[from Mary Powers 940517]
Oded, you are a cynical s.o.b. 
By the way, movies have been used in intro psych courses for
decades - I well remember seeing Forbidden Games (Jeux Interdits)
in a course on child psychology in 1949 (before you were born?).
Of course that was a French movie, so more qualified for such use
than anything from Hollywood
Rick
I'm glad you're back. Like Tom, I'm not inclined to see the
movie. The newsreels in 1945 were more than enough for this
person's lifetime.
It's not just that people need to learn that other people are
control systems - you're talking about people who've convinced
themselves that certain other people aren't even human - Jews in
this case - or the other tribe across the river, or waitresses,
or whatever. Given the performance of the human race to date,
this is easy to do. Sometimes it seems to me to be the default
attitude, as opposed to the Golden Rule, which has to be taught
and thought about and deliberately practised.
Both are concepts at a high, but not the highest, order. It is, I
think, the business of PCT as a science to study these
phenomena - but not from the point of view of one or the other.
More like - what are the higher level goals achieved best by one
or the other principle? Can those higher level goals be changed?
Do we want to change them? Certainly, in the case of gang members
indulging in drive-by shootings. Not so certainly in the case of
a corporate executive who is treated with awe and admiration for
his accomplishments, achieved with, and probably not possible
without, the identical lack of empathy for others.
I don't think it's giving away the store to teach PCT, even to
people who will misuse it. They already do. They may not have a
formal understanding of it, but people already know how to cater
to reference signals that are morally base, and manipulate
environments, and people's perceptions, in order to achieve their
own goals. PCT won't give them any further edge.
There are moral principles to be derived from PCT, as there are,
when you think about it, from any psychology - one of the unique
features of this particular science. I know that I think that PCT
supports the Golden Rule as being a principle more compatible
with people-as-living-control-systems than, say, rampant profit-
motivated capitalism, or any I'm-for-me-firster philosopher like
Ayn Rand. Possibly this is why PCT is having such hard going - it
has implications at a very high personal level that people don't
want to think about. Like what kind of violence it does to a
living control system to be a Fascinating Woman.
Bob Clark
In response to your post of 940516.
a) ok
b) this implies programs are stored and brought up as needed. A
strong implication of planned action. I don't think one ever uses
the same program twice, certainly not in detail, the environment
never being exactly the same. One may have a goal similar to
previous goals, and at a lower level some remembered general ways
that succeeded in the past, but these are subject to moment-by-
moment corrections according to present circumstance.
c) I don't know what this is about.
without some form of "switch controller" the switches remain
unchanging. Therefore the various high level reference signals
are also unchanging.
Therefore? Seems to me it's the changing higher level reference
signals that "throw switches" - i.e. set goals - for lower level
systems. Including in and out of fantasy, imagination, memory -
or dealing with the "real" world.
d)What a wise creature the DME is. The basis on which it must
select switch positions implies an entire parallel multi-level
control system.
And why conscious? Have you never experienced, say, reading a
book and realized you missed the last three paragraphs because
you've been thinking about something else? Not a conscious
diversion at all.
Mary P.