PC PCT, etc

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[from Mary Powers (991203)]

During this discussion, I have seen comments about other people to the
effect that they aren't acting or talking like a PCTer ought to, as though
PCT were prescriptive rather than descriptive or explanatory.

What the complaint is about, I think, is that people on the net are not
practicing PC PCT: they are failing to treat other people on the net as
control systems. While it would be very nice if everyone treated everyone
else as control systems all the time, the fact is that this does not
happen, and when it does, in most cases the people involved have never
heard of PCT.

Knowing about PCT isn't a magic formula for transforming the way a person
deals with other people. This not to say that it can't have a transforming
and positive effect on how a person related to others, because it can, and
has.

Meanwhile, people who do not treat others as control systems can be
modelled by PCT as much as anyone else. Sneering, swearing, pontificating,
etc. etc. are just as much ways for an individual to attempt to reduce an
error of some kind as are the ways that teachers of PCT suggest will work
better. Control systems are control systems, even if what they do does not
work well at getting them what they want, and even if they make life
unpleasant for other control systems.

          * * * *

Something that puzzles me about the discussions lately is why they are so
contentious. People have staked out positions which are really not very
far from each other, and seem to defend them rigidly, with little give and
take. This rigidity (resulting in _external_ conflict)is a sign, I think,
of _internal_ conflict, as is the the high emotional level. The position
someone holds on a subject such as "limiting choice is non-coercive" may be
frozen into place because it is being used to prevent some other reference
level from manifesting itself. Lightening up on the one reference level may
give the other more play than the person can afford. I'm trying to
generalize here, and perhaps get this discussion up a level, and have no
one in mind nor coercion as the particular or only topic. But consider a
person X who is asserting rather fiercely that limiting someone else's
choices to two alternatives is not coercive. Suppose that X is somewhat
coercive, but has a strong need to believe that she is not, because being a
non-coercive person, a loving and caring and good person, is how she wants
to see herself and have others see her. When you tell her that she is
coercive by limiting choice, doesn't that threaten her loving-caring-good
person image? Is it surprising that she resists the concept that limited
choice = coercion?

Sorry I can't get it clearer than that. The main point is that there is
more to this argument than the argument itself.

And by the the way, while my dictionary give the first definition of coerce
as "to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will", the _second_
definition is "to compel an act or choice".

           * * *
Kenny: the other day you asked (more or less) why not ask "why?" when a
child disrupts in class. This is actually a number 1 no-no in RTP. It
produces excuses and rationalizations. That contradicts (or seems to) the
idea that how questions take you down levels and why questions take you up.
I think that how and why questions take you down and up in a somewhat
detached and objective way, but to really go up, to start living at and
perceiving from a level above the level where you were, takes the more
subtle approach of the MOL. Which in the school situation would be the job
of the RTC teacher. I don't think it should be part of the curriculum in
an ordinary classroom, but it would be a neat thing for parents to learn.

           * * *

The net lately reminds me of the sign outside the town of Aztec, New
Mexico. "Welcome to Aztec, home of 5672 friendly people and six old
soreheads".

The internet town of CSGnet is home to a hundred or so friendly (or at
least silent, which seems friendly) people, and at least six old soreheads.
Trouble is, the soreheads are doing most of the talking.
                         ;-)

Mary P.

2

Mary Powers (991203)

The internet town of CSGnet is home to a hundred or so friendly (or at
least silent, which seems friendly) people, and at least six old soreheads.
Trouble is, the soreheads are doing most of the talking. :wink:

Write on, sister! Maybe Marc's new listserv software can be programmed to
detect and send disruptive soreheads to the PCC
to come up with a gain plan to get back on the net. To make this appear less
coercive, the faceless Listserv could simply inform them "I see you have made
a choice to go to the PCC. :wink:

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

3

from [ Marc Abrams (991203.2105) ]

Bill, can you please use a header when you post. Thanks

from Bill Curry (991203.1903

Maybe Marc's new listserv software can be programmed to
detect and send disruptive soreheads to the PCC
to come up with a gain plan to get back on the net.

