PCT Applications

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Rick Marken (950731.2130)]

After being properly chastised by Bill P. for my annoying baiting
of Bruce A. (it must have been really annoying because it even
annoyed me) I was able to go up a level and relax. While I'm in this
momentary state of tranquility I thought I would try to start a thread
on PCT applications.

I think it might be particularly useful to discuss applications
in the context of this operant conditioning discussion becuase this has
probably seemed like a very theoretical discussion that is not particularly
relevant to real life issues. But I think these theoretical issues can
actually be seen to be more important when viewed in the context of
possible real life applications rather than in the context of operant
conditioning experiments. Let me try to explain.

When we argue about what might be the best model of a rat pressing a
lever -- reinforcement, response allocation, PCT, etc -- the argument
seems rather academic -- and it is. The model that "wins" can be counted
as an academic "victory" for the one who proposed it. But when we argue
about what might be the best model of people with problems, the argument
is no longer academic; getting the right models matters to the people
with the problem. If we select the wrong model, we may end up creating
bigger problems than the people had in the first place. If, for example,
we imagine that people operate according to a reinforcement model, the things
we do to solve a person's problems may actually be exacerbating those
problems. And I think there is evidence that this happens when people
diligently try to apply, say, "behavior modification" techniques to "problem
people".

The PCT model says that the nature of people is very different than many
other popular models say it is. The PCT model not only suggests why
human problems occur, it also gives us a new way of thinking about
what a problem is; it suggests, for example, that our own problems
with other people are not the same as the problems of those other people;
it suggests some of the reasons for chronic problems (conflict, lack of
skill) and it suggests various ways to approach problem solution.

When we think of applications of PCT it seems that we often think of
applications to others-- to solve other people's problems or to solve
the problems that those people are creating for us. But I think one of
the most important applications of PCT is to oneself. When you realize
that you and everyone around you is a control system then you are in a
position where you can better understand how you cause many of your
own problems and how your can stop doing that.

At this point, I think it would be nice to hear about how a PCT
understanding of people influences the way one does some "application";
clinical, management, school, etc. I think it would be very useful to
hear how the choice of a specific approach to doing an application
was influenced by the PCT model of people. For example, I know that
Ed Ford's approach to dealing with kids in school is based on the
understanding that the "misbehaving" kids cannot be arbitrarily controlled;
these kidss are doing what they want. So rather than trying to control them
(and creating conflict in the classroom) you simply ask if they would prefer
to change what they are doing (their reference for the results they are
producing) or change their location (to the social skills room). You are
letting the disruptive control system control in a way that doesn't
conflict with the controlling of the other control systems in the class.
Nice, simple application based on an understanding of PCT.

I look forward to hearing about many more.

Best

Rick

2

<[Bill Leach 950801.23:49 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[From Rick Marken (950731.2130)]

Nice posting Rick and a good introduction to the topic issues. Hopefully
it will spur addition thoughts from people whose interest is mainly in
how employ an understanding of PCT in "real life" situations.

I was quite fascinated (and thrilled almost beyond expression) by what I
observed at the conference. I gained a rather compelling perception
while talking with and especially listening to the "applications" people
at the conference that these folks had "first hand", "rubber meets the
road", experience that you CAN NOT, to useful purpose, control another
(except temporarily in mitigating violent acts).

I was equally impressed with the perception that I developed while
listening to others talk about how understanding an using PCT based
principles in dealing with others causes one to see one's own wants and
even thinking in an entirely new light.

Again my perception was that I was hearing "educators" talk about how a
PCT based "discipline" program turned out to so far beyond their
expectations and even "hopes" that they new realized that understanding
PCT AND TRYING TO ACTUALLY USE THE UNDERSTANDING literally results in new
and different view of people and their relationships.

It is really exciting to me to realize that a very small number of
determined individuals can quite literally change to a significant degree
the manner in which individuals "comprising" an "institution" perceive
(and therefore deal with) living control system. This was accomplished
without "belaboring" theory. It was accomplished by applying analysis of
a "problem" and potential solutions using PCT principles. A single
"conceptually simple" problem (disipline) was "attacked" with a PCT based
program where it would be easy to measure and observe the effects of a
new approach.

