[From Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)]
Attached is an essay that was easier to write separately.
Best,
Bill P.
ConventionalVsPCT.doc (23 KB)
[From Mike Acree (2009.08.12.1628 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)--
Bill:
I'm going to take this opportunity, mostly because I have a freer moment
than I've had in awhile, to say something I've been thinking throughout
the recent weeks' thread on MOL and psychotherapy. In fact, it has been
true throughout my 15-year history on the Net, whenever the subject of
psychotherapy came up: Whenever there have been disagreements about
procedures or ideas, I have invariably favored your position in terms of
humaneness, wisdom, and insight. And I deliberately put the caring
aspect first. That's an awesome, extraordinary experience, for which
I'm correspondingly grateful. (It might be more satisfying to review
the archive and compile a list of supporting illustrations; but the
message might never get sent, and, if it did, the specific unfavorable
comparisons would surely lead to a long train of doubtfully productive
side threads.)
There has been a particular consequence (or nonconsequence) of interest
to me personally. Like some others who are approaching the end of
adolescence on the Celsius scale, I have wondered about choices I might
have made differently along the way, particularly about what I might
have done when I grew up. Although I completed my Ph.D. in clinical
psychology, I never practiced beyond graduate school, except for a year
of doing clinical supervision at the University of Nebraska. I never
found a way of thinking about psychotherapy that made sense to me, and
was also too messed up myself to be mucking around in other people's
lives (not completely unrelated phenomena). It is telling, I'm afraid,
how I misremembered the light bulb joke when I first heard it 30 years
ago; instead of, "One, but the light bulb has to want to change," I told
it as, "One, but he would talk the light bulb into screwing itself."
(Remarkably, of the hundreds of clinical students I've known, I never
met any others who voiced, much less acted on, any doubts about their
ability, even if their judgments about their peers weren't so uniformly
favorable.) Your MOL, I think, would have gone far toward obviating the
latter discomfort, and also provides a more satisfying theoretical
framework than others I found. Were I 10 years younger, there would
have been at least the theoretical possibility of my designing a career
around PCT and MOL, rather than investing so much time in trying to
understand something (the use of statistics in psychology) which I
ultimately concluded made even less sense than I thought at the
beginning. But it is still very satisfying to see the groundwork you
are laying now.
Mike
[From David Goldstein (2009.08.13.02:30 EDT)]
[About Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)]
BP:
There seems to be a residual idea that there is something useful or explanatory about tracking people's problems back to trauma in their past. "He is angry because his mother left him" seemed to one practitioner to be a perfectly sensible way of speaking about a child's problem. But what sort of theory lies behind that statement? I don't see one. How would the mother's leaving cause anger? There seems to be a great deal that is unsaid, or unexamined, behind that statement. Is the theory really that a mother's leaving a child has some particular effect on the child's behavior, which shows up as a desire to attack or destroy? If so, what could that theory be but good old stimulus-response pre-PCT theory?
DG:
I must confess that I was the practioner in this example. If the child in question slept in his own bed before his mother suddenly and expectedly left, and then started to sleep in his father's bed after this happened, there seems to be some kind of cause/effect relatinship going on, given the assumption that there were no other major changes in the life of this child that happened at the same time.
It is logically possible that the change in the child at this time was purely coincidental with the mother leaving. This would leave one with a strange event of a big change in the child that just comes out of the blue. There was no change in the environment. There was no learning or developmental change in the child. I guess we could call it a behavioral mutation after the fact of genetic mutations.
Dear Bill,
We know that from resentment stem all form of spiritual disease/disorders, induces mental and physical ills.
When we are angry it effect our self esteem, feelings of hurt or feeling threatened. security? induces Fear.
This behaviour is effected and our expectations of loved ones effects future relationships, ambitions and the world and people in it.
Our expectations of the world and people become wrong or are not met and we stay sore. Sometimes remorseful, then we get sore at ourselves.
The more we try to control our own way, the worse matters become (in war the victor only seemed to win) and moments of triumph are short lived.
If moments of triumph are short lived therefore life which includes deep resentments leads to futility and unhappiness. Dominated by perceptions of wrong doing real or false/fancied memory has the power to harm us.
Thats why in therapy we look at people who have wronged us, and perhaps though we did not like their symptom and the way they disturbed us they like ourselves were sick too.
Fear and our perception of the world around circumstances brought us misfortune and self relience and self confidence didnt solve the fear problem?
Susan
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.13.0910 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2009.08.12.1628 PDT) --
Thanks, Mike, for your understanding and eloquence. After reading your post, I let my ego out for a short romp, and it was nice.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.13.1018 MDT)]
We know that from resentment stem all form of spiritual
disease/disorders, induces mental and physical ills.When we are angry it effect our self esteem, feelings of hurt or
feeling threatened. security? induces Fear.
These statements of (asserted) fact use conventional vocabulary and assume everyone understands the terms the same way. So far so good, but where is the application of PCT that I was asking for in my post? For example, what is the PCT analysis of "resentment", "spiritual disease/disorders" and so on? And how does resentment "stem from" those other things, according to PCT? You're describing the surface appearances in conventional language, but to do what I was talking about you'd have to pause and reexamine each thing you said, and relate it to the way PCT says behavior works.
For example, just to get started, what is "resentment?" My own understanding of it goes like this: "I don't like what you're doing but I'm not ready to speak up and object to it out loud, so I'll just indicate my displeasure by tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language." This suggests to me that resentment represents a conflict; wanting to behave in an angry way, but at the same time not wanting to confront the other person and therefore suppressing the desire to act hostile. Internal conflict, in PCT, causes all kinds of problems. The solution, therefore, is not just to stop being resentful, but to explore the conflict and resolve it so you're no longer fighting yourself. Then you can either express your anger or drop the matter, without feeling that you're acting against yourself.
Try that sort of thing out on some of your other statements.
Best,
Bill P.
···
At 03:50 PM 8/13/2009 +0100, Susan McCormack wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.10.27]
[From David Goldstein (2009.08.13.02:30 EDT)]
[About Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)]BP:
There seems to be a residual idea that there is something useful or explanatory about tracking people's problems back to trauma in their past. "He is angry because his mother left him" seemed to one practitioner to be a perfectly sensible way of speaking about a child's problem. But what sort of theory lies behind that statement? I don't see one. How would the mother's leaving cause anger? There seems to be a great deal that is unsaid, or unexamined, behind that statement. Is the theory really that a mother's leaving a child has some particular effect on the child's behavior, which shows up as a desire to attack or destroy? If so, what could that theory be but good old stimulus-response pre-PCT theory?
