Game Over

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1442 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2003.03.26.1440 EST)--

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.)

OK, I'm glad we agree that this kind of "self-control" involves setting up
a conflict.

Why do you put "wants" in quotation marks?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.26.1444 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0326.1502)--

>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.

I think you'll find that my proposal leads to the conclusion that the
hierarchy couldn't function at all without emotions.

Best,

Bill P.

[Stefan_Balke1]

[From Stefan Balke (2003.03.28)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.27.0803 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1400) --

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

Did someone claim that RTP is derived from PCT? I don't think even Ed Ford
ever claimed that -- only that it was compatible with PCT.

That´s new for me, but it makes sense.

How successfully such principles have been put into
practice I do not know in detail; one can't help wondering, if punishment
and reward have really been eliminated, why Ed speaks so often about
separating students from their peers, and restoring the "privilege" of
being with their friends in the classroom. Removal of and restoration of
privileges as a way of encouraging right behavior is not the sort of
approach I would associate with PCT. I could be wrong,

I think you're right.

I don't think that RTP is very important to PCT any more, one way or the
other, since it is now apparently taught just as a straight cookbook

recipe

for how to handle students who disrupt, with no appeal to deeper
theoretical understanding -- at least that I know of.

Not really - of course teachers want cookbook recipes, but more than that
they want to understand the matter, if there is a good explanation. The
problem is that good explanations are rare in the field of classroom
management. I `torture´ my audience with 2-3 hours PCT-theory before
answering practical details of the discipline program. During the breaks
they ask themselves why the atmosphere is so concentrated. - I think the
listeners notice that there are no contradictions in the theoretical and
practical arguments. The acceptence of the program is high - there are until
now more than 100 schools in Germany dealing with it. (There is also
interest in Graz (Austria) - short note for Rick ). I always point out,
that it is necessary to have a background understanding of PCT to be able to
work with unpredicted new problems in the everyday work. Ideas of
punishment, rewards and privileges are often misleading. I think it´s better
to work with an idea like: Don't treat others in a way you don´t want to be
treated by others.

Best regards, Stefan

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2003.03.26.2305CST]

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2003.0323.1940EST)]
<Bruce Gregory (2003.0323.1538)>

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.

Thanks Kenney,
That makes two whole people who read my post. I can hardly stand
the popularity.

BTW you never mentioned whether you got my reply to you about the conference.
Vivian is going to come along. How about Patsy? (We’ll bring
our raquets and you can show us how to do it…)

Best, Dick R

···

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!

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.27.0850)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.27.0803 MST)

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1400) --

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

Did someone claim that RTP is derived from PCT?

Yes. A few days ago, Hank Folson said:

This all part of an agreement about how things work in a
classroom within Ed Ford's definitely PCT based program.

This is the comment to which I have been replying.

I don't think even Ed Ford ever claimed that --

Well, there is this a the top of the responsible thinking web page:

This is the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP). It is based on
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)..

I don't know if Ed wrote it but it is at _his_ web page.

only that it was compatible with PCT.

I think "based on" means something more like "derived from" than "compatible
with".

I think that RTP was derived from Glasser's ideas about "Quality Schools"

I think so too. It would be better, then, if Ed's web page just said "RTP is based
on Glasser's Quality Schools program".

Like Glasser, Ed Ford thought PCT would
provide some scientific justifications for his practices in individual and
family counselling.

Ain't that the truth.

RTP, on the whole, seems to be a worthwhile improvement over other school
discipline programs I have read about, and I think it has adopted some
concepts related to PCT such as avoiding direct conflict with others and
eschewing punishment.

I think the program is fine. I have am not criticizing the program as a program.
It's better than many programs. It''s just not based on PCT. That's all I'm
saying.

The subject of RTP appears to create either-or supporters and detractors,
none of whom contribute much to our understanding because of their
one-sided views. I see good and bad in RTP, but don't actually spend a lot
of time thinking about it any more. I don't have any old arguments about
RTP that I'm still trying to win.

I was not criticizing RTP per se. I was only responding to Hank's comment that RTP
was based on PCT. All I said was that it _wasn't_. That doesn't mean I think
there's anything wrong with RTP. Heck, the New Deal wasn't based on PCT either and
I think it, too, was a good program;-)

The reason I think it's important to understand that RTP is not based on PCT is
because I think PCT _can_ be a basis for developing useful approaches to dealing
with human problems. I am using PCT this way myself now in terms of helping people
make medical safety policy decisions. But I think PCT is going to be most useful
to these kinds of applications if people _start_ with PCT and derive possible
policies _based on_ the model. If people start with the policy or practice and
then use PCT to justify it I think you'll find that people can justify any policy
or practice using PCT post hoc.

