Naughty or Nice

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
21

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1626)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1258)

Then what did mean when you said I was "up to my old tricks"?
Is that just your way of saying "I see that you see things
differently than I do; but your way of seeing things is just
as good as mine"?

Whoever said that your way of seeing things is just as good as mine? In
your world it is, but not anywhere else.

> But how could a perception be invalid?

Many ways. Perceptual illusions, for one. "Scientific" illusions
are another (perceptions, like that of a stick that appears to be
bent at the water line, that differ from what we know to be true
on other grounds).

A perception is a signal in the input to a control system. I don't see how
a neural signal can be "an illusion". As far as I know, a neural signal is
a neural signal.

> If choosing refers to anything in PCT, it refers to
> reorganization.

I don't see that at all.

I know.

I can see how "choosing" might refer
to the random selection of reference settings that is presumed
to occur in reorganization.

Great. That's what I meant.

But even if we agree that "choosing" refers to reorganization,
it still seems disrespectful to say "I see you have chosen X"
(meaning, "I see you are reorganizing") and forcing control of
X when you don't know that X is what the person wants to control.

If you could model "disrespect" for me, perhaps I could see the point you
are trying to make. How do I show "disrespect" for my thermostat? By
saying, "I see you have chosen to maintain the room at 72 degrees F?"

I thought certain applications based their practices on PCT.

It seems you were misinformed. They actually base their practices on
Newton's laws--at least they never violate them.

If
PCT doesn't suggest anything then it certainly doesn't suggest
whether particular practices should or should not be used in
certain applications.

Once again we agree.

> I'm not seeking respect for my way of perceiving situations.

Then "What are you doing?"

Wasting my time.

BG

22

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1430)]

Me:

Then "What are you doing?"

Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1626)--

Wasting my time.

And mine.

Too bad. CSGNet can be such a wonderful forum for using time
productively with informed discussions of PCT and its applications.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

23

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1810)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1430)

And mine.

Don't blame me. Only you can waste your time. Or haven't you drawn that
lesson from PCT yet? I am under no illusion that you are capable of wasting
my time.

Too bad. CSGNet can be such a wonderful forum for using time
productively with informed discussions of PCT and its applications.

Can you cite some examples from the past year? I seem to have overlooked
them. Or is it simply your postings that constitute "informed discussions"?

BG

24

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1800)]

Me:

PCT views organisms as autonomous input control systems that
"choose" by setting references for the states of controlled
input variables.

Bruce Gregory:

If choosing refers to anything in PCT, it refers to reorganization.

Stefan Balke (2000.12.27) --

What are the implications of this distinction?

None, really. The distinction just depends on how one wants to
interpret the meaning of an informal description of behavior (in
this case, describing behavior as a "choice" as in "I see you
have chosen") in the context of the control model. It makes sense
to me to understand "I see you have chosen" as selection of a
reference for a perception. For example, you see a person eating
lobster bisque in a restaurant and you say "I see you have chosen
the lobster bisque". In terms of the control model, what you are
seeing is that the person has set his reference for soup input to
"lobster bisque" instead of to the other soups that were presumably
available. (Of course, to really know whether or not the person
is really controlling for lobster bisque you would have to do the
test).

Does a clear definition exist?

I don't think so. "Choice" is just an informal description of
behavior.

My personal experience is mixed. Sometimes I'm able to set
voluntarily new references and it works

I don't think that "choice" necessarily implies that something
is done "voluntarily" (by which I presume you mean "consciously
willing the reference setting"). When I say "I see you have chosen
the lobster bisque" I don't necessarily mean that the soup was
selected consciously and willfully, though it probably was. It may
be that the person always orders that soup at that restaurant, in
an automatic sort of way. But I think that when people say "I see
you have chosen X" they mean (in PCT model talk) "I see you have
set your reference for that perceptual variable (whatever it is)
to X". Whether this was done consciously or not (it could have
been either one, of course) is, I think, not necessarily implied
when one says "I see you have chosen...".

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

25

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.27.2030)]

Me:

CSGNet can be such a wonderful forum for using time productively
with informed discussions of PCT and its applications.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1227.1810)--

Can you cite some examples from the past year?

Not off the top of my head. But I can recall times (not necessarily
from the past year) when CSGNet was used as a very productive forum
for discussions of PCT and its applications. Very early in
the game we had a great discussion of my accidental discovery
of the fact that control actually improves when there is a _mild_
conflict between control systems. Bill Powers discovered the
explanation for this surprising observation. We have also had
some nice discussions of various kinds of behaviors, including
goose egg rolling and baseball fielding; the latter led to a couple
of papers and a model of fly ball catching behavior. Discussions
with Hans Blom about "open loop control" led to the development
of some Java demos and some interesting modeling work by Bill
Powers. There was a brief period a couple years ago when Bill
and I made some useful suggestions regarding the RTP program.
And there was some recent discussion of macroeconomics that led
to the development of several model economies, one of which I
am still developing.

I agree that the signal-to-noise ratio on CSGNet is disappointing.
But it's a controllable variable. Unfortunately, successful
control of that variable requires _cooperation_; everyone
participating in CSGNet must contribute, simultaneously, to its
control.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

26

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1228.0735)]

Stefan Balke (2000.12.27)

What are the implications of this distinction? Does a clear definition
exist? My personal experience is mixed. Sometimes I'm able to set
voluntarily new references and it works (for example stop smoking),
sometimes I fail dramatically (getting in trouble with my wife at the same
old points) :frowning:

The meaning of "I" is not defined in PCT except as the entire hierarchical
system. It is unclear what it means to say that "I did X voluntarily."
Presumably it means that the hierarchy was not coerced to do X. The Witness
observes the hierarchy. In Bill's view the Witness can "choose" by altering
reference levels in the hierarchy. Since this interaction is not modeled in
PCT, I prefer the view that the Witness is choiceless. Most of the time the
Witness identifies with the hierarchy ("I was able to quit smoking."). The
Eastern notion of liberation is associated with the Witness experiencing
that it is _not_ the hierarchy. The hierarchy can fail to accomplish
something, but the Witness only observes.

BG

27

(Bruce Nevin (2000.12.30.1637)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250, quoting self with no date given)--
>>If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
>>then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
>>child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
>>thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)--
>>I see you've chosen to revert to your old style. Or perhaps you've never
>>gotten beyond it.

Rick Marken (2000.12.27.2030, quoting self with no date given)--
>> CSGNet can be such a wonderful forum for using time productively
>> with informed discussions of PCT and its applications.

Rick, did you really think that asking that particular question in that particular manner was a way to engage in a productive, informed discussion? I think you're lying to us. Maybe you're lying to yourself. You didn't want a productive, informed discussion. You wanted an argument. You wanted a particular familiar kind of argument in which you could demonstrate your fidelity to PCT, the failure of others to understand you, and therefore your near-uniqueness as one who understands PCT. I think you have been controlling for this status for a long time. What a racket. I wish you would just stick to modelling -- and make sure the models are based upon clear empirical data. The rest is not only unproductive, it is destructive.

Rick Marken (2000.12.27.1000)--
>If the disrespectfulness of saying "I see you have chosen" is
>just "a matter of perception", then my perception of it being
>disrespectful is just as valid as your perception of it being
>respectful.

What perception? You have never observed even one such interaction, nor been in a place where it might have been possible to, and doubt has been raised whether any such interaction has ever actually occurred.

Rick Marken (2000.12.26.2000)--
>I [...] objected to people telling a child "I see you have chosen to
>do X" when there is no evidence that the child has, indeed, chosen
>to do X.

Is there any such evidence or not? That is the question. By your way of phrasing the issue, you presume an answer. That is called begging the question. Otherwise known as bullshit that has no place in science.

I believe that was what Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618) was objecting to in response to

Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250, quoting self with no date given)--
>>If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
>>then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
>>child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
>>thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

How do you know the teacher has no basis for that judgement? How do you know what actually goes on between a teacher and a student? By your own admission, you haven't a dustspeck of empirical evidence. This is a hypothetical situation set up in imagination to support your argument. What a racket.

What a waste.

  Bruce Nevin

28

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.30.1830)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.12.30.1637) --

Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250, quoting self with no date given)--

Sorry. The original date of the quote is Rick Marken (2000.12.19.
1110). It was made in reply to Bill Powers (2000.12. 190417 MST).

Rick, did you really think that asking that particular question
in that particular manner was a way to engage in a productive,
informed discussion?

Yes, of course.

I think you're lying to us.

Why?

You didn't want a productive, informed discussion. You wanted an
argument.

Not really. I wanted to know what Bill Powers thought about this
topic (whether he thought being asked to say "I see you have chosen"
would be a disturbance to someone controlling for respect for
others) and he agreed [Bill Powers (2000.12.20.0855 MST)] that
it would be. There was no argument.

You wanted a particular familiar kind of argument in which you
could demonstrate your fidelity to PCT, the failure of others
to understand you, and therefore your near-uniqueness as one who
understands PCT. I think you have been controlling for this
status for a long time. What a racket.

This doesn't seem like a very respectful thing to say to me. Why
are you attacking me personally? Why not just say what is wrong
with what I said, if you think what I said was wrong? That's the
way to have productive, informed discussions, I think.

I wish you would just stick to modelling -- and make sure the
models are based upon clear empirical data. The rest is not
only unproductive, it is destructive.

How could applying what I have learned about human nature based
on my modeling and research be destructive? What is being destroyed?
Don't you think this is a little melodramatic? Besides, I would think
that the modeling and research work I've done in PCT would lead you
to welcome my comments on _any_ aspect of behavior relevant to PCT,
including, of course, how teachers might interact with students in
a more respectful way.

Me:

If the disrespectfulness of saying "I see you have chosen" is
just "a matter of perception", then my perception of it being
disrespectful is just as valid as your perception of it being
respectful.

Ye:

What perception? You have never observed even one such
interaction

Actually, I've observed it many times. This is a very common way
for adults to talk to childen. People have said it to me when I
was young. And I've seen it used many times when I knew very well
that the person to whom it was addressed had no intention at all
of choosing X.

Me:

I [...] objected to people telling a child "I see you have
chosen to do X" when there is no evidence that the child has,
indeed, chosen to do X.

Ye:

Is there any such evidence or not?

There could be. The evidence you need is the test for the
chosen (controlled) result. But if someone sees someone
doing Y and then says "I see you have chosen to do X" I think
it's not a big stretch to conclude that there was any evidence
at all that the person chose X rather than Y.

By your way of phrasing the issue, you presume an answer.

Yes. Given the "presumption" that there is no evidence that the
person has chosen (is controlling for) X, then I would say that
it is disrespectful to say "I see you have chosen to do X". If
you have done the test and have good evidence that the person
is controlling X then I would say that it is perfectly respectful
to say "I see you have chosen to do X" (as I do in my "Mind Reading"
demo; the computer says the equivalent of "I see you have chosen
to move the small square" when it turns the small square black).

That is called begging the question.

No. "Begging the question" means "avoiding the question". I did
not avoid answering any questions.

Otherwise known as bullshit that has no place in science.

So you are saying that my objection to telling a child "I see
you have chosen to do X" when there is no evidence that the child
has chosen to do X, is bullshit? Perhaps I should have explicitly
added that I have _no_ objection to saying this to a child when
there _is_ evidence that the child has, indeed, chosen to do X.
Does that help?

How do you know the teacher has no basis for that judgement?

I don't know in any particular case. But I have _been_ the student
(and child and, in general, the weaker party) and, in my experience,
when I have been told "I see you have chosen X" I have not chosen
X. But I did know that the person saying this to me _had_ chosen
for me to do X and that things wouldn't go well for me if I didn't
"choose" to do X.

But why get so angry about this, Bruce? If you are thinking about
this in terms of the RTP program and if you know that teachers
_do_ have some way of knowing that the students have chosen to
do X when they say "I seen you have chosen to do X" then why not
just say what it is that the teachers know, and how they know it.
This would be a lot more productive and informative way to discuss
this than to personally attack me. Personal attacks on me are
not only unproductive and uninformative, they also don't speak
well for the "respectfulness" that presumably is at the core of
the program you are (quite unnecessarily) defending from me.

How do you know what actually goes on between a teacher and a
student?

I've been both; and I've observed a lot of both.

By your own admission, you haven't a dustspeck of
empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence of what? What do I need empirical evidence
of? I've seen people say to others (including myself) "I see
you have chosen to do X" when they had seen no such thing; they
were just saying "Now I want you to do X, and you _will_ do it
or else". I have seen this happen many times. This is more than
a dustspeck of evidence.

I have also seen people (magicians, for example) say "I see you
have chosen X" when, in fact, I had chosen X. I found this same
expression, in this context, to be quite delightful, rather than
disrespectful. So I know that saying "I see you have chosen to
do X" is not necessarily disrespectful. It's not disrespectful
when you actually know that the person has chosen to do X.

What a waste.

I hope I have shifted your opinion a little bit in a more positive
direction.

Best regards

Rick

PS. Why don't we all make a New Year's resolution to respect (or,
at least, to be nice to) each other in spite of our disagreements.
I'll assume that no one is trying to destroy PCT when they disagree
with me and you'll assume that I'm not trying to destroy RTP when
I disagree with you. Whaddaya think?

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

29

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.31 00:23 EST)]

In re Rick Marken (2000.12.30.1830) --

You responded as though I was asking about your 12/19 exchange with Bill Powers. This is an evasion. I'm talking about your provoking an argument with Bruce Gregory, beginning with Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250). Either you are lying about your intentions in that post or you can't distinguish between a productive, informed discussion and a petty squabble. Anyone who wishes to can read that post again and judge whether it initiates a productive, informed discussion of PCT and its applications.

>"Begging the question" means "avoiding the question".

In this you are either mistaken about the meaning of the phrase or you are distorting the point to a form that is convenient for you. Begging the question does not mean avoiding the question. It means to take the matter that is in question for granted or as already proved. Look it up. You are begging the question because you are taking for granted (a) that RTP teachers actually use this phrase "I see that you have chosen" and (b) that they have no basis for assuming that children in RTP classrooms make such choices. (Your proposals for disturbing the child's control of choosing led to a discussion of what choosing is that is still unresolved, and were unworkable in any actual classroom situation.) You package these convenient assumptions in a hypothetical situation nicely tailored to support your complaint against Bruce Gregory, a hypothetical situation in which an RTP teacher is both using the phrase and lacking any basis for perceiving the child as making such a choice. You have no empirical basis for taking any of this for granted because you by your own admission have zero experience in RTP classrooms. Your memories of other teacher-student or adult-child interactions are irrelevant.

>> That is called begging the question.
>> Otherwise known as bullshit that has no place in science.
>
>So you are saying that my objection to telling a child "I see
>you have chosen to do X" when there is no evidence that the child
>has chosen to do X, is bullshit?

No. I said that begging the question is bullshit that has no place in science. You separated the second sentence above from the first and then re-interpreted it in isolation. This is an egregious distortion of my intention in saying them in contiguous sequence, so that the second one is clearly about the first. Then in your re-interpretation you reiterated the question-begging. These are verbal games that have nothing to do with science.

>Why are you attacking me personally?

I am criticizing what you have characteristically and repeatedly done, not your person.

>Why not just say what is wrong
>with what I said, if you think what I said was wrong?

I did. I have just done so again. I will continue to do so. I do not expect you to change in your person and in a certain sense it is relatively unimportant to me whether or not you change what you do. The identification and labelling of these things is possibly useful if it helps us to ignore irrelevancies and not compound them by responding and getting tangled in verbal sparring for its own sake, but that remains to be seen.

  Bruce Nevin

30

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.31.0610 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.30.1830)--

No. "Begging the question" means "avoiding the question". I did
not avoid answering any questions.

"Begging the question" doesn't mean avoiding answering it. It means "to
assume without proof" according to my dictionary. As I have understood the
term, it means assuming the very premise you use in arriving at a logical
conclusion, which amounts to the same thing. Probably from _to beggar_: "to
exhaust or exceed the powers of." It's like using the concepts of stimulus
and response to prove that stimuli cause responses, when a stimulus is
defined as "that which produces a response".

As to my endorsement of your position, it's not quite as clear-cut as you
remember it. Here is the exchange:

···

=====================================================================
Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1110)]

If teachers are controlling for respect for the children
then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

WTP:
Yes, if a teacher ever actually put it that way. Tim Carey reports that he
never uses that construction, nor do others he knows in the Aussie RTP
program. My objections to some things in RTP were addressed, you will recall,
to things I read in Ed Ford's books; I did not assume that those things were
actually put into practice, especially not under Tom Bourbon's watchful eye.

The word "Yes" is the only agreement you got out of me, and it's not
crystal clear what I'm agreeing to there. I agree that it could be
"disrespectful" of a child's point of view to use the "I see you have
chosen" tactic, precisely because this is begging, or "beggaring" the
question "what are you doing?" which is supposed to be asked in a sincere
way that does not imply that you already know the answer (Ed Ford said
that, too). But as you can see from my comment, I am not convinced that RTP
teachers actually use this tactic even though Ed Ford mentions it in his
writings. Rather than simply assuming that they do and jumping to
conclusions from that assumption, I think it would be better to visit a
classroom (or six) and see if this expression and the attitude it implies
regularly occur. If it is a regular occurrance, I don't see how you could
get a straight answer to "What are you doing?" And in that case I couldn't
account for the reported successes of the RTP.

I think that the real point about "I see you have chosen ..." is being
missed. The question is not whether the speaker actually does see what the
chooser has chosen. If I pick an apple out of a fruit dish and someone
says, "I see you have chosen an apple," there can hardly be any harm in
that. What is objectionable, because it asserts what the speaker can't
know, is to say "I see you have chosen to support the chemical insecticide
industry." This says that in the speaker's opinion, choosing an apple
(which is what I actually did) has the effect of supporting the chemical
insecticide industry, and furthermore that it was this _side-effect_ of
choosing the apple that I actually intended to produce, the apple itself
being only my means of doing so. While that is a very popular political
tactic, it is not what I consider a valid comment.

When a teacher sees Tommy pass a note to Susie, the teacher might see this
not as an attempt to communicate, but as an attempt to prevent Susie from
learning and the teacher from teaching. And since producing that effect is
classed as a disruption, and because it is assumed that everyone knows that
creating a disruption results in a trip to the Responsible Thinking
Classroom, the teacher says, "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC." The
likelihood that Tommy passed a note to Susie for the sole purpose of being
sent off to the RTC is, while not zero, pretty darned small. A more
reasonable assumption would be that Tommy passed a note to Susie in order
to tell her something without saying it out loud (thus disrupting the
class), and that the possible consequence of being sent to the RTC never
crossed his mind.

Saying "I see you have chosen..." as a simple description that is quite
likely to be correct will not stunt anyone's growth. But you can still be
mistaken: "I see you have chosen the green blocks" might result in the
answer, "No, I chose the blocks with round corners," after which you
realize that it just happens that all the blocks chosen were both green and
rounded. Discoveries of this sort are what teach us that what _we_ see
going on is not automatically what the other person is seeing and
controlling for. Experiences like these, and the exercise of the Coin Game,
are supposed to teach us not to jump to conclusions about what another
person is actually trying to achieve. It's simply not that easy to detect
what another person's goal is, not nearly as easy as we often assume it is.
When the teacher asks Johnny, "What are you doing?" Johnny might reply
"Helping Susie with her homework." The teacher might then ask, "Then why is
she crying?" It would be good to learn while still young that accidentally
tearing another person's drawing in two might be, for the other person, the
main effect of your behavior, no matter what your intentions were. But you
don't teach that by saying "I see you have chosen to destroy Susie's
drawing." That would be grossly unfair (if untrue).

This lesson can even be learned by adults. A says, "I was only trying to
help B apply PCT correctly." A valid question the "teacher" might then ask
would be "Then why does B seem to hate your guts when he used to admire you?"

Best,

Bill P.

31

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.31.1030)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.12.31 00:23 EST)--

I'm talking about your provoking an argument with Bruce Gregory,
beginning with Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250). Either you are
lying about your intentions in that post or you can't distinguish
between a productive, informed discussion and a petty squabble.

I was not lying about my intentions; I was certainly not trying to
provoke an argument with Bruce Gregory and I can tell the difference
between productive discussion and squabbling. So there must be
another alternative.

Anyone who wishes to can read that post again and judge whether
it initiates a productive, informed discussion of PCT and its
applications.

That's for sure.

Me:

"Begging the question" means "avoiding the question".

Ye:

In this you are either mistaken about the meaning of the phrase
or you are distorting the point to a form that is convenient for
you.

Actually, I confidently said this because one of my wife's pet
peeves is misuse of the term "beg the question". She just wrote a
lovely letter to the editor a couple weeks ago to the LA Times
correcting a misuse of this phrase in a Business section article.
So if I'm wrong (which is possible) it's because Linda is (which is
impossible). To "pass over or ignore a question" by assuming you
know the answer is, in my mind, equivalent to avoiding the question.
So I would say Linda is right and that you and Bill Powers
(2000.12.31.0610 MST) are wrong.

But I did not beg any questions even in your sense of the phrase.
You say I begged the question because I assumed that the "I see
you have chosen..." phrase is used disrespectfully in RTP. This is
not true. I never even mentioned RTP. I was talking about the
_general case_. I was asking whether _any_ teacher controlling for
respectfulness (and I'm quite sure that there are many, many
teachers besides RTP teachers who control for this) would find
saying the phrase "I see you have chosen.." to be a disturbnce
to this perception.

you are taking for granted (a) that RTP teachers actually use
this phrase "I see that you have chosen" and (b) that they have
no basis for assuming that children in RTP classrooms make such
choices.

This is not true. I don't assume a) at all. I was asking the question
about the general case. I also don't assume b). I simply said that
the "I see you have chosen X" question seems disrespectful when there
is no basis for concluding that the person has chosen X. The
notion that I am assuming I know what goes on in RTP schools with
no evidence is a slogan invented by Tom Bourbon and now used
by the defenders of RTP (now including Bill Powers) to denegrate
whatever I say that is relevant to RTP. In fact, I have no idea
what goes on in RTP schools. All I know is what the RTP people
say about how the program should be conducted and why it works.
One of the things they _say_ is that the teacher should tell
kids, after the second disruption, "I see you have chosen to go
to the RTC". If the teachers are _not_ supposed to do this, then
why tell them to do it in RTP books? If the teachers don't do
it even when told then why not just tell us, on CSGNEt, that this
is what actually happens and that the books on RTP are irrelevant?

Your memories of other teacher-student or adult-child interactions
are irrelevant.

I think they are relevant. I agree, however, that they may not be
relevant to what goes on in RTP schools; I don't know what goes on
in RTP schools because I have never been to one (and probably
never will be since it seems unlikely that I will ever be invited).

Me:

Why are you attacking me personally?

Ye:

I am criticizing what you have characteristically and repeatedly
done, not your person.

In the previous post you called me a liar and in this post you
said I was either a liar or that I can't distinguish between a
productive discussion and a petty squabble (ie. that I'm not
too bright). This is a personal attack, Bruce. It would be wrong
if I had done it to you and it's wrong when you do it to me.

Bill Powers (2000.12.31.0610 MST)--

I agree that it could be "disrespectful" of a child's point of
view to use the "I see you have chosen" tactic...But as you can
see from my comment, I am not convinced that RTP teachers actually
use this tactic even though Ed Ford mentions it in his writings.

I have never said that the RTP teachers _do_ use this tactic. I
have never been to an RTP school. All I know is that my experience
with this tactic is that it is typically used disrespectfully. I
don't know whether or not it is so used (or even used at all) in
RTP. All I know, with respect to RTP, is that it is a tactic Ed
Ford says teachers are supposed to use and that Tom Bourbon says
actually _is_ used (see Tom's write up in your own book, MSOB,
p 155; perhaps Tom was lying; I prefer to take Tom at his word).

I think that the real point about "I see you have chosen ..." is
being missed. The question is not whether the speaker actually
does see what the chooser has chosen...What is objectionable,
[.... is to take a side-effect of the action as what was intended].

I agree. An imposed side-effect of a student disrupting a second
time (according to Ed Ford) is having to go to the RTC. What would
be objectionable (if this were actually done but, of course, must
actually not be done because the RTP people understand PCT) would
be saying to the student "I see you have choosen to go to the RTC"
since this side effect was, of course, actually chosen by someone
other than the student himself.

This lesson can even be learned by adults. A says, "I was only
trying to help B apply PCT correctly." A valid question the
"teacher" might then ask would be "Then why does B seem to hate
your guts when he used to admire you?"

And A might answer "Apparently, applying PCT correctly was, or
has become, far less important to B than something else that is
seriously disturbed by a correct application of PCT".

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

32

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.31 15:50 EST)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.31.1030)--

To "pass over or ignore a question" by assuming you
know the answer is, in my mind, equivalent to avoiding the question.

One should never argue about matters of fact. Look it up. The essential feature is assuming as a given the very matter that is in question. There are many ways of avoiding a question. Begging the question (petitio principii in the old terminology) has the effect rather of preventing the question from being effectively addressed, and coercing a particular conclusion about the matter in question.

I never even mentioned RTP. I was talking about the _general case_.

This is equivocation. It won't work because the record is clear. Look at Rick Marken (2000.12.19.1110) and the discussion of which it is part. The topic is very clearly RTP.

The notion that I am assuming I know what goes on in RTP schools with
no evidence is a slogan invented by Tom Bourbon and now used
by the defenders of RTP (now including Bill Powers) to denegrate
whatever I say that is relevant to RTP.

So far as I know, denigration is not the aim. The aim as I have understood it has been to show that your assertions are not relevant to RTP because they have no empirical basis. You here acknowledge as much. The significance, morality, respectfulness, or any other attribute of the phrase "I see you have chosen" has no relevance to anything discussed on CSG-net other than RTP. To claim now that you were not talking about RTP is disingenuous at best. The record is clear. Nor is the issue of empirical evidence a slogan in some kind of campaign against you. It is essential to doing science.

In the previous post you called me a liar

I did not. I said "I think you're lying to us. Maybe you're lying to yourself." To say "So and so is a liar" is a very much stronger statement than "So and so lied about x." The one is about an event. The other is about an expectation in human relationships.

I said that because the tone and content of your dragging up the old RTP "I see you have chosen" issue seems to me completely inconsistent with initiating a productive discussion of PCT and its applications. I grant you that Bruce Gregory's "I see you've chosen to revert to your old style" remark that evidently nettled you was not consistent with initiating a productive discussion either, but he never claimed that it was.

and in this post you
said I was either a liar or that I can't distinguish between a
productive discussion and a petty squabble (ie. that I'm not
too bright).

Again, "you lied" is very different from "you are a liar." The first is about a statement, the second is about a person. Nor did I make any claim about your intellect. It is entirely possible that certain skills in human relationships and communication are not your greatest strengths, and to suggest this would not impugn your intellectual capacity at all. To illustrate how this can be so with an extreme example, people identified with asperger's syndrome are dreadfully incompetent socially, and typically are far far above average in intellectual abilities. To be clear, I am not attributing this syndrome to you. This is only an illustration of principle.

Ask yourself why I thought these were my two possible interpretations of what you said. You claimed that the following was an attempt to initiate a productive discussion about PCT and its applications:

Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250)--

>If teacher's are controlling for respect for the children
>then I think you would agree that asking a teacher to tell a
>child "I see you have chosen" when the teacher has seen no such
>thing would act as a disturbance to this perception.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1219.1618)]

> I see you've chosen to revert to your old style. Or perhaps you've never
>gotten beyond it.

What was the stylistic flaw in what I said, Bruce? Or was it a substantive
flaw, perhaps? In either case, what was wrong with what I said above?

Sorry. I just cannot see that as a smooth move initiating a productive discussion of PCT and its applications.

The only possible reason for bringing up "I see you have chosen" etc. is to continue a quarrel. In the absence of empirical data there is no possible way to resolve any issue associated with this by methods of science.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:32 AM 12/31/2000 -0800, Rick Marken wrote: