# Kid who doesn't talk

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057>\
**Category:** CSG2009\
**Created:** [February 16, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057 "2009-02-16T17:00:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/1 "2009-02-16T17:00:04Z")

</div>

> I have looked up some  
> articles about it on the American Psychological Association website. The  
> consensus seems to be that it is an anxiety disorder condition and that  
> behavioral therapy methods work best.  
> [From Bill Powers (2009.02.16.0938 MST)]

David Goldstein (2009.02.16.10:04  
EST)]

Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for treatment? Did the  
articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat, start talking)  
works better than MOL?

> The PCT approach would be to find  
> the controlled variable(s) that this little girl is controlling by means  
> of her not talking.

I don’t think so. That would be useful to an experimenter trying to  
validate PCT, but how would the therapist’s knowing that what the little  
girl is controlling help her to reorganize?

I would recommend MOL therapy, since (I claim) it does only those things  
that are helpful. Rather than aiming to overpower the girl’s decision not  
to talk, how about just befriending her and helping her explore the  
things that bother her? As I said before, there must be many ways to  
communicate that don’t require her to talk. Dick Robertson found one.  
Helping her to be less anxious might allow her to talk.

I have a lot more to say but will leave it there.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/2 "2009-02-16T16:45:47Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2009.02.16.0845)]

> > I have looked up some  
> > articles about it on the American Psychological Association website. The  
> > consensus seems to be that it is an anxiety disorder condition and that  
> > behavioral therapy methods work best.  
> > Bill Powers (2009.02.16.0938 MST)–
> 
> David Goldstein (2009.02.16.10:04  
> EST)]
> 
> Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for treatment? Did the  
> articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat, start talking)  
> works better than MOL?

I’d like to know, too, David.

> > The PCT approach would be to find  
> > the controlled variable(s) that this little girl is controlling by means  
> > of her not talking.
> 
> I don’t think so. That would be useful to an experimenter trying to  
> validate PCT, but how would the therapist’s knowing that what the little  
> girl is controlling help her to reorganize?

Again, I completely agree. What’s up, David?

> I would recommend MOL therapy

Me too. Actually, your first comment on this seemed to me to be right on target. You said:

> How about just acting things out nonverbally with her for a while, for  
> fun, and stopping all the fuss about her not talking?

I would say “Yes, for that dear girl’s sake just lighten up”.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/3 "2009-02-16T22:16:06Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.02.16.1618CDT]

Hey wait a minute. Could you guys (Bill and Rick) give some details about how you do MOL with a kid who doesn’t talk?

Best,

Dick R.

> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----  
> From: Richard Marken [rsmarken@GMAIL.COM](mailto:rsmarken@GMAIL.COM)  
> Date: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:48 am  
> Subject: Re: Kid who doesn’t talk  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2009.02.16.0845)]
> 
> > > > I have looked up some articles about it on the American Psychological Association website. The consensus seems to be that it is an anxiety disorder condition and that behavioral therapy methods work best.  
> > > > Bill Powers (2009.02.16.0938 MST)–
> > 
> > > David Goldstein (2009.02.16.10:04 EST)]
> > 
> > > Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for treatment? Did the articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat, start talking) works better than MOL?
> 
> > I’d like to know, too, David.
> 
> > > > The PCT approach would be to find the controlled variable(s) that this little girl is controlling by means of her not talking.
> > 
> > > I don’t think so. That would be useful to an experimenter trying to validate PCT, but how would the therapist’s knowing that what the little girl is controlling help her to reorganize?
> 
> > Again, I completely agree. What’s up, David?
> 
> > > I would recommend MOL therapy
> 
> > Me too. Actually, your first comment on this seemed to me to be right on target. You said:
> > 
> > > How about just acting things out nonverbally with her for a while, for fun, and stopping all the fuss about her not talking?
> 
> > I would say “Yes, for that dear girl’s sake just lighten up”.
> 
> > Best
> 
> > ## Rick
> > 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/4 "2009-02-16T23:25:22Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.16.1605 MST)]

Dick Robertson, 2009.02.16.1618 CDT --

> Hey wait a minute. Could you guys (Bill and Rick) give some details about how you do MOL with a kid who doesn't talk?

I wondered when someone would ask, but I didn't expect it to be you since you described one way.

The point of the method of levels is to indicate things the client could be aware of that the client is currently just acting out without knowing it. Words are fine for this, but sometimes just a raised eyebrow or an enquiring look is enough. You can start a game with a child in a sandbox, picking up a doll and making it do things that might be interesting, and if the child can understand language, you can say things that bring some subject into the field of awareness. You could make the doll put a hand over its mouth and shake its head. Heck, I'm no expert on getting along with four-year-olds, but you can use your imagination.

Another aspect of this is simply adopting the MOL attitude. The MOL therapist does not want to change the client's behavior to be more like what other people want it to be. He or she wants to find out the client's definition of the problem, and help the client resolve that problem, not the therapist's problem or the parent's problem or the society's problem. Admittedly this will be harder if the client isn't currently talking, but that just means you have to find other ways of communicating. If you are 100% on the client's side and want to help the client understand and change, you will not do all the wrong things like putting pressure on the client to behave differently or telling the client hurtful and discouraging things or showing the client that you're shocked or disgusted or "disappointed." Doing MOL is to a great degree trying NOT to do most of the things that other therapists do, and doing only the things that help direct reorganization to a better place (which other therapists certainly also do, but accidentally while they think they're doing something else).

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/5 "2009-02-17T16:15:51Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson,2009.02.17.1015CDT]

Well, OK, if you’re expanding the definition of MOL that way. Fine with me, but I have always thought your conception of MOL was a very special kind of conversation.

Best,

Dick R.

> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----  
> From: Bill Powers [powers\_w@FRONTIER.NET](mailto:powers_w@FRONTIER.NET)  
> Date: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:26 pm  
> Subject: Re: Kid who doesn’t talk  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> 
> > [From Bill Powers (2009.02.16.1605 MST)]
> > 
> > Dick Robertson, 2009.02.16.1618 CDT –
> > 
> > > Hey wait a minute. Could you guys (Bill and Rick) give some  
> > > details  
> > > about how you do MOL with a kid who doesn’t talk?
> > 
> > I wondered when someone would ask, but I didn’t expect it to be  
> > you  
> > since you described one way.
> > 
> > The point of the method of levels is to indicate things the  
> > client  
> > could be aware of that the client is currently just acting out  
> > without knowing it. Words are fine for this, but sometimes just  
> > a  
> > raised eyebrow or an enquiring look is enough. You can start a  
> > game  
> > with a child in a sandbox, picking up a doll and making it do  
> > things  
> > that might be interesting, and if the child can understand  
> > language,  
> > you can say things that bring some subject into the field of  
> > awareness. You could make the doll put a hand over its mouth and  
> > shake its head. Heck, I’m no expert on getting along with  
> > four-year-olds, but you can use your imagination.
> > 
> > Another aspect of this is simply adopting the MOL attitude. The  
> > MOL  
> > therapist does not want to change the client’s behavior to be  
> > more  
> > like what other people want it to be. He or she wants to find  
> > out the  
> > client’s definition of the problem, and help the client resolve  
> > that  
> > problem, not the therapist’s problem or the parent’s problem or  
> > the  
> > society’s problem. Admittedly this will be harder if the client  
> > isn’t  
> > currently talking, but that just means you have to find other  
> > ways of  
> > communicating. If you are 100% on the client’s side and want to  
> > help  
> > the client understand and change, you will not do all the wrong  
> > things like putting pressure on the client to behave differently  
> > or  
> > telling the client hurtful and discouraging things or showing  
> > the  
> > client that you’re shocked or disgusted or “disappointed.” Doing  
> > MOL  
> > is to a great degree trying NOT to do most of the things that  
> > other  
> > therapists do, and doing only the things that help direct  
> > reorganization to a better place (which other therapists  
> > certainly  
> > also do, but accidentally while they think they’re doing  
> > something else).
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim\_Wuwert](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e47774/32.png) [@Jim\_Wuwert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Wuwert)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/6 "2009-02-17T19:56:39Z")

</div>

> From Jim Wuwert, 2009.02.17.1450EST

> [From Dick Robertson, 2009.02.16.1618CDT]
> 
> Hey wait a minute. Could you guys (Bill and Rick) give some details about how you do MOL with a kid who doesn’t talk?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dick R.

