···
[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-05_09:46:34 ET]
BN: Rick, I agree that you are in the best position of anyone on CSGNet to teach PCT …
RM: Thanks. I heartily agree with your agreement! 
BN: But too much of the time you actually are doing a lousy job of teaching PCT.
RM: Yes, there is always room for improvement.
Â
BN: That is when you perceive misunderstanding of PCT in what is merely an alternative way of talking about the ramifications, and sometimes the principles, of PCT. And it is when you appear most to relish conflict.
RM: I think I rarely see misunderstanding where there is none. What I will cop to is often not understanding what people are misunderstanding about PCT. This is apparently a well-known problem of teaching; not understanding why a student is getting it wrong. I will try to improve in that area.
BN: Given your aim of teaching PCT–that is, fostering other people’s ability to recognize and control perceptions of the principles and ramifications of PCT–you should act on the PCT principle that conflict prevents good control.
RM: I think conflict only exists in teaching when the students think they know more than the teacher.Â
Â
BN: Altogether too often, you impute meanings to a person’s words that actually contradict what the person said. For example, when I wrote of resolving conflict by one of the two higher-level goals finding alternative means of control, you imputed a contradictory meaning to my words, saying that “conflicts simply can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict”, attributing to me the rather stupid claim that one can resolve a conflict by continuing the conflict using other means. This was insulting (had I taken it as an insult) and certainly uninstructive if your aim was to teach the correct principles and ramifications of PCT.
RM: It’s possible that I misunderstood you but I don’t think I imputed a meaning to you. That is, I didn’t explicitly say “This is what you meant…”. I simply responded to what I thought you meant, which still looks to me like you are saying that a conflict can be resolved by finding appropriate alternative means of controlling the variable in conflict. If that’s not what you meant then we should try to work it out. For example, you could present a diagram of conflict and show what would be changed in the diagram that would resolve the conflict in the manner you describe verbally, which I am
apparently
misunderstanding.Â
Â
MT: (1) You have some reference value (or set of reference values) for a correct perception of PCT and you are controlling for your perception of PCT to maintain this value (or set of values). According to my understanding of PCT, this implies that you actively counter evidence that would change your perception of PCT.
RM: No, I am controlling for presenting a correct picture of the PCT; I am not controlling for PCT being the correct model of behavior. So I actively counter things people say tht are disturbances to my goal of presenting a correct picture of PCT. But I would revise my belief that PCT (or some facet of it) is the correct model of behavior if presented with evidence that required that I do that. Â
BN: Martin did not say that you were controlling for PCT being the correct model of behavior. He said your hold reference value(s) for your control of your perception of PCT. This is of course trivially true.
RM: This was, indeed, a tough one to answer and I probably could have done a better job. I answered as I did because of that second sentence in 1): “According to my understanding of PCT, this implies that you actively counter evidence that would change your perception of PCT.” The only way this sentence makes sense to me is to assume that “evidence” is empirical data and that, therefore, Martin is saying that I control for countering (or rejecting) empirical data that would require require a change in PCT. So given that assumption, I think my answer is actually pretty good.Â
MT: Your reference value here is a fixed invariant, that you characterize as “a correct analysis of purposeful behaviour”.
RM: No, what I am controlling for is a correct picture of PCT.Â
BN: Here, you are evidently again denying the statement “you are controlling for PCT being the correct model of behavior”.
Â
RM: I agree that I could possibly have answered more clearly. But I think Martin could have asked his questions more clearly. I think the problem turns on the meaning of “evidence”. I am controlling for 1) a correct picture of PCT (which is equivalent to a correct analysis of purposeful behavior) and for 2) PCT being the correct model of behavior. “Evidence”, in the sense of empirical data, would lead me to revise 2) but not 1). I think Martin thinks otherwise, and I suspect it’s because he thinks PCT itself can be revised based on the “evidence” of reason. If Martin doesn’t believe this then we have no conflict; but if he does, then we do.Â
BN: This is very peculiar blindness on your part. It cripples your ability to teach PCT effectively.
RM: I think what cripples my ability to teach PCT effectively is the same thing that crippled Bill Powers’ ability to teach it effectively (if “effectively” means getting people to understand PCT – both the model itself and how it applies to actual behavior); it’s the fact that many people are unwilling to be taught PCT because they are already “experts”.
Â
BN: We need you to fully occupy your role teaching PCT effectively. Please, please find other means for controlling a perception of invigorating conflict. If it appears to you that someone has not fully grasped PCT, please control for non-conflictive ways of guiding them to a better grasp of the principles and ramifications of PCT. Bill provided countless examples.
RM: I agree. Bill was very good at trying to find things in what people said with which he could agree, at least superficially. But as you can see from some of the posts from Bill that I posted lately, Bill’s dealings with people could hardly be described as non-conflictive. He disagreed with people, sometimes quite strongly
(especially when those people had been on the net for some time).
Â
BN: As Albert Schweizer said, “There are three ways to teach… The first is by example. The second is by example. And the third is by example.” We need you to be exemplary, not only in your research, but in your active presence here.
 RM: I agree and I’m doing the best I can. But it’s tough to be exemplary (whatever that means) when your “students” are contentious, rude and don’t even think of themselves as students.Â
Â
BN: Thanks for listening, Rick. I know you care deeply.
RM: Yes, I do care deeply about PCT and that is why there is conflict. I could reduce the conflict by just agreeing with what everyone says. When people say the power law of movement is not an example of a illusion then I could just say “right” and then no conflict; when people say only perception is controlled so you can never really know what a person is controlling I could just say “right” and no conflict. And so on. But I do care deeply about PCT (I’m controlling with high gain for people getting PCT right) so I try to “resist” misunderstandings of PCT as strongly as I try to resist what I see as evil in society. And that resistance is evidence of conflict! There was a letter in the LA Times this morning that seems relevant here. I quote:
At times we must feel free to criticize ignorance, hatred
and acts such as separating children from their parents seeking asylum. The
attitudes behind these actions must be challenged as inhumane and
sociologically ignorant.
Â
There are principles for which we go beyond civil discourse.
RM: I try to maintain civil (non-conflictive) discourse but I’m afraid there are principles for which I might unintentionally go beyond what you might see as civil discourse. For me, they include the ones mentioned by the letter writer as well as the principles of PCT.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
/Bruce
 Â
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Rick Marken 2018-07-04_16:21:26]
[Martin Taylor 2018.07.03.10.32]
Reference [Rick Marken 2018-07-01_15:17:23] and [Rick Marken
2018-07-02_09:12:46] to Bruce Nevin.
MT: Could you clarify what seems a bit contradictory in these
postings…
MT: (1) You have some reference value (or set of reference values)
for a correct perception of PCT and you are controlling for your
perception of PCT to maintain this value (or set of values). According to my understanding of PCT, this implies that you
actively counter evidence that would change your perception of
PCT.
RM: No, I am controlling for presenting a correct picture of the PCT; I am not controlling for PCT being the correct model of behavior. So I actively counter things people say tht are disturbances to my goal of presenting a correct picture of PCT. But I would revise my belief that PCT (or some facet of it) is the correct model of behavior if presented with evidence that required that I do that. Â
MT: Your reference value here is a fixed invariant, that you
characterize as “a correct analysis of purposeful behaviour”.
RM: No, what I am controlling for is a correct picture of PCT.Â
MT: (2) I infer that the correct version of PCT is a property of real
reality in the external environment.
RM: The PCT model would say that any version of the PCT model is the state of a perceptual variable that is a function of lower level perceptual variables and, ultimately, a function of environmental variables.Â
MT: (3) You are also controlling for others to perceive PCT with the
same value or set of values, meaning that you control for them to
incorporate only your messages in their perceptions of PCT.
RM: I suppose I am doing it in order to get people to control for the same thing I am when I control for describing the PCT. It’s the same as what you do when you teach children math; you are trying to get them to control for giving the answer 4 when asked “what is 2 + 2”, rather than giving some other answer (like 22).Â
MT: In
this you follow the example of Groucho Marx, when he said: “Who do
you want to believe, me or your own eyes?” or words to that
effect. Others should learn from you, but the reverse is not true,
where “should” represents reference values you also maintainÂ
MT: Is this a correct interpretation of those two messages? If not,
how do you intend them to be understood?
RM: No, of course this is not the correct interpretation of what I am trying to say. I am trying to teach PCT to rather recalcitrant students. I think I am in the best position of anyone on CSGNet to do that teaching because of my long working association with Bill Powers, my many demonstrations of control phenomena (http://www.mindreadings.com/demos.htm) and my rather large corpus of publications describing my research on PCT, much of which is reprinted in three books: Mind Readings, More Mind Readings and Doing Research on Purpose;all available at: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Richard+S.+Marken&search-alias=books&field-author=Richard+S.+Marken&sort=relevancerank.
Best
Rick
Â
Martin
On 2018/07/2 12:17 PM, Richard Marken
(rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Rick Marken 2018-07-02_09:12:46]
[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-01_23:39:03
ET]
BN: This is part of what I
understand from your words.
BN: 1. You do
not consider it possible for there to be alternative
ways to present a " correct analysis of
purposeful behavior on CSGNet " (“alternative
means” Â that
you have not considered).
