[From Lloyd Klinedinst (960328.0310)]
Lloyd¹s comments, coming late in the succesion of discussion on this topic, and not
taking into account some of the latest commentary, notably Bill Powers¹ perceptions
(with which I fully agree) based on his recent work with some RT people in Chapel Hill:
Chris Kitzke (960319.1146 EST) --
to Chris: why the number 5? Did you just come up with that number or is it some firm
number that has been cited?
Also - in addition to Ed Ford, I suggest you read some Glasser direct!
[From Rick Marken (960320.2330)]
> what are the five main differences between RT [reality therapy]
>and PCTHere's a quick list off the top of my head. I don't know if it's
"correct"; it's just my impression, based on what I've read about
RT and what I know about PCT. It's really a list of things that I
don't see in RT that I think should be there, if RT is really based
on (or is equivalent to) PCT.1. RT doesn't deal with the _fact_ of control; there is no explanation
of what control is (production of intended perceptual results) or how to
recognize it. I don't see how one can discuss the value of control
theory until one explains what the theory is about: control.
1. In my read on the scence: RT is the praxis; CT is the theory; Glasser has renamed
the org ICTRTQM to represent the real scope of his org; I can give my read on the
history of WG¹s development from RT (practice) to CT (theory) and its later
re-application to the classroom (CT in the Classroom) with Johnson & Johnson¹s
cooperative learning model; then to schools and other organizations via Deming¹s QM.
2. RT doesn't seem to make a big thing about the fact that people
control their own perceptual representations of what might be the
same objective situation. People control their own perceptions of the
world which are bound to be different than the perceptions of the same
situation that are being controlled by others.
2. RT does! because it is based (intuitively in anticipation) on CT. I have some
charts showing the complementarity of the two.
3. RT doesn't say much about the fundamental problem that is created
by the fact that people are controllers: the problem of _conflict_. RT
doesn't say much about how inter- and intra-personal conflicts occur
and how such conflicts result from the fact that we are controllers.
3. WG¹s CT does! see WG¹s first books on CT: either Stations of the MInd or Control
Theory: Taking Effective Control of Your Life, especially his chapters explicity on
conflict. WG¹s explicit core of his thinking is stated as CT; his current mission
statement for the ICTRTQM is : ³Our mission (or our vision) is first to teach the world
control theory and thenf to teach the use of this theory in counseling, where it is
called reality therapy; in education, as it is practiced in Quality Schools and in
managing all people so that they do quality work, where it is known as lead
management.²
4. RT doesn't say much about how to recognize conflict; the first step
towards resolving inter- or intra-personal conflict is to recognize
that a conflict exists; that two controllers have goals that can only
be achieved by an impossibility -- bringing the same perceptual variable
to two different states.
4. WG¹s chapter in Stations of the Mind on ³Conflict, Control, and Criticism² becomes
three separate chapters in his rewrite of it in his later book, Control Theory.
5. RT doesn't talk about levels or the different types of perceptual
variables that people control; the fact that we are able to become
conscious of the same situation from different perceptual "points of
view" is the basis of our ability to solve conflicts.
5. Yes it does, see same reference as #3. Although WG has, according to my latest
understanding, backed off from teaching the orders of perception - a highly
questionable action, to a PCTer, I would imagine, but in deference (or disgrace) to
practioners' needs to KISS.
RT seems to spend a lot of time talking about how people are not
S-R systems (which is good; we're not) and how what people do is
aimed at satisfying their _basic_ needs ...
I look forward to continuing this discussion strand after I digest some of the ensuing
messages which I haven't processed yet, most especially Bill's notes from after Chapel
Hill and Don Rico's quick riposte.