Leslie and PCT

John_Appel · January 9, 1999, 3:49pm

From John Appel jappel21@op.net

Mary Powers.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking response to my post re
Leslie. It's such a joy to me to find a group of knowledgeable people
who are interested in �control.� I expect to learn much and hope I am
able to contribute a little. I have long been amazed by the power of
control theory to explain so much of human behavior. My patients confirm
this daily. But not just patients; wherever I look it seems to me I see
people trying to control each other. For instance I just read in the
�Philadelphia Inquirer,� �The root cause of domestic violence is the
desire of one person to maintain control over another.� This statement
was made by Susan Hauser, the executive director of �Woman's Way,� an
organization that handles 500 crises calls each month from domestic
abuse victims.�

I am eager to find out where my notions of control are the same as PCT
and where they differ, or/ and are incompatible. I keep wondering
whether my version of control is, in part, the same as PCT, merely using
different words. So I read your post on Leslie with intense interest.

<< "The CSG may not realize that perceptual control is necessary for
sanity.">>

< I think this is well understood, at least implicitly. To be unable to

control one's perceptions means never being able to bring them to their
reference states, which means being in a very unhealthy and painful
state of
chronic error.>

I define sane as being able to anticipate and evaluate the consequences
of ones actions. A A psychotic --insane--person�s perceptions are
unrealistic . Also he, or she, is not able to control his, or her
actions. Is this the same as <being unable to control one�s perceptions
...?> I'm not sure. Where do they differ, if indeed they do.

< I suspect that people who are angry about being dependent and unable
to do anything about it are unable because they are terrified of being
autonomous.>

Terrified of what danger? Responsibility? Being blamed? Loss of its
mothers �love?�

I agree everyone starts out dependent and most become autonomous. I
suggest that to become autonomous a child must negotiate the�terrible
twos� successfully. To do so the child must individuate and separate
from its mother. It must prove to itself and to its mother it can oppose
her, refuse to do what she commands. This occurs normally between ages
1-1/2 and 2-1/2 . Having proved she can�t make him do anything, then he
is able to choose for himself whether he complies, or opposes her. Some
mothers welcome evidence of her child's attempts, and are glad to see it
has a mind of its own. Other mothers are terrified of losing control of
their child and fiercely oppose the child's attempts to become
autonomous. Such a child does not negotiate the �terrible twos�
successfully and remains dependent and vulnerable to mental disorder.
Does the above make sense to you? And does it lend itself to PCT?

I agree Leslie was denied dependency when she needed it and denied
autonomy when she was ready for it. What was her c conflict? The need
for dependency vs. her desire for autonomy?

I will post more response later to Mary Powers� post to me re Leslie.
Meanwhile thank you very much for your comments.

John Appel

···

Subject: Leslie and PCT
Date: 99/1/9 10 AM
To:CSGnet@UIUC.edu..

R_Marken · January 9, 1999, 10:41pm

[From Rick Marken (990109.1440)]

John Appel (99/1/9 10) --

wherever I look it seems to me I see people trying to control
each other.

Me too. And I think that PCT helps us see _ourselves_ as part of
this process. All people (including ourselves) are trying to
control all kinds of perception, including perceptions of each
other's behavior; it's what being a control system is about.

For instance I just read in the �Philadelphia Inquirer,� �The
root cause of domestic violence is the desire of one person to
maintain control over another.�

This is certainly consistent with PCT. All PCT would add is an
explanation of _how_ the desire to control others leads to violence
(it does it via conflict over the desired state of a controlled
variable) and of _why_ this desire exists in the first place
(because we are all control systems).

I define sane as being able to anticipate and evaluate the
consequences of ones actions.

PCT would probably define sane as "the ability to successfully
control one's own perceptions".

A psychotic --insane--person�s perceptions are unrealistic.

I think PCT leads to a different point of view. Perceptions
are just representations of some external reality. What you
call "unrealistic perceptions" are probably what, in PCT, we
call "imaginations" (perceptions that are not based on first
order sensory input). If so, then I think PCT would say that a
psychotic does more controlling of imaginations (including high
fidelity ones, called hallucinations) than does a sane person.

Also he, or she, is not able to control his, or her actions.

PCT says that we don't control our actions (our effects on
controlled perceptions); we only control the perceptual results
of those actions; we control _perceptions_, not _actions_. I
think this is a very important point. We tend to notice (and get
disturbed by) actions rather than the controlled results of those
actions. If we focus on helping people produce more appropriate
actions (control their actions) we may actually be denying the
person what little control they had over the perception they are
trying to control. People _must_ act in whatever ways bring their
perceptions to the reference state. People cannot control their
actions and keep the perceptual results of those actions under
control at the same time. If an observer finds the actions used to
control a perception unacceptable, then the best way to deal with
this is to try to call this to the person's attention and suggest
other perceptions that the person might control instead.

Is this the same as <being unable to control one�s perceptions
...?> I'm not sure. Where do they differ, if indeed they do.

I guess I'd have to give that a "no"; we control what happens
to us (perception) not what we _do_ to keep it happening (actions).

I agree everyone starts out dependent and most become autonomous.
I suggest that to become autonomous a child must negotiate
the�terrible twos� successfully.

I think of dependence as reliance on other people to help one
control one's own perceptions. In PCT terms, person A is
dependent if s/he can only control a perception when person B
is part of the feedback connection relating person A's actions
to person A's controlled perception. So an infant (person A) is
completely dependent on other people (like mom and dad, persons
B and B') to control the perception of food in its mouth. The
baby _acts_ (cries) and eventually gets _food_ via the efforts
of others to control that crying.

Given this view of dependence, there is clearly a "dependence
continuum" that goes from complete dependence (like the infant
who needs another person around to control nearly all its
perceptions) to complete autonomy (like the lone survivalist
who controls all his perceptions with no one else around at all).
Most normal people are somewhere in the middle of this continuum;
we control a lot of perceptions on our own; but we also control
other perceptions thanks to the kindness (and inventiveness) of
strangers (like the genius who invented the microwave oven).

Best

Rick

···

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