<[Bill Leach 951210.10:59 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
[Greg Wierzbicki 951210.0815 EST]
Greg;
I might be useful if you mentioned what you have read in the way of PCT
publications...
This leads to my confusion & question of the moment. How does PCT
explain the nature of habits, compulsions, addictions and abuses?
PCT explains the "nature" of these rather well but it does not explain
(in any sort of detail) how such things come into existance. There is
more than just a little problem with the terms that you referenced.
What is a habit or a compulsion? I personally have a habit of breathing
also a habit of eating. "Addiction" was discussed on the net as recently
as a month ago. What is abuse?
The terms are usually meant to imply that a person is doing something
that EITHER they or someone else believes is "bad" for the person. In
the case for "abuse" it is most often a "someone else" that makes the
claim. Further, both "addiction and abuse" _usually_ are applied to a
situation where some external chemical is involved. In any event, the
four terms that you listed are four different "qualitative" measures
along a very arbitrary scale.
Thus, I would say that in PCT terms, a habit or compulsion, etc.
(considered to be so by the subject) is an example of control system
operation conflict. The "behaviour" that is considered "bad" is, like
all other behaviour serving the function of maintaining a perception at
its' reference level.
Why do do we seem to have such difficulty overcoming ineffective
organizations? Any thoughts?
In "Freedom from Stress" and also in "Love Guaranteed", Ed Ford talks a
little about how one can "alter references" that themselves are strongly
influenced by perceptions. That is, these (possibly) undesired
references can not easily be changed through "force of will" (probably)
because the references support higher level references that the subject
does not (and probably should not) change. There is little doubt that
there are differing "priorities" for references. Internal conflict
(persistant error) exists anytime one control system prevents another
form controlling its' own perception.
I would suggest that there are several ways in which this might operate.
One is the common example used here on csg-l of two control loops with
(roughly) equal loop gain and output capability that have an in phase
component of their perceptions set to different reference values. That
is each is trying to force some aspect of the CEV to a value that
represents a disturbance to the other control loop.
A second possible condition would be where one control loop overwhelms
another continuously (in other words, they do NOT have equal loop gain
and/or output capability).
A third possible condition (that I can envision) is that one control
loop intermittently overwhelms another. I don't know that I really want
to try to express my thinking on this one in much detail just now nor do
I think that it is important to this discussion.
The popular terms such as "self-fullfilling prophecy", "you get what you
expect" and the like are loose terms with a strong PCT principle
underpinning.
PCT does not, at present, deal much with memory or cognitive processing
(except to say that the efforts of PCT researchers in this area are
certainly no WORSE than the efforts of others). Ed works, in my opinon,
is based upon his observations of what appears to exist examined from a
PCT perspective and what might allow for changes (again from a PCT
perspective). Ed's work is not "formal" but he has tested his PCT based
ideas.
Finally, I have to ask you: What do you mean by "ineffective
organizations"? From whose perspective?
Even in my own personal situation, I could quite rationally point out
that I must have a structure of "ineffective organizations" through which
I am functioning in my environment. There are quite a few higher level
goals that I believe that I am not satisfying. I am also sure that I
could find a reasonably sized group of people that would agree with me
(given that I verbalize the goals adequately) but at the same time I
don't doubt that there are probably millions that would "think that I am
crazy" to not be satisfied with my present situation.
I can't think of any _external_ criteria that can be applied reliably
and in an unambigious scientific manner to make "judgements" about
"ineffective organizations"
Even if the organism dies, one is presuming that continued existance is
more important _TO THE ORGANISM_ than what the organism was controlling
for that resulted in death when an assertion is made that the organism
has "ineffective organization" (ie: The test pilot that dies while
testing an airplane may have been quite well organized -- for an example
on one extreme).
The REAL problem as Tom Bourbon has expressed better, IMHO than has
anyone else, is that our entire behavioural sciences structure is flawed
fundamentally to the point that psychologists, psychiatrists and the like
are not even asking the right questions. I am reminded of my own
thoughts concerning the field called "Abnormal Psychology".
From a PCT standpoint, the very NAME suggests that the "science" is
hopelessly lost. Should such a field of study be concerned ONLY with
physiologically based neuralogical "disorders" then it would be a valid
science. It is highly probable that the overwhelming vast majority of
"people with 'severe' psychological problems" are perfectly "normal"
specimens of the species.
I fully believe that we must continue to have fields of "morals" and
"ethics", decide upon "right" and "wrong" behaviour, forcibly require
"accountability" from each other and the like but we have got to STOP
immediately viewing a "deviate" from such standards as mentally ill.
The living control system is controlling perception and with very rare
exception, has nothing "wrong" with it... EVEN when said control system
_believes_ to the contrary.
In abscence of "classical psychology" we might eventually have a chance
to help people to control "better" AND live among other control systems.
With "classical psychology" the situation is a hopeless morass of
phobias, disorders and psychosis. There is no underlying principle,
there is no quantitative standard. Every thing in the field is opinion
and consensus based (with again, no common objective basis).
The very concept that organisms "emit" behaviour, are "triggered" by
their environment or are "conditioned" by their environment has prevented
any useful progress by medical science in psychology except as the result
of fortunate accident.
-bill