In PCT Terms...

[From Fred Nickols (2004.03.21.1100)] --

My comments are embedded below:

Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we
listening here) in terms of PCT theory just what may be
happening when (not in any order and no names, please):

1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?

Hmm. If I understand PCT, people don't do things in hopes of closing a
discrepancy; that would be the old plan-act model. People do what they do
because it reduces error. So, an "obviously flaming" message must reduce
some error somewhere. One possibility might be that the sender has a
reference condition loosely defined as "engage in actions that offend person
A" and sending out a "flame" satisfies that reference condition. Another
possibility might be "an eye for an eye" or "retaliate when attacked." The
flame could be a response to a flame. Both those possibilities are
obviously pure speculation. I think what PCT says is do the test. The
problem with the test, of course, is like the rats and pigeons, we can see
when others are manipulating our environments and that mucks up the
manipulation.

2. Two people are messaging the CSGnet as in an arms race?

Again, speculation could generate a very large supply of hypotheses and
possibilities.

3. A person leaves lurkdom temporarily to put out a view and then
goes back?

Ditto.

4. A person leaves the CSGnet (actually unsubscribes)?

Ditto.

5. A person deletes from his/her own mailbox the source of disturbance?

Ditto.

6. A person who does not fire back a note to an obviously flaming message?

Ditto.

7. A person who has the capacity to "hurt others [and] be proud of it" but
doesn't/isn't any longer.

Ditto.

8. Any other related action recorded on the net?

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

No traps here, and certainly no attempt to lay blame on my part
as a result of any replies, but just a way to calmly de-brief and then
examine in PCT terms what happens here. :slight_smile:

No traps perceived, Bryan. I think the point of my responses above is that
PCT doesn't tell us diddly about the behaviors alluded to in the instances
you posed above. All it gives us is a general, theoretical explanation of
behavior that can be used to speculate about particular behaviors. In a
way, there is an eery parallel with something Bill P once said about
statistics; (as best I recall) that it tells us a great deal about groups
and nothing about individuals. Perhaps it's the case that PCT tells us a
great deal about behavior and nothing about behaviors.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.21.1108)]

Thank you Fred, very much! See below, too.

[From Fred Nickols (2004.03.21.1100)] --

My comments are embedded below:

> Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]
>
> Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we
> listening here) in terms of PCT theory just what may be
> happening when (not in any order and no names, please):
>
> 1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?

Hmm. If I understand PCT, people don't do things in hopes of closing a
discrepancy; that would be the old plan-act model. People do what they do
because it reduces error. So, an "obviously flaming" message must reduce
some error somewhere....
...

So, without speculating on any particular living control system's hierarchy,
an obviously flaming message reduces error in one control system, but may
not increase error signals in some other control systems typically
categorized as principles of behavior or deportment, etc. Or--those control
systems (if they exist) may not be able to send error signals up and down
the hierarchy as words are typed... No conflict arises, and no paralysis
seems to as attacks are composed, then.

How do we describe that? How does the structure of a discussion group affect
the perceptual signal, where there are only words (no eye-contact, no NVC,
etc.) in a less-continuous (I am grasping at terminology here...!)
environment, where modifications of that environment are made less
frequently (others would describe that as less-often and more granular
"feedback")?

No great news about this... but what is the phenomenon in greater detail?

--Bryan

ยทยทยท

Regards,

Fred Nickols...