More distortion of PCT

[From Dag Forssell (2010.02.20.0930 PST)]
Google Web Alert for: "Perceptual Control Theory"Life Connections “Helping People Connect with Life’s Solutions”
applying the ideas of perceptual control theory by helping train others in the theory’s We offer a certification program in perceptual control theory. **…**What a glorius list of people. Most misrepresent PCT (Shelley Roy to my knowledge being the sole exception, though I am not familiar with all.) Perry Good has the audacity to offer certification in PCT. Makes you want to puke, doesn’t it.

Best, Dag

[From Dag Forssell (2010.02.20.0930 PST)]
Google Web Alert for: "Perceptual Control
Theory"


Life Connections “Helping People Connect with Life’s
Solutions”

applying the ideas of perceptual control theory by
helping train others in the theory’s We offer a certification
program in perceptual control theory. **…**What a glorius list of people. Most misrepresent PCT (Shelley Roy to
my knowledge being the sole exception, though I am not familiar with
all.) Perry Good has the audacity to offer certification in PCT. Makes
you want to puke, doesn’t it.

Best, Dag

[From Fred Nickols (2010.02.20.1050 MST)]

Regarding Dag's post about certification (see below)...

I can't comment on those folks' qualifications to offer certification in PCT (whatever that might entail) but a few moments of reflection did suggest something in a related vein.

I think Bill Powers might consider endorsing certain people and certain expositions of PCT. His stamp of approval, as it were, would continue the legitimacy of future expressions of PCT. Once Bill leaves the scene, I fear PCT will be torn asunder by competing views and arguments about what Bill meant. Some endorsements by Bill might serve to sanction some writings and perhaps some people.

Just a thought...

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"
  
-------------- Original message ----------------------

[From Dag Forssell (2010.02.20.0930 PST)]

Google Web Alert for: "Perceptual Control Theory"
Life Connections "Helping People Connect with Life's Solutions"
applying the ideas of perceptual control theory by helping train others in the theory's ... We offer a certification program in perceptual control theory. ...

What a glorius list of people. Most misrepresent PCT (Shelley Roy to my knowledge being the sole exception, though I am not familiar with all.) Perry Good has the audacity to offer certification in PCT. Makes you want to puke, doesn't it.

Best, Dag

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.20.1112 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2010.02.20.1050 MST)

I think Bill Powers might consider endorsing certain people and certain expositions of PCT. His stamp of approval, as it were, would continue the legitimacy of future expressions of PCT. Once Bill leaves the scene, I fear PCT will be torn asunder by competing views and arguments about what Bill meant. Some endorsements by Bill might serve to sanction some writings and perhaps some people.

The main thing I have learned about teaching PCT is not to expect instant comprehension of every detail. Understanding of PCT grows in the way a building is constructed, from the ground up and piece by piece. In the process of learning, there is always some part of the building that is well constructed. There are also other segments in which confusion is evident and the builder is still looking for a way to fit the parts together, and winnow out the parts that don't belong at all. And there are weird constructions that will eventually have to be reduced to their component parts and reassembled in a totally different way before they can fit in with the rest.

What I would endorse and encourage is patience, persistence, and empathy. Of course it also helps for a teacher to have a good comprehension of PCT, but that can be carried only a small distance beyond the fundamentals. PCT is not a finished product. The main thing a teacher needs is to understand where in the process of grasping PCT the student is, and focus attention on the next thing that might advance understanding. Have faith that the student will reorganize.

I also recommend an effort to identify conflicts in the student and dwell on them long enough for reorganization to work. This isn't easy to do. One keeps getting caught in the coils of arguments and problem-solving, and it's very hard to resist offering solutions and giving advice. If I still have such problems, how much harder must it be for others without a halo to avoid them?

I am not and don't want to be Saint Bill. It's good to know that people appreciate my work, but all that will matter in the long run is what others do with my ideas, what others set straight where I have made mistakes, what others build on the foundations. I don't think that having the hand of a dead man on the helm will help in that process.

I'm most grateful for your trust in me, Fred, and I hope not to lose it. I think you're quite capable of judging, now, what is good PCT and what isn't. Just keep getting ready to take over from me.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.20.1130)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.20.1112 MST)–

Fred Nickols (2010.02.20.1050 MST)

I think Bill Powers might consider endorsing certain people and certain expositions of PCT.

I am not and don’t want to be Saint Bill. It’s good to know that people appreciate my work, but all that will matter in the long run is what others do with my ideas, what others set straight where I have made mistakes, what others build on the foundations. I don’t think that having the hand of a dead man on the helm will help in that process.

I am so on board with Bill on this (though I do have a statue of him that I pray to every morning;-) I’m not a fan of having anyone “certify” expositions (or knowledge) of PCT because that makes it seem like PCT is some kind of religion. PCT is a scientific model and the only thing that can “certify” it is proper empirical tests. Thus, PCT will be implicitly certified by the scientists who eventually take it up and start using it as the basis of their research. The scientists who don’t get the model right in terms of construction or mapping to behavior, will just get lousy results and their work will eventually be forgotten. The scientists who get it right will get superb results, excellent fits of the model to data and eventually other scientists will pick up on this (becuase it works so well) and PCT will become the “certified” basis of the life sciences, replacing the current open-loop causal model.

Right now the science of PCT is in its infancy and it is certainly not the certified" model of the life sciences. So non-scientists who are interested in it will just have to do their best at trying to articulate the model to those who want to apply it. If they want to call their description the “certified” description then what the heck; it’s not science, it’s just business. I think there will eventually be no need for this once science of PCT matures. PCT will be to these applications what physics is to engineering now. There will eventually be no more need for a “certified” PCT than there is now a need for a Certified" physics. But that time is probably a long way down the road so until we get there I have no objection to lettin different applied groups have their fun and certify PCT the way they like. It would be nice if they conslted with the scientiss about this but if they don’t ant to do that I am willing tio lend them my statue of St. Bill if they like.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Taylor 2010.02.23.10.11]

Some time in the late afternoon Feb 5, my e-mail client got thoroughly
screwed up, and I lost all e-mail contact with the world. I managed to
get some connection through a horrible web-based interface with my main
account a few days later, but without connection to ongoing threads. I
have spent many days trying to restore my connection with mail from Feb
5 and before, and I did not want to try reconnecting to CSGnet until I
was successful. However, after nearly three weeks of frustration in
trying to make the reconnection, I decided to give up on that effort,
and make a new start with whatever has been happening since Feb 5. It
took a little while to get the reconfiguration of the server-client
relationship set up properly, but a few minutes ago I was able to get
the 247 messages that were waiting. This message of mine is in part a
test message to see whether I can send to CSGnet, and in part a comment
on the true topic of the subject line.

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.20.1130)]

Bill
Powers (2010.02.20.1112 MST)–

Fred Nickols (2010.02.20.1050 MST)

I
think Bill Powers might consider endorsing certain people and certain
expositions of PCT.

I am not and don’t want to be Saint Bill. It’s good to know that people
appreciate my work, but all that will matter in the long run is what
others do with my ideas, what others set straight where I have made
mistakes, what others build on the foundations. I don’t think that
having the hand of a dead man on the helm will help in that process.

I am so on board with Bill on this (though I do have a statue of him
that I pray to every morning;-) I’m not a fan of having anyone
“certify” expositions (or knowledge) of PCT because that makes it seem
like PCT is some kind of religion.

I would like to add my voice to those opinions, based on a little
background experience.

When I was developing the Layered Protocol Theory of dialogue in the
1980s, I had fairly strong opinions on its structure. I was working in
a small group dealing with multimodal interfaces (which was the reason
for developing the theory in the first place). One of the group
persistently tried to convince me that one of my central constructs was
wrong and should be reconsidered. I resisted for several weeks or
months, but eventually he was able to show me how his version actually
fitted the situations we were dealing with better than my version did.
So although I was the founder and guru of LPT, I was wrong about the
scientific validity of my version. With LPT as a “certified religion”,
a “certified LPT practitioner” certified by me would have had to accept
my scientifically (but not religiously) wrong version.

As a side note, if I had not accepted the revised version, I would not
later have been able to see that LPT was actually a special case of PCT
applied to the particular application area of dialogue, in which the
controlled perceptions are those that the dialogue partners have of
each other.

So I am with Bill and Rick on this. Bill is quite capable of telling
people that this or that is or is not consistent with his view of PCT,
but no person is capable of telling anyone that this or that is
consistent with PCT itself, if “PCT” is taken as the consequences of
the assertion that all behaviour is the control of perception, or even
of HPCT, if “HPCT” is taken as the consequences of PCT with a
particular model of the relationships among perceptions.

Martin

···

On 2010/02/20 2:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote: