Final thoughts on lexicon

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.1139)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.0943)

By trying to make things "easier" (i.e. "talk" in normative ways) you
are having the exact _opposite_ of intended effect. People need to know
_UP FRONT_ that PCT/HPCT is _NOT_ like anything else they have ever
experienced or known. Pieces or parts of it might "seem" familiar but
that is an illusion. The sum is greater then the parts. "knowing" any
one or more parts of the model does _NOT_ help you understand the entire
process. the important thing to understand is how _all_ the parts work
together. Continuously and all at the same time. they need to "know"
that this will take time to understand. It does not come from one
reading or one visualization of a demo or tracking experiment. How many
of you in first "seeing" the tracking experiment, or the rubber band
experiment actually "understood" what you were perceiving. I sure didn't.

In my experience this applies to teaching physics as well. By analogy, it
might be interesting to create a self-test that allows the taker to assess how
well he or she understands the implications of the PCT model. Bill did this
once. Perhaps it could form the basis of a more extensive diagnostic tool. the
most useful approach that I have found asks the "student" to make a prediction:

A number of ice cubes are floating in a glass half full of water. As the ice
cubes melt, the level of water in the glass will:

1) increase
2) decrease
3) remain the same
4) I haven't a clue

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1125)] --

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.0943) ]

Purpose: Some final thoughts on the reason I believe PCT/HPCT needs a
lexicon and the "data" (i.e. reasoning ) behind these claims. I make
these claims from a position as a very successful former salesman. Some in
this group might find that repugnant. To bad. I will rest my arguments (
reasons ) with this post. I will also answer the flurry of posts by Bill,
Rick, and Bruce G.

I believe one of two things are happening. Either the intent is purposeful
and a major effort is made to restrict "membership" to this "club" called
CSGnet or the exact opposite is happening to intended purposes. I chose to
believe the latter. That is, the "intent" of CSGnet is to interest (i.e.
_SELL_) PCT/HPCT to others. Someone will not "buy" ( i.e use, or in any
other way be interested in ) anything they do not "want". PCT/HPCT tells
us so. Before you can "teach" someone you must first "sell" them on the
idea that it might be a good thing to "learn" what you are trying to
"teach". If this first step is not done effectively, everything that
follows is usually meaningless.

For what it's worth, I don't share either of those views, i.e., I don't
believe that there is any effort to restrict membership nor is there any
failed effort to sell PCT. From my perspective, there is simply no
credible evidence to support either view. What I see on this list is a
commitment to understanding the theory of PCT and to helping others who are
interested broaden and deepen their understanding of PCT but I don't sense
any real emphasis on promoting PCT. What I do sense is a deep and abiding
commitment to proving PCT (to the extent it can be proven). To be sure, I
also detect a little hostility toward the reigning views of psychologist
(and toward some psychologists) but I don't see any trace whatsoever of a
hell-bent-for-leather attempt to commercially exploit PCT.

"Learning" PCT/HPCT is _NOT_ easy. It requires _MAJOR_ changes in the
way one perceives ( by any definition :-)) and conceptualizes the world.
As you become more "educated" (indoctrinated might be a more accurate
term :-)) and age ( i.e. "experience over a period of time ) your
"understanding" ( i.e. perceptions ) of the world take on very definite
meanings. It could not be otherwise. We could not possibly function if
that were not the case. This means we _all_ walk around with "ideas"
about what things "mean" and "represent". Each of us in our own little world.

I would agree that learning PCT/HPCT is not easy -- for many people. I
suspect others would find learning PCT to be a much easier task (e.g., I
suspect many engineers would find it easier to learn than most
psychologists ). For me, PCT was a natural "fit" with my systems
background and I still see a "fit" between PCT and certain aspects of
behaviorism (e.g., I think a case could be made that positive and negative
reinforcement both play a role in what Bill P calls "reorganization" -- but
I'm not about to argue that point because I choose not to). By the way,
Marc, what do you mean by "learning" in this context? Are you referring to
the process of acquiring knowledge of PCT or to the knowledge acquired
(process or product)? I suspect it is the former because the latter would
vary with one's goals (i.e., the reference level set for one's knowledge of
PCT).

