> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Game Over
>
> > [From bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)]
> >
> > Bill Powers (2003.03.30.2023 MST)
> > \>
> > \> Tom Hancock (2003.03.30.1550 PST) --
> > \>
> > \> I see that I need not have worried about "taking something away" from
>
> you,
>
> > \> or Paule. I retire from the field, utterly defeated.
> >
> > As others are discovering, it is easy to underestimate the gain with
> > which people control higher order perceptions.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
> > Canadian Province of New England.
> >
> > www.joincanadanow.org
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/70 "2003-03-31T12:52:38Z")
> As others are discovering, it is
> easy to underestimate the gain with
>
> which people control higher order perceptions.
> [From Bill Powers (2003.03.31.0540 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)–
Yes. My mistake.
This makes me wonder how seriously others take the idea that “it’s
all perception.” My suspicion is that many people would like to
reserve judgment about certain special perceptions, like “my
wife” or “my brain”, and others. It is difficult, and a
little frightening at first, to include _everything we experience_ when
we mouth this slogan. It kind of makes one wish that one had someone in
here to hold one’s hand, instead of knowing of the existence and nature
of kindred souls only indirectly, by inference, by signals sent from
unknown places through the dark, by effects that surprise us and, in the
end, convince us we are not alone. When one becomes aware of this problem
there is a great emptiness where the old reality was. One must be careful
about what is selected to fill that emptiness.
Nobody can be blamed for trying to fill it.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/71 "2003-03-31T14:49:27Z")
[From Rick Marken (2003.03.31.0950)]
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)–
>
> > As others are discovering,
> > it is easy to underestimate the gain with
> >
> > which people control higher order perceptions.
I don’t think people are any more stubborn (high gain) about keeping
higher order perceptions under control than they are about keeping lower
order perceptions under control. For example, I don’t think people
are any more willing to give up control of a configuration perception,
like their upright posture, than of a system concept perception, like Christianity.
At least I haven’t found this to be true. I get as much resistance when
I try to push a person out of their chair as when I try to push them towards
PCT. That’s why it’s impossible to convince people with non-PCT agendas
to sign up to the PCT agenda. You can’t argue (disturb) people into changing
their agenda.
A person will change their agenda (reference for a higher order perception)
only if the agenda itself includes a basis for abandoning the agenda. The
only agendas I know of that include such bases for self rejection are those
that are scientific. Since PCT is scientific, it includes a basis for abandoning
itself: empirical evidence that clearly differs from what the model predicts.
If such evidence is found, you can be sure that PCT will be abandoned,
in the sense that it will be changed, as necessary, to fit _all_ the evidence.
Most agendas look only for confirmation and ignore evidence of contradiction
(look at the Republican agenda, for example; tons of contradictory evidence
but nothing but defense against that evidence). Scientific agendas, like
PCT, are forthrightly tentative. People control for scientific agendas
by constantly subjecting these agendas to the disturbance of experimental
test.
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](mailto:rmarken@rand.org)
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/72 "2003-03-31T16:42:20Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.1139)]
Bill Powers (2003.03.31.0540 MST)
> This makes me wonder how seriously others take the idea that "it's all
> perception." My suspicion is that many people would like to reserve
> judgment about certain special perceptions, like "my wife" or "my
> brain", and others. It is difficult, and a little frightening at first,
> to include \_everything we experience\_ when we mouth this slogan. It kind
> of makes one wish that one had someone in here to hold one's hand,
> instead of knowing of the existence and nature of kindred souls only
> indirectly, by inference, by signals sent from unknown places through
> the dark, by effects that surprise us and, in the end, convince us we
> are not alone. When one becomes aware of this problem there is a great
> emptiness where the old reality was. One must be careful about what is
> selected to fill that emptiness.
I gave a talk to the video people in our science education group a few weeks
ago. I told them that the only things we know are our experiences
(perceptions) and the stories we tell about those experiences. The audience
was very enthusiastic. I'm sure that their enthusiasm depended on their
thinking that I was talking just about science and not about everything.
