I tried sending a message which I think got aborted by "the system."
I'll try again.
I recognize that PCT is what is sometimes called "value neutral" as to
conflict. So am I up to a point.
My basic point is empirical. Half or more of the senses of control
and disturbance I monitor among humans conform to a model other than
yours. I compare results of those who control as within PCT to those
who seek control as in what I call tetrahedronal form. I have a
theory of the comparative results of control within each of the two
models. I test the hypothesized results against experience, data. So
far, note that no moral stand on which result is preferable is
implied.
Tetrahedronal interaction is exogenous to your measurements and
analyses. It appears only as random noise. Similarly, in studies of
jury bias for instance, the fair jury is the one whose decisions are
unsystematic, inexplicable, essentially random. I'm saying that if
you use a different operational base and model for relating the
variables and constants therein, that randomness suddenly assumes
manifest form. I'm inferring my theory from how I and others
experience control in a measure of our lives.
I suppose the confusion comes from my next step. Once I have compared
the results, I find living within the one form of control to produce
negative results for people (so I feel, so I do go on to argue--for
instance that a high incarceration rate is a blot on a social system),
in contrast to how I characterize results obtained when people
experience control, conflict and disturbance in the form of the other
model--in the realm I in my big course call "alternative social
control systems." We don't have to agree on which results we prefer
in order to investigate the empirical differences. l&p hal