By trying to make things "easier" (i.e. "talk" in normative ways) you
are having the exact _opposite_ of intended effect. People need to know
_UP FRONT_ that PCT/HPCT is _NOT_ like anything else they have ever
experienced or known.

Good luck with that one. Asking people to discard what they think they
know is not likely to meet with much success. It's like telling them
they've been stupid, blind, ignorant and just plain lucky all their
lives. No one wants to hear that and anyone who suggests to them that they
do so is likely to be met with people who will turn a blind eye and a deaf
ear to whomever is doing the preaching, teaching, selling, proselytizing or
whatever.

Pieces or parts of it might "seem" familiar but that is an illusion.

Only some parts or pieces of it and only relation to some other parts of
pieces. Some of it will seem quite familiar and that will be true.

The sum is greater then the parts. "knowing" any one or more parts of the
model does _NOT_ help you understand the entire process.

What is the basis for that statement? It runs contrary to what I think and
believe.

the important thing to understand is how _all_ the parts work together.
Continuously and all at the same time. they need to "know" that this will
take time to understand. It does not come from one reading or one
visualization of a demo or tracking experiment. How many of you in first
"seeing" the tracking experiment, or the rubber band experiment actually
"understood" what you were perceiving. I sure didn't.

Actually, I've never "seen" the rubber band experiment; I've only read
about it -- but I think I understand it.

So by thinking you are being "kind" and gentle, but you're are actually
being intellectually deceptive and dishonest.. People "see" through that
very quickly. They either think they "know" PCT/HPCT right out of the
gate ( which Rick likes to attribute to people ) and confirms to their
current set of beliefs, and find out quite the opposite after a few
exchanges on CSGnet, or they get disgusted real quick and don't have a
clue. A very few battle it out and stick it out, but not without _major_
upheavals, even leaving the net.

"Knowing" PCT/HPCT is not essential for anyone, in anyone's life. It is
not even very "useful" at this point in people, helping other people.

I think it's probably true that PCT is far from being commercially viable
in the same way that behaviorism was reflected in "behavior mod" and other
pretentious applications of behaviorism and reinforcement theory but (a) I
don't think the practical applications have been fleshed out yet and (b) I
don't sense any real desire to do so -- except on the part of a few who,
like me, are far from being masters of PCT. I have made no bones about
seeing commercial potential in PCT but, as lots of folks like to tell me,
I'm usually way ahead of my time and so there is doubtless a great deal of
research -- basic and applied -- that needs to be done before anyone will
figure out how to turn the money taps on PCT.

This net is one of many examples that "prove" this point. In my posts over
the last few days I have come to realize how _little_ we really
"know"about PCT/HPCT. The Hierarchy, Reorganization, Memory, Awareness (
Consciousness ),Emotion, Perceptions, etc, on and on I can go. No one
"knows" HPCT yet. Not Bill Powers, not Rick Marken. We are all learning
about HPCT. It is a wonderful experience. I would like others to share in
the joy of discovery. I can't do that if I can't "sell" the significance
of the model.

Again, we differ. I'm really hesitant to push what I like onto others.

PCT/HPCT is just not important in the sustenance of life to expect people
to "look" for it. Most people manage very nicely without any knowledge of
the model. That is my largest set of data.

Here is a case in point of meanings being so important. Regarding your
first sentence immediately above, I don't think anyone requires a grasp of
PCT in order to function or to make their way in the world. I most
definitely believe that a solid grasp of it would prove beneficial.

Rick, Bill. What do you have?

Oops. I wasn't asked to respond, was I?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

Blank
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.0943) ]

Purpose: Some final thoughts on the reason I believe PCT/HPCT needs a lexicon and the “data” (i.e. reasoning ) behind these claims. I make these claims from a position as a very successful former salesman. Some in this group might find that repugnant. To bad. I will rest my arguments ( reasons ) with this post. I will also answer the flurry of posts by Bill, Rick, and Bruce G.

I believe one of two things are happening. Either the intent is purposeful and a major effort is made to restrict “membership” to this “club” called CSGnet or the exact opposite is happening to intended purposes. I chose to believe the latter. That is, the “intent” of CSGnet is to interest (i.e. SELL) PCT/HPCT to others. Someone will not “buy” ( i.e use, or in any other way be interested in ) anything they do not “want”. PCT/HPCT tells us so. Before you can “teach” someone you must first “sell” them on the idea that it might be a good thing to “learn” what you are trying to “teach”. If this first step is not done effectively, everything that follows is usually meaningless.

“Learning” PCT/HPCT is NOT easy. It requires MAJOR changes in the way one perceives ( by any definition :-)) and conceptualizes the world. As you become more “educated” (indoctrinated might be a more accurate term :-)) and age ( i.e. "experience over a period of time ) your “understanding” ( i.e. perceptions ) of the world take on very definite meanings. It could not be otherwise. We could not possibly function if that were not the case. This means we all walk around with “ideas” about what things “mean” and “represent”. Each of us in our own little world.

By trying to make things “easier” (i.e. “talk” in normative ways) you are having the exact opposite of intended effect. People need to know UP FRONT that PCT/HPCT is NOT like anything else they have ever experienced or known. Pieces or parts of it might “seem” familiar but that is an illusion. The sum is greater then the parts. “knowing” any one or more parts of the model does NOT help you understand the entire process. the important thing to understand is how all the parts work together. Continuously and all at the same time. they need to “know” that this will take time to understand. It does not come from one reading or one visualization of a demo or tracking experiment. How many of you in first “seeing” the tracking experiment, or the rubber band experiment actually “understood” what you were perceiving. I sure didn’t.

So by thinking you are being “kind” and gentle, but you’re are actually being intellectually deceptive and dishonest… People “see” through that very quickly. They either think they “know” PCT/HPCT right out of the gate ( which Rick likes to attribute to people ) and confirms to their current set of beliefs, and find out quite the opposite after a few exchanges on CSGnet, or they get disgusted real quick and don’t have a clue. A very few battle it out and stick it out, but not without major upheavals, even leaving the net.

“Knowing” PCT/HPCT is not essential for anyone, in anyone’s life. It is not even very “useful” at this point in people, helping other people. This net is one of many examples that “prove” this point. In my posts over the last few days I have come to realize how little we really "know"about PCT/HPCT. The Hierarchy, Reorganization, Memory, Awareness ( Consciousness ),Emotion, Perceptions, etc, on and on I can go. No one “knows” HPCT yet. Not Bill Powers, not Rick Marken. We are all learning about HPCT. It is a wonderful experience. I would like others to share in the joy of discovery. I can’t do that if I can’t “sell” the significance of the model. PCT/HPCT is just not important in the sustenance of life to expect people to “look” for it. Most people manage very nicely without any knowledge of the model. That is my largest set of data.

Rick, Bill. What do you have?

Marc

Blank Bkgrd6.gif

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.06.1515)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.06.1419 MDT)--

When people put too much effort
into promoting an idea, they develop an investment in its present form, and
indeed can get pretty irritated when someone (even the originator) starts
suggesting changes. "What, just when we've got the brochures all printed
and the TV spots set up and three papers in press, you're telling me that
behavior is NOT the control of perception?" If PCT were being heavily
promoted by you or anyone else, I don't think I would be _permitted_ to
change my mind like that.And that would be the end of me as a scientist,
even if only a self-labeled scientist.

Another good reason why selling PCT is not my thing either.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1322) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.1139)]

In my experience this applies to teaching physics as well. By analogy, it
might be interesting to create a self-test that allows the taker to assess

how

well he or she understands the implications of the PCT model. Bill did

this

once. Perhaps it could form the basis of a more extensive diagnostic tool.

the

most useful approach that I have found asks the "student" to make a

prediction:

A number of ice cubes are floating in a glass half full of water. As the

ice

cubes melt, the level of water in the glass will:

1) increase
2) decrease
3) remain the same
4) I haven't a clue

Great idea. A self diagnostic. Something to help an individual understand at
any one point in time what he/she might be missing. With pointers to
different spots for some "correct" answers

Love it.

