[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