Economics, Sociology

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.06.2120 PDT)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.06.1400 MDT)
Dick Robertson (2000.09.06.1735CDT)

Thank you both for those very helpful posts. Bill, I will work on
the program as soon as I can, but I've been busy as heck and I
have vistors this weekend. So who knows? And Dick, the article
on Ira Stoll is a gem. Thanks. I'll write to Stoll soon.

Me:

Welcome, Ray and Merry!

Ray & Merry Bennett reply:

Thanks Rick. I've been lurking for almost a year.

Well, it's nice to finally hear from you. At the end of your
post you ask whether you have "set it up" correctly. I think
you did fine but when you post in the future it would be nice
if you could add a header, like mine above, so it's easier
for readers to tell who's posting. For example, you might put
the following at the top of your next post:

[From Ray Bennett (2000.09.07.0900 MDT)]

if you (rather than Merry) write the post at 9:00 AM Mountain
Daylight Time on Sept 7 of 2000.

I actually wrote on the RTP net and had only one response.

What would you like to talk about?

I want to learn to think and talk in PCT ways to give
respect to others.

I bet you already know how to respect others just fine. PCT can't
teach a person how to respect others. PCT is just a model of
purposeful behavior. Whether or not you respect others is up to
you. I think I understand PCT pretty well and, yet, there are
still a few people (not many) for whom I have no respect.

I've met behaviorists who respect others as much as I (or anyone)
can; the problem with behaviorists is that they have no idea how
behavior works. I've also met PCTers who have very little respect
for people I consider very respectable. I don't think people can
learn how to give respect to others by learning PCT. I think what
people can learn from PCT is what behavior (both their own and that
of the individuals they observe) is: the control of perception; they
can learn why behavior often looks like a response to stimulation, an
action strengthened by reinforcement or a planned output; they can
learn to recognize their _own_ efforts to keep their perceptions
under control and to see how their own purposes can lead to conflict
when the object of those purposes is the behavior of other individuals
who are also trying to keep their percpetions under control.

Teachers could learn from PCT that their _job_ is, at least partly,
to control the behavior of their students: keep them in class, in
chairs, not disturbing others, leaving only at the assigned recess
times, etc. They could learn that conflicts are an expected result
of trying to control behavior; they would know that efforts to "win"
these conflicts would lead to escalating conflict.

PCT can teach us a _lot_ about behavior but I don't believe it
can teach people how to respect others. But maybe I don't understand
what you mean by "respect others". If it means "hold in high esteem"
then I don't see how PCT can help me learn how to respect certain
people. Do you have some other meaning of "respect" in mind?

Power, equity and hegemony are concepts/issues I have been
researching for a number of years.

I do think PCT can help you understand these concepts; power,
equity and hegemony are, I think, words that describe perceptions
of various kinds of behavioral relationships between control
systems. I think you can mimic the kinds of behavioral interactions
described by the terms "power", "equity" and "hegemony" using two
or more control systems controlling the same or similar perceptions
with different relative gains, strength limits or higher level goals.

Anyway, welcome again to CSGNet. I'd like to hear what you think
about this so far.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.0610)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.06.2120 PDT)

I think I understand PCT pretty well and, yet, there are
still a few people (not many) for whom I have no respect.

Me for instance! Rick not only dislikes me, but he has no interest in what I
think. I'm honored to be in such a small select group. As I was saying the
other day to Dubya.....

BG

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.,1017)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.06.2120 PDT)

Teachers could learn from PCT that their _job_ is, at least partly,
to control the behavior of their students: keep them in class, in
chairs, not disturbing others, leaving only at the assigned recess
times, etc. They could learn that conflicts are an expected result
of trying to control behavior; they would know that efforts to "win"
these conflicts would lead to escalating conflict.

Let me make sure that I understand this paragraph. Part of a teacher's
job involves provoking conflicts that he or she cannot win. No wonder a
teaching career is such a hard sell.

BG

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0750)]

Me:

Teachers could learn from PCT that their _job_ is, at least partly,
to control the behavior of their students: keep them in class, in
chairs, not disturbing others, leaving only at the assigned recess
times, etc. They could learn that conflicts are an expected result
of trying to control behavior; they would know that efforts to "win"
these conflicts would lead to escalating conflict.

Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.1017)--

Let me make sure that I understand this paragraph. Part of a
teacher's job involves provoking conflicts that he or she
cannot win.

"Provoke" implies intention. PCT doesn't suggest that conflict
is intended. PCT shows that conflict can be a unintended
consequence of trying to control behavior.

So it doesn't seem to me that you understood my paragraph.
If you really want to "make sure" that you understand what
I meant to say, you might want to try paraphrasing it again
and see how that goes.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0909.1100)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0750)

So it doesn't seem to me that you understood my paragraph.
If you really want to "make sure" that you understand what
I meant to say, you might want to try paraphrasing it again
and see how that goes.

