# Negotiation and PCT

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negotiation-and-pct/7539>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [December 14, 1999, 2:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negotiation-and-pct/7539 "1999-12-14T14:56:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 2:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negotiation-and-pct/7539/1 "1999-12-14T14:56:05Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991214.0955 EST)]

In an offline post to me Fred Nickols said:

> Anyway, negotiations can be quick and mutually satisfactory  
> -- without a  
> lot of hard-nosed bargaining. I think those kinds of  
> negotiations are  
> central to current management practices and I think PCT  
> provides a neat  
> rationale for it.

I responded:

I agree that negotiations can be quick and satisfactory, but I do not  
agree that PCT provides a neat rationale for negotiation. As far as I  
know, there is no PCT model of negotiation. Even more disconcerting,  
there is no PCT model that supports the idea that you negotiate in your  
own best interests. As far as I can tell, your hierarchy of intentions  
is just as inaccessible to you as it is to me. You act on the basis of  
the organization of the hierarchy, but you have no idea why you are  
carrying out any particular action. In Bill's words, "As far as I'm  
concerned, the role of consciousness in control processes is unknown."

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 1999, 11:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negotiation-and-pct/7539/2 "1999-12-15T23:34:29Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (991215.1827 EST)] --

Just a quick note of clarification regarding the exchange below.

When I said to Bruce that I thought PCT provides a neat rationale for it, I  
was trying to say that I thought PCT offers many reasons why one should  
attempt to negotiate commitment to reference levels instead of simply  
imposing them. I wasn't trying to say that PCT offers a good rationale for  
negotiation in general. Jeez, communicating is tough.

> Bruce Gregory (991214.0955 EST)]
> 
> In an offline post to me Fred Nickols said:
> 
> \> Anyway, negotiations can be quick and mutually satisfactory  
> \> -- without a  
> \> lot of hard-nosed bargaining. I think those kinds of  
> \> negotiations are  
> \> central to current management practices and I think PCT  
> \> provides a neat  
> \> rationale for it.
> 
> I responded:
> 
> I agree that negotiations can be quick and satisfactory, but I do not  
> agree that PCT provides a neat rationale for negotiation. As far as I  
> know, there is no PCT model of negotiation. Even more disconcerting,  
> there is no PCT model that supports the idea that you negotiate in your  
> own best interests. As far as I can tell, your hierarchy of intentions  
> is just as inaccessible to you as it is to me. You act on the basis of  
> the organization of the hierarchy, but you have no idea why you are  
> carrying out any particular action. In Bill's words, "As far as I'm  
> concerned, the role of consciousness in control processes is unknown."

Fred Nickols  
The Distance Consulting Company  
"Assistance at A Distance"  
[http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
nickols@worldnet.att.net  
(609) 490-0095