[From Rick Marken (931204.1030)]
Mary Powers (931203) --
Your objections to Martin's post on dynamic systems are duly
noted (and noted...and noted.. :-))
Thank you.
It may well be that Martin is carrying his raft into the
mountains, as Tom so marvellously put it. But Rick, it's his
raft, and yelling "drop it, drop it!" isn't getting anywhere.
It makes me feel happy, and that's the only "where" I'm trying
to get to.
Thinking about this conflict you have with Martin, your version
of PCT versus his, I want to say that nobody - Martin, you, Tom,
or *anyone*, on the net or in CSG, has the full story of PCT as
it exists in Bill's mind.
I'm not trying to read Bill's mind. I'm trying to read nature's,
at least with respect to the behavior of organisms. I love the
way Bill (and you) think but I love the way my research comes out
even better. I can't believe that you would imagine that I am
trying to impart the "gospel according to Bill". Bill had the basic,
incredible insight, he taught me a HUGH amount, but my
disagreements with Martin, for example, are based on what
little I know (or think I know) based on my research and
modelling of purposeful behavior. The fact that other people
who deal with PCT in the same way rarely disagree with me (the
substance of what I say, anyway, if not the _way_ I say it) suggests
that we're getting pretty much the same message.
All anyone can hope for is an agreement on basic
principles
I don't have to "hope" for it; I know I've got it with the people
who understand PCT via their experience (models, demos, research)
and not via "the PCT gospel".
Before you counter by saying you don't think Martin understands
the basic principles of PCT, I strongly urge you to think
again.
I have no idea what Martin understands. All I know is what he
says. And when what he (or anyone else) says differs from my
understanding of the nature of purposeful systems (such as
the idea that "information guides output") then I try to rebut
it -- not to "improve" the person who said it; just to "set
the record straight" for whomever might be interested in the
record as a guide to their own explorations of nature.
I really think Bill's mode of patient and prolonged
discussion and explanation is more productive than getting angry.
Well, it depends on what you want to "produce". I want to produce
happy feelings in ME. I have no interest in producing PCT converts
because I know that it can't be done -- by ANY means, including
"prolonged discussion and explanation". No one can do it -- not even
Bill. People either WANT to learn PCT and they go out and learn it
from NATURE or they don't.
This is not to say that when incorrect ideas come along they
shouldn't be commented on.
That's what I'm doing.
What I'm talking about is an attitude that
anyone who is learning PCT is all wet because he hasn't
completely grasped it yet.
This is NOT my attitude AT ALL. I'm not particulary good at, or
interested in, figuring out how far anyone has progressed
in their learning of PCT. All I do is respond when I see
statements which represent what I consider to be some pretty
fundemental misunderstandings of the nature of control and
the nature of control theory. A statement like "control is just one
way of explaining behavior", for example, could represent a
pretty fundemental misunderstanding of what PCT is about. So I
respond based on my understanding of what was said. In the
process I hope that someone might get an idea for research to
demonstrate the point I'm trying to make (for example, that
what we see as "behaviors" are side effects of perceptual control).
I respond for the sake of potential PCT explorers; not to make an
entry into the "gospel according to PCT".
Getting from there to here is not an
instantaneous process, and it is not fostered by negativity. That
noted animal trainer, B.F. Skinner, got his results by rewarding
slight moves in the right direction, not by pulling feathers out
of the pigeons if they didn't do what he wanted right away.
I'm not in the behavior modification business. I don't care whether
or not people act like good PCTers, say all the right things or
whatever. PCT is a body of knowledge and observation that people
can help themselves to or not at their discretion. Obviously, I like
PCT and I think it's extremely important; I'd love it if more people
were interested in and working on it. But I have absolutely no
interest in converting people to PCT -- no way! Didn't Bill once
say " a person who is convinced against their will is of the same
opinion still". I don't want to convince anybody that "this is the way
purposeful behavior actually works". I don't want to reinforce
successive approximations to the correct verbalisms about PCT.
All I care about is providing a correct representation of what I
know to be the facts of PCT. (These are usually pretty simple,
fundemental little facts but they are kind of important, I think).
This is why I respond to what I perceive as misstatements about
PCT; it's not for the "benefit" of the person making the mistake; it's
for the benefit of those who might want to go out a TEST these ideas
for themselves -- and learn PCT the only way it can be learned: by
TESTING it. That's the way I learned PCT. Powers didn't "shape" me
into a PCTer -- and he knows it; I did all the shaping myself (by
successive approximations, too, as you will recall; I didn"t become
a fanatic overnight; I succumbed to PCT under duress -- the duress
created by the results of my own tests of PCT).
Martin is more than welcome to his raft. Bruce can have his tea.
Hans can have his feedforward. And everybody will do what they
want anyway. All I do is point out mistakes. If I'm wrong, I'm happy
to be corrected.
What I learned from PCT is that you can't make other people adopt
the goals that you would like them to adopt. And boy has that one
panned out.
But good luck on the behavior mod program.
Love
Rick