
to have a problem with my analysis of maintaining classroom order
as a control process. But I don’t know what’s causing the problem
or why.
"when kids keep yelling in class, after being asked to
> be quiet? No. You are going to control those kids’ behaviors;
> out of the class they go."
If say there are six kids all yelling out this means six leave.
That’s a lot of people.
If there are six they probably won’t leave. I would suggest
that it would be easier to ask the students who are not yelling(if they
can hear) to go out of the room and leave the noisy six to keep yelling.
I would call this controlling oneself.
I don’t know your experience in schools but I had one class where
one student would come in after lunch and almost immediately on entering
the classroom would start yelling at other students. He would then fall
to the floor and kick and thump it. Tantruming some people call it.
He would shout more loudly if spoken to and thrash around even more violently.
Uncontrollable other people would say. And you are suggesting that it’s
…out they go? Is this any clearer?
[From Bill Powers (2000.09.13.0816 MDT)]
Bill Powers wrote: PCT has some suggestions to offer about teaching,
but they are not concerned with how discipline or order is maintained.
OK Bill what are they or where are they to be found?
Where they are to be found is mainly in the archives of CSGnet, but you can
work them out for yourself from the basic ideas of PCT.
When a person learns a new skill, what does PCT say is being learned? A set
of behaviors? No! The person is learning to control a set of perceptions,
varying behavior in any way needed to do that. So teaching is not teaching
a student what to do: it is teaching the student what to perceive. Some
teachers believe in teaching the lower levels of control: move your arms
and hands this way and that way, and if you do it right, you'll see that
the higher-level result is right. If successful, this method teaches how to
perceive your arms and hands moving in certain ways, but of course if the
environment changes a little, the higher-level results will no longer be
the same. Better to show what the desired perception is, and let the
student figure out how to move the arms and hands. Of course if they can't
figure that out you can show them those perceptions, too, but it's always
perceptions that you want to teach, not actions.
On the other hand, if what you want the student to learn is a rote memory
task, like the multiplication tables, then use methods that are known to
make rote memorization efficient, such as the Method of Loci.
Teach the lower-level perceptions first, then the higher level perceptions
that makes use of the lower level stuff. Work from the particular to the
general when teaching perceptions: teach principles and system concepts LAST.
On the other hand, it is always easiest to learn something if you already
want to do something but need to learn how. Thus higher-level goals can be
a motivation for learning to control lower-level perceptions.
So: build up higher level perceptions from lower level perceptions, then
use the higher-level perceptions to define goals and fill in the
lower-level means of achieving them.
That's what I meant by PCT having things to say about teaching. They're all
pretty obvious ideas once you understand the theory.
Handling classroom disruption and such matters comes under the heading of
social skills, which are the same no matter what you're teaching, or how
you teach it. It's not really about teaching a subject at all. It's about
getting along with other people (which you could consider a subject that
is common to all classrooms).
In Ed Ford's system as well as others, disruptions are dealt with by
removing the disruptors from class to a special room where another person
is charged with helping them work on their social skills. If they continue
to disrupt there, they are sent home or to a parent's place of work, or
placed in the custody of juvenile authorities. If the student will not
leave the class, security personnel are called to forcibly remove the
student or students. So clearly the students have no choice: if they
disrupt a class, they leave or are removed from the class whether they want
to go or not. The teacher can thus return to teaching the subject-matter to
the remaining students.
None of this is based on PCT. It's simply a logical result of relieving the
teacher from the responsibility for maintaining discipline, as well as a
natural consequence of deciding that disruptive students will without fail
be removed from class. Of course a knowledge of PCT will probably have a
strong influence on _how_ a program like this is carried out. Removing
students can be done in a brutal, bullying, or mechanical way, or it can be
done respectfully and with full discussion of the procedures with the
students. Ed strongly emphasizes respect and at least explanation, if not
discussion. He also strongly recommends presenting the situation to the
students as a choice: you can cease disrupting, or you can go to the
special room: which would you prefer? My own feeling is that any
intelligent student will see through this pseudo-choice immediately and
will think the less of the teacher for using such an obvious
misrepresentation. But not everyone agrees with me (especially not Ed Ford
and Tom Bourbon). I could even be wrong (laugh here).
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.13.0830)]
Ray B (2000.9.13.2240 CST Aust)
If say there are six kids all yelling out this means six leave.
That's a lot of people. If there are six they probably won't
leave. I would suggest that it would be easier to ask the students
who are not yelling (if they can hear) to go out of the room and
leave the noisy six to keep yelling. I would call this controlling
oneself.
In PCT what people control are _perceptual variables_. Some perceptual
variables seem like a part of "ourselves" -- like perceptions of
the positions of our limbs -- and some perceptual variables seem
like a part of the "outside world" -- like perceptions of the
positions of other people's limbs. But the distinction is fairly
arbitrary; is the perception of my computer screen, for example, part
of myself (the perception starts on my retinas) or part of the
outside world?
By making the distinction between control of "ourselves" and control
of "others" I presume you are trying to say that it is better, in
some way, to control perceptions of "oneself" than perceptions of
others. It is better, for example, to control the position of your
own arm than to control the position of someone else's arm.
I think you are trying to say that control of "oneself" is better
because it's easier and because it is less conflict producing. This
may often be the case. But I can think of many cases where it is
_easier_ to control others than oneself. For example, it is much
easier for me to control the position of the fingers of a child
when I want to keep it from grabbing a hot poker than it is for
me to control the position of _my own_ fingers when I want to
play a Bach 3 part invention (I can't even do the latter). I can
also think of instances where controlling oneself is more conflict
producing than controlling others. People who try to control their
own fatness, for example, often get in more conflict with themselves
(over how much food to eat) than do people who control for getting
the right change from the person selling them the ice cream cone.
Anyway, I don't agree that you are only controlling yourself
in the above situation where you "ask the students who are not
yelling to go out of the room". You are controlling the kids,
too. You can see this more clearly if you look at it in terms
of the basic PCT diagram (always a good idea if you are
planning to apply PCT to what you do). The teacher has a reference
(r) for a perception of something like "a quiet classroom". The
current state of that perception (p) is "not quiet". So r-p is
non-zero. The error changes the value of an output variable (o).
The output is having an effect on the perception (p) and, thus
the error as well. There are several possible values of output
being produced: do nothing at all, remove noise making kids from
class, move the non-yelling kids and oneself to another class,
call the police, etc. Which output is being produced at any
particular time depends on the size of the error (and, thus,
of how well the currently occurring output is getting the desired
-- reference -- state of the perception).
The PCT analysis shows very clearly that the teacher in this
situation is controlling a perception that includes others
besides herself. So, unlike you, I would not be inclined to
call this "controlling oneself".
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1316)]
Bill Powers (2000.09.13.0816 MDT)
He also strongly recommends presenting the
situation to the
students as a choice: you can cease disrupting, or you can go to the
special room: which would you prefer? My own feeling is that any
intelligent student will see through this pseudo-choice
immediately and
will think the less of the teacher for using such an obvious
misrepresentation. But not everyone agrees with me
(especially not Ed Ford
and Tom Bourbon). I could even be wrong (laugh here).
Perish the thought. I have never known either you or Rick to be wrong. I
am however fascinated by your inability to see something that appears
obvious to me. So either I am wrong (as is often the case) or you are
controlling this perception with such high gain for reasons I cannot
fathom (I am also often clueless). The choice you describe is not a
pseudo-choice as far as I can tell. Either do this or that will result.
