### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2003, 3:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/1 "2003-03-23T03:40:36Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0322.2239)]
I hope this post doesn't spoil their little game for anyone, but I want
to make sure that everyone understands what Rick and Bill are doing when
they post about RTP. They are teaching us a little lesson by
demonstrating what happens in an HPCT system when a perception
controlled at high gain experiences persistent errors. Until we
demonstrate that we get the point, they will no doubt continue this
little game. I think they've made their point, don't you? If you are in
doubt, compare Rick and Bill on RTP with Marc on Saddam Hussein. See the
similarities? Perceptions controlled at high gain with persistent error
lead to irrational attempts to reduce error. We got it fellows. Your
lesson has been learned. Ed Ford is Saddam Hussein. Very funny. Really.
You can quit now.
> **···**
>
> --
> Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
> Canadian Province of New England.
>
> [www.joincanadanow.org](http://www.joincanadanow.org)
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/2 "2003-03-23T16:31:41Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.23.0830)]
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0322.2239)
>
> I hope this post doesn't spoil their little game for anyone, but I want
> to make sure that everyone understands what Rick and Bill are doing when
> they post about RTP.
And I want to make sure that everyone understands that is was only me
(Rick) who said anything about RTP in this latest round. Bill only
commented on the logic of telling a person "I see you have chosen". I'm the
one who said that Ed's program (RTP) is not close to my concept of PCT.
Bill did not post or express an opinion about RTP. So your silly
hypothesis about our "little games" can apply only to me.
Best regards
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken
> MindReadings.com
> marken@mindreadings.com
> 310 474-0313
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/3 "2003-03-23T19:18:23Z")
[From Bill Powers (2003.03.23.1135 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0322.2239)--
> I hope this post doesn't spoil their little game for anyone, but I want
> to make sure that everyone understands what Rick and Bill are doing when
> they post about RTP. They are teaching us a little lesson by
> demonstrating what happens in an HPCT system when a perception
> controlled at high gain experiences persistent errors. Until we
> demonstrate that we get the point, they will no doubt continue this
> little game.
I wasn't particularly writing about RTP -- as I noted, Ed Ford says he no
longer uses that ploy -- but you're right that I am controlling at high
gain to try to discourage use of the method in question. Having good
motives and being concerned with helping people is laudible, but it doesn't
make untruth into truth, or bad methods into good ones. I am pleased that
Ed Ford is no longer encouraging teachers to tell students they have chosen
something that, in my experience, it is highly unlikely that the student
has chosen (except for the very few who are manipulating the system to get
into the special room -- when all they have to do is ask). It is never good
to tell students things they know are obviously not true. Doing so destroys
trust if the students think the teacher doesn't really believe the message
being conveyed, and destroys respect if they think the teacher does believe
something that is obviously false.
The basic reason for my objections is that distorting perceptions is not
likely to work as a long-term method for controlling people, for reasons I
tried to lay out in Ch. 17 of B:CP. Even if the person doing it insists it
is being done for the other person's own good and not for any base motive,
it is still not likely to work for long, because the other person will
eventually realize that a perception is being manipulated by someone else,
and will cease to be amenable to this treatment.
I am not telling people that Ed Ford is as bad as Saddam Hussein. I was
amused by that accusation until I realized that it is not inconceivable
that you meant it. That seems like a pretty wild accusation, or at least a
severe misunderstanding. By your way of constructing a criticism, your
writings here could be taken to mean that you think I am a ruthless thought
policeman attempting to cram an obviously stupid idea down everyone's
throat. So who am I as bad as?
Is it your position that if one thinks something wrong is being done, one
should just be laid back about it and not get involved? Well, I guess we
couldn't conclude that from your post -- so perhaps it's only \_I\_ who
should be quiet about what \_I\_ think is wrong. Am I getting warm? Or do I
misunderstand \_your\_ little game?
By the way, it gets really annoying when people lump Rick and me together,
as if we're some sort of secret cabal that plots together behind the scenes
to be sure we say the same things and agree on matters of policy. Most of
the time, our agreements come from having similar understandings of the
basic ideas of PCT and reaching the same conclusions quite independently,
through similar (and quite public) methods of reasoning. And without any
consultation.
When you say "their little game," you imply something that is not only
incorrect, but is very nastily incorrect. When you get into this kind of a
snit, I wish you'd just go take a cold shower and get over it.
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/4 "2003-03-23T20:38:47Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0323.1538)]
Bill Powers (2003.03.23.1135 MST)
> I wasn't particularly writing about RTP -- as I noted, Ed Ford says he no
> longer uses that ploy -- but you're right that I am controlling at high
> gain to try to discourage use of the method in question. Having good
> motives and being concerned with helping people is laudible, but it doesn't
> make untruth into truth, or bad methods into good ones. I am pleased that
> Ed Ford is no longer encouraging teachers to tell students they have chosen
> something that, in my experience, it is highly unlikely that the student
> has chosen (except for the very few who are manipulating the system to get
> into the special room -- when all they have to do is ask). It is never good
> to tell students things they know are obviously not true. Doing so destroys
> trust if the students think the teacher doesn't really believe the message
> being conveyed, and destroys respect if they think the teacher does believe
> something that is obviously false.
I proposed an alternative:
"I see you have chosen to act in a way that results in ...." for
example, and take full responsibility for the rules that spell out the
consequences of certain actions.
Rick rejected it for the alternative :
I would be happier if the teacher said nothing to the misbehaving
students other than, perhaps, "Leave, please". If the teacher feels
compelled to explain himself I would suggest that he say: "You are being
disruptive. Please leave the room now". If the teacher must
talk in terms of choices, I guess he could say "My choice is that you
leave now".
Rick's alternative simply demonstrates control on the part of the
teacher. Do you have an alternative that satisfies you and fulfills Ed's
goals?
> The basic reason for my objections is that distorting perceptions is not
> likely to work as a long-term method for controlling people, for reasons I
> tried to lay out in Ch. 17 of B:CP. Even if the person doing it insists it
> is being done for the other person's own good and not for any base motive,
> it is still not likely to work for long, because the other person will
> eventually realize that a perception is being manipulated by someone else,
> and will cease to be amenable to this treatment.
I don't see how my solution involves distorting anyone's perception of
anything. What am I missing in this particular case?
> I am not telling people that Ed Ford is as bad as Saddam Hussein. I was
> amused by that accusation until I realized that it is not inconceivable
> that you meant it. That seems like a pretty wild accusation, or at least a
> severe misunderstanding. By your way of constructing a criticism, your
> writings here could be taken to mean that you think I am a ruthless thought
> policeman attempting to cram an obviously stupid idea down everyone's
> throat. So who am I as bad as?
Rick Marken.
> Is it your position that if one thinks something wrong is being done, one
> should just be laid back about it and not get involved?
It depends on the circumstances. I have chosen not to get involved in
most of the wrong things going on in the world. I only attempt to
intervene when otherwise sensible people seem to be acting irrationally.
> By the way, it gets really annoying when people lump Rick and me together,
> as if we're some sort of secret cabal that plots together behind the scenes
> to be sure we say the same things and agree on matters of policy. Most of
> the time, our agreements come from having similar understandings of the
> basic ideas of PCT and reaching the same conclusions quite independently,
> through similar (and quite public) methods of reasoning. And without any
> consultation.
I was afraid of that 😉
> When you say "their little game," you imply something that is not only
> incorrect, but is very nastily incorrect. When you get into this kind of a
> snit, I wish you'd just go take a cold shower and get over it.
Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive. Perhaps a cold
shower....
> **···**
>
> --
> Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
> Canadian Province of New England.
>
> www.joincanadanow.org
---
### Author:  [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 12:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/5 "2003-03-24T00:47:02Z")
[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.0323.1940EST)]
\
Thank goodness. There is so much help here at CSGNet.
We have the Apostrophe Officer: Bill Powers
We have the PCT Policeman: Rick Marken
Now we have an Irrationality Guru: Bruce Gregory
Meanwhile, we have this tennis guy, Dick Robertson, trying to make sense on why there is such bitter conflict on the CSGNet. I read you posts and liked them too, Dick.
Now, I am feeling a bit left out not being in control of anything on CSGNet. The error is getting so intense I just might start posting my ideas on human nature again, or even on the “war with Iraq.” Yeah, the “whip o will!” I like the sound of that.
Look out, Loretta!
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 12:50am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/6 "2003-03-24T00:50:36Z")
[From Bill Powers (2003.03.23.1652 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0323.1538)--
> I proposed an alternative:
>
> "I see you have chosen to act in a way that results in ...." for
> example, and take full responsibility for the rules that spell out the
> consequences of certain actions.
>
> Rick rejected it for the alternative :
>
> I would be happier if the teacher said nothing to the misbehaving
> students other than, perhaps, "Leave, please". If the teacher feels
> compelled to explain himself I would suggest that he say: "You are being
> disruptive. Please leave the room now". If the teacher must
> talk in terms of choices, I guess he could say "My choice is that you
> leave now".
>
> Rick's alternative simply demonstrates control on the part of the
> teacher. Do you have an alternative that satisfies you and fulfills Ed's
> goals?
Your alternative fails to mention why it is that acting in a certain way
results in the consequence. The reason is that the speaker has decided to
enforce a rule. If the student was involved in formulating the rule, agreed
to it, and still agrees to it, then I'd say it makes sense for the teacher
to bring up and apply the rule and for the student to leave. The student
would probably agree that it makes sense. But the student would not be
under a false impression as to who brought it up and who is enforcing it.
If you want to find out whether the student knew the rule and deliberately
broke it \_in order to\_ go to the special room (which is what "I see you
have chosen" means), the way to do this is simply to ignore the disruption.
If the student really wanted to go, he or she would raise a hand, and say
to the teacher something like "Teacher? Did you notice that I disrupted the
class by throwing an eraser at Tommy? Doesn't that mean I'm supposed to go
to the special room?" If the student said that, I might say, "Oh, I see why
you threw the eraser, you want to go to the special room." Of course I
would add, "You didn't have to go to all that trouble. Next time, just ask.
After all, going to the special room isn't a punishment, it's just an
opportunity to sort out whatever your problem is. O didn't happen to notice
your disruption, but would you like to go now? You don't have to throw the
eraser again."
As to control on the part of the teacher, if the student disrupts and the
teacher initiates the discussion about leaving the class, we can assume
that the teacher wishes for the student to leave so he or she can go on
teaching, and is acting to achieve that goal. Ed Ford's program makes this
very easy to do. That is control no matter how it is done or what it is
called. Are teachers to stop being control systems? Could they do so if
they wanted to? And why would they want to?
People control other people's behavior all the time. It's a natural way for
human beings to interact with each other. To say that PCT says teachers
should never control the behavior of students is simply wrong. It's also
wrong to think that PCT says students should never control the behavior of
teachers. Those concepts show a misunderstanding of PCT. I tried to explain
this in Ch. 17 of B:CP.
There are, of course, various ways of controlling other people's behavior,
some of which work a lot better, and with less friction, than others.
"Would you mind passing the salt, please?" works quite reliably. "Quit
yapping and pass me the goddamn salt" does not work so well.
Asserting that the choice is the student's is what is called being
disingenuous: faking childlike innocence when you know perfectly well what
is going on. The teacher says, "Oh my goodness! I see you have decided to
go to the special room. What a surprise! I am glad that you made that
decision by disrupting the class, and I hope you enjoy the stay. Please
tell me when you decide to come back." Somehow that doesn't ring true. A
wise student would reply, "Wait a minute. I did disrupt the class and now
you're throwing me out, right? Who are you trying to fool?"
> I don't see how my solution involves distorting anyone's perception of
> anything. What am I missing in this particular case?
What you're missing is that students are not easy to fool, and if they are
so young that they are easy to fool, you still shouldn't do it. Fooling
people distorts their perceptions.
Either a person who disrupts is or is not doing so as a way of choosing to
leave the class. If you are right and the person is choosing this end by
this means, you should explain that it's not really necessary to disrupt in
order to leave, like a drunk breaking the police station window on a cold
Christmas Eve in order to get arrested and be given a warm place to sleep
and something to eat. Breaking a rule is not the \_only\_ way to go the the
special room. You can just ask.
If you are wrong, then you're proposing that a decision was made which the
student does not perceive himself or herself to have made. You say "You
have chosen," and the student looks inside and perceives nothing of the
sort. If the student accepts your false assertion about his perception of
having chosen, he or she will have to distort, through imagination, what
was actually perceived. If the student doesn't do that, your assertion will
simply be heard as being incorrect, in which case you would be better off
not to have said it.
\>It depends on the circumstances. I have chosen not to get involved in
\>most of the wrong things going on in the world. I only attempt to
\>intervene when otherwise sensible people seem to be acting irrationally.
Me, too.
\>\>When you say "their little game," you imply something that is not only
\>\>incorrect, but is very nastily incorrect. When you get into this kind of
\>\>snit, I wish you'd just go take a cold shower and get over it.
\>Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
I see. So you \_did\_ have an idea you were being nasty, but figured I would
be insensitive to it.
Best,
Bill P.
> **···**
>
> > shower.