It is probably too early to say "The first olive ..." but one can hope!

I think that we can all learn from both the success and the mistakes.
Measurement and "feedback" is important in implementing a "program" if
there is to be any chance of success.

-bill

3

Ed Ford (950805.shortly after noon)

(Rick Marken (950731.2130)

Rick, I appreciate your post on applications. Many of us are out applying,
and when we get back to the net, we're overwhelmed by the overload. I was
down in Sierra Vista, Arizona, doing my thing at their school district last
week and this week, I'll be on the Navajo reservation then in Salt Lake
City. August is my busiest month.

I also appreciate your reference to my asking kids What Are You Doing? I've
recently been trying to think through exactly what is going on within a
child's mind and its precise process as a living control system, especially
when it comes to a controled variable (something it took me years to
understand and finally did, thanks to Bill and Tom). I think I had an "aha"
early this morning.
Supposing, for example, John is kicking Bill and the teacher sees this.
She'd say to John "What are you doing?" Now inside John's mind, at the time
of the kicking, his reference level was to get Bill to stop calling him a
jerk and sissy. John hears the various questions being asked by the
teacher. Some children, when questioned by the teacher, set a reference for
not listening, avoiding, etc. John decides to listen and thus has a
reference for listening. When John is asked "What are you doing?", he
focuses his perception on his actions. Then, he is asked "What are the
rules?" followed by "What happens when you break the rules?" When John
thinks through the answers to these questions, he realizes, or becomes
conscious of, the consequence of breaking the rules, which is having to
leave class. This is antagonistic to another reference level, which is to
stay in class. The questioning process moves him to a reference level which
has a higher priority than getting even with Bill in the classroom.

Now, if for John at that time, getting even with Bill is more important than
dealing with the teacher or staying in class, then his prioritizations have
cost him the right to stay in class, thus he has chosen to leave and go to
the social skills classroom. The critical point here is that when I question
John about his actions, I am really getting him to focus on his actions and
how he's controlling and the follow up questions are tying that controlling
behavior to another reference level of greater importance (to him). Thus,
through John's willingness to answer the questions, he's becoming painfully
aware of the conflict between what he is doing and another more important
reference level.

All the questioning does is to help the child facilitate his own thinking
with regard to the various areas in the perceptual hierarchy and the
conflicts that he is creating within this system. Furthermore and more
importantly, the questioning techniques really help the child develop the
ability to use his system to his own advantage. The questions focus on
various areas and as I ask him to compare those various areas, he becomes
aware of the power of using his mind to relieve himself of his own created
conflicts both within himself and within the environment in which he finds
himself. In short, he is learning to think.

Further, as I teach him how to make plans (once he asks for help to make a
plan), by setting measurable goals, creating specific actions plans as well
as creating charts and/or monitor sheets, reviewing through these methods of
feedback how he is doing, and as he succeeds, he begins to gain confidence
in his ability to use his own system to reduce his various conflicts. As he
compares his actions with how he is controlling his various reference levels
and manipulating his controlled variables, he begins to see how his actions
may achieve one goal but interfere with the achievement of another. He
realizes the inter-relatedness of his actions and their effects on his
various controlled variables while at the same time satisfying his many
ongoing reference levels. In short, he is learning how to do the most
efficient job of maintaining harmony within his system while at the same
time achieving his goals at any one time.

I trust I've made myself obscure (to quote Thomas More in Man For All
Seasons). Ed

4

[From Rick Marken (950807.1430)]

Me:

I am not sure I see how the process [Ed's discipline program] properly
reflects the model.

Ed Ford (950807.afternoon) --

I have no idea where to begin to re-explain and make all the connections...
And, frankly, I'm exhausted. I leave in a half hour for the Navajo
reservation, and I'll be on the go for the next four weeks, as I was last
week.

Relax. Have a good time. Maybe someone else can take up the applications
thread for you.

I'm just surprised Rick you never asked any questions before this about the
connections I've tried to make.

Actually, I asked many times, at meetings and on the net. As you know, there
are a number of things you say about the goals of your program that I have
always had difficulty relating to my understanding of PCT. For example, I
have never understood why "teaching responsible thinking" would be an
important goal for a program based on PCT. But I learned at the meeting that
your "discipline program" is actually very simple and respectful of people's
goals; you let "problem kids" chose whether they want to stay and behave or
leave and do pretty much what they want. This gives better control to the
kids who want to learn, to the problem kids who don't and to the teachers who
want to teach. This all seems perfectly consistent with an understanding of
people as perceptual control systems.

But it seems like there might be more involved in your program; that you are
doing more to "teach kids to think", for example. I honestly don't know what,
exactly, you are doing or how the techniques you use are related to an
understanding of people as perceptual control systems. Although this may be
described in your books, I think it' worth discussing this on the net. I
think a deeper understanding of applications can come from dialog about
the relationship between these applications and PCT. And, besides, there were
a number of people who wanted to discuss applications -- so let's discuss
applications.

Maybe the connection really isn't there, but then again, maybe it is. I'm
inclined to think there is.

So am I. I just think it's important to clarify what that connection is.
Otherwise, it seems to me, the test of the "legitimacy" of a PCT based
application could eventually be the willingnes of the developer to take an
oath of loyalty to PCT rather than to make a reasoned determination of the
relationship of the application to the PCT model of people.

Best

Rick

5

[From Rick Marken (950808.0800)]

Avery Andrews (950808.1527) --

My understanding is that it's not any conflict that gets the kids back into
class, but that `being with their friends' is a dominant reference level.

That's fine. The word "conflict" describes a particular phenomenon in PCT:
the interaction between two control systems 1) controlling the same or
similar perceptions relative to different references or 2) setting the
reference for one lower level perception as the means of controlling two
different higher level perceptions. So when Ed said:

That "conflict with wanting to stay in class" is crucial.

I assumed he meant "conflict" in the PCT sense. It would help if
applications and theory people could use the same language.

At any rate, it is the *incompatibilty* between the `kick bill' reference
and the `be with friends reference', plus the greater resistance to
reorganization of the latter that produces the result. Or such is my
understanding.

What the program does is introduce an incompatibility between kicking people
in class and being with your friends.

But this is a conflict in the PCT sense (2); the same lower level perception
("kick bill") is the means of controlling two different higher level
perceptions ("keep bill out of my face" and "be with friends"). You are
saying that Ed's program works because the solution to this conflict is
always a reorganization that dismantles the "keep bill out of my face" system
and preserves the "be with friends" system.

I find it hard to believe that all "problem kids" really want to "be with
friends" more than anything or that reorganization would always converge on a
particular solution to a conflict. But this may be the kind of thing we
theorists learn from the people working where the rubber meets the road;
maybe things are not nearly so complex out there as they appear to be from
our perspective up here in the ivory tower.

Best

Rick

6

<[Bill Leach 950808.00:57 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[From Rick Marken (950807.1430)]

Arg! Here I am yet again getting involved in a discussion at a time when
I should be sleeping...

I agree with you Rick on a number of points. In the first place, as you
stated many have wanted "applications" discussion here on the list.

Ed's work is an excellent choice since there are few that would doubt
that his work is considered to be PCT related.

Lee Edna made the point at the conference (I think) that it is vital to
understand the link between the theory and the "program". This link is
vital because all programs will require changes with circumstance (and
will get changed whether needed or not anyway) so it is necessary to
understand the basis from the standpoint of the theory for why things are
done in a particular way.

Finally, with Ed's work, it is not necessary for Ed to personally examine
and discuss every point since several people are very knowledgeable about
his programs to keep us from getting too far afield.

I would suggest that "teaching responsible thinking" is not a single
purpose phrase. "Responsible thinking" is, like "good behaviour",
something that almost everyone will agree is "good" and "important" but
no one can really define. It is then, in effect, a slogan.

