Dag,s Video - comments posted as per request of Dag

************** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930317 ******************

     Dear Dag and Christine,

     Moments ago I was at the end of a very long post about your video
     and I hit a key and disconnected my computer from the mainframe
     (the first time I have done it accidently) and I could
     not retrieve it so I am writing it over again on a file that
     I will not lose unless I hit the wrong key in WS.

     First, I want to thank you for the video. I had read Bill's
     comments about it before I received it but after viewing it I re-
     read them and found them to be excellent. As you noted they
     should be in the archives with the demos since they are very good
     instructions (the best that I have seen Bill give for these
     demos) and I plan to use them and would suggest that you do the
     same. I have a few suggestions for the video that I hope you
     will take not as criticism but in the spirit of improving upon
     your presentation.

     I don't see this video as one which can be used as a
     demonstration but it is, for me, a good record of what you do
     when you give a presentation of PCT. If you wanted to develop it
     into a "demonstration video" I would suggest that you pay very
     close attention to Ed's video that was done with PBS. It seems
     to me that that video was actually designed to be a demonstration
     and produced with that as its purpose (Ed also tried to make
     videos of Bill's presentation but he did not have the equipment
     and other production facilities to do what PBS did). I do
     use Bill's video in my classes and they are useful. One of the
     major changes that you would have to do to make you video into a
     demonstration is to change the camera angle. But much more has
     to done as you probably know.

     I would suggest that you attempt to eliminate at least three
     behaviors from your presentation: "I believe in my heart," "It is
     the nature of the beast," and the word 'feedback' as used in the
     statement that you made "Thanks for the feedback." The first two
     statements I believe are habitual for you but for me they mainly
     say "I firmly believe what I am telling you." It is fine to be
     confident and you should be but the repetition of it may make
     others believe that you are not sure of your self. The use of
     the word 'feedback' in the above statement you should recognize
     as a common but an inappropriate use when discussing PCT -
     feedback should be reserved for the actions one takes toward self
     not between people - no one gives you feedback.

     I would also suggest that you reduce your criticism of S-R
     approaches and linear causality. I say this because I have found
     with my students that they begin to wonder if I am protesting to
     much and I also find myself talking about ideas which I claim are
     worthless and less about ideas that I claim are worthwhile. I
     don't think we want to remind others of those ideas that they
     believe in while we are trying to get them to create a
     disturbance of those very ideas so they can begin to reorganize
     themselves to adopt a new and different and an odd (to them)
     approach. This is mainly tactics but I think that it makes sense
     in terms of the model.

     One of the most difficult ideas to get others to grasp about PCT
     is the statement that I put on the net several weeks ago as sort
     of a snide remark to Bill and Martin - you can't tell what a
     person is doing by paying attention to what she is doing. Bill
     in his 930312.0930 post states it again " . . . why observing
     actions doesn't tell you either what the person wants or what the
     person is perceiving. It doesn't tell you what the person is
     DOING - what those actions are accomplishing that the person
     wants to perceive as being accomplished." It becomes very
     confusing when you (any of us state) "it is action that is
     important not behavior" or you separate 'action' from
     'consequences ' in your diagram. I have read statements on the
     net which point out that people who pay attention to behavior
     with never find out anything important about what people do. ALL
     especially confusing when you (as we all do who do demos) spend a
     great deal of effort getting the person to move around and make
     traces of their hand movements on a piece of paper. You point
     out what the person is doing by noting to the audience what she
     does when you pull quickly on the rubber band. THEN you say "you
     can't tell what she is doing by paying attention to what she is
     doing." Well, that statement is accurate ONLY in a technical
     sense and ONLY within PCT.

     Actions are those activities (behaviors, movements) which can be
     used to find out what the person is controlling for when you
     apply the test of performing acts to see if they are disturbances
     while there are many other movements performed by the person (the
     movement of Cathy's skirt) which are not relevant to controlling
     a reference signal BUT we can't ignore ALL behavior (which would
     mean not observe anything that a person does) and still have some
     way of testing what he/she is controlling for within the act. In
     fact, we are very precise about what we observe and carefully
     perform several "tests" (note the Coin Game) to see what the
     person does to correct for disturbances. This has to be made
     clear or people will come away from your presentations like they
     come away from my classes - very confused.

     There is a problem with the word 'consequence' that I think that
     Bill has noted in some of his statements on Skinner. If you use
     the word 'consequence' to mean all behaviors then that is not
     proper within PCT but if it is use as "outcome" or "desired
     consequence" or as "wanted consequence" I believe it is
     appropriate in PCT. I am wondering whether it would not be
     simpler to note that this is probably what Skinner meant by the
     word 'consequence' most of the time that he used it so that much
     of this data could be appropriated rather than constantly being
     conflict with his view - just wondering.

     Finally, I want to bring to your attention a book that Rick
     mentioned on the net sometime ago and dismissed as not relevant
     to PCT - I think that there is something useful about this book
     and I would like to see if you agree. The book is Donald H.
     Ford. 1987. <<Humans as Self-Constructing Living Systems.>> New
     Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. BF 38 .F66 It is a review of many
     literatures with a model which is very similar to PCT (surely
     quite compatable and not contrary in major ways). I note part
     of what Ford states in his final chapter about organizations. "If
     employess are viewed are self-governing components of a large
     living system, rather than as mechanical components of a machine,
     then the challenge is to create work situations in which (a) the
     employee's personal goals and the organizations goal's are linked
     in mutually beneficial ways, and (b) employees evaluate what they
     do as imoportant to both their personal goals and those of the
     organization, and believe their efforts are valued by their
     supervisors. In this way, people's self-organization and self-
     construction can be accomplished in significant part through
     directing their efforts toward facilitating the success of the
     larger organiztion. ... Moreover, as living systems, each
     employee has some potential for constructing new ideas about how
     to improve organizational fuctioning, and finds interest and
     satisfaction in life through making progress towards personally
     constructed or chosen goals. .... (660)." Doesn't this sound
     like what you might be interested in promoting when you tell
     people how PCT will be useful for organizations? It seems to me
     that this is the case. I suggest that you look at this book
     since it might be helpful for your work.

     Hope what I have said is useful to you and if you find that I do
     not understand either what you are doing or saying please correct
     me before I go one in life with such misimpressions.

     Best Regards,