Kenny's most difficult obstacle for me with PCT number two

[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.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.18.1300EST)]

Dick, I don’t know Jim at all. I don’t know how well he understands PCT. He claimed to have a number of Bill’s books and his questions indicated to me that he at least read them. Then he asked questions. He even sought Bill’s works electronically so he can more easily search to find answers. I perceive this as someone who wants to understand this theory of behavior that you and I find compelling…as far as it goes.

So, instead of shaming me, I suggest we let Jim speak for himself. You neither know what I intended nor what he perceived. I believe that is PCT science in practical application.

I was responding primarily to the following of Jim’s questions:

“How does a theory of behavior in which , according to you, one does not
control the reference signal, afford an opportunity for choosing (having
control over) a reference signal (goal)?”

Regardless of Jim’s understanding of PCT, his question seems to deserve an answer? Rick’s answer did not satisfy me. I gave him an answer. You can too. So can Bill. I brought up the mystery of where the 11th level system reference’s come from in my “Missing Link” presentation at the fine conference you sponsored in Chicago (was it 2004?).

It all still seems rather mysterious to me. And, since these system references deploy the references for all the lower levels in a person, they seem pretty instrumental regarding the model or predictive nature of the human behavior of a specimen. How can you claim any knowledge of the nature of human behavior and how they do what they do and leave this out, or provide a purely speculative notion, and call it science?

If you have some better understandings than I or Jim, feel free to correct us. That’s how we learn. Dispute what I say and why, please. I am all ears. That is why I have come and stayed here all these years. I realize many have picked up their marbles and left this forum (for reasons of control they only know). I think you realize that we are not a growing group. Is there any shame to spread around about that?

I hope you are coming to NJ. I am itching for our annual tennis match. I plan to be a tennis tiger next year. I reorganized and set new references. There was no random reorganization involved and no intrinsic variables at stake best I can tell. It was about my purpose…something I establish as a human being.

Best wishes,

Kenny

In a message dated 1/18/2008 12:16:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:

···

[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.

[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


Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[From Dick Robertson, 2008.01.18.1325CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems KJKitzke@AOL.COM
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: Kenny’s most difficult obstacle for me with PCT number two

Dick,I don’t know Jim at all. I don’t know how well he understands >So,instead of shaming me, I suggest we let Jim speak for himself.
You neither know what I intended nor what he perceived. I believethat is
PCT science in practical.

Wedo suggest our conception of thecontrolled variable, in hopes of eliciting the communicator’s assent ordissent, though, don’t we?

He claimed to have a number of Bill’s books and his questions
indicated to me that he at least read them. Then he asked
questions. He even sought Bill’s works electronically so he can more
easily search to find answers. I perceive this as someone who wantsto
understand this theory of behavior that you and I find compelling…as faras it
goes.

Right, I agree, That’s why I said he strikes me as a bright and serious guy,BUT when he says,

"How does a theory of behavior in which , according to you, one does not

control the reference signal, afford an opportunity for choosing(having
control over) a reference signal (goal)?" Didn’t that turn on a redlight for you?

Youknow organisms don’t control reference signals, they control perceptions. Irepeat my earlier observation that the whole paragraph seems to express thenotion that a Person Has a control hierarchy and reference signals, rather thanthat a person IS a control hierarchy (plus the rest of the organism of course).

Regardlessof Jim’s understanding of PCT, his question seems to

deserve an answer? Rick’s answer did not satisfy me. I gavehim an
answer.

ButI am arguing that your answer would (IMHO, of course) encourage Jim to thinkyou find him to have more understanding of PCT than he does. Hence my saying Shame to you. I believe youknow better. So I’m sticking to my challenge –much as I love you—so far. If,following your remarks Jim had shown more understanding of what PCT is allabout, I would have to recant. But, so far, I don’t see it.

Or,look at this:

Itall still seems rather mysterious to me.

Wellsaid.

And,since these system
references deploy the references for all the lower levels in aperson, they
seem pretty instrumental regarding the model or predictive nature ofthe
human behavior of a specimen. How can you claim any knowledgeof the
nature of human behavior and how they do what they do and leave this out,or
provide a purely speculative notion, and call it science?

Kenny,do you know what the rest of that paragraph means? IF so, tell me, because I don’t.

fyou have some better understandings than I or Jim, feel free

to correct us. That’s how we learn. Dispute what I sayand why,
please. I am all ears. That is why I have come and stayedhere
all these years. I realize many have picked up their marbles andleft this
forum (for reasons of control they only know). I think yourealize
that we are not a growing group. Is there any shame to spread aroundabout
that?

Idon’t think I have a better understanding than you, but I think both of us havea better understanding than Jim does. That’s why I got exercised at what seemedto me you supporting him in his misconceptions. But he’ll get there if he keepsat it.

Ihope you are coming to NJ. I am itching for our

annual tennis match. I plan to be a tennis tiger nextyear. I
reorganized and set new references. There was no randomreorganization
involved and no intrinsic variables at stake best I cantell. It
was about my purpose…something I establish as a human being.

Ithink I’m coming. And if I do, we’ll see about that tiger.

[From Kenny Kitzke, 2008.01.18.1423EST]

<Dick Robertson, 2008.01.18.1325CST>

Ihope you are coming to NJ. I am itching for our

annual tennis match. I plan to be a tennis tiger nextyear. I
reorganized and set new references. There was no randomreorganization
involved and no intrinsic variables at stake best I cantell. It
was about my purpose…something I establish as a human being.

<Ithink I’m coming. And if I do, we’ll see about that tiger.>

Atta boy, Dick. Grrrr!

···

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.