Not quite :-). but it would give each of us more discretion in who we talk
with and on what topics.

Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in favor of my proposal.
If there's no interest I won't do it.

Marc

4

[From Bruce Gregory (991204.0640 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991203.2105) ]

Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in favor of my

proposal.

If there's no interest I won't do it.

It sounds like a worthwhile experiment to me. I hope enough people are
interested to make it a go.

Bruce Gregory

5

In a message dated 12/3/1999 7:13:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
marc.abrams@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:

<< Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in favor of my
proposal.
If there's no interest I won't do it.
  >>

Marc
    "Build it and they will come"
    If you want my help designing/building a web site let me know.
Mark

6

[From Bill Powers (991204.0735 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (991203.2105)--

Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in favor of my proposal.
If there's no interest I won't do it.

I think it's worth a try.

Bill P.

7

[From Bruce Abbott (991204.1010 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991203.2105) --

Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in favor of my proposal.
If there's no interest I won't do it.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained . . .

Regards,

Bruce

8

[From Rick Marken (991204.0840)]

Marc Abrams (991203.2105) --

Folks, can I see a show of hands for people who are in
favor of my proposal. If there's no interest I won't do it.

I think it sounds fine; a nice 10 year aniversary present for
CSGNet. By the way, did you notice how you took us up a level?

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

9

from [ Marc Abrams (991204.1204)

I'm satisfied there is enough interest to make a try of it. So we are on.
Mark L I _will_ :slight_smile: take you up on your offer. Rick I need you to check out
the software and see if there are any compatibly issues with the current
one. Thanks

[From Rick Marken (991204.0840)]

I think it sounds fine; a nice 10 year aniversary present for
CSGNet. By the way, did you notice how you took us up a level?

Not initially, but now that you mention it I guess I went up a level myself.
:slight_smile:

Marc

10

[From Bruce Gregory (991204.1504 EST)]

Rick Marken (991204.0840)

I think it sounds fine; a nice 10 year aniversary present for
CSGNet. By the way, did you notice how you took us up a level?

Oh? From what level to what level?

Bruce Gregory

11

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.1443 CST)]

Dear CSG Netters,

I generally download my mail (Eudora, Outlook Exp), and then read my notes
and compose notes off-line. Will this Web-based system allow off-line
reading/writing, or must it be done exclusively on-line? I appreciate the
features listed below, but there must be some thought to which proportion
of writers, readers, and even lurkers do not have a hard-wired connection
to the Internet, and would prefer to keep the POTS (plain old teleph. sys.)
available for hailing by friends and neighbors. My 2 cent's worth, eh?

My comment on all of this cordiality stuff is that everything would go much
better if those who cannot resist (as Mary suggests) "Sneering, swearing,
pontificating, etc. etc." would hold onto their posts for several hours
before "hitting/punching" the Send button to see if their note meets the
Golden Rule that many, if not most, of the readers may adhere to in their
daily lives.

Mary (991203) writes:

The internet town of CSGnet is home to a hundred or so friendly (or at
least silent, which seems friendly) people, and at least six old soreheads.
Trouble is, the soreheads are doing most of the talking. :wink:

Do you want to know at least one reason why I choose to lurk and refrain
from posting (I, like Bruce N. did, have such reasons to lurk)? Because of
several "soreheads" who may not accept my well-read PCT observations and
may find ME a new target. As a matter of fact, that had happened to me
recently, and I didn't like it (no names). Having read much (most?) of the
major literature on PCT from B:CP on down, I tend to take much of posting
by Bill, Mary, Phil, Rick, Dick, Hank, Fred, David, Dag, Tim, Wolfgang,
Norman, Gary, Bill C., Bruce G., Bruce N., Marc, (and many others, sorry if
I missed ya!) as "posting," not as the "truth." So such posts can be
subject to discussion _and_ refutation, given the evidence, but not at all
subject the abusive stuff some people have resorted to over the years.
Want me to post, too? I am controlling (with high gain!) for polite,
considerate and scholarly discussion and debate, but not the abusive... !