---
### Author:  [@Paule\_A\_Steichen\_Asc](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Paule_A_Steichen_Asc)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/73 "2003-03-31T17:10:01Z")
Beautifully on target.
I am defeated…not really… because I was going to correct my discourse by saying that I sould have said "“I believe” and not make a general statement. But then, I copycatted the previous statement.
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int’l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
[pasteichenasch@fuse.net](mailto:pasteichenasch@fuse.net)
> **···**
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > **From:**
> > Bill Powers
>
> > **To:** CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
>
> > **Sent:** Monday, March 31, 2003 7:52 AM
>
> > **Subject:** Re: Game Over
>
> >
>
> > > ```
> > > As others are discovering, it is easy to underestimate the gain with
> > > which people control higher order perceptions.
> > >
> > > ```
> >
> > [From Bill Powers (2003.03.31.0540 MST)]
> >
> > Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)–
>
> Yes. My mistake.
>
> This makes me wonder how seriously others take the idea that “it’s all perception.” My suspicion is that many people would like to reserve judgment about certain special perceptions, like “my wife” or “my brain”, and others. It is difficult, and a little frightening at first, to include _everything we experience_ when we mouth this slogan. It kind of makes one wish that one had someone in here to hold one’s hand, instead of knowing of the existence and nature of kindred souls only indirectly, by inference, by signals sent from unknown places through the dark, by effects that surprise us and, in the end, convince us we are not alone. When one becomes aware of this problem there is a great emptiness where the old reality was. One must be careful about what is selected to fill that emptiness.
>
> Nobody can be blamed for trying to fill it.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Paule\_A\_Steichen\_Asc](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Paule_A_Steichen_Asc)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/74 "2003-03-31T18:13:30Z")
At first sight, and humbly again, I find that excellent.
Phenomenology – how does it jive with PCT?
I often find people who will change their lofty agenday to down-to-earth statements and reactions…
The notion of the agenda including its own demise is puzzling to me…maybe I just do not understand. I guess we could use the word denial? Or acceptance?
Yesterday a helicopter pilot read his journal on tv after a night flight, being shot at. He said his heart was pounding out of his chest. When he got off, his right leg stopped shaking.
How interesting (all homager paid to this courageous man).
Then there is a lot of talk about training / brain training there. What kept him going?
A “virus of the mind”, i.e. association between two ideas? (Brodie, Richard “Virus of the Mind: the new science of the meme”. Seattle, Integral press, 1996).
How puzzling indeed.
I respectfully submit those scientif thoughst (or so I think they are).
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int’l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
[pasteichenasch@fuse.net](mailto:pasteichenasch@fuse.net)
> **···**
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > **From:**
> > Richard Marken
>
> > **To:** CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
>
> > **Sent:** Monday, March 31, 2003 9:49 AM
>
> > **Subject:** Re: Game Over
>
> >
>
> > [From Rick Marken (2003.03.31.0950)]
> >
> > > ```
> > > Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)--
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > > As others are discovering, it is easy to underestimate the gain with
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > which people control higher order perceptions.
> >
> > I don’t think people are any more stubborn (high gain) about keeping higher order perceptions under control than they are about keeping lower order perceptions under control. For example, I don’t think people are any more willing to give up control of a configuration perception, like their upright posture, than of a system concept perception, like Christianity. At least I haven’t found this to be true. I get as much resistance when I try to push a person out of their chair as when I try to push them towards PCT. That’s why it’s impossible to convince people with non-PCT agendas to sign up to the PCT agenda. You can’t argue (disturb) people into changing their agenda.
>
> > A person will change their agenda (reference for a higher order perception) only if the agenda itself includes a basis for abandoning the agenda. The only agendas I know of that include such bases for self rejection are those that are scientific. Since PCT is scientific, it includes a basis for abandoning itself: empirical evidence that clearly differs from what the model predicts. If such evidence is found, you can be sure that PCT will be abandoned, in the sense that it will be changed, as necessary, to fit _all_ the evidence. Most agendas look only for confirmation and ignore evidence of contradiction (look at the Republican agenda, for example; tons of contradictory evidence but nothing but defense against that evidence). Scientific agendas, like PCT, are forthrightly tentative. People control for scientific agendas by constantly subjecting these agendas to the disturbance of experimental test.
