[From Rick Marken (951228.1000)]
Bob Clark (951227.1736 EDT) --
it seems likely that you have all noticed that we are faced with the Turing
Test Situation whenever we "look at" the "Net."
The only difference is that I don't ask myself whether other posters are
machines; I assume they are;-)
Actually, it doesn't really matter to me whether other posters are machines
or not; I just go about my business, controlling for whatever it is I'm
controlling for; compensating for the disturbances created by the posts
posted by the other posters, be they machines or people.
But my informal Tests suggest to me that all the posters on this net are most
definitely control systems. Whether they are living control systems or
artifacts, I don't know. But they are most defintely control systems; they
persistently control for certain rather obvious perceptions (such as the
perception that reinforcement theory can't be _all_ wrong or the perception
that tests of control theory require a new apporach to behavioral research)
and maintain these perceptions in reference states against disturbance.
So, whether the other posters on the net are people or machines, they are
surely control systems.
Ed Ford (951219)--
Criticism kills initiative
Hank Folson (951228) --
I first saw this as very un-PCT.
It seemed like it to me too. Criticism is, if anything, a disturbance to a
controlled variable. Criticism might create error (if the person is unable to
effectively compensate for it) and persistent criticism might create
persistent error, leading the person to reorganize and, possibly, stop trying
to control the variable being disturbed by the criticism. This would look
like a loss of initiative (initiative being seen in the obvious attempt to
control the criticized variable) so maybe there is a sense in which
persistent criticism might lead to what can appear to be "loss of
initiative". But it doesn't work in the cause-effect way that I'm sure was
unintentionally suggesed by Ed's statement.
I now see that your point is that criticism is not an effective way to deal
with people.
I think this is a VERY important issue; how do we "deal with people" without
criticism? This is a difficult problem because "dealing with people" implies
that something they are doing is a disturbance to something for which we are
controlling . Your example of the kid with the gun at school is a good one;
most people (not all, unfortunately) would want to "deal with this kid"
because a child carrying a gun to school is a disturbance to what most people
want to perceive as the way kids should behave in school. Criticizing the kid
is one approach to trying to control this perception; another approach might
be simply siezing the gun or expelling the child or "reasoning it through
with the kid". Whatever we do, however -- criticize, use force, reason -- the
goal is to control our perception of the behavior of another control system;
we won't be satisfied if the kid keeps coming to school with a loaded gun.
So the question is "how do you deal with the kid with the gun"? I don't think
PCT has an answer. All PCT can tell you is that you are trying to control
another control system (the kid) and that problems will arise when you do
this. PCT does suggests that the gun is probably being carried as part of an
effort to control another variable; if so, then it might be possible (as Hank
suggests) to determine what variable the kid is trying to control by
carrying the gun and to suggest alternative ways to control this variable
that might be acceptable to both the kid and oneself.
But it is not guaranteed that offering alternative ways to control a variable
will result in success when you "deal with others". And when you offer such
alternatives, it is difficult to avoid having the person your are "dealing
with" notice that you are implicitly "criticizing" the currently selected
alternative.
Best
Rick