From [Marc Abrams (980719.1948)]
From [Bruce Gregory (980710.1015 EDT)]
This claim seems to have little, if any, empirical support.
How do you account for the variance?
It is even difficult to know how to test it. As Rick has pointed
it adds a level of complexity to the model that is not obviously
called for by the data.
This is true but what does that have to do with my "claim"?
The "higher" up the perception the more "abstract" it seems to
Not really. Perceptions at the program level do not have to be
They don't have to be but they _could_ and often _are_ different.
How do you account for the different meanings we attribute to the
I think the coercion thread is interesting in this regard. It does
not seem that anyone _disagrees with the model that Rick and BN
developed. Yet there seems to be a tremendous variance in the
I think the model inadequately reflects the world. It is a model of
_something_, but not RTP.
Who is talking about RTP? _Who_ _ever_ said it was a model of _RTP_?
_Who_ says the model "reflects" ( whatever that means ) the world?
coercion model represents 2 simple control systems.
I don't think it is all attributable to a few different
meanings in some words. It seems that we can Basically get along
and "agree" on the "meaning" of things because "most of the time" a
definition in the "ballpark" will do. But it seems that when push
comes to shove (i.e. we are _controlling_ for a particular
meaning),all hell breaks loose.
In this sense a meaning is a perception and conflict arises when
control systems tries to bring this perception to different
"In this sense",( of course you mean _in your interpretation_) it is
_not_ _my_ meaning. The "meaning" of something is a _reference_ level.
Conflicts arise because of differences in reference levels _not_
because of different perceptions. You don't try to bring your
perceptions anywhere. That's Glasser speak. You look to reduce
( remove ) the error that is preventing the control system from
attaining/maintaining its reference level.
I am curious to why _you_ think the entire coercion thread was about
RTP and how RTP is "based" on coercion. Who ever said that? Could you
please reference the posts that gave you that idea.