[from Joel Judd 950901.1430 CST]
Rick & Marc (950901):
Rick M says:
This raises, for me, the question of the relationship between the PCT
model and PCT applications. I had assumed that
it was important to understand the PCT model (at some reasonable level)
before it could be applied effectively.
Marc replies:
Rick I think you hit the nail on the head here. I think you DO need to
understand PCT,
but that understanding does not _neccesarily_ automatically lead to a
productive _use_ of that >understanding... "Applying" PCT requires a GOOD
understanding of PCT AND a good >understanding of WHAT your trying to
accomplish. I do not believe there is any mystery or >voodoo involved.
Rick's original post seemed insightful enough. This sounds much like the
"why don't we do what we know?" question.
Knowledge ABOUT something does not necessarily lead to activity. Rick, just
as the "fact" of control doesn't lead social scientists to drop what they're
doing and run to pick up B: CP, your knowledge of PCT doesn't mean you
suddenly interact in peace and harmony with all around you. What you're
still controlling for (pardon my presumptiousness) are perceptions related
to how others' should be, assuming an understanding of PCT, or assuming they
should understand it, or be interested in it, etc. *What you do* with
knowledge is the bottom line, not the knowledge itself.
I think this is one of the unintended effects of US schools. Many believe
that KNOWING something in and of itself is worthwhile. It's useful to know
the capitals of the fifty states. Why? Well, cause it can make me a better
person--make my life better. How? There's the rub. There's the
application.
PCT theory seems to be an architectural issue in many ways. A computer can
"know" a lot about its architecture--heck, even a car can. They can tell
you what's happening and when something's wrong. But such knowledge sure
doesn't increase my car's hill-climbing ability or lead it to sit down and
reflect on the things it could be doing that it isn't now. It can't APPLY
its knowledge.
Indeed, I think it is quite possible
to do successful application that are not based on PCT at all or that
are,
at least ostensibly, based on another model of people.
Sure, because you're referring to a modelling (explicit or implicit)
problem. I believe many successful people have intuitively modelled their
interactions and expectations on what we might consider PCT-like theories.
But since they usually didn't have to explain (i.e., theorize) why they did
what they did, they didn't have to give a nod to theory.
1. The PCT model is irrelevant to applications. The success of an
application is independent of the scientific success of a model.
If this is true, I can think of a well-known "model" in language learning
that fits the bill. The "model" seems very successful--it accounts for
recognized aspects of language learning. But it is descriptive, not
explanatory, and it is so vague that it cannot generate any real, testable
hypotheses. Yet its very simplicity and intuitive "rightness" appeal to
scores of educators. The apparent (successful) application
seems independent of the scientific aspects of the "model."
Scientific success is irrelevant. One must _INCORPORATE_ their
_UNDERSTANDING_ of PCT into >>their EXISTING ways of dealing with others and
the methods they currently use.
See above. I would think one could also reorganize. But in either case, it
is what one ends up DOING with the knowledge of PCT that becomes manifest to
others.
I thought I knew how to utilize the PCT model simply because I understood
the
PCT model. The conflagration on the net over the last week or so shows
that,
even if I do understand the model, I certainly don't know how to apply
it.
How much does this statement assume the effects of applying it? It sound
like "If I apply X, A will result." I'll wait to hear if that's a correct
interpretation before continuing.
I think the next time something like that comes up again you [Rick]
might "deal" with it differently and more congruent with what you value.
But that would take the predictibility out of reading Rick's posts!! ) :-o
Joel
P.S. I've got this going through Microsoft Mail now--let me know if the
margins are screwed up, etc.