It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized to use in controlling many different perceptions. When going to Mama would have been the normal way to control this perception or that, now that doesn't work, and new reorganization must happen. Much of that reorganization will fail in its objective, but at least getting angry does sometimes result in someone paying attention to the child, and perhaps helps in controlling whatever perception is at that moment not being influenced by the absent Mama's actions.
"Anger" probably is a catch-all term for a lot of situations that have in common a perception that is disturbed for which the angry person has no already reorganized means to influence in such a way as to reduce error -- a car cuts in front of you, for example; you could hit it, but that wouldn't serve well to control your perception of getting where you want to go as fast as you want, and what else can you do? A lot of people get angry in such a situation. Likewise when your political masters embark on a course of action that disturbs some perception you would like to be able to control, but can't.
I think the key point in the loss of mother is not that some perception of mother is disturbed (though that presumably happens), but that the "affordances" (to use Gibson's term) of the environment have changed, reducing the ability of the child to control many different perceptions, at least until all the relevant control systems have reorganized mutually compatibly so as to restore the child's ability to control them.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.0750)]
Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.10.27)--
[From David Goldstein (2009.08.13.02:30 EDT)]
[About Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)]BP:
There seems to be a residual idea that there is something useful or
explanatory about tracking people's problems back to trauma in their past.It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a
straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the
environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized
to use in controlling many different perceptions.
The feedback path to what? Ay, there's the rub...er... controlled variable.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
I don't know about anyone else, but these discussions contrasting how
conventional psychologists/psychotherapists would conceptualize and/or
intervene with how PCT-informed psychologists/psychotherapists would
conceptualize and/or intervene are helpful. Thanks, gentlemen.
···
On 8/14/09, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.0750)]
Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.10.27)--
[From David Goldstein (2009.08.13.02:30 EDT)]
[About Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)]BP:
There seems to be a residual idea that there is something useful or
explanatory about tracking people's problems back to trauma in their
past.It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a
straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the
environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized
to use in controlling many different perceptions.The feedback path to what? Ay, there's the rub...er... controlled variable.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.14.0917)]
Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.10.27 –
It seems to me that the
follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a straightforward
PCT-based explanation. The mother’s departure changes the environmental
feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized to use in
controlling many different perceptions.
A very useful post, Martin. You’re right, of course, about a number of
things. And Rick is right in pointing out that the “feedback
path” of which you speak is the path from the action to the
controlled variable (or variables). I’m also delighted that you offer a
translation for Gibson’s horrible term “affordances.” If he’s
talking about the environmental feedback function, that makes a lot of
sense. Of course he didn’t know that was what he was talking about
(changing to the deceased tense). And in any case, he didn’t know he was
talking about a mental model.
When going to Mama would
have been the normal way to control this perception or that, now that
doesn’t work, and new reorganization must happen. Much of that
reorganization will fail in its objective, but at least getting angry
does sometimes result in someone paying attention to the child, and
perhaps helps in controlling whatever perception is at that moment not
being influenced by the absent Mama’s actions.
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was thinking about. I chose a perception
of the child’s own well-being as an example of the controlled variables.
It just feels better when Mom is around. All this really makes it clear
that you can’t understand behavior until you have a pretty good idea of
what is being controlled.
All this discussion is proving to be very useful, though I also have some
hidden worry that I’m being led into delusions.
I realized this morning what I’ve been trying to say about conventional
therapy. David G and I have gone around and around on this for years: He
describing what seem to be perfectly logical therapeutic strategies, I
saying “No, no, no, that’s not how it should be done!” (but
being unable to put my finger on exactly why). Now I think I’ve got it;
it’s so simple that it’s completely radical. Here it is:
Nothing you say can make someone else change.
It doesn’t matter what technique a therapist uses; no technique,
including MOL, has any effect whatsoever on changing the client. It may
seem to have an effect because the client makes progress, gets better,
has insights, changes behaviors. But that’s just another case of
“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” How fortuitous that that came up
just yesterday.
While a therapist is talking with a client, certain subjects are being
brought up and, at least once in a while when not being distracted by the
therapist, the client gets a chance to observe them, think about them,
and talk about them.
And mainly, be aware of them.
While that is going on, and if the client is in some degree of distress,
the client is reorganizing the parts of the hierarchy concerned with what
is being discussed. Those reorganizations alter the way the client
perceives, compares, and acts. Most probably, that will be sufficient to
fix whatever psychological problem is distressing the client.
What the therapist says may describe or anticipate the results of a
reorganization, but it never causes a reorganization. The reorganization
would occur whether the therapist said something about it or remained
silent. All the therapist can do by offering advice, suggestions,
analysis, interpretation, or any aspects of technique like talking to
chairs or moving the eyeballs, is to take the client’s attention off the
problem areas he is reorganizing and slow the process of change. The
process will probably go on anyway, and if the reorganizations are in the
right area, there may still be useful insights and other changes. The
client will most likely get somewhat better, despite the therapist’s
efforts to cause change.
Unfortunately, the therapist will think that the client got better
because of what the therapist did. There is the title of the next Great
Book: “Psychotherapy: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”. This
explains why so many different kinds of therapy using all sorts of
improbable methods can claim to be effective in resolving psychological
problems. The patient underwent therapy X and tested as being better off
afterward.
After therapy X, therefore because of therapy X.
This is the real message of PCT. Tim Carey already said it: people make
themselves well. The method of levels works for two reasons: first, it
directs the person’s attention to higher levels where conflicts may be
resolved by the person in whatever way works best for that person.
Second, it omits everything that other therapies do to slow down or stop
therapy.
Now we can see what is wrong with evidence-based approaches. They are
completely misleading, because they attribute the evidence of change to
the wrong agency: the method of therapy, rather than the capacity of the
client to reorganize and the alacrity with which the therapist gets out
of the way when he sees he is interfering with the process.
The evidence we should be looking for is evidence that some feature of a
therapeutic method is unnecessary or interferes with progress. Does
omitting that feature result in slower progress, or faster? Or does it
simply make no difference?