> The way I understand the practice of MOL is that it encompasses all methods of communication. Can’t you do MOL with two nations that are in conflict? Not responding to something is a form of communication. Nonverbals (i.e. body language, facial expressions, hand gestures) communicate volumes. Basketball referees are constantly communicating with coaches without using their voices. SOmetimes we do better when we have selective mutism. We can diffuse a conflict better with our nonverbals versus speaking.

> Wouldn’t the same apply to the girl who has selective mutism? I have had children in the past who have not wanted to talk to me. For example, I was just present with a child once a week for 30 minutes with very little verbal interaction. The child was able to get on grade level and we never talked about academics. I had no goal other than to be present with the child.

> Perhaps their needs to be some sort of research conducted applying MOL with nonverbal communication. I think if we see MOL as something strictly verbal we are shortchanging what MOL is about and its potential impact.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address  
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,  
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to  
third parties, including law enforcement.  
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/7 "2009-02-18T20:12:15Z")

</div>

From  
Bruce Abbott (2009.02.18.1510 EST)]

Bill Powers (2009.02.16.0938  
MST) –

David  
Goldstein (2009.02.16.10:04 EST) –

I have looked up some articles about it on the American  
Psychological Association website. The consensus seems to be that it is an  
anxiety disorder condition and that behavioral therapy methods work best.

Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for  
treatment? Did the articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat,  
start talking) works better than MOL?

Bill,  
in defense of David, your characterization of behavioral therapy (or “behavior  
analysis” as this field of clinical application is now called) is  
seriously misleading. The behavioral approach to treating an anxiety disorder  
is not to coerce the client, through bribes and punishments, into doing  
something the therapist wants him or her to do, but to arrange an environment in  
which the client’s anxieties with respect to some situation will be eliminated.  
Even before that stage of treatment is begun, the techniques of behavior  
analysis would be applied to determine the conditions under which the child  
talks versus remains mute (what are the discriminative stimuli that “control”  
[strongly influence] this behavior?) and to assess whether “anxiety”  
plays a role in it.

If  
the consensus is that the behavioral approach works best of those tried (and I  
doubt that MOL has been tried), then we PCTers might try to understand how such  
successes can be understood when analyzed from a control-systems perspective.  
For example, do effective behavioral techniques for reducing anxiety arrange  
conditions that promote reorganization in a specific direction, for example  
such that certain situations that now act as strong disturbances to some  
variable that the client is controlling, no longer do so?

Behavioral  
analysis grew out of a research tradition that emphasizes the influence of the  
environment on the individual’s behavior. Consequently it developed  
a technology for bringing about predictable behavioral change that relies on  
altering in specific ways the individual’s personal and social  
environment. In contrast, PCT emphasizes the individual’s internal  
structure of control and posits that much of this structure developed through  
random changes that were retained to the extent that they reduced error in  
systems controlling essential variables. It is less clear from this point of  
view how to bring about changes in the client’s control structure that  
the client and therapist would perceive as a successful outcome of the therapy.  
Perhaps this is one reason why practitioners have been slow to adopt PCT as the  
theoretical model on which to base their work.

Bruce  
A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/8 "2009-02-18T23:40:13Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.18.1603 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2009.02.18.1510 EST) --

Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for treatment? Did the articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat, start talking) works better than MOL?

> Bill, in defense of David, your characterization of behavioral therapy (or "behavior analysis" as this field of clinical application is now called) is seriously misleading. The behavioral approach to treating an anxiety disorder is not to coerce the client, through bribes and punishments, into doing something the therapist wants him or her to do, but to arrange an environment in which the client's anxieties with respect to some situation will be eliminated. Even before that stage of treatment is begun, the techniques of behavior analysis would be applied to determine the conditions under which the child talks versus remains mute (what are the discriminative stimuli that "control" [strongly influence] this behavior?) and to assess whether "anxiety" plays a role in it.

Right. Well, you know that I don't believe stimuli can do any discriminating, or that arranging an environment is likely to do anyone much good (except in obvious cases like putting the tiger back in its cage). Behavior modification requires that you find something that a person wants, and then withhold it until the person produces the behavior desired by the experimenter, or ceases the behavior that the experimenter doesn't want to see. You can also start doing something to a person that he doesn't want done, and then stop doing it on condition that the person behave or not behave according to what you desire. That pretty much covers what's actually done, doesn't it?

There are lots of way to talk about this, some of which sound less nice than others. "[arranging] an environment in which the client's anxieties with respect to some situation will be eliminated" sounds very nice -- nobody could be against eliminating anxieties -- but exactly what are those arrangements? Don't they all involve either positive or negative reinforcement? And how are they different from reward for good behavior or punishment for bad behavior?

> If the consensus is that the behavioral approach works best of those tried (and I doubt that MOL has been tried), then we PCTers might try to understand how such successes can be understood when analyzed from a control-systems perspective. For example, do effective behavioral techniques for reducing anxiety arrange conditions that promote reorganization in a specific direction, for example such that certain situations that now act as strong disturbances to some variable that the client is controlling, no longer do so?

If it works, it works. Can't argue with that. But does it work? That depends a lot on who you ask. And for whom does it work? That's a little trickier, especially in a situation like David Goldstein's youth center which is really a place where adolescents are sent by New Jersey courts until they shape up. Behavior mod in such situations, of which there are many, is not done primarily for the benefit of the resident population, or at least not for the benefit of the one who is being given the reinforcements if he or she is good.  
Somebody else decides what "good" is. In David's case, the state or the law decides.

> Behavioral analysis grew out of a research tradition that emphasizes the influence of the environment on the individual's behavior. Consequently it developed a technology for bringing about predictable behavioral change that relies on altering in specific ways the individual's personal and social environment.

Well, so they say. That's a pretty idealized theoretical view, isn't it? And I don't think they say "influence." They speak of "stimulus control," don't they?

What we really need are studies of various approaches to human problems by people who have no stake in any approach. Would you take my word for how effective MOL is? Would you have taken Skinner's word for the effectiveness of behavior modification?

> In contrast, PCT emphasizes the individual's internal structure of control and posits that much of this structure developed through random changes that were retained to the extent that they reduced error in systems controlling essential variables. It is less clear from this point of view how to bring about changes in the client's control structure that the client and therapist would perceive as a successful outcome of the therapy. Perhaps this is one reason why practitioners have been slow to adopt PCT as the theoretical model on which to base their work.

I agree. Conventional therapists more than once have said that MOL leaves them feeling that they aren't doing anything. A therapist wants to feel that he can plan and carry out a successful program of treatments that will make his patient better. The idea that patients get themselves better is a bit of a come-down, though of course when the therapist really gets into MOL, it becomes plain that there are ways to assist in this process.

Behavior mod is a lot like most other therapies, in that the therapist is in charge and decides what the problem is and how to fix it. I know that there is a show of asking the patient's opinion in some of these methods, but the therapist is still running the show. That is a very hard thing to give up.

"Prediction and control of behavior toward socially desirable norms" is still the basic definition of the science of psychology, in the minds of many psychologists -- I hope not most.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:16am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/9 "2009-02-19T04:16:38Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (2009.02.18.1115 EST)] --

> Bill Powers (2009.02.18.1603 MST) --
> 
> Bruce Abbott (2009.02.18.1510 EST)
> 
> Do you agree with that diagnosis and proposal for treatment? Did the  
> articles say that behavioral therapy (if you want to eat, start  
> talking) works better than MOL?
> 
> \>Bill, in defense of David, your characterization of behavioral therapy  
> \>(or "behavior analysis" as this field of clinical application is now  
> \>called) is seriously misleading. The behavioral approach to treating an  
> \>anxiety disorder is not to coerce the client, through bribes and  
> \>punishments, into doing something the therapist wants him or her to do,  
> \>but to arrange an environment in which the client's anxieties with  
> \>respect to some situation will be eliminated. Even before that stage of  
> \>treatment is begun, the techniques of behavior analysis would be  
> \>applied to determine the conditions under which the child talks versus  
> \>remains mute (what are the discriminative stimuli that "control"  
> \>[strongly influence] this  
> \>behavior?) and to assess whether "anxiety" plays a role in it.
> 
> Right. Well, you know that I don't believe stimuli can do any  
> discriminating, or that arranging an environment is likely to do anyone  
> much good (except in obvious cases like putting the tiger back in its  
> cage). Behavior modification requires that you find something that a  
> person wants, and then withhold it until the person produces the  
> behavior desired by the experimenter, or ceases the behavior that the  
> experimenter doesn't want to see. You can also start doing something to  
> a person that he doesn't want done, and then stop doing it on condition  
> that the person behave or not behave according to what you desire. That  
> pretty much covers what's actually done, doesn't it?

No, that pretty much mischaracterizes what's actually done. First, I don't  
know of anyone in the field of behavior analysis who believes that stimuli  
do any discriminating. According to the behaviorist view, people and animals  
learn to discriminate based on stimuli that correlate with the effectiveness  
of certain of their actions. The hungry pigeon learns that a keypeck will  
produce grain only when the key is illuminated red, and therefore pecks at  
the key only when it wants grain AND the key is red; the child learns to ask  
Mommie for an ice cream only when she perceives that Mommie isn't angry with  
her. As for the term "stimulus control," I deliberately placed quotation  
marks around the term "control" and suggested "strongly influence" as an  
alternative because the stimulus doesn't control anything as we in PCT  
define the term "control." Even operant conditioners define the  
discriminative stimulus as a stimulus that "sets the occasion for a  
response," a clear indication that it is not seen as an event that "makes"  
the individual do anything.

> There are lots of way to talk about this, some of which sound less nice  
> than others. "[arranging] an environment in which the client's  
> anxieties with respect to some situation will be eliminated" sounds  
> very nice -- nobody could be against eliminating anxieties -- but  
> exactly what are those arrangements? Don't they all involve either  
> positive or negative reinforcement? And how are they different from  
> reward for good behavior or punishment for bad behavior?

One technique for reducing and potentially eliminating a specific anxiety is  
systematic desensitization, developed by Joseph Wolpe. This technique  
incorporates several elements, including relaxation training, establishment  
of an anxiety hierarchy, extinction, and counter-conditioning. The client is  
asked to create in imagination a hierarchy of scenarios involving the  
anxiety-producing situation, ranging from those that produce little anxiety  
to those that produce strong anxiety. The person is also asked to assign a  
number -- say, between 1 and 10 -- to the level of anxiety currently being  
experienced, where 1 would be little or none and 10 would be intense. The  
client is also given training in full-body muscle relaxation, in which the  
person attends to different muscles (such as those in the forehead or jaw)  
and attempts to relax each group in turn until all muscles are relaxed.

The therapeutic session then begins by having the client imagine the scene  
lowest on the anxiety hierarchy and to report a number reflecting the level  
of anxiety this image arouses. The person is then asked to erase this image  
and replace it with a calming scene while getting the muscles relaxed. These  
two steps are repeated until the client can imagine the first scene without  
experiencing an increase in perceived anxiety. The therapist then asks the  
client to imagine the scene next higher in the anxiety hierarchy. The  
procedure is repeated with each level until the client is able to imagine  
even the scene that was highest in the anxiety hierarchy without  
experiencing an increase in anxiety.

The theory behind this approach assumes that the client has associated the  
situation in question with consequences of an anxiety-provoking nature  
(e.g., a child has become intensely afraid of dogs, even though most dogs  
are friendly). The degree of anxiety is out of proportion to the actual  
danger. Having the client imagine the situation lowest on the anxiety  
hierarchy, in a setting where nothing bad happens, constitutes an extinction  
trial for that anxiety. Extinction to this imaginary scene generalizes to  
the similar but more intensely-provoking scenes higher up on the hierarchy,  
weakening the association of the situation with the anxiety state. Having  
the client relax immediately after imagining the scene associates the scene  
with a physical state that is partly incompatible with the anxiety state, in  
that the latter produces muscle tension. That's the counter-conditioning  
element.

I didn't notice any positive or negative reinforcement being mentioned in my  
description of systematic desensitization.

Going back to something else you said earlier, "I don't believe . . . that  
arranging the environment is likely to do anyone much good . . ." Just what  
do you think the MOL does, if not to arrange an environment that facilitates  
certain behaviors on the part of the client?

> \>If the consensus is that the behavioral approach works best of those  
> \>tried (and I doubt that MOL has been tried), then we PCTers might try  
> \>to understand how such successes can be understood when analyzed from a  
> \>control-systems perspective. For example, do effective behavioral  
> \>techniques for reducing anxiety arrange conditions that promote  
> \>reorganization in a specific direction, for example such that certain  
> \>situations that now act as strong disturbances to some variable that  
> \>the client is controlling, no longer do so?
> 
> If it works, it works. Can't argue with that. But does it work? That  
> depends a lot on who you ask. And for whom does it work? That's a  
> little trickier, especially in a situation like David Goldstein's youth  
> center which is really a place where adolescents are sent by New Jersey  
> courts until they shape up. Behavior mod in such situations, of which  
> there are many, is not done primarily for the benefit of the resident  
> population, or at least not for the benefit of the one who is being  
> given the reinforcements if he or she is good.  
> Somebody else decides what "good" is. In David's case, the state or the  
> law decides.

Again, the idea that modern behavior analysis is simply a matter of applying  
schedules of rewards and punishments to hapless "clients" seriously distorts  
how this work is carried out by competent professionals. Also, the  
techniques involved require and include close monitoring to determine what  
effects the treatment may be having (if any), so their efficacy (or lack of)  
in a given case is not a matter of mere opinion.

> \>Behavioral analysis grew out of a research tradition that emphasizes  
> \>the influence of the environment on the individual's behavior.  
> \>Consequently it developed a technology for bringing about predictable  
> \>behavioral change that relies on altering in specific ways the  
> \>individual's personal and social environment.
> 
> Well, so they say. That's a pretty idealized theoretical view, isn't  
> it? And I don't think they say "influence." They speak of "stimulus  
> control," don't they?

See my earlier comment about this above.

> What we really need are studies of various approaches to human problems  
> by people who have no stake in any approach. Would you take my word for  
> how effective MOL is? Would you have taken Skinner's word for the  
> effectiveness of behavior modification?
> 
> \> In contrast, PCT emphasizes the individual's internal structure of  
> \> control and posits that much of this structure developed through  
> \> random changes that were retained to the extent that they reduced  
> \> error in systems controlling essential variables. It is less clear  
> \> from this point of view how to bring about changes in the client's  
> \> control structure that the client and therapist would perceive as a  
> \> successful outcome of the therapy. Perhaps this is one reason why  
> \> practitioners have been slow to adopt PCT as the theoretical model on  
> \> which to base their work.
> 
> I agree. Conventional therapists more than once have said that MOL  
> leaves them feeling that they aren't doing anything. A therapist wants  
> to feel that he can plan and carry out a successful program of  
> treatments that will make his patient better. The idea that patients  
> get themselves better is a bit of a come-down, though of course when  
> the therapist really gets into MOL, it becomes plain that there are  
> ways to assist in this process.
> 
> Behavior mod is a lot like most other therapies, in that the therapist  
> is in charge and decides what the problem is and how to fix it. I know  
> that there is a show of asking the patient's opinion in some of these  
> methods, but the therapist is still running the show.  
> That is a very hard thing to give up.

That's not always true, maybe not even typical. Often it is a problem that  
is giving the client considerable grief and it is the client who wants help  
in overcoming it.

> "Prediction and control of behavior toward socially desirable norms"  
> is still the basic definition of the science of psychology, in the  
> minds of many psychologists -- I hope not most.

I don't recall the "toward socially desirable norms" part as being in the  
definition of psychology, at least not since I've been in it. (In fact, a  
current definition states that psychology is the science of behavior and  
mental processes.) As for prediction and control, one would like to know  
whether there are identifiable conditions associated with given  
psychological outcomes. Is it an accident that street gangs tend to develop  
in impoverished inner city neighborhoods or do the conditions of life in  
those neighborhoods somehow lead many kids into gang affiliation and gang  
behaviors? Are there conditions one could establish -- interventions, if you  
will -- that would lead to a different outcome, less damaging to the  
individuals involved and to the rest of us? Those are questions of  
prediction and control. I don't see why one should find pursuing the answers  
to them objectionable.

Bruce A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c0e974/32.png) [@Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/10 "2009-02-19T06:51:52Z")

</div>

Dear Bill, dear Bruce, dear PCT friends !

Sorry to include in the session, but as I see the discussion it's going in  
the direction of denying some main principles of PCT. I'll explain what I ment.

What is misleading and what is not is the question of how we'll agree with  
that problem. So I must say I'm surprised with emocional conotation of  
Bruce's statement who wrote : that Bill is misleading.

Bruce wrote :  
Bill, in defense of David, your characterization of behavioral therapy (or  
"behavior analysis" as this field of clinical application is now called) is  
seriously misleading.

Boris wrote :  
Are you really sure about that Bruce ? Are you really sure Bruce that you  
will cure every child with your "stimuli" or "stimulation" of enviroment  
that you produce ? Why are you not sure Bruce ? Because PCT shows you that  
every perception can be ilussion. My assumption is, that it's the child's  
HPCT control system who will decide what to do with "stimuli".

O.K. I'll put a hypothesis.

Many evidence shows that PCT theory is right. Not only evidence which Bill  
provided, but also from others.  
If you only look to Maturana's proofs with frog or colors you will be  
convinced that human (child) who are accepting the frequency structure of  
the light, don't see the colors coming from object, but are rather creating  
their own world of colors. They are not "decoding" the frequency of light  
that's coming from the source. We don't see a green car, We are experiencing  
a green car. Do we see the difference ?

So we can assume that every "stimulus" from environment that's coming from  
psychoterapist will be included in Control heirarchical structure of the  
child or will be not. If I put it simply, the child will probably include  
what it's good from him, and he will refuse, what's by his "oppinion" not  
good for him. He will probably decide from the view of the way he feels in  
that moment. But "stimuli" will not influence him, if he doesn't want him to.

So as I see things, the child will be that who will decide whether the  
"stimuli" coming from environment will have any impact (it will have any  
effect), not the psychoterapist, although it may look like, that  
psychoterapist (with his environment) are "leading" the child with  
"stimuli", but that's not the whole true, as I see it. I think it's just  
ilussion of psychoterapist.

So if I understand right PCT, environmental "stimuli" does not determine the  
control state of the child but rather stimuli of environment are included in  
the control hierarchical structure of the child like Bill showed in his PCT  
diagram. "Stimuli" (disturbances) coming from environment are subtracted  
from the reference signal that's coming from the deep structure of DNA in  
human body. And these "stimuli" does have a roll in behavior, but they are  
not entirelly determining the behavior or have the strongest impact, like  
behavioral analyst want to show. The most improtant are reference conditions  
of the child and reference signal.

As I see the discussion, it's going in the direction of denying this main  
principle of PCT.

One example from many writings :

Bruce wrote :  
The theory behind this approach assumes that the client has associated the  
situation in question with consequences of an anxiety-provoking nature  
(e.g., a child has become intensely afraid of dogs, even though most dogs  
are friendly).

Boris Wrote :  
The stress or emphasis is on ASSUME. We don't know exactly how "stimuli"  
will work on the child, do we ? Whether child will accept the theory or not.

Do we agree about these hypothesis ?

I'm sorry I didin't read all the discussion, as it is to long for me in this  
moment. Maybe I missed the point, I'm sorry for that. But that will be soon  
see from the answers. Won't it ? I'm not sure.:))

Best,

Boris

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/11 "2009-02-19T14:44:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.0945 EST)]

> Boris Hartman (2009.02.19.0130) --

> Dear Bill, dear Bruce, dear PCT friends !
> 
> Sorry to include in the session, but as I see the discussion it's going  
> in the direction of denying some main principles of PCT. I'll explain  
> what I ment.

Welcome to the discussion, Boris. As I hope to make clear, my argument is  
not meant to deny any PCT principles.

> What is misleading and what is not is the question of how we'll agree  
> with that problem. So I must say I'm surprised with emocional  
> conotation of Bruce's statement who wrote : that Bill is misleading.

By "misleading" I only meant that Bill's characterization of behavior  
analysis does not accurately describe how behavior analysis (or behavior  
therapy) is carried out. I don't mean to imply that Bill's statement was  
intentionally misleading, so there should be no emotional connotation.

> Bruce wrote :  
> Bill, in defense of David, your characterization of behavioral therapy  
> (or "behavior analysis" as this field of clinical application is now  
> called) is seriously misleading.
> 
> Boris wrote :  
> Are you really sure about that Bruce ? Are you really sure Bruce that  
> you will cure every child with your "stimuli" or "stimulation" of  
> enviroment that you produce ? Why are you not sure Bruce ? Because PCT  
> shows you that every perception can be ilussion. My assumption is, that  
> it's the child's HPCT control system who will decide what to do with  
> "stimuli".

I said that Bill's description was misleading; I never asserted that  
children are "cured" by "stimuli" or that behavioral therapy would "cure"  
every child. You have set up a straw man.