It is also a lable for an experience that is equally difficult to define.
Kids finding themselves in an environment where they are not "punished"
for their disruption but rather are asked to think about what they want
and how their attempts to get what they want might affect others need and
deserve a handy lable. This is something that few adults much less
children encounter.

Additionally it might be a bit of "sales propaganda". The idea of
"Teaching Responsible Thinking" is something that the most recalcitrant
teacher should have trouble rejecting. Would you want to be know to your
peers as the teacher that opposes teaching responsible thinking?

I personally still wish that I could have some experience with Ed's
program first hand. I feel that kids have a great ability to learn to
"manipulate" situations and people. It is however, not inconceivable
that with Ed's program that it doesn't really matter as long as the
"staff" stick with the methods. I sorta feel that while kids might "use"
the system for awhile, if enough people in the system are "genuine" that
most of the "users" will learn the "positive side" of interacting
honestly with honest people and thus "come around". Of course such a
thought might be no more than "wishful thinking".

Of course specifically with respect to Ed's program, my own belief is
that the change that really matters is NOT with the kids but rather with
the staff, the authority. It is my opinion that there has been little
wrong with the "problem kids" except for the arbitrary, often irrational
and usually decidedly authoritarian environment that they experience.

Providing an environment where talking about being responsible is backed
up with a program where the "responsibility" for learning and "following
the rules" truely IS left up to them is bound to have a beneficial effect.

Ed has stated many times; that rules exist, people exist having both the
will and the necessary force to inforce the rules. Thus, the question as
to whether the rules are "good/bad", "sensible" or "ridiculous" is in
some aspects irrelevant.

For a child (or adult for that matter) to "control successfully" requires
an understanding of the rules in effect (formal or otherwise) and how to
achieve one's goals inspite of rules and their potential enforcement.

It is, I think, important for a child to learn to evaluate rules based
upon alleged goals. They need to learn both that some rules that might
seem restrictive actually protect them in the "long run" as well as the
idea that many rules are very arbitrary and in no way are related to the
goal that they are alleged to support.

As I see it, a part of what Ed is teaching is that one must learn to deal
with the world as it is even if or maybe especially if one wants to
change that world. Not many people are particularly influencial from
prison.

As in ANY application of PCT to specific behaviour issues, one must have
specific goals in mind for it is from the goals that PCT can be used to
guide one in forming the methods and practices that will be consistant.
Ed can of course comment upon my suggestions concerning the goals that I
think that he might have had in mind in the design of his program:

1) Violent conflict between any persons is undesireable.
      From experience and PCT:
    a) Conflict can not be resolved from the level of the conflict
        without violence.

    b) Control systems with incompatible goals will experience conflict.

2) All of "society" have "rules" that will be enforced.
    a) A control system must learn to achieve what it wants in the
        presence of rules.

    b) Without thought, even a single control system may create goals
        for itself that are by their own nature not compatible.

I will add that possibly Ed also took some things on "faith":

1) Humans are "social" creatures and have a strong desire to be
    together.

2) Most people's wants are not intrinsically damaging to others.

3) Though "billed" as a discpline problem solution, Ed "knew" that the
    effect upon TPTB would be as if not more dramatic than the effect
    upon the "discipline problem kids."

-bill

7

[From Rick Marken (950808.2150)]

Bill Leach (950808.00:57) --

Would you want to be know to your peers as the teacher that opposes
teaching responsible thinking?

You bet! And I would be happy to give lectures (for hugh sums of
money) on why teaching "responsible thinking" can only lead to
conflict. Guest lectures would be given by students of some history's
most effective teachers of responsible thinking -- Mao, Stalin, and Joe
McCarthy.

Phil Runkel (950808) --

Some kinds of action--or more accurately, some ways to choose goals
for action--seem to me suitable illustrations of how one might have
PCT in mind when doing so even though the person who demonstrated the
choice to me knew nothing about PCT.

No question. A perfect example lives right here in the house with me.
My wife is a great parent because she is a natural control theorist. Her
goal has always been to see the kids control, not to see them behave in
particular ways. She has shown an incredible ability to lovingly and
respectfully nuture their ability to control; she has never played
"contingency" power games with them in order to get them to behave
the way she wants. Linda applies control theory as well as anyone I
know -- and yet she doesn't think she understands PCT.

Not everyone parents like Linda; my own parents certainly didn't. I
would venture to guess that a hefty proportion of parents are far more
interested in controlling their kids (seeing them behave in particular
ways) than in seeing their kids control. These are the parents (and
kids) who would benefit from explicitly being taught control theory.

Avery Andrews (950809.1206) --

So I conjecture (yet again ! ...) that a crucial feature of the program is
minimal reliance on exercises of fo>actual properties of the kids'
reorganization systems.

Before we start speculating about why the program works I think it
might be nice to know what it is that "works" about the program. Are
the grades of the kids who stay in class going up? Are the grades for all
the kids going up? Are the "problem" kids returning to class and
participating without problems? How is the success of the program
evaluated?

I am under the impression that the program led to improved
performance in class -- but I am not sure how many of the "problem
kids" returned to class as "non-problem kids". If a significant number
(all?) problem kids eventually return as cooperative, non-disruptive
students, then I'd go along with your explanation; I would also suggest
that this program immediately be adopted world-wide.

Best

Rick

8

[Avery Andrews 950809.1500]
(Rick Marken (950808.2150))

>Before we start speculating about why the program works I think it
>might be nice to know what it is that "works" about the program. Are
>the grades of the kids who stay in class going up? Are the grades for all
>the kids going up? Are the "problem" kids returning to class and
>participating without problems? How is the success of the program
>evaluated?

Right.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

9

[From Rick Marken (950809.1200)]

Joel Perkin (950809.0945 EDT) --

Hi Joel. Welcome to csg-l and thanks for contributing some first hand
insights into the discussion of PCT applications.

What Ed's plan teaches kids is that there are alternate actions, different
*choices* they can make, that will still satisfy their perceptual level.

This is an excellent aspect of Ed's program and it is completely consistent
with PCT. It recognizes that the problems created by "problem kids" are side
effects of their efforts to control their own perceptions. The important
thing, it seems to me, is for the teacher to make it clear that s/he
respects the kid's goals ("perceptual levels"); once the kid sees this
respect, he or she might be more willing to try alternate means of achieving
these goals -- means that don't interfere with the perceptions that are being
controlled by other kids.

That's why the question, "What were you doing?" is always asked first.
And it is asked again until the student chooses to comply or receives the
consequence of being sent to the time-out room.

But this is just the SOS (same old shit) isn't it? Comply (do what I want)
or get the consequences. PCT is about helping kids control, not about helping
teachers control kids.

But most of the rules *are* what John wanted and agreed to earlier in the
year.

It appears that John changed his mind, then. Is there something wrong with
changing one's mind? Sounds like the SOS again.

responsible thinking is the willingness and ability to follow set rules and
standards

The only rules and standards a person can ever follow willingly are one's
own. That's why I don't like the phrase "teach responsible thinking"; people
can't help but think responsibly if they are control systems. So it is really
unnecessary to "teach responsible thinking"; that's just the way control
systems work.

When you say "responsible thinking is the willingness and ability to follow
set rules and standards" it is clear that you want to teach kids to follow
the rules and standards that YOU have set or that you accept. If the kids
don't behave this way, they "suffer the consequences";hat is, you want to
control the kids -- getting them to behave "according to the rules". This is
NOT consistent with PCT -- not because there is anything wrong with the rules
and standards. It's inconsistent with PCT because getting people to behave
according to ANY rules and standards involves controlling those people;
and the result of controlling people is conflict.

If there is no conflict between your mother and the kids in her class, then
it's because she is not really "teaching responsible thinking" (ie.
controlling the kids) or becuase the kids are pretty clever about staying
out of trouble (avoiding getting the "consequences").

Ed's system doesn't sound like the system in which I was taught in
schools. There I had no choice over consequences.

Yes. What I like best about Ed's program is that it gives students a choice.
More important, it doesn't require the teacher to try to control the "problem
student". The teacher can just be there for the kids who want to learn.

Bill had some good points about Ed's system sounding like the old system.
But all doubts about the PCT validity of the method will be laid to rest
once the method is seen in use.

I think that was Bill's point: Ed's program is most likely completely
compatible with an understanding of people as perceptual control systems. But
many of the things he SAYS about his program sound very much like the SOS.
I think Bill was suggesting that it would be nice if the applications people
gave a clear (rather than a mixed) message; they should try to describe what
they are actually doing rather than describing the SOS.

Best

Rick

10

[From Rick Marken (950812.1900)]

Hank Folson (950812) --

In glancing at the posts between Ed Ford, Rick Marken and Bill
Powers, it appears to me that Ed is unlikely to post on applications for
much longer.

I don't think that's true; I bet Ed will start posting on applications as
soon as he gets back. Why not?

Whatever Rick and Bill are controlling for in their posts seems to me
to be in conflict with whatever Ed is controlling for in his posts.

I think there is some conflict in any discussion. If there were no
conflict, there would be no discussion; people would just silently nod
in agreement (and nodding doesn't make for very interesting discussions,
especially on the Internet).

achieving his [Ed's] goal [of helping kids] requires that large numbers
of kids who are independent living control systems develop goals
compatible with Ed's.

I think Ed would strongly (and rightly) disagree with this; Ed's goal of
helping kids does _not_ require that the kids develop goals compatible
with his own.

When Ed sees results, though, they are validated independently by
all these people.

This is an interesting point. I have heard that Ed's system works
because it is based on an understandng of PCT. I have also heard that
Reality Therapy practitioners do not understand PCT. The implication
is that Ed's system works because it is based on an understanding of PCT
and the Reality Therapy system doesn't work becuase it is _not_ based on such
understanding. Yet, I have met independent practitioners of _both_ systems
and they _all_ validate the results of their system. I've never heard of any
Reality Therpists complaining becuase there system doesn't work.

Assuming that everyone is telling the truth, it seems to me that there
are two possible explanations of this phenomenon:either Reality Therapists
really _do_ understand PCT or it is not necessary to understand PCT in order
to "get results".

I think this would be a good topic for a discussion of PCT applications:
how do you "validate the results" of a program? Some programs clearly
work in some ways but fail in others; didn't Mussolini get the trains to
run on time and didn't Hitler fire up the German economy?

I suggest that practitioners can help by stating why they are posting
and what sort of or level of discussion they want to engage in.

Sounds like an _excellent_ suggestion; I second that emotion.

Best

Rick

11

From Phil Runkel on 21 Aug 95.
        In reference to Rick Marken' post of 12 Aug 95 about PCT
application, especially the point about validating a program (such as Ed
Ford's).
        Oh, friend, I hope we are not going to get into a technical
discussion of validity, program evaluation, and all that. There are
shelves in the library full of books on those topics. There are graduate
courses. There are arguments in the journals about the _right_ way to do
it. And so on. There are a few paragraphs about criteria of
effectiveness of an organization (which for our purposes here is the same
as a program) on pages 158-159 of "Casting Nets". Most writers on these
topics stumble because they do not understand about individual purposes
and ways to coordinate them. They blather on about "the purpose of the
program."
        But even if you think you can recognize "Program X" when you see
it (and the literature on that is about the size of the literature on
recognizing UFOs) and even if the program seems to be answering
_somebody's_ purpose, the question of the kind of evidence others will
accept for that claim is a question continually argued about.
        A lot of the argument, as you might suppose, is about whether the
program is _really_ such-and-such and whether the outcome _really_
matches the criterion and similar non-ascertainable matters.
        When I hear about a program that sounds interesting, I try to
find out whether the purposes those people have are anywhere near mine
and whether the things they do that they think bring the results they
like are things I would be willing to do, and if I am still optimistic, I
try something of it to get a taste of how it suits me, and so on. What
is "valid" for some people doing something in some place at some time is
not necessarily "valid" (I once thought I knew what that word could mean,
but I don't now) for other people doing something maybe like it at
another place and another time.
        Well, that's enough of that.
        Happy August 21.