Either drive on the right or you'll collide with another car. If you
tell me you want to drive on the left and not collide with other
traffic, all I can say is that this is not how the world works. If you
don't believe me, give it a go. If that is a pseudo-choice, it seems to
me that all we ever have are pseudo-choices but I am sure that is not
what you meant. So what is going on here? Why is it impossible for you
to see that "you can cease disrupting, or you can go to the special
room: which would you prefer?" is a perfectly valid choice?
BG
[From Bill Powers (2000.09.13.1151 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1316)--
I am however fascinated by your inability to see something that appears
obvious to me. So either I am wrong (as is often the case) or you are
controlling this perception with such high gain for reasons I cannot
fathom (I am also often clueless). The choice you describe is not a
pseudo-choice as far as I can tell.
I guess I do have a real inability here. To me, a forced choice arbitrarily
leaves out all the actual alternatives but those that the giver of the
options selects. Imagine my giving you this choice: you can give me five
dollars, or you can give me ten dollars; it's your choice. I suspect that
your choice would be "neither," even though I am not offering that option.
And I'm sure you would feel justified in rejecting the choice: who am I to
say you have to give me any money at all?
If you consider the background circumstances that would have to exist in
order for you to _have_ to make that choice, you may better understand what
I'm getting at.
Either do this or that will result.
Either drive on the right or you'll collide with another car. If you
tell me you want to drive on the left and not collide with other
traffic, all I can say is that this is not how the world works.
True, but in that case you're describing a state of affairs that nobody can
alter. Nobody is responsible for the fact that if you drive against
traffic, you are in severe danger of a collision. In that case, I can say
"If you want to drive a car in the USA, you have a choice: drive on the
right, or risk a near-certain collision." I didn't make up that choice;
neither I nor anyone else could truthfully offer a diffeent one. It results
not from any man-made law, but from natural law.
A teacher says, "You have a choice: settle down, or leave the classroom."
But this is not like the preceding choice. This is a man-made rule; it was
made up by, or accepted by, the teacher; there is nothing inevitable about
it. Those are the only options because the teacher, or somebody called up
for support, would prevent you from selecting any other options. If I
chose, for example, to go on disrupting and _not_ leave the classroom, that
choice would be rejected: I would be physically removed from the classroom.
The point is that the teacher _is_ responsible for the behave-or-leave
choice, whereas nobody is responsible for the drive-right-or-die choice. My
reason for objecting to the "I see you have chosen ..." formulation was
simply that in the particular context, this amounts to the teacher's
disclaiming responsibility for something that the teacher is actually
responsible for: offering that particular pair of options and forbidding
any others. The teacher presents this man-made choice as if it is a
consequence of natural law.
In my opinion, it would be much more honest, and more in keeping with a
program that purports to teach responsible thinking, for the teacher to
take responsibility for ejecting an unruly student. (a) If you disrupt
again, I will follow the rules of our system and send you to the RTC; (b)
You have disrupted again; I'm now doing what I said I would do, and sending
you to the RTC. You could, of course, phrase both of these statements as
questions.
That avoids the pretense that just because I offered the student two
options to choose between, some law of nature says those are the only two
options that exist. And it also avoids the hypocrisy of saying "Don't blame
me for what happened; you brought it on yourself," just as if you had
jumped out a second-story window and I actually had no part in causing the
consequences. To me, responsible thinking is accepting responsibility for
your part in creating any consequence.
Why is it impossible for you
to see that "you can cease disrupting, or you can go to the special
room: which would you prefer?" is a perfectly valid choice?
I won't elaborate further; you can probably see my point already.
The irony of this (now) years-old argument is that I am not arguing against
having disruptive children removed to the special classroom, nor am I
saying that the teacher is a nasty controlling person for doing this. I'm
not even saying that most children would find this an unpleasant
experience, considering how the teachers are supposed to go about the
process. I'm only saying that in a program for teaching responsible
thinking, the teacher should show by example what responsible thinking is.
That seems an innocent sort of point to make, and not worth the outrage it
seems to have called forth.
Best,
Bill P.