···
============================================================================
OK, now I’ve said all that and presented my case, and the reader has just
finished reading it. Is what I have just finished saying going to change
anyone’s way of thinking about psychotherapy? Well, use your noodle; of
course not. However, I hope it’s going to direct attention to certain
aspects of psychotherapy and the ways in which psychotherapies are
evaluated. I hope some people get rather upset at these suggestions, and
worry about whether they’re true, and thus automatically start to
reorganize in the areas I’ve been talking about. According to PCT, if
you’re upset, you ARE reorganizing; you can’t help it. I’m not making you
do it, you’re doing it yourself. And of course, that is the same message
as above.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.13.53]
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.0750)]Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.10.27)--[From David Goldstein (2009.08.13.02:30 EDT)] [About Bill Powers (2009.08.12.1016 MDT)] BP: There seems to be a residual idea that there is something useful or explanatory about tracking people's problems back to trauma in their past.It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized to use in controlling many different perceptions.The feedback path to what? Ay, there's the rub...er... controlled variable.
What “rub”? What else did you think I meant by “controlling many
perceptions?”
But as with so much of your writing, your wording suggests that there
is A “controlled variable”. Normally, there isn’t just ONE controlled
variable at any moment. There are many at most perceptual levels, and
for lots of them, disturbing Mama’s controlled variables (e.g. “seeing
baby to be happy”) has been part of the environmental feedback path,
and that part of the environmental feedback path is no longer available.
Martin
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.13.58]
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.14.0917)]
I realized this morning what I’ve been trying to say about conventional
therapy. David G and I have gone around and around on this for years:
He
describing what seem to be perfectly logical therapeutic strategies, I
saying “No, no, no, that’s not how it should be done!” (but
being unable to put my finger on exactly why). Now I think I’ve got it;
it’s so simple that it’s completely radical. Here it is:Nothing you say can make someone else change.
I translate this as: “Never does one person control for having another
person say anything in particular.” If the patient did want, for
example, to hear the therapist say something encouraging, and the
therapist would not do so, don’t you think the patient might reorganize
somehow (i.e.“change”)?
It doesn’t matter what technique a therapist uses; no technique,
including MOL, has any effect whatsoever on changing the client.
As a PCT theorist, I would say that this would be true ONLY if the
patient had no controlled perceptions relating to the therapy or the
therapist. Such a patient might be one who had unwillingly been placed
in therapy by some authority figure, but surely it is not likely to be
true for one who controlled some perception by deciding to undergo
therapy?
My own PCT-based expectation would be to say that “It doesn’t matter
what technique a therapist uses: any technique, including MOL, is
likely to have an effect by offering the patient a relatively safe
environment in which to reorganize some controlled perceptions.” If MOL
is any better than any other kind of therapy, it is likely to be
because of effects that have been somewhat taken for granted in the
discussion: namely that conscious awareness of the reference signals
for control can in some way influence the reorganization process more
effectively than does the simple existence of any conflict that is
implied by those reference values. I would expect that any technique
that could identify controlled variables involved in conflict and could
induce reorganizations involving the reference signals and values for
those control units might work (without having any such technique other
than MOL in mind).
============================================================================
OK, now I’ve said all that and presented my case, and the reader has
just
finished reading it. Is what I have just finished saying going to
change
anyone’s way of thinking about psychotherapy?
Yes, of course it may, if anyone is controlling for a perception that
your and their way of thinking should match. There are lots of
conditions under which that might be the case, some of which might be
According to PCT, if
you’re upset, you ARE reorganizing; you can’t help it. I’m not making
you
do it, you’re doing it yourself. And of course, that is the same
message
as above.
“I’m not making you do it, you’re doing it yourself” is tautologically
true and practically meaningless. If you disturb a variable I am
controlling, and arrange to sever the environmental feedback path I am
using, I expect to be upset AND to reorganize. Of course I am doing it
myself, but I wouldn’t be upset and I wouldn’t be reorganizing if you
hadn’t destroyed my environmental feedback possibility, or if you
hadn’t disturbed a perception that was at its reference value. To say
you would not be making me upset is just a philosophical evasion. You
might equally well say that the output function of a control unit is
generating its output itself from its own error signal input – nothing
whatever to do with the reference signal and the perceptual signal and
the fact they are all connected in a feedback loop, of course!
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.1120)]
Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.13.53) --
Rick Marken (2009.08.14.0750)--
It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a
straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the
environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized
to use in controlling many different perceptions.The feedback path to what? Ay, there's the rub...er... controlled variable.
What "rub"? What else did you think I meant by "controlling many
perceptions?"
I knew what you meant. What I meant (by my terse comment) is that you
can't explain behavior in terms of feedback paths until you know the
relevant variable(s) that are under control. A feedback paths goes
from output to controlled variable, so you can't know the feedback
path until you know _both_ the controlled variable and the output that
affects it.
You're comments, saying that we have "ignored a straightforward
PCT-based explanation" of the boys problem sounded to me like you were
again trying to suggest (as you did in the research methodology
thread) that testing for controlled variables is unnecessary for
understanding behavior. If you had just added something like "Of
course, this feedback function explanation requires knowing the many
different (relevant) perceptions that the boy is actually controlling
for and the outputs that affect these perceptions" I would have not
only had no complaint but I would have complimented you on pointing
out a possible explanation in terms of changed feedback functions
rather than disturbances.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.14.1224 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.13.58 –
I translate this as: “Never
does one person control for having another person say anything in
particular.”
I don’t interpret what I said to mean that. But the ball’s in your court
now.
If the patient did want,
for example, to hear the therapist say something encouraging, and the
therapist would not do so, don’t you think the patient might reorganize
somehow (i.e.“change”)?
I’d say it’s probable that if the patient is upset when the therapist
won’t be encouraging, the patient may start reorganizing – altering the
organization of his control systems. But nothing the therapist can say
can cause that reorganization to start, or direct it in a particular way,
or for that matter, make it stop. The therapist has no control over the
patient’s reorganizing system or the changes it makes.
It doesn’t matter what technique
a therapist uses; no technique, including MOL, has any effect whatsoever
on changing the client.
As a PCT theorist, I would say
that this would be true ONLY if the patient had no controlled perceptions
relating to the therapy or the therapist. Such a patient might be one who
had unwillingly been placed in therapy by some authority figure, but
surely it is not likely to be true for one who controlled some perception
by deciding to undergo therapy?
