[From Dick Robertson, 01.18.2008.1105CST]
I just spent a half hour with Kenny’s previous post only to get time out. So I’m going to send it now and if your newer post obviates it, sorry.
FRom Dick Robertson, 01.18.2008.1035CST]
Kenny,
Shame on you. I can’t believe that the first thing you would say to Jim Dundon in response to his recent posts would be, "Jim, you are not the first person to notice this “missing link” in the
nature of human beings when trying to understand and predict human behavior
using current PCT theory and models," etc.
Jim’ssubsequent post shows that he took that as if you had said he put hisfinger on a defect in PCT, something he seems to have been assertingrepeatedly.(Cf: JD, 01.07.08. "Over and over you praise PCT asrecognizing purposeful behavior, yet your model ultimately leads tosubmission to a higher level, with you at the top, absent a referencelevel.
I think the rest of your post probably is read by Jimas support for his understanding of PCT, of which in fact there isalmost none.
He is a bright and serious guy, and doubtless couldmake good application of PCT, if he ever learns it, but to support himin thinking he understands it currently is mischievous. For example,(JD, 01.17.08) “In your model there is no decision making on the partof the human. only(sic) submission to upper levels the top level ofwhich has no reference signal. Why???”, etc. He is failing to graspthat when a top level control system alters the reference signal to itssupporting system(s), followed by a change in behavior, that IS theorganism making a decision. That is how we humans make decisions!
Jimshows other misconceptions of what PCT is all about when he says,"…only submission to upper levels the top level off which hasno…(etc.). That seems to suggest that he conceives of a Personexisting outside the control hierarchy and (maybe) only “using” it toexecute its (the person’s) decisions/behavioral aims.
He does notrealize that Bill’s conception of the hierarchy, and the intrinsicsystem it serves, is that of the software running in the hardware wecall the Central Nervous System (and it’s output effectors-muscles andglands, and that only the whole thing comprises the person as a humancontrol system.
Kenny, I know you don’t believe that PCT isdevoted to helping one predict other people’s behavior. But your postto Jim certainly seemed to him to be a response to_someone_ (but who?)arguing that is what PCT is about.
I think Jim is in theposition of many who took a quick taste of PCT previously, and set outto “make a contribution” by pointing out its defects–never realizingthat their PCT was a totally incorrect projection of their own–andthen went away aggrieved when CSG members suggested they learn the theorybefore attempting to analyze it.
I hope that doesn’t happen with JIM. He is a good and serious guy and needs encouragement to do his homework.
Best,
Dick R
···
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems KJKitzke@AOL.COM
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:21 pm
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems KJKitzke@AOL.COM
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: most difficult obstacle for me with PCT
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.17)]
<Jim Dundon 01.17.08.0937est>
<Bill,
You emphasize and present PCT as a move away
from being the robotic automaton that you believe is inherent in stimulus
response view.
In your model there is no decision making on the
part of the human. only submission to upper levels the top level of which
has no reference signal. Why??? What is the purpose?
You “always go up” Scientifically speaking,
and I really appreciate your commitment to being scientific, something that
always goes up but never goes down in a system that has 11 levels means a limit
of 10 moves. Scientifically speaking, that is. And I know you’re
scientific and never bend the rules.
Over and over you praise PCT as recognizing
purposefull behavior, yet your model ultimately leads to submission to a highest
level, with you at the top, absent a reference signal.>
Jim, you are not the first person to notice this “missing link” in the
nature of human beings when trying to understand and predict human behavior
using current PCT theory and models. I perceive that this “missing link”
concerning human purpose (human will) is the chief reason why so few scientists,
or even amateur psychologists, have accepted the theory. And, the answer
Rick gave you does not cut the mustard.
I totally agree that in a theory of purposeful behavior, the model should
deal specifically with how purposes are established and controlled. The
answer that humans have one or more higher control levels than cats is not
convincing. Something else is different and unique in humans. To
Bill’s credit, he recognizes this gap and fills it with “reorganization” systems
and “observers” some of which he is humble enough to admit is not totally
understood or captured in the basis model. He knows his
wonderful theory of behavior by controlling perceptions needs more study
and experimental development. I agree.
I have proffered at the Conferences some possible gap mechanisms including
a 12th-Level of Personal Purpose with its references set by something
called the “Inner Man” using a mental system to establish personal will or
purpose via a spirit nature unique to the human species and each
individual. Unfortunately, I am not enough of a theorist or model builder
to put some equations or meat into an embellished and demonstrated complete
theory of the nature of humans which it seems to me establishes and
accomplishes ones “life purpose” as unique and
amazing as one’s body and mind.
The theory needs more work and development that will build on Bill’s
marvelous foundation so that all reasonable questions and obstacles can be
convincingly answered and tested. You are invited to help
us.
Rick,
You emphasize over and over that "in PCT we do not
control our reference signals we control our perception".
Nothing could sound more like an invitation to
become a robot.
Why do you you embrace, and so love, a man and
a theory which takes away eveyrone’s ability, everyone’s right, including
yours to establish his goals?
best.
JIm
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.