controlling kids at school

[From Bruce Gregory (2000,0913.1733)]

Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1355 mst)

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.

I guess we know which group _I_ belong to!

BG

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.13.1731 MDT)]

Norman Hovda (2000.09.13 1245 mst)--

I appreciate your challenge on this issue.

If you had those "disorders," so did I. I think they are a normal reaction
to being forced to spend 12 years in an incredibly dull and boring system
-- with only a blessed few bright spots.

Thanks for the vote.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0913.2054)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.13.1731 MDT)]

Thanks for the vote.

I'm glad we're deciding things democratically.

BG

from Ray B (2000.9.14.2100 CST Aust)

"Richard S. Marken" wrote:

···

[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".
Thanks for this explanation. In PCT terms I would agree that by moving
others and oneself is a way of controlling perceptions. The language I
was using is mine from pre PCT thinking and as you have pointed out does
not align with PCT. I have spaent so much of my thinking focussing on
actions that it is easy to slip into explaining and discussing this way.
To change this is one of the reasons I am writing to you and others on
the CSGnet. How would you describe what I have said are my reasons for
writing?

from Ray B(2000.9.14.2130 CST Aust)
I like what you have written about choice. The Principal at my school gives
those pseudo kind of choices on lots of occasions, to both students and
teachers.
Choice is a very popular way of coercing others. It is not about thinking
laterally or about considering all of the options. It is a way of offering
either one way or another. It is often considered as easy as tossing a coin. It
is easy when the choosing is between sitting at the back or the front. It is
much harder when deciding whether to resign or not to resign. Or to find
employment or be unemployed.

Bill Powers wrote:

···

[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 Rick Marken (2000.09.14.0900)]

Me:

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".

Ray B (2000.9.14.2100 CST Aust)

Thanks for this explanation. In PCT terms I would agree that
by moving others and oneself is a way of controlling perceptions...
How would you describe what I have said are my reasons for writing?

Based on this post I would say that your reason for writing is to
learn more about PCT and how to apply it in educational settings.
I hope I'm right.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.14.0911 MDT)]

Ray B(2000.9.14.2130 CST Aust)--

I like what you have written about choice. The Principal at my school gives
those pseudo kind of choices on lots of occasions, to both students and
teachers.
Choice is a very popular way of coercing others.

It's been amazing to me how hard some people fight against that idea. Maybe
it's because giving a person a choice sounds nicer than telling the person
what to do. I can see a four- or five-year-old being bamboozled -- maybe --
by saying "Do you want to put away the red blocks or the green blocks
first?" A young enough child won't be able to articulate the objection, "I
don't want to put _anything_ away." How old does a child have to be before
realizing that either branch of the choice ends up the same way?

I wrote a long essay at this point about coercion and rationalization and
other such subjects, but -- delete, delete -- I think I agree with Bruce
Gregory: enough. Everything's been said ten times, and another repetition
won't persuade anyone.

Best,

Bill P.

from Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT)

Bill Powers wrote:

[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.

(I wonder who wrote the following question. TB)

> OK Bill what are they or where are they to be found?

. . .

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?

Agreed.

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).

Once more, dear friends, but only for the archives.

Six years ago, before I began to visit schools (not just "Ed
Ford's" schools), I thought I knew what I would see and hear. I
thought I knew what teachers would say and do, and I thought I
knew what students would say and do. On nearly every major point,
my expectations were wrong.

The moral, for me? Before one speaks about an assumed social
phenomenon, one ought to go and see if the phenomenon even
exists.

The way we used to say it in PCT science was, "First the
phenomenon, then the theory."

(No laugh cues here.)

Tom

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0915.0438)

Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT)

The way we used to say it in PCT science was, "First the
phenomenon, then the theory."

(No laugh cues here.)

That must have been a _long_ time ago. Thanks for the reminder that PCT was
once empirical. But you must admit that imaginary data is much more
accommodating.

Bruce

from Ray B(2000.9.15.2050 CST Aust)
It may seem like that to you but I haven't heard very much. No library has your
books here in South Australia and the only people to have heard of PCT are a few
Uni lecturers who don't remember much either. How do I access the Archives and
locate the repetative essays of which you speak? Do you have to pursuade someone
to make it worth your while? May be we are just slower to understand and a bit
contrary at times.

Bill Powers wrote:

···

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.14.0911 MDT)]

Ray B(2000.9.14.2130 CST Aust)--

>I like what you have written about choice. The Principal at my school gives
>those pseudo kind of choices on lots of occasions, to both students and
>teachers.
>Choice is a very popular way of coercing others.

It's been amazing to me how hard some people fight against that idea. Maybe
it's because giving a person a choice sounds nicer than telling the person
what to do. I can see a four- or five-year-old being bamboozled -- maybe --
by saying "Do you want to put away the red blocks or the green blocks
first?" A young enough child won't be able to articulate the objection, "I
don't want to put _anything_ away." How old does a child have to be before
realizing that either branch of the choice ends up the same way?

I wrote a long essay at this point about coercion and rationalization and
other such subjects, but -- delete, delete -- I think I agree with Bruce
Gregory: enough. Everything's been said ten times, and another repetition
won't persuade anyone.

Best,

Bill P.

from Ray B (2000.9.15.2215 CST Aust)

Tom Bourbon wrote:

(I wonder who wrote the following question. TB)

> > OK Bill what are they or where are they to be found?
I did Tom. Why do you wonder? I thought I addressed my email correctly. I am a
teacher. I am concerned with order and I am concerned about teaching. I am
concerned about order because the culture of schools is that they are orderly.
I am concerned about teaching because I like to learn and I'd like to do a good
job of helping others to learn.

I do not really want to practice theory. I'd rather theorize practice and have
been attempting to do this. Is this what you mean by first the phenomenon and
then the theory?

Ray B

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.15.0647 MDT)]

Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT--

The moral, for me? Before one speaks about an assumed social
phenomenon, one ought to go and see if the phenomenon even
exists.

The way we used to say it in PCT science was, "First the
phenomenon, then the theory."

You're right. A great deal of what I say is an extrapolation from my
long-ago K-12 school days, when RTP programs didn't even exist. I must
visit some of your schools before I pontificate any more about RTP.
Unfortunately, in the one school where I did manage to visit (Lukachukai),
the program wasn't working out for political reasons that had nothing to do
with RTP. Where would you recommend that I go (other than the hot place)?

In partial defense, I have seen both parents and teachers using the
"choice" approach in just the phoney way I complain about, although of
course there was no RTP program in the background. And I experienced the
same thing through most of my young life, so it's not as if I'm making up
the phenomenon out of whole cloth. You'll notice that there have been a few
replies seconding my observations, although again no RTP program was in
place. Adults very often do offer children choices neither of which the
child wants, and I claim that children do very often see though this
artifice (I did). But I'm willing to consider that the RTP program as
actually practiced is so effective and beneficial that students don't mind
having their choices restricted and find the atmosphere so friendly that
they don't criticize the system when no adult can hear them. I admit that
it's hard for me to imagine any system so perfect that it's beyond
criticism, even if it is miles better than any other system. But if you say
it is, I tend strongly to believe you simply because of my respect for you
as a scientist and an observer. Please, however, be careful about what you
ask me to believe, and make sure you believe it yourself.

In the meantime, RTP aside, there are immense numbers of schools in which
RTP is not operating, and where attempts to control children by punishment
and reward, and by offering phoney choices, abound. Without having studied
such schools first-hand, of course, I can't really say how they operate,
but one can place a certain amount of credence on reports from people
associated with such schools -- who teach in them or administer them or
have visited them for purposes of evaluation, or have attended them as
students. We can all remember our experiences in non-RTP schools.

That -- reading descriptions -- is actually how I have formed most of my
opinions of RTP, by the way. It is how most people will form their opinions
of RTP before experiencing it for themselves. If my opinions seem far off
the track to you, it might be useful to consider that I got them from doing
the same sort of reading and viewing of videos that strangers will do,
strangers who might be considering bringing the RTP into their schools.
Could it be that these materials can convey a message that is different
from what RTP is really about? For example, when it is said that students
removed to the RTC lose the privilege of being with their friends, and that
they want to get back to class in order to be with their friends again,
could this not be misinterpreted as a punishment-reward system? Indeed,
isn't the whole idea that adults can grant "privileges" contingent on good
behavior and withhold them for bad behavior (like disrupting a class) part
and parcel of a system for controlling their behavior? I'm sure that RTP is
not built on that idea, but when strangers read your materials I can see
how they might easily get the wrong idea. And that would certainly hamper
the spread of correct versions of RTP.

···

------------------------------------------
I have pointed out that in the US anyway (Tim Carey says it's different in
Australia), students are legally required to be in school until they are 16
or so (varying by states, I think). This means they have no _free_ choice
at all about being there. If they leave school before the legal age, a
truant officer brings them back; if they persist in leaving, they are
turned over to juvenile authorities. In no case can they simply attend or
not as they please.

This means that you can't judge by school attendance which students want to
be there and which do not. All students younger than 16 or so attend school
under duress. Some of them like being there, some of them don't. But it
makes no difference whether they like it or hate it; they go to school
anyway, under the threat of the application of overwhelming physical force.

To me, that makies the system "xxxxxxxx", where there is a word I would
substitute for the x's, but which others strenuously insist doesn't apply.
So I'll just say that to me this makes the system compulsory rather than
optional.

So RTP, no matter how well it works, has to work within a compulsory school
system from which students couldn't escape even if they wanted to. The
students are under adult supervision and their behavior is basically
controlled all of the time, in the respect that they are not free to come
and go as they please. They cannot take this course but not that course, be
in this teacher's class but not that teacher's class, arrive at 10:30 AM
and not 8:30 AM, eat lunch at 11:00 and not 12:00, go home at 1:30 and not
3:15. Whether there is or is not an RTP program in a school, these
restrictions are, at least to my knowledge, pretty strictly observed and
enforced. The reasons are largely legal: all children must receive what is
considered a basic education, and must be instructed for a minimum number
of hours per school year. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

All this said, does this mean that I want children to be perfectly free to
do anything they want without adult supervision? No, it does not. I am
simply trying to get started on the right track, recognizing how things
actually are without regard to whether I agree or disagree with the system.
This is the first step in putting all the cards on the table.

I don't feel that with respect to RTP all the cards are on the table yet. I
feel that there are some principles and beliefs operating other than PCT,
some of them religious, which are not openly discussed. How does a child
"know right from wrong"? Why must a child be either in a class or in the
RTC while in school? Why must a child learn any course materials? Who has
the final say about what a child will and will not be permitted to do, or
not do? Who gets to make the rules, and to whom, if anyone, must they be
justified? What are the objectives of the teachers, the administrators, and
the school boards, and to what extent are they negotiable? To what extent
can they be altered to accomodate the objectives of the students? And of
course, the biggie: under what circumstances, and to what degree, is the
behavior of children in the RTP program controlled?

None of this has anything to do with the degree of success enjoyed by RTP
in the schools, especially in comparison with the miserable state of many
non-RTP schools. It has everything to do with examining RTP to make it
still more effective and communicable, and to eliminate contradictions from
at least the way it is presented to the public, if not the way it is
practiced.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.15,0906 MDT)]

Ray B(2000.9.15.2050 CST Aust)--

How do I access the Archives and
locate the repetative essays of which you speak?

Check out the CSG web page. I forget exactly how you access the archives
and search them, but as I understand it both are possible. The URL is

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/

There are instructions there. Perhaps someone else can tell you how to do it.

Best,

Bill P.

From Tom Bourbon, here and now.

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.15.0647 MDT)]

Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT--

>The moral, for me? Before one speaks about an assumed social
>phenomenon, one ought to go and see if the phenomenon even
>exists.
>
>The way we used to say it in PCT science was, "First the
>phenomenon, then the theory."

You're right. A great deal of what I say is an extrapolation from my
long-ago K-12 school days, when RTP programs didn't even exist. I must
visit some of your schools before I pontificate any more about RTP.
Unfortunately, in the one school where I did manage to visit (Lukachukai),
the program wasn't working out for political reasons that had nothing to do
with RTP. Where would you recommend that I go (other than the hot place)?

(It is already crowded here in the hot place!)

Well, for one thing it might have helped if you had visited the
school at Lukachukai. You attended Ed's training session with the
staff, then you left before we observed what was happening in the
school. That's too bad. You missed a really good chance to see
what happens in a school where people do their very best to
control kids' actions. That visit would have been one small step
toward building the kinds of experiences that would allow you to
compare the various means by which adults and children interact
in schools.

I am not on CSGNet, so I have not seen the replies to your
original messages, or to mine.

I am continually bemused by the many assertions on CSGNet
(forwarded to me) that I see nothing wrong with RTP and that no
one, including me, every criticizes any aspect of RTP.

Remember, everybody: First the phenomenon, then the model. That
was supposed to be The PCT Way.

Tom

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.15.0920)]

Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT)--

The moral, for me? Before one speaks about an assumed social
phenomenon, one ought to go and see if the phenomenon even
exists.

Bill Powers (2000.09.15.0647 MDT)--

You're right.

Really? I have not observed every phenomenon that I believe
exists. There are a lot of phenomena out there; unless something
conflicts big time with my assumptions, I am willing to believe
that the phenomenon (moons of Pluto, continued eruption of Old
Faithful, etc) exists based on reports in the literature?

in the one school where I did manage to visit (Lukachukai),
the program wasn't working out for political reasons that
had nothing to do with RTP.

The phenomenon I have been discussing is control, not whether
the program is "working out" in some sense. I have no doubt that
the program is "working out". But one doesn't have to go to a
school to know that a teacher who gives (or is asked to give
under certain circumstances) the behave-or leave choice is
controlling the behavior of the students?

In partial defense, I have seen both parents and teachers
using the "choice" approach in just the phoney way I complain
about, although of course there was no RTP program in the
background.

I believe that this "choice" is still phoney, even when RTP
is in the background.

I admit that it's hard for me to imagine any system so perfect
that it's beyond criticism

I am far less critical of the system than of the apparent lack
of willingness of those using it to apply PCT to understanding
the system itself. As you say:

I don't feel that with respect to RTP all the cards are on
the table yet... And of course, the biggie: under what
circumstances, and to what degree, is the behavior of children
in the RTP program controlled?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0915.1234)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.15.0920)

Tom Bourbon (92000.09.14.23.55 CDT)--

>The moral, for me? Before one speaks about an assumed social
>phenomenon, one ought to go and see if the phenomenon even
>exists.

Bill Powers (2000.09.15.0647 MDT)--

> You're right.

Really? I have not observed every phenomenon that I believe
exists.

That is painfully obvious.

BG

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.15.1000)]

Tom Bourbon (here and now) --

I am not on CSGNet, so I have not seen the replies to your
original messages, or to mine.

I'm cc'ing to your e-mail address.

Remember, everybody: First the phenomenon, then the model.
That was supposed to be The PCT Way.

That is, indeed, the PCT way. The phenomenon is control. We
know the RTP teacher controls because she will act to return
"responsible behavior" to a class when there is a disruption.
Disruptions are caused by students acting "irresponsibly".
Therefore, controlling for "responsible behavior" in class
necessarily involves the control of student behavior. This is
a fact that is evident from descriptions of what the teacher
_should_ do and of what teachers _do_ do. There is no theory
involved in this analysis. The teacher's controlling is easily
observed as disturbance resistance. A visit to a school could
only tell us more about this phenomenon if we were allowed
to interject our own disturbances during a class visit; this
would allow us to get a better idea of exactly what variable
a particular teacher is controlling but it would also (I hope)
violate the school rules.

I have nothing against controlling for classroom discipline,
especially when it's done in the gentle and respectful way
it is apparently done in RTP schools. I do have something
against saying that controlling is not happening when it is.
Anyway, I _like_ control. What I don't like is _conflict_.
Why not just admit that RTP teachers control and explain
that what's great about RTP is that it shows, via PCT,
how teachers can do this controlling without creating
horrendous conflicts?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.15.1140)]

The Mailer Daemon for bourbon@centex.net send me the following:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.

So whoever is forwarding CSGNet posts to Tom, please fell free
to forward my last post to him.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0915.1452)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.15.1000)

There is no theory
involved in this analysis. The teacher's controlling is easily
observed as disturbance resistance. A visit to a school could
only tell us more about this phenomenon if we were allowed
to interject our own disturbances during a class visit;

I _love_ it! Data is superfluous. Besides, we would only see what we
already believe. True enough...

BG

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0915.1455)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.15.1140)]

The Mailer Daemon for bourbon@centex.net send me the following:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.

I can't believe it, since you are _always_ right. However, you might try
tbourbon@centex.net and see what happens.

BG