CHUCK TUCKER [920925]
TOPICS: Future issues of CLOSED LOOP; Influence and Control;
Bothering with PCT
CLOSED LOOP GW 920923-2
I know it would be a great amount of work but I think that you
(Greg) can edit the transcripts of the conversation so as to
represent the major matters mentioned about "Influence and
Control". I do think that it would be useful to have a "summary"
of the discussion (as Cliff suggests). The other part of the
project I suggest, i.e., comments by other on the Net and a
future book, can wait to see it there is any interest in it. I
think that one way to get people interested in these ideas is to
have our books in ther libraries in the country and ask (in some
instances FORCE) people to read them.
INFLUENCE AND CONTROL WTP 920922.0900; 23.0900
GW 920922; 23; 23-2
PW 920923
Unfortunately, I still have a problem with your specification of
what you mean and how you determine that A has influenced B. My
dictionary has a definition similar to yours except it has some
additional words: Origin of "influence" = to flow in - "the
flowing of ethereal fluid or power of the stars affecting the
character or actions of people"; "the power to produce an effect
by indirect means"; "the power or capacity to produce a desired
effect" SYN: clout, leverage, pull, sway, authority, power,
control. My dictionary of word origins states: (see: affluent)
"INFLUENCE first was a term in astrology, the forces determined
by the flowing in of the stars; so accident first meant the
falling into place (accidere) of the stars - only unbelievers
deemed it chance"!
The problem with these definitions that I find is that they are
stated in terms not consistent with PCT since they contain
attributes, i.e.,"the power or capacity," or notions which are S-
R, i.e., "to produce an effect" or "to flow in". But I don't
think you are using INFLUENCE in that way (at least most of the
time) but rather as a description of interaction where in A
figures out what B wants (call it "X") and provides it for A in
such a way that their interaction continues w/o force on the part
of either A or disturbances on the part of B.
But it seems to me that in PCT terms for A to influence B to
"produce a certain effect" that B would have to take and use a
purpose (reference signal "X") "provided" by A since "a certain
effect" in PCT terms is action taken by B consistent with B's
reference signal X. Thus, with this specification, Pat (please
excuse me if this is offensive to either of you) has influenced
your childrens' food preferences to the extent they have adopted
similar notions of "healthy" and /or "tasty" food and it seems
that there is no other source for these preferences. But even if
this is the case, Pat's actions have served only as an "occasion"
for the children to develop these preferences from a PCT
perspective. I say this not as a criticism of Pat (or anyone
else, including myself) but to simply point out that in PCT terms
all that we DO serves as an "occasion" for what others DO; we do
not determine what they DO.
This discussion has influenced me to think about THE TEST for
cooperative acts performed by 2, 3, 4, or more persons where the
disturbances do not come from the persons engaged in the
cooperative acts but from others. The simplist one we have
already discussed: ask two or more people to use rubber bands to
keep one knot over a target and then apply a disturbance to the
knot and observe what they do to maintain the knot over the
target. Now what about other cooperative acts: sawing wood
together, a crew rowing a boat, moving a bed together, singing a
song or playing music together, walking as a "with", preparing a
meal together, an "assembly line" operation to make a product
(think of the Charlie Chaplin movie)? What do people do when
disturbances are introduced to maintain the social act to its
completion? Sounds like some ideas for student projects in a
"collective behavior" course!!
A NOTE ON BOTHERING WITH PCT
Using PCT, it seems to me that a person would not adopt the ideas
of PCT unless it was consistent with their current notions and
PCT offered some assistance or improvements in the development of
said ideas OR that the disturbances were so great that definite
reorganization was in process and PCT was useful in that process.
Now if most professional psychologists (sociologists, social
workers, educators . . .) find no problems (I have written most
of my papers as critiques of conventional theories and I have
never found anyone that told me that what I wrote disturbed them
so much that it converted them) with their current views (see the
delightful post of Francisco Arocha 920921 13:07) then we should
not expect them to find PCT useful. Then add to this that there
is very little in the way of "support" and "encouragement" to be
found in the relationships that people find themselves for these
ideas (which are so different and strange and "non-common
sensical"). I think it is a wonder that anyone ever adopts even
one little part of the PCT formulation (I also wonder when I find
people that use the ideas of Dewey, James, Pierce, Kantor, Mead,
and Bentley). So, keep writing and telling ourselves about the
formulation and maybe 100 years from now there will be a
revolution of the "behavioral sciences" when someone with a
problem discovers the logs of CSGNet on a tape somewhere.
Regards,
Chuck