[From Dag Forssell (940515 1400)] Bill Powers (940505.1150 MDT)
Bill, your post on epiphanies (I looked it up in Webster's) is one
of those timeless classics. Thanks!
In a private post, Clark McPhail said this:
Most people find it very difficult to break out of Stimulus->
Response thinking. Of those who do, most either reject any form
of systematic scientific thinking and research on human
experience and action and resort to philosophical nonsense or
post-modern interpretations and the like; the remainder who
reject Stimulus-> Response thinking sometimes view cognitive
models as a useful alternative to Stimulus->Response models.
That was my entre' to PCT and it took a while to understand that
PCT was not about the control of action outputs. My perception
is that this always comes as a shock when newcomers on the net
realize this counter-intuitive "truth". It is a disturbing
ephiphany. They have to reorganize, to start over again and
re-think their way back through the entire PCT argument.
And, in giving permission, Clark also added this, cited in
anticipation of permission:
Maybe someone should forewarn those who "rush to judgment" that
they don't have it until they can wake up in the morning, walk
around throughout the day, and try to fall asleep in
wonderstruck realization that "all I know about the world and
all I can accomplish regarding what I and others do in the world
reduces to my perceptions".
I cannot remember clearly any conversion of mine similar to Clark
McPhail's. In some ways mine is still ongoing, fresh and exciting
every small step of the way. Particularly as I find ways to
understand PCT myself and ways to explain to others. As examples:
Recently, I posted in "PCT in a nutshell" that: *Behavior is not
an end result*. I have since simply asked an acquaintance: What
is the focus of contemporary psychological theories? The answer
is: Action/Behavior! I agree. How is behavior described? By
the outcome! Confusing? Now I ask if they are aware of and can
remember the actions they took when they sneezed, took a glass
of water, -- whatever I saw them do -- in the last minute. Do
they pay attention to the hand movements when they drive, or to
the position on the road? He (a lawyer) became interested and
wants to read Ed's book.
Another oh-so-simple idea I had the day before yesterday is to
emphasize (in class) what a control system looks like from the
outside: The only thing you can see is action/behavior -- thus
the science of psychology. When you look from the inside; your
own perspective on your own existence, the only thing you can
see (and control) is your perceptions -- thus the science of
PCT.
Third, listening to a mother (has a degree in psych at some
level) describe how she and her offspring routinely conflict, it
struck me that given the fundamental focus on behavior --
judgement, of it, snyde comments on it etc., it is IMPOSSIBLE to
convey respect for another human being. Ed Ford shows the way
to conveying respect, by asking (not telling) about wants. The
fundamental concept and focus each person internalizes makes a
MAJOR difference in our ability to lead satisfying lives.
It's somewhat frustrating knowing that there are 120+ long-time
subscribers to this list, and not knowing how many of them have
experienced these "epiphanies."
I will not be surprised if there are far fewer real subscribers.
One way to stop the mail is to unsubscribe. Another is to
"temporarily" set the server to "nomail" with an intention to
return later. Some come and go on this basis. Some may have left
permanently with this mechanism, but still be listed as
subscribers. Many of the people we argued with one, two and three
years ago are still listed. It would be interesting to conduct a
role call, but that is not feasible or appropriate. Gary could
perhaps check the settings in the listserver??? But this is just
idle speculation.
···
----------------------------------------
Bill Powers (940514.2025 MDT)
I can see only one way to avoid spending the rest of my life
pushing against prejudice and self-defense, and that is to stop
pushing. In other words, Rick Marken is right. The only people who
are going to join the work on PCT and carry it further are those
who have been able to grasp its basic principles and who have seen
that they replace a host of confused and aimless attempts to
explain behavior by those who have failed to notice the basic
facts of behavior.PCTers have, from the very start, been self-selected. They read
the books, they read the articles, they asked the questions, and
they decided that this was the way to go, all without argument or
arm-twisting. They saw for themselves what was wrong with whatever
theory they had believed before; for many of them it was seeing
the flaws in their own disciplines that initially led them to look
for something new.
................
By trying to deal with slippery and ever-changing arguments at
higher and higher levels of abstraction, I have been overlooking
the obvious: that for these debaters, understanding the simple
demonstrations and relationships is not the point.
If this is what comes out of Rick's absence, it is wonderful. I
hear you say to stop arguing with the establishment, and instead
lay out PCT so those who can benefit can select themselves, become
interested and join the quest.
So, Rick, I think it's about time to come back. We have
experiments to design and carry out, programming to do, and
progress to make. That's what CSGnet was originally supposed to be
about.
But some of that work is not best done on the net. I see no reason
for Rick to hurry back. He has told me he is writing a book he has
thought about for a long time, laying out PCT so others can select
themselves. That quest has to be far more productive than for Rick
to re-join the net just to participate in those
...slippery and ever-changing arguments at higher and higher
levels of abstraction,
While Rick is truly productive for a change, let us ask ourselves
what PCT offers -- why people should select themselves -- and how
to approach them. In doing so, we would have to consider people
not on the CSGnet.
Let those who want to learn more, ask.
I note with some personal disappointment that not one single netter
has sent a stamped, self-addressed envelope (or address with two
international postal reply coupons) for the now 15-page PCT
resource guide I prepared. Personally, I wonder how many
CSGnetters care about the applications of PCT -- what PCT could
possibly be good for in our daily lives.
Let those who want to join in the effort, join in.
And when they do, let us not be bashful about asking if they have
read BCP, and insist that they do.
And let those who just want to show how much they already know go
fly a kite.
AMEN, and good for you, Bill.
Best, Dag