[From Dick Robertson, 2008.01.18.1112CST]
OK,
I just read your most recent post, Kenny. It is mainly good stuff, although there are parts I might dispute–on the basis of our shared understanding of PCT.
But your message to Jim, is, I think, a pretty good presentation of lessons 6 through 10 (more or less) which he might well enjoy after he has gotten through 1 through 5.
Best,
Dick R
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems KJKitzke@AOL.COM
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:31 am
Subject: Re: most difficult obstacle for me with PCT
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.180]
Jim, if PCT accurately explains and models human behavior as it is observed
real time, it should within limits(if conditions don’t change) predict the next
increment of behavior. So, scientifically, according to theory and past
observations, F = ma, then we can predict what force needs to be applied to a
known mass to produce a desired acceleration.
One reason I find PCT so valuable in understanding human behavior is that
it is not just a theory of words and concepts. It has equations that can
be tested. So, if we believe the relationship that e = r - p is
fundamental to understanding behavior, then we can predict there will be
behavior to reduce any error.
When driving our car and r = 60 mph and p = 60 mph, there is no error
and no “new” behavior. When we enter a school zone with an r = 15
mph, there is an error and new behavior is predictable. Our foot comes off
the accelerator and goes on to the brake pedal.
Two other comments must apply. Only an individual
establishes and experiences their r’s. We can’t know with certainty
what r another person is controlling. And, even if we guess right about
another person’s r, the actions another person uses to reduce their error (even
if we observe the same p) varies and may not be the actions we would
use or predict another would use. Also, the error can be caused because p
changes, like you come to a steep hill and the car slows to under 60 mph unless
you act by pressing on the accelerator. Because we understand behavior the
PCT way, we know that the school zone or the hill do not cause us to slow down
or speed up. We can however predict a change in action as the conditions
in the future change.
The disturbing hole in PCT theory which you have revealed, is why and
how does a person change their references? Don’t people control their
references, their purpose. Of course they do! And, PCT has a limited
view of how this happens. It suggests there is a
“reorganization” system distinct from the hierarchal control system, that by
random experimentation finds a new control system configuration to deal with an
error, usually construed to be a conflict.
But, this is not modeled or understood well in PCT by Bill Powers
or anyone else. I think it is fair to say that people are not looking for
a theory of behavior to help explain how to drive a car the way you want to
under changing conditions or how to keep a cursor on a line when random
disturbances move the line.
I suspect people will only be interested in a new theory of behavior
via scientific psychology can help people with the real errors that cause pain,
not just physical pain, but emotional pain and dissatisfaction with one’s
emotions and purposes in life. As humans we have
longings (matters of the heart) that appear to be hard wired into some
human system. Do we learn over time that we want to be appreciated,
respected or loved? Does it take time to learn by random
reorganization that it feels as good to help others in need as it does
to be helped?
I think it is part of human nature to create goals and purpose for our
lives. It is not a random event. It is an imaginative and deep inner
searching activity for purpose and value. It is NOT part of
the mental and nerve firing perception control system and therefore needs
not to be in the HPCT model. It is a different human system called the
Inner Man, the self, the heart the spirit of a human being. But, however
it is descrbed, it needs to be in any theory of human nature and human
purpose to gain interest in people who are not satisfied with their actions in
life. I think when PCT evolves to explain such things, it will rapidly
replace all the ineffective theories of human psychology and what it takes
to be content with oneself.
So, if the models and theory do not help people achieve value in their
lives, or it stays in computer models and equations, I doubt it will catch the
attention of people searching for understanding of purpose for their
existence. Does any of this rambling help?
In a message dated 1/18/2008 2:09:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jannim@COMCAST.NET writes:
Jim Dundon 01.18.08.0200est
Ken,
You speak below of “predicting human behavior.” What does that
mean? Are you saying that you believe that someday we will be able to do
it once the theory is perfected. Prediction of who’s behavior by who.
Let’s be scientific. Are you suggesting prediction of one persons
behavior by another? If so that sounds ridiculus. We may be able
to influence but I serious doubt “predict” especially with no
interaction. Even Bill uses illustrations of unpredictability of one
person by another in support of his theory of control. I am not even
sure what predictions Bill is talking about when he praises the predictive
accurracy of PCT. How does it translate into something usable outside a
lab.
He certainly can’t predict what I am going to have for breakfast.
What behavior do you expect PCT to someday predict?
best
jim
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.