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

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.27.1000)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0327.1243)--

Rick Marken (2003.03.27.0850)

> The reason I think it's important to understand that RTP is not based on PCT is
> because I think PCT _can_ be a basis for developing useful approaches to dealing
> with human problems. I am using PCT this way myself now in terms of helping people
> make medical safety policy decisions. But I think PCT is going to be most useful
> to these kinds of applications if people _start_ with PCT and derive possible
> policies _based on_ the model. If people start with the policy or practice and
> then use PCT to justify it I think you'll find that people can justify any policy
> or practice using PCT post hoc.

Does this mean anything more than a recommendation that people start
with the assumption that human beings are autonomous control systems
that act in ways that stabilize their perceptions?

Only to the extent that the "assumption that human beings are autonomous control
systems that act in ways that stabilize their perceptions" is embodied in a detailed,
quantitative model that maps in a particular way to behavior. By using this model
properly one can learn things about the effects of various policies and practices that
might not be obvious from just keeping in mind the verbal idea that behavior is the
control of perception. For example, my prescribing model shows that system design
should have little effect on error rate when error rate is already very low. And I am
finding empirical studies that confirm this conclusion, which is contrary to prevailing
wisdom regarding how to reduce errors. I think it would have been difficult to make
this discovery by simply realizing that people are autonomous control systems.

I believe that there is much of practical value that can be discovered using the PCT
model, just as there was much of practical value that was discovered using physical,
chemical and biochemical models. So, yes, I guess I do mean a bit more than that
"people start with the assumption that human beings are autonomous control systems that
act in ways that stabilize their perceptions". I mean people should start with
something like the detailed knowledge of the PCT model that is described in B:CP, MM
and MMM.

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

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.27.0803 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1400) --

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

Did someone claim that RTP is derived from PCT? I don't think even Ed Ford
ever claimed that -- only that it was compatible with PCT. Ed himself has
said that "his program" is based on ideas he worked out long ago. In his
latest conversation with me, in explaining how he and Tom Bourbon came to
part company, Ed said that they no longer teach PCT as such to RTP
teachers, because those teachers really just want to be told what to do,
and are not interested in theory. He said the teachers were baffled by
Tom's advanced classes in PCT and rated his courses very low in value. My
impression was that it was a great relief for Ed not to have to deal with
the details of PCT any more, and also to be out from under Tom's critical eye.

I think that RTP was derived from Glasser's ideas about "Quality Schools"
although some minor details were changed such as exactly which questions
were to be asked and in what order. Like Glasser, Ed Ford thought PCT would
provide some scientific justifications for his practices in individual and
family counselling. Later, Ed shifted from couselling to consulting with
school systems, but his methods remained the same (or so it seemed to me).
RTP, on the whole, seems to be a worthwhile improvement over other school
discipline programs I have read about, and I think it has adopted some
concepts related to PCT such as avoiding direct conflict with others and
eschewing punishment. How successfully such principles have been put into
practice I do not know in detail; one can't help wondering, if punishment
and reward have really been eliminated, why Ed speaks so often about
separating students from their peers, and restoring the "privilege" of
being with their friends in the classroom. Removal of and restoration of
privileges as a way of encouraging right behavior is not the sort of
approach I would associate with PCT. I could be wrong, and expect to be
told I am.

I don't think that RTP is very important to PCT any more, one way or the
other, since it is now apparently taught just as a straight cookbook recipe
for how to handle students who disrupt, with no appeal to deeper
theoretical understanding -- at least that I know of.

The subject of RTP appears to create either-or supporters and detractors,
none of whom contribute much to our understanding because of their
one-sided views. I see good and bad in RTP, but don't actually spend a lot
of time thinking about it any more. I don't have any old arguments about
RTP that I'm still trying to win.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0327.1243)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.27.0850)

The reason I think it's important to understand that RTP is not based on PCT is
because I think PCT _can_ be a basis for developing useful approaches to dealing
with human problems. I am using PCT this way myself now in terms of helping people
make medical safety policy decisions. But I think PCT is going to be most useful
to these kinds of applications if people _start_ with PCT and derive possible
policies _based on_ the model. If people start with the policy or practice and
then use PCT to justify it I think you'll find that people can justify any policy
or practice using PCT post hoc.

