From [ Marc Abrams (980818.1033) ]
[From Kenny Kitzke (980818.0800 EDT)]
Ken, I would normally answer this with a private post. But I think you
bring up some important points that should be brought out in the open
and discussed. I _am not_ trying to defend Rick. He is _very_ capable
of doing that himself I just think _my_ perception of him is
different. The purpose here is not to try and convince you that _my_
view is "correct" one. Just different. Maybe it matters, maybe not.
Ones that are not personally critical of a person because their
different than yours (you are wrong because I say you are wrong) in
areas quite apart from PCT science.
Ken, I agree with you. But I don't think Rick is critical of the
_person_. Just the beliefs. If he's critical of a belief it's because
he feels _that_ belief inhibits your ability to better understand PCT.
Rick tries to understand _all behavior_ from a PCT percpective.
Sometimes that "looks" a bit narrow minded, But I believe it is just
an _intense_ focus. Sometimes my knee jerk reaction is " Can't this
guy see the forest for the trees". and given a few minutes to reflect,
the answer is an annoying yes. And he is so damn smug about it.
But _that_ comes from a _deep_ understanding, not because he is
looking to rub any body's nose in it. ( at least I don't believe
Ones that do not attribute your perceptions of what you have observed
(read or heard), to what those people believe or
intend. This is not PCT science at all, is it? And, shouldn't we
those who preach PCT to abide by it concerning their own control
No it's not, and _we_ all could benefit from attributing less and
clarifying more. Are you not doing the same thing ( making untested
attributions )you are accusing Rick of doing?
Why should people on the forum have to tolerate Rick being a royal
pain >in the butt?
For the same reason people should put up with your occasional
prostilitizing or my big mouth or Isaacs occassional rants. None of us
is _evil_ nor are we perfect. i do not believe in my heart that Rick
intends to harm anyone. He _can_ be extreme, but so can we all, and we
have been at times. Rick is a _very_ passionate guy.
His constant jabbing at Bruce Abbott is enough to sicken anyone.
Bruce Abbott gives as well as he receives.
It is hard to believe Bruce takes it and stays here. Good for
Bruce doesn't _take_ anything. He dishes as well as anyone. I don't
think it's such a mystery. Bruce stays because Bruce feels it's
important to Bruce. Rick keeps on jabbing because he _really_ wants
Bruce to abandon all his S->R stuff. I think Bruce understands that. I
think Bruce Abbott is attempting the impossible ( making a bridge
between S->R and PCT ) but I admire his determination. Bruce Abbott
_knows_ PCT. From Ricks perspective this is infuriating :-). "How can
he hold on to all those ideas, knowing what he knows".
Perhaps Bruce cares enough about PCT to put up with Rick's incessant
taunting. Bruce could be encouraged and helped by Rick, if Rick
wanted >to help. Bill Powers has patiently tried to do just that, to
What could Rick do for Bruce? Rick is not Bill and never will be. _No_
one will. Not fair to compare.
Bruce Nevin did a sensational job of investigating and modeling
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I enjoyed his _speculation_ as well. The
problem, as it has recently been stated by both Mary and Bill, was
that Bruce was not modeling. He abandoned the spreadsheet model early
on to wax poetic about the various states along the continuum that
might exist. I found his arguments interesting but _purely_
speculative. The spreadsheet model was incapable of showing the
various "configurations" Bruce postulated. Bruce was "verbalizing"
_observations_ _he_ encountered or imagined. Bruce is a _terrific_
communicator. That's what he does for a living. He is great. His
arguments are well thought out and interesting. They are also hallow.
Without a model exactly _what_ is the baseline of understanding.
Clearly, the coercion thread showed the many sides and definitions
that people walk around with.
and its special cases that proved to many on this net (but, not you)
the narrow and dogmatic definition (actually there were many
proffered by Rick was inadequate.
I see, and _your_ view was clear of dogma and not narrow. I said this
before and I'll say it again. Do we take a vote to determine the
validity or do we try to validate it through experimentation and
modeling. I don't believe Rick offered many definitions. He offered
many examples, all showing the same basic behavior. I believe he
overreached because the model did not explain his examples either.
For me, Nevin's analysis of coercion as an interaction between
control systems was far superior and more scientific than the work and
investigations or the "model" Rick developed to support his personal
I'm truely glad you found the "truth" in Bruce's analysis. I didn't.
he raised ( for me ) some extremely interesting questions that need to
be modeled. For me Bruce made me _aware_ of a number of interesting
possibilites thatshould be investigated.
>I don't recall Rick ever thanking Bruce for his efforts or that he
may have increased our PCT collective understanding of coercion. If I
didn't thank Bruce, I do so now.<
Thank him for what, exactly? Did you thank Rick or Bill for possibly
doing the same?
If we care about not offending others needlessly we would simply
the pleas of anyone who says they are offended and try a different
What does "needlessly" mean? But once stated, I agree, and if not, a
simple explanation of why that example was used would not be a bad
This is not what Rick does. He publically lamblasts RTP as coercieve
ridicules those who practice it as being purposely deceptive and
Wow! Isn't this a bit strong? _people_ are coercive. If RTP involves
people it _could_ involve coercion. Ridicules?, I don't think so. he
has praised the efforts of RTP _repeatedly_. Pointing out that you
_could_ be dishonest and deceptive without _intending_ to be.
According to Rick's perceptions of PCT, RTP and
the world, the PCT practitioners using RTP do this to enable them to
slip their program into a school.
Thats _part_ of the sell. "Slipping" the program into schools
connotates dishonesty and I don't believe anyone I know associated
with RTP says things that they know are false. Coercion is something
we need to be _aware_ of because it can happen anytime, even if we are
not fully aware of it actually taking place. Teaching kids _how_ to
make "good" choices _is_ a big selling point. No coercion is _implied_
in the "choices" given to the kids.
We all can agree, I hope, that attributing intentions to the RTP
improper PCT science.
Attributing intentions without doing the test will generally get you
into deep trouble with or without RTP folks.
Yet, Rick attacks others intentions or personal beliefs as if he knew
what they were. <
Unfortunately, that's a nasty habit we all have. Do you "know" what
_his_ intentions are?
Why not just ask Ed Ford why he
thinks he is offering students a choice to learn to think responsibly
what they do and how it affects others rather than to coerce them?
Probably beacause it really doesn't matter _what_ the intention is or
Of course, we can't do that now to learn a view different from
Ford no longer graces this forum. Tom Bourbon seemed especially hurt
but had the courage to come to the conference to try to enlighten
those >who are not convinced they have all the right answers about
PCT, RTP, >research, religion, etc.
I am really sorry I could not make this conference. But who designated
Tom Bourbon the "enlightened" one. Tom's voice is an important one,
but so is everyone else. Did Tom walk away more enlightened as to why
Rick and Bill feel the way they do? Does he "respect" their right to
hold those views?
Best I can recall, Ed Ford did try to explain his perceptions and was
lamblasted for holding them. He chose to leave. Does anyone blame
When did this happen?. Ed like yourself is a deeply religous man. He
had a difficult time with Rick. He also seems to have a difficult time
when RTP and aspects of it come into question. My question is, Why?,
It's only words. Is Ed's view, "See it my way or hit the highway" Was
Ed's no show at the conference supposed to be a "statement" of his
dissatisfaction. Why not come and voice it.
I feel it is a loss that far exceeds the importance of Rick's
forcing people to give up and being right, once again.
It was _ED's_ decision. Not Ricks. What is Rick "forcing" people to
give up? A bit dramatic.
I think there is merit here. Probably a good idea Marc. I should
this more and did in fact say to Rick in my public post, "I'd be
turn this discussion private or drop it." There is a downside to
dealings too in terms of group dynamics. By definition, group
problems >are to be dealt with by a group.
yes, _when_ they are group problems. Thats one reason I decided to
post this to CSGnet. You brought up some things that I think all of us
have felt or delt with on the net at one point or another.
If I am the only one offended by Rick's religious remarks, perhaps I
deal with it privately. But, as far as RTP, it involved many who are
trying to use PCT to help learning and teach responsible thinking to
children in school. I think that is laudable, even if they ask a
in the wrong way, or don't put a warning label on their literature
says: BEWARE, RTP USES COERCION TO MAKE KIDS STOP DISRUPTING YOUR
Ken, you don't _apply_ PCT. It already is everywhere. You simply see
it illustrated. What's wrong with being more enlightened? If you think
it might help fine. If not, fine. But it's kind of silly to ignore.
What's to be gained?
The stories by the Indian Reservation Schoolmaster and his black belt
enforcer teacher (who came to the Conference in Flagstaff) taught me
valuable things about PCT/RTP that Rick's tracking models can't even
Like what? i saw the conference videos. What did knowledge did you
I think everyone can make a contribution to this forum without
people down because they don't see it our way. Your discussion with
Bruce Gregory proves that things aren't always as they seem,
especially >to Rick.
I don't think it's _especially_ to Rick. One of the great PCT lessons
is that things are usually _neVer_ as thry seem.
This is a foundational principle for PCT. Agree? Then why not
on this forum? There are also foundational principles concerning
courtesy and professionalism, of which PCT tells us nothing. That
would >take higher system hierarchy reference establishment, and there
again, >people come to different conclusions about just which magic
they believe >in.
Ken, I couldn't agree more.