Yes, it is still true when the patient seeks therapy. The therapist can’t
cause reorganizations in the patient. Don’t overcomplicate this. What I’m
saying is very simple. But you’ll figure it out your way.
My own PCT-based expectation
would be to say that “It doesn’t matter what technique a therapist
uses: any technique, including MOL, is likely to have an effect by
offering the patient a relatively safe environment in which to reorganize
some controlled perceptions.”
Is it really the environment that changes the organization of the
patient? Do people not reorganize in unsafe environments?
If MOL is any better than
any other kind of therapy, it is likely to be because of effects that
have been somewhat taken for granted in the discussion: namely that
conscious awareness of the reference signals for control can in some way
influence the reorganization process more effectively than does the
simple existence of any conflict that is implied by those reference
values. I would expect that any technique that could identify controlled
variables involved in conflict and could induce reorganizations involving
the reference signals and values for those control units might work
(without having any such technique other than MOL in
mind).
Isn’t a change caused by the “simple existence” of something
magic?
How does it help the patient reorganize for the therapist to identify
controlled variables?
============================================================================
OK, now I’ve said all that and presented my case, and the reader has just
finished reading it. Is what I have just finished saying going to change
anyone’s way of thinking about psychotherapy?Yes, of course it may, if anyone is controlling for a perception that
your and their way of thinking should match. There are lots of conditions
under which that might be the case, some of which might
be
According to PCT, if you’re
upset, you ARE reorganizing; you can’t help it. I’m not making you do it,
you’re doing it yourself. And of course, that is the same message as
above.“I’m not making you do it, you’re doing it yourself” is
tautologically true and practically meaningless.
Then I guess my big insight is tautolotically true and practically
meaningess. Very sad.
If you disturb a variable
I am controlling, and arrange to sever the environmental feedback path I
am using, I expect to be upset AND to reorganize.
Do you expect to be reorganized, or to do it yourself?
Of course I am doing it
myself, but I wouldn’t be upset and I wouldn’t be reorganizing if you
hadn’t destroyed my environmental feedback possibility, or if you hadn’t
disturbed a perception that was at its reference value.
So what? I didn’t say the therapist can’t disturb the patient. All I said
was that there is nothing you can say that can make another person
change. If you disturb the patient, whether the patient changes as a
result is not up to you. And even if it were, you could not reach inside
the patient and readjust the neural connections.
To say you would not be
making me upset is just a philosophical evasion. You might equally well
say that the output function of a control unit is generating its output
itself from its own error signal input – nothing whatever to do with the
reference signal and the perceptual signal and the fact they are all
connected in a feedback loop, of course!
I guess there’s something about this that you don’t like. Good. That’s
about all I can do with respect to your view changing, isn’t it? There’s
nothing I can say that will reorganize you.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.20.02]
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.1120)]Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.13.53) --Rick Marken (2009.08.14.0750)--It seems to me that the follow-ups to these messages have so far ignored a straightforward PCT-based explanation. The mother's departure changes the environmental feedback paths involving Mama that the child has reorganized to use in controlling many different perceptions.The feedback path to what? Ay, there's the rub...er... controlled variable.What "rub"? What else did you think I meant by "controlling many perceptions?"I knew what you meant. What I meant (by my terse comment) is that you can't explain behavior in terms of feedback paths until you know the relevant variable(s) that are under control. A feedback paths goes from output to controlled variable, so you can't know the feedback path until you know _both_ the controlled variable and the output that affects it.
What you say is true, but in the situation under discussion, it is
irrelevant. All you need to know to explain the anger is that there are
probably some variables that were controlled through a feedback path
that involve the presence of Mama. You don’t have to itemize them or
even identify any of them. That the child chooses to sleep in father’s
bed when Mama’s bed is no longer available suggests that there may
exist some controlled perception that has as part of its input sleeping
in a parent’s bed. If one could do tests to discover more about such a
putative controlled variable, one would know more. But as Bill says,
how the boy’s reorganization will proceed does not depend on what you
know.
You're comments, saying that we have "ignored a straightforward PCT-based explanation" of the boys problem sounded to me like you were again trying to suggest (as you did in the research methodology thread) that testing for controlled variables is unnecessary for understanding behavior.
The term “understanding behaviour” is ambiguous. Testing for controlled
variables is necessary for understanding some aspects of behaviour,
unnecessary for understanding others. I joined this discussion to
mention one aspect of understanding why the child might act in a way
that others perceive as “angry” that I thought had been ignored in the
discussion so far. If you want to understand specific aspects of the
problem, then yes, you do need to test for the variables that the child
is no longer able to control. I wonder how you do that, when you can’t
make Mama come back? And even if you do come to understand specific
no-longer-controlled variables and the no-longer-in-existence feedback
paths, how does that help the child reorganize to use the feedback
paths that might still be available, or to control higher-level
variables by means of perceptions that do not need to be controlled via
Mama-paths?
If you had just added something like "Of course, this feedback function explanation requires knowing the many different (relevant) perceptions that the boy is actually controlling for and the outputs that affect these perceptions" I would have not only had no complaint but I would have complimented you on pointing out a possible explanation in terms of changed feedback functions rather than disturbances.
But I would not have said that, because I do not think that one has to
know ANY of the relevant no-longer-controlled perceptions in order to
present the PCT-based opinion that it is probable that some do exist.
Of course, there is also the option of developing a different PCT-based
explanation of the conditions under which one is likely to become angry.
Martin
Martin
···
Best Rick
[Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.21.18]
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.14.1224 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.13.58 --
I translate this as: "Never does one person control for having another person say anything in particular."
I don't interpret what I said to mean that. But the ball's in your court now.
Fair enough. Usually I am more concerned with how my interlocutor interprets what I say than with how I do. It seems a little less solipsistic that way. However, unless the interlocutor says something that lets me know that he didn't take the interpretation I intended, I won't know. I did let you know.
If the patient did want, for example, to hear the therapist say something encouraging, and the therapist would not do so, don't you think the patient might reorganize somehow (i.e."change")?
I'd say it's probable that if the patient is upset when the therapist won't be encouraging, the patient may start reorganizing -- altering the organization of his control systems. But nothing the therapist can say can cause that reorganization to start, or direct it in a particular way, or for that matter, make it stop. The therapist has no control over the patient's reorganizing system or the changes it makes.
OK. We agree so far. It does seem inconsistent with what you said in your earlier message, though.