Does this mean anything more than a recommendation that people start
with the assumption that human beings are autonomous control systems
that act in ways that stabilize their perceptions?

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0327.1319)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.27.1000)

For example, my prescribing model shows that system design
should have little effect on error rate when error rate is already very low. And I am
finding empirical studies that confirm this conclusion, which is contrary to prevailing
wisdom regarding how to reduce errors. I think it would have been difficult to make
this discovery by simply realizing that people are autonomous control systems.

I would this this finding might have implications for designs of future
space missions, for example.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

Let's try that again:

···

I would think this finding might have implications for designs of future
space missions, for example.

[Tom_Hancock]

[From Tom Hancock (2003.03.27.0800 PST)]

Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1044 MST)

Tom (new):

As I write to you, I confess that I am aware--with Kuhn--that prevailing paradigms (particularly for the leaders of such) are next to impossible to transcend. I proceed because I know that in certain respects you are as I. We desire Truth and do not want to defend something that may be incomplete. The true scientific spirit! but oh so hard to live out due to the frailty of our enormous egos! I am talking about me, anyway.

Bill:

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.

Tom:

I know the latter is true and wonder about the former.

Bill:

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.

Tom:

My knowledge of each is far less developed than yours. However, Bill my point is that the HPCT model is mechanical while actual humans are not. Even physiological correlates, such as homeostasis are mechanical in explanation--but the concern is the human soul (psuche) as understood, for example, by the classical Greeks and many Christians today. What comes to my mind with PCT? I think of a hierarchical set of control systems stacked vertically and horizontally with circuitry like in cruise control or with a thermostat. Very helpful for conceptualizing what may go on in humans, and very helpful for creating a satisfying explanation for behaviors, but a metaphor. Right? Mechanical in my mind means divorced from humanity, somewhat uninfluenced by emotion and spirit and reducing human functioning to the material world. Mechanical in this case also means created by man. The available data support the helpfulness of conceptualizing such a system at lower levels; however at higher levels I sometimes wonder if it is just a nice story that is woven and rewoven. For example, the CSG discussion of human phenomena sometimes seems to have as the reference standard the concept of a mechanical/electrical control system rather than actual human experience. Personally I prefer model testing and matching with reality before dogmatism. Mind you again, Bill, that I teach PCT as the best that scientific psychology has produced.

Bill:

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.
Tom:

Below are several aspects of the human experience that are touched on in PCT, but not satisfactorily.

* Emotions (feelings, affections, and desire)--as I mentioned in my last few posts. They seem to be treated more as an epiphenomenon of muscle responses or as sensation of physical states (Yes, Bill Robertson, I spent time with your articulate post, too). However, the classical literature of our civilization has testified that emotions are sometimes the most powerful determinant of behaviors. For example, is there not in everyone’s life sometimes an emotional state that one might admit has “carried them away�? into a behavior that they mentally just did not want to do--such as talking too much, sexual extremes, eating when not needed, smoking, or spinning into depression. Yet, these aberrations reoccur! Our mind may tend to justify and explain these inordinate things away, but it just does not ring true to another part of us.
* Also lacking is a satisfying treatment of human conscience. In my experience the conscience is nearly a living thing--not just something to be relegated merely to culturally influenced perceptions. There are universals across humanity in the conscience and also culturally dependent speakings in it.
* As I mentioned in a previous post, it's the volitional or somewhat avolitional aspects of PCT that strike me as being a little in the same camp as Skinner.
* To dismiss the spiritual as valid for data or discussion can be understood. The mind can only talk about the spiritual but not taste it--only the spirit can. However, once tasted the mind comes in handy. I believe this is what Paule, in a previous post, referred to in Chapters 4 to 6 of the book of John in the Bible, for example. It is that deeper part in all humans that is at some time in their life drawn to divine things. However, it is noteworthy and a marvel to me that discussion of that part often seems correlated with extremely high loop gain or predictably heated and short-circuiting emotions--usually in those who reject a personal God but also shamefully sometimes from the zealots.

I love the PCT model, however, I am not vested in it, but in the Truth. Yes, I know there can be PCT explanations for each of the above. The human mind can be quite clever. It can be a part of man's glory but I believe it is more frequently integral to his downfall. When held up to the wisdom of the ages, the PCT explanations sometimes put humanity into a Procrustean Bed. Bill, I am all for us going beyond literature to data! However, the awesome PCT theory needs more matching of the models to human experience, so it can be more than simply the enticing "spinning of yarns". I know that you know that. I am just saying it again.

