[From Rick Marken (930528.1600)]
Bill Powers (930528.0930 MDT)--
To this I would like to add that people do NOT say "no" the same
way every time.
And this is precisely what the "filtered noise" experiment would
show, in spades. A person who hears themselves saying "no" when
the background noise is "spectrally low pass" is probably producing
a very different acoustic waveform than they do when they hear
themselves saying "no" with the background noise "spectrally high
pass". In fact, I bet you could fiddle with the background noise so
that the person would be producing the acoustic equivalent of "nay"
in order to hear themselves saying "no".
Bruce Nevin (Fri 930528 14:59:35)--
Rick: if you are still willing to send me some code for generating
the sound disturbances, please do, and I'll work on the other pieces.
I'll try to have it for you by Tuesday (I'm off the net 'til then).
CHUCK TUCKER (930528) --
I use Glasser to give some of that "ordinary language" and
illustrations to the discussion of PCT. It is at times
dangerous to let students read this "unsupervised"
My! my! Is he writing heresy? I shall report him to the Grand
Wizard of PCT! (Maybe we could use the stake abandoned by
the scarecrow?)
and w/o some "what to look for" directions
This is what I am looking for. I would like to see specific examples
of statements by Glasser that are inconsistent with the PCT model.
I would also like to know why these statements create a problem
in therapy -- ie. what does Glasser's version of PCT lead one to
do that is demonstrably worse than what PCT would lead one to do
as a therapist. After all, a wrong model of a phenomenon does not
necessarily mean that the phenomenon will be delt with wrongly. For
example, navigators used celestial navigation successfully for years
before anyone had a good model of the behavior of the heavens.
Dag Forssell (930527 23.30) --
Perception is too difficult to explain and irrelevant, so it is
gone. The entire hierarchy of references are replaced by Glasser's
basic needs, which he says are universal.
This is more along the lines of what I want; specific criticisms of
Glasser's presentation of PCT or control theory. This is a good point;
Glasser has left out a lot by leaving out the hierarchy of control, since
that is where we live most of the time -- controlling our perception;
which ends up controlling our intrinsic variables.
But it would be nice if you (Dag, Chuck, Ed, etc) could quote specific
statements of Glasser's and explain (as we did with Locke/Latham)
why they seem to be wrong.
Have a great weekend
(Hmmm. Somehow that seems wrong on memorial weekend. How
about "have as best a weekend as possible while noting the
unfortunate lengths people will go to to defend their beliefs";
wouldn't it be nice if, instead of being filled with once living control
systems, the war memorial graveyards were filled with data from
behavioral science research that produced relationships between
variables that were less than .99?)
Best
Rick