It doesn't matter what technique a therapist uses; no technique, including MOL, has any effect whatsoever on changing the client.
As a PCT theorist, I would say that this would be true ONLY if the patient had no controlled perceptions relating to the therapy or the therapist. Such a patient might be one who had unwillingly been placed in therapy by some authority figure, but surely it is not likely to be true for one who controlled some perception by deciding to undergo therapy?
Yes, it is still true when the patient seeks therapy. The therapist can't cause reorganizations in the patient. Don't overcomplicate this. What I'm saying is very simple. But you'll figure it out your way.
OK. My figuring starts with the notion that if someone is failing to control some perception that matters (an ill-defined term in PCT), reorganization is likely to start. Failure to control does not "cause" reorganization. Failure to control is a state in which reorganization is more likely than when control is good. So no, the therapist can't cause reorganizations in the patient, but he can set up conditions in which the likelihood of reorganization increases.
My own PCT-based expectation would be to say that "It doesn't matter what technique a therapist uses: any technique, including MOL, is likely to have an effect by offering the patient a relatively safe environment in which to reorganize some controlled perceptions."
Is it really the environment that changes the organization of the patient? Do people not reorganize in unsafe environments?
Of course they do, but if you (as a patient or as a guardian of a patient) has an option, a safe environment is less likely to result in damage to the patient during reorganization. The patient may not care, but if the patient has sought out therapy, he probably does.
If MOL is any better than any other kind of therapy, it is likely to be because of effects that have been somewhat taken for granted in the discussion: namely that conscious awareness of the reference signals for control can in some way influence the reorganization process more effectively than does the simple existence of any conflict that is implied by those reference values. I would expect that any technique that could identify controlled variables involved in conflict and could induce reorganizations involving the reference signals and values for those control units might work (without having any such technique other than MOL in mind).
Isn't a change caused by the "simple existence" of something magic?
See above for "cause".
How does it help the patient reorganize for the therapist to identify controlled variables?
That is indeed a long-standing mystery that has been touched on many times in the nearly two decades I've been on this list. Just what does "conscious awareness" do? I asked Rick what it would benefit the therapy if the therapist did identify controlled variables. But MOL seems at first sight to be as effective as it is because the patient consciously identified conflicting controlled variables. Why? To me it's a major mystery of PCT.
============================================================================
OK, now I've said all that and presented my case, and the reader has just finished reading it. Is what I have just finished saying going to change anyone's way of thinking about psychotherapy?Yes, of course it may, if anyone is controlling for a perception that your and their way of thinking should match. There are lots of conditions under which that might be the case, some of which might be
According to PCT, if you're upset, you ARE reorganizing; you can't help it. I'm not making you do it, you're doing it yourself. And of course, that is the same message as above.
"I'm not making you do it, you're doing it yourself" is tautologically true and practically meaningless.
Then I guess my big insight is tautolotically true and practically meaningess. Very sad.
Sorry if I made you feel that way. It was not my intention. I should not have stated what to me was an obvious fact. I thought you had made the point as a straw man that you wanted demolished.
If you disturb a variable I am controlling, and arrange to sever the environmental feedback path I am using, I expect to be upset AND to reorganize.
Do you expect to be reorganized, or to do it yourself?
Again the tautology! Of course reorganization happens within the individual. See the next cited extract. Of course under the stated condition YOU set up the conditions in which it is likely to happen. I'm not clear what you are trying achieve by restating the obvious.
Of course I am doing it myself, but I wouldn't be upset and I wouldn't be reorganizing if you hadn't destroyed my environmental feedback possibility, or if you hadn't disturbed a perception that was at its reference value.
So what? I didn't say the therapist can't disturb the patient. All I said was that there is nothing you can say that can make another person change.
I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction between these two sentences, unless you are using the word "make" to mean "force" as in a physical F=ma, when the force "makes" a completely predictable acceleration on the mass. As I hope you know, that is not at all what I have been saying. But (see above), that's only how I interpret what I have been writing.
On re-reading, I notice that you bring in a totally new concept, that of the therapist "disturbing" the patient. I never suggested such a thing. I noted that the therapist might not act as the patient wished. More explicitly, that the patient may control for some perception of the therapist that the therapist refuses to supply. I gave the example of the patient controlling for the therapist to say supportive things, which the therapist refused to do.
If you disturb the patient, whether the patient changes as a result is not up to you. And even if it were, you could not reach inside the patient and readjust the neural connections.
To say you would not be making me upset is just a philosophical evasion. You might equally well say that the output function of a control unit is generating its output itself from its own error signal input -- nothing whatever to do with the reference signal and the perceptual signal and the fact they are all connected in a feedback loop, of course!
I guess there's something about this that you don't like. Good. That's about all I can do with respect to your view changing, isn't it? There's nothing I can say that will reorganize you.
And vice-versa.
But what is the "this" that you think I don't like? That I pointed out that if the therapist refuses to act as the patient wishes (the patient failing to control a perception of the therapist), then the likelihood of the patient reorganizing should increase, and that you disagreed, restating my notion in a way I don't recognize? Yes, you are acting like that therapist, and as with the patient, I don't like it.
I think we both agree that the manner in which I might reorganize is unpredictable.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2009.08.14.1920)]
Martin Taylor (2009.08.14.20.02)
The term "understanding behaviour" is ambiguous. Testing for controlled
variables is necessary for understanding some aspects of behaviour,
unnecessary for understanding others.
Yes. Testing for controlled variables is needed to understand the
purposeful aspects of behavior (like the behavior in psychology
experiments); it's not needed to understand the non-purposeful aspects
of behavior (like the time it takes to for your posterior to
accelerate to the ground after a fall).
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.14.1854 mdt)]
Martin Taylor 2009.08.14.21.18 --\
The therapist has no control
over the patient’s reorganizing system or the changes it
makes.OK. We agree so far. It does seem inconsistent with what you said in your
earlier message, though.
BP: Remember the context of this discussion: I am saying that what is
done in conventional therapies, particularly the giving of advice,
homework, interpretation, analysis, and so on is not what causes changes
in the client.
The words said by the therapist do not reorganize the client. What
reorganizes the client is the client’s own reorganizing system, and it is
driven not by what the therapist thinks is wrong with the client, but by
what the client things and feels is wrong. And even then, the core of the
process, intrinsic error, is not in the scope of consciousness.
