Hi,
I am a teacher who is quite well versed with PCT and ACT. I have started a blog. Check it out. PCTinACTion.blogspot.com.
From Bill Powers
Jason: the blog doesn't work. PCTinACTion is "not found."
Bill P.
Bill:
I found it using www.PCTinACTion.blogspot.com
That said, there's nothing there yet.
Fred N
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:33 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: New blog
From Bill Powers
Jason: the blog doesn't work. PCTinACTion is "not found."
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.20.1520 MDT)]
Fred and Richard:
This morning when I tried that URL for Jason's blog, I got switched to another web page saying things about sorry for the problems with the blogs, and when I figured out how to get to the next page and entered either the whole URL or just the PCTinACTion part, the message was that the blog wasn't found. I just tried it again, and got through to it right away!
No comments on the contents just now.
Best,
Bill P.
The blog I’ve begun is hosted by blogspot. So the url is pctinaction.blogspot.com My plan is to post daily except maybe on weekends. I’ve been using my understanding of PCT in my life for over 6 years. I hope you enjoy the content. Questions and comments are welcomed.
Jason
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.22.1002 MDT)]
JP: The blog I’ve begun is
hosted by blogspot. So the url is pctinaction.blogspot.com My plan
is to post daily except maybe on weekends. I’ve been using my
understanding of PCT in my life for over 6 years. I hope you enjoy
the content. Questions and comments are welcomed.
BP: I have some problems with your list. It is prefaced by
I make a list of all the routines and expectations I need to teach.
What I need to do is create common reference perceptions in all those
living systems that will be with me all school year. Our pictures must be
the same. I don’t believe you can create either perceptions or reference
signals in someone else. The list appears to describe perceptions of your
own that you want to control relative to the described reference
conditions. One of the things not on the list, but present nonetheless,
seems to be “Make students want to control the same things I want
them to control and at the reference levels where I want them to
be.” That is implied by your list.
From your use of the term “pictures” I deduce that you learned
about PCT through IAACT or perhaps though the Restitution group, where
there is an attempt to put everything in very simple terms and to fit
some of Glasser’s old ideas like the “basic needs” into the
picture. Unfortunately simple terms can be misleading, and one of the
common misled ideas is that reference perceptions are pictures. They are
not.
Perceptions (if visual) might be thought of as pictures, but reference
signals (to use the more general term) simply specify how much of an
existing perception is to be created and maintained. The perceptual input
function creates perceptions out of more detailed perceptions or raw
sensory data. A perceptual input function can create a perception of the
degree of honesty that is being experienced. It doesn’t specify how much
honesty is wanted; the reference signal does that, telling the control
system to seek a high degree of honesty, or none at all – to avoid it,
as when a proud child asks you to admire a squiggle called
“dog”.
The perceptual signal says how much of some particular perception is
present. The reference signal says how much of it you want. So you might
be able to inform students of what you mean by the loudness of voices,
which they already can perceive but perhaps don’t describe using your
words, but how do you get them to set reference levels in the various
situations to the levels you want? If they don’t want to set the
reference levels that way, they won’t and you can’t do it for
them.
One way to make them want what you want them to want is to create rules
and consequences. The students have to want the good consequences, or to
avoid the bad ones, more than than they want to set their own reference
levels; then they will be in conflict, but the side you want them to want
will have better consequences and will win. Unless they create the rules
to suit what they already want, this conflict is hard to avoid, maybe
impossible.
I don’t know much about teaching young children. But I would not like
anyone to be misled by the way PCT is taught (even by me) to the point of
doing things that are not possible or not advantageous to a
child.
Best,
Bill P.
···
At 02:22 PM 8/21/2010 -0600, Jason Perrino wrote:
I am replying using my iPhone. Sorry if text is choppy.
Bill,
Thanks for the comments. Here’s my response.
-
After reading the definitions you provided, I will change the wording on the blog post. I am not creating reference perceptions but rather creating common perceptions for the class. I use y charts to define an abstract concept. Y charts list how a certain thing is supposed to look like, sound like and feel like.
-
You are correct about what my list implies even though I did not say it in those words.
-
Yes, my training is from where you said. My instructors were Jeff Grumbley and Lynn Taylor.
-
I understand what is meant by with reference signals: they are not pictures but rather desires. To answer the question you posed: students set their own reference levels by me appealing to their innate desire to be good. I ask if it is important for them to be good students. When they say yes (and they always do) i then tell them that doing the routines I show them means they are being a good student. The process is: experience something, label the experience, self-evaluate.
-
I do have rules and consequences in place. They are created by the students but only after we’ve created a belief statement. All rules stem from belief statement.
Thanks for your comments. Keep them coming. 
Jason
"Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU writes:
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.22.1002 MDT)]
···
At 02:22 PM 8/21/2010 -0600, Jason Perrino wrote:
JP: The blog I’ve begun is hosted by blogspot. So the url is pctinaction.blogspot.com My plan is to post daily except maybe on weekends. I’ve been using my understanding of PCT in my life for over 6 years. I hope you enjoy the content. Questions and comments are welcomed.
BP: I have some problems with your list. It is prefaced by
I make a list of all the routines and expectations I need to teach. What I need to do is create common reference perceptions in all those living systems that will be with me all school year. Our pictures must be the same.
I don’t believe you can create either perceptions or reference signals in someone else. The list appears to describe perceptions of your own that you want to control relative to the described reference conditions. One of the things not on the list, but present nonetheless, seems to be “Make students want to control the same things I want them to control and at the reference levels where I want them to be.” That is implied by your list.
From your use of the term “pictures” I deduce that you learned about PCT through IAACT or perhaps though the Restitution group, where there is an attempt to put everything in very simple terms and to fit some of Glasser’s old ideas like the “basic needs” into the picture. Unfortunately simple terms can be misleading, and one of the common misled ideas is that reference perceptions are pictures. They are not.
Perceptions (if visual) might be thought of as pictures, but reference signals (to use the more general term) simply specify how much of an existing perception is to be created and maintained. The perceptual input function creates perceptions out of more detailed perceptions or raw sensory data. A perceptual input function can create a perception of the degree of honesty that is being experienced. It doesn’t specify how much honesty is wanted; the reference signal does that, telling the control system to seek a high degree of honesty, or none at all – to avoid it, as when a proud child asks you to admire a squiggle called “dog”.
The perceptual signal says how much of some particular perception is present. The reference signal says how much of it you want. So you might be able to inform students of what you mean by the loudness of voices, which they already can perceive but perhaps don’t describe using your words, but how do you get them to set reference levels in the various situations to the levels you want? If they don’t want to set the reference levels that way, they won’t and you can’t do it for them.
One way to make them want what you want them to want is to create rules and consequences. The students have to want the good consequences, or to avoid the bad ones, more than than they want to set their own reference levels; then they will be in conflict, but the side you want them to want will have better consequences and will win. Unless they create the rules to suit what they already want, this conflict is hard to avoid, maybe impossible.
I don’t know much about teaching young children. But I would not like anyone to be misled by the way PCT is taught (even by me) to the point of doing things that are not possible or not advantageous to a child.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.24.-856 MDT)]
JP: 2. You are correct about
what my list implies even though I did not say it in those
words.
BP: I know that my viewpoint on this is not the most popular one, but I
question the idea of teachers deciding how the minds of children are to
be structured, at least in such a direct way. Are the teachers themselves
certified to be free of internal conflicts and distorted thinking, and to
know the truly best way for human beings to grow up? And who is going to
do that certifying? I always objected to Diane Gossen’s Restitution
program because it so blatantly was structured to fit Diane’s personal
beliefs and preferences. How can a teacher accomplish the things you’re
trying to accomplish without having to be a perfect omniscient demigod?
How can teachers approach children with respect and humility? How can
teachers avoid being merely agents of their culture? (In a lot of places,
of course, that is exactly what they are expected to be.)
JP: 3. Yes, my training is from
where you said. My instructors were Jeff Grumbley and Lynn Taylor.
BP: Both of whom I know and like very much. Is there a b in
Grumley? Hmm. Reminds me of a stray comment on the internet:
“There is no p in something.” But of course we all learned to
say “sumpthing.”
JP: 4. I understand what is
meant by with reference signals: they are not pictures but rather
desires.
BP: I think you may still be putting too much structure into reference
signals. Use the example of honesty. Honesty is a perception, a
variable. The perceptual signal representing honesty is not itself
honest, nor does it look honest. It is a signal indicating how much
honesty is currently being perceived. The signal itself just says how
much there is, not what it is. The what part comes from
somewhere else, which you know as much about as I do. Not much.
This is really quite peculiar, but if you look at any perception closely,
you will see that the quality it represents – the kind of
perception – slips away from you like a wet bar of soap when you try to
pick it up. The closer you look the less clear it is. Look at the white
background of this text. There’s a perception of whiteness, but where it
is? The whiteness (or some color) is there, but all you can really say
about it is how much of it there is, or perhaps what tinges of other
colors you can also see – which are also slippery concepts.
PCT deals with signals saying how much of something is present, but not
what it is. We know what it is, but literally nobody knows where that
information is coming from. Finding that out is a project in
progress.
The point: a perception is a signal indicating how much of something
there is. That can change; it is variable. A reference signal is an
example of how the perceptual signal would be when some specific amount
of some perception is present. We act to change the variable perceived
amount so it comes to match the less-variable reference amount. Don’t
think of the reference signal as a pattern: it just specifies an amount,
and a single number can do that.
JP: To answer the question you
posed: students set their own reference levels by me appealing to their
innate desire to be good.
BP: Do you mean “to be told they are good?”
If they already have a high reference value for goodness, this means they
must also be able to perceive goodness and know when there’s not enough
of it or too much of it. But what is goodness? To many adults, goodness
means sitting still without talking and listening respectfully to what
the teacher is saying, and then obeying any orders they are given. But
whose goal is it for the child to be good in that way? The adult’s, of
course. What is innate about being good is probably more like children
not wanting to be criticized and yelled at and not to lose privileges,
and perhaps to feel as if they are loved and respected, though most
definitions of a good child don’t mention what the child actually wants.
How much time do you take, while appealing to a desire to be good, in
finding out what they consider to be good? Do you just assume it’s the
same thing you consider to be good?
I ask if it is important
for them to be good students. When they say yes (and they always do) i
then tell them that doing the routines I show them means they are being a
good student. The process is: experience something, label the experience,
self-evaluate.
Imagine a child standing up in front of a teacher and, even if it’s true,
saying “No, I want to be a bad student.” Do you try to find out
what they mean by a good student, or do you assume it’s the same thing
you mean? “Good” means “matching my reference level”.
But what is the reference level, and what is the perception?
- I do have rules and
consequences in place. They are created by the students but only after
we’ve created a belief statement. All rules stem from belief
statement.
I’m a bit suspicious of the “we”. Isn’t there a rather
substantial amount of steering by the teacher going on? And to repeat a
theme I think about a lot, how much time do you spend on finding out what
children mean by the words you get them to use? What are they actually
agreeing to?
I like the general idea of establishing an agreed system concept and then
working out, with the children, principles and rules to support it. And I
do think the teacher has some rights while this is being done and can
express personal preferences – rights equal at least to those of any one
student, and perhaps even a bunch of them. We have to be reasonable; the
teacher has a job to do. Also, in the lower grades I think the teacher is
likely to be the only one with a clear idea of what a system concept is,
or a principle. Children do understand rules: they are the things you get
yelled at for doing or not doing. They understand them better if they
have a hand in deciding what they will be. Principles, which are fuzzier,
come a little later.
All in all: using PCT in the classroom, even while you’re still learning
it, is better than not using it.
Best,
Bill P.
···
At 03:15 PM 8/22/2010 -0600, Jason Perrino wrote:
Hello again Bill,
…and greetings from Jeff and Lynn whom I was fortunate enough to see today. I spoke to them today and shared your last email with them. I gotta say, it feels good to discuss PCT concepts and ACT with you and them.
During our conversation, I mentioned that it was a shame you did not know me or ever see me in action. For if you had, you would not have posed the questions you did. That’s not to say the questions are not valid, just that they do not reflect me or my practice. Lynn tells me she has spoken to you about me on many occasions. “Jason, tell Bill you are the kindergarten teacher I used to tell him about.”
I hope you do remember the conversations about me with Lynn and that the memory will add more context to who I am and what happens in my class.
All the questions and concerns from your last email will be discussed in my blog. Of course, not all at once, but as time goes on, it’ll all come out.
I do have one question: in the paragraph below where you talk about teachers being demi-gods, what were you controlling for? (btw, I’m not hurt or insulted by the language, I just want to understand what’s really going on when you use those words.)
Thanks for taking the time to read my blog and for sharing your thoughts and comments.
Jason
"Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU writes:
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.24.-856 MDT)]
···
At 03:15 PM 8/22/2010 -0600, Jason Perrino wrote:
JP: 2. You are correct about what my list implies even though I did not say it in those words.
BP: I know that my viewpoint on this is not the most popular one, but I question the idea of teachers deciding how the minds of children are to be structured, at least in such a direct way. Are the teachers themselves certified to be free of internal conflicts and distorted thinking, and to know the truly best way for human beings to grow up? And who is going to do that certifying? I always objected to Diane Gossen’s Restitution program because it so blatantly was structured to fit Diane’s personal beliefs and preferences. How can a teacher accomplish the things you’re trying to accomplish without having to be a perfect omniscient demigod? How can teachers approach children with respect and humility? How can teachers avoid being merely agents of their culture? (In a lot of places, of course, that is
exactly what they are expected to be.)
JP: 3. Yes, my training is from where you said. My instructors were Jeff Grumbley and Lynn Taylor.
BP: Both of whom I know and like very much. Is there a b in Grumley? Hmm. Reminds me of a stray comment on the internet: “There is no p in something.” But of course we all learned to say “sumpthing.”
JP: 4. I understand what is meant by with reference signals: they are not pictures but rather desires.
BP: I think you may still be putting too much structure into reference signals. Use the example of honesty. Honesty is a perception, a variable. The perceptual signal representing honesty is not itself honest, nor does it look honest. It is a signal indicating how much honesty is currently being perceived. The signal itself just says how much there is, not what it is. The what part comes from somewhere else, which you know as much about as I do. Not much.
This is really quite peculiar, but if you look at any perception closely, you will see that the quality it represents – the kind of perception – slips away from you like a wet bar of soap when you try to pick it up. The closer you look the less clear it is. Look at the white background of this text. There’s a perception of whiteness, but where it is? The whiteness (or some color) is there, but all you can really say about it is how much of it there is, or perhaps what tinges of other colors you can also see – which are also slippery concepts.
PCT deals with signals saying how much of something is present, but not what it is. We know what it is, but literally nobody knows where that information is coming from. Finding that out is a project in progress.
The point: a perception is a signal indicating how much of something there is. That can change; it is variable. A reference signal is an example of how the perceptual signal would be when some specific amount of some perception is present. We act to change the variable perceived amount so it comes to match the less-variable reference amount. Don’t think of the reference signal as a pattern: it just specifies an amount, and a single number can do that.
JP: To answer the question you posed: students set their own reference levels by me appealing to their innate desire to be good.
BP: Do you mean “to be told they are good?”
If they already have a high reference value for goodness, this means they must also be able to perceive goodness and know when there’s not enough of it or too much of it. But what is goodness? To many adults, goodness means sitting still without talking and listening respectfully to what the teacher is saying, and then obeying any orders they are given. But whose goal is it for the child to be good in that way? The adult’s, of course. What is innate about being good is probably more like children not wanting to be criticized and yelled at and not to lose privileges, and perhaps to feel as if they are loved and respected, though most definitions of a good child don’t mention what the child actually wants. How much time do you take, while appealing to a desire to be good, in finding out what they
consider to be good? Do you just assume it’s the same thing you consider to be good?
I ask if it is important for them to be good students. When they say yes (and they always do) i then tell them that doing the routines I show them means they are being a good student. The process is: experience something, label the experience, self-evaluate.
Imagine a child standing up in front of a teacher and, even if it’s true, saying “No, I want to be a bad student.” Do you try to find out what they mean by a good student, or do you assume it’s the same thing you mean? “Good” means “matching my reference level”. But what is the reference level, and what is the perception?
- I do have rules and consequences in place. They are created by the students but only after we’ve created a belief statement. All rules stem from belief statement.
I’m a bit suspicious of the “we”. Isn’t there a rather substantial amount of steering by the teacher going on? And to repeat a theme I think about a lot, how much time do you spend on finding out what children mean by the words you get them to use? What are they actually agreeing to?
I like the general idea of establishing an agreed system concept and then working out, with the children, principles and rules to support it. And I do think the teacher has some rights while this is being done and can express personal preferences – rights equal at least to those of any one student, and perhaps even a bunch of them. We have to be reasonable; the teacher has a job to do. Also, in the lower grades I think the teacher is likely to be the only one with a clear idea of what a system concept is, or a principle. Children do understand rules: they are the things you get yelled at for doing or not doing. They understand them better if they have a hand in deciding what they will be. Principles, which are fuzzier, come a little later.
All in all: using PCT in the classroom, even while you’re still learning it, is better than not using it.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2010.08.29.1610 MDT)]
During our conversation, I
mentioned that it was a shame you did not know me or ever see me in
action. For if you had, you would not have posed the questions you did.
That’s not to say the questions are not valid, just that they do not
reflect me or my practice. Lynn tells me she has spoken to you about me
on many occasions. “Jason, tell Bill you are the kindergarten
teacher I used to tell him about.”
I don’t remember exactly what she told me, though she obviously approved
of you. I’m sure I would too if I saw you in action. But your words tell
me that your success may not be the result of some of the principles you
mention in the blog.
I do have one question: in the
paragraph below where you talk about teachers being demi-gods, what were
you controlling for? (btw, I’m not hurt or insulted by the language, I
just want to understand what’s really going on when you use those
words.)
I was expressing my opinion of Diane Gossen’s Restitution program, not
your performance. I particularly object to her strategy of telling young
people things like “Is that the way we do things here?” (which
looks like a question but is actually an order NOT to do things that way,
as well as an invocation of pressure from the community). I disagree with
her statement that human beings have an “innate moral sense,”
whether given by evolution or God. I disagree with her reliance on
Glasser’s “basic needs”, which are primarily a description of
Bill Glasser. I disagree with just about all the theoretical baggage she
brought along from Reality Therapy. Many of the ideas I disagree with you
mention approvingly in your blog.
On the other hand, I do think that Diane’s understanding of PCT is fine
as far as it goes, and if your background includes her teachings, I
assume yours is OK, too. But these other ideas work against PCT and
reduce the effectiveness of anyone who believes them. If your original
contact with Jeff Grumley and Lynn Taylor was six years ago or more, that
was before I talked them more or less successfully into dropping all
those principles and focusing on Method of Levels, which makes as few
assumptions as possible. I would recommend the same to you. I’m saying
that a teacher can be effective without having to be an omniscient
demigod who tells children exactly what to think, for example about being
good. There are understandable and discoverable reasons for wanting to be
whatever “good” means; to be of any help, they have to become
part of a child’s own organization through the child’s own capacity to
reorganize. They aren’t inherited as far as I know.
It’s not that I see any fundamental flaws in the RT or Restitution
frameworks. but they are full of unrecognized contradictions, especially
conflicts with PCT but also just simple logical contraditions. I don’t
have any favorite list to refer to, but in conversations they come up and
can be discussed. Not now, though. But here’s one little example picked
at random out of Gossen’s “Creating the conditions.”
*The questions for the manager [to ask] are: “What do we believe?
Do you believe it? If you believe it, do you want to fix the situation?
If you decide to fix it, will that help you become the kind of person you
want to be?”*These words can be converted into simple declarative sentences:you should believe what we (the rest of us) believe. To prove that you
do, you have to try to fix the situation. Fixing the situation will help
you become the kind of person you are expected to be. Turning these
statements into questions does not make real questions of them; it simply
disguises a meaning which, nevertheless, is well understood. Just imagine
what would follow if the student said he knew what the teacher believed
but didn’t believe it himself, that he didn’t want to fix the situation,
and that he was already the kind of person he wanted to be? See
attachment.
Best,
Bill P.
Against these statements, I can also cite others within a page in either
direction that state that student self-direction is what we want to
teach, that we want self-teaching students.
···
At 05:26 PM 8/26/2010 -0600, Jason Perrino wrote: