[From Bryan Thalhammer (2001.04.22.1830 CDT USA)
Dear Group,
(Read the whole thing first, because some parts refer to others.)
OK, my try here. I'm kinda unsure why I should be trying to examine my
thoughts in this group, given some disturbances. I have been reading
almost all the notes again since the new year and trying to make sense of a
couple of things. First, why does almost every purportedly scientific
discussion devolve into a seething semantic [someone will pick on this, to
be sure] battle over topics such as "coercion," "seeing another's choice,"
"controlling a stop sign or sunset," etc.? Second, why do I demure from
posting, when I HAVE DONE PCT RESEARCH, and I ought to be "tooting my
horn," and bringing my research to the group? Is there something wrong
with me? Here are some of my reactions to the discussion. Having read
B:CP, etc., and done my darnest to understand the literature, what Bill
writes makes ever so much sense, and we should not be arguing over it:
Controlling a Perception such as a [my substitution to focus on "sunset."]]:
Powers (2001.04.20.0849 MDT)
The simplest way: look away from it to avoid seeing it: zero [sunset].
Look at it in order to see it: [sunset].
First topic: We know the terminology of PCT, so when we control a
perception such as a sunset, we do those things to hold steady the
phenomena in our visual/imaginary grasp, by holding it in our gaze (or
not), applying its name to "it", as in "that's a really beautiful sunset!"
or even just acting in keeping with higher level perceptions that
incorporate it or lower level component perceptions (it means end of day,
look for dinner, and then find our way home [maybe]; bright, red, circle,
warm). But what is the sunset really in terms of the hierarchy? Well, a
darned sight more more than its configuration of colors and shapes, the
perception that S/R analyses seem to focus on. Therefore, when you control
a sunset, you are perceiving it from the highest perceptual level, the
system image, and being the best person you can be as you control a minor
disturbance late in your Sunday activies. The system image sets the
references for the principle of acting in a timely fashion, of the program
of that demonstration, and how a sunset fits in with that and so on....
Doing an experimental, quasi-experimental, or case study workup of human
behavior from a PCT framework should not be a problem, if, for the study,
we consistently use the framework in the design, collect data accordingly,
and then report the data. When critiquing, again, using the framework, one
consistently examines the study in view of its proposals and its results.
But why stir things so much? Good example:
Bruce Gregory (2001.0418.1157)]
.... In an earlier discussion, the claim was made
that we would become upset if the sun rose in the west because we have
established a reference level for the sun rising in the east. As far as I
can tell, this is simply verbal gymnastics. We have absolutely no reason to
believe that the path of the sun is a controlled perception. Therefore
there is no reason to talk about a reference value for the position of the
sunrise. We have an _expectation_ that the sun will rise in the east, but
as far as I know, PCT says nothing about expectations since they are not
controlled perceptions.
PCT explains why a person looks at a sunset in terms of acting to maintain
the system concept by sending reference signals down the hierarchy: While
driving north along the CA coast with a favorite passenger, we are made
aware of the sunset. In (one!) example, the system image sets a reference
level of one's Politeness principles, so that one has a nice moment with
one's companion who says, "oh! look at the sunset!" The principle level
changes reference signals to programs such as arriving on time, to our
gaze, looking left rather than straight ahead, to being safe, and pulling
off on the shoulder.... Each of these programs sends reference signals
down the hierarchy. In effect, the hierarchy becomes slightly reset for
that moment, _in order to be the person we want to be in the presence of
others, including significant others._
"Expectations?" This is introducing a term that surely is a valid
contribution in general use, but as used here, is as disturbing as...
letting the rubber band go-- with a vicious snap! As I understand, an
expectation has a meaning in the cognitive science explanation of human
behavior, such as in restaurant scripts, and so on. According to the
cognitive science framework, we are supposed to be behaving according to
"scripts, plans, goals" of what happens in that context. But PCT doesn't
explain a sunset from some kind of linguistic "program" such as the
sunrise/sunset script. Totally different framework, and while interesting,
_expectations_ are not so much a part of the CSG discussion as is a post on
how to test for the controlled variable (CV) in that case.
>Rick Marken (01.04.13.1640) to Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)
>
>> You can't avoid criticism when you do science.
Second topic: Yes, formative criticism is the only way knowledge grows,
but the recent postings remind me of goings-on in the "McClaughlin Group,"
a political show on PBS. That bulldog McClaughlin consistently makes what
would be an interesting political conversation very painful to endure.
While conflict is most interesting in theatre (Shakespeare), cinema
(Schindler), or TV (Springer!), conflict here, including baiting and
switching, gets to be too much to deal with in a discussion group. I wonder
why some people continue to lurk. Maybe it IS the Springer effect.... I
dunno.