Perhaps there is a missing definition here. When I say the therapist
cannot change the patient, I mean that the therapist cannot decide what
needs to be changed in the patient and then say or do something that will
bring that change about. Of course the therapist can affect the client in
many ways, even planned ways (control by manipulation of disturbances),
but that will not cause any particular changes of organizationin the client. It will only cause behavior (output) to change. If
reorganization does occur, the therapist has no way of planning what kind
of change will occur. What I said originally didn’t mention that I was
referring to particular planned changes directed by the therapist. Of
course that is primarily what conventional therapies do: diagnose and
treat, first determining what kind of problem the patient has, and then
using the treatment that is indicated for that kind of problem (either
formally indicated, or simply indicated by past experience).
BP earlier: It doesn’t matter
what technique a therapist uses; no technique, including MOL, has any
effect whatsoever on changing the client.MT earlier: As a PCT theorist, I
would say that this would be true ONLY if the patient had no controlled
perceptions relating to the therapy or the therapist. Such a patient
might be one who had unwillingly been placed in therapy by some authority
figure, but surely it is not likely to be true for one who controlled
some perception by deciding to undergo therapy?BP earlier: Yes, it is still true when the patient seeks therapy. The
therapist can’t cause reorganizations in the patient. Don’t
overcomplicate this. What I’m saying is very simple. But you’ll figure it
out your way.MT: OK. My figuring starts with the notion that if someone is failing to
control some perception that matters (an ill-defined term in PCT),
reorganization is likely to start. Failure to control does not
“cause” reorganization.
BP: Right. Error signals, in particular intrinsic error signals, cause
reorganization to start.
The thing about reorganization is that you can’t decide in advance what
is going to change or how it is going to change. You can’t decide what
perception matters and then reorganize it. If you could do that, you
probably wouldn’t need the E. coli reorganizing system. The best the
therapist can do is help the client/patient explore the structure of his
hierarchy, moving the locus of reorganization while changing intrinsic
errors determine how much reorganization will be happening (and how
fast).
MT: Failure to control is
a state in which reorganization is more likely than when control is good.
So no, the therapist can’t cause reorganizations in the patient, but he
can set up conditions in which the likelihood of reorganization
increases.
BP: If that is done directly, the patient will most likely leave therapy.
I don’t think that therapy should involve the therapist’s deliberately
increasing the amount of intrinsic error. The intrinsic error that
already exists is enough. I would say it is not the likelihood of
reorganization that matters so much as reorganizing in the areas which
have the most likelihood of helping. At present the only such area of
discourse I can think of is the subject of conflict.
But your comment does lead to a realization, which is that intrinsic
error does not depend on, and may not even be accessible to, awareness.
Intrinsic errors do not come and go according to what you are aware of at
the moment. They are there all the time. What therapy can help with is to
steer the resulting reorganization toward the causes of the problem
rather than its symptoms, and the only reliable way to do that, as far as
I know, is to try to keep the patient’s awareness moving to higher
levels. Maybe sometimes it’s appropriate to move to lower levels, or
sideways. Time and experience will tell.
MT earlier:My own PCT-based
expectation would be to say that “It doesn’t matter what technique a
therapist uses: any technique, including MOL, is likely to have an effect
by offering the patient a relatively safe environment in which to
reorganize some controlled perceptions.”BP earlier: Is it really the environment that changes the organization of
the patient? Do people not reorganize in unsafe
environments?MT: Of course they do, but if you (as a patient or as a guardian of a
patient) has an option, a safe environment is less likely to result in
damage to the patient during reorganization. The patient may not care,
but if the patient has sought out therapy, he probably
does.
BP: If feeling unsafe is what is bothering the patient, that will soon
become a subject of exploration in MOL and will probably go away. Feeling
unsafe is not cured by the therapist’s acting unthreatening and friendly
and protective. It is cured by reorganizing. The therapist who discovers
that the patient feels unsafe will ask about that, and about background
thoughts about that, and about conflicts that result in both wanting to
be safe and wanting to be daring, and so on. In that way the
reorganization that is already going on will be turned to subjects where
there is a possibility of important changes. If safety in therapy is not
a concern of the client, there is no need to bring it up.
I assume, of course, that the patient is actually safe being alone with
the therapist.
MT: If MOL is any better
than any other kind of therapy, it is likely to be because of effects
that have been somewhat taken for granted in the discussion: namely that
conscious awareness of the reference signals for control can in some way
influence the reorganization process more effectively than does the
simple existence of any conflict that is implied by those reference
values.
BP: You miss the point. Conscious awareness of reference signals for
control does not influence the reoganization process in the sense of
altering its action. Awareness is accompanied by reorganization if
reorganization is going on, but has nothing to do with WHAT
reorganizations take place.
BP earlier: How does it help the
patient reorganize for the therapist to identify controlled
variables?That is indeed a long-standing mystery that has been touched on many
times in the nearly two decades I’ve been on this list. Just what does
“conscious awareness” do? I asked Rick what it would benefit
the therapy if the therapist did identify controlled variables. But MOL
seems at first sight to be as effective as it is because the patient
consciously identified conflicting controlled variables. Why? To me it’s
a major mystery of PCT.
The basic principle seems to be that the locus of reorganization follows
awareness – or at least that reorganization is maximized there.
Strategies of successful therapies all appear to assume that rule. We
have recognized for a long time that reorganization needs to be directed
somehow to the systems where problems are located, rather than systems
that are operating properly. In the hierarchy it seems that awareness
goes to places where large or persistent errors exist.
It is not the conscious identification, analysis, or resolution of
conflicts that matters in MOL. What matters, I think at present, is
simply maintaining aware contact with the conflicted systems. That
focuses reorganization where it can do some good (rather than remaining
focused on symptoms, which is how people get stuck). Reports by Mansell
and Carey and their students show that the typical course of changes in
MOL is that they happen suddenly and unexpectedly, not as a result of
conscious reasoning or planning or problem-solving. The client does not
see the process of reorganization happening; only its result is
experienced.
Understanding controlled variables is how an observer makes sense of
behavior and sees what is actually happening. That is important to the
observer, but not to the person observed who already knows what is being
controlled, or once knew. Conscious awareness is not in contact with all
active control systems at once, so the client in MOL does not see all of
the controlled variables there are. But as awareness shifts, different
controlled variables come into view – they don’t have to be deduced from
theory. It’s only the external observer who has to use indirect and
fallible means for finding controlled variables.
BP earlier: According to PCT, if
you’re upset, you ARE reorganizing; you can’t help it. I’m not making you
do it, you’re doing it yourself. And of course, that is the same message
as above.MT earlier: “I’m not making you do it, you’re doing it
yourself” is tautologically true and practically
meaningless.BP earlier: Then I guess my big insight is tautolotically true and
practically meaningess. Very sad.MT: Sorry if I made you feel that way. It was not my
intention.
BP: Nor could you do it if you wanted to.
MT earlier: If you disturb
a variable I am controlling, and arrange to sever the environmental
feedback path I am using, I expect to be upset AND to
reorganize.BNP earlier: Do you expect to be reorganized, or to do it
yourself?MT: Again the tautology! Of course reorganization happens within the
individual.
BP: More than that: it doesn’t just “happen” in the individual;
it is caused and directed within the individual. It is not something an
external agency can cause or control. It is caused only by intrinsic
error, and it is applied as a means of reducing intrinsic error. The only
way an external agent can cause reorganization to start is to generate an
intrinsic error in the patient, and even then there is no way to predict
or control what the result of the reorganization will be.
MT: See the next cited
extract. Of course under the stated condition YOU set up the conditions
in which it is likely to happen. I’m not clear what you are trying
achieve by restating the obvious.
BP: I am trying to get someone to see the obvious, so I restate it. The
point I am trying to keep in awareness is that a therapist’s words and
other techniques like eye-movement therapy or holding the hands over the
client’s body are not what make therapy work. Therapy might well work
better without such distractions.
MT: Of course I am doing
it myself, but I wouldn’t be upset and I wouldn’t be reorganizing if you
hadn’t destroyed my environmental feedback possibility,
I have heard that opinion before, but mainly from my children. The only
reason for you to be upset is that you lost the opportunity to control
something that you wanted to control. Who set that reference
condition? All you have to do is change the reference condition and you
will no longer have an error to be upset about (unless we’re talking
about damage to the life support systems). And being upset is not really
a solution, either. If there’s an error and you are not engaged in
correcting it or reorganizing, you’re probably in conflict. It’s likely
that you can stop being upset by resolving the conflict.
MT earlier: or if you hadn’t
disturbed a perception that was at its reference value.BP earlier:So what? I didn’t say the therapist can’t disturb the patient.
All I said was that there is nothing you can say that can make another
person change.MT: I’m puzzled by the apparent contradiction between these two
sentences, unless you are using the word “make” to mean
“force” as in a physical F=ma, when the force “makes”
a completely predictable acceleration on the mass.
BP: Perhaps my added definition above removes the contradiction. You can
disturb someone but you can’t plan a change in the client and then direct
reorganization to accomplish it. That’s what I meant by “make”.
Generally, when you say you make someone do something, I would understand
that you have some particular result in mind and are employing some means
of assuring that that result occurs. Causing random and unpredictable
changes would not fit that interpretation.
MT: On re-reading, I
notice that you bring in a totally new concept, that of the therapist
“disturbing” the patient. I never suggested such a thing. I
noted that the therapist might not act as the patient
wished.
BP: If the patient expected or wanted the therapist to behave in a
certain way and the therapist did not do so, that is an error and the
failure to comply is a disturbance.
MT: More explicitly, that the
patient may control for some perception of the therapist that the
therapist refuses to supply. I gave the example of the patient
controlling for the therapist to say supportive things, which the
therapist refused to do.
BP: Is that not a disturbance? I include anything external that causes a
change in perception independently of the system’s output a disturbance,
though I usually use magnitude disturbances in examples because they’re
easy to understand. Changes in the feedback functions are harder to
explain because they involve not just magnitude changes but changes in
loop gain, and sometimes even changes in the linearity or sign of the
gain.
BP earlier: If you disturb the
patient, whether the patient changes as a result is not up to you. And
even if it were, you could not reach inside the patient and readjust the
neural connections.MT earlier: To say you would not
be making me upset is just a philosophical evasion.
MT: But what is the
“this” that you think I don’t like? That I pointed out that if
the therapist refuses to act as the patient wishes (the patient failing
to control a perception of the therapist), then the likelihood of the
patient reorganizing should increase, and that you disagreed, restating
my notion in a way I don’t recognize? Yes, you are acting like that
therapist, and as with the patient, I don’t like it.
BP: I can only judge what you don’t like by observing what you object to.
You object to my denial that I can make you upset, calling it “just
a philosophical evasion.” What you forget is that your being upset
depends just as much on your reference conditions as on my actions. If
you think it is important not to be upset, all you have to do is act to
nullify what I did, or change your reference condition. If that is not
possible because of some other reference condition, you have a conflict
that needs to be resolved. All that is under your control, not
mine.
Your objection seems in the end to be the result of my incomplete
definition of what I meant by “change.”
MT: I think we both agree that
the manner in which I might reorganize is
unpredictable.
Yes. That might untangle the log jam.
Best,
Bill P.
David Goldstein (2009.08.15.05:12)
I am having a problem with the generalization that you put forth. I understand the generalization to be the following. Only a person's Reogranization System can change a person. Intrinsic error is what drives the Reorganziation System. Awareness is what points the Reorganization System to the right places in the Perceptual Control Hierrarchy. A therapist can function to help the person find the right places.
If it is accepted as true, then all adults should stop trying to talk to children, because talking is a waste of time. Talking cannot bring about any specific changes. Everyone should stop writing books for the same reason. We should stop trying to persuade anyone of anything. We should all become silent without spoken or written words.
The first therapist that we all have is our parents. A child who grows up with a verbally abusive parent is often significantly damaged psychologically. How can this be if the generalization is true? I seem to remember that studies comparing the values of children and parents show that they are similar. How can this be if the generalization is true? If children grow up in households with parents who express prejudice attitudes, the children more often than not adopt the same prejudiced attitudes. How can this be if the generalziation is true?
Why go to school if verbal forms of education are so lacking in impact? Why listen to you if the generalization is true?
[From Bill Powers (2009.08.15.0855 MDT)]
David Goldstein (2009.08.15.05:12) --
I am having a problem with the generalization that you put forth. I understand the generalization to be the following. Only a person's Reogranization System can change a person. Intrinsic error is what drives the Reorganziation System. Awareness is what points the Reorganization System to the right places in the Perceptual Control Hierrarchy. A therapist can function to help the person find the right places.
Yes, that's the idea at present. I'm not laying down the law here, I'm simply describing the current state of the theory. If you have different ideas, by all means put them on the table. I'm glad you're having a problem with this; that could mean you're reorganizing.
If it is accepted as true, then all adults should stop trying to talk to children, because talking is a waste of time.
If by that you mean talking as a means of causing and guiding reorganization, I agree. Children as well as adults reorganize themselves. But is causing and guiding reorganization the only purpose of talking?
Talking cannot bring about any specific changes. Everyone should stop writing books for the same reason.
Only if the books are written for the purpose of causing and guiding specific reorganizations. That can't be done for one person by another person. Books can present ideas for consideration, stories to instruct or entertain, reference materials to use in various pursuits, and so on. But the ideas are not considered, the stories are not read, the reference materials are not used, unless someone decides to do those things.
We should stop trying to persuade anyone of anything. We should all become silent without spoken or written words.
You can try as hard as you like to persuade someone of something (as I have been doing here) but nothing will happen unless the other person cooperates. And what the other person assimilates of what you say is out of your control, as is the meaning to the other person of what is assimilated.
Reorganization is a special kind of change. It is not just a change in what people do or say (like memorizing and recalling the correct pronunciation of a word). It is a change in the organization of the brain, not just in the information content of the brain. That difference is subtle, because changes of organization do most often result in change in how a person behaves. But the reverse is not true; changing behavior does not often imply a change in organization of the brain. If I serve to your backhand, you will behave in a certain way. I can change that behavior easily, by serving to your forehand. But I haven't changed your organization at all. You are simply using the skills you already had to deal with different disturbances.
On the other hand, if I serve to your backhand a lot because I know it's weak, you may get frustrated with that and start to reorganize. Among the things you can reorganize is the way you return serves to your backhand. Your reorganizing system can actually alter the way your nervous system uses the muscles, and the muscles themselves will adapt by changing the number or size of active components. The changes in the wiring or synaptic strengths in your nervous system, and the changes in the muscles, are things that only your own body can accomplish. No amount of instruction can cause those changes. No verbal communication can change them.
The first therapist that we all have is our parents. A child who grows up with a verbally abusive parent is often significantly damaged psychologically. How can this be if the generalization is true?
A child suffering abuse is reorganizing. The abuse is not causing the reoganization, but the internal errors that result from the abuse are causing it. It is the reorganization that is, if successful, preventing those effects from getting worse or is even alleviating them. Reorganization is a process of control. The specific changes that result from the reorganization vary widely, in part because no two people are ever in exactly the same situation, but in equal part because reorganization is random and stops with the first new organization that reduces the intrinsic error to a low level, no matter what that new organization is. Even in the same circumstances, different people will end up organized differently. They will all, however, end up organized in a way that reduces the bad effects of the abuse as much as possible.
This is very much like the "behavioral illusion." You do something to a person; the person performs a certain action. The appearance is that what you did caused the action to take place. But between what you did and the other person's action is a controlled variable. You disturb it in one direction, but the action of the other person has an opposite effect on the same variable, keeping it from changing. The apparent causal connection is not the actual one.
An abused child has not been "damaged" except in the physical sense. But the reorganizations that the child's system has generated have greatly changed the child. Fortunately for the child, those changes were not planned and carried out by the abuser; if that had been the case, the abuser, if still alive, would have to be asked to reverse the changes. But reorganization theory says that the changes were made initially by the child, and therapy can bring the same child's reorganizing system to bear on the areas that were changed, so the person's capacity to reorganize can cause new changes that undo the old ones. If that were not the case, therapy would be futile.
I seem to remember that studies comparing the values of children and parents show that they are similar. How can this be if the generalization is true?
Suppose the parents use physical violence on the child. A child may find that being violent in return can ward off the pain and indignity -- I don't mean find out intellectually or rationally, but simply discover a new way of behaving through reorganization and end up with that new organization because it works. If the child is now studied, the "values" of the child will be found to mirror those of the adult. Violence is being met with counter-violence, so now the child, as an adult, uses violence to deal with disturbances.
Don't forget that when you speak of studies that discover facts about behavior, you mean psychological facts, not real facts. Unlike most other facts, psychological facts don't have to be true all of the time.
Reorganization is random, so many people raised in a violent family will come across other solutions that also reduce the intrinsic errors. One person may retire into a protective shell; another may become docile and obedient; still another may invent a new personality that is not the one suffering from abuse. Those people will not mirror the values of the parents, but since none of those other solutions are in the majority they are simply dropped out of the description. The psychological fact is that "children" have values similar to those of "parents", a way of expressing the facts that makes it seem that this is always true. But it isn't. How do you explain the cases in which it isn't true?
If children grow up in households with parents who express prejudice attitudes, the children more often than not adopt the same prejudiced attitudes. How can this be if the generalziation is true?
Work it out for yourself, if you want to. Apply PCT. I can tell you a story that may help. When I was very little, 5 or 6, I wanted to play with the children in a house a few doors away. My mother look horrified and said that they were dirty little Italians and I was to keep away from them. So I did. However, I did not end up thinking Italians were dirty and contaminating. My reorganizing system arrived at a generally useful strategy. If you can't fight them, let them think you have joined them and then think exactly as you please.
Just think of what an unprejudiced child in a prejudiced household experiences. The prejudiced adults will pounce on any tendency to stray from their precepts. There will be big disturbances. As the child reorganizes, any number of ways of correcting the errors may be discovered. One way is to go along. Actually join them if you can't beat them. Or be more careful about disturbing the parents; learn to lie and pretend. The parents can't teach the child how to do that; whatever the child learns to do is invented by reorganization and couldn't be learned if the child couldn't reorganize.
Why go to school if verbal forms of education are so lacking in impact? Why listen to you if the generalization is true?
I think I've said enough by now that you can anticipate what my answer would be. It's time to change this relationship. You're telling me how you perceive the causes of various kinds of changes, but you're not looking for alternatives more consistent with PCT. You're presenting me with what looks to you like a a series of problems, and waiting to see what answers I come up with. I am not going to make you believe or accept those answers; I wouldn't know how to do that. I could keep returning serves to my backhand, but that isn't telling you what to do. Only if you seek your own answers will your own ability to reorganize come into play. That is how all education works. Education depends entirely on the child's ability to reorganize. That works for adults, too.
Best,
Bill P.