> O.K. I'll put a hypothesis.
> 
> Many evidence shows that PCT theory is right. Not only evidence which  
> Bill provided, but also from others.  
> If you only look to Maturana's proofs with frog or colors you will be  
> convinced that human (child) who are accepting the frequency structure  
> of the light, don't see the colors coming from object, but are rather  
> creating their own world of colors. They are not "decoding" the  
> frequency of light that's coming from the source. We don't see a green  
> car, We are experiencing a green car. Do we see the difference ?

Of course. But if there were not a close correspondence between experiencing  
a green car and one actually being there, we'd soon be in trouble.

> So we can assume that every "stimulus" from environment that's coming  
> from psychoterapist will be included in Control heirarchical structure  
> of the child or will be not. If I put it simply, the child will  
> probably include what it's good from him, and he will refuse, what's by  
> his "oppinion" not good for him. He will probably decide from the view  
> of the way he feels in that moment. But "stimuli" will not influence  
> him, if he doesn't want him to.

> So as I see things, the child will be that who will decide whether the  
> "stimuli" coming from environment will have any impact (it will have  
> any effect), not the psychoterapist, although it may look like, that  
> psychoterapist (with his environment) are "leading" the child with  
> "stimuli", but that's not the whole true, as I see it. I think it's  
> just ilussion of psychoterapist.

Stimuli that disturb controlled perceptions will influence the child.  
Environmental contingencies that establish new relationships between outputs  
and inputs will influence the child if the child learns to better control  
his or her perceptions by means of them. Learning that certain inputs are  
predictive of events that the child cares about will influence the child.  
The child who "opens up" to a therapist who has gained the child's trust has  
been influenced by conditions arranged by the therapist that lead the child  
to trust the therapist.

> So if I understand right PCT, environmental "stimuli" does not  
> determine the control state of the child but rather stimuli of  
> environment are included in the control hierarchical structure of the  
> child like Bill showed in his PCT diagram. "Stimuli" (disturbances)  
> coming from environment are subtracted from the reference signal that's  
> coming from the deep structure of DNA in human body. And these  
> "stimuli" does have a roll in behavior, but they are not entirelly  
> determining the behavior or have the strongest impact, like behavioral  
> analyst want to show. The most improtant are reference conditions of  
> the child and reference signal.
> 
> As I see the discussion, it's going in the direction of denying this  
> main principle of PCT.

PCT says that we all develop a rather stable hierarchy of systems that keep  
a large variety of perceptions under control. When disturbances occur to  
those perceptions, we act in ways that in the past have been successful in  
opposing the effects of those disturbances. But sometimes conditions arise  
in which those actions are ineffective, or give rise to severe disturbances  
in other systems (as when two systems are in conflict). Environmental  
feedback functions can change with circumstances. If persistent error  
develops, reorganization changes the control structure until the errors no  
longer persist. In other words, learning takes place. A properly structured  
environment (perhaps one arranged by a good therapist) can help lead a  
person to effective solutions. That's not inconsistent with PCT as I  
understand it, and certainly does not deny any of its fundamental  
principles.

> One example from many writings :
> 
> Bruce wrote :  
> The theory behind this approach assumes that the client has associated  
> the situation in question with consequences of an anxiety-provoking  
> nature (e.g., a child has become intensely afraid of dogs, even though  
> most dogs are friendly).
> 
> Boris Wrote :  
> The stress or emphasis is on ASSUME. We don't know exactly how  
> "stimuli"  
> will work on the child, do we ? Whether child will accept the theory or  
> not.
> 
> Do we agree about these hypothesis ?

Assumptions are tested by whether the approaches deduced from them turn out  
to be effective. The child neither has to know nor accept the theory for  
those approaches to work.

> I'm sorry I didin't read all the discussion, as it is to long for me in  
> this moment. Maybe I missed the point, I'm sorry for that. But that  
> will be soon see from the answers. Won't it ? I'm not sure.:))

I think you have missed the point of my post, although I suspect you have a  
lot of company in that. I'm not arguing for the validity of the Skinnerian  
conception, although I admit it may seem that I am. The Skinnerian  
(behaviorist) approach is observer-centric, looking at the behaving organism  
from the outside and identifying stable relationships between the organism's  
experiences (past and present) and its behavior under specific conditions.  
PCT is organism-centric, focusing on the organism's internal organization  
(control hierarchy etc). The Skinnerian approach is functional (this leads  
to that); PCT is mechanistic (given this structure and these input signals,  
the system will behave thusly). For Skinner, the causes of behavior lie in  
the past and present environments of the organism (mediated of course by the  
organism's biological mechanisms). For PCT, the environment influences the  
development of effective control systems by constraining solutions that  
"work" during reorganization (i.e., reduce persistent error). The result is  
a set of control systems whose references are set internally and whose  
outputs (when effective) affect the environment (via the environmental  
feedback functions) and through it, the controlled variables so as to oppose  
the effects of those disturbances.

Whatever its deficiencies, the Skinnerian approach, by emphasizing how the  
organism's environment affects its behavior (primarily by changing the  
organism via the organism's learning mechanisms), easily suggests practical  
solutions for bringing about behavioral change -- just arrange a suitable  
environment. PCT, by focusing on the stable control hierarchy rather than on  
how the course of reorganization might be channeled by the nature of the  
environment in which those systems operate, has to date offered little in  
the way of practical applications. And that may be an important reason why  
the "PCT revolution" has been such a difficult thing to bring about.

Bruce A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/12 "2009-02-19T16:18:51Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.19.0744 MST)]

> Sorry to include in the session,  
> but as I see the discussion it’s going in
> 
> the direction of denying some main principles of PCT. I’ll explain what I  
> ment.