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/7 "2003-03-24T15:30:40Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1029)]
Bill Powers (2003.03.23.1652 MST)]
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0323.1538)--
>
> > I proposed an alternative:
> >
> > "I see you have chosen to act in a way that results in ...." for
> > example, and take full responsibility for the rules that spell out the
> > consequences of certain actions.
> >
> > Rick rejected it for the alternative :
> >
> > I would be happier if the teacher said nothing to the misbehaving
> > students other than, perhaps, "Leave, please". If the teacher feels
> > compelled to explain himself I would suggest that he say: "You are being
> > disruptive. Please leave the room now". If the teacher must
> > talk in terms of choices, I guess he could say "My choice is that you
> > leave now".
> >
> > Rick's alternative simply demonstrates control on the part of the
> > teacher. Do you have an alternative that satisfies you and fulfills Ed's
> > goals?
>
> Your alternative fails to mention why it is that acting in a certain way
> results in the consequence.
Fair enough. The teacher should say, "There is a rule that if you
disrupt you go to the designated room. You have disrupted. Please
leave." The teacher could point out that the student presumably could
have chosen not to disrupt, so the choice to disrupt led to the trip to
the designated room. In that sense the trip is the result of the
student's choice not something that the student had nothing to do with
bringing about.
The reason is that the speaker has decided to
> enforce a rule. If the student was involved in formulating the rule, agreed
> to it, and still agrees to it, then I'd say it makes sense for the teacher
> to bring up and apply the rule and for the student to leave. The student
> would probably agree that it makes sense. But the student would not be
> under a false impression as to who brought it up and who is enforcing it.
The rule has nothing to do with student's agreement, anymore than the
rule against speeding requires each driver to agree to it and to think
it applies in his or her case.
> If you want to find out whether the student knew the rule and deliberately
> broke it \_in order to\_ go to the special room (which is what "I see you
> have chosen" means),
Only to the most literal minded. But I agree that children can be very
literal minded.
\> As to control on the part of the teacher, if the student disrupts
and the
> teacher initiates the discussion about leaving the class, we can assume
> that the teacher wishes for the student to leave so he or she can go on
> teaching, and is acting to achieve that goal. Ed Ford's program makes this
> very easy to do. That is control no matter how it is done or what it is
> called. Are teachers to stop being control systems? Could they do so if
> they wanted to? And why would they want to?
I'm sure these questions are relevant to some point, just not to the one
I am pursuing. Who suggested that teachers are anything but control systems?
> People control other people's behavior all the time. It's a natural way for
> human beings to interact with each other. To say that PCT says teachers
> should never control the behavior of students is simply wrong. It's also
> wrong to think that PCT says students should never control the behavior of
> teachers. Those concepts show a misunderstanding of PCT.
I do a lot of that, don't I?
> Asserting that the choice is the student's is what is called being
> disingenuous: faking childlike innocence when you know perfectly well what
> is going on. The teacher says, "Oh my goodness! I see you have decided to
> go to the special room. What a surprise! I am glad that you made that
> decision by disrupting the class, and I hope you enjoy the stay. Please
> tell me when you decide to come back." Somehow that doesn't ring true. A
> wise student would reply, "Wait a minute. I did disrupt the class and now
> you're throwing me out, right? Who are you trying to fool?"
The choice to disrupt is the child's, the consequences are imposed by
the teacher. Perhaps your literal mindedness is taking you down this
path unnecessarily.
> What you're missing is that students are not easy to fool, and if they are
> so young that they are easy to fool, you still shouldn't do it. Fooling
> people distorts their perceptions.
I am not trying to fool anyone. Least of all the student. I don't know
what i have to do to disabuse of this notion. Perhaps it is impossible.
> Either a person who disrupts is or is not doing so as a way of choosing to
> leave the class. If you are right and the person is choosing this end by
> this means, you should explain that it's not really necessary to disrupt in
> order to leave, like a drunk breaking the police station window on a cold
> Christmas Eve in order to get arrested and be given a warm place to sleep
> and something to eat. Breaking a rule is not the \_only\_ way to go the the
> special room. You can just ask.
>
> If you are wrong, then you're proposing that a decision was made which the
> student does not perceive himself or herself to have made. You say "You
> have chosen," and the student looks inside and perceives nothing of the
> sort. If the student accepts your false assertion about his perception of
> having chosen, he or she will have to distort, through imagination, what
> was actually perceived. If the student doesn't do that, your assertion will
> simply be heard as being incorrect, in which case you would be better off
> not to have said it.
Your reasoning has nothing to do with what I have proposed, so I will
not comment.
> \>Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
>
> I see. So you \_did\_ have an idea you were being nasty, but figured I would
> be insensitive to it.
Does your rejoinder seem logical to you? It seems like a total non
sequitur to me.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/8 "2003-03-24T19:15:59Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.24.1415)]
> Bruce Abbott (2003.0324.1620 EST)
>
> Levity aside, although I don't agree with the "I see you have chosen"
> phrase either, I think I do understand the intention behind it. Before
> they entered the RTP, these students may have tended to see themselves as
> helpless victims of a system
And they may not.
Is this really something PCT tells us about kids who behave disruptively, that
they may tend to see themselves as helpless victims of a system? I don't think it
is.
> Also, such students may have difficulty keeping mindful at any
> given moment of the likely consequences of behaving disruptively.
And they may not. Again, is this something PCT tells us about kids who behave
disruptively, that they may have difficulty keeping mindful at any given moment of
the likely consequences of behaving disruptively? I don't think it is.
> I suspect that the "I see you have chosen" phrase was intended to remind the
> student of the following:
>
> (1) The rule is, if you behave disruptively, you will be sent to the
> special room.
> (2) You are in charge of (in control of, and therefore responsible for)
> your own behavior.
> (3) By behaving disruptively, you have triggered (are responsible for
> initiating) the consequence specified by the rule.
>
> In other words, the focus seems to be on fostering in the student the
> development of self-control.
What does PCT say about how self-control is "fostered"? What does PCT tell us that
would lead us to chose "I see you have chosen" as the phrase that would foster
self-control? I think PCT says we control perceptions, that this control is
fostered (nurtured) by reorganization and that the effect of phrases like "I see
you have chosen" on a person's behavior will depend on the particular set of
perceptual variables the person is controlling.
> The alternative phrases that have been suggested by various parties may
> achieve this end without asserting what may be untrue (in most cases the
> student probably didn't "choose" to be expelled from the room, but instead
> simply failed to inhibit his or her own disruptive behavior, for whatever
> unspecified reasons). But whatever alternative is used as a substitute to
> "I see you have chosen," it should accomplish the reminding listed above,
> to help the student understand the linkage between his or her own actions
> and the consequences.
Is this a conclusion based on PCT? Is so, could you explain how it was derived
from PCT? I think the idea that what you say to a person should " accomplish the
reminding listed above" is based on nothing more than folk "wisdom".
> With enough repetitions, the student may begin to
> think of the potential consequences of certain behaviors and set a
> reference for inhibiting them before they occur.
Again, is this a conclusion based on PCT? Is so, could you explain how it was
derived from PCT? I know of no empirical or theoretical support, in PCT, for the
idea that repetitive reminding about the potential consequences actions will lead
the agent to "inhibit" the setting of a reference for those actions.
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
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/9 "2003-03-24T19:23:21Z")
[From Bill Powers (2003.03.24.0956 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1029)--
\>Rick's alternative simply demonstrates control on the part of the
\>teacher. Do you have an alternative that satisfies you and fulfills Ed's
\>goals?
This was the remark that led to my comments about people controlling each
other's behavior. Ed has said from time to time that the teacher can't
control the students' behavior and shouldn't even try. If this is one of
the goals to which you refer, then it is one of the things I would suggest
changing about Ed's admirable program. The teachers who send students to
the Responsible Thinking Classroom or RTC are controlling something that
matters to them, which includes absence of disruptions by students. There
is no need to conceal this fact by saying it is the student who chose to
leave, particularly in the case of the many students who know full well
that they made no such choice.
The teacher, under Ed's program, can choose to send a disrupting student
away and allow the student back into class only when a satisfactory plan
for avoiding future disruptions is submitted to the teacher and accepted.
"Away" is defined as a special place, the RTC, where the student can obtain
adult counselling and help in working out the required plan. I see no
reason to put a different spin on what happens under RTP. I'm sure this
bare-bones description is how the children see it when the program is
working right, and the teachers and administrators too if they're not busy
trying to make it seem like something else.
The point is not whether interpersonal control happens in school (it always
happens), but how it happens. If it takes place in an atmosphere of respect
and affection (as in RTP), with rules that are clear, fairly administered,
fully explained, and constructed with the cooperation of all involved, the
trading of control can be a normal and easily accepted part of healthy
social life. I believe Ed's program comes closer to achieving this ideal
social arrangement than any other such program I have learned about.
However, I also think that there is a superstructure of ideas in this
program that range from unnecessary to flatly false (the latter being the
case for the idea that teachers can avoid controlling the behavior of
students). These ideas either have no effect because they're irrelevant, or
are counteracted by the fact that the mechanics of the class interactions
are laid out so clearly that they are not influenced by the false concepts
in the way the system is verbalized. The teacher asks the questions, and
when the answers are obtained, but student is sent away. It doesn't matter
who chose what.
I don't think you really disagree with any of this. You say now,
> Fair enough. The teacher should say, "There is a rule that if you
> disrupt you go to the designated room. You have disrupted. Please
> leave."
That is the plain unvarnished truth and is therefore exactly what the
teacher should say, in my opinion. If the student doesn't get it, the
"designated room" is the place where the student can raise objections, ask
questions, propose alternatives, and finally decide that making (and
sticking to) a plan is an acceptable way of getting back into the mainstream.
> The teacher could point out that the student presumably could
> have chosen not to disrupt, so the choice to disrupt led to the trip to
> the designated room.
That's fine, if it happens that the disruption was consciously chosen. But
classroom disruptions are, in my opinion, mostly side-effects of
controlling for something else. John quietly passes Henry a note, without
disrupting anything. Henry, reading the totally new (to him) joke in the
note, bursts out in loud laughter which totally disrupts the lesson. Is
that the time for the teacher to look solemnly down her nose at Henry and
say "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC"? Of course not, and not least
because it's a damned lie. Henry was laughing at a joke that really
fractured him, not choosing to leave the class. He might not, being
fair-minded, object to being sent from the class for disrupting it, but he
ought to be incensed at being sent away for a false reason. It's like being
given a ticket for attempted murder when all you did was break the speed limit.
Once in a while you come across someone who breaks the rules deliberately,
in order to obtain the anticipated consequence. In some quarters that's
known as BDSM, but even in lesser degrees it's surely a sign of a serious
problem that is not going to yield to any routine treatment. Ed's program
actually treats it as such -- the "frequent flyer" who repeatedly and
deliberately chooses to disrupt is given extra attention and the home
situation is looked into; in general repeatedly \_choosing\_ to go to the RTC
is taken as a symptom of some much deeper problem (read Ed's books for
examples).
> In that sense the trip is the result of the
> student's choice not something that the student had nothing to do with
> bringing about.
I truly don't see the advantage of putting this interpretation on it. It's
obvious to everyone that the \_occasion\_ for the student's being ejected is
the student's commission of an act that the teacher finds unacceptable,
unacceptable enough to decide to invoke whatever rule applies to it. But
the rules are always invoked and enforced by someone. I was on a UFO
investigation once, chewing the fat with a couple of Pennsylvania state
troopers while looking down from a hilltop on a freeway full of whizzing
cars. I made some remark that they seemed to be going pretty fast, and the
senior trooper said, "We give 'em five, they take ten, and we nail 'em on
fifteen." That's how enforcement of the rules works. That trooper was not
at all confused about who was responsible for what.
> The rule has nothing to do with student's agreement, anymore than the
> rule against speeding requires each driver to agree to it and to think
> it applies in his or her case.
I don't agree. If your Significant Other is in the middle of a heart attack
and you're driving him or her to the hospital, you have every right to
speed where you think it's safe and ignore the speed limit and other
traffic rules. And the rule is unlikely to be applied by any passing
patrol; in fact, you will probably pick up an escort after a quick
conversation.
The effectiveness of most rules (laws), I have heard lawyers say, depends
on general agreement with them. Rules that that are not agreed to by most
of those affected are regularly flouted, and cases based on them are
regularly thrown out of court. The agreement of those subject to rules is,
I believe, essential to the functioning of any viable society. Since this
is true in the real world, it should also be true in the microcosm in which
we try to teach children how the world really is.
I once went to talk to a high-school principal about an important test one
of my children had seriously flunked because of getting out of sync with
the questions by one line in blacking out the little squares. In subsequent
conversation, the principal defended the security at the school, which
required checking with hall monitors at every intersection, being thrown in
the slammer (as the principal called it) for "looking crosswise" at a
teacher, and a bunch of other similar procedures, by saying he was simply
preparing the children to live in the real world. I gave up at that point
and did not ask him exactly which real world he was thinking of.
That school was a mess, as you would expect.
> > If you want to find out whether the student knew the rule and deliberately
> > broke it \_in order to\_ go to the special room (which is what "I see you
> > have chosen" means),
>
> Only to the most literal minded. But I agree that children can be very
> literal minded.
Scientists, too, and anyone else who is interested in truth. I think we
come to clear understandings mainly by sticking to what seems the literal
truth. Metaphors leave too much wiggle room.
> I'm sure these questions are relevant to some point, just not to the one
> I am pursuing. Who suggested that teachers are anything but control systems?
Ed Ford -- not on purpose, but in effect, by saying teachers should not
control the behavior of students. A simple mistake, easily rectified.
Unless someone decides to make a Supreme Court case of it just because
there's an implied criticism of a small part of the RTP program.
> > People control other people's behavior all the time. It's a natural way for
> > human beings to interact with each other. To say that PCT says teachers
> > should never control the behavior of students is simply wrong. It's also
> > wrong to think that PCT says students should never control the behavior of
> > teachers. Those concepts show a misunderstanding of PCT.
>
> I do a lot of that, don't I?
No, not directly. But you seem to have missed my point, so far, that this
is the crux of the argument about teachers and students and who is
responsible for what.
> The choice to disrupt is the child's, the consequences are imposed by
> the teacher. Perhaps your literal mindedness is taking you down this
> path unnecessarily.
A disruption is a \_consequence\_ of what the child consciously "chose" to
do; but whether the disruption itself was the controlled variable or only a
side-effect of controlling something else has to be determined case by
case. Your assumption that the disruption is always what the child intends
to bring about is simply unwarranted. "Disruption" is used in this context
as an accusatory term, an unwanted event for which someone has to be held
responsible. You're prejudging the case. That is Not Fair, something about
which children feel deeply.
In adult life, for which we are presumably preparing these school-children,
a bad effect produced by someone's behavior is not automatically treated as
an offense. The prosecution is required not only to show that the bad
effect occurred, but that it was intended. If you kill someone, you are
charged with murder in the first degree only if it can be established that
killing was your intent, for example by proving premeditation. If it was a
predictable but not an intended consequence of your behavior, like beating
someone up very badly, you may be charged with second-degree murder, and so
on down the list to manslaughter, negligent homicide, and even innocence of
any wrongdoing. that's how the real world works.
\>I am not trying to fool anyone. Least of all the student. I don't know
\>what i have to do to disabuse of this notion. Perhaps it is impossible.
I'm sure you're not trying to fool anyone, because you believe that what
you're saying (as far as you've thought it through) is true. But I'm saying
that it's not necessarily true, and in the cases where it's not -- where
the child did not in fact make a conscious choice as described -- there can
be an effect of fooling the child into distrusting the evidence of
introspection. Of course, since you believe it is true, you are being
fooled, too -- by whom or what, I don't know.
\>Your reasoning has nothing to do with what I have proposed, so I will not
comment.
What you're proposing, as near as I can comprehend it, is that we rely on a
metaphor in teaching children about social relations. You're saying, "It's
\_as if\_ the child had chosen to be sent from class, and chose disruption as
the means of doing so." To be sure, if a child does decide to leave class,
and disrupts as a means of being sent away, the metaphor becomes the
literal truth, and you are perfectly justified in speaking that way. But
you seem to want to use the same metaphor when it is \_not\_ the literal
truth -- in fact, even when its implication is quite false -- and that is
what I object to.
> > \>Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
> >
> > I see. So you \_did\_ have an idea you were being nasty, but figured I would
> > be insensitive to it.
>
> Does your rejoinder seem logical to you? It seems like a total non
> sequitur to me.
Odd. It's clear to me. You said, "I'm sorry. I had no idea you were so
sensitive." You seem to be apologizing ("I'm sorry") for the nastiness, and
indicating that if you had known I was so sensitive, you would not have
spoken that way. Of course you could mean that you scored higher than you
had anticipated, and were delighted that I was more sensitive than you had
thought.
Doesn't the sentence (more conventionally) indicate that you intended the
nastiness, but not that I would respond sensitively to it? If that's not
what you meant, you'll have to be patient and explain more clearly. Were
you saying, perhaps, that you were sorry for me that I was so sensitive,
but not about being nasty?
Seems to me that plain talk works better than allusion, indirection, and
metaphor.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Abbott_Bruce)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/10 "2003-03-24T21:18:24Z")
[From Bruce Abbott (2003.0324.1620 EST)]
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1029) --
>
> Bill Powers (2003.03.23.1652 MST)]
>
> > Bruce Gregory (2003.0323.1538)--
> >
> > \>Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
> >
> > I see. So you \_did\_ have an idea you were being nasty, but figured I would
> > be insensitive to it.
I think what Bill is saying to you, Bruce, is "I see you have chosen to be
nasty." (;-\>
Levity aside, although I don't agree with the "I see you have chosen"
phrase either, I think I do understand the intention behind it. Before
they entered the RTP, these students may have tended to see themselves as
helpless victims of a system, as if their own behavior had nothing to do
with their being singled out for punishment or other special
treatment. Also, such students may have difficulty keeping mindful at any
given moment of the likely consequences of behaving disruptively. I
suspect that the "I see you have chosen" phrase was intended to remind the
student of the following:
(1) The rule is, if you behave disruptively, you will be sent to the
special room.
(2) You are in charge of (in control of, and therefore responsible for)
your own behavior.
(3) By behaving disruptively, you have triggered (are responsible for
initiating) the consequence specified by the rule.
In other words, the focus seems to be on fostering in the student the
development of self-control.
The alternative phrases that have been suggested by various parties may
achieve this end without asserting what may be untrue (in most cases the
student probably didn't "choose" to be expelled from the room, but instead
simply failed to inhibit his or her own disruptive behavior, for whatever
unspecified reasons). But whatever alternative is used as a substitute to
"I see you have chosen," it should accomplish the reminding listed above,
to help the student understand the linkage between his or her own actions
and the consequences. With enough repetitions, the student may begin to
think of the potential consequences of certain behaviors and set a
reference for inhibiting them before they occur. That's what "responsible
thinking" refers to, isn't it? (Of course, there are other elements to the
program as well, such as teaching the student to see the system as helpful
and friendly to them rather than punitive.)
Bruce A.
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/11 "2003-03-24T21:43:41Z")
[Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1643)]
Bill Powers (2003.03.24.0956 MST)
> > The teacher could point out that the student presumably could
> > have chosen not to disrupt, so the choice to disrupt led to the trip to
> > the designated room.
>
> That's fine, if it happens that the disruption was consciously chosen. But
> classroom disruptions are, in my opinion, mostly side-effects of
> controlling for something else.
True. But we hold the surgeon responsible for leaving the retractor
inside you when she closed even though no one suspects that she did so
consciously or intentionally.
> > In that sense the trip is the result of the
> > student's choice not something that the student had nothing to do with
> > bringing about.
>
> I truly don't see the advantage of putting this interpretation on it. It's
> obvious to everyone that the \_occasion\_ for the student's being ejected is
> the student's commission of an act that the teacher finds unacceptable,
> unacceptable enough to decide to invoke whatever rule applies to it. But
> the rules are always invoked and enforced by someone. I was on a UFO
> investigation once, chewing the fat with a couple of Pennsylvania state
> troopers while looking down from a hilltop on a freeway full of whizzing
> cars. I made some remark that they seemed to be going pretty fast, and the
> senior trooper said, "We give 'em five, they take ten, and we nail 'em on
> fifteen." That's how enforcement of the rules works. That trooper was not
> at all confused about who was responsible for what.
I understand your point, but I don't see why it represents a challenge
to my statement. We don't complain if the trooper gives us a pass a 10
mph over the speed limit, but we sure know we were speeding when he
tickets us at 15 mph over the limit.
> > The rule has nothing to do with student's agreement, anymore than the
> > rule against speeding requires each driver to agree to it and to think
> > it applies in his or her case.
>
> I don't agree. If your Significant Other is in the middle of a heart attack
> and you're driving him or her to the hospital, you have every right to
> speed where you think it's safe and ignore the speed limit and other
> traffic rules. And the rule is unlikely to be applied by any passing
> patrol; in fact, you will probably pick up an escort after a quick
> conversation.
I agree, but again I fail to see how this challenges my statement. When
I break the rule, I know I am breaking it. I don't expect to be
ticketed, but I might be. Of course I would appeal...
> The effectiveness of most rules (laws), I have heard lawyers say, depends
> on general agreement with them. Rules that that are not agreed to by most
> of those affected are regularly flouted, and cases based on them are
> regularly thrown out of court. The agreement of those subject to rules is,
> I believe, essential to the functioning of any viable society. Since this
> is true in the real world, it should also be true in the microcosm in which
> we try to teach children how the world really is.
We generally agree the robbery is wrong, but this view does not have to
be shared by those who commit it. The student who disrupts cannot opt
out of the agreement by saying that it doesn't apply to him.
> Unless someone decides to make a Supreme Court case of it just because
> there's an implied criticism of a small part of the RTP program.
I take it that you are referring to me. Actually I have no experience
with the RTP program so I'm not in a position to argue anything before
the Supreme Court.
>
\>
> A disruption is a \_consequence\_ of what the child consciously "chose" to
> do; but whether the disruption itself was the controlled variable or only a
> side-effect of controlling something else has to be determined case by
> case. Your assumption that the disruption is always what the child intends
> to bring about is simply unwarranted.
I never said that the child intended to bring about the disruption, nor
do I believe it. But like the surgeon, the child is responsible whether
or not it was what he intended. Unless, of course children are not
responsible for their actions.
> In adult life, for which we are presumably preparing these school-children,
> a bad effect produced by someone's behavior is not automatically treated as
> an offense. The prosecution is required not only to show that the bad
> effect occurred, but that it was intended.
Not true. Carelessness is not exculpatory.
\> \>I am not trying to fool anyone. Least of all the student. I don't know
> \>what i have to do to disabuse of this notion. Perhaps it is impossible.
>
> I'm sure you're not trying to fool anyone, because you believe that what
> you're saying (as far as you've thought it through) is true. But I'm saying
> that it's not necessarily true, and in the cases where it's not -- where
> the child did not in fact make a conscious choice as described -- there can
> be an effect of fooling the child into distrusting the evidence of
> introspection. Of course, since you believe it is true, you are being
> fooled, too -- by whom or what, I don't know.
You haven't convinced me that what I have said is mistaken. We clearly
have different views about responsibility. I simply don't buy the view
that you are not responsible for the consequences of your actions if you
did not intend them. If I were completely off base, malpractice
insurance would be a lot less expensive.
> What you're proposing, as near as I can comprehend it, is that we rely on a
> metaphor in teaching children about social relations. You're saying, "It's
> \_as if\_ the child had chosen to be sent from class, and chose disruption as
> the means of doing so."
I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. I am invoking no
metaphors. I thought you agreed with my suggested wording above.
> > > \>Nasty? I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
> > >
> > > I see. So you \_did\_ have an idea you were being nasty, but figured I
> > > would
> > > be insensitive to it.
> >
> > Does your rejoinder seem logical to you? It seems like a total non
> > sequitur to me.
>
> Odd. It's clear to me. You said, "I'm sorry. I had no idea you were so
> sensitive." You seem to be apologizing ("I'm sorry") for the nastiness, and
> indicating that if you had known I was so sensitive, you would not have
> spoken that way.
That's true. But why did you say that I did have the idea I was being
nasty but figured you would be insensitive to it? You are \_much\_ too
subtle for me, I am afraid.
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/12 "2003-03-24T21:58:32Z")
[From Bruce gregory (2003.0324.1658)]
Bruce Abbott (2003.0324.1620 EST)
> The alternative phrases that have been suggested by various parties may
> achieve this end without asserting what may be untrue (in most cases the
> student probably didn't "choose" to be expelled from the room, but instead
> simply failed to inhibit his or her own disruptive behavior, for whatever
> unspecified reasons). But whatever alternative is used as a substitute to
> "I see you have chosen," it should accomplish the reminding listed above,
> to help the student understand the linkage between his or her own actions
> and the consequences. With enough repetitions, the student may begin to
> think of the potential consequences of certain behaviors and set a
> reference for inhibiting them before they occur. That's what "responsible
> thinking" refers to, isn't it? (Of course, there are other elements to the
> program as well, such as teaching the student to see the system as helpful
> and friendly to them rather than punitive.)
This is my interpretation as well. Let's see if it works any better for
you...
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/13 "2003-03-24T22:44:25Z")
[From Bill Powers (2003.03.24.1450 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1643)--
This game, too, is almost over, though not all loose ends will ever be
trimmed off, Maybe the important remaining question is that of
"responsibility". This term can be understood in two only loosely related
ways. The first is in the sense of causation. The earthquake that took
place near San Diego yesterday (I'm making this up) "was responsible" for
the tremors felt in Los Angeles. This meaning of responsibility merely
identifies the cause of something.
The other meaning usually goes with "hold responsible", meaning to assign
blame or culpability. A surgeon is held responsible, as you say, for
leaving a sponge inside a patient, and therefore can be sued for damages.
This is independent of whether the surgeon intended to leave the sponge
there; in fact we assume it was an accident. The supposition is that he is
required to use due diligence and care by checking for such things, so
basically he is being sued for negligence. If we thought he left the sponge
there intentionally, we might hold him reponsible for murder or attempted
murder.
There are all kinds of consequences for which people can be held
responsible, with penalties that range from probation to death. There is no
necessary connection, however, between being responsible in the causal
sense and being held responsible in the sense of culpability. Many women in
Salem, MA were held responsible for the souring of cows' milk, or
sicknesses, and were put to death for this, but of course we no longer
believe any of them were causally responsible for those effects. Likewise,
a person can be causally responsible for something without being held
culpable, subject to punishment, for it, just as we would think it
ludicrous to hold the earthquake culpable for the broken dishes in LA and
sue it for damages.
So: a student can be responsible for a disruption in the causal sense
without being responsible in the sense of culpability. And the student can
be held responsible not so much merely because he or she IS responsible,
but as a way of teaching a lesson. Bruce Abbott in his post of this date
says it clearly:
\>(1) The rule is, if you behave disruptively, you will be sent to the
\>special room.
\>(2) You are in charge of (in control of, and therefore responsible for)
\>your own behavior.
\<(3) By behaving disruptively, you have triggered (are responsible for
\>initiating) the consequence specified by the rule.
\>In other words, the focus seems to be on fostering in the student the
\>development of self-control.
Rather than "self-control" ( in deference to the present company where it
is agreed that all behavior is self control) I would say "awareness of
possible side-effects of actions." Otherwise, I agree that this is the
lesson we all hope will be learned. By ignoring side-effects, one can be
accused of negligence. I am not sure that there is a one-size-fits-all cure
for this defect, but since under RTP the only consequence of it is to be
sent to a room where a friendly teacher will try to help you work out a way
of remembering to be more aware, no great harm is done. And the great
advantage is that while the student is off figuring out a plan, the teacher
is teaching without any intended or unintended interruptions.
The point is that we HOLD the student responsible, not just that he or she
IS responsible in the causal sense. The purpose in holding someone
responsible for some effect is generally to change the person's behavior in
relation to that effect: to get the person to start or stop producing that
effect. The RTP program holds the student responsible for causing
disruptions, whether intended or not, and the purpose of the consequences
is to train the student to be aware that this can happen and to avoid
causing it again.
Finally, one last important point, one actually made by Ed Ford. Since
"holding responsible" is done by a party other than the offender, it is
actually possible to hold anyone responsible for anything -- to call
anything, like speaking too loudly when the teacher comes to class with a
hangover, a "disruption." Whether any given act or omission is a disruption
is a subjective call. So Ed Ford goes to some lengths to lay out what
should and should not be considered a disruption.
For example, forgetting to bring a pencil to class, or failing to turn in
homework, or looking out the window and not paying attention, or even
quietly dozing in one's seat, do not constitute disruptions. These actions
do not interfere with anyone's right to learn, or with the teacher's right
to teach in peace. Those are the criteria for deciding whether a disruption
has taken place. This greatly curtails the teacher's freedom to define as a
disruption anything he or she happens not to like. It's still not a
perfectly clear definition, but it's a lot better than what went before it.
My only remaining quibble is with Bruce Abbotts apparent assumption that
rules exist as natural phenomena and are automatically triggered, without
human intervention, by the commission of certain acts. I anticipate no
objections when I say that never happens.As the cops say, somebody has to
sign the complaint, or there's no bust. It's all about taking
responsibility -- even for making accusations.
Kids learn far more from what we do than from what we say to them. I should
think teachers would want to show themselves as taking maximum
reponsibility for the actions that everyone can plainly see them carrying
out. "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse for anything.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Abbott_Bruce)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/14 "2003-03-25T21:55:12Z")
[From Bruce Abbott (2003.03.25.1655 EST)]
> Bill Powers (2003.03.24.1450 MST) --
\>\>Me:
> \>In other words, the focus seems to be on fostering in the student the
> \>development of self-control.
>
> Rather than "self-control" ( in deference to the present company where it
> is agreed that all behavior is self control) I would say "awareness of
> possible side-effects of actions." Otherwise, I agree that this is the
> lesson we all hope will be learned.
I would suggest that "self control" as it is usually understood means being
able to inhibit one's own behavior when this is necessary for one's own
welfare. For example, a person who wants to stick to a diet would be
exerting "self control) by not giving into temptation and eating certain
prohibited foods that the person very much likes. As you say, the
side-effects of attempting to control one variable (e.g., perceiving the
taste of the forbidden food) act as a disturbance to some other controlled
variable (being at a certain desired weight). In the RTP program, the
student must be convinced to adopt the goal of not creating disturbances in
the classroom, and then must learn how to control those other variables
important to him or her (e.g., getting attention from the teacher or
classmates) in a way that does not produce disruption of the class as a
side-effect. Partly this means that the student must learn to inhibit
certain behaviors at those times during class when he or she would be
tempted to engage in them. Part of the training involves interrupting the
student who has failed to exert this inhibition, remind him or her of the
rule, and apply the consequent removal from the classroom.
\>My only remaining quibble is with Bruce Abbotts apparent assumption that
> rules exist as natural phenomena and are automatically triggered, without
> human intervention, by the commission of certain acts. I anticipate no
> objections when I say that never happens.As the cops say, somebody has to
> sign the complaint, or there's no bust. It's all about taking
> responsibility -- even for making accusations.
I'm glad you wrote "apparent" assumption because it certainly wasn't one I
intended to make. However, I would assert that it should make little
practical difference whether the "rules" exist as natural phenomena or have
been artificially constructed by the teacher, so long as the student has
bought into the fairness of the artificial rules. If you have been warned
not to stick your finger into the light socket, you have no reason to be
angry with anyone but yourself if you ignore the advice and end up
receiving a painful jolt. The same should be true if you have agreed that
your disruptive behavior should result in your removal from the classroom,
and you then disrupt.
Bruce A.
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/15 "2003-03-25T22:38:46Z")
[From Bill Powers (2003.03.25.1534 MST)]
Bruce Abbott (2003.03.25.1655 EST)--
> > Rather than "self-control" ( in deference to the present company where it
> > is agreed that all behavior is self control) I would say "awareness of
> > possible side-effects of actions." Otherwise, I agree that this is the
> > lesson we all hope will be learned.
>
> I would suggest that "self control" as it is usually understood means being
> able to inhibit one's own behavior when this is necessary for one's own
> welfare.
There are two ways to "inhibit" a behavior. Set the reference signal for
the behavior in question to zero or the neutral state, or set up a second
control system the output of which will oppose the output of the system
producing the behavior to be inhibited. Which one of these are you
recommending?
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 1:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/16 "2003-03-26T01:28:40Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1730)]
Bruce Abbott (2003.0324.1620 EST)--
> > Before they entered the RTP, these students may have tended to see
> > themselves as helpless victims of a system
Rick Marken (2003.03.24.1415) --
> Is this really something PCT tells us about kids who behave disruptively?
Bruce:
> > Also, such students may have difficulty keeping mindful at any
> > given moment of the likely consequences of behaving disruptively.
Me:
> Again, is this something PCT tells us about kids who behave
> disruptively?
Bruce:
> > I suspect that the "I see you have chosen" phrase was intended
> > to remind the student of the following:...
Me:
> What does PCT tell us that would lead us to chose "I see you
> have chosen" as the phrase that would foster self-control?
Bruce:
> > But whatever alternative is used as a substitute to
> > "I see you have chosen," it should accomplish the reminding
> > listed above, to help the student understand the linkage
> > between his or her own actions and the consequences.
Me:
> Is this a conclusion based on PCT?
Bruce:
> > With enough repetitions, the student may begin to think of
> > the potential consequences of certain behaviors and set a
> > reference for inhibiting them before they occur.
Me:
> Again, is this a conclusion based on PCT?
Since Bruce doesn't seem to be able to answer these questions perhaps someone
who knows more about this than we do could answer them. I've always wanted to
know how one gets from PCT to "I see you have chosen". My suspicion has been
that things actually went in the other direction.
Best
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
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 1:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/17 "2003-03-26T01:40:40Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0325.2040)]
Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1730)
> Since Bruce doesn't seem to be able to answer these questions perhaps someone
> who knows more about this than we do could answer them. I've always wanted to
> know how one gets from PCT to "I see you have chosen". My suspicion has been
> that things actually went in the other direction.
Your points are well taken. There are a lot of things that PCT doesn't
tell us about human behavior. Thanks for listing some of them.
> **···**
>
> --
> Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
> Canadian Province of New England.
>
> www.joincanadanow.org
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 1:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/18 "2003-03-26T01:59:00Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1800)]
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0325.2040)--
>
> Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1730)
>
> \> Since Bruce doesn't seem to be able to answer these questions perhaps someone
> \> who knows more about this than we do could answer them. I've always wanted to
> \> know how one gets from PCT to "I see you have chosen". My suspicion has been
> \> that things actually went in the other direction.
>
> Your points are well taken. There are a lot of things that PCT doesn't
> tell us about human behavior. Thanks for listing some of them.
You're welcome.
Since all the things I listed are (or were) RTP practices, I presume you agree,
then, that RTP cannot possibly have been based on PCT.
Best regards
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken
> MindReadings.com
> marken@mindreadings.com
> 310 474-0313
---
### Author:  [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 3:17am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/19 "2003-03-26T03:17:18Z")
[From Bruce Nevin (2003.03.25 22:17 EST]
If someone says "I see that you have chosen [to undergo the sanction associated with violating a rule]" it may be that they are not dishonest but rather mistaken.
There are many opportunities for mistake here.
- The commonplace mistake of identifying what someone is doing (intentions) by observing what they are doing (actions).
- The assumption that violation of the rule is deliberate (a control action).
- The assumption that violations of the rule are variables controlled as such by this person.
- The assumption that the rule is a controlled variable.
Maybe some others.
Some of these are ruled out by the Test, as embodied in teaching the rules of the classroom and verifying that each kid has learned them. If that is so, then it's a choice of is it deliberate or are you distracted and forgetful - is it that you have chosen, or is it that you can't help it. If the answer to either is "yes" then the special classroom is the place to work on it. If the kid is not still in process of learning to distinguish those non-studious things that are disruptions from those that are not, or is only a bit distracted and has an "Oops!" kind of recognition, no sanction.
Saying this (or whatever words draw the line) is likely to disturb a variable that the kid is controlling. If the kid agrees, fine, no disturbance. But even if there is no further interaction in the classroom, if the kid thinks, say, that it's unfair, the resistance to that disturbance is likely to be voiced in the one-on-one with the counselor/teacher. A Test, not so much for the teachers to find out, but for the kid to find out what CVs they're controlling, and then work out more effective ways of controlling.
To object that saying something like "I see that you have chosen" etc. is dishonest is to identify what the teacher is doing (intention) by observing what they are saying (action), and in this we would be mistaken. PCT is clear about that.
PCT is not clear about social arrangements - which include in their most overt and perhaps least interesting form such things as codified rules, agreements, and sanctions - because so little research has been done on them. Indeed, their very existence has been questioned here in the past, and we're still grappling conceptually with how to frame the problem so that meaningful experiments can be set up. But we can't expect a science in its infancy to tell us everything about human behavior immediately.
/Bruce Nevin
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 5:10am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/20 "2003-03-26T05:10:27Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.25.2110)]
> Bruce Nevin (2003.03.25 22:17 EST) --
>
> If someone says "I see that you have chosen [to undergo the sanction
> associated with violating a rule]" it may be that they are not dishonest
> but rather mistaken.
I agree. But it is definitely true that whoever says this without testing to see
that the kid really had chosen the sanction either doesn't understand basic PCT
or, if they do, is intentionally lying.
> There are many opportunities for mistake here.
>
> - The commonplace mistake of identifying what someone is doing (intentions)
> by observing what they are doing (actions).
>
> - The assumption that violation of the rule is deliberate (a control action).
>
> - The assumption that violations of the rule are variables controlled as
> such by this person.
>
> - The assumption that the rule is a controlled variable.
>
> Maybe some others.
>
> Some of these are ruled out by the Test, as embodied in teaching the rules
> of the classroom and verifying that each kid has learned them.
This Test doesn't rule out any of the above. In the case of the last one, just
because a kid can demonstrate that they have learned a rule doesn't mean that he
or she is (or is going to be) controlling for following it.
> To object that saying something like "I see that you have chosen" etc. is
> dishonest is to identify what the teacher is doing (intention) by observing
> what they are saying (action), and in this we would be mistaken. PCT is
> clear about that.
I'm not objecting because I think the teacher is being intentionally dishonest.
I imagine most teachers really believe what they say. I'm objecting because it
is almost certainly untrue whenever it is used and, therefore, many kids would
lose respect for a teacher who said such a thing because the teacher would seem
to the kids to be either dishonest or unbelievably stupid.
> PCT is not clear about social arrangements
It seems to me that PCT is exceptionally clear about social arrangements, what
they are and how they work. An excellent quantitative treatment of social
arrangements is given by Bourbon (1990) Invitation to the Dance, \_American
Behavioral Scientist\_, 34, pp. 95-105
Best
Rick
> **···**
>
> --
> Richard S. Marken
> MindReadings.com
> marken@mindreadings.com
> 310 474-0313
[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679.md?page=2)