And if this perception can be aligned/adopted by those who post, we may not
need to get software that sends people to the PCC when they err from the
Golden Rule.

Silently (as "in a friendly manner"),

Bryan Thalhammer

Norman T. Hovda (991203.0933) wrote:

···

At 10:41 Marc wrote about Where do we go from here; Bill C's on 3 Dec 99,

From [ Marc Abrams (991203.1013) ]

I think I have come up with an idea for helping CSG move on. it's
centered around the use of the archives as a starting point of
discussion. I would like to propose that we open a new list on the CSG
web site. This list would not be monolithic like the current list is
and would provide a way for multiple threads_conviently_ going on at
the same time. The list software was introduced to me by Martin Taylor
and is absolutely fabulous. Let me run down a list of some of the
advantages of using this software. _I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE
ABANDONMENT OF CSG_ there is no need.

What's the sftwr?

nth

12

[From Rick Marken (991204.1400)]

Me to Marc --

By the way, did you notice how you took us up a level?

Bruce Gregory (991204.1504 EST)

Oh? From what level to what level?

from the level of testily discussing the merits of
telling a person "I see you have chosen" to the level
of calmly discussing the merits of testy discussions.
Our consciousness changed from a focus on the discussion
of what it means to learn to be responsible (from a PCT
perspective) to the attitude behind this discussion: why
aren't I having fun?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

13

[From Bruce Gregory (991204.1745 EST)]

Rick Marken (991204.1400)

>From the level of testily discussing the merits of
telling a person "I see you have chosen" to the level
of calmly discussing the merits of testy discussions.
Our consciousness changed from a focus on the discussion
of what it means to learn to be responsible (from a PCT
perspective) to the attitude behind this discussion: why
aren't I having fun?

As far as I can see, all that happened was a shift in topics. The new topic
is not any higher or lower in my hierarchy. Your hierarchy is doubtless
structured differently.

Bruce Gregory

14

from [ Marc Abrams 991204.1916 ) ]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.1443 CST)]

Dear CSG Netters,

I generally download my mail (Eudora, Outlook Exp), and then read my notes
and compose notes off-line. Will this Web-based system allow off-line
reading/writing, or must it be done exclusively on-line? I appreciate the
features listed below, but there must be some thought to which proportion
of writers, readers, and even lurkers do not have a hard-wired connection
to the Internet, and would prefer to keep the POTS (plain old teleph.

sys.)

available for hailing by friends and neighbors. My 2 cent's worth, eh?

Did you look at the software? Outside of your other issues look at:

http://www.discusware.com/discus/index.html

Any and all alternatives will be considered. The main focus of this is to
try and utilize the archives as a basis for discussion. Your other agenda
will not be met by _any_ software. You don't want to ( at least I don't
want ) to lose the passion people have for things. If an English tea is more
to your liking then try to involve yourself in more of those. Maybe we
should have a list censor and etiquette manager?

Marc

15

[Norman Hovda (991204.1730)]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.1443 CST)]

Dear CSG Netters,

I generally download my mail (Eudora, Outlook Exp), and then read my
notes and compose notes off-line. Will this Web-based system allow
off-line reading/writing, or must it be done exclusively on-line? I
appreciate the features listed below, but there must be some thought
to which proportion of writers, readers, and even lurkers do not have
a hard-wired connection to the Internet, and would prefer to keep the
POTS (plain old teleph. sys.) available for hailing by friends and
neighbors. My 2 cent's worth, eh?

FWIW, I helped set up a web site for another org that is using the
Discus sftwr suggested and it is an amazing piece of _free_ sftwr.

My reference level for it as _only_ a message board and not a
listserv may be in error.

Regards,
nth

16

from {Marc Abrams (991204.2124) ]

[Norman Hovda (991204.1730)]

My reference level for it as _only_ a message board and not a
listserv may be in error.

I believe your right. It is not a true listserv. But I think the benefits
outwiegh the negatives. At least from a CSG perspective.

