From Model to Practive (was Re: Where Do We Go From Here?)

[From Rick Marken (991210.1940)]

Bruce Abbott (991210.2010 EST)]

you shouldn't need a formal model to see that if the system in
question has another means of getting to the same end, one that
does not involve the variable being held to a fixed reference,
that the conflict between systems can easily be resolved.

In the spreadsheet exercise, three of the higher level systems
are not affected by the "committed" reference; these systems
can use other means (besides the reference for the "commited"
system) to acheive their ends. It's even possible, though unlikely,
that the "committed" reference will have no effect at all on the
performance of any of the higher level systems; this will happen
if the "committed" system is not used in any important way
as the means for any higher level system to achieve its end.

The point of the exercise was to show what _could_ happen (and,
indeed, is very likely to happen) if a child actually managed to
commititself to controlling a perception at some reference level
selected by some outside agent. Commiting to keep a perception
at some level may seem like a good idea to the agent but it may
end up being a very poor idea for the hierarchical control
system (child) who commits to it. Getting a child to commit
to control some perception -- for reasons other than those of
the child itself-- can wreck the child's ability to control (if
the child is a hierarchical input control system).

Me

What's loose about it [the spreadsheet model]?

Bruce

There are several skipped levels, for one thing. No
reorganization, for another. No memory, no imagination mode.
The only thing really HPCT about it is that three control
systems are stacked such that the higher levels control
their variables by manipulating the references of the
next-lower control systems.

And the perceptions at each level are of different _types_.
And there is an imagination mode. But what is in the model
certainly demonstrates my point, viz., if a person could
actually commit to controlling some perception at an arbitrarily
selected reference level it would almost certainly lead to
a deterioration in the person's ability to control perceptual
variables that he used to be able to control.

Bill says that he is satisfied that his analysis is technically
correct. That may be true. But if the situation is badly modeled,
it doesn't matter that the derivations from that model are
"technically correct."

I think I have a way to stop our fight about whether we have
modeled any particular RTP practice correctly or not. I
suggest that we start by trying to answer this question:

What is it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP
to decide on _any_ particular practice? For example, what
was it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP to
decide that an important part of the program would be getting
a child to keep a commitment?

I'd like to see how applications people go from model to
practice (as I presume they did).

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Nevin (991210.2333 EST)]

[Oh bah humbug, that last was from me, not Rick. (It's late, & I've got a
cold, and I've got things to do upstairs, yada yada yada ...)]

Rick Marken (991210.1940)--

What is it about ... PCT ... that led the developers of RTP
to decide on _any_ particular practice? For example, what
was it about ... PCT ... that led the developers of RTP to
decide that an important part of the program would be getting
a child to keep a commitment?

I'd like to see how applications people go from [theory] to
practice (as I presume they did).

I agree. I think this would be very helpful. Perhaps this is documented
somewhere in Ed's writings or in the respthink archives. Is anyone in a
position to look? Tim, are you able to speak to this?

I don't see how they could go from model to practice, since no models have
been made and there was no PCT-compatible data to model. Or is there some
other meaning of "model" that I don't understand?

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 07:39 PM 12/10/1999 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[From Bill Powers (991211.0558 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991210.1940)]

What is it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP
to decide on _any_ particular practice? For example, what
was it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP to
decide that an important part of the program would be getting
a child to keep a commitment?

Most of the practices of the RTP program are not based on PCT at all; they
are practically verbatim reproductions of Bill Glasser's old Quality
Schools program. Ed was part of Glasser's senior staff before he broke with
Glasser and (eventually) came to PCT.

What are you doing? Is what you're doing getting you want you want? What's
the rule? What happens if you break the rule? All pure Glasser.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Nevin (991211.0949 EST)]

Bill Powers (991211.0558 MDT)

Most of the practices of the RTP program are not based on PCT at all; they
are practically verbatim reproductions of Bill Glasser's old Quality
Schools program. Ed was part of Glasser's senior staff before he broke with
Glasser and (eventually) came to PCT.

What are you doing? Is what you're doing getting you want you want? What's
the rule? What happens if you break the rule? All pure Glasser.

Good example. So Rick's question about this would be: What was it in PCT
that led Ed to keep this phraseology?

How are these words used in Glasser's program?

The section at http://www.respthink.com/rtp.html (written apparently by Ed)
discusses how to distinguish RTP from other programs that use some of the
same words. Tom's paper contrasting PCT and RTP with Glasser's stuff is a
chapter in Ed's books. It is at
http://brandtpublishing.com/books/revised2-ch19.html

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 06:03 AM 12/11/1999 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (991214.1650 EST)]

Rick Marken (991210.1940)]

What is it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP
to decide on _any_ particular practice? For example, what
was it about the PCT model that led the developers of RTP to
decide that an important part of the program would be getting
a child to keep a commitment?

I found Tom Bourbon's sketch of the history of RTP at
http://brandtpublishing.com/books/revised2-ch19.html

A clarification: commitment is not a word that I have found in Ed's books
or on the RTP web site. I introduced it in my interpretation of RTP.

I think it is clear that the child agrees to control "distracting from
learning" at a high priority and with reasonable gain; that is what I mean
by making a commitment. High priority: if there is conflict, and the child
resolves the conflict by choosing, then the one with highest priority wins.
Reasonable gain: unavoidable distractions/disruptions are not an issue.

As Tom says (at the above URL), RTP is not PCT, it is an application of PCT
to schools. So far as I know, no data about agreements has ever been
modelled. Consequently, this application (RTP) does not come from some PCT
model, since there are none. On the contrary, RTP may provide data to be
modelled.

If you meant "the theory" rather than "the model" then I would say that
"getting a child to keep a commitment" comes from the understanding that
the teacher cannot repress disruptions in the classroom, each child must
agree to control "distracting from learning" at a high priority and with
reasonable gain. This understanding is supported by PCT.

Bill Powers (991211.0558 MDT) --

Most of the practices of the RTP program are not based on PCT at all; they
are practically verbatim reproductions of Bill Glasser's old Quality
Schools program. Ed was part of Glasser's senior staff before he broke with
Glasser and (eventually) came to PCT.

from Tom's historical survey (URL above) I see that you must mean Glasser's
10 Steps, published in 1969. It appears likely that Glasser had already
abandoned this program by the time Ed attended the 1982 meeting out of
which the CSG developed. Glasser's Quality School program was published in
1990. Long before that he had expressed regret at ever having developed the
10 Steps program.

What are you doing? Is what you're doing getting you want you want? What's
the rule? What happens if you break the rule? All pure Glasser.

Are these the question that Ed asks, or that he recommends that teachers ask?

If they are, does it matter? Is not the context and framework radically
different, comparing RTP with any of Glasser's programs? I know you would
not say that the stimulus (question) results in the same response -- so it
is unclear to me just what you are saying here.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 06:03 AM 12/11/1999 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (991214.1529 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (991214.1650 EST)--

Are these the question that Ed asks, or that he recommends that teachers ask?

If they are, does it matter? Is not the context and framework radically
different, comparing RTP with any of Glasser's programs? I know you would
not say that the stimulus (question) results in the same response -- so it
is unclear to me just what you are saying here.

I really want to bring this endless, aimless, boring conversation to an
end. Its only point seems to be to refute anything I have said that seems a
bit critical of RTP. OK, I take it all back. The program is perfect, and
needs no changes. I admit it: I have lost the argument. What a relief.

Best,

Bill P.