(Bruce Kodish [000910.1146PDT])
In a message dated 9/10/99 10:44:06 AM, KJKitzke@AOL.COM writes:
<<I am attracted to PCT too, like a moth to a flame. I am skeptical of many
religious people and scientists as well. They often have pet theories to
defend at all cost and perhaps a hidden agenda. Question everything; trust
no one are the kind of X-File mottos that are worth following.
With all the weapons we have at ready in the world to keep the peace; it
seems closer every day. Or, is it just an illusion, like environmental
stimuli causing people to respond?
Well, we managed to get through the 9-9-99 day without any catastrophe.
Science came through again. What a relief.
Where did you first learn about PCT and what convinced you it has merit?
Kenny
Hi Ken,
I should ammend my previous statement to include not only religious people
but any person with a value-belief system or ideology. Even though I
personally am not religious, in the sense of believing in a personal deity or
deities, I want to make clear that I am not condemning all religions or
religious people.
What I was suggesting was that a level of tentativeness commensurate with the
degree and even possibility of evidence would lead to less of the defense
(and offense) at all costs and hidden agendas that you note above. That to me
would be a movement towards applying a scientific attitude to everyday life.
As to where I learned about PCT: My background is as a physical therapist
married to a psychologist, whose training was with Albert Ellis. I have
always had a deep interest in psychology and human behavior and had heard
about Bill Power's work through some exposure to William Glasser's stuff a
number of years ago. Last year for whatever reason I got interested in
Glasser again and read Control Theory and Stations of the Mind. That got me
interested in going to the source for more accurate info about the theory and
after a web search I found the CSG. Since then I have mostly lurked with some
time out for dealing with urgent family business and now again have been
lurking for awhile.
In the meantime I have gotten and read all of Bill Power's published books,
have studied other material as well and have pondered much upon PCT. As a
physical therapist, I studied neuroscience and in particular motor control
theory. The standard view in most of that discipline is that negative
feedback doesn't apply for understanding quick ballistic type movements. Some
other processes called "feed forward", the programming of output, etc. then
need to be postulated.
Having worked through the simple equations in Power's and Robertson's
textbook on psychology (an exercise I highly recommend to you and anyone else
reading this missive) I now understand that what I read in my neuro textbooks
about feedback appeared incorrect. In other words, a serious transmission of
error has continued and become part of the 'knowledge' base in motor control
studies and neuroscience. I think that the whole field of movement science
would make a great leap forward if more researchers in that area understood
behavior as the control of input not output.
My work in physical therapy is in the area of back and neck pain and movement
education. Power's work has some pretty profound applications to both areas
that I am starting to explore.
Pain can be seen, in part, as a potentially controllable variable. To the
extent that we can perceive our own actions, movements (even though we never
control our actual output- the signals from the motor end plate) we can also
learn to control our postural relationships better.
Most of us develop our postural-movement habits in an unsystematic and
short-term, opportunistic way. Because our perceivable actions are usually
not in the forefront of our attention, the unintended consequences of certain
'habits' of posture-movement, may ultimately lead to mechanical pain
problems. Some attention to our perceivable postural-movement habits and
developing new reference levels for these important variables can result in
perceivable reductions of pain and other symptoms.
If this makes any sense, you might see that I have begun to think very much
in terms of the PCT model (as well as I understand it) as it applies to my
work.
I am certified as a teacher of the Alexander Technique of movement education.
This summer I gave a 1 hour presentation on PCT at the Annual National
teacher's conference. The people attending seemed very interested. I'm also
writing a book on back pain and am using a great deal of the PCT perspective
in my discussions and explanations.
I also have an intensive scholarly background in general semantics, which is
a philosophy or study of how we know what we think we know (epistemology) in
terms of modern scientific knowledge. Interestingly, the underlying
epistemological framework of PCT appears to be equivalent to that which was
espoused by Alfred Korzybski, the originator of general semantics, in his
book Science and Sanity (1933). Korzybski had more than an inkling of the
cyclic processes of causation in the human nervous system but did not have
the understanding of feedback mechanisms that we have available now , due in
no small part, to PCT. So I am also interested in what ammendments or
updating might be required in Korzybski's formulations in light of this new
knowledge.
That's my background of interests in a nutshell. It turned out to be a
pretty big nut! BTW, I grew up in Pittsburgh and my father still lives
there. (I believe that's where you live, no?)
Best Regards to a Fellow Questioner,
Bruce Kodish
Pasadena, CA
626-441-4627
bikodish@aol.com
http://www.transmillennium.net/brucekodish/
