Do you believe in magic?

Marken_Richard_S1 · March 15, 1993, 11:12pm

[From Rick Marken (930315.1500)]

Allan Randall (930315.1655 EST) --

So yes,
Bohr was doing what Marken seems to be doing - he was invoking magic
to give his theory explanatory power. Bohr's view was inherently
contradictory.

I am not invoking magic AT ALL. I am invoking chapter (and verse)
from "Mind Readings" (chapter 3, all verses)-- which describe what
I consider to be experimental proof that THERE IS NO INFORMATION
ABOUT THE DISTURBANCE IN THE PERCEPTUAL SIGNAL OF A CONTROL SYSTEM.
This means that THE PERCEPTUAL INPUT TO A CONTROL SYSTEM CANNOT BE WHAT
CAUSES THE OUTPUT OF THE SYSTEMN TO MIRROR THE DISTURBANCE. If you think
that what I am describing is magic, then you must reveal the trick; that
means, you must show me WHERE (IN THE INPUT TO A CONTROL SYSTEM) IS
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISTURBANCE? I believe this will be VERY
difficult to do because the input to a control system is the net
result of the simultaneous effects of disturbance(s) AND the
output of the system itself.

Best

Rick (Merlin) Marken

R_Marken · August 15, 1998, 4:39am

[From Rick Marken (980814.2040)]

Tim Carey (980814.0725)--

Would it be stretching the bounds of the theory too much to say
that, by asking the questions, the teacher might actually disturb
another reference of the student's like the "staying in class"
reference? So the student...starts controlling for "staying in
class" (or whatever).

I think it would be stretching the theory from science into
magic. A disturbance doesn't lead a control system to start
controlling that perception; that's S-R magic;-) A disturbance
leads to action that protects a controlled perception from the
disturbance. RTP is a fine program, even without the
magic;-)

Bruce Gregory (980813.1732 EDT)

I take it that your conjecture is that the same figures
would be achieved if the kids worked cross-word puzzles
[nstead of writing plans] in the RTC. An interesting
possibility. It seems unlikely to me, but you never know
until you try.

You never know until you _test_. If you don't test, then
believing in "the plan" is just believing in magic. Right
now we don't know what the essential ingredients of RTP are;
are the questions essential? is saying "I see you chose..."
essential? is the RTC room essential? is the plan essential?
It's like figuring out the essential ingredients in the
witches' charm: was it eye of newt or toe of frog? wool of
bat or tongue of dog? adder's fork or blind-worm's sting?
lizard's leg or howlet's wing? Or all of these? We simply
don't know until we _test_, by Hecate!

Tim Carey (980814.1225)--

I thought we had already established that it [saying "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room"] may or may not be a lie from
student to student.

The unlikely possibility that the student is disrupting _in order
to get to the RTC room_ does not make this statement truthful,
any more than the student's (unknown) desire to go to the RTC
room would makes sending him there _not_ coercion.

The statement "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room" is
a lie because the teacher has _not seen_ any evidence that the
student _wants_ (has chosen) to go to the RTC room. Evidence that
the student has chosen to go to the RTC room would be his resistance
to the teacher's efforts to prevent him from getting there. If the
student is disrupting by resisting the teacher's efforts to prevent
him from going to the RTC room, _then_ the teacher could honestly
say "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room".

I think that some of the important features of the planning
process are: the kid starts succeeding at something; the
teacher and the kid start to build a better relationship;
the kid goes through the questionning procedure several times
(during planning and negotiating) so they become very familiar
with the idea of thinking about what they are doing in relation
to the rules and standards of the environment they are in.

This sounds fine. But it also sounds more hopeful than factual.
I'll treat hypotheses like these seriously once I'm convinced
that "making a plan" is really an essential part of RTP. I
have two reasons for doubting that the plan _is_ essential. First,
it makes no sense from a theoretical perspective. It assumes
that the kid really _wants_ to be in class but doesn't know how
to stay. There is no evidence at all that the disruptive kids
really want to be in class (they go willingly to the RTP room)
and I can't believe that a kid who really wants to stay in class
would have trouble remembering that the way to do this is by
being quite rather than by yelling and hitting. Second, it makes
no sense to me when I imagine myself in the kid's position;
if someone wanted me to write a plan to get back into class
I would only do it when I really was sick of being where I was,
and then only reluctantly, just to get back into class.

I know that some kids say how much they like making plans and
all that stuff. So it's possible that some kids really do get
into the plan making; they just wouldn't have been the kids
I hung out with when I was in school.

Unlike Rick, I think the planning component of RTP is very
important for the reasons you outline. Learning how to create
and execute a plan is learning how to control at the level of
program. This takes practice and RTP provides support for this
practice.

And I think you are just using PCT language to give magical
"helping" properties to an RTP procedure of unknown value.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

Tim_Carey1 · August 15, 1998, 7:16am

[From Tim Carey (980815.1715)]

[From Rick Marken (980814.2040)]

Tim Carey (980814.0725)--

> Would it be stretching the bounds of the theory too much to say
> that, by asking the questions, the teacher might actually disturb
> another reference of the student's like the "staying in class"
> reference? So the student...starts controlling for "staying in
> class" (or whatever).

I think it would be stretching the theory from science into
magic. A disturbance doesn't lead a control system to start
controlling that perception; that's S-R magic;-) A disturbance
leads to action that protects a controlled perception from the
disturbance. RTP is a fine program, even without the
magic;-)

Suppose you are sitting in a cinema watching a movie and someone yells
"Fire". I had assumed that hearing this word would disturb the control
system involved in safety or keeping you alive or whatever. The way I have
thought about that situation in the past is that you no longer control for
movie watching and begin controlling for being unburned. How would you
explain this properly in PCT terms so that it wasn't magical S-R.

Regards,

Tim

Bruce_Gregory · August 15, 1998, 11:54am

[From Bruce Gregory (980815.0750 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980814.2040)

Me:

> Unlike Rick, I think the planning component of RTP is very
> important for the reasons you outline. Learning how to create
> and execute a plan is learning how to control at the level of
> program. This takes practice and RTP provides support for this
> practice.

Rick:

And I think you are just using PCT language to give magical
"helping" properties to an RTP procedure of unknown value.

Sorry. Let me restate that. Learning how to create and execute a Plan takes
practice and RTP provides opportunity for this practice. I'll be more care
to avoid "PCT language" in the future. What is also of unknown value,
needless to say, is whether PCT can tell us anything of value with regard to
RTP absent a vast amount of research.

Bruce Gregory

R_Marken · August 15, 1998, 4:50pm

[From Rick Marken (980815.0850)]

Me:

A disturbance doesn't lead a control system to start controlling
that perception; that's S-R magic;-)

Tim Carey (980815.1715)--

Suppose you are sitting in a cinema watching a movie and
someone yells "Fire". I had assumed that hearing this word
would disturb the control system involved in safety or
keeping you alive or whatever.

Yes. But that control system was always controlling for safety;
hearing "Fire!" doesn't _lead to_ your controlling for safety; you
were controlling for it all along; you just didn't have to _act_
to protect your safety until there was the disturbance: "Fire!".

The way I have thought about that situation in the past is
that you no longer control for movie watching and begin
controlling for being unburned. How would you explain this
properly in PCT terms so that it wasn't magical S-R.

A higher level system -- the one controlling for safety --
changes the reference for your location from "in the theater"
to "out of the threater"; it's hierarchical control.

Look at your example:

by asking the questions, the teacher might actually disturb
another reference of the student's like the "staying in class"
reference? So the student...starts controlling for "staying in
class" (or whatever).

The way you say it here, it _sounds like_ you are saying that
"asking questions" is a disturbance that somehow _starts_ the
student controlling for "staying in class". This is what I
thought sounded magical. This is the kind of S-R notion that
characterizes the thinking of people who believe that "reading
the Bible" will _lead a person_ to start controlling for "being
good".

What you might have meant, however, is that "asking questions"
is a disturbance to a higher level variable (like "safety") that
leads to specification of a lower level references (like "getting
out of the theater"). This is a perfectly legitimate PCT possibility.

But references specify states of perceptual _variables_. So a more
"PCT correct" way of saying what I presume you want to say is that
somehow asking the question "What are you doing?" leads the kid
to change his reference for his location from "out of class"
to "in class" (in the same way that yelling "Fire" will lead
many movie goers to change their location reference from "in the
theater" to "out of the theater").

I suppose it's possible that asking "What are you doing?" could
lead to staying in class; somehow staying in class is an action
that compensates for the disturbance -- "What are you doing?" --
to a higher level variable. I personally don't see what higher
level variable could be protected from the question "What are
you doing?" by staying in class. But maybe you can. Of course, if
you can, then you can Test this hypothesis by seeing whether this
variable is, indeed, protected from disturbance.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

R_Marken · August 15, 1998, 5:06pm

[From Rick Marken (980815.0900)]

Me:

And I think you are just using PCT language to give magical
"helping" properties to an RTP procedure of unknown value.

Bruce Gregory (980815.0750 EDT)]

Sorry. Let me restate that. Learning how to create and
execute a Plan takes practice and RTP provides opportunity
for this practice. I'll be more care to avoid "PCT language"
in the future.

You're apologizing for the wrong thing. The "PCT language"
was not the problem. The problem was trying to explain the
benefits of a procedure that has no known benefit. Your
"Learning how to execute a Plan..." explanation of the
benefit of "making a plan" is as empty as my saying that
the benefit of "eye of newt" in the witches brew is the
"future vision" provided by the eye.

What's wrong with explaining the benefit of procedures that
have no known benefit is that such explanations give these
procedures an apparent validity that they haven't achieved
through empirical test. Instead of _testing_ to see whether
"making a plan" makes a difference, you _show_ that it does
by explaining _how_ it does. This is just applied superstition.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

Bruce_Gregory · August 15, 1998, 5:24pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980815.1323 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980815.0900)

You're apologizing for the wrong thing.

Damn, I can't even get my apologies right.

What's wrong with explaining the benefit of procedures that
have no known benefit is that such explanations give these
procedures an apparent validity that they haven't achieved
through empirical test. Instead of _testing_ to see whether
"making a plan" makes a difference, you _show_ that it does
by explaining _how_ it does. This is just applied superstition.

Does the same analysis apply to your explanations of RTP?

Bruce Gregory

Cyvchoate · August 15, 1998, 6:22pm

i.kurtzer (980815.0110)

[From Rick Marken (980815.0850)]

i agree point for point on your position here. that's reassuring.

i.

Bruce_Gregory · August 15, 1998, 6:56pm

[From Bruce Gregory [980815.1455 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980815.0850)

I suppose it's possible that asking "What are you doing?" could
lead to staying in class; somehow staying in class is an action
that compensates for the disturbance -- "What are you doing?" --
to a higher level variable. I personally don't see what higher
level variable could be protected from the question "What are
you doing?" by staying in class. But maybe you can. Of course, if
you can, then you can Test this hypothesis by seeing whether this
variable is, indeed, protected from disturbance.

Outside the tight little island of PCT, asking the question alerts the kid
to the fact that he is disrupting. (People who are not disrupting are not
asked this question.) If I understood PCT (I'm not one of the Holy Trinity,
however) I might even conjecture that he was controlling for staying in
class, but at low gain. The warning that he was about to be asked to leave
raises the gain on staying in class. Please forgive this humble magus for
daring to have an opinion.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory · August 15, 1998, 7:43pm

[From Bruce Gregory (980815.1543)]

Rick Marken (980815.1240)

You could conjecture that even if you didn't understand PCT.
What you _could do_ (if you did understand PCT) is _test_
your conjecture.

Could you remind me once again why I need to test my conjectures and you
don't need to test yours? I keep forgetting.

Bruce Gregory

Tim_Carey1 · August 15, 1998, 8:13pm

[From Tim Carey (980816.0616)]

[From Rick Marken (980815.0850)]

Yes. But that control system was always controlling for safety;
hearing "Fire!" doesn't _lead to_ your controlling for safety; you
were controlling for it all along; you just didn't have to _act_
to protect your safety until there was the disturbance: "Fire!".

Thanks for your correction. I can see the distinction and I agree, your
explanation was really helpful.

I suppose it's possible that asking "What are you doing?" could
lead to staying in class; somehow staying in class is an action
that compensates for the disturbance -- "What are you doing?" --
to a higher level variable. I personally don't see what higher
level variable could be protected from the question "What are
you doing?" by staying in class. But maybe you can. Of course, if
you can, then you can Test this hypothesis by seeing whether this
variable is, indeed, protected from disturbance.

Can you explain this one a bit more. The Test is still something I'm
working at to get my head around. Would you first have to come up with some
hypothesis about what the kid was controlling for at a higher level and
then think up ways to disturb that? Do you then disturb it and observe what
happens?

Regards,

Tim

R_Marken · August 15, 1998, 8:36pm

[From Rick Marken (980815.1240)]

Bruce Gregory [980815.1455 EDT) --

Outside the tight little island of PCT, asking the question
alerts the kid to the fact that he is disrupting.

I know. It's amazing how naive these people can be, isn't it?

If I understood PCT (I'm not one of the Holy Trinity, however)
I might even conjecture that he was controlling for staying in
class, but at low gain.

You could conjecture that even if you didn't understand PCT.
What you _could do_ (if you did undertstand PCT) is _test_
your conjecture.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · August 17, 1998, 2:16am

[From Kenny Kitzke (980815.2200 EDT)]

I wish you would try to find non-religious examples and characterizations
to make your PCT points. I am not the CSG-Net sensor. But, you have
belittled Bible readers, Christians and God on this net. It disturbs me,
though I love ya anyway. 8=)

I am just asking you to respect others beliefs different than yours.
Spiritual beliefs (including atheism) are very personal and perhaps the
most important reference level a human control system can have. Depending
on such reference perceptions, the behavior to achieve them will vary
greatly.

It is amazing how simple it is for you, a PCT scientist, to say how you
know what thinking characterizes groups of people. Do you have any factual
basis for saying what you said, or is it just one of your personal
perceptions of what is in other peoples' mind.

BTW, the words you use make no sense at all to this Bible reader. Your
baseball fielder seems to have flubbed an easy pop-up on this one. 8=)

R_Marken · August 17, 1998, 5:35pm

[From Rick Marken (980817.1040)]

Me:

This is the kind of S-R notion that characterizes the thinking
of people who believe that "reading the Bible" will _lead a
person_ to start controlling for "being good".>

Kenny Kitzke (980815.2200 EDT) --

I wish you would try to find non-religious examples and
characterizations to make your PCT points.

Why? I think it was a good illustration of a common application
of the _wrong_ model of human nature (the S-R or cause-effect
model) to behavior.

I am just asking you to respect others beliefs different than yours.

I certainly won't persecute you for your beliefs; but I don't feel
compelled to respect beliefs that I don't respect. If you believe
that "reading the Bible" will _lead a person_ to start controlling
for "being good" then you believe something about human nature that
is inconsistemt with my model of human nature (PCT); it's not so
much that I don't "respect" that belief; it's just that I think
it's plain wrong.

It is amazing how simple it is for you, a PCT scientist, to say
how you know what thinking characterizes groups of people. Do you
have any factual basis for saying what you said

I didn't say that I know what thinking characterizes a group of
people. I said that there _are_ people (I've met some and read
about others) who _do_ believe that "reading the Bible" will
lead a person to start controlling for "being good". I was
characterizing the nature of this belief as an example of an
S-R model of behavior. Don't you agree that it _is_ an S-R
model of behavior?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · August 17, 1998, 9:55pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980817.1730 EDT)]

Well, that takes a load off my mind. I guess you have a problem then
respecting anyone who thinks different than you on any subject. You know
what, it shows. BTW, my post was a bit clumsy (written fast). I do not
care an iota whether you respect my beliefs. I would hope you would
respect me and grant me the right to hold beliefs other than yours?

Well I don't believe that and seriously doubt you have read and studied
enough to generalize for even "some." My post said, BTW, "the words you
use make no sense at all to this Bible reader." I guess that makes me an
autonomous living being, who reads the Bible and does not believe reading
it like a book (or science report) would cause people to start "being
good", whatever in the world than means to you?

Sure you were. And, all I asked is if you want to illustrate examples of
S-R, can't you try to come up with some non "religious" examples. What
refererence perception(s) are you controlling for? Can we test them?

I perceive you are to Christianity as as a conventional S-R psychologist is
to PCT. The more they talk, the more they reveal their naivity of the
subject. Of course, you could do some scientific research before
proffering your anecdotal comments that are merely your perceptions of how
things are for other people.

<Don't you agree that it _is_ an S-R model of behavior?>

No. It is a different way to set reference levels for killing, stealing or
putting other people down for their highest level HPTC beliefs. I think my
Christianity is totally consistent with PCT every bit as much as your
Atheism.

I'd be happy to turn this discussion private or drop it. You have helped
put some very fine contributors to this forum on the sidelines with
careless words and inept analogies because they do not fit your model of
the world.
I guess you coerced them. Way to go Rick! But, it won't work so well on
me. When you want to be inconsiderate, I will point out how I perceive
your "scientific" understanding. I can live with it if you can. It was
just a request.

Respectfully,

Kenny

Marc_Abrams5 · August 18, 1998, 12:05am

From [ Marc Abrams (980817.1930) ]

[From Kenny Kitzke (980817.1730 EDT)]

<From Rick Marken (980817.1040)>

<I certainly won't persecute you for your beliefs; but I don't feel
compelled to respect beliefs that I don't respect.>

Well, that takes a load off my mind. I guess you have a problem

then

respecting anyone who thinks different than you on any subject. You
know what, it shows. BTW, my post was a bit clumsy (written fast).

I do >not care an iota whether you respect my beliefs. I would hope
you would

respect me and grant me the right to hold beliefs other than yours?

Folks, I am including myself in this. Why don't we _all_ be a little
less sensitive and not so concerned about being so _politically
correct_.

Ken, I can understand how Rick's position can be a pain in the butt.
But each of us has a something near and dear to us. If Rick uses RTP
as an example certain people fly off the handle. If he uses religon,
others are offended. _What_ topics are OK? When I find Rick offensive
about some post I have _NO_ problem letting him know, _Privately_. He
has been nothing but a gentlemen and has _never_ shoved it up my tush
after I made it known to him _what_ I found distasteful. I recently
had ( what I thought ) was a wonderful conversation with Bruce Gregory
_privately_ on the phone. The person I had a conversation with did
_not_ sound like the same person making those recent posts to CSG. I
will speak to Bruce _privately_ to try to understand what has
happened. I value his opinion, not his recent postings.

Folks,I don't give a damn _what_ your political, religous, or
philospohical leanings are. I _assume_ _WE_ are on this list because
we share a common interest in PCT. All of us, I believe, have
important things to contribute. My posting about modeling this morning
was in part a way to provide a framework for discussion about PCT. The
intent was and is not to make everyone into a world class modeler. I
believe it is a way to talk about PCT in a context that _everyone_ can
both benefit from, and be a contributor to the extension of our
knowledge of PCT.

Lets try to keep the BS off this great list.

You got a problem? Deal with it _privately_ . It usually works. ( I
speak from experience :-))If that's not possible then just try moving
on, life is short.

Marc

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · August 18, 1998, 2:13pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980818.0800 EDT)]

<Ken, I can understand how Rick's position can be a pain in the butt.
But each of us has a something near and dear to us. If Rick uses RTP
as an example certain people fly off the handle. If he uses religon,
others are offended. _What_ topics are OK?>

Ones that are not personally critical of a person because their beliefs are
different than yours (you are wrong because I say you are wrong) in areas
quite apart from PCT science. 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 expect
those who preach PCT to abide by it concerning their own control methods?

Why should people on the forum have to tolerate Rick being a royal pain in
the butt? His constant jabbing at Bruce Abbott is enough to sicken anyone.
It is hard to believe Bruce takes it and stays here. Good for Bruce.
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 his credit.

Bruce Nevin did a sensational job of investigating and modeling coercion
and its special cases that proved to many on this net (but, not you) that
the narrow and dogmatic definition (actually there were many definitions)
proffered by Rick was inadequate. 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 definition. 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.

If we care about not offending others needlessly we would simply listen to
the pleas of anyone who says they are offended and try a different route.

This is not what Rick does. He publically lamblasts RTP as coercieve and
ridicules those who practice it as being purposely deceptive and
intellectually dishonest. According to Rick's perceptions of PCT, RTP and
the world, the PCT practitioners using RTP do this to enable them to help
slip their program into a school.

We all can agree, I hope, that attributing intentions to the RTP folks is
improper PCT science. Yet, Rick attacks others intentions or personal
beliefs as if he knew what they were. Why not just ask Ed Ford why he
thinks he is offering students a choice to learn to think responsibly for
what they do and how it affects others rather than to coerce them?

Of course, we can't do that now to learn a view different from Rick's. Ed
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.

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 him? I
feel it is a loss that far exceeds the importance of Rick's satisfaction in
forcing people to give up and being right, once again.

I think there is merit here. Probably a good idea Marc. I should consider
this more and did in fact say to Rick in my public post, "I'd be happy to
turn this discussion private or drop it." There is a downside to private
dealings too in terms of group dynamics. By definition, group problems are
to be dealt with by a group.

If I am the only one offended by Rick's religious remarks, perhaps I should
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 question
in the wrong way, or don't put a warning label on their literature that
says: BEWARE, RTP USES COERCION TO MAKE KIDS STOP DISRUPTING YOUR CLASSES.

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 touch.

I think everyone can make a contribution to this forum without putting
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.

This is a foundational principle for PCT. Agree? Then why not follow it
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.

Best wishes,

Kenny

R_Marken · August 18, 1998, 3:43pm

[From Rick Marken (980818.0845)]

Me:

Don't you agree that it [the idea that "reading the Bible"
will _lead a person_ to start controlling for "being good"]
_is_ an S-R model of behavior?>

Kenny Kitzke (980817.1730 EDT) --

No.

I think this reflects the same kind of problem we had in the
coercion discussion; your efforts to defend an existing belief
that is very important to you (the belief that reading the Bible
is good and good for you) led you to _reject_ conclusions that
you would readily _accept_ if they were presented in another
context.

For example, consider some of these ideas: Shock leads a rat to
jump; food leads a pigeon to peck a key more frequently; reading
a particular word leads a person to press a button. I think you
would have no trouble seeing these as S-R models of the observed
behaviors. I also think you are perfectly capable of coming up
with the PCT explanation of these same phenomena (the rat is
controlling for the perception of no pain; the pigeon is controlling
for food; the person is controlling for a relationship between the
occurance of a particular word and pressing a button).

I think we had the same problem in the coercion discussion;
people's efforts to defend some existing belief (and there
were apparently several different beliefs being defended )
led people who are otherwise perfectly capable of understanding
control to _reject_ conclusions about control that they would
readily _accept_ if those conclusions were presented in another
context.

I certainly respect your right to believe whatever you want to
believe. I also respect the right of those on the other side
of the coercion debate to believe whatever they want to believe.
I'm just taking this opportunity to make a point (that you will
probably reject but which might, nevertheless, be of interest
to others who are watching the discussion) that understanding
PCT and how it applies to real life situations (like reading
bibles and sending kids to RTP rooms) requires the willingness
to treat all beliefs -- including one's belief in PCT -- as
_tentative_.

A full understanding of PCT requires a willingmess to question
_all_ of one's existing beliefs; not just religious beliefs, but
beliefs about things like reinforcment, natural selection, general
semantics (sorry, Bruce Kodish ;-)), RTP, etc.

If PCT is to be at all useful we have to be able to apply the
model that we validate in our simple "tracking" tasks to real
life situations. The experience with the coercion debate shows
me (anyway) that we can't do this if people find the results
of these applications intolerable because they conflict with
strongly held, existing beliefs. The ability to apply PCT is
not just a matter of understanding the model; it is also a matter
of being _willing_ to apply it, no matter what the consequences.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

Marc_Abrams5 · August 18, 1998, 4:36pm

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

beliefs are

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
so. )

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
expect
those who preach PCT to abide by it concerning their own control
methods?<

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.

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
his credit.

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

coercion

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)

that

the narrow and dogmatic definition (actually there were many

definitions)

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
definition.<

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

listen to

the pleas of anyone who says they are offended and try a different

route.

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
thing.

This is not what Rick does. He publically lamblasts RTP as coercieve

and

ridicules those who practice it as being purposely deceptive and
intellectually dishonest.

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

help

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

folks is

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

for

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
was.

Of course, we can't do that now to learn a view different from

Rick's. Ed

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
him?

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

satisfaction in

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

consider

this more and did in fact say to Rick in my public post, "I'd be

happy to

turn this discussion private or drop it." There is a downside to

private

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

should

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

question

in the wrong way, or don't put a warning label on their literature

that

says: BEWARE, RTP USES COERCION TO MAKE KIDS STOP DISRUPTING YOUR

CLASSES.

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
touch.

Like what? i saw the conference videos. What did knowledge did you
gain?

I think everyone can make a contribution to this forum without

putting

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

follow it

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.

Marc

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · August 18, 1998, 8:08pm

From [ Kenny Kitzke (980818.1600 EDT) ]

<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.>

If Rick's model and definitions were sufficient, then why would you see a
need for additional investigation? I'd also suggest you not put words like
"truth" into my statement. Here is what I actually said:

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
definition.<

I did not and do not find "truth" in Bruce's analysis. I found superiority
over that presented by Rick. I do not know how to model Bruce's more
complex and inclusive interaction diagrams for coercion but if someone did
and proved they were wrong, I'd be happy to have learned what was false.

I think I have complimented both of them many times. I guess we could ask
them? But, we do not have to agree their work is correct, just because
they say so, do we? Or if they designed a model to prove what they want
(the very thing they accuse the behaviorists of doing with their controlled
experiments) and Bruce or anyone questioned its completness or accuracy,
this is good, hey?

This is not what Rick does. He publically lamblasts RTP as coercieve
and ridicules those who practice it as being purposely deceptive and
intellectually dishonest.

<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.>

I'm not in RTP but I perceived Tim Carey, Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon took
Rick's remarks very negatively (strong). I think they said so in word and
deed whether I thought their reactions were justified or not. I would be
happy to see all the fences mended and I do applaud the most recent
discussion between Rick and Tim and hope Rick attends a RTP school with Tom
to see the process in action. I think we all can and should learn more
about how PCT and RTP actually work for individual students and for
schools.

There were many other good points you made in your post that apply to all
of us. I am pressed for time right now for a tennis match to respond
further. I do thank you for your viewpoints. I also did post to Rick
privately concerning the use of sensistive religious beliefs in explaining
PCT. That is not what this forum is about--at least that is what I
perceive. 8=)

Peace,

Kenny