Game Over

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
21

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.0526)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1800)]

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.

No more than my commute to work is based on PCT. (Although I can
understand the commute very well using PCT.) Neither Ed nor I started
with PCT. We just ended up there.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

22

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.26.0850)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.0526)--

Rick Marken (2003.03.25.1800)--

> 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.

No more than my commute to work is based on PCT. (Although I can
understand the commute very well using PCT.) Neither Ed nor I started
with PCT. We just ended up there.

This is also what happened with Glasser, to whose program Ed's bears a striking
resemblance. Like Ed, Glasser came to PCT after he had already developed his
program. He, like Ed, felt that PCT could be used as the theoretical basis of his
program. 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.

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. 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...". 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.

Ed's program (like Glasser's) is probably perfectly humane and respectful in actual
practice. But is is not _based on_ PCT. 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. 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.

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

23

[From Tom Hancock (2003.03.26.0800 PST)]

   Bill Powers 2003.03.24.1450 MST [in response to Bruce Gregory (2003.0324.1643)]
  
  Bill
  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.
   
  Tom:
  My students (and me) are often aware of quite negative side effects--even the worst possible--yet the person still does the thing. Bill, this is one part of your awesome theory that has been unresolved in me for over 12 years. It has struck me as somewhat akin to Fred Skinner's deterministic views. It is mechanical, reducing this thing that is filled with wonder, called a human, to an electrical circuitry. I do teach PCT, when I am permitted, as the best scientically oriented explanation of how we function, but on this account it just does not fit my own life experience. As some of my grad students have indicated something like, "It is very sensible and helpful for aspects of life, but it does not account for the heart of life (with its joy, despair, etc.) in a way that resonates." Any perceptions or words of wisdom back to me?
  
  Bill:
  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.
   
  Tom:
  Along that line, the following is what I do: My educational concern is mostly to help maximize my students' learning. I take that as my responsibility. So when students are engaged in behaviors that seem to my professional sense to not be the most conducive to their learning, then I will do what I can to bring them around. (Quite challenging! for the good teacher must be aware of the multiple needs of that student and respect their whole hierarchy--including what may send them spinning or what can still be developed so that they are more fully fulfilling the State's concept (and law), and my own best judgment, for them becoming educated.) So in my classes learning is the one need that I treat as uppermost--both learning to be a life-long learner, but also learning that is more immediate. Not only disruptions to the social peace of the classroom are dealt with (which may hinder learning), but I what deem are disruptions to that individual student's education (or "doing time" in the prison of school) are not acceptable to me. Foolishness (what's not best for society nor that person ) is so often bound up in the heart of a child (and adults, too). For example, when my wife was doing something that I knew was not good for her and that I knew she would thank me later for helping her with, then I create some disturbance and risk her temporary limitation or displeasure with me for the sake of what's best for her. I kind of see this example of love as similar to the kind of view that can help a teacher really help their students.........This of course means that I am perhaps attempting to intrude into the sovereignty of that other person's control systems.

24

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1130)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1143MST)--

Bruce Nevin (2003.03.26 11:46 EST)--

>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.

I agree. If Rick would go through his own arguments looking for statements
that are about what is _taught in books_ and what teachers _actually do_,
he would have to strike out most of what he says because he knows he is not
acquainted with what the teachers in RTP actually do, while most of what he
says purports to be about that.

It's so annoying when you do this slimy ingratiating routine at my expense. I
don't do it to you.

Look, why don't you and Bruce go through my written arguments and point out where
what I say is based on the assumption that teachers (in the RTP program or
anywhere else) actually say "I see you have chosen". From my (conscious)
perspective, my arguments regarding the "I see you have chosen" statement are no
more based on the assumption that RTP teachers (or any teacher) actually uses this
statement than are yours. Perhaps you're not being slimy and you are actually
seeing something in my written arguments that I am not aware of. So I'd
appreciate it if you would point it out for me.

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

25

yes... I am a scientist too, as my CV witnesses...and a social psychologist.
The gospel and part. StJohn (gospel AND letters) give me the answer. I am NO
fundamentalist, aa a matter of fact very much into civil rights. But in my
opinion, nothing is more brilliant.
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

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Hancock" <thancock@GEORGEFOX.EDU>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Game Over

[From Tom Hancock (2003.03.26.0800 PST)]

Bill Powers 2003.03.24.1450 MST [in response to Bruce Gregory

(2003.0324.1643)]

Bill
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.

Tom:
My students (and me) are often aware of quite negative side effects--even

the worst possible--yet the person still does the thing. Bill, this is one
part of your awesome theory that has been unresolved in me for over 12
years. It has struck me as somewhat akin to Fred Skinner's deterministic
views. It is mechanical, reducing this thing that is filled with wonder,
called a human, to an electrical circuitry. I do teach PCT, when I am
permitted, as the best scientically oriented explanation of how we function,
but on this account it just does not fit my own life experience. As some of
my grad students have indicated something like, "It is very sensible and
helpful for aspects of life, but it does not account for the heart of life
(with its joy, despair, etc.) in a way that resonates." Any perceptions or
words of wisdom back to me?

Bill:
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.

Tom:
Along that line, the following is what I do: My educational concern is

mostly to help maximize my students' learning. I take that as my
responsibility. So when students are engaged in behaviors that seem to my
professional sense to not be the most conducive to their learning, then I
will do what I can to bring them around. (Quite challenging! for the good
teacher must be aware of the multiple needs of that student and respect
their whole hierarchy--including what may send them spinning or what can
still be developed so that they are more fully fulfilling the State's
concept (and law), and my own best judgment, for them becoming educated.)
So in my classes learning is the one need that I treat as uppermost--both
learning to be a life-long learner, but also learning that is more
immediate. Not only disruptions to the social peace of the classroom are
dealt with (which may hinder learning), but I what deem are disruptions to
that individual student's education (or "doing time" in the prison of
school) are not acceptable to me. Foolishness (what's not best for society
nor that person ) is so often bound up in the heart of a child (and adults,
too). For example, when my wife was doing something that I knew was not
good for her and that I knew she would thank me later for helping her with,
then I create some disturbance and risk her temporary limitation or
displeasure with me for the sake of what's best for her. I kind of see this
example of love as similar to the kind of view that can help a teacher
really help their students.........This of course means that I am perhaps
attempting to intrude into the sovereignty of that other person's control
systems.

26

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1145)]

Tom Hancock (2003.03.26.0800 PST)

      My students (and me) are often aware of quite negative side

effects--even the worst possible--yet the person still does the thing.
Bill, this is one part of your awesome theory that has been unresolved
in me for over 12 years. It has struck me as somewhat akin to Fred
Skinner's deterministic views. It is mechanical, reducing this thing
that is filled with wonder, called a human, to an electrical circuitry.
I do teach PCT, when I am permitted, as the best scientically oriented
explanation of how we function, but on this account it just does not fit
my own life experience. As some of my grad students have indicated
something like, "It is very sensible and helpful for aspects of life,
but it does not account for the heart of life (with its joy, despair,
etc.) in a way that resonates." Any perceptions or words of wisdom back
to me?

I know this question is for Bill, but I'll give you my take on it. PCT
is a model of purposeful action. (It is the only working model.) It does
not account for the emotional qualities associated with this action,
emotional qualities that constitute the quality of life. PCT deals with
error in a system and attempts to reduce it, but does not, as yet, focus
on the feelings of frustration and anger that can accompany a failure to
reduce error.

As I recall, Bill feels that successful control does not "feel" like
anything. In my view, successful control in challenging situations can
feel like happiness or even elation.

27

[From Tom Hancock (2003.0326.0900 PST)]

  Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1145)
  I know this question is for Bill, but I'll give you my take on it. PCT
  is a model of purposeful action. (It is the only working model.) It does
  not account for the emotional qualities associated with this action,
  emotional qualities that constitute the quality of life. PCT deals with
  error in a system and attempts to reduce it, but does not, as yet, focus
  on the feelings of frustration and anger that can accompany a failure to
  reduce error.
  
  Tom:

  It has seemed to me that PCT explains emotions as a sort of epiphenomenon or even a muscle movement or response (like the early behaviorists). Though I am not at peace with considering emotions as the most important part of what it is to be human, to minimize their pervasive place is not the most satisfying explanation. For example, sometimes I would characterize certain people as emotional beings. That is, what best explains and predicts their behavior is the dominant place they have ceded in their lives to their own emotional state....Perhaps, we will get a clarifying PCT statement along these lines.