In all due respect of your time and station, I want you to know that I do intend to get into HPCT again more thoroughly next year, including more careful reading of PCT writings. Even right now though, I confess that I sense what could be described as error signals related to fulfilling many life responsibilities. It seems to me that perhaps temporarily lower level desires and feelings have prevailed! Back in the early 90s I could freely enjoy this mental lab for many hours a day—I need to temporarily unsubscribe by this weekend.

(By the way Bill, I had a verbal disconnect a couple weeks ago when I mentioned your home to the west of Durango—as I was writing that, I had a picture of your place in my mind on a country road just to the south of the main road, it seems about 11 miles to the EAST of Durango).

The very best to you (and all)!

Tom

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.27.2125)

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.

It's nothing. Really nothing.

I am pleased to see that Bill (2003.03.26.1143MST) did not let
this nauseating post pass.

Actually, Bill did let that nauseating post pass. The post you refer to was
Bill waving the red herring thrown out by Bruce Nevin.

>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.

I try to discuss my political beliefs in the context of my main agenda (and
the presumed agenda of this list), which is perceptual control theory. When I
don't do that then I agree that I am just pushing a non-PCT 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...".

"Such people" would never apply to Rick Marken, would it?

It would, to the extent that I have a non-PCT agenda that biases my
understanding of PCT. Others have to judge the extent to which my
understanding of PCT is biased in that way.

This "flap" went
on for four years with lots of sane voices telling you over and over that
your argument was overstated and ridiculous.

Obviously, those voices were unconvincing. But why don't we discuss this flap
openly (and politely) instead of hurling insults. What argument of mine are
you talking about? What were the counter arguments? Saying that my argument
was "overstated" or "ridiculous" is not a counter argument. It's just name
calling.

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.

All I can recall saying to Bill was that I objected to the "I see you have
chosen" phase (as does Bill) and that I (like Bill) object to it whether it is
actually used in RTP or not. I also said I did not believe that RTP is based
on PCT. Bill agreed with me on this, with the caveat that RTPers really mean
"is consistent with" rather than "is derived from" when they say "is based
on". I explained my feelings about both of these issues in terms of PCT. So I
agree that I was defending my agenda; my agenda is PCT.

>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.

I think the CSGnet archive is very useful. But a lot of what I know of the
Glasser imbroglio is not in the archives. The same is largely true of Ed's
departure from CSG. Of course, I only know what happened from my perspective.
Maybe Ed really left because I'm such a uniquely horrible person. But since
Ed's relations with Bill Powers were curtailed as well it seemed that the
departure had more to do with not getting what he wanted from at least some of
the PCT "experts" than with my cruel personality.

>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?

Sure. Now I do, now that I understand it.

Have you been posting _based on_ PCT all these years?

Yes. Of course. I understand what's going on from a PCT perspective.

Are you capable of creating a program _based on_ PCT?

I think so. I described my version of a PCT school program several years ago.

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 :).

I think you are wrong. I believe it is possible to base a program on PCT. I
believe it is possible to base policy decisions on PCT, too. I'm showing how
the latter can be done in the area of medical safety. I think PCT can be used
as a basis for very practical applications.

And when you provide pseudo-PCT justifications for your political
convictions, it is just as insufferable.

Insufferable to you (and others), I suppose. Obviously not to me. Why not give
me an example of a pseudo-PCT justification of a political conviction. I can
give you an example of a pseudo-PCT justification of an RTP conviction. One
such conviction, which I heard described in various discussions with RTP
enthusiasts, is that a teacher who has learned PCT is not controlling kids
when he removes disruptive kids from the room by saying "I see you have
chosen". The peuso-PCT justification of this is that people can't really
control other people. So the conviction is false and the justification is
based on an incorrect understanding of PCT.

Who are you to be disappointed?

One who has done research and modeling in PCT for over 20 years and cares
deeply about the science of PCT.

You have done nothing to develop the kind of program Ed has developed.

As far as I know that's true. But I've been told that I can't know what kind
of program Ed has developed by simply reading Ed's description of the program.
So I would say that I don't really know whether ot not I have developed the
kind of program Ed has developed.

There are many ways to contribute to the PCT community. You write splendid
articles.

Thank you. I have also done some pretty good research and modeling, if I do
say so myself;-)

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?

One who has done research and modeling in PCT for over 20 years and cares
deeply for the science of PCT.

Have you noticed that Bill is careful not to?

