[From Fred Nickols (980219.1350 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (980218.1055 EST) responding to Bill Powers (980218.0802 MST)..
The problem is that you are trying to give the truth away. In
our society the value of something is determined solely by its
price. I suggest you patent the idea and vigorously defend
against all violations. Of course you have to be careful in
formulating the application so that the examiners do not catch on
that you are patenting the principle upon which all living
things operate.
A corollary to Bruce's argument is that people tend not to value
that which comes free or bearing only a modest price tag. "Make
'em pay" is old and sound advice.
I don't know if Bruce was jesting or not, but there are plenty
of precedents. A company noted for its problem solving training
is a case in point.
The reason I hang around this list isn't 'cause I wanna grow up
to be like Rick or to worship at Bill Powers' feet. I hang around
because I happen to think that PCT is powerful stuff and I'm on
the lookout for ways of applying it. Let me give you an example.
As a manager, and as a management consultant, I ask myself, "How
can I make use of this PCT stuff in my work? How can I put it to
work for me in ways that help with some of the problems I encounter?"
One such kind of problem is known as a "performance problem" (which,
stripped of its finery, stands naked as nothing more than Person A
not doing what Person B wants). Neither I nor my clients find it
particularly helpful to be told that B's attempts to control A's
behavior will be viewed and treated by A as a "disturbance." We knew
that without being told and without having to use "disturbance."
What we want to know is, "How the heck do we get A to go along with
the program?"
One way in which PCT contributes to resolving this kind of problem
is to get the client to understand that A's behavior reflects A's
attempts to control certain perceptions. "Going along with the
program" has to be recast as some set of perceptions which we'd all
like A to control for. Further, if that is the aim, then you have
to make certain that A knows what those perceptions are and wants
to control for them.
Along about now, some of my clients would shake their heads and say,
"Fred, all you're talking about is communicating expectations, and
motivating people. For cryin' out loud tell me something I don't
know!" And I would.
I'd toss in the basic PCT model and point out to my client that real
control is being exercised by the performer via the alignment of his
or her perceptions and intentions, with said alignment being brought
about by way of the performer's behavior. (As I wrote in my stinky
little systems poem, "Feedback isn't between you and me, but between
my reference and what I see.")
That last point would come as a surprise to a lot of people, and I'd
have their attention and interest. But it wouldn't surprise everyone.
A few would smile and say, "Darnit, Fred, that's nothing more than
good old discrimination training a la Susan Markle (who, by the way,
was one of B.F. Skinner's proteges). We know that you have to train
the performer to recognize proper performance or to tell the difference
between an OK and a NOT-OK end product."
I'd smile and keep on chuggin' away. Next up, configured vs. prefigured
responses. I'd point out that much work today requires the worker to
configure his or her response to a given situation (and, yes, I'm fully
aware that all worker responses are configured but I'm zeroing in on the
distinction between work that is laid out in advance and work that has
to be figured out at the time of its accomplishment). Configured work
means that the reference conditions are often held or formulated by the
worker at the time of the performance instead of being codified in advance
by an industrial engineer.
Right about here I'm running on a real thin grasp of PCT so I shift into
high gear B.S. and do what the salespeople call "close" -- I ask for the
order. I usually get it and I usually deliver high value for the fees I
charge -- BUT I CAN'T YET ATTRIBUTE A GREAT DEAL OF THAT VALUE TO PCT
BECAUSE I'M HAVING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT APPLIES INSTEAD OF BEING SHOWN
LOTS OF WAYS IN WHICH IT DOES OR MIGHT APPLY.
To get back to Bruce's original point -- make 'em pay for it -- I'd agree,
except for one thing: there's not yet much to make 'em pay for. Until PCT
has some pretty well-defined practices that demonstrate the power and the
utility of the theory, the theoretical arguments will remain backwater
issues and the reigning theoretical paradigms will continue their reign.
Why? Because reigning theories aren't toppled by competing theories, they
are toppled by powerful people who don't give a tinker's dam about the
theoretical pedigree of a proven, powerful practice (or the practitioner,
for that matter).
One of the reasons I follow the MOL thread closely is that it has a lot of
practical promise. There's a very useful tool being forged there and I
look forward to the day it comes out of the smithy's shop. I think it has
more than just therapeutic value, too; I can see, albeit dimly, a useful
tool for getting at the expectations of others and thus helping to zero in
on expected performance in a crisper, cleaner, less threatening way (that's
something both manager and managed would appreciate).
So, yeah, I agree with Bruce that making 'em pay and being extremely nasty
with regard to patent/copyright/proprietary rights and any infringements
would garner a lot of attention, but unless you've got something beyond the
theory, you don't need to worry much about infringements.
···
****************
Heads up, I'm changing gears here.
After I wrote all the above, in response to Bruce Gregory's post, I
page down past all the gobbledygook code someone embedded and found
this gem from Bill Powers...
Bill Powers (980218.1502 MST)--
Let's get that bug working, and then apply what we've learned to a model of
a walking, running, jumping, and standing still person. Then let's take the
working simulations around to people who want to make money by building
exploration robots and humanoid robots, and sell the model to them for
further research support. Let's start a counseling system using the method
of levels and whatever else makes sense, and sell it to insurance companies
with a stake in efficient psychotherapy. And let's write all about this,
not for journals but for magazines and in books, to let people know what
we're doing and to get popular support.Let the rest of them catch up when they wake up.
Amen, Bill. Amen. Where do I sign on?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm