Lawyers or Scientist -- Just a test

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

In a message dated 6/6/99 9:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET writes:

> I think there are two basic aways for you to try to reduce this
> error: 1) try to "infuriate" the people who are not doing what
> you want in an effort to get them to start doing what you want
> or 2) do what you can on your own (such as bringing up topics
> that are of interest to you) to get the perception you want...
  >>
me:
or choice # 3 I can Draw out some error in a person perception -- with a
hypothesis or W.A.G.(Wild Ass Guess) about possible conflict in their control
processes or just create conflict in their control processes.

Assumption # 1 -- CSGnet is a scientific forum -- the people on this net have
interest in science, and with science one attempts to establish principles
that are reliable valid testable and repeatable.

Assumption # 2 -- True or not -- suggest that in this Forum very little
science is being discussed that can be Qualified and Quantified, reliable and
valid��.and so on�

Thus an error is created real or imaged ---- there are many who have
responded to MY Lawyers or Scientist Post -- a few responded as confirming
and some responded in a defense.

That tells me I am getting very close to a CV -- or need, want, desire, or
standard several people are controlling for.

Just an observation :slight_smile:

Mark Lazare

2

[From Rick Marken (990607.1030)]

Mark Lazare (990607) --

Thus an error is created real or imaged ---- there are many who
have responded to MY Lawyers or Scientist Post -- a few responded
as confirming and some responded in a defense.

That tells me I am getting very close to a CV -- or need, want,
desire, or standard several people are controlling for.

This is a great way to move the discussions on CSGNet from
the "Lawyerly" mode you seem to dislike to the "Scientific"
mode you seem to desire. Apparently, you are testing to
determine some of the variables people on the net are controlling.
This is a very good exercise; I think people could learn a lot
about the science of PCT by learning how to look for CVs. How
about describing your hypotheses about the variables you think
are being controlled, the way you disturbed those variables and
the evidence that suggests that these variables are being
controlled.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

3

In a message dated 6/7/99 11:09:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET writes:

<< How about describing your hypotheses about the variables you think
are being controlled, the way you disturbed those variables and
the evidence that suggests that these variables are being
controlled.

Best
Rick >>
were to start ... were to start.... humm

That is the question. Where is a good starting point?

Common ground, is what I am looking to establish.

First question. What is it that we share?
Being on the CSGnet. (This is not a guess it is a fact, start with an
agreeable Fact)

Second question, Why do people subscribe to the CSGnet?
Now I have to guess at the Whys. (motives, intentions, purposes)

Guess # 1
You may want to know How and Why people are able to get consistent results in
an inconsistent world.

Guess #2
You may want to use PCT as a way to DO better science. Better Predictions,
Reliable and Valid results.

Guess #3
You may want to know that what you learned about psychology is mostly wrong,
That output (behavior) is not the key to understanding human beings or
another living control system.

Guess #4
You may think the world of Traditional Psychology and are just here to make
sure nothing is a threat to the world you constructed using situational
theories to explain a liner cause effect relationship S-O-R.

Guess #5
You are bored and no one else will talk with you.

These guesses could go on further, but I think these about cover the spectrum
at different points.

To each of the 5 guesses to motives of being on the CSGnet there is a NULL
hypotheses.

Guess # 1
You don't care How and Why people are able to get consistent results in an
inconsistent world, you just like to bicker and argue like lawyers.

Guess #2
You not even using PCT as a way to DO better science you not even doing
science. You just like ripping each others point of view with another point
of view. There in no science here regarding better Predictions, Reliable and
Valid results, just
sophistry.

By stating the Null I can see who is receiving ERROR, either Positive or
Negative.

The people receiving positive error -- would respond in the vain of .......
What the hell. Who the F$&%&$ do you think you are. Or NO you are not even
close I do -- Practice Science and DO IT quite well using PCT.

The people receiving negative error -- would respond in the vain of ......
Great post. You're right on the money. I am grinning like a Cheshire cat.

So in short ----
Establish common ground - rapport

Observe what they are doing -- the results of their behavior not the behavior
itself.

Tell someone how you "see it" (but purposely guess wrong -- either completely
wrong or a little off the mark, will draw out a response) For example
sometimes when I first start talking to someone who just ODed or cut their
wrist, I will get no response to the question. So what happened tonight?
Answer: Nothing. My response back to them goes something like this ---- Oh,
so this is where you like to spend your Friday nights, you come here often?
Answer: NO!, you see what happened was........

Get them to tell you as best they can what they do want, and is it realistic.

Come up with a plan that can take you from here to there based on the
person's own Perceptions goals and behaviors.

Your friend in control (and sometimes out of control)
Mark Lazare

4

[From Rick Marken (990609.0900)]

Mark Lazare (990608) --

Common ground, is what I am looking to establish.

Me too. But the only common ground I am looking for is PCT.
I am on common ground with people who are willing to look at
(and study) behavior as the "control of perception" and who
clearly understand that phrase ("control of perception") in
the same way I do.

Why do people subscribe to the CSGnet?

I subscribe to CSGnet because this is the only place in
the world where I can talk to other people who are interested
in studying behavior as the control of perception.

I think it's usually pretty easy to tell what perceptions
people are controlling; CVs become rather obvious during
ordinary conversations on the net. I don't think people
try to conceal CVs unless control of one CV requires
actions (saying things) that interfere with control of
another CV. For example, I have seen people conceal the fact
that they are controlling certain perceptions because control
of those perceptions required actions (like saying "I
believe in the golden rule: the one with the gold rules")
that disturb other perceptions, like getting approval
from Bill Powers.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

5

In a message dated 6/8/99 11:41:21 AM, DTSDTO@AOL.COM writes:

<Your friend in control (and sometimes out of control)>

Mark:

I think that you and all of us are controlling all the time.

But to your main point. I perceive that I subscribe to CSGNet to maintain a
hope that it will increase my understanding of PCT and help me reduce my
internal conflicts and those I create when dealing with other people.

I'm not sure if that is a different Guess or not than the ones you picked?

BTW, the fact that I came and stayed (despite occasional disturbances, big
smile) suggests that my hope is still being maintained. Doesn't it?

Thanks for your post. Have you given your reason?

Kenny