Good News! (No, this is not a virus)

[From Bruce Gregory (980407.1655 EDT)]

The good news is that Isaac and I performed an experiment in
Harvard Square this afternoon. Isaac reported that he was
definitely able to observe "calling forth." Neither of us had
any trouble describing this experience in PCT terminology. Score
another triumph for the experimental method!

Bruce
First Church of Life Science

i.kurtzer (980408.0130)

[From Bruce Nevin (980407.2238 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980407.1655 EDT) --

>The good news is that Isaac and I performed an experiment in
>Harvard Square this afternoon. Isaac reported that he was
>definitely able to observe "calling forth." Neither of us had
>any trouble describing this experience in PCT terminology. Score
>another triumph for the experimental method!

>I'll be interested in your and Isaac's descriptions of this. The relation
>between subjective descriptions, observer descriptions, and model-based
>descriptions is a matter of particular concern to me just now.

Bruce G. is exagerrating for my part. I was quite distracted during our
pleasant lunch and _joked_ about how those distractions were calling forth my
attention. Greater Boston has 250,000 college students, 1/2 are female, a
nice chunk of those have great butts. I like cute female butts.

i.

[From Bill Powers (980408.0349 MST)]

i.kurtzer (980408.0130)
Bruce G. is exagerrating for my part. I was quite distracted during our
pleasant lunch and _joked_ about how those distractions were calling forth
my attention.

Thanks for the clarification. "Calling forth" remains, in my mind, a
metaphor. While I can appreciate the poetic aspects of the term, the poetry
is ironic, in that it reflects an interpretation with which I flatly
disagree and in fact believe I can prove false. So I would never use that
term except ironically.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980407.2238 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980407.1655 EDT) --

The good news is that Isaac and I performed an experiment in
Harvard Square this afternoon. Isaac reported that he was
definitely able to observe "calling forth." Neither of us had
any trouble describing this experience in PCT terminology. Score
another triumph for the experimental method!

I'll be interested in your and Isaac's descriptions of this. The relation
between subjective descriptions, observer descriptions, and model-based
descriptions is a matter of particular concern to me just now.

I think the distinction is very important, and lies at the heart of the fact
that Bill, Mary, and Rick are having such a hard time making sense of what I
am saying and find it so alien. They are "seeing" things in terms of
model-based descriptions. I am not denying the validity of such descriptions
(in fact I was trying to demonstrate yesterday that I can do them reasonably
well), but rather trying to "look at" the situation from the subjective
perspective. As Isaac notes in his post he was "distracted" by passing
derrieres as we lunched outdoors in Harvard Square. No derrieres even
"showed up" for me. The "distraction" he joked was a "calling forth". But
this is _exactly_ how I would have described the situation. Isaac has goals
(possibly linked to hormones--no offense Isaac, I used to have them
myself--they definitely encourage distraction!) Both Isaac and I would agree
on a model-based description of what occurred. (I hope that Bill, Mary, and
Rick will trust me on this), but derrieres "show up" differently in our
worlds, and "call forth" one of us more than the other. Again I hope Bill,
Mary, and Rick will at least be willing to entertain the notion that this
strange terminology makes sense to people who otherwise would have
difficulty translating a model-based description into their own experience.

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (980408.0915 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT)--

I think the distinction is very important, and lies at the heart of the fact
that Bill, Mary, and Rick are having such a hard time making sense of what I
am saying and find it so alien. They are "seeing" things in terms of
model-based descriptions.

Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any other
description? Is that what we're really talking about here, a sort of
equal-rights-among- theories principle? You seem to be saying that
model-based description is simply a style, with "subjective" description
being another, equally valid, style. If this is what you're saying, please
explain. In my view, if there is a clash between a loose, subjective,
untestable subjective description and a rigorous experimentally tested
description, the latter wins every time. What do you say?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (980408.0900)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT) --

Again I hope Bill, Mary, and Rick will at least be willing to
entertain the notion that this strange terminology ["calling
forth"] makes sense to people who otherwise would have difficulty
translating a model-based description into their own experience.

