[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]
<snip>
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.
<snip>
Best, Dag