[From (Hank Folson 951228)]
(Ed Ford Dec. 19, 1995)
>Since I first initiated my program .... there has never been any criticism
>of what anyone does. There has been a lot of questioning as to how what we
>were doing was working, whether what we were doing is aligned with the
>fundamental basics of the program and with PCT....
>I guess, as living control systems work together, each understanding how
>we're designed, you tend to get away from criticism. It is more listening,
>asking and re-asking, creatively working together to devise better ways.
>Criticism kills initiative, whether in adults or
>children. And if there is no suggestion offered for a better way to
>improve what is being criticized, it leaves the person being criticized
>frustrated. It's perceived as a disturbance, rather than as an alternative
>way to close or reduce and error. I think my total process, which
>eliminates criticism, is better.
I first saw this as very un-PCT. I thought of an extreme, but sadly real,
example: Johnny brings a loaded gun to school. In my first reading of your
post, I had erroneously created in my mind a link between 'not criticizing'
and letting Johnny keep the gun.
So when I read:
>Bill Powers (951220.0930 MST)
>>...I think my total process, which eliminates criticism, is better.
>I'm sure it is.
I interpreted this as the exact opposite of what Bill said: as humorous
irony, not agreement. My apologies to both of you. I now see that your point
is that criticism is not an effective way to deal with people.
Johnny could have at least three different goals that would be satisfied by
bringing a gun to school: To show off. To maintain control in the face of a
powerful threat. To harm or control someone. Criticism will do no good in
any of these cases. Johnny is controlling his perceptions quite well by
bringing a gun to school, from his point of view. Criticism would only
indicate to Johnny that the critic did not understand what Johnny was
controlling for. Anything further the critic said would discounted by Johnny
because:
>....And if there is no suggestion offered for a better way to
>improve what is being criticized, it leaves the person being criticized
>frustrated. It's perceived as a disturbance, rather than as an alternative
>way to close or reduce an error.
Thanks for the application lesson, Ed. I hope others will find it as useful
as I have. I'll try to remember not to criticize the critics on CSGnet if
they don't apply the lesson. 
···
----------------------------
If you leave CSGnet, Ed, won't this be a criticism of Bill Power's work? If
Bill Powers does not make a serious effort to influence you to stay, isn't
he criticizing Ed Ford's work?
The easy and best solution, Ed, is to hang in there. Continue to post about
the successes and especially the failures (We learn more from failure than
anecdotes of success, according to PCT. ) Ignore the critics until they
show signs of understanding.
----------------------------
My dictionary gives these definitions of criticism: The first is about
blame, finding fault, disapproval. The second is judging. Only at the end is
mention made about analysis of merits and faults, which is what most critics
will say they intend. These definitions all appear to implicitly assume that
the critic is always right! We will know PCT has arrived when the
dictionaries are rewritten.
-------------------------------
Sincerely, Hank Folson HANKFOLSON@MCIMAIL.COM