28

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1044 MST)]

Tom Hancock (2003.03.26.0800 PST)--

>Bill, this is one part of your awesome theory that has been unresolved in
me for over >12 years. It has struck me as somewhat akin to Fred Skinner's
deterministic views. It >is mechanical, reducing this thing that is filled
with wonder, called a human, to an >electrical circuitry.

What is lacking in PCT may not be an appreciation on my part of what it is
to be human, but an appreciation on your part of the things that can be
accomplished by sufficiently advanced organizations of matter. How much do
you know about "electrical circuitry" (or more appropriately, neurology)?
When you think of "mechanism," what comes to mind? I suspect it is quite
different from what comes to my mind.

>I do teach PCT, when I am permitted, as the best scientically oriented
explanation of >how we function, but on this account it just does not fit
my own life experience.

That, of course, is important because PCT is supposed to be an attempt to
cover all aspects of human behavior and experience. I would like to know
just what aspects of your life experience are not at least touched upon in
the general HPCT model -- that is, if you would be willing to allow me to
ask questions.

>As some of my grad students have indicated something like, "It is very
sensible and >helpful for aspects of life, but it does not account for the
heart of life (with its >joy, despair, etc.) in a way that resonates." Any
perceptions or words of wisdom back >to me?

Well, describe to me how you experience these things, and I'll see what I
can do to produce some wisdom, or to get you to do it.

Best,

Bill P.

29

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1317)]

Tom Hancock (2003.0326.0900 PST)

      >
      It has seemed to me that PCT explains emotions as a sort of

epiphenomenon or even a muscle movement or response (like the early
behaviorists). Though I am not at peace with considering emotions as the
most important part of what it is to be human, to minimize their
pervasive place is not the most satisfying explanation. For example,
sometimes I would characterize certain people as emotional beings. That
is, what best explains and predicts their behavior is the dominant place
they have ceded in their lives to their own emotional state....Perhaps,
we will get a clarifying PCT statement along these lines.

I think one can make the case that we are essentially _all_ emotional
beings. That is, we make our decisions on the basis of the emotional
colorings associated with the different outcomes we envision. When the
connection between the prefrontal lobes, where planning takes place, and
the amygdala, which plays a critical role in experiencing emotions, is
broken, individuals have difficulty deciding what course of action to take.

30

for that matter, some brain research says that when we learn our emotions
are activated: no learning no emotion. For that matter, rats who are given
alcohol stop emitting in their brain the necessary elements for learning and
emotion.
How does that relate to prefrontal is another issue. Indeed some other
research (San Francisco, AAAS,2001) showed that people with some addicitons
have more not less neurons in the prefrontal.
I wish I could know it all to understand it all...

The role of emotion (put in motion) is more than an epiphenomenon. It is our
very nature. So how do we organize the whole shabbang to keep in control
both as individuals and as a group... this is the question, is it not?
Can we do it alone?
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

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gregory" <bruce@JOINCANADANOW.ORG>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Game Over

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1317)]

Tom Hancock (2003.0326.0900 PST)
>
> >
> It has seemed to me that PCT explains emotions as a sort of
epiphenomenon or even a muscle movement or response (like the early
behaviorists). Though I am not at peace with considering emotions as the
most important part of what it is to be human, to minimize their
pervasive place is not the most satisfying explanation. For example,
sometimes I would characterize certain people as emotional beings. That
is, what best explains and predicts their behavior is the dominant place
they have ceded in their lives to their own emotional state....Perhaps,
we will get a clarifying PCT statement along these lines.

I think one can make the case that we are essentially _all_ emotional
beings. That is, we make our decisions on the basis of the emotional
colorings associated with the different outcomes we envision. When the
connection between the prefrontal lobes, where planning takes place, and
the amygdala, which plays a critical role in experiencing emotions, is
broken, individuals have difficulty deciding what course of action to

take.

31

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1114 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1145)--

>PCT is a model of purposeful action. (It is the only working model.) It does
>not account for the emotional qualities associated with this action,
emotional >qualities that constitute the quality of life.

They're ganging up on me. Actually, I think I have made considerable
progress in accounting for emotional qualities which are _part_ of the
quality of life but by no means all of it. Considering the discussions on
CSGnet over the past decades, I really don't see how you can say the following:

> PCT deals with error in a system and attempts to reduce it, but does
not, as yet, >focus on the feelings of frustration and anger that can
accompany a failure to
>reduce error.

Are you aware of, and have you given serious consideration, to the theory
of emotion I proposed in Living Control Systems I ? This theory
specifically deals with such feelings, identifying them as composed partly
of somatic sensations and partly of congitive experiences or control
processes. Thus anger would be a set of physical feelings that go with
vasoconstriction, elevated blood pressure, increased respiration and heart
rate, and numerous other perceptions of somatic changes, plus the
cognitive/behavioral goal of attacking or acting in some energetic way
against the object of anger.

>As I recall, Bill feels that successful control does not "feel" like
>anything. In my view, successful control in challenging situations can
>feel like happiness or even elation.

"In challenging situations" implies more than successful control (like
standing upright successfullly, which at least for me has not produced a
feeling of happiness or elation for quite a long time). When there has been
a large effort to correct a large error, the diminution of both error and
effort may well cast a positive interpretation on the whole experience,
including the experience of decreasing somatic sensations left over from
the effort (the feeling of "relief").

I wonder whether the problem here could be that in my analysis of emotion,
I don't give emotion any special place in experience -- it's there, it
happens, we can understand it, but there's nothing magical or supernatural
about it, and nothing to give it any unusual degree of value in itself. A
person who interprets emotions as something of great value, like the
proverbial actress congratulating herself on her superior sensitivities,
might not appreciate a more matter-of-fact treatment of the subject like
mine, in which emotions per se have no existence separate from the normal
working of the hierarchy. It's not that I deny the existence of emotion or
its role in most behavior. It's just that having examined the experience of
emotion rather carefully, I can no longer think of it as the mysterious
thing it used to be for me, and apparently still is for most people.

It would help if those who seemingly reject my model of emotion would
undertake to offer their own, so I could at least get some notion of what
the alternative explanations are.

Best,

Bill P.

32

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1143MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.03.26 11:46 EST)--

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.

I agree. If Rick would go through his own arguments looking for statements
that are about what is _taught in books_ and what teachers _actually do_,
he would have to strike out most of what he says because he knows he is not
acquainted with what the teachers in RTP actually do, while most of what he
says purports to be about that.

Good post, except of course that I still have trouble with your idea of
social controlled variables.

Best,

Bill P.

33

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1400)]

Bruce Abbott (2003.03.26.1510 EST)--

>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.

So, by observing a "behavior" (actually a non-behavior), you have inferred
something about what I am able or not able to do.

Yes. I have made that inference. Being a bridge player I tend to make a lot of
inferences (often wrong;-)) based on people's behavior and non-behavior. In this
case my inference seems to have been correct, however, since you say:

You want to know how one can
"get from PCT" to "I see you have chosen." I don't know.

Adding another zero to the count of explanations I have heard regarding how one
gets from PCT to RTP.

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

34

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.03.26 14:34 EST)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1143MST)--

I still have trouble with your idea of social controlled variables.

Part of the trouble may be in supposing that I am talking about social controlled variables.

Variables of type 2 are not ordinarily controlled variables, although they are collective outcomes of individual control. True, it is possible for an individual to perceive and (attempt to) control e.g. a ring in a crowd, but this is unusual and not characteristic of them.

Variables of type 3 are not controlled variables, although they are collective outcomes of cooperative or communicative control and in at least some cases (e.g. the sound pattern of a language) they appear to be necessary for successful cooperation and communication. True, it is possible for an individual to perceive and (attempt to) control e.g. the sound pattern of Russian, as many linguists have in fact done, but this is unusual and is not a necessary characteristic of these cultural variables.

I am trying to clarify all this and work out how to get at it with PCT research. When you get a chance to push back on the above and on Bruce Nevin (2003.03.18 21:43 EST), etc., I am sure it will be helpful to that effort.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 01:49 PM 3/26/2003, Bill Powers wrote:

35

[From Bruce Abbott (2003.03.26.1440 EST)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.25.1534 MST) --

>Bruce Abbott (2003.03.25.1655 EST)

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?

I think that the RTP places two control systems into conflict: (1) the
system that "wants" to engage in the behavior that produces (intentionally
or as a side-effect) what the teacher labels as a disruption, and (2) a
system that "wants" to stay in the classroom. To the extent that this
conflict leaves both systems experiencing error, one would hypothesize that
this would induce reorganization in a direction that would tend to remove
the conflict. As an example, such reorganization might take the form of
creating a mechanism that turns the gain down on the system that creates
the disruption, whenever the student is in class. (Of course, other
effective changes are possible.)

I'm not "recommending," just attempting to visualize a possible scenario
and not suggesting that the scenario is universal. Each person's
motivations and perceptions may be somewhat different and one would have to
analyze each individual (applying tests for the controlled variable, etc.)
on a case-by-case basis.

Bruce A.

36

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1502)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1114 MST)

> PCT deals with error in a system and attempts to reduce it, but does
not, as yet, >focus on the feelings of frustration and anger that can
accompany a failure to
>reduce error.

Are you aware of, and have you given serious consideration, to the theory
of emotion I proposed in Living Control Systems I ?

I'll reread that. My recollection, quite possibly faulty, is that you
view emotions as an "ephiphenomenon" to the extent that the hierarchy
functions in the same way with or without them.

37

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1500)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1424 MST)--

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1130)--

>It's so annoying when you do this slimy ingratiating routine at my expense. I
>don't do it to you.

Recent example:

>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.

You don't know if any of those things were RTP practices -- that is, ideas
actually put into practice by any significant number of teachers.

I didn't say they were actually put into practice. Anyway, I'm looking at this
argument and I don't see any reason to strike out any of what I said. I might
just add "recommended" prior to "RTP" since you seem to be back to trying to
protect RTP from me using the old "Rick doesn't know what the teachers really do
so don't listen to anything he says about anything related to RTP" canard.

>I'm not objecting because I think the teacher is being intentionally

dishonest.

But Rick, the teachers to whom you refer are imaginary.

No more imaginary than the teachers to whom you refer when you discuss this. In
fact, I am talking about teachers I have had who have said this to me or others.
So they _were_ real teachers.

You don't know if
teachers in RTP use the phrase

I was assuming that they _don't_. I was talking about a principle, not RTP.

This is an example of exactly what Bruce Nevin was talking about:
failure to make it clear that you're describing what is said in teaching
materials, and not what is actually done in RTP classrooms.

There was nothing to clarify. I was not talking about RTP teachers. I never said I
was. I was talking about what I would find offensive about _any_ teacher who used
this phrase. I never even mentioned RTP in the segment you quote. You've said
that Ed told you teachers don't use the phrase anymore and I believe it. I (like
you) was talking about why, in principle, it is offensive to me when people use
that phrase. My argument regarding the merits of saying "I see you have chosen"
has nothing to do with RTP. Bruce Nevin thinks using the phrase is fine and dandy
and is trying to say that my (actually, our) argument is fundamentally flawed
because I am talking about something that is not done in RTP. This is classic
argument by red herring. For you to get out and help wave the herring is what I
find slimy and unattractive.

If you treat the problem as being what is recommended, or was once
recommended, you can discuss what is wrong with the advice without having
to set up some imaginary person who took the advice to get mad at.

I have treated the problem as one that is completely independent of RTP. The fact
that RTP has recommended it is another issue, one that is separate from my
discussion of the merits of saying "I see you have chosen". It's true that I am
questioning the PCT basis of RTP because saying "I see you have chosen" was once a
recommendation of RTP. But that's a different issue. I have problems with the
phrase "I see you have chosen" whether RTP recommends (or uses) it or not. I have
problems believing that RTP is based on PCT whether it recommends (or uses) the
phrase "I see you have chosen" or not.

I have problems with the "I see you have chosen.." phrase because it is
disingenuous, insulting and generally used to evade responsibility. I feel this
way about it whether or not it is used in RTP.

I don't believe RTP (as described!!) is based on PCT because 1) I have seen RTP
sources that say teachers are not controlling kids when they are doing the
controlling recommended by RTP 2) I have never seen any discussion of conflict and
conflict resolution in the RTP literature and 3) other recommended practices (such
as making a plan) don't seem like things one would have thought of if one were
trying to develop a program based on PCT.

Squish, squish,

Yuch. What happened?

