INFLUENCE AND CONTROL AND OTHERS

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