Marc

17

from [ Marc Abrams (991204.2129) ]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.1443 CST)]

I generally download my mail (Eudora, Outlook Exp), and then read my notes
and compose notes off-line. Will this Web-based system allow off-line
reading/writing, or must it be done exclusively on-line? I appreciate the
features listed below, but there must be some thought to which proportion
of writers, readers, and even lurkers do not have a hard-wired connection
to the Internet, and would prefer to keep the POTS (plain old teleph.

sys.)

available for hailing by friends and neighbors. My 2 cent's worth, eh?

I believe the software can be set to have up to a 90 minute posting delay.
In which changes can be made by the sender.

Marc

18

[From Kenny Kitzke (991204)]

<Mary Powers (991203)>

<Kenny: the other day you asked (more or less) why not ask "why?" when a
child disrupts in class. This is actually a number 1 no-no in RTP. It
produces excuses and rationalizations.>

Thanks for refreshing my memory. I had read that and accepted it as good
counseling advice from Ed Ford (someone who had been there, done that). I
never questioned the reason or tested it.

<That contradicts (or seems to) the
idea that how questions take you down levels and why questions take you up.>

Yes. And, the "why" questions did seem preferred in our MOL exercises.

<I think that how and why questions take you down and up in a somewhat
detached and objective way, but to really go up, to start living at and
perceiving from a level above the level where you were, takes the more
subtle approach of the MOL. Which in the school situation would be the job
of the RTC teacher.>

I can see some rationale here. Teacher is not to take the time away from
teaching. RTC teacher is more skilled at MOL and can take the time. Is that
the thinking?

<I don't think it should be part of the curriculum in
an ordinary classroom, but it would be a neat thing for parents to learn.>

Since MOL is pretty simple in concept, I wish more parents would try it. I
have tried MOL since the workshop, not on my kids since they are adults now
and out of the home, but on my wife.

The first time I tried, I did not explain MOL much first to her. I was going
to try as I went along. So, I just talked to her about what life was like
with me gone for a week. When she hit things that upset her (something a
neighbor had done), I started in. This did not work well. Even though she
is submissive 8-), my questioning noticeably annoyed her.

I did learn from Ed Ford the futility of trying to resolve any dispute during
a dispute; when one is conflicted and angry. So we disengaged and I tried a
different topic later. It was about whether to call her new dog's prior
owner about some problems with the mutt. This time I spoke about conflict
and MOL in general before exploring her dilemma. Even though she had
stronger personal feelings about this conflict than the neighbor bit, the MOL
reached a resolution quite quickly and pleasantly. The dilemma just melted
away for her.

We use MOL quite often now, as a technique for helping each other resolve
conflict. The why type questions seem to work best where the facilitator is
asking why, in a caring and inquisitive way. The patient then has to look at
their own mindset to try to explain their perception of why to the
facilitator. Many times, in doing that, a remark like, I'm really thinking
stupid aren't I, melts the dilemma away.

My wife is better at this than I am as I often think about resolving problems
my old materialistic and competitive (I must win) way. She can tell because
she knows how I used to be better than anyone else. So, she MOL's me to
evaluate what my old nature _wants_ to do compared to what my growing
Christian beliefs would suggest I should do. Usually my old _get even_ urge
dissipates and I come to an inner peace quickly. It keeps my blood pressure
down too.

I am not too sure that after a while the RTC approach would always be needed.
They say the kids catch on to the RTP question sequence quickly where the
original word/question sequence can be shortened or skipped and the disrupter
goes to the RTC without a whimper by just a brief question or even a
teacher's stare.

Wouldn't it be neat if by teachers and students understanding MOL, a very
brief teacher why question or two might resolve the child's conflict and make
the RTC a Maytag repairman scenario (seldom used) where frequent fliers learn
to go up a level themselves by a teacher's brief incisive inquiry?

Kenny

19

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.2050 CST)]

Ladies and Gentlemen CSG netters:

My point, illustrated perfectly:

Marc Abrams [ Marc Abrams 991204.1916 ) ] writes:

You don't want to ( at least I don't want) to lose the passion people have
for things.

If an English tea is more
to your liking then try to involve yourself in more of those. Maybe we
should have a list censor and etiquette manager?