Not really. Bill does try to avoid conflict by trying to seem like he agrees
with people. But in the end his intellectual integrity gets the best of him
and he drives people away just as effectively as I do. Witness the recent
departure of Bill Williams.

>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?

Everyone who has an interest in seeing useful applications developed on the
basis of PCT. I think that's what the PCT community is for: to peer review the
products of those working on PCT.

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.

Why? If we say something wrong about the program then the people with
firsthand knowledge can correct us. I certainly have no problem with people
without firsthand knowledge of research and modeling pronouncing judgment on
my research. I can correct them of they get ot wrong. What are the "social
program" developers afraid of?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.28.0958 MST)]
Stefan Balke (2003.03.28)--

Thanks, Stefan, for an informative post, and for the support. The
acceptance of your PCT-oriented program in Germany seems to be at least as
good as the acceptance of RTP in the US.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers m(2003.03.28.1002 MST)]

Tom Hancock (2003.03.27.0800 PST)--

>Below are several aspects of the human experience that are touched on in
PCT, but not >satisfactorily.

* Emotions (feelings, affections, and desire)--as I mentioned in my
last few posts. They seem to be treated more as an epiphenomenon of
muscle responses or as sensation of physical states (Yes, Bill Robertson,
I spent time with your articulate post, too). However, the classical
literature of our civilization has testified that emotions are sometimes
the most powerful determinant of behaviors.

I have said nothing to contradict that. What I have said is that emotions
consist of goal-seeking processes (the action of the neuromotor hierarchy)
plus the feelings of preparing for action, which arise from biochemical
systems along with putting control systems into action. What is powerful
with respect to generating the behaviors is the hierarchy of control
systems; it is what we desire to accomplish that drives behavior, not the
feelings that arise as we prepare ourselves to fulfill those desires.
Considering how little has been understood about behavior and physiology
for most of the history of civilization to which you refer, it's not
surprising that our ancestors got cause and effect backward in this case,
too, in addition to all the other explanations of natural phenomena they
got wrong.

  For example, is there not in everyone’s life sometimes an emotional
state that one might admit has “carried them away�? into a behavior
that they mentally just did not want to do--such as talking too much,
sexual extremes, eating when not needed, smoking, or spinning into
depression. Yet, these aberrations reoccur!
Our mind may tend to justify and explain these inordinate things away,
but it just does not ring true to another part of us.

Yes, indeed, and my thesis is that these are aberrations of the hierarchy,
driven by desires and intentions, not by emotional sensations from the
body. We all know what it is to do things we claim, or even believe, we
don't want to do. And indeed, we don't want to do them -- that is, the
systems on one side of the conflict don't want to. However, in every such
case there is also a control system on the other side of the conflict which
_does_ want to do it, and that is why we have a problem "overcoming" the
unwanted behaviors -- or at least the desire to carry them out. We are
pitting one of our control systems against another one. Most often, people
are aware of one side of a conflict -- the "good" side -- but not of the
other. Methods for encouraging awareness at higher levels (the MOL, for
example) are very effective in bringing both sides of conflicts into
awareness, which seems to be the main requirement for resolving them.

* Also lacking is a satisfying treatment of human conscience. In my
experience the >conscience is nearly a living thing--not just something to
be relegated merely to >culturally influenced perceptions. There are
universals across humanity in the >conscience and also culturally dependent
speakings in it.

I'd go farther and say that conscience _is_ a living thing, or part of one.
I would explain conscience as a principle-level control system. It seems
that we are not consciously aware of most of our control processes at the
same time, although we can switch attention from one group of them to
another. For many people, awareness seems to reside mostly at the program
level and lower, so higher-level control systems operate outside
consciousness once they have been acquired. Conscience is felt as an urge,
with or without a "still small voice", to do what seems like the right
thing, or stop doing what seems like the wrong thing. This is how it feels
when a higher system changes a reference setting in a lower system that
happens to be involved with consciousness. Because in this sort of
situation the person is not aware of perceiving and controlling principles,
the urge or changed reference level seems to have been set by some Higher
Power -- which is indeed the truth, though the higher power is simply a
higher level inside the person's hierarchy.

