[From Rick Marken (970929.1930)]
Marc Abrams (970929.1440 EDT) --
PCT helps explain _why and how_ _behavior_ occurs in the _here
and now_. It _DOES NOT_ explain {nor does iy currently try to)
the _EFFECTS_of that behavior... To PCT, The _effects_ or
_consequences_ of behavior are _irrelevant_.
In PCT, unintended side effects of action are irrelevant to
the actor _if_ they have no effect on other variables controlled
by the actor. An unintended side effect of the actions my brother
used to chew his food when we were kids was an annoying sound
that made me want to slug him (to stop the sound;-)). The sound
was an _effect_ or _consequence of his chewing behavior that was
irrelevant to my brother but not to me;-)
Rick, I don't think people _reject_ PCT.
Read the recent posts from Hans Blom and Bruce Abbott. It is
true that people rarely (if ever) say "I reject PCT". In fact,
many people (even those who reject it) often say (in all
honesty, I believe) that they enthusiastically accept PCT. But
it is impossible to accept PCT and at the same time accept certain
other ideas, like the idea that food pellets are a reinforcer
or the idea that controlled results are produced by outputs
calculated on the basis of a model of the physical world. That's
why I'm not interested in hearing people say "I accept PCT";
I'm interested in seeing people _act like_ they accept it. People
act like they accept PCT when they start doing research to test
for the variables organisms control or when they start treating
their clients as autonomous perceptual control systems. Don't
worry about whether people say "I accept PCT" or "I reject PCT";
just test to determine what they are controlling for. If they
are not controlling for understanding control, then they don't
accept PCT -- whether they say so or not.
I think they [practitioners] just don't find it [PCT]
_relevant_.
I agree; many don't find it relevant. But I find this mildly
astonishing because the relevance of PCT is apparent to me
nearly every moment of every day; I see people (including
myself) controlling all the time; frequently getting into
conflicts because of their controlling; getting angry because
of their controlling; getting ecstatic because of their
controlling; enjoying their ability to control their imaginations
by reading and writing; etc etc. If practitioners find PCT
irrelevant to what they do it can only be because they don't
understand PCT and/or how it applies to their concerns. I think
we need people who understand PCT to get together with these
practitioners _while they are practitioning_; this way the PCT
expert can learn what the practitioner wants to do and (literally)
point out the relevance (and, hopefully, the value) of PCT while
the practitioner is practitioning.
As Ed Ford would say, we've got to get these "pie in the sky"
PCT theorists (like me) down there where the rubber meets the
road. That's why I'm putting some bleachers out in the sun and
goin' down to Highway 61 (with apologies, Bob).
Best
Rick Dylan
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/