>
> > 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](mailto:rmarken@rand.org)
---
### Author:  [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/75 "2003-03-26T16:46:49Z")
[From Bruce Nevin (2003.03.26 11:46 EST)]
Rick Marken (2003.03.25.2110)–
> 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.
The question is either about what teachers actually do, or about what a
particular book offered as a formulaic summary of how teachers should
proceed. Equivocating between these has confused this discussion for
years.
If it is about what teachers actually do, they don’t use this expression,
and you don’t know whether they have tested to see whether the kid has
chosen the sanction or not.
If it is about what a particular book offered as a formulaic summary of
how to proceed, then, yes, the formulaic summary is wrong. I could be
mistaken but I think we have all agreed about that. In any case, I
conceded that long ago.
Having conceded that, we could talk about what would be a better summary.
This could be based on what trained teachers actually do, and it could be
based on theoretical abstractions of PCT uninformed by empirical
classroom data, or some combination. Any such discussion of the intention
behind the “I see you have chosen” formula should not be
mistaken for defense of that formula. But it has. Repeatedly. (An example
of the equivocation mentioned above.)
> > There are many opportunities for mistake
> > here.
>
> …
>
> > 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.
Now we are talking about what teachers actually do. Why do you assume
that “having learned a rule” is all that is tested for? You
have no idea what specific disturbances and observations are involved in
the give-and-take of the classroom. This objection is empty. It has no
empirical content.
> > 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.
Good! The claim that this statement is dishonest when made to children
has been made many times, as can easily be verified by anyone in the
email archive. However, this claim, too, is empirically empty, because
teachers do not actually use this formula. You see, now we are talking
about a formulaic summary in a particular book, but it sounds like we are
talking about the conduct of teachers in the classroom.
Perhaps the objection was that this statement _would_ be dishonest
if it were ever used in the classroom, and that therefore the formulaic
summary is bad advice to teachers in training. But that has been
conceded. See above.
> 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.
Perhaps this is why teachers don’t actually use it.
> > 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
It’s been a while since I’ve seen this, and I don’t now have a copy
(having lent mine instead of photocopying it, often a mistake). My
recollection is that it is concerned only with the second type of
variable noted in my (2003.03.18 21:43 EST). It does not talk about the
third type of variable. But, admirable as it is, this is one paper. The
body of research into variables of type 2 is very small, and PCT research
into variables of type 3 has so far as I know only been suggested (e.g.
by Martin Taylor at the 1993 CSG meeting, and in the above CSG
post).
Here are the three types of variables I identified in (2003.03.18 21:43
EST):
1. Controlled variables.
2. Collective outcomes of individual control, probably irrelevant to
it.
3. Collective outcomes of cooperative control, which facilitate it or may
even make it possible in some instances. A pre-existing social heritage
for any newborn. (Origins in prehistory another discussion.)
Comments on research into social arrangements should be addressed to that
thread, not this one.
```
/Bruce
```
Nevin
> **···**
>
> At 12:10 AM 3/26/2003, Richard Marken wrote:
---
### Author:  [@Dag\_Forssell3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dag_Forssell3)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679/76 "2003-03-27T19:30:57Z")
[From Dag Forssell (2003 0327 1130]
> [From Rick Marken (2003.03.26.0850)]
>
> ...He, like Ed, looked for blanket approval of his program from the PCT
> theorists and when it as not forthcoming, broke off contact with the PCT
> community.
Is it not wonderful that you, having for many years repeatedly insulted,
attacked the personal beliefs of, and misrepresented Ed, Tom and a few
others to the point that they signed off CSGnet, can state with confidence
the real reason they no longer subscribe to CSGnet or attend CSG
conferences. I am pleased to see that Bill (2003.03.26.1143MST) did not let
this nauseating post pass.
> The problem, I think, is that some people start with an agenda (and firmly
> help set
> of beliefs) and end up at PCT as the justification for that agenda.
Yeah, such as your frequently espoused political convictions.
> Such people are going to defend their agenda from even minor criticisms
> that are based on PCT. Thus we had this ridiculous flap about "I see you
> have chosen...".
"Such people" would never apply to Rick Marken, would it? This "flap" went
on for four years with lots of sane voices telling you over and over that
your argument was overstated and ridiculous. Never mind that Ed, whom this
argument was all about, was not subscribed to CSGnet (an insignificant
ethical consideration). Nobody ever asked him by picking up the phone or
visiting. A while back, you brushed off your personal committment to Tom,
made at the 1998 conference, to find out what you were talking about before
commenting further on RTP. You are indeed defending your agenda. Just see
your reply to Bill yesterday.
> People who come to PCT with an agenda will revise their understanding of
> PCT before they will even consider revising their agenda (saying "I see
> you have chosen" was part of many people's agenda, for some reason ). If
> the going gets too rough, as it did for Glasser, these people will do what
> Glassser did and simply revise their attitude toward PCT so that hey no
> longer like PCT.
It sure is comforting to know that you can tell with such certainty what
people are doing by watching what they are doing, even if it is only
through select snippets of their writings or hearsay. It is also neat that
you can write the history of PCT from your personal memory and
interpretation. We will all be better off. No need for the CSGnet archive.
> Ed's program (like Glasser's) is probably perfectly humane and respectful
> in actual
> practice. But is is not \_based on\_ PCT.
Are you living your life \_based on\_ PCT? Does anyone? Have you been posting
\_based on\_ PCT all these years? Are you capable of creating a program
\_based on\_ PCT?
I do think it is a fundamental mistake to think that any program can be
rigorously \_based on\_ PCT, or that you can \_apply\_ PCT "from scratch" in
social settings, which I think is the same thing. See my post (20020321
21:30). I'll copy it below for yor convenience. Nobody commented at the
time, so I guess it met with universal, unconditional acceptance :).
> The program consists of things that Ed thought of as respectful ways to
> deal with kids and that he justified, post hoc, with PCT verbiage. I have
> nothing against Ed's program. I do find the pseudo-PCT justifications of
> some RTP ideology and practice to be insufferable but that's just a matter
> of taste. I also find claims that the program is \_based on\_ PCT to be
> annoying. But, again, that's just a matter of taste. If anything I'm kind
> of disappointed because I thought Ed was actually going to develop a
> program \_based on\_ PCT.
This paragraph misrepresents the evolution of RTP. Whatever Ed's
understanding of PCT (we all have our own) he did write and publish books
introducing and explaining PCT long before he addressed the problem of
school "discipline" in collaboration with parents and teachers.
And when you provide pseudo-PCT justifications for your political
convictions, it is just as insufferable. Who are you to be disappointed?
You have done nothing to develop the kind of program Ed has developed.
There are many ways to contribute to the PCT community. You write splendid
articles. Ed has written a good introductory text and has laid awake nights
working out practical approaches in a difficult social setting. Tom has
taught PCT to psych students for more than 15 years and has contributed PCT
research. Phil, Gary and others have written books and chapters. People in
the IAACT group are learning and teaching PCT more and more. Who the hell
are you to pass judgement on any of these people and their contributions?
Have you noticed that Bill is careful not to?
> I hope that some day somebody really does develop a school program based,
> from scratch, on PCT. Such a program may end up looking a lot like Ed's
> and that would be fine with me.
An who will sit in judgement of that? I believe it is a major mistake for
you to think that PCT theorists - without firsthand, in-depth knowledge of
the program - are qualified to sit in an ivory tower such as yours and
pronounce judgement on any social program.
Time for me to get back to work. I really don't have time for this, but
like everyone else, I tend to my major error signals.
Best, Dag
> **···**
>
> ==============
> [From Dag Forssell (20020321 21:30]
>
> \
> The idea that people "apply PCT" is widespread in the community of PCT
> enthusiasts. At our conferences, we talk about "theoreticians" and
> "applications people." The idea here is that the theoreticians pass
> judgement on whether the applications people apply PCT correctly.
>
> I have come to think that for the most part it has been a mistake to talk
> about "applying PCT" this way.
>
> I may or may not portray this quite right, but for what it is worth, I'd
> like to briefly share my perspective on applications with you. I am laying
> out a perspective in progress here.
>
> As an emerging science, PCT (and HPCT) is not equivalent to some kind of
> engineering practice, such as where you can study to be a mechanical
> engineer and apply the theory and practice of what you have learned to the
> design of bridges, for instance.
>
> To me, PCT is more basic. PCT provides an explanation of how living systems
> (organisms) operate. In this regard, I think of it as equivalent to
> Newton's laws of motion or perhaps theoretical physics. PCT is an
> explanation of how and why living organisms work, at all times and in all
> circumstances, always have and always will. Newtons laws of motion explain
> how and why bodies move or don't move at all times and in all
> circumstances, always have and always will. Theoretical physics deals with
> how elementary particles, atoms and molecules interact at all times and in
> all circumstances, always have and always will.
>
> People have been throwing rocks, building catapults and building bridges
> throughout history. I think that people have been practicing (applying) the
> craft of stone-throwing, engineering design and bridge-building when they
> do these things. I don't think that people have been applying Newton's laws
> of motion or theoretical physics when they build catapults or bridges. (Not
> before, not after, Newton was alive or theoretical physics was conceived).
> I say this because I don't think people have a choice in the matter, i.e.
> people can not "not apply" them. The laws of motion operate equally for a
> bad stone-thrower as for an excellent catapult-builder.
>
> The difference would be that once Newton's laws of motion were formulated,
> the catapult-builder has been able to design a better catapult with an
> understanding of the laws of motion in the back of her head. A Newtonian
> theoretician would not necessarily be a good judge of catapults, unless the
> theoretician also has some experience of catapults. The laws of motion are
> not enough in themselves. Laws and explanations are considered in a context
> of personal experience, understanding of the environment, and personal
> preferences.
>
> With regard to PCT, I think that there are indeed a few applications of
> PCT. First, Bill Powers has created several demonstration/simulation
> programs such as the Little Man, which directly employ the organization of
> HPCT. Richard Kennaway is working on simulated robots that directly employ
> the HPCT structure, also with great success. Wolfgang Zocher has replicated
> oculomotor motion in simulations, again directly applying the HPCT
> structure. All this is highly compelling, accessible on the Internet, and
> enhances your understanding of PCT.
>
> The rest of what has been called "Applications of PCT" I currently think of
> as "social designs." Social designs would be programs or recommendations
> designed for some social situations. The designer might or might not have
> some understanding of PCT. Either way, living organisms participating in
> whatever social interactions, comfortably or not, satisfactorily or not,
> productively or not, operate as PCT explains. No exceptions.
>
> I do think that social designs can be better or worse, productive or
> damaging, in part due to the designer(s) understanding of PCT. I think I
> would include an impromptu interchange between two people, or one person
> and a cat, in the category "social design."
>
> The utility of PCT comes into play in the form of understanding by the
> social designer (yourself) of what goes on, as explained by PCT. Therefore,
> I think that the best way to "apply" PCT is to teach it as far and wide as
> possible.
>
> Note that just like the laws of motion explain all kinds of throwing rocks
> in all circumstances, but do not prescribe a good or the best way to throw
> a rock. PCT does not tell you what to do under any circumstances. PCT
> explains what goes on in all circumstances.
>
> PCT theoreticians are not necessarily well equipped to pass judgement on
> your social design in whatever field you operate unless they themselves are
> familiar with the issues and circumstances you are dealing with. Any one
> person's understanding of PCT is always considered in a context of personal
> experience, understanding of the social environment, and personal
> preferences. Theoreticians \_are\_ well equipped to provide you with feedback
> when you explain PCT to them.
>
> \
>
> Best, Dag
[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/game-over/4679.md?page=3)