O.K. Part of the job of teachers is to control student behavior. Efforts
to accomplish this will lead to conflicts. Efforts on the part of
teachers to win these conflicts will lead to escalating conflict. In the
process of doing their jobs, teachers will act in ways that lead to
conflict. Efforts to be successful in carrying out this part of their
jobs will inevitably escalate conflicts. Therefore teachers should know
that they cannot be successful in part of their jobs unless they are
prepared to continually escalate conflicts.

BG

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0815)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0909.1100)

O.K. Part of the job of teachers is to control student behavior. Efforts
to accomplish this will lead to conflicts. Efforts on the part of
teachers to win these conflicts will lead to escalating conflict. In the
process of doing their jobs, teachers will act in ways that lead to
conflict. Efforts to be successful in carrying out this part of their
jobs will inevitably escalate conflicts. Therefore teachers should know
that they cannot be successful in part of their jobs unless they are
prepared to continually escalate conflicts.

Except for the very last sentence, I would say that you understand me
perfectly! Just a slight change would make even that last sentence
consistent with my understanding:

"Therefore teachers should know that they cannot be successful
in part of their jobs _if_ they are prepared to continually
escalate conflicts."

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.1137)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0815)]

Except for the very last sentence, I would say that you understand me
perfectly! Just a slight change would make even that last sentence
consistent with my understanding:

"Therefore teachers should know that they cannot be successful
in part of their jobs _if_ they are prepared to continually
escalate conflicts."

Unfortunately, I don't understand how this last sentence follows from
the rest of the paragraph. To me, it seems to be a non sequitur. What am
I missing?

BG

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.1205)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.07.0943 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2000.0909.1100)--
Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0750)--

It's pretty obvious to most of us, I think, that you two guys
have decided
not to like each other and to interpret each other's words in
the least
favorable way possible.

An interesting interpretation. It doesn't apply to me, but I won't speak
for Rick.

If you are really talking to each
other, I suggest
that direct communication would be less wasteful of
bandwidth. On the other
hand, if either of you imagines that you're scoring points
with some unseen
audience, I think you would both be very embarrassed to see how that
audience really views these "favorite enemy" interchanges.

Another interesting interpretation.

What are you
trying to do, choose up sides for a war?

I've said many times what I'm trying to do. What exactly is it that you
don't understand in the sentence, "I'm trying to understand what Rick is
saying."?

BG

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.07.1020)]

Bruce Abbott (2000.09.07.0430 EST)--

For those few of us who have Borland's Pascal...

I don't have Pascal any longer (Linda got a new computer).
But I plan to translate it into Visual Basic so anyone
with a relatively recent version of Excel (on Mac or
PC) can the simulation.

Bill Powers (2000.09.07.0927 MDT)--

Do you have any ideas about the "new money" problem?

I'm not sure I agree with the logic of your program yet.
But it seems like the "new money" you are talking about is
the money to pay the cost of production, which as far as I can
tell is B in your model. If the composite producer's income
is not enough to cover B (including the use of cash reserves,
PS) then I would imagine the money is borrowed.

Me:

"Therefore teachers should know that they cannot be successful
in part of their jobs _if_ they are prepared to continually
escalate conflicts."

Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.1137) --

Unfortunately, I don't understand how this last sentence
follows from the rest of the paragraph.

I agree. In the back of mind was the idea that teachers have to
learn to avoid controlling behavior in a way that leads to the
_kind_ of conflicts that interfere with teaching. For example,
there are at least two ways to control for what can verbally
be described as "no disturbing behavior". The teacher can
act to force disturbing children to "shut up and sit quietly
in class" or the teacher can act to force the disturbing child
to leave the class. In both cases the teacher is controlling
for a disturbance-free classroom but, in the first case, the
teacher's efforts to produce this result are almost certainly
going to lead to actions (on the part of both the teacher and
the child) that disturb the class; in the second, the teacher's
efforts probably won't disturb the class -- at least not for
long -- especially if the disturbing child is removed with
gently applied force.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.1335)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.07.1020)

Thanks.

BG

Bruce Gregory wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0907.0610)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.06.2120 PDT)

> I think I understand PCT pretty well and, yet, there are
> still a few people (not many) for whom I have no respect.

Me for instance! Rick not only dislikes me, but he has no interest in what I
think. I'm honored to be in such a small select group. As I was saying the
other day to Dubya.....

BG

What are you controlling for here Bruce?
Ray

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0909.0507)]

What are you controlling for here Bruce?
Ray

Plain speaking. Just like Dubya.

BG

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.07.0943 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0909.1100)--
Rick Marken (2000.09.07.0750)--

It's pretty obvious to most of us, I think, that you two guys have decided
not to like each other and to interpret each other's words in the least
favorable way possible. If you are really talking to each other, I suggest
that direct communication would be less wasteful of bandwidth. On the other
hand, if either of you imagines that you're scoring points with some unseen
audience, I think you would both be very embarrassed to see how that
audience really views these "favorite enemy" interchanges. What are you
trying to do, choose up sides for a war?

Best.

Bill P.