Something similar probably happens with actions by the still-higher
system-concept level, for people whose awareness normally includes at least
some of the active principle-level control systems. A person might be
aware, for example, of the 10 Commandments, and consciously try to adhere
to them, yet be unaware of the system concept under which these principles
are maintained. So if you ask that person, "Why should we not kill?" the
only answer the person can give might well be, "Because it's against our
religion to kill." That is, the person might well seem to have no reason of
his or her own to avoid killing other people, but refrains only because it
seems that some Higher Power is commanding him or her not to do so. This
may be what led Voltaire to say that if God did not exist, it would be
necessary to invent Him, However, people who have become aware of system
concepts as explicit perceptions (like "philosophy") usually spend time
figuring out their own principles, and can give at least a plausible
rationale for not killing other people (the "Categorical Imperative" of
Kant, fror example) that they feel they understand, so they don't need to
be threatened with punishment to keep them from doing it. Of course some
other people figure out reasons _for_ killing. It takes all kinds to make a
world, unfortunately.

* As I mentioned in a previous post, it's the volitional or somewhat
avolitional aspects of PCT that strike me as being a little in the same
camp as Skinner.

You'll find references to that subject in B:CP on page 198, before and
after. The puzzle is that many control processes seem capable of working
both with and without awareness -- automatically or volitionally. So it
appears that awareness can participate in the operation of various parts of
the hierarchy of control systems, those with which it is associated
defining the content of consciousness as well as what we mean by volitional
action. In B:CP the attempt was made to account for as much of thought,
experience, and behavior as possible in terms of a neural hierarchy of
control systems; as I said then, and still think, what is left over then
requires a different sort of explanation. Not a supernatural one, just
different.

* To dismiss the spiritual as valid for data or discussion can be
understood. The mind can only talk about the spiritual but not taste
it--only the spirit can.

I certainly don't dismiss it -- in fact I accept the existence of the Soul
quite readily, although I call it the Observer. I just don't think there's
anything supernatural or magical about it, or me (since I am, at the
foundation, an Observer). It is the Observer that is aware, but farther
than that I can't go. I believe most descriptions I have read of spiritual
phenomena. I just don't believe any of the explanations of them that I have
heard.

However, once tasted the mind comes in handy. I believe this is what
Paule, in a previous post, referred to in Chapters 4 to 6 of the book of
John in the Bible, for example. It is that deeper part in all humans
that is at some time in their life drawn to divine things. However, it
is noteworthy and a marvel to me that discussion of that part often seems
correlated with extremely high loop gain or predictably heated and
short-circuiting emotions--usually in those who reject a personal God but
also shamefully sometimes from the zealots.

I give religion credit for having kept alive some major questions about
human existence and experience that science, particularly modern science,
has almost entirely ignored. However, the theoretical framework that has
grown up around these phenomena is mostly invalid because it uses bad logic
and hasty assessments of evidence, as well as being heavily influenced by
what one wishes to believe. Nobody can arrive at the truth about anything
using such methods. If I said, "Accept PCT or burn in Hell forever!", do
you think I could get more supporters that I would want?

Best,

Bill P.

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.03.28 14:16 EST)]

My interest here is in clear communication. I don't give an amoeba fart about defending RTP.

Rick Marken (2003.03.26.1500)--

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

I do?

and is trying to say that my ... argument is fundamentally flawed
because I am talking about something that is not done in RTP.

Empirical evidence is important, but actually that's not the flaw in your argument. The flaw is equivocation. Strictly speaking, equivocation is an abuse of ambiguous words in which one meaning is used in one part of the argument and another meaning in another part, while carrying on the argument as though always talking about the same thing. You actually use different words, while carrying on as though you were arguing against the same thing throughout. I thought the equivocation was between (a) objecting to Ed's recommendation in his book that teachers use the phrase "I see that you have chosen ..." and (b) objecting to what teachers actually do. You tell us now that (b) refers not to RTP teachers, whom you you acknowledge that you have not observed, but to other teachers whom you have observed:

I am talking about teachers I have had who have said this to me or others.
So they _were_ real teachers.

I thought we had no evidence that any teachers anywhere used that phrase. It's good to have even anecdotal data. Can you provide more detail?

You also suggest that the phrase is generally used:

I have problems with the "I see you have chosen.." phrase because it is
disingenuous, insulting and generally used to evade responsibility.

I have never heard it used other than in Ed's book and in our discussions of it, so I am really kind of surprised to learn that it is generally used.

You also say:

> Bill Powers (2003.03.26.1424 MST)--
> 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.

I ... was talking about why, in principle, it is offensive to me when people use
that phrase.

So in addition to having felt offended by hearing two or more teachers say this phrase to you and to others, you feel offended when you imagine someone saying it.

So in sum we have Ed's recommendation in a book, certain (non-RTP) teachers, some sort of general usage, and a principle perceived in terms of imaginary people. It would be easier to understand your argument if you dealt with each of these separately rather than mixing them all up together and jumping from one to another.

A few years ago you came up with a very useful generalization about PCT. I think of it as Marken's Maxim: "you can't tell what someone is doing by observing what they're doing".

Now if someone is saying this "I see that you have chosen" phrase as means of evading responsibility I agree that would be reprehensible. But wouldn't we have to test in order to find out if that was their purpose? Or can we just tell what their purpose is merely by hearing them utter the words? Maybe this is one of a class of exceptions to the maxim. That would be an important finding.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 03:07 PM 3/26/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.03.29)]

<Dick Robertson,2003.03.26.2305CST>

<BTW you never mentioned whether you got my reply to you about the conference. Vivian is going to come along. How about Patsy? (We’ll bring our raquets and you can show us how to do it…) >

I thought I did reply Dick, privately, if not on the CSGNet? Patsy is planning to come to LA but not attend the Conference. I also recall telling you that we would probably visit other friends out west either before or after the Conference. Do you remember that? But, I still do not have anything arranged specifically.

Is Vivian planning on staying at Loyola with you? Are you renting a car for sure during the Conference? I would not plan to rent a car for my purposes. If you are, for yourself or for Vivian, then I would probably not rent one for Patsy to use. One car would allow the ladies to cruise a bit around LA, or perhaps for a couples jaunt in the afternoon to somewhere of mutual interest. We could also chip in to share the cost.

We’ll have our tennis gear along and would love to play a few sets with you. See you then.

[Tom_Hancock]

[From Tom Hancock (2003.03.29.2210 PST)]
Bill Powers (2003.03.28.1002 MST)

Bill said:
...it is what we desire to accomplish that drives behavior, not the
feelings that arise as we prepare ourselves to fulfill those desires.

Tom:
Desires can be understood as reference standards and their place can be put within the PCT framework. However, they can also be understood as an integral part of the emotional life of the human soul. (My "data" are simply my own experience and that reported by literates through the centuries). When a person desires something there is associated feeling within (which also happens to have physiological associates). Mere feelings are the movements of that person's unique personality. They can be separated from desire as well as from affection, but all three bear certain commonalities of being part of the emotional life that manifests the particular flavor of that person's humanity. The PCT explanation is mechanical (with an elegance for potential testing), while the other matches experience and every day living.

Bill said:
...It seems that we are not consciously aware of most of our control processes at the
same time, although we can switch attention from one group of them to
another. For many people, awareness seems to reside mostly at the program
level and lower, so higher-level control systems operate outside
consciousness once they have been acquired.

Tom:
If I indeed follow through later to study the PCT writings more, will I find that there are data supporting these statements? Or are they as I wonder sometimes, just very attractive "yarns" that have been spun?

Bill said:
Conscience is felt as an urge,
with or without a "still small voice", to do what seems like the right
thing, or stop doing what seems like the wrong thing. This is how it feels
when a higher system changes a reference setting in a lower system that
happens to be involved with consciousness.

Tom: This is the kind of statement that mentally surmises so antiseptically about something that is at the core of what it is to be human.

Bill said:
In B:CP the attempt was made to account for as much of thought,
experience, and behavior as possible in terms of a neural hierarchy of
control systems; as I said then, and still think, what is left over then
requires a different sort of explanation.

Tom:
And it was a good job you did! Perhaps that "left over" part is what I am trying to expand on PCT.

Bill said:
I give religion credit for having kept alive some major questions about
human existence and experience that science, particularly modern science,
has almost entirely ignored. However, the theoretical framework that has
grown up around these phenomena is mostly invalid because it uses bad logic
and hasty assessments of evidence

Tom:
You cannot measure weight with a ruler, nor taste with a spectrometer, etc. Nor can one validly measure the spiritual with the mind! Spirit can only be "measured" with spirit. The body knows the physical world, the soul (or psychology) knows the psychological world, and the spirit is for knowing the spiritual world. That principle is foundational to understanding the Bible and spiritual things.