What about that Bill, Rick, others?

btw, I wouldn't swear on it but I believe the answer is 3 LOL. How did I do?

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.06.1419 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.0943)--

I'm finding the pace of this discussion a bit much for my old head. I'll
just comment on a few things.

>I believe one of two things are happening. Either the intent is
purposeful and a major >effort is made to restrict "membership" to this
"club" called CSGnet or the exact >opposite is happening to intended purposes.

On my part, the answer is neither of the above. All I have ever wanted is
some colleagues who understand what I'm trying to do and are willing to put
some effort into helping to bring PCT to scientific maturity (a state it
has not yet reached). I do not care to sell or advertise or market PCT, in
part because I don't think we have a "product" ready to sell, and in part
because I don't think scientific ideas necessarily benefit from a
concentrated effort to promulgate them. When people put too much effort
into promoting an idea, they develop an investment in its present form, and
indeed can get pretty irritated when someone (even the originator) starts
suggesting changes. "What, just when we've got the brochures all printed
and the TV spots set up and three papers in press, you're telling me that
behavior is NOT the control of perception?" If PCT were being heavily
promoted by you or anyone else, I don't think I would be _permitted_ to
change my mind like that.And that would be the end of me as a scientist,
even if only a self-labeled scientist.

> I chose to believe the latter.That is, the "intent" of CSGnet is to
interest (i.e. >_SELL_) PCT/HPCT to others.

I had this argument years ago with Dag Forssell, who rightly observed that
my marketing skills with respect to control theory were pretty undeveloped.
I finally said, in effect, that's not the way I intend to go, so stop
bugging me about it. He did. Now I'm saying the same thing to you. That's
not the way I intend to go, so stop bugging me about it. You and anyone
else are, of course, free to do as you please with respect to marketing
PCT. I won't be part of it. And I will remain free to change my mind about
any aspect of PCT, even if 100 other people are making their livings
teaching 10,000 other people the version I no longer can support.I am not
willing to give up that kind of freedom.

People who want to learn about PCT generally find me pretty willing to
help, I think. That's the kind of people I want working with me on this
theory. I don't want people that I have to drag off the street, or persuade
pretty please, or horse-trade with. I don't want to make a lot of promises
I will then have to fulfill.

I'm probably going about this all wrong, whatever "this" is. But that's the
main question, isn't it? Why are we doing this? As you will no doubt agree,
we are all doing it for our own reasons, not to please anyone else.

Actually, I have a sore throat and a dizzy head and a temperature of 97.1,
so nothing I say ought to be written down just yet. Mary's entertaining
similar symptoms. See you all later.

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1451) ]

Purpose: To reply to Fred's Post

It is obvious to me that Fred and I did not read the same post.

It is filled with distortions, inaccuracies, and half-truths. I have no
desire or will I respond point by point. I started to do that in an honest
attempt at dialogue but half way through the post I realized it was
absolutely hopeless. I could care less what Fred Nichols thinks of the world
and at the end of this post I could care even less about what he thinks of
my ideas. He said nothing constructive and nothing useful.

He seems to think everything is just fine. Good for him. I don't. I say this
because outside of critising my position he comes up with no alternatives.
So I assume he thinks that everything is fine. There is nothing to discuss.
We are on different planets. To Bad for both of us. Fred is a real nice guy.

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1806) ]

I'm sorry you and Mary are not feeling well. I will address a few points and
table the rest until you feel better.

1) I am _not_ interested in "selling" PCT to anyone. I am interested in
helping people who want to learn PCT.
2) I am not interested in developing any "commercial" programs ( what would
they be anyway? ) or any other such nonsense.:slight_smile:
3) We'll talk later, when you are feeling better. No rush. :slight_smile:

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.06.1419 MDT)]

....