Oy vey. You do suffer from Bruce Abbott disease;-)

We all know that your "strange terminology" makes sense to people.
That's the problem, for chrissakes. The terminology describes
something that we know is not actually happening. Female butts don't
call forth glances any more than incentives call forth productivity.
People (some) control for seeing female butts; people (some) control
for higher wages.

There is nothing wrong with using terminology like "call forth"
metaphorically; heck, we still talk about sunrises and sunsets.
Issac [i.kurtzer (980408.0130)], as I strongly suspected, was
using the term "call forth" metaphorically. (If Issac is anything
like me he may find that female butts call forth more attention at
sunset than at sunrise (hey, I'm married; I'm not dead;-)) But just
as you would not say in an astronomy book that "rising" and "setting"
are correct descriptions of the sun's behavior, you would not say
in a PCT book that "calling forth" is a correct description of
human lechery.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce gregory 980408.1213 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980408.0915 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT)--
>I think the distinction is very important, and lies at the heart of the fact
>that Bill, Mary, and Rick are having such a hard time making sense of what I
>am saying and find it so alien. They are "seeing" things in terms of
>model-based descriptions.

Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any other
description? Is that what we're really talking about here, a sort of
equal-rights-among- theories principle? You seem to be saying that
model-based description is simply a style, with "subjective" description
being another, equally valid, style. If this is what you're saying, please
explain. In my view, if there is a clash between a loose, subjective,
untestable subjective description and a rigorous experimentally tested
description, the latter wins every time. What do you say?

I agree completely. Model-based description is description from
a particular viewpoint. It is the fundamental viewpoint we adopt
when doing science. We want to know, "What does the model
predict in this situation?" If we cannot answer this question,
we clearly do not understand the model. My teaching experience
over the past three years has convinced me that it is very
difficult, even for people with undergraduate majors in a
science, to adopt this viewpoint. It takes a great deal of work
and extensive coaching to make the transition. (Engineers and
_some_ physical science types are an exception. But they are a
tiny minority of the population.)

When you are talking about a model of human behavior you must
expect people who listen to you to translate whatever they hear
into a system more characterized by past experiences and
analogies than by models. I have been asking myself how the
model of PCT translates most readily into the experience of
non-model thinkers. I know from experience that they are unable
to make this translation for themselves. As a result, anything
about PCT simply becomes more "information" that they stuff
somewhere and quickly forget. "Gee, that's interesting," they
say. And that's the end of it. But PCT can make a much greater
contribution to their lives _if_ they can access it, not as a
"good idea", but as a tool.

Every male can identify with Isaac's experience yesterday. You
are walking along, engaged in a technical conversation about a
tracking experiment and suddenly you see a member of the
opposite sex who "distracts" you. You forget what you are saying
and stare. Now we can describe this experience in PCT terms. We
can identify the appropriate perceptions and conjecture what
is being controlled and what the reference levels are. This is a
model-based description. Without it, we are largely blowing
smoke when it comes to describing human behavior. I love it and
I love it when Rick does it. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be
devoting time to CSGnet.

But I also know what it "feels" like when your attention locks
on to a beautiful woman and she seems to whip you around. (To
"turn you every way but loose," as the expression used to go.)
When I tell my literary friends that "whatever you attend to
calls you forth" and remind them of the Isaac Phenomenon (how
about that Isaac, your own phenomenon!), their eyes light up and
they say, "Oh, yeah." They don't understand PCT. They don't
_want_ to understand PCT. But they have an experience that I can
now relate to PCT, in exactly the same way we all using driving
a car as an example of exercising control.

I realize that the above disturbs a perception that you are
defending--the perception that the only "right" way to talk
about PCT is from a model-based point of view. Since I rarely
feel the need to disturb your perceptions, I am perfectly
willing never to mention this topic again. I can certainly cast
my questions and comments in model-based terms. I agree with all
the points you made about "attention" and I would love to see it
modeled in PCT terms. It is an extremely important question, in
my view, and one I will continue to worry about for the
foreseeable future.

I hope I have answered your question. I also hope that you will
be willing to shift your viewpoint, if only briefly, in a way
that allows you see what perceptions I am defending, and why.

Bruce the Obscure

[From Bruce Nevin (980408.1206 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT) --

You acknowledge this is a subjective description. I suggest that it is the
control system that does the "calling forth" from the available perceptual
inputs,

I have absolutely no doubt that this is so.

and that the notion that the things in the environment perform
"calling forth" is bogus even in your account.

I am sure it is.

Bruce the Obscure

[From Bruce Gregory 9980408.1530 EDT/EST)]

Rick Marken (980408.1200)

I would have no problem with your discussion of "calling forth"
if you were presenting it as an example (like "sunset") of
a common -- but completely incorrect -- way of describing an
observation.

I suspect that one of the reasons we find people so resistant to actually
learning scientific concepts is that we are so quick to tell them that what
they believe is completely wrong. You may have observed this effect on
CSGnet. (But then again, you probably never noticed it.) Nevertheless, you
can rest assured that I have totally given up the idea of explaining PCT to
anyone. The purity of the theory will remain unsullied by me.

Bruce the Obscure

[From Rick Marken (980408.1200)]

Bruce Gregory 980408.1213 EDT)

Model-based description is description from a particular
viewpoint. It is the fundamental viewpoint we adopt when
doing science....My teaching experience over the past three
years has convinced me that it is very difficult, even for
people with undergraduate majors in a science, to adopt this
viewpoint.

I have never met anyone who had difficuly understanding the basic
helio-centric model of the solar system; I think everyone, even
bible thumpers, accept the basic model; that the earth rotates on
an axis as it goes around the sun. They know that the appearance of
the sun moving across the sky is an illusion. They know (if they
think about it) that what God must have stopped for Joshua was
not the Sun but the earth (it just looked to Joshua liked the sun
stopped; God, puritan Republican that he is, was more forthcoming
with the moral than the physical laws of the universe;-))

I think the problem some of us have with your position on
"calling forth" is that you seem to insist on presenting
it as a way of explaining PCT. For example, you say:

When I tell my literary friends that "whatever you attend to
calls you forth" and remind them of the Isaac Phenomenon (how
about that Isaac, your own phenomenon!), their eyes light up and
they say, "Oh, yeah." They don't understand PCT. They don't
_want_ to understand PCT.

And given what you have told them, they will _never_ understand
PCT. It is simply not true that "whatever you attend to calls you
forth". This is not PCT; it's folk psychology. The "calling forth"
experience only occurs if you _want_ a certain perception. People
who want to see pretty girls will feel like their "head is being
turned" or that their head movement is "called forth" by a pretty
girl. The important thing about the "calling forth" or "Isaac"
phenomenon is not the experience of having one's actions "called
forth" by a perception; this experience (as Bill noted) is a
misinterpretation of what is actually going on. It is the existance
of a reference for the perception that is interpreted as the one
that "calls forth" action that is the essential (and typically
unnoticed) aspect of this phenomenon.

The Issac phenomenon is like the sunset; pretty girls _seem to_
call forth one's attention just as the sun seems to set in the
evening. But you certainly wouldn't tell someone "see how the sun
sets in the evening; now you understand the heliocentric model of
the solar system". It's just as inppropriate to say "see how the sight
of a pretty girl calls forth your attention; now you understand PCT".

What you might do when teaching someone about the heliocentric
model of the solar system is have a person watch the sunset and
say "It looks like the sun is moving down below the horizon,
doesn't it? Well, what's really happening is quite amazing. We
are actually watching the sun from the surface of a giant, rotating
sphere; we are rotating _away_ from the sun now so the horizon is
actually move "up" to cover the sun; the sun isn't really moving
relative to us".

Similarly, what you might do when teaching someone about PCT is
point to a version of the Isaac phenomenon (for example, have
the person try to keep their finger aligned with yours as you
make arbitrary movements with your finger); then you might say
something like "It looks like the movements of my finger draw
forth the movements of yours, doesn't it? Well, what's really
happening is quite amazing. You have in your head the goal of
seeing your finger aligned with mine. In order to achieve this
goal you must move your finger to keep it near mine; my finger
isn't drawing forth the movements of your finger; rather, you are
moving your finger to mine to draw forth the perception of our
fingers being aligned_. It's your goal that "calls forth" the
perception (of alignment); my finger movements don't "call
forth" yours. You can see that my finger movements don't "call
forth" yours true by simply changing your goal from "seeing your
finger aligned with mine" to "seeing your finger stationary". Now
movements of my finger no longer call forth yours.In fact, my finger
movements only appear to "call forth" yours when my finger
movements would interfere with (disturb) something you _want_
to see".

I would have no problem with your discussion of "calling forth"
if you were presenting it as an example (like "sunset") of
a common -- but completely incorrect -- way of describing an
observation.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Rick Marken (980408.1930)]

Bruce Gregory 9980408.1530 EDT/EST)]

I suspect that one of the reasons we find people so resistant
to actually learning scientific concepts is that we are so
quick to tell them that what they believe is completely wrong.

Does this mean that your answer to Bill Powers' (980408.0915 MST)
question to you:

Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any
other description? Is that what we're really talking about
here, a sort of equal-rights-among- theories principle?

is "yes"?

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.0411 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980408.1930)

Bruce Gregory 9980408.1530 EDT/EST)]

I suspect that one of the reasons we find people so resistant
to actually learning scientific concepts is that we are so
quick to tell them that what they believe is completely wrong.

Does this mean that your answer to Bill Powers' (980408.0915 MST)
question to you:

Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any
other description? Is that what we're really talking about
here, a sort of equal-rights-among- theories principle?

is "yes"?

No, it means what it says. Beating people over the head with one's own
version of the truth has rarely proved to be an effective way to get them to
see the light. Out here we have John Silber. California has you. Fortunately
neither of you is interested in making converts.

Bruce the Obscure

[From Bruce Gregory 9980409.1022 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980408.1325 MST)]

Bruce Gregory 980408.1213 EDT)--

>> Bruce Gregory (980408.0602 EDT)--
>> >I think the distinction is very important, and lies at the
heart of the
fact
>> >that Bill, Mary, and Rick are having such a hard time making sense of
what I
>> >am saying and find it so alien. They are "seeing" things in terms of
>> >model-based descriptions.

I think this is a misinterpretation of what we're doing -- it's describing
the trees while missing the forest. What Mary, Rick, and I (and lots of
others) are doing is simply trying to come up with a way of understanding
behavior that is the best we can devise. It happens to be embodied in a
model, but it can be described without using the terms of the model.

The way I use the word, all scientific explanations are models. They key
question is, do they allow you to make predictions that can be compared with
experience? Some scientific models are qualitative, some are quantitative.

This is putting entirely too much emphasis on the model. What we're
concerned with is being able to understand behavior in a way that makes
sense, that permits correct predictions to be made, that's based
on careful
observation as free from the influence of belief as possible.

Terminology again. Scientific understanding always involves models.

That is what I do expect; it is the primary reasons that they fail to
understand human behavior.

Yes indeed. Human beings are often difficult to deal with.

Forget models and non-models. Everybody uses models, even nonscientists.

The models non-scientists use are unconscious in the sense that
nonscientists have no idea when they are using models and cannot tell you
what the model predicts will happen, as distinct from what they may believe
will happen.

When you translate into "the experience of non-model thinkers,"
you're just
translating into the terms of a different model. The people who think that
the phases of the moon are caused by the earth's shadow clearly have a
model.

No, they clearly have a thought, "The phases of the moon are caused by the
earth's shadow." You discover that this only a thought when you ask them to
explain how we can see the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time. Or
how the earth is able to cast a shadow in the direction of the sun. They are
puzzled, but otherwise unmoved. These facts can comfortably co-exist with
their though about the earth's shadow.

But how can you translate the real explanation into terms of that
model, when that model is fundamentally wrong?

I try to avoid terms like "real explanation". I don't find them helpful in
communicating. We tend to talk about "the scientist's explanation." It
avoids making people feel uncomfortable that they have the "wrong"
explanation. Beating people up with the "right explanation" is a form of
domination, and we know what PCT tells us about domination, don't we?

What will you say? That the
dark part of the moon is the shadow of the moon on the moon, so they can
relate your explanation to the one they previously believed? I think you
have to persuade them to admit that their model is simply incorrect and
must be junked before they can understand the correct explanation. Those
who, through pride or embarrassment or ego, refuse to admit that they have
believed a wrong explanation will simply continue to espouse the same
model. There is nothing you can do about it. Those who can say, "OK, I
guess I had it completely wrong" will quickly understand and adopt the
correct model, once they've ceased to defend the wrong model.

I really like the world you live in. I'll have to visit it some time.

>I know from experience that they are unable
>to make this translation for themselves.

Unable? I dispute that. "Unwilling" is more like it.

People who have different beliefs than we do often show up as "unwilling".
You might want to adopt the Catholic Church's term "invincibly ignorant".
Lots of us fit into that category when it comes to one belief or another.

If you had learned PCT from the very start of your life, you would never
attribute your behavior to the woman's appearance. All you're saying is
that you grew up with a particular model of human behavior, and still find
it the most natural way to describe your experiences and observations.
That's true of all of us, probably; we are in a transition period in which
PCT is not yet what seems "natural," and S-R theory still permeates every
interpretation.

Well it will be a great day when it arrives. In the meantime, you will
forgive me for not holding my breath.

But you can _correlately_ relate it to PCT only by saying "... but that
very convincing appearance that your behavior is being called forth is
incorrect; if you want to understand how people really work you
have to put
it completely out of your mind. That is not how people work, and
the sooner
you abandon that idea the quicker you will understand how they do
work." Of
course you try to be tactful and break the news gently, but this is the
message you have to get across if you don't want to turn out yet another
person who thinks he or she understands PCT when in fact she or he is
clueless.

I agree. I never said otherwise.

No, my perception of the "right way to talk about PCT" is in terms of real
observations tested against reality and the best knowledge we have about
what really goes on in the nervous system. The idea that the environment
controls behavior is based on bad observation, superstition, and
ignorance.
I see no gain in putting things into terms that make sense when
they should
not make sense.

Whenever we commit ourselves to an explanation, to a model, the world shows
up as a manifestation of that model. The world is _really_ made up of atoms
until you invent the idea of electrons and nucleons. The latter are really
the way the world is made up until you invent the idea of leptons and
quarks.

I asked about them, but you didn't offer any answer. What I asked was,
"Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any other
description? Is that what we're really talking about here, a sort of
equal-rights-among-theories principle?"

So I ask it again.

No, one description is clearly not as good as any other description. Part of
science involves the testing of the predictions of models and the
replacement of less adequate by more adequate models. This process separates
science from most other human enterprises where less adequate models are
never discarded.

I still believe our misunderstanding is rooted in a failure to sharply
delineate models from what the models are designed to explain. "Whatever you
attend to, calls you forth" is not a model. It is not an explanation of
anything. It is a way of describing the way we experience the world. PCT is
a model. PCT answers the question, "How is it whatever you attend to calls
you forth?"

Bruce the Obscure

[From Bill Powers (980410.0206 MST)]

Bruce Gregory 9980409.1022 EDT)--

The way I use the word, all scientific explanations are models. They key
question is, do they allow you to make predictions that can be compared with
experience? Some scientific models are qualitative, some are quantitative.

I agree that all scientific _explanations_ are models, as I think of
science. But is this what is generally accepted as scientific explanation
in psychology? It seems to me that a great deal of psychology consists of
observing phenomena and then predicting that under the same conditions they
will occur again. This approach doesn't offer any scientific explanations,
does it?

Forget models and non-models. Everybody uses models, even nonscientists.

The models non-scientists use are unconscious in the sense that
nonscientists have no idea when they are using models and cannot tell you
what the model predicts will happen, as distinct from what they may believe
will happen.

This is the problem, it seems. People do use models -- conceptions of
underlying organization -- but since few of them are taught modeling
explicitly, they don't know the difference between experience-based
predictions and model-based predictions. On the basis of experience one can
predict the phases of the moon with great accuracy -- while using a
completely wrong model to explain them. Experience-based prediction does
not produce any _understanding_ of phenomena, as I think of understanding.

No, they clearly have a thought, "The phases of the moon are caused by the
earth's shadow." You discover that this only a thought when you ask them to
explain how we can see the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time.

What do you mean, "only a thought?" Aren't models thoughts? I'd say it's a
model that hasn't been tested in all possible ways. Your question is a test
that will show a flaw in the model, but it requires some understanding of
geometry and optics to be seen as a fatal test. Remember the girl in one of
your videos who thought light could travel around corners. Your question
wouldn't have fazed her.

Or
how the earth is able to cast a shadow in the direction of the sun. They are
puzzled, but otherwise unmoved. These facts can comfortably co-exist with
their thought about the earth's shadow.

This is because of a lack of other basic concepts of how things work. Have
you asked people what produces shadows? Unless they understand that,
there's no problem with the earth "casting a shadow" toward the sun or in
any other direction. That very phrase shows that much older models are
still built into language and understanding. We still say "look at", which
is a holdover from centuries ago when it was thought that the eyes created
looking-rays traveling toward the objects seen. Shadows were literally
"cast" -- thrown out by objects to land on surfaces and "darken" them.
"Anticrespuscular rays" were rays of darkness cast by the sun at dawn or
dusk (shadows of distant clouds).

But how can you translate the real explanation into terms of that
model, when that model is fundamentally wrong?

I try to avoid terms like "real explanation". I don't find them helpful in
communicating.

I do. Some explanations are as real as they can be, meaning that nobody
capable of observation and logic can doubt them. Every test that anybody
could think of has been passed; we really have no choice but to accept the
explanation. A car runs out of gas and stops. You explain that it stopped
because it ran out of gas. Someone who doesn't understand cars or who
hasn't looked into the tank can offer all sorts of competing explanations
for why it stopped running, but you are right and the other person is
wrong. There is simply no point in referring to remote possibilities (maybe
a UFO stopped the engine just as the last gas was used), unless you're
willing to do further tests to see if they apply. Most of the time you
don't need to bother. Some explanations are right and some are just plain
wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to discover this.

We tend to talk about "the scientist's explanation." It
avoids making people feel uncomfortable that they have the "wrong"
explanation. Beating people up with the "right explanation" is a form of
domination, and we know what PCT tells us about domination, don't we?

This is basically propaganda designed to make ignorance seem just as useful
as knowledge. It is usually offered by the ignorant, so I'm surprised that
you propose it. A person who goes around offering frivolous explanations
based on sketchy acquaintance with a subject or none at all ought to feel
uncomfortable -- how else will this person learn the difference between
carefully-tested knowledge and the opinions of a dilettante? If there's no
felt error, why try to correct it? If a person really doesn't understand
something, is it a good idea for that person to avoid acknowledging that
fact? "Poor baby, of course you understand physics, don't feel bad because
you never studied it." There are some problems people _need_ to feel bad
about if anything is ever to be done about them.

I really like the world you live in. I'll have to visit it some time.

The door's open.

>I know from experience that they are unable
>to make this translation for themselves.

Unable? I dispute that. "Unwilling" is more like it.

People who have different beliefs than we do often show up as "unwilling".
You might want to adopt the Catholic Church's term "invincibly ignorant".
Lots of us fit into that category when it comes to one belief or another.

So what? It's up to us to get over it. What's so sacred about beliefs? A
belief is a fact you cling to for reasons having nothing to do with its
truth. Is that a good thing to have around? The Third Patriarch would say
it isn't. So do I.

If you had learned PCT from the very start of your life, you would never
attribute your behavior to the woman's appearance. All you're saying is
that you grew up with a particular model of human behavior, and still find
it the most natural way to describe your experiences and observations.
That's true of all of us, probably; we are in a transition period in which
PCT is not yet what seems "natural," and S-R theory still permeates every
interpretation.

Well it will be a great day when it arrives. In the meantime, you will
forgive me for not holding my breath.

So while you go on breathing, are you going to promote the status quo or
the status we would like to see? What are you waiting for -- the Pope to
admit that the Earth goes around the Sun?

But you can _correlately_ [correctly, I meant] relate it to PCT only by

saying "... but that

very convincing appearance that your behavior is being called forth is
incorrect; if you want to understand how people really work you
have to put
it completely out of your mind. That is not how people work, and
the sooner
you abandon that idea the quicker you will understand how they do
work." Of
course you try to be tactful and break the news gently, but this is the
message you have to get across if you don't want to turn out yet another
person who thinks he or she understands PCT when in fact she or he is
clueless.

I agree. I never said otherwise.

Well, it sure seems to me that you're saying otherwise. You don't want to
tell people they have a wrong concept because you don't want to hurt
people's feelings (as if you caused them). You don't want to come on as a
Science Nazi, or something. Have you really made up your mind WHAT your
aims are, here?

Whenever we commit ourselves to an explanation, to a model, the world shows
up as a manifestation of that model. The world is _really_ made up of atoms
until you invent the idea of electrons and nucleons. The latter are really
the way the world is made up until you invent the idea of leptons and
quarks.

That's not what we're talking about. "Really" means "really and correctly
observed." The "real" or "correct" explanation is the one that works every
time, all the time. "Real" is what you have to accept after all objections
have been met -- when you can't twist and dodge and avoid the truth any
longer. That's as real or true as anything ever gets. The truth may well
change, but that's a different matter. What we're talking about here is the
fact that some ideas are much, much harder to disprove than others. The
question is whether we are going to prefer the hard-to-disprove facts over
the rest.

No, one description is clearly not as good as any other description. Part of
science involves the testing of the predictions of models and the
replacement of less adequate by more adequate models. This process separates
science from most other human enterprises where less adequate models are
never discarded.

I still believe our misunderstanding is rooted in a failure to sharply
delineate models from what the models are designed to explain. "Whatever you
attend to, calls you forth" is not a model.

Yes it is. It embodies a direction of effect, from the thing to which you
attend to whatever action is called forth. In PCT, the opposite direction
of effect is deduced and proven to be correct: it is the behavior, the
action, that varies as a means of keeping the perception in a particular
state. "Calling forth" is simply a wrong image. If people find this image
easy to grasp, it's because they already have the wrong idea about how
behavior works and you are simply vindicating their mistaken belief.

It is not an explanation of
anything. It is a way of describing the way we experience the world. PCT is
a model. PCT answers the question, "How is it whatever you attend to calls
you forth?"

And what PCT shows is that this appearance is a lie. You are describing an
illusion, like saying "The crossbar of the T, although equal in length to
the stem, looks shorter than the stem." It is a correct description of an
incorrect impression.

If you don't want to admit that some ideas are correct and others are
wrong, you're going to be working under a horrible handicap.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980410.0955 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980410.0206 MST)

>No, they clearly have a thought, "The phases of the moon are
caused by the
>earth's shadow." You discover that this only a thought when you
ask them to
>explain how we can see the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time.

What do you mean, "only a thought?" Aren't models thoughts? I'd say it's a
model that hasn't been tested in all possible ways. Your question
is a test
that will show a flaw in the model, but it requires some understanding of
geometry and optics to be seen as a fatal test. Remember the girl
in one of
your videos who thought light could travel around corners. Your question
wouldn't have fazed her.

We seem to use the word model somewhat differently. I will try to
distinguish my use by referring to a manipulable representation used
explicitly to make predictions.

>I try to avoid terms like "real explanation". I don't find them
helpful in
>communicating.

I do. Some explanations are as real as they can be, meaning that nobody
capable of observation and logic can doubt them. Every test that anybody
could think of has been passed; we really have no choice but to accept the
explanation. A car runs out of gas and stops. You explain that it stopped
because it ran out of gas. Someone who doesn't understand cars or who
hasn't looked into the tank can offer all sorts of competing explanations
for why it stopped running, but you are right and the other person is
wrong. There is simply no point in referring to remote
possibilities (maybe
a UFO stopped the engine just as the last gas was used), unless you're
willing to do further tests to see if they apply. Most of the time you
don't need to bother. Some explanations are right and some are just plain
wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to discover this.

One of the most valuable discoveries I made in the est training was the
price I paid for indulging my need to be right.

>We tend to talk about "the scientist's explanation." It
>avoids making people feel uncomfortable that they have the "wrong"
>explanation. Beating people up with the "right explanation" is a form of
>domination, and we know what PCT tells us about domination, don't we?

This is basically propaganda designed to make ignorance seem just
as useful
as knowledge. It is usually offered by the ignorant, so I'm surprised that
you propose it. A person who goes around offering frivolous explanations
based on sketchy acquaintance with a subject or none at all ought to feel
uncomfortable -- how else will this person learn the difference between
carefully-tested knowledge and the opinions of a dilettante? If there's no
felt error, why try to correct it? If a person really doesn't understand
something, is it a good idea for that person to avoid acknowledging that
fact? "Poor baby, of course you understand physics, don't feel bad because
you never studied it." There are some problems people _need_ to feel bad
about if anything is ever to be done about them.

My experience is different from yours. I don't find that feeling bad about
your understanding leads naturally to a desire to improve it. Quite the
contrary.

So while you go on breathing, are you going to promote the status quo or
the status we would like to see? What are you waiting for -- the Pope to
admit that the Earth goes around the Sun?

I believe he has acknowledged this.

Well, it sure seems to me that you're saying otherwise. You don't want to
tell people they have a wrong concept because you don't want to hurt
people's feelings (as if you caused them). You don't want to come on as a
Science Nazi, or something. Have you really made up your mind WHAT your
aims are, here?

Yes, to empower people.

That's not what we're talking about. "Really" means "really and correctly
observed." The "real" or "correct" explanation is the one that works every
time, all the time. "Real" is what you have to accept after all objections
have been met -- when you can't twist and dodge and avoid the truth any
longer. That's as real or true as anything ever gets. The truth may well
change, but that's a different matter. What we're talking about
here is the
fact that some ideas are much, much harder to disprove than others. The
question is whether we are going to prefer the hard-to-disprove facts over
the rest.

In my line of work, we try to do this all the time.

>
>I still believe our misunderstanding is rooted in a failure to sharply
>delineate models from what the models are designed to explain.
"Whatever you
>attend to, calls you forth" is not a model.

Yes it is. It embodies a direction of effect, from the thing to which you
attend to whatever action is called forth.

Yes, I understand that you interpret the statement this way. In my world it
is a wake-up call drawing your attention to what you attend to.

In PCT, the opposite direction
of effect is deduced and proven to be correct: it is the behavior, the
action, that varies as a means of keeping the perception in a particular
state. "Calling forth" is simply a wrong image. If people find this image
easy to grasp, it's because they already have the wrong idea about how
behavior works and you are simply vindicating their mistaken belief.

>It is not an explanation of
>anything. It is a way of describing the way we experience the
world. PCT is
>a model. PCT answers the question, "How is it whatever you
attend to calls
>you forth?"

And what PCT shows is that this appearance is a lie. You are describing an
illusion, like saying "The crossbar of the T, although equal in length to
the stem, looks shorter than the stem." It is a correct description of an
incorrect impression.

You probably need to take Tom Bourbon aside and straighten him out:

"In PCT, we usually take people at their word: if a person says "I
perceive X," we do not say, "No you don't" or "No. You really perceive
Y instead."

If you don't want to admit that some ideas are correct and others are
wrong, you're going to be working under a horrible handicap.

I'm sure it is frustrating to deal with someone who at times seems to
understand PCT but at other times seems intent on reverting to stimulus
response thinking. I'll do my best to avoid disturbing the perceptions you
protect with very high gain.

Bruce the Obscure