RM: Of course there are alternative ways to present a
correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet. I’ve
used many alternative means of presenting such an
analysis: verbal description, visualization via diagrams,
computer demonstrations, analogies, fitting the model to
existing data. I’ve got three books that are collections
of my published (and a few unpublished) papers describing
all kinds of different ways of presenting PCT. But when
there is a conflict there is no way to vary the means that
affect the state of the controlled variable that will
resolve the conflict.
RM: The variable that is in conflict here on CSGNet is
PCT itself. The conflict exists because people on this net
either perceive PCT somewhat differently or they have
somewhat different references of what constitutes the
correct state of this perception. The different means used
to control this perception are the different things we say
in our posts. No matter how one varies these means to
bring their own perception of PCT to its reference, those
means (posts) are bound to be a disturbance to others who
either perceive PCT differently or have a different
reference for the same perceptual variable.Â
BN: You believe
that any means of controlling this perception (“a
correct analysis of purposeful behavior being
presented on CSGNet”) will continue or renew the
conflict in which you find yourself.
RM: Yes, I believe it because that is how I understand
conflicts to work from a PCT perspective. The only way to
eliminate such conflicts (and achieve peace) is for one or
both of the parties to the conflict to revise how they
perceive PCT or to revise their references (goal) for the
correct state of the PCT perceptual variable. Both
approaches require a willingness to learn – to reorganize
their existing control systems. Varying the means of
control (the
content of the posts)Â
won’t work.
Â
BN: 2. You control a perception
of being “invigorated” by conflict. This control may
preclude and certainly conflicts with your having
any interest in what might reduce or resolve
conflict, so you are unlikely to consider (1)
seriously. Â
RM: As I mentioned above, I don't consider (1)
seriously because I know it won’t work; conflicts simply
can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of
controlling the variable in conflict. I am personally
invigorated by the conflicts on CSGNet about PCT because I
know that PCT is a hugely revolutionary new approach to
understanding behavior and I am invigorated by being part
of the resistance to attempts to present Bill’s
revolutionary vision in a way that will be more acceptable
to the “establishment”.Â
Â
BN: You reject out of hand the
possibility of resolving conflict by using
alternative means for one of the two goals. I report
that I have empirically observed this as an outcome
of the MoL process. When ‘going up a level’ (so
called) enabled both goals to be in awareness at the
same time, alternative, non-conflicting means of
achieving one of the two goals became obvious, which
previously had not been considered.
RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by
abandoning one of the two goals. This would certainly work
in the case of arguments about PCT if one person were
willing to give up their goal regarding what they thought
was the correct state of the perception of PCT. But maybe
you could describe an actual case of solving an
interpersonal (not intrapersonal) conflict amicably by
having one party to the conflict change the means of
control. It would be great if that could be done.Â
Best
Rick
Â
/Bruce
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM
Richard Marken <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection
is achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when you
have
nothing left to take away.�
  Â
            Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Rick Marken
2018-07-01_15:17:23]
[Bruce Nevin
2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]
BN:
Part of my role in the Martha’s
Vineyard Peace Council is to choose
among applicants for the Embarking
Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from
our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30
graduating seniors write an essay on
their commitment to helping make
peace in the world.Â
BN:
This year in the award letters, and
in the regret letters to those
beyond our budget, I included the
following paragraph expressing a
practical application of the
principles behind the Method of
Levels:
Falling
into conflict is as easy as
closing your eyes. All it takes
is not
paying attention as purposes
cross, and purposes cross all
the time.
To resolve conflict we have to
be more alert. The place where
two
purposes cross is where both try
to use the same means. When we
shift
attention from how to why we
want to do a thing— from
the means that we think we
need to the end result that we
really
want—
we can
notice the alternative means
that are available.
​BN: Perhaps this
way of putting it may be useful to
you. Perhaps it may even have
application to our conversations
here.​
RM: If only it were that simple. But
it’s not alternative means that solve
conflicts; it’s alternative goals. And
changing goals is not exactly easy. For
example, I could quickly solve my
conflicts with people on CSGNet is I could
just change my goal of having what I think
is a correct analysis of purposeful
behavior presented on CSGNet to the goal
of having an incorrect analysis presented.
I don;t think all the MOL in the world
could get me to be able to do that.
Especially because I often find the
conflict rather invigorating.Â
Best
Rick
​/Bruce​
Â
–
Richard
S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection
is achieved not
when you have
nothing more to
add, but when you
have
nothing left to
take away.�
Â
        Â
     Â
–Antoine de
Saint-Exupery