Bill, you might be interested to know how a Christian person like me has integrated PCT with my beliefs. First, you should understand that religion is different than the indwelling Christ. Spiritual experiece is different from religion. Religion, whether Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, etc. is a man-made attempt to respond to that innate wondering, and sometimes longing, about the divine. What happened to me was that I got that person, named Jesus Christ, right inside of me. PCT-wise, the secret of the proper Christian life is that He is placed on the "throne"--at the highest level in the PCT hierarchy (not doctrines about Him, but His thinking, feeling, choosing Person). Life is all about my choosing Him rather than my own petty and sometimes aberrant control systems. He does not force Himself on us! As I see and feel that He is better and choose Him through my day, then He progressively reorganizes all my systems at every level. I will become just like Him, but with my own soul's particular flavor (that is one-third of the Bible's "thesis statement"!) This is happening some to me and I can testify that there is nothing more awesome in life--except joining with others who have that like-precious experience. By the way, my understanding is that humans are tripartite: body, soul, and spirit. When Christ comes into a person, He enlivens the spirit-part which has mostly become deadened (except for the conscience). Then He wants to work Himself, day by day, into our whole soul (mind, emotion, and will). If that happens before the end comes, then life has not been wasted on vanity. The above story, or gospel, is the essence of the Bible, my experience, and that of many through the centuries. The apostle Paul called it God's eternal purpose and the mystery hid from ages. It's a privilege to speak it at the appropriate time. I am so very sorry that most only hear the low gospel of hell, etc. It's a cheat! Also, please accept my apologies for the shameful life of so many of my brother and sister Christians, who may have Christ in their spirit (some don't), but who have practically denied Him in their daily living and express none of Him in their souls. You, me, and God are nauseated by that!

The very best to you!
Tom Hancock

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.03.30 09:05 EST)]

Perhaps the effect of emotion is in loop gain.

  /Bruce Nevin

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0330.0927)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.03.30 09:05 EST)

Perhaps the effect of emotion is in loop gain.

Or perhaps loop gain determines emotion.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.30.0954 MST)]

Tom Hancock (2003.03.29.2210 PST)--

There is actually no contradiction between us, because you are
concentrating on a _description_ of experiences and thoughts about the
experiences, while I am trying to work toward a scientific _explanation_ of
all experiences and thoughts, including the ones you describe. I accept
that your experiences and thoughts are exactly as you describe them,
including your feeling that Jesus Christ dwells within you and directs your
behavior. However, I do not accept your explanation of these experiences
and thoughts -- namely, that a supernatural entity has entered your brain
and taken control of part (or all) of it.

Normally, it would not bother me if you had these ideas and the feelings
that go with them. Nobody else has a right to criticize what you think and
feel, within yourself. But what you think and feel become important to
other people when the things you _do_ are based on what this inwelling
system tells you. If you get an idea, do you assume automatically that it
was put in your mind by Jesus Christ and therefore must be correct and OK
to carry out? When you pray for guidance, do you assume that the answer
that comes to you is divinely inspired and therefore must not be disobeyed?
Suppose you ask this Jesus Christ personality, "Are you real?" Whether the
answer that you receive is "yes" or "no", on what basis can you decide to
believe it? If Jesus Christ tells you to kill someone, will you do it?

It seems to me that you have worked yourself into a very uncomfortable
position. I trust you realize that many people have justified acts of
murder and torture by saying that
God or Christ (or Allah or The Devil) told them to do it. I'm sure they
were sincerely conviced that this was true, and felt justified and joyful
as they carried out God's or Christ's commands. Look at the young suicide
bombers in Israel; they are convinced that Allah is guiding their actions
and that when they blow themselves up they will awake in Paradise. In their
farewell videos, many of them have said this. If you felt that sort of firm
religious conviction (which evidently you can sympathize with), wouldn't
you do the same?

One way to avoid this yawning abyss is to say, "No, I do not automatically
assume that every idea that enters my head is divinely inspired. I think
things through for myself; I require proof that ideas are true; I accept
responsibility for my own choices; I use reason and logic, not just blind
faith." But if those things were true, why would you reject the PCT
explanation of your feelings and emotions? What is the argument to the
contrary, the disproof of the few pieces of evidence we have, the
alternative theory? None of those things is available. Your description of
subjective experiences and thoughts about them is not a substitute for an
explanation; it's a statement of what requires an explanation. I have
offered a tentative explanation, one that obviously is not a finished piece
of work, but which does hang together to a considerable degree. You have
not offered either a refutation of that explanation, or a better one. You
have just said you don't like it.

You have put me in a bind, Tom. If you find my arguments compelling, I will
have taken something from you that you value, which is not a very nice
thing to do. If I back off and refrain from saying what I think, I will
have done no service to you, myself, or the truth, I have decided to go
ahead and assume that you can fend for yourself. In one way I regret this.
In another, more important, way, I am glad to have a chance to express my
views without, for once, feeling responsible for the other guy's feelings.
At least in this forum we all agree (I assume) that we produce our own
feelings.

Best,

Bill P.