New Year's Resolutions

CSGnet Archive CSG2019
1

Â

[Rick Marken 2019-01-01_10:15:29]

Happy New Year to everyone.

I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

BestÂ

RickÂ

···

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

2

[Lloyd Klinedinst 2019-01-01_13:38:30]

I’d say this Yale prof is working in the classroom of the positive punishment operant conditioning school.

By contrast I want to share the opening entry of Epictetus’ Enchiridion (circa 100 CE):
  1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. (Translated by Elizabeth Carter)

Lloyd

Wishing each and all a Happy New Year! … about which Epictetus ends tthis first entry with:

“The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.

Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.

Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, “You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.” And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you. “

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst

10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571

email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

www.facebook.com/lklinedinst www.twitter.com/lloydk

image00126.gif

[Rick Marken 2019-01-01_10:15:29]

Happy New Year to everyone.

…

I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

Best

Rick

yyanimation12.gif

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst

10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571

email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

www.facebook.com/lklinedinst www.twitter.com/lloydk

···

On Jan 1, 2019, at 12:16, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

3

Empty talk and promises do not a reference signal make.Â

···

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

4

Let’s consider changing some rules slightly, then IAPCT could become a worthy recipient should anybody care to take up a five-hundy NY resolution-break challenge. For most people it’s probably that loss of 500 bucks which stings most, however it’s marketed.

Summer-bliss New Year greetings to you and yours.

And, hearty congratulations to the New Horizons team, what an incredible mission.

Cheers

JohnK

···

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:44 AM Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Empty talk and promises do not a reference signal make.Â

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 1:17 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

[Rick Marken 2019-01-01_10:15:29]

Happy New Year to everyone.

I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

BestÂ

RickÂ

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

–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

5

[Rick Marken 2019-01-06_09:24:08]

Â

RM: I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

RM: I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

RM: Thanks for the replies. My take on this is that the article is simply recommending that you control for keeping your resolutions by putting yourself into conflict by controlling for two incompatible perceptions – 1) keeping the resolutions and 2) not losing money only if you keep the resolutions. The idea seems to be that, even if you are having difficulty controlling for perception 1 (either because it conflicts with other perceptions you are controlling for or because you are controlling for it with very low gain), you will do your best to control for it in order to control for perception 2, for which you presumably have very high gain.Â

RM: I think that this strategy may sometimes work – or seem to work – but for reasons having nothing to do with the reasons behavioral economists think it works. But such a strategy would certainly not be recommended by anyone with an understanding of PCT. That’s because PCT views conflict as the enemy of control (see “Controlling People” by Marken & Carey) and being in control is what mental health is all about from a PCT perspective. PCT would view the fact that you are even making resolutions as evidence of internal conflict – if you resolve to lose weight, for example, it presumably means that you are doing this because you also want to do things that result in weight gain. So a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to an MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how these resolutions – these wants – can fit harmoniously into your existing hierarchy of control systems.Â

rsm

···

–
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

6

[Richard Pfau (2019.01.06 21:00 EST)]

I’m sorry Rick, but the Yale Professor’s approach called stickK does work, and as someone somewhat familiar with PCT I have used it, recommend it for possible use, and included a description of it in my book Your Behavior (p. 276) as a way for one to make a commitment and stick to that commitment.

In fact, I used the stickK approach to help me complete the last chapter of the Your Behavior book (i.e., “Chapter 11 Lessons Learned: How to Change Your Behavior”, pp,249-296). My research on that chapter had been going on for over a year with no draft of the chapter yet produced. So I went online to www.stickK.com, established a goal to produce a draft chapter within a month, committed an amount of money to be paid to an organization whose activities I detest, and solidified the arrangement. That commitment worked. It helped me both start and complete a full draft of the chapter, thereby reaching my goal within a month. With some editing and polishing up, the chapter is what you now can see in the book.

And so, the approach can work and has done so for many people. To me your statement that “a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to a registered MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how those resolutions–those wants–can fit harmoniously into your existing control systems” seems like one possible approach, but doing so is only one possibility out of many other approaches – other possibilities including, of course, those discussed in my book. 🤗😉  Â

···

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:25 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-06_09:24:08]

Â

RM: I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

RM: I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

RM: Thanks for the replies. My take on this is that the article is simply recommending that you control for keeping your resolutions by putting yourself into conflict by controlling for two incompatible perceptions – 1) keeping the resolutions and 2) not losing money only if you keep the resolutions. The idea seems to be that, even if you are having difficulty controlling for perception 1 (either because it conflicts with other perceptions you are controlling for or because you are controlling for it with very low gain), you will do your best to control for it in order to control for perception 2, for which you presumably have very high gain.Â

RM: I think that this strategy may sometimes work – or seem to work – but for reasons having nothing to do with the reasons behavioral economists think it works. But such a strategy would certainly not be recommended by anyone with an understanding of PCT. That’s because PCT views conflict as the enemy of control (see “Controlling People” by Marken & Carey) and being in control is what mental health is all about from a PCT perspective. PCT would view the fact that you are even making resolutions as evidence of internal conflict – if you resolve to lose weight, for example, it presumably means that you are doing this because you also want to do things that result in weight gain. So a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to an MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how these resolutions – these wants – can fit harmoniously into your existing hierarchy of control systems.Â

rsm

–
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

7

[Rick Marken 2019-01-07_08:39:35]

[Richard Pfau (2019.01.06 21:00 EST)]

RP: I’m sorry Rick, but the Yale Professor’s approach called stickK does work, and as someone somewhat familiar with PCT I have used it, recommend it for possible use, and included a description of it in my book Your Behavior (p. 276) as a way for one to make a commitment and stick to that commitment.

RM:Since this topic is related to the application of PCT to solving personal problems I’m copying it to Tim Carey to see what he thinks. Maybe he’ll think it’s worth posting it to his MOL list too. Since my take on the stickK approach to keeping resolutions is in this thread I’ll just continue the discussion from here.Â

RM: I guess I would be interested in what led you, as someone “somewhat familiar with PCT” (“somewhat” familiar enough to have written a book about PCT), to embrace stickK as a good way to solve your problem of following through on your resolution to complete the last chapter of your book?

RF: In fact, I used the stickK approach to help me complete the last chapter of the Your Behavior book (i.e., “Chapter 11 Lessons Learned: How to Change Your Behavior”, pp,249-296). My research on that chapter had been going on for over a year with no draft of the chapter yet produced. So I went online to www.stickK.com, established a goal to produce a draft chapter within a month, committed an amount of money to be paid to an organization whose activities I detest, and solidified the arrangement. That commitment worked. It helped me both start and complete a full draft of the chapter, thereby reaching my goal within a month. With some editing and polishing up, the chapter is what you now can see in the book.

RM:Â Â How would you analyze what is going on here in terms of PCT?Â

Â

RF: And so, the approach can work and has done so for many people.Â

 RM: As I said in my earlier post, I have no doubt that the stickK process can work. Indeed, virtually all approaches to solving behavioral/psychological problems “work” to so extent (on some proportion of those whop use them). I think the position of those doing applied PCT is that PCT allows you to see what is common to all these approaches that let’s them “work” to the extent that they do. I believe this is what MOL is about; it’s not a new therapy; it is just a more efficient one because it includes only what is essential. But maybe Tim can comment on this and give us his opinion about what is going on with stickK and why it works (when it does).

RF: To me your statement that “a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to a registered MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how those resolutions–those wants–can fit harmoniously into your existing control systems” seems like one possible approach, but doing so is only one possibility out of many other approaches – other possibilities including, of course, those discussed in my book. 🤗😉  Â

RM: That may be true. But if it is, then I wonder what you think is the benefit of knowing PCT? The stickK "therapy" for helping people maintain their commitments to resolutions is based on a behavioristic view of behavior. So if it “works” – and there are no unwanted “side effects” – then why go through the trouble of learning PCT? I’m asking this in goof faith, by the way. I would really like to know what you think is the value of knowing PCT if there are other worthwhile methods for solving psychological problems that are based on non-PCT theories of behavior – theories that are completely inconsistent with PCT?

rsm

···

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:25 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-06_09:24:08]

Â

RM: I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

RM: I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

RM: Thanks for the replies. My take on this is that the article is simply recommending that you control for keeping your resolutions by putting yourself into conflict by controlling for two incompatible perceptions – 1) keeping the resolutions and 2) not losing money only if you keep the resolutions. The idea seems to be that, even if you are having difficulty controlling for perception 1 (either because it conflicts with other perceptions you are controlling for or because you are controlling for it with very low gain), you will do your best to control for it in order to control for perception 2, for which you presumably have very high gain.Â

RM: I think that this strategy may sometimes work – or seem to work – but for reasons having nothing to do with the reasons behavioral economists think it works. But such a strategy would certainly not be recommended by anyone with an understanding of PCT. That’s because PCT views conflict as the enemy of control (see “Controlling People” by Marken & Carey) and being in control is what mental health is all about from a PCT perspective. PCT would view the fact that you are even making resolutions as evidence of internal conflict – if you resolve to lose weight, for example, it presumably means that you are doing this because you also want to do things that result in weight gain. So a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to an MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how these resolutions – these wants – can fit harmoniously into your existing hierarchy of control systems.Â

rsm

–
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

–
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

8

[From (Richard Pfau (2019.01.07 18:40 EST)]

ref: [Rick Marken 2019-01-07_08:39:35]Â

Using PCT as a guide for understanding what I did, it seems that my use of the stickK approach increased the importance (gain?) of my reference/goal and resulting error signal (i.e., concerning my desire to prepare a draft of the last chapter of my book, with me not having yet done so after months and months of research on the topic with no end in sight). That is, when I used stickK to establish the possibility of a very distasteful alternative reference and possible perception (of giving money to an organization whose activities I detest), my reference to begin writing a draft chapter suddenly became more important – so important that I immediately began writing – with the result that my reference and desired perception of a draft chapter were achieved within the one month deadline set with stickK. By doing so, I avoided experiencing the highly undesirable perception that would have occurred as a result of the arrangement I made with stickK.Â

To answer your questions as to “what you think is the benefit of knowing PCT?” and “why go through the trouble of learning PCT?”, it seems to me that PCT can help us understand why behavior occurs; as a meta-theory it can be used to pull together and explain a great deal of thinking about behavior; it can serve as a guide for helping to change behavior; and it can help us to better deal with many aspects of life including relationships with others and problems such as depression and anxiety.

However, those and other benefits of PCT do not mean that one must consciously use PCT to guide all of the decisions and actions of one’s life. One can do many things quite effectively without using PCT or even knowing about PCT – as many users of stickK do and humanity did before PCT was developed. PCT is a helpful and useful theory but a knowledge of it and conscious use of it is not necessary for the control systems of our bodies to function quite well – as mine did when I chose to use stickK without consciously using PCT to guide me when doing so.

With Respect and Regards,

Richard

···

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:45 AM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-07_08:39:35]

[Richard Pfau (2019.01.06 21:00 EST)]

RP: I’m sorry Rick, but the Yale Professor’s approach called stickK does work, and as someone somewhat familiar with PCT I have used it, recommend it for possible use, and included a description of it in my book Your Behavior (p. 276) as a way for one to make a commitment and stick to that commitment.

RM:Since this topic is related to the application of PCT to solving personal problems I’m copying it to Tim Carey to see what he thinks. Maybe he’ll think it’s worth posting it to his MOL list too. Since my take on the stickK approach to keeping resolutions is in this thread I’ll just continue the discussion from here.Â

RM: I guess I would be interested in what led you, as someone “somewhat familiar with PCT” (“somewhat” familiar enough to have written a book about PCT), to embrace stickK as a good way to solve your problem of following through on your resolution to complete the last chapter of your book?

RF: In fact, I used the stickK approach to help me complete the last chapter of the Your Behavior book (i.e., “Chapter 11 Lessons Learned: How to Change Your Behavior”, pp,249-296). My research on that chapter had been going on for over a year with no draft of the chapter yet produced. So I went online to www.stickK.com, established a goal to produce a draft chapter within a month, committed an amount of money to be paid to an organization whose activities I detest, and solidified the arrangement. That commitment worked. It helped me both start and complete a full draft of the chapter, thereby reaching my goal within a month. With some editing and polishing up, the chapter is what you now can see in the book.

