[from Tracy Harms 2007;22,06.11:55 Pacific]
Boris Hartman wrote:
I think that we are still talking about an
attempt to control another person. I don't
know why it's ocuring to me, that signals
that are coming to comparator from one person
always produce a conflict on some level, by
"trying" to set a new goal, which can be
"accepted" by another person or not. But still
I think that conflict is there, because it
seems to me that another person must have
controlled something else before, and it's
somehow strange to me, that she would just
stop controlling whatever she was controlling
and start to control a new perception that
was attempted to "force" on him.
The word "control" is the most problematic item in the
communication of perceptual control theory. The
challenge is twofold. First, the technically austere
meaning of control must be learned. Second, the more
casual, commonplace meaning of control must be
reconsidered, given an understanding of the technical
sense of this term.
When you write about "an attempt to control another
person" it seems to me that you're using the term in
the casual sense, not in the narrow technical sense of
PCT. This contrasts with Bill's reference to attempts
to control the behavior of another person.
As a point for comparison, consider the idea of
attempting to control a pot of soup. What would that
mean? Many aspects of the soup might be controlled:
temperature, volume, color, creaminess, saltiness, or
perhaps its distribution. The nature of soup helps us
ask the right questions when a vague statement like
this is made.
The nature of people -- and the English language at
present -- lets similarly vague statements pass
unchallenged. We tend to assume that we know what is
meant if somebody refers to controlling another
person. It may well be that we typically *do* know
what is meant. When used in that manner, however, I
think we're not "talking PCT."
If I understand you, the main question you are asking
is "Is not conflict to be expected when people
interact, because they are trying to control one
another?"
The rough answer to that rough question is "yes."
What PCT can offer is the idea that attempts to
control others (in the informal sense of "control")
often occur inadvertantly as techniques of controlling
(in the technical sense) something that might be
obtained in other ways. PCT facilitates understanding
of how anything is done, and this increase awareness
of what we are doing in particular situations.
Alternatives and consequences are more readily
identified, which helps when it comes to making
choices.
If most attempts to "control" other people are
accidental, habitual, ineffectual, counterproductive,
and suitable for replacement by alternative
techniques, PCT can help in the reduction of
interpersonal conflict. I consider this to be the
case, and Ed Ford's writings have been solid efforts
along those lines.
Tracy Harms
ยทยทยท
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7