CHUCK TUCKER 921023
RE: THE BILL AND GREG (AND OCCASIONAL OTHER) DIALOGUE
WTP 921017.0900; 19.0900; 20.1100; 21.0915
GW 921018; 20; 21 EF 921021.0945 DG 921015 [AWOL]
I am clearly in support of such a dialogue and encourage as many
people that can enter into it to do so. I am not willing to
enter into the conversation in the same fashion as others on the
NET; I choose to gather many posts, read through them, take notes
on them, think about them, talk to some of my students and
colleagues about what is being stated and then (if I think I can
write something useful) write a note. I like the exchanges but
I have to slow them down rather than jump into the ongoing
conversation. If I don't write something it is not out of a
lack of interest (this is the most interesting part of my
education) but because I don't believe I have anything to
contribute in a substantive way.
find more agreement between Bill and Greg than I find
differences. To do this I discount what I consider to be an
occasional "slip" by both parties in the use of words. When I
read these posts over time I find that these "slips" are
corrected by Bill or Greg or both although there is not always a
co-indication of that accomplishment. As you might guess the
"slip" is often made with regard to the word 'CONTROL'. I
usually notice it and just "plug" in the definition that is
consistent with PCT: CONTROL can only be used about the action
of a negative feddback system itself - CONTROL as an action,
process, event or any phenomena CANNOT happen BETWEEN systems IF
they are negative feedback control systems (although quite
disturbing, Rick's solution to the AWOL problem by making the
systems into SR systems by killing them makes the point
dramatically clear to me - although I would note that after a
person has been offically declared dead the body still functions
as a negative feedback control system). Thus, what happens
between people (excuse spelling errors) is coercing, forcing,
physically or cognitively manipulating, influencing, persuading,
pleading, bribing, requesting, asking. begging, conning,
convincing, rationalizing, indirect manipulating ("rubber
banding"), agreeing, committing, taking for granted, assuming,
"of coursing," "why notting," promising, pledging, contracting,
willing, buying, selling, envisioning, respecting, loving,
threating, entraping and the like BUT NOT CONTROLLING.
The best "evidence" (I put words in quotes when I want to write
loosely or metaphorically) for the PCT model FOR ME is gleaned
from presenting problems to be solved and then see how the
various parties propose to solve the problem. Notice the
proposals by Bill (921020.1100) and Ed (921021.0945) and you
will see PCT in action [I see the exchange between Rick and
Dennis as a discussion of some variations but not PCT directly
but perhaps I am mistaken on this one - I am awaiting Dennis's
answer to RM 921021.1000]. Do you notice how the style and tone
of the writing seems to alter when Bill and Ed are writing about
some "concrete" problem rather that about "theory or model"? I
do. If one wants to answer the question: what can you do with
PCT that you can't do with other approaches? the posts about
specific problems are the most useful. I also think that they
tell me much about the model.
I think there are two "topics" of discussion within the Bill and
Greg (etal) conversations that keep coming up and don't get
adequately "resolved". One is usually mention as "ideology"
while the other is "selling PCT." For me these "topics" usually
act as disturbances and seem to "spin" the interactants into
conflicting but not very clarifying (for me) action. Here is
how I make sense out of these two "topics" (I believe that the
interactants will agree with me but don't seem to be able to
with each other - let me try and see what happens).
IDEOLOGY
When Bill tells others that they could at least reduce the
problems that they have with each other if they would just
realize that conflict arises when one person tries to do the
impossible with another - tries to CONTROL the other - Greg
views this as a "how you ought to behave" prescription that is
part of PCT. I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS AND I BELIEVE THAT GREG
WILL SEE IT WITH A MOMENT OF RELFECTION ON IT. But Bill believes
that conflict is both abhorent and unnecessary in human affairs
and he has stated this on a number of occasions but most clearly
(to me again) in his Chapter 17 of BCP. Thus, I can see that
one might see this as an ideological statement which is part of
PCT. I can also find where (to me) he has noted how offended he
is by conflict and one might see that as part of the model. But
as a "scientific" presentation, I don't think that this
"ideology" is part of PCT but I see nothing wrong with stating
that one of the practical implications (and a very important
one) is the reduction of conflict and a greater appreciation of
other people. In this regard, one of my most recent arguments
against the S--> NO O --> R formulations is that they do lead to
seeing coercion, force and threats of force, bribing, physical
manipulation, and killing as appropriate ways (sometimes the
ONLY way) to get a person to follow your orders and do what they
are told to do for their own good. YES, this is ideological but
I believe that I have tons of "evidence" to support my case
including statements by the proponents of these formulations
(see Dennis's statements about the proponents of "behavioral
control theories").
SELLING PCT
I have noted in a previous post that I don't believe that you
can convince another to take up and use PCT unless he/she is
troubled by and finds problematic his/her current "explanation"
of "human behavior". This is what PCT says to me; a person will
not reorganize unless seriously disturbed about their current
actions. I have found that I am not able to disturb most of my
fellow sociologists or social psychologists enough to have them
take over PCT; the ones who are interested in it (present
company excluded) are those that operate at the "fringe" of the
discipline and/or are very troubled by their current theories
and are SERIOUS enough to want to overcome their problem. I
find that one feature of the CSG associates is that we are
serious about understanding human life AND do not
compartmentalize this concern. Most of the academics I know see
sociology (or any discipline) as something one teaches, reads
about, studies, and tells others about BUT does not LIVE. This
makes it extremely difficult for them to become disturbed
because it is not "important" to them (important in the sense
that their model of living systems is just part of their job not
their life). So, as Bill has been saying, if it is not
important to them in the sense that they are controlling for it,
it make very little difference what you do - they can't be
disturbed enough to reorganize. My proposal is to forget about
them and attempt to incorporate PCT into the lives of younger
people and see if they pick up on it and use it. I do find
greater interest among my students than my fellow academics.
A PROBLEM
What can I do according to PCT to get all of you to vote for the
Democratic ticket on November 3, 1992? What can Bill Clinton
and Al Gore do according to PCT to get all of you to vote for
the Democratic ticket on November 3, 1992? [Send the answer to
the second question to 75300.3155@COMPUSERVE.COM the email line
of the Clinton/Gore Campaign]
Best to all,
Chuck
···
From my reading of the recent posts (identified above) I still