RM:Â Â How would you analyze what is going on here in terms of PCT?Â

Â

RF: And so, the approach can work and has done so for many people.Â

 RM: As I said in my earlier post, I have no doubt that the stickK process can work. Indeed, virtually all approaches to solving behavioral/psychological problems “work” to so extent (on some proportion of those whop use them). I think the position of those doing applied PCT is that PCT allows you to see what is common to all these approaches that let’s them “work” to the extent that they do. I believe this is what MOL is about; it’s not a new therapy; it is just a more efficient one because it includes only what is essential. But maybe Tim can comment on this and give us his opinion about what is going on with stickK and why it works (when it does).

RF: To me your statement that “a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to a registered MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how those resolutions–those wants–can fit harmoniously into your existing control systems” seems like one possible approach, but doing so is only one possibility out of many other approaches – other possibilities including, of course, those discussed in my book. 🤗😉  Â

RM: That may be true. But if it is, then I wonder what you think is the benefit of knowing PCT? The stickK "therapy" for helping people maintain their commitments to resolutions is based on a behavioristic view of behavior. So if it “works” – and there are no unwanted “side effects” – then why go through the trouble of learning PCT? I’m asking this in goof faith, by the way. I would really like to know what you think is the value of knowing PCT if there are other worthwhile methods for solving psychological problems that are based on non-PCT theories of behavior – theories that are completely inconsistent with PCT?

rsm

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:25 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-06_09:24:08]

Â

RM: I used to make New Year’s resolutions but I have resolved to stop doing that since I am either too old or too perfect, most likely the latter. But there was this interesting opinion piece in the LA Times about how to keep New Year’s resolutions, which I though might be an interesting basis for discussion for students of PCT. The opinion piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

RM: I’d be interested in hearing what you think, given your understanding of human nature in terms of PCT.

RM: Thanks for the replies. My take on this is that the article is simply recommending that you control for keeping your resolutions by putting yourself into conflict by controlling for two incompatible perceptions – 1) keeping the resolutions and 2) not losing money only if you keep the resolutions. The idea seems to be that, even if you are having difficulty controlling for perception 1 (either because it conflicts with other perceptions you are controlling for or because you are controlling for it with very low gain), you will do your best to control for it in order to control for perception 2, for which you presumably have very high gain.Â

RM: I think that this strategy may sometimes work – or seem to work – but for reasons having nothing to do with the reasons behavioral economists think it works. But such a strategy would certainly not be recommended by anyone with an understanding of PCT. That’s because PCT views conflict as the enemy of control (see “Controlling People” by Marken & Carey) and being in control is what mental health is all about from a PCT perspective. PCT would view the fact that you are even making resolutions as evidence of internal conflict – if you resolve to lose weight, for example, it presumably means that you are doing this because you also want to do things that result in weight gain. So a better approach to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to an MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you can go up a level and figure out how these resolutions – these wants – can fit harmoniously into your existing hierarchy of control systems.Â

rsm

–
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

–
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

9

PCT does NOT promote solutions to problems, nor was it intended
to. PCT was intended to understand behavior, why it occurs, ect.

  PCT does provide a platform for analysing the potential for

proposed solutions to a problem but is otherwise neutral.

  Many techniques have been developed over the centuries for

problem solving. Many work rather well, at least for some people,
without reference to PCT. Indeed, such techniques are potential
research targets for PCT. Though, personally I don’t believe the
science of PCT research is advanced enough in the higher levels of
the hierarchy to conduct such research.

  The stickK approach to problem solving may be ideal, for some

people, but that in-itself has nothing to do with PCT.

bill

···

On 1/7/19 4:50 PM, Richard Pfau
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

[From (Richard Pfau (2019.01.07 18:40 EST)]

ref: [Rick Marken 2019-01-07_08:39:35]Â

      Using PCT as a guide for understanding what I did, it seems

that my use of the stickK approach increased the importance
(gain?) of my reference/goal and resulting error signal (i.e.,
concerning my desire to prepare a draft of the last chapter of
my book, with me not having yet done so after months and
months of research on the topic with no end in sight). That
is, when I used stickK to establish the possibility of a very
distasteful alternative reference and possible perception (of
giving money to an organization whose activities I detest), my
reference to begin writing a draft chapter suddenly became
more important – so important that I immediately began
writing – with the result that my reference and desired
perception of a draft chapter were achieved within the one
month deadline set with stickK. By doing so, I avoided
experiencing the highly undesirable perception that would have
occurred as a result of the arrangement I made with stickK.Â

      To answer your questions as to "what you think is the

benefit of knowing PCT?" and “why go through the trouble of
learning PCT?”, it seems to me that PCT can help us understand
why behavior occurs; as a meta-theory it can be used to pull
together and explain a great deal of thinking about behavior;
it can serve as a guide for helping to change behavior; and it
can help us to better deal with many aspects of life including
relationships with others and problems such as depression and
anxiety.

      However, those and other benefits of PCT do not mean that

one must consciously use PCT to guide all of the decisions and
actions of one’s life. One can do many things quite
effectively without using PCT or even knowing about PCT – as
many users of stickK do and humanity did before PCT was
developed. PCT is a helpful and useful theory but a knowledge
of it and conscious use of it is not necessary for the control
systems of our bodies to function quite well – as mine did
when I chose to use stickK without consciously using PCT to
guide me when doing so.

With Respect and Regards,

Richard

      On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:45 AM Richard Marken

<csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-07_08:39:35]

[Richard Pfau (2019.01.06 21:00 EST)]

                RP: I'm sorry Rick, but the Yale Professor's

approach called stickK does work, and as someone
somewhat familiar with PCT I have used it, recommend
it for possible use, and included a description of
it in my book Your Behavior (p. 276) as a
way for one to make a commitment and stick to that
commitment.

            RM:Since this topic is related to the application of

PCT to solving personal problems I’m copying it to Tim
Carey to see what he thinks. Maybe he’ll think it’s
worth posting it to his MOL list too. Since my take on
the stickK approach to keeping resolutions is in this
thread I’ll just continue the discussion from here.Â

            RM: I guess I would be interested in what led you, as

someone “somewhat familiar with PCT” (“somewhat”
familiar enough to have written a book about PCT), to
embrace stickK as a good way to solve your problem of
following through on your resolution to complete the
last chapter of your book?

                RF: In fact, I used the stickK approach to help

me complete the last chapter of the * Your
Behavior* book (i.e., “Chapter 11 Lessons
Learned: How to Change Your Behavior”, pp,249-296).Â
My research on that chapter had been going on for
over a year with no draft of the chapter yet
produced. So I went online to www.stickK.com ,
established a goal to produce a draft chapter within
a month, committed an amount of money to be paid to
an organization whose activities I detest, and
solidified the arrangement. That commitment
worked. It helped me both start and complete a full
draft of the chapter, thereby reaching my goal
within a month. With some editing and polishing up,
the chapter is what you now can see in the book.

            RM:Â Â How would you analyze what is going on here in

terms of PCT?Â

Â

                RF: And so, the approach can work and has done so

for many people.Â

            Â RM: As I said in my earlier post, I have no doubt

that the stickK process can work. Indeed, virtually all
approaches to solving behavioral/psychological problems
“work” to so extent (on some proportion of those whop
use them). I think the position of those doing applied
PCT is that PCT allows you to see what is common to all
these approaches that let’s them “work” to the extent
that they do. I believe this is what MOL is about; it’s
not a new therapy; it is just a more efficient one
because it includes only what is essential. But maybe
Tim can comment on this and give us his opinion about
what is going on with stickK and why it works (when it
does).

                RF: To me your statement that "a better approach

to dealing with new year’s resolutions is to go to a
registered MOL therapist (or learn to do MOL on
yourself) and see if you can go up a level and
figure out how those resolutions–those wants–can
fit harmoniously into your existing control systems"
seems like one possible approach, but doing so is
only one possibility out of many other approaches –
other possibilities including, of course, those
discussed in my book. 🤗😉  Â

            RM: That may be true. But if it is, then I wonder

what you think is the benefit of knowing PCT? The
stickKÂ "therapy"Â for helping people maintain their
commitments to resolutions is based on a behavioristic
view of behavior. So if it “works” – and there are no
unwanted “side effects” – then why go through the
trouble of learning PCT? I’m asking this in goof faith,
by the way. I would really like to know what you think
is the value of knowing PCT if there are other
worthwhile methods for solving psychological problems
that are based on non-PCT theories of behavior –
theories that are completely inconsistent with PCT?

rsm

                On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:25 PM Richard

Marken <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-01-06_09:24:08]

Â

                          RM: I used to make New Year's

resolutions but I have resolved to stop
doing that since I am either too old or
too perfect, most likely the latter. But
there was this interesting opinion piece
in the LA Times about how to keep New
Year’s resolutions, which I though might
be an interesting basis for discussion for
students of PCT. The opinion piece is
here:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ayres-resolution-contract-20190101-story.html

                            RM: I'd be interested in hearing what

you think, given your understanding of
human nature in terms of PCT.

