From Tom Bourbon [930929.1657]
I confess I haven't kept enough of a record to name the csg-l
correspondent, but awhile back someone did discuss industrial
management applications he was trying with PCT. I responded on the
spot. I also saw correspondents in medical research talking about
problems of control as within individuals rather than a discussion of
healing as a social process of how to get and process information from
a patient--not a PCT issue, but the primary issue to someone like me
who despairs of how doctors learn about and practice on their
patients.
It is unfortunate that you did not make a note of the names of your
correspondents who discussed PCT in managerial settings. You have been on
the network a while and I am sure you have seen how eager we are to find any
information we can about other people who talk specifically about the PCT
model. (Not about "how to control others," or "how to control a social
system," but about the specific model of how individuals control many of
their own perceptions.)
In both these cases, I recall the correspondents failing to encompass
their own data collection and processing into their use of PCT. As I
say, I spell out how this form of gathering and processing information
itself promotes violence in THE GEOMETRY OF VIOLENCE AND DEMOCRACY.
Among other things, as I point out, choice of model and whether
conflict becomes violent or strengthening depends on whether conflict
is modeled as something that is more under control when the negative
feedback is dampened or confronted and used to change one's referents.
Did the correspondents cite any of the work on PCT modeling? Or maybe they
mentioned Bill Powers? Most people who talk about control in general, and
about some form of "control theory in particular, do not mention Powers or
PCT modeling. If your correspondents did, they are out of the ordinary.
You just gave us a hint of what you mean when you say PCT promotes
violence. Am I correct? Is it that you remember these correspondents
gathering and processing information in a particular way, and that they said
they were using PCT when they did those things? If so, might it not be the
case that the correspondents' methods, and their espousal of PCT, could be
independent phenomena? Or that their understanding of PCT is different from
that of the people who test and simulate PCT models? Do you remember if
your correspondents demonstrated a good grasp of PCT as you have seen it
discussed on this net?
And I am having some trouble understanding what you mean when you say
somethng might be "more under control when the negative feedback is damped."
Could you say something about what you mean by that phrase?
If you can pin down what you don't understand of the many ways I'm
trying to portray how choice of model relates to violence, I'll have
an easier idea of how to explain myself.
I guess that was what I was doing in my remarks and questions above. Maybe
it would help if you could post a brief summary of the many ways you think
choice of model relates to violence. Maybe a list of the ways, and some
remarks about where you think the violence "resides" -- in the theorists?
the models? the situations that are modeled? the data-gathering methods?
all of the above? none of the above? I am not sure where you would tell
me to look if I wanted to see the same evidence of violence that you see.
Maybe that would be a way to help me understand what you mean: tell me
where to look, how to look, and what to look for.
Until later,
Tom
···
In Message Wed, 29 Sep 1993 11:51:20 CDT, "PEPINSKY Hal, writes: