[From Rick Marken (980818.1320)]
Kenny Kitzke (980818.0800 EDT) to Marc Abrams (980817.1930) --
Since I'm the target of much of Kenny's post I'll take the
liberty of replying to some of it.
shouldn't we expect those who preach PCT to abide by it
concerning their own control methods?
If PCT is correct then people "abide" by it whether they
preach it or not. PCT is a model of how behavior works, not
a specification for how people _should_ behave.
Perhaps Bruce [Abbott] 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.
Isn't Bill Powers the fellow who recently threw up his hands in
exasperation when Bruce A. once again tried to explain how PCT
is just another conventional theory of behavior. Why do I always
get the heat for doing what Bill does? Could it be that Bill,
the developer of PCT, is off-limits to those who are ostensibly
"for" PCT, making me a handy target?
I don't recall Rick ever thanking Bruce [Nevin] for his efforts
or that he may have increased our PCT collective understanding
of coercion.
I never thanked Bruce because his efforts seemed to be a non-
modeling diversion from the main point of the modeling exercise.
I went to some trouble to develop the spreadsheet model so that
people could see what coercion _is_ according to PCT. The
"shortcomings" of the model were invented as defenses against
the model; they had nothing to do with the model or how it
mapped into real coercive interactions.
He [me;-)] publically lamblasts RTP as coercieve and ridicules
those who practice it as being purposely deceptive and
intellectually dishonest.
Clearly, the possibility that coercion is involved in RTP is a
large disturbance to some perception you are controlling. But I
would like to point out (if you can hear me through the defenses)
that I did not "lambast" RTP; indeed, I wrote a couple posts
explaining why it was such a nice program. I did not say anyone
in RTP was being _purposfully_ deceptive; they are purposefully
controlling for not seeing RTP as coercive; the "deception" is
an _unintended_ side-effect of trying to protect this perception
from disturbance.
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.
I don't think it's done to "slip" RTP into schools. I think it's
done because RTP practioners really believe that RTP involves no
coercion. I think they are mistaken.
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.
I have tried to guess at what perceptions RTP folks are trying
to control; so in this sense I am "attributing" intentions, but
I think I am doing so on the basis of evidence (verbal replies
to what I say). I don't mean to attack people for their personal
beliefs. But I think it's fair to attack the beliefs if I think
they are wrong. What's the good of having a scientific discussion
if we have can't challenge people's beliefs? What about the people
who believe in a flat earth?
It's true that I don't respect your belief in, say, creationism
(the evidence for evolution is overwhelming); but I certainly don't
mean to attack you for believing it. I agree that it's hard to
separate the behaving system from the behavior (the dancer from
the dance;-)); so when I criticize a behavior (like belief in
creationism) I understand that one might take it personally. All
I can say is "try not to take it personally"; remember that it's
possible to dislike the "sin" and still like the "sinner".
Best I can recall, Ed Ford did try to explain his perceptions
and was lamblasted for holding them.
Again, it was the perception that were lambasted, not the perceiver.
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?
You mean the principle that "things aren't always as they
seem?" I don't think so. I would say that things are _only_
the way they seem (the way they are perceived). The only
"things" we know are our perceptions. We can presumably
experience the same external reality via several different
perceptual functions simulatanously. Whether one set of
perceptions is a better representation than another of what
is really out there can only be determined by systematic
modeling and testing.; that is, by doing science. So the
notion that things aren't always as they same is not a
foundational principle of PCT; it is a foundational principle
of one of the system concepts that some living control system
can control for: the concept of science.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
) because Rick could not account for the behavior