                      RM: Thanks for the replies. My take on this

is that the article is simply recommending
that you control for keeping your resolutions
by putting yourself into conflict by
controlling for two incompatible perceptions
– 1) keeping the resolutions and 2) not
losing money only if you keep the resolutions.
The idea seems to be that, even if you are
having difficulty controlling for perception 1
(either because it conflicts with other
perceptions you are controlling for or because
you are controlling for it with very low
gain), you will do your best to control for it
in order to control for perception 2, for
which you presumably have very high gain.Â

                      RM: I think that this strategy may

sometimes work – or seem to work – but for
reasons having nothing to do with the reasons
behavioral economists think it works. But such
a strategy would certainly not be recommended
by anyone with an understanding of PCT. That’s
because PCT views conflict as the enemy of
control (see “Controlling People” by Marken
& Carey) and being in control is what
mental health is all about from a PCT
perspective. PCT would view the fact that you
are even making resolutions as evidence of
internal conflict – if you resolve to lose
weight, for example, it presumably means that
you are doing this because you also want to do
things that result in weight gain. So a better
approach to dealing with new year’s
resolutions is to go to an MOL therapist (or
learn to do MOL on yourself) and see if you
can go up a level and figure out how these
resolutions – these wants – can fit
harmoniously into your existing hierarchy of
control systems.Â

rsm

–
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

–
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

richardhpfau@gmail.com

10

[Rick Marken 2019-01-09_20:39:44]

Bill Leach’s post led me to notice that Tim Carey’s reply to my request for him to post on this topic didn’t get through so I am copying it to the net because I think it is rather good…Â

Hi Rick,
Â
Thanks for this. I’ve done a “reply all� but I don’t think this will go to csgnet because I’m not subscribed there. This taps into one of my favourite (in a macabre sort of way) topics in the field of psychological and social treatments and something I’ve written a little bit about recently.
Â
The topic is: what does it mean say a treatment “works�? Or, to put it another way: for any treatment that “works�, how does it work?
Â
It’s still generally acknowledged in the literature that we don’t know how or why any of our treatments “workâ€? and I would say that’s because none of the treatments are based on any sort of plausible theory – except one of course ;;-)!!
Â
It’s a truism that no treatment “works� for everyone and all treatments “work� for someone. Even treatments like homeopathy and aromatherapy “work� for some people.
Â
This all just demonstrates a fundamental error in our reasoning that continues to be made over and over again. Richard demonstrates this error with his statement: “the Yale Professor’s approach called stickK does workâ€?. This is the logic upon which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are based. RCTs are specifically designed to demonstrate that treatment A works better than something else. And that’s led us down a blind motorway at breakneck speed for the last 4 or 5 decades.
Â
The error that is being made is attributing the “working� to a treatment or an approach. Treatments don’t work. People work. The effectiveness of a treatment is not an inherent property of a treatment protocol. It’s an outcome that emerges when people follow procedures or undertake activities that are meaningful and engaging to them. Of course, *how *following procedures or undertaking activities helps someone overcome an obstacle or complete something they want to finish still remains largely unanswered. Well, it does for people who don’t know PCT! J
Â
What “works�, when people are stuck or ambivalent or procrastinating or any other term you want to use for intrapersonal conflict, is becoming aware of the higher level system or systems that are setting the context for the stuckness long enough for reorganization to generate a suitable solution.
Â
It is my belief that that’s the process that’s going on whenever any psychological or social treatment is effective. Getting “up there� is the constant but, clearly, there are loads of different ways to get there. Some people do it with thought diaries, some with activity schedules, some read a book, some join a club, some paint, some dance, some engage in conversation.
Â
So does stickK “workâ€?? Of course. It “workedâ€? a treat for Richard. Would it “workâ€? for everyone? Absolutely not. What works for everyone is shifting their attention to a higher level so reorganisation can … you know the rest J
Â
Tim

Best Rick

···

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