[from Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1245 mst)]
At 12:54 Bill wrote about Re: controlling kids at school on 13 Sep 2000,
That seems an innocent sort of point to make, and not worth the outrage it
seems to have called forth.Best,
Bill P.
To the contrary, given my life experiences with public school (math or
read), Sunday school (Jesus or die) and home (church tonight or no
play tomorrow) I tend to believe my life would have been far more
satisfying had I _not_ been continually confronted with such "pseudo"
choices. I carried considerable "outrage" into my teen years which I
barely survived. I was never diagnosed with ADD or dyslexia back in the
50's (I _now_ believe I have both disorders) and I have no doubts that I
was a definite challenge for my P's and teachers, but the contrived
nature of such manipulative "choosing" still erks me to this day.
I appreciate your challenge on this issue.
Best,
nth
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1630)]
Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1245 mst)
To the contrary, given my life experiences with public school (math or
read), Sunday school (Jesus or die) and home (church tonight or no
play tomorrow) I tend to believe my life would have been far more
satisfying had I _not_ been continually confronted with such "pseudo"
choices. I carried considerable "outrage" into my teen years which I
barely survived. I was never diagnosed with ADD or dyslexia
back in the
50's (I _now_ believe I have both disorders) and I have no
doubts that I
was a definite challenge for my P's and teachers, but the contrived
nature of such manipulative "choosing" still erks me to this day.
Ah, the light dawns. It's all about not liking the choices you were
offered. I have no problem with that. I don't like many of the choices
I'm offered either. (I have noticed that it doesn't help much to say
that they are artificial and imposed by others, but your experience may
differ.)
BG
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.13.1350)]
Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1630)--
Ah, the light dawns. It's all about not liking the choices you were
offered.
No. It's about not liking being confined to a very limited choice and
being told that you are free to chose. It's about not liking being
made an offer you can't refuse. It's about not liking being told that
you are not being controlled when you are being controlled big time.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1355 mst)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1630)]
Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1245 mst)
>
>
> To the contrary, given my life experiences with public school (math or
> read), Sunday school (Jesus or die) and home (church tonight or no play
> tomorrow) I tend to believe my life would have been far more satisfying
> had I _not_ been continually confronted with such "pseudo" choices. I
> carried considerable "outrage" into my teen years which I barely
> survived. I was never diagnosed with ADD or dyslexia back in the 50's (I
> _now_ believe I have both disorders) and I have no doubts that I was a
> definite challenge for my P's and teachers, but the contrived nature of
> such manipulative "choosing" still erks me to this day.Ah, the light dawns. It's all about not liking the choices you were
offered. I have no problem with that. I don't like many of the choices I'm
offered either. (I have noticed that it doesn't help much to say that they
are artificial and imposed by others, but your experience may differ.)BG
Of course I didn't like the "choices" I was given. I experienced error
given my preferences for my own reference levels re: what I wanted.
These unlike-able "choices" so-called were flat, shortsighted,
constrained and only increased the error (frustration) I was already
experiencing and certainly offered nothing to help me achieve or attain
what I was after in the first place.
Asking incorrect questions does little to develop appropriate answers.
Of course our experience differs. <g> Wanna join my religion?
There are always those whom seek to limit our options and those that
sleep walk through life often accept the table that's set before them.
Then there are those whom seek to do things differently, discover and
uncover new ways of perceiving.
Enjoy,
nth
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1728)]
Rick Marken (2000.09.13.1350)
Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.1630)--
> Ah, the light dawns. It's all about not liking the choices you were
> offered.No. It's about not liking being confined to a very limited choice and
being told that you are free to chose. It's about not liking being
made an offer you can't refuse. It's about not liking being told that
you are not being controlled when you are being controlled big time.
Chocolate or vanilla? How's that for being controlled big time? You
don't like the system. O.K. If you don't want to be controlled avoid
trying to control a perception for which the system provides a limited
range of options.
BG