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

38

[From Bruce Abbott (2003.03.26.1510 EST)]

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.

So, by observing a "behavior" (actually a non-behavior), you have inferred
something about what I am able or not able to do. There can be reasonable
possibilities other than the one you offered. Why did you select this one?

Actually, I overlooked your earlier post! You want to know how one can
"get from PCT" to "I see you have chosen." I don't know. However, the RTP
program appears to succeed in producing its behavioral-change objectives.
Although some students simply leave school, most of the hard-core students
who have been disrespectful and disruptive learn to eliminate their
disruptive behavior and stay in class; moreover, their attitudes toward the
educational experience often change dramatically for the better (or so we
are told). I would very much like to hear your specific account of how one
can get from PCT to the behavioral change that RTP successfully produces.

Bruce A.

39

[From Fred Nickols (2003.03.26.1610 EST)] --

Bruce Nevin (2003.03.26 14:34 EST)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1143MST)--

I still have trouble with your idea of social controlled variables.

Part of the trouble may be in supposing that I am talking about social
controlled variables.

Variables of type 2 are not ordinarily controlled variables, although they
are collective outcomes of individual control. True, it is possible for an
individual to perceive and (attempt to) control e.g. a ring in a crowd, but
this is unusual and not characteristic of them.

Variables of type 3 are not controlled variables, although they are
collective outcomes of cooperative or communicative control and in at least
some cases (e.g. the sound pattern of a language) they appear to be
necessary for successful cooperation and communication. True, it is
possible for an individual to perceive and (attempt to) control e.g. the
sound pattern of Russian, as many linguists have in fact done, but this is
unusual and is not a necessary characteristic of these cultural variables.

I am trying to clarify all this and work out how to get at it with PCT
research. When you get a chance to push back on the above and on Bruce
Nevin (2003.03.18 21:43 EST), etc., I am sure it will be helpful to that
effort.

        /Bruce Nevin

Fascinating thread. A couple of thoughts occurred to me. The first, with
respect to language, is that we are all controlling for language in the
sense of the sounds we make against our references for said sounds (i.e.,
enunciation and pronunciation to name a couple). Some do better than
others (e.g., those who say "new-clear" instead of
"nuke-you-lur"). Obviously, the reference signals for the sounds we make
vary. But, and second, it also seems that we also have a set of reference
signals for the sounds made by others. Consequently, I are reasonably
certain that President Bush is referring to "nuclear" when he says
"nuke-you-lur" just as I am resonably sure a former boss of mine was
referring to "erudite" when he said "airy-er-dite." We also (or at least
some of us) tend to control for standardization and uniformity in those
larger sound patterns, as is the case when we attempt to correct someone's
pronunciation or enunciation, either as a teacher, tutor, friend or
annoying pest. Ditto for usage, spelling and APOSTROPHES. So, as
individuals, I think we work to control our own "language patterns" and, as
individuals, we also work to control the language patterns of others; thus,
in a way, individuals, collectively, are attempting to control things like
the sound pattern of Russian (or, in my case, the sound pattern of English;
well, not English, really, but, in deference to the British, American English).

I think I'm going to back-track through this thread and see where it's
coming from. Could we change the subject line for this thread to something
other than "game over"? There's way too much under that heading already.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us

40

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1424 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1130)--

>It's so annoying when you do this slimy ingratiating routine at my expense. I
>don't do it to you.

Recent example:

>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.

You don't know if any of those things were RTP practices -- that is, ideas
actually put into practice by any significant number of teachers..

Another:

>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.

But Rick, the teachers to whom you refer are imaginary. You don't know if
teachers in RTP use the phrase, and the whole question of what the kids
would think is based on an hypothesis, so what's the point of getting all
riled up about imaginary teachers seeming "dishonest or unbelievably
stupid"? This is an example of exactly what Bruce Nevin was talking about:
failure to make it clear that you're describing what is said in teaching
materials, and not what is actually done in RTP classrooms. You're
describing what you think teachers would be doing if they were to follow
exactly what is in Ed Ford's books and lectures, and then speaking as if
youy knew they had actually been done that.

If you treat the problem as being what is recommended, or was once
recommended, you can discuss what is wrong with the advice without having
to set up some imaginary person who took the advice to get mad at.

Squish, squish,

Bill P.