You explained very well, Boris. I completely agree with you. In fact, you  
have inspired me.  
The question is, what can we do about this situation? We are not having  
scientific discussions here; we are having arguments about belief  
systems. And I have walked up to every trap created by this sort of  
argument, and have fallen into it. I suppose I will do so again, but I  
will try to climb out for now and hope that something might  
change.  
There are very few people in our PCT movement who came into it fresh,  
without any prior ideas about human behavior. Quite the opposite; we  
include a disproportionate number of PhD scientists who have taught and  
otherwise made their livings and reputations on the basis of what they  
learned on the way to earning their degrees, and who at a relatively  
early age considered themselves to be competent experts and  
practitioners. They have all defended what they knew against criticisms  
and disbelief from others. Many of them got quite good at that.  
What they were defending was not PCT. Almost inevitably, most of what  
they were defending was contrary to the principles and findings of PCT.  
How could it be otherwise? Most of the world still doesn’t know about  
PCT, and this is 2009. When our learned members earned their degrees,  
their professors, mentors, and role models didn’t know about PCT. Some of  
them knew a bit about control theory, perhaps, but not many, and it  
certainly hadn’t been worked out to the degree that PCT has been  
developed.  
Somewhere inside each of us, I suspect, there are still vestiges, or more  
than vestiges, of the people we have been in the past. There is still  
unfinished business; that skeptic we never could convince, that critic  
whose argument we never quite demolished, that student who almost got the  
idea, but not quite. So we are still trying to correct some old errors,  
and inside us there are little wrinkled control systems that hear certain  
words being said and wake up ready for battle just as in the good  
old days, though perhaps without the same sense of  
invincibility.  
Or I hope without the same sense of invincibility. I will say this flatly  
and hope for the best. Inside every PCTer who is still arguing for the  
validity of at least the basic ideas of his belief system formed long  
ago, there is a little voice advising caution about the actual soundness  
of the foundation. There are little demons who notice discrepancies  
between the old beliefs and PCT, and send little worry-messages to the  
rest of the brain. Little conflicts show up, and while they are quickly  
avoided, they plant doubts.  
Unfortunately, those wise little voices are too easily drowned out by one  
loud voice from outside shouting that those old beliefs are nonsense,  
unjustified, obviously wrong, dumb. I refer to my voice, and Rick’s, and  
a few others. When those outside voices start yammering, all those  
whispering little demons drop what they were doing and come to the common  
defense. All the old arguments are dredged up from memories of golden  
moments when suddenly everything made sense, and the microphones that are  
registering the outside voices all click off. Instead of the old beliefs  
being suppressed, they are revived and strengthened.  
The trap into which I keep falling, along with a few others I find in the  
pit with me, is simply forgetfulness of what PCT tells us. If you disturb  
a controlled variable, the control system controlling it will push back.  
If you then increase your effort to overcome the resistance, the  
counterpush will increase sufficiently to cancel the increased  
disturbance. It might even turn into a counterattack. It certainly  
results in a conflict, which removes both systems from the available  
control systems that are still in working order. I am one of those  
systems; I cannot win such arguments.  
So what is left for those who defend PCT rather than some older position?  
What is left for me to do?  
I think that the main thing I, we, can do is pipe down for a while and  
let those little voices go back to their worrying. I am not going to  
convince anyone that behavior is of little interest except to others and  
is not what organisms do, that neurotransmitters do not cause  
schizophrenia, that trait psychology is dead and gone, that reward and  
punishment are illusions, that behavior and perception are not  
stochastic, and that people control and reorganize themselves. But if I  
lower my voice, those demons will get back to work, examining everything  
and wondering how come PCT says one thing and one’s whole professional  
belief system says something else.  
I know those little demons are there because I know one simple fact: all  
you guys are, unbelievably, still here after all these years. Your  
worry-demons have not lost the internal battle; they are still alive. And  
if vestigial defenders of the old faith are there, they can’t conceal  
themselves because they have to resist disturbances; that is their nature  
no matter what they think is their nature. I also know that every human  
being can step back, go up a level, find a different point of view, and  
look AT what was previously the place one was working FROM. If you look  
for the defenders you will see them.  
What I’ve been trying to do, with others, is to force inner change from  
outside. Can’t be done. Or if change does happen, it’s not the change  
that was wanted. The only change that is going to happen is going to come  
from within each person in our group, each person who has become expert  
in PCT but has not been able to dislodge the remains of an older belief  
system that is incompatible with PCT. In that category I include myself.  
Look at what I have been doing: pushing, pushing, pushing, mindlessly  
pushing while I arouse all the best counterarguments those old  
intelligent knowledge-stuffed defenders can come up with. And I’m trying  
to teach other people about PCT.  
It’s truly up to each person to decide what his own problem is and find  
his own solution to it. That is _so_ hard to remember. But can you  
imagine a world in which this simple fact is finally taken for granted?  
That’s what we’re all working toward, I hope. When most of the people in  
the world understand the fundamental principles of PCT, how can there be  
any terrorism, any war, any poverty, any endless cycles of hostility and  
retaliation? A very different future is opening up before us. If we can  
only keep our eyes on it, and pull altogether free of the past, we might  
even see part of that future begin to unfold. You will see more of it  
than I will. But I do want to see at least a little of it.

Demons of the world, arise. You have nothing to lose but your  
conflicts.

Best,

Bill P.

> **···**
>
> At 12:51 AM 2/19/2009 -0600, Boris Hartman wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c0e974/32.png) [@Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/13 "2009-02-19T17:45:19Z")

</div>

Bruce, thank you for your very wide answer. I'm sorry but I really got a  
feeling that there was an "attack" on Bill. And I've learned so much from  
him and I think he is right. But I'll also try to learn something from you.

> > > Of course. But if there were not a close correspondence between experiencing  
> > > a green car and one actually being there, we'd soon be in trouble.

I think what Maturana meant was that something there out is experienced as  
green car in the head of the observer. We don't know if there is really a  
green car. It's something that's probably reflecting the light, but we can't  
be sure, that's a green car. I think he wanted to point out how perceptions  
are misleading.

> > > I said that Bill's description was misleading; I never asserted that  
> > > children are "cured" by "stimuli" or that behavioral therapy would "cure"  
> > > every child. You have set up a straw man.

Well sorry Bruce. I'm not that good in your language. So maybe sometimes  
I'll not understand something right. I'll be glad, you correct me. As I  
don't understand the last words I don't know what to say. I only hope I  
didn't make you angry. Sorry.

If I'm honest I learned something about PCT also through your writings. And  
Bill knows that. So you have my respect. Don't worry about that. If you  
don't mind I'll be glad (as I have this opportunity now) to learn something  
more from you :). So I'll go slowly "paragraph by paragraph" :).

> > > > Stimuli that disturb controlled perceptions will influence the child.  
> > > > Environmental contingencies that establish new relationships between outputs  
> > > > and inputs will influence the child if the child learns to better control  
> > > > his or her perceptions by means of them. Learning that certain inputs are  
> > > > predictive of events that the child cares about will influence the child.

If I understood right and if we are looking through the eyes of child the  
psychotherapist is the source of disturbances for child's control of  
perception, which is probably causing discrepancy in childs control, so the  
child will try to reduce that discrepancy to zero ? If the therapist is not  
disturbing the control of child (he is maybe acting as child want him to, he  
is reducing childs control to zero). Then can we say, that psychotherapist  
is doing a good job ?

> > > The child who "opens up" to a therapist who has gained the child's trust has  
> > > been influenced by conditions arranged by the therapist that lead the child  
> > > to trust the therapist.

Here we have the same problem as with "assume". The condition that  
psychotherapy will work is "if the child opens up". If I understand it  
right, it's up to child whether he will accept the psychotherapist or not.  
So my statement that child is that who is deciding which perception he will  
control and which he will not, was probably right. The psychoterapist is  
probably just a controled variabel to him ?

As I really want to get as much as possible from this conversation with you  
Bruce, I will stop here and continue later with other explanations, if  
that's all right with youďż˝.

Thanks again,

Boris

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/14 "2009-02-19T19:34:16Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.19.1229 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.0945 EST) --

In line with my last post, I'll try a different angle.

> ... if there were not a close correspondence between experiencing  
> a green car and one actually being there, we'd soon be in trouble.

This is a very simple point. I agree that if you saw a green car and there was nothing actually there, you could be in trouble.

Take a more immediate example: I assume you would say you see a computer screen in front of you. Can you tell me how you verify that there is a computer screen actually there, independent of all your perceptions?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/15 "2009-02-19T18:55:19Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.1355 EST)]

> Boris Hartman (2009.02.19.1245) --
> 
> Bruce, thank you for your very wide answer. I'm sorry but I really got  
> a feeling that there was an "attack" on Bill. And I've learned so much  
> from him and I think he is right. But I'll also try to learn something  
> from you.
> 
> \>\>\>Of course. But if there were not a close correspondence between  
> \>\>\>experiencing a green car and one actually being there, we'd soon be  
> in trouble.
> 
> I think what Maturana meant was that something there out is experienced  
> as green car in the head of the observer. We don't know if there is  
> really a green car. It's something that's probably reflecting the  
> light, but we can't be sure, that's a green car. I think he wanted to  
> point out how perceptions are misleading.

Yes, I understand that. It's a central fact in PCT: We control our  
perceptions, and those may or may not correspond to any particular quantity  
out there in the environment of the system.

> \>\>\>I said that Bill's description was misleading; I never asserted that  
> \>\>\>children are "cured" by "stimuli" or that behavioral therapy would  
> "cure"  
> \>\>\>every child. You have set up a straw man.
> 
> Well sorry Bruce. I'm not that good in your language. So maybe  
> sometimes I'll not understand something right. I'll be glad, you  
> correct me. As I don't understand the last words I don't know what to  
> say. I only hope I didn't make you angry. Sorry.

Don't worry; you didn't make me angry. A problem with written exchanges like  
this one is that we can't see each other, so it's easy to misjudge how the  
other person is reacting. And don't worry about the language problem; if I  
misunderstand you then you can correct me, and if you misunderstand me, then  
I'll try to say it another way. You're doing fine.

> If I'm honest I learned something about PCT also through your writings.  
> And Bill knows that. So you have my respect. Don't worry about that. If  
> you don't mind I'll be glad (as I have this opportunity now) to learn  
> something more from you :). So I'll go slowly "paragraph by paragraph"  
> :).

O.K.

> \>\>\>\>Stimuli that disturb controlled perceptions will influence the  
> child.  
> \>\>\>\>Environmental contingencies that establish new relationships  
> between  
> \>\>\>\>outputs and inputs will influence the child if the child learns to  
> \>\>\>\>better control his or her perceptions by means of them. Learning  
> \>\>\>\>that certain inputs are predictive of events that the child cares  
> about will influence the child.
> 
> If I understood right and if we are looking through the eyes of child  
> the psychotherapist is the source of disturbances for child's control  
> of perception, which is probably causing discrepancy in childs control,  
> so the child will try to reduce that discrepancy to zero ? If the  
> therapist is not disturbing the control of child (he is maybe acting  
> as child want him to, he is reducing childs control to zero). Then can  
> we say, that psychotherapist is doing a good job ?

The therapist may or not be disturbing perceptions that the child is  
controlling. Dick Robertson recently described his interactions with a  
child with selective mutism; the interaction took place with the child  
playing in a sandbox (Dick Robertson, 2009.02.15.1420 CDT). Rather than  
attempting to get her to talk, he simply played beside her and later, he  
"began commenting on what her play movement reminded me of, or I wondered  
out loud what she might be thinking, and I sometimes began making sand  
castles or whatever myself, in an opposite corner of the box." For sixteen  
sessions the child said nothing, but then a breakthrough occurred. She wrote  
"I love you" in the sand, and in subsequent sessions, talked freely with  
Robertson.

I can only speculate on what was going on her, but it might be reasonable to  
guess that the girl and come to expect that the adults around her would  
attempt to get her talking, perhaps by demanding it, or by offering rewards,  
or by threatening punishments. Such actions may have served as a strong  
disturbance to something she was controlling, such as her perceived freedom  
to talk or not talk as she pleased. But Robertson failed to behave in the  
expected manner and instead accepted the situation, acting more as a  
playmate than a therapist and making no attempts at getting her to talk.  
Here was someone she could perceive as being on her side, a friend with whom  
she could talk (or not) as she pleased without feeling coerced. And perhaps  
as a result of this experience, she was now ready to stop using her  
selective mutism as a way of demonstrating her independence from attempts at  
control by others.

Again, this explanation is total speculation on my part, but it does suggest  
that there may be circumstances in which the therapist can be doing a good  
job by failing to act as a disturbance when the child may have expected him  
or her to do so.

> \>\>\>The child who "opens up" to a therapist who has gained the child's  
> \>\>\>trust has been influenced by conditions arranged by the therapist  
> \>\>\>that lead the child to trust the therapist.
> 
> Here we have the same problem as with "assume". The condition that  
> psychotherapy will work is "if the child opens up". If I understand it  
> right, it's up to child whether he will accept the psychotherapist or  
> not.

Correct. But the therapist may be able to arrange conditions under which  
trust develops. Robertson's case study provides an example.

> So my statement that child is that who is deciding which perception he  
> will control and which he will not, was probably right. The  
> psychoterapist is probably just a controled variabel to him ?

The psychotherapist is a person, not a variable, controlled or otherwise.  
But in interacting with the therapist, the child may learn that the  
therapist's actions disturb variables that the child is controlling. Or  
child may learn that the therapist can be a means through which the child  
can gain better control over those variables, or control them in ways that  
do not disturb other controlled perceptions.

> As I really want to get as much as possible from this conversation with  
> you Bruce, I will stop here and continue later with other explanations,  
> if that's all right with you..

That's fine with me.

Bruce A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/16 "2009-02-19T19:09:26Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.1410 EST)]

> Bill Powers (2009.02.19.1229 MST) --
> 
> Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.0945 EST)
> 
> In line with my last post, I'll try a different angle.

I was hoping you'd begun to reconsider the thesis of your last post, in  
light of my initial reply to Boris Hoffman. (I assume that you had not seen  
that reply at the time you wrote yours.)

> \> ... if there were not a close correspondence between experiencing a

> This is a very simple point. I agree that if you saw a green car and  
> there was nothing actually there, you could be in trouble.

Good. And if you didn't see a green car and one was actually there, you  
might be in even more trouble.

> Take a more immediate example: I assume you would say you see a  
> computer screen in front of you. Can you tell me how you verify that  
> there is a computer screen actually there, independent of all your  
> perceptions?

There's no way to do that. All we have is our perceptions; the reality we  
believe to be beyond that direct experience is only an inference. The best  
that we can do is note that our perceptions usually point to the same  
conclusion as to what must be "out there": I not only see the computer  
screen, but when I visually perceive my hand to be in contact with the  
screen, I also perceive a feeling in what I take to be my fingertips that  
seems to correspond to what I see -- something smooth, flat, rectangular,  
now sporting a smudge at the apparent point of contact. But that's still an  
inference.

Bruce A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim\_Wuwert](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e47774/32.png) [@Jim\_Wuwert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Wuwert)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/17 "2009-02-19T21:00:03Z")

</div>

From Jim Wuwert 2009.02.19.1555EST

> [From Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.0945 EST)]
> 
> Whatever its deficiencies, the Skinnerian approach, by emphasizing how the organism’s environment affects its behavior (primarily by changing the organism via the organism’s learning mechanisms), easily suggests practical solutions for bringing about behavioral change – just arrange a suitable environment. PCT, by focusing on the stable control hierarchy rather than on how the course of reorganization might be channeled by the nature of the environment in which those systems operate, has to date offered little in the way of practical applications. And that may be an important reason why the “PCT revolution” has been such a difficult thing to bring about.
> 
> Bruce A.  
> What will it look like when PCT offers practical applications? What does the “PCT revolution” look like?

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address  
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,  
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to  
third parties, including law enforcement.  
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/18 "2009-02-19T22:24:29Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.19.1516 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.1410 EST) --

> \> Take a more immediate example: I assume you would say you see a  
> \> computer screen in front of you. Can you tell me how you verify that  
> \> there is a computer screen actually there, independent of all your  
> \> perceptions?
> 
> There's no way to do that. All we have is our perceptions; the reality we  
> believe to be beyond that direct experience is only an inference. The best  
> that we can do is note that our perceptions usually point to the same  
> conclusion as to what must be "out there": I not only see the computer  
> screen, but when I visually perceive my hand to be in contact with the  
> screen, I also perceive a feeling in what I take to be my fingertips that  
> seems to correspond to what I see -- something smooth, flat, rectangular,  
> now sporting a smudge at the apparent point of contact. But that's still an  
> inference.

That's the way I figure it, too. There's no way to do that.

The reason I brought it up was that it seemed to be relevant to the idea that we can modify behavior by properly arranging the environment. But perhaps I'm completely misreading you. In retrospect, I can't tell if you're simply reporting the way behaviorists think, or endorsing it, or perhaps see that view as entirely consistent with the PCT model so there is no conflict.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d26b3c/32.png) [@BRUCE\_STEPHANIE\_ABBO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/19 "2009-02-20T17:11:40Z")

</div>

[From  
Bruce Abbott (2009.02.20.1210 EST)]

Jim  
Wuwert 2009.02.19.1555EST –

> [From  
> Bruce Abbott (2009.02.19.0945 EST)]
> 
> Whatever its deficiencies, the Skinnerian approach, by emphasizing how the  
> organism’s environment affects its behavior (primarily by changing the organism  
> via the organism’s learning mechanisms), easily suggests practical solutions  
> for bringing about behavioral change – just arrange a suitable environment.  
> PCT, by focusing on the stable control hierarchy rather than on how the course  
> of reorganization might be channeled by the nature of the environment in which  
> those systems operate, has to date offered little in the way of practical  
> applications. And that may be an important reason why the “PCT  
> revolution” has been such a difficult thing to bring about.
> 
> Bruce A.

What  
will it look like when PCT offers practical applications? What does the  
“PCT revolution” look like?

I  
don’t think PCT will look any different than it does now. I assume that practical  
applications will emerge when more is known about how an individual’s  
perceptual functions, output functions, and control systems develop in the  
context of particular environmental constraints. What will the “PCT  
revolution” look like? Researchers will recognize that organisms are  
complex dynamic systems organized to control a myriad of variables, that behavior  
is the means through which many of those variables are controlled, and that  
organisms control their inputs (perceptions), not their outputs. This  
recognition will require them to adopt research methods that are appropriate to  
the analysis of dynamic closed-loop, negative feedback systems, recognizing  
that methods appropriate to the analysis of open-loop systems will yield  
incorrect and misleading results. Research emphasis will be on discovering the  
physical mechanisms involved and determining their functional organization as  
systems, and testing hypothesized models of that organization against empirical  
data. Data collection and analysis will be based on the performance of  
individuals rather than groups.

There’s  
probably more, but that’s what comes immediately to mind.

I’m  
heading to Indianapolis in a few minutes and may be off-line for awhile.

Bruce  
A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057/20 "2009-02-20T17:43:59Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2009.02.20.945)]

> Bill Powers (2009.02.19.0744 MST)
> 
> Boris Hartman wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to include in the session, but as I see the discussion it’s going in  
> > the direction of denying some main principles of PCT. I’ll explain what I ment.

> You explained very well, Boris. I completely agree with you. In fact, you have inspired me.
> 
> The question is, what can we do about this situation?

Reorganize. Don’t let those old beliefs pervade your eyes. But reorganize. Reorganize. Reorganize. (With apologies to Tom Lehrer).

> I will say this flatly and hope for the best. Inside every PCTer who is still arguing for the validity of at least the basic ideas of his belief system formed long ago, there is a little voice advising caution about the actual soundness of the foundation…

> Unfortunately, those wise little voices are too easily drowned out by one loud voice from outside shouting that those old beliefs are nonsense, unjustified, obviously wrong, dumb. I refer to my voice, and Rick’s, and a few others.

Well, I don’t know if I agree with this idea of “little voices” being drowned out by loud ones. But who cares, really. It’s hard to adjust the volume on e-mail;-)

> When those outside voices start yammering, all those whispering little demons drop what they were doing and come to the common defense.

I agree. But so what? Are we supposed to stop talking about PCT and just let those little voices eventually convince their vessels that the old ideas are horse pucky? I know full well that “yammering” about PCT (which I take to include everything from B:CP to our discussions on the net to my recent “Revolution” paper) is not going to change anyone’s mind. Indeed, as soon as you published your first words about PCT – gentle as they might have seemed to you – they got the defenses of psychologists up big time. If the little voices are going to do their work – of reorganizing people into PCTers – they’ll have to do it on their own time. The only alternative I see is to stop talking about PCT completely and I kind of enjoy discussing and working on it, even if I know that getting people to completely give up their old ideas is something I can do nothing about.

> The trap into which I keep falling, along with a few others I find in the pit with me, is simply forgetfulness of what PCT tells us. If you disturb a controlled variable, the control system controlling it will push back.

I never forget this. I must confess that I often use it for my own entertainment. That’s why I asked Martin to review my “Revolution” paper. I knew that it would be a disturbance to a controlled variable of his (the merits of some conventional research) and that he would act to protect that variable from disturbance. I figure that if I’m not going to get any true colleagues out of this PCT thing at least I can have some fun with it.

> So what is left for those who defend PCT rather than some older position? What is left for me to do?

What indeed?

> I think that the main thing I, we, can do is pipe down for a while and let those little voices go back to their worrying.

I disagree. I think the little voices are as likely to reap change in a PCT direction if they are left alone or if they are forced to try to defend the old beliefs. Basically, I don’t think you can change reorganization (in terms of rate or direction) from the outside, without using highly coercive methods, that is.

> I am not going to convince anyone that behavior is of little interest except to others and is not what organisms do, that neurotransmitters do not cause schizophrenia, that trait psychology is dead and gone, that reward and punishment are illusions, that behavior and perception are not stochastic, and that people control and reorganize themselves.

But that’s not quite true. Although you didn’t convince me of these things – I convinced myself – I would have had nothing to convince myself of if you had remained mute. I think it would be a tragedy if you (or I or anyone else who has jumped all the way into PCT) stopped working (through research, modeling and, yes, arguing on the net) to convince people of PCT. I know we are not really going to do much more than raise people’s defenses. But at least the ideas will be out there to be dealt with. I think piping down is just not a very helpful option, unless “piping down” means presenting PCT more effectively. But even then, who knows what is more effective-- one of your measured, data rich pieces (like the 1978 “Psych Review” paper) or one of your “screeds” (like your reply to Bandura and Locke). I like both!!

> I know those little demons are there because I know one simple fact: all you guys are, unbelievably, still here after all these years.

Yes, and they stay despite the “yammering”. So don’t worry, either they go all the way or they don’t. But don’t deprive me of your wonderful “yammering”; and I certainly won’t deprive anyone of mine;-)

> What I’ve been trying to do, with others, is to force inner change from outside.

Not really true for me. I certianly do what I do in the hopes of others “running with it” but I know full well that I cannot force people to change what they believe.

> Can’t be done.

Agreed. I’m still not going to pipe down, though. It’s too much fun to pipe up.

> Look at what I have been doing: pushing, pushing, pushing, mindlessly pushing while I arouse all the best counterarguments those old intelligent knowledge-stuffed defenders can come up with.

You have not been mindlessly pushing. You have been very intelligently pushing. If you hadn’t pushed at all – which would have involved not saying anything about PCT; it would certainly involved not publishing B:CP or the 1978 “Spadework” paper in _Psych Review_ that changed my life (or led to me changing my own life) – then I would still be doing conventional psychology; or maybe I would have gone into software engineering. So I want to thank you for the mindless pushing!

> When most of the people in the world understand the fundamental principles of PCT, how can there be any terrorism, any war, any poverty, any endless cycles of hostility and retaliation?

But can’t we still have scientific debates? As long as we don’t hit each other;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kid-who-doesnt-talk/6057.md?page=2)