...

Marc

Marc,

Please, do not frame me as a prude or quaint afficiando of Miss Manners on
the Net, OK? Having to defend my social front from such rude and
immoderate writing takes the fun out of reading CSGnet. By doing so, I
believe that "you _may_ have made a choice that will lead to your going to
the PCC."

Rather, I believe in a more reserved discussion about PCT and its
applications, as goes on much of the time, on and off the net. I really
don't appreciate the word "passion" being used to describe personal
attacks, snide comments, and misplaced logic. That's simply inaccurate.
One can be extremely passionate about PCT and its applications, without
going *ad hominum* on me. For my part, I guess I knew this would happen,
and so, ba-a-a-ck to lurkdom I go. I don't think it would be prudent for
me to take this bait any further. *8-?, I've got more important stuff to
do anyhow (I could and do control CVs until the cows come home...!).

As far as the software is concerned, _that_ is not my focus (I guess you
all can see) in my annual *8-?> posting frenzies. What people do with
software (see above) is far more important. I have found that ordinarily I
CAN be treated _as a control system_ with or without software mediation.
But, as I wrote earlier, my preference is to keep the complexity of net
subscription to a minimum. However, if the main players find that the
Discus sftwr will enhance the virtual discussion by making the archives
more easily available and quotable, then I won't say no!

[ Marc Abrams (991204.2129) ]

I believe the software can be set to have up to a 90 minute posting delay.
In which changes can be made by the sender.

Well, that is not the point. Rather, I had said that I wished to have all
my reading and writing activities done off-line, not because of worries
about recalling a hasty message. When I log in and click the Queue and
Send buttons, there is no reason for me to recall my messages.

Best to the 113 other recipients of CSGnet!

BT

20

from [ Marc Abrams (991204.2226) ]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (991204.2050 CST)]

Please, do not frame me as a prude or quaint afficiando of Miss Manners on
the Net, OK?

Is that how you see yourself? If the shoe fits wear it.

Having to defend my social front from such rude and
immoderate writing takes the fun out of reading CSGnet.

Sorry, don't mean to be a spoil sport. I say what i say because that's how i
feel and those are the words I know how to use to express them. Not everyone
has an advanced university degree. I'm far from dumb but I learned to
express myself a certain way. If it offends I am truely sorry, but it's who
I am ( and want to be ). You don't have to accept the package. Just don't go
sanctimonious ( hey, I even know a few big words ) on me.

By doing so, I
believe that "you _may_ have made a choice that will lead to your going to
the PCC."

Excuse me?

Rather, I believe in a more reserved discussion about PCT and its
applications, as goes on much of the time, on and off the net. I really
don't appreciate the word "passion" being used to describe personal
attacks, snide comments, and misplaced logic.

That's your opinion, and that of some others. Others feel differently. What
you "appreciate" and don't is none of my concern. If you were so noble and
pious you might want to try intervening in a round of discussions that might
be getting a little heated and see if you could get the people to up a
level.

Contrary to a belief you may, have CSG is not here for your entertainment
and amusement.

That's simply inaccurate.
One can be extremely passionate about PCT and its applications, without
going *ad hominum* on me.

And in life one can get _angry _ at a position some one takes, especially if
that position is viewed as being dishonest, descietful or fraudulent. This
list is about people, life, and PCT. It ain't a g-ddamn School Lab.

For my part, I guess I knew this would happen,
and so, ba-a-a-ck to lurkdom I go.

You came out of it to post this? Wow. what a contributor. I'm going to miss
your annual posts, And who was it before me Brian? You have a long list of
people who have kept you of the net.

I don't think it would be prudent for
me to take this bait any further. *8-?, I've got more important stuff to
do anyhow (I could and do control CVs until the cows come home...!).

Thank god.

. However, if the main players find that the

Discus sftwr will enhance the virtual discussion by making the archives
more easily available and quotable, then I won't say no!

Big of you. It's BS like this that make me want to throw up. What a
sanctimoniuous bucnch of @#$%@%.

See ya next year

Marc