[From Rick Marken (940414.2000)]
Dag Forssell (940414 1700) --
Well, you wanted a discussion of applied PCT and this is it
-- in spades.
Re: my "unfounded accusations"
You made it clear enough to me that both Ed and I aim
to do the bidding of oppressive teachers, jailers and
bosses, by teaching them how to oppress more
effectively.
Pardon me but I don't remember saying anything like that
at all. Could you, perhaps, be describing YOUR OWN perception.
Your point would be more effective if you showed where I
said "Ed and Dag you are doing the bidding of oppressive
teachers, jailers and bosses". Even if I said such a thing, I
would have been joking becuase I don't believe that that's
what you are doing.
I found that offensive, given my value system.
And I'm responsible for you being offended? My, my. Is that
what I learn from "Purposeful Leadership"? If something someone
says offends me, it is their fault that I feel offended; I should get
that person to learn how to stop offending you? Hmmm. Where have
I heard that before? Oh, yeah, now I remember; the Republican
Convention 
(offended? I really have NO idea.)
You know better, but try to disturb us into debate.
By "you know better" I presume you mean that I know
what you are controlling and that I should take steps to
avoid disturbing it? Come now. I have only a vague idea
what you are controlling and, besides, YOU are responsible
for your perceptions, NOT ME. That phrase "you know better"
is quite familiar from my childhood; it is really unbelievable
to hear it coming from someone who understands PCT; you are
telling me that I should know what to do to keep you happy --
and that I should do it. Come now! You are writing all these
articles telling people to take responsiblity for control
of their own behavior (perceptions) and you are telling
me that I am responsible for the fact that YOU are having a
perception that you don't like -- and on top of it, I am
responsible for making sure that you don't have that perception
again?? Geez.
But I raise my voice along with others on this net, when
you argue for your inalienable right to say anything that
comes into your head about anything and anybody, and
claim that you can't help any of it one bit.
Excellent Dag. You reject the first amendment and
completely miss my point to boot. Actually, I DON'T have
an inalienable right to say anything that comes into my
mind -- I have the inalienable ABILITY to do it; because I am a
hierarchy of control systems. And because I am such a
system I CAN "help" doing "it" too. What I can't help is
whether what I say is perceived by you as an insult.
THAT'S the point -- and it's rather basic PCT. Don't you
understand? It may seem obvious to you that I should
know that when I say "managers might want to think about
making only 1% more than their employees" I am insulting
you; but I had absolutely NO IDEA. I was trying to make
a point about PCT which is that EVERYBODY has to be
willing to change what they want in order to interact
successfully without significant conflict.I had no idea AT
ALL that this would insult you; just becuase it DID doesn't
mean that that result was intended.
How can any of us presume your "tactlessness" to be
accidental, when you are so proud of it, advertise it,
defend it, and promise to maximize it in the future.
Becuase I'm JOKING. I don't intend to be tactless. Dramatic
emphatic, and satirical, perhaps. The offense you take at
what I say is real, you feel it, but it was NOT intended by me.
I can't intend it; I CAN'T PERCEIVE IT. YOU ARE YOU; I AM ME.
Nevertheless, the possibility that I am controlling for
some perceptible (to me) side effect of your experience of
insult can be tested by seeing if I try other means of being
tactless if you can see that the variable I am controlling
(the side effect of your feeling of insult as perceived by me)
is not kept at its reference state. By the way, did I promise to
"maximize my tactlessness" before or after you said you
were offended. If the former, then I AM controlling for
you being offended; I am trying to achieve the goal of getting
you to feel insulted; if the latter, then I'm either out of
control (a real possibility) or (my hypothesis) just JOKING; after
all, why continue acting when the perception (your insultedness)
is at its reference?
I will certainly grant you that I have been tactless too in
the last few posts. I am not proud of it. Did you like it?
The interesting question is "Did YOU know when YOU
were being tactless?"? (ie. actually offending me). I would
bet great gobs of money that the times YOU thought you
were being tactless bear virtually no relationship to the
times I was offended.
Does that help you get my point? You can't control my perceptions
and I can't control yours. Isn't that nice? Don't you feel a LOT
safer now.
Me:
I can't ask you not to insult me -- there is no way you
could possibly know what an insult to me might be;
Dag:
Yes, you can. I knew I insulted you, and you know it too.
Again, you wanna put money on it?
I don't know how you can believe this (that you KNEW
that you insulted me). How in the world do
you know what I am experiencing? You're starting to sound
like my mother (who does NOT understand PCT) who just
KNOWS what people are experiencing and what they SHOULD be
experiencing. This is not an uncommon feeling among lay people.
I would think that it would be a major goal of an applied PCTer
to disabuse people of this rather compelling illusion. Yet
you seem to be wrapped up in it completely. What gives?
I denigraded your personal experience.
Maybe some people don't give a shit if you denigrate their
personal experience. Or does PCT tells you that all people
care about this. If so, it's not the PCT I work with.
I have no business doing that, and I have no business
*telling* you, directly or indirectly, what your (no good)
intentions are, anymore than I accept that from
you.
See above; it looks like you're still in the business of
telling me what my intentions are (to insult) and what they
should be (keeping your perceptions where you want them).
I am not concerned about pussy footing or insults as long
as we stick to PCT, what PCT is, how to present it and all
that.
And that's what we're doing. This is all about PCT --
APPLIED PCT -- applied to a REAL LIFE discussion of PCT.
To make fun of people because of their systems concepts,
no matter how misguided they seem to you and me, is
not, it seems to me.
I really wonder why you don't trust people to handle this
on their own. I guess Jonathan Swift, H. L Menken and
Salamn Rushdie would have to be banned from CSG-L? I
am absolutely astounded by your concept of control; talk
about political correctness.
Right or wrong, I am becoming confident in my
understanding of PCT, and am willing to stick up for it.
Bully for you. Now there's the perceptual controller I
know and love.
Me:
I don't believe anybody can be respectful to anyone else
in yours (not to be disrespectful about it).
Dag:
I can't make enough sense of this, given my
imagination. I trust it made sense to you, given yours.
Yes. If you had quoted this in the context of the
preceeding sentences you would have seen that by "yours"
I meant "your approach to not being disrespectful". Your
approach requires testing and keeping track of all the
variables that another person is controlling and then
avoiding doing anything that might significantly disturb
any of those variables. Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson
figured out quite some time ago that this kind of "political
correctness" was not a feasible approach to achieving mutual
respect between people.
Best
Rick