PCT and Applications

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Tom Bourbon (950901.1420)]

[From Rick Marken (950901.0930)]

I used to think that people who learned PCT _necessarily_ change for the
better; that an understanding of people as perceptual control systems
necessarily led one to a more human, caring and loving relationship with
other people. I am living proof that that is not true.

Your case aside, Rick, this discussion about the recent explosion on the
net has finally brought to the forefront something I always tried to say
when Bill or you would say, in effect, that if everyone knew PCT the world
necessarily would become a better place. Challenging that idea, I always
came back with the claim that some people would simply become better at
controlling the actions of other people, and some others who learned PCT
would simply ignore it.

The claim that knowing PCT, in and of itself, will necessarily lead to a
person becoming a better person, or to the world becoming a better place,
has a lineal-causal ring to it, wouldn't you say?

Later,

Tom

2

Rick M says;

This raises, for me, the question of the relationship between the PCT
model and PCT applications (which, curiously enough, was the question
before the list before all hell seemed to break loose). I had assumed that
it was important to understand the PCT model (at some reasonable level)
before it could be applied effectively. This may be true and my own

failure

to apply PCT effectively may result from the fact that I don't understand

the

model all that well or, because, even though I do understand the model, I

am

just not able to make use of this understanding to get what I want.

Rick I think you hit the nail on the head here. I think you DO need to
understand PCT, but that understanding does not _neccesarily_ automatically
lead to a productive _use_ of that understanding. I might be wrong, (and if I
am, I'am sure I'll hear about it. :slight_smile: ) but the PCT model says our "actions"
are a by product of error and we are not always aware of the "specific"
actions we are taking to "eliminate" that error. The ONLY way we "know" what
kind of effect we had is by either reflection or by someone telling us. It is
then up to US to modify our goals and or perceptions based upon that "new"
information. "Applying" PCT requires a GOOD understanding of PCT AND a good
understanding of WHAT your trying to accomplish. I do not believe there is any
mystery or voodoo involved.

My experience on the net (and in real life) has convinced me that it is

very

possible that what I perceive as an understanding of PCT is NOT very
important for successful applcations. Indeed, I think it is quite possible
to do successful application that are not based on PCT at all or that are,
at least ostensibly, based on another model of people.

Again, a VERY important point. What YOU perceive is NOT important to ANYONE
else. Only your understanding of what the OTHER person perceives as being
important. is important to other people.

It seems to me that there are at least two possible ways for the PCT
model to be related to applications:

1. The PCT model is irrelevant to applications. The success of an
application is independent of the scientific success of a model.

Scientific success is irrelevant. One must _INCORPORATE_ their _UNDERSTANDING_
of PCT into their EXISTING ways of dealing with others and the methods they
currently use. An example, David Goldstein (a few different posts), in my
opinion, has NOT integrated PCT into his current methods. He is trying and has
tried using various aspects of PCT (The test, method of levels, etc) to give
him a better understanding of his OLD behavioral model. From his posts I get
the impression that he actually believes "HE" can change someones reference
levels and perceptions.

I thought I knew how to utilize the PCT model simply because I understood

the

PCT model. The conflagration on the net over the last week or so shows

that,

even if I do understand the model, I certainly don't know how to apply it.
Now that I think of it, that is precisely what Ed Ford was telling me all
along. It sure looks like he was right!

I think the refelection in this post shows that you CAN effectively apply PCT.
I think the next time something like that comes up again you might "deal" with
it differently and more congruent with what you value.

Thanks Bruce

Marc
<---- Begin Included Message ---->

ยทยทยท

From: [Marc Abrams (950901.1400)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:00:47 -0400
From: abbott@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu (Bruce Abbott)
Subject: Say what?
To: msa@PANIX.COM

Hi Mark,

Marc Abrams (950901.1430)

Please excuse if this is a second post. I replied on usenet and wsa not sure
wether it would've been posted to the group.

I don't know whether it's a repost: it's completely scrambled (encoded in
some way). Here's an example of your attachment:

<---- Begin Attached File ---->
begin 644 PCTANDAP.TXT
M1G)O;3H@6TUA<F,@06)R86US("@Y-3`Y,#$N,30P,"D-"E)I8VL@32!S87ES
M.PT*/B`@5&AI<R!R86ES97,L(&9O<B!M92P@=&AE('%U97-T:6]N(&]F('1H
M92!R96QA=&EO;G-H:7`@8F5T=V5E;B!T:&4@4$-4#0H^("!M;V1E;"!A;F0@
M4$-4(&%P<&QI8V%T:6]N<R`H=VAI8V@L(&-U<FEO=7-L>2!E;F]U9V@L('=A
M<R!T:&4@<75E<W1I;VX-"CX@(&)E9F]R92!T:&4@;&ES="!B969O<F4@86QL

As you can see, it's a bit difficult to understand. . . (;->

Regards,

Bruce

<---- End Included Message ---->

3

[From Rick Marken (950901.0930)]

Some time ago, Chris Kitzke (950829.2000) asked:

Does anyone think one can use PCT to help people change for the better (to
get what they want)?

I think it is certainly possible that PCT can help people change for the
better (and get what they want). I think people who learn PCT can change for
the better on the basis of that learning; but I think they can change for the
better by learning other things besides PCT, too.

I used to think that people who learned PCT _necessarily_ change for the
better; that an understanding of people as perceptual control systems
necessarily led one to a more human, caring and loving relationship with
other people. I am living proof that that is not true.

I think I understand PCT as well as anyone. I have done many studies testing
PCT, I have published papers on PCT and I continue to participate in
discussions about PCT. Yet anyone who has been watching this list for the
last two or three weeks has seen fighting and contentiousness that is intense
even by Usenet standards and I have been one of the major participants in the
hostilities. People (including me) have had their feelings hurt. I don't want
to hurt people's feelings (believe it or not) and I don't want to have my
feelings hurt. So despite my understanding of PCT, I have not been able to
change for the better; I have not been able to get what I want (consciously
want, anyway), which is a rigorous dialog about purposive behavior that is
fun for everyone.

This raises, for me, the question of the relationship between the PCT
model and PCT applications (which, curiously enough, was the question
before the list before all hell seemed to break loose). I had assumed that
it was important to understand the PCT model (at some reasonable level)
before it could be applied effectively. This may be true and my own failure
to apply PCT effectively may result from the fact that I don't understand the
model all that well or, because, even though I do understand the model, I am
just not able to make use of this understanding to get what I want.

My experience on the net (and in real life) has convinced me that it is very
possible that what I perceive as an understanding of PCT is NOT very
important for successful applcations. Indeed, I think it is quite possible
to do successful application that are not based on PCT at all or that are,
at least ostensibly, based on another model of people.

It seems to me that there are at least two possible ways for the PCT
model to be related to applications:

1. The PCT model is irrelevant to applications. The success of an
application is independent of the scientific success of a model.

2. The PCT model is relevant to applications. The success of the application
depends, to some extent, on understanding the PCT model. Even if this is
true, it is not nececessarily true that understanding the model leads to
an effective application; the model may be relevant -- but one has to learn
HOW to apply it.

Marc S. Abrams (083195.2000) is arguing for point (2) when he says:

I think we need to think about how to utilize what we ALREADY know.

I think I agree with Marc here. I think we have to learn how to utilize what
we know (the PCT model).

I thought I knew how to utilize the PCT model simply because I understood the
PCT model. The conflagration on the net over the last week or so shows that,
even if I do understand the model, I certainly don't know how to apply it.
Now that I think of it, that is precisely what Ed Ford was telling me all
along. It sure looks like he was right!

Best

Rick