Dick Robertson (2001.0419.0400 CDT)
It is 4 am...
I have been feeling increasingly sad, over the last couple of years actually,
about what has seemed to me to be a kind of occupation of the net by verbal
duels that, although they usually began with some attempt to refine genuinely
interesting points, would often deteriorate into ad hominem attacks that seemed
more like grade school "king of the hill" contests than anything else.
Are we building.... or are we fighting to see *who wins*? What knowledge
is gained by these endless "verbal duels?"
One way or another, for me, it is this same kind of sadness with which I
also write now. Here, I have done PCT research, almost as a personal dare:
Rather than do some stupid survey research based on training workshop happy
sheets, or whatever, I thought I would undertake something more
interesting. At first, when I read the Robertson and Powers book (my first
sojourn into PCT), I couldn't figure it out. But gradually, after Runkel's
book, and then B:CP, I gradually understood what it all meant. As several
other posters have said, this theory has great explantory power for why
people do what they do. So, I took as my guides, Powers, Robertson,
Runkel, and Marken (as well as G. H. Mead, Bateson, Goffman, and Shibutani)
in order to make a statement about the tenacity of the Self as a Control
System. Something like I read in Mead, "A person is sensitized only to
those objects that are relevant to what he is doing." Simply, the Self as a
control system *acts* however it can to....
Going to my only (so far) CSG conference at Vancouver, I had hoped that I
would get the collective guidance, sincere critique, and valuable help I
needed to complete my task. There were those who did so, such as Gary
Cziko, Tom Bourbon, Bruce Nevin, Bill Powers, and Rick Marken, who
encouraged, critiqued, and helped focused me. I thank them and others
whose kind assistance fades in memory. But there were some who used my
presentation for an opportunity to quibble over jargon, create diatribes
over meaning, and so on, that discouraged me from presenting further (I DID
finish, BTW). I mean, this is supposed to be a group more friendly to new
research rather than a place where you either get ignored or get your face
ripped off. I feel that in many posts, there seems to be an effort to push
the discussion off the topic, confuse jargon or frameworks, and disparage
sincere attempts at dialog. Except for my infrequent posts, before which
the error signal has gotten so high I had to post or "blow up," I really
don't feel this is any more hospitable to presentations than, say, a neural
network, cognitive science, or even some kind of S/R discussion group would
be. I really wonder what will become of the legacy of the group when
intolerant treatment of language, terminology, and jargon usage seems to be
more interesting than, as Dick Robertson suggests, "refin[ing] genuinely
interesting points" we can all build the future on.
Now, I have examined my thoughts here. I have my mouse poised over the
close box, I am so embarrassed. I may have misused some terminology or
overextended some assumptions or generalizations, but I tried my best.
However, I simply don't need someone to needlessly pick at my (or any other
person's) writing, intent, or possibly my supposed apologia for a variety
of people's (i.e., RM, WTP, MP, etc.) actions or reactions. But you know,
if you tentatively accept the PCT saying, "if you push a control system, it
will push back," then you may see why some vitriol (including my own) has
shown its face at times because of deeply felt philosophical differences.
I can't see what other people feel about all of the foregoing, but I really
think that this afternoon surely won't be worth a nickel if I simply get
"attacked" or prompt some new verbal duel.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0108.1707)]
Rick Marken (01.01.08.1330)
I don't know why they won't talk to me. Based on what clues I have,
however, it seems to have to do with the fact that the RTP people
don't want to hear any criticism or suggestions about their
program. I don't know why they don't. But they certainly don't
and they are controlling for that with _very_ high gain.High praise indeed from one of the premier control freaks of our time! (I'm
sure that has _nothing_ to do with the fact that people are reluctant to
discuss issues with you.)
Dick Robertson,
(2001.0419.0400CDT):But, in any case I continue to hold my view that there is something about
email that conduces to playing "king of the hill" in the 5 to 10 minutes
that it takes to dash off a post more readily than to the lengthier and
more thought out discussion that one would do in the older forms of
scientific communication.
(From Ray Bennett [09:01:01 1315 CST. Aust.])
"Richard S. Marken" wrote:It would be a nice way of
> showing how theory can inform (and improve) practice.I have been lurking while a number of you seem to be controlling for
getting up each other's nose.
���������������......
Gents and ladies, it took me longer than I want to admit to refining and
considering these thoughts. I am interested in using PCT as working
theory, but not in reading *better and better ways to get up other people's
noses*. Give me a reason to continue reading or participating in CSG...
Bryan Thalhammer
Champaign, IL