<[Bill Leach 950226.20:22 EST(EDT)]
[Rick Marken (950226.1020)]
Is the "one science of behaviour" PCT?
"PCT is great for high falutin', ivory tower discussions of behavior
but when it comes to REAL behavior problems -- problems that occur
'where the rubber meets the road' -- a man's gotta do what a man's
gotta do: reward, punish, threaten, bribe, give ultimatums".
No, that is not what I am saying (or at least intending to say). What I
am saying is that PCT counselors are working with untested extension.
They are trying to fit solutions to complex problems based upon PCT in
largely uncontrolled environments. If that were not enough, in Ed's case
he is trying to get (relatively) large groups of people to use PCT
oriented thinking with respect to "people problems" who, for the most
part, could care less about the theory.
They, like most people, don't want to use precise terms... "Jonny was
'acting up.' -- "Sue was being disruptive." These are the way that
school discipline problems were identified in the past.
At least Ed is getting the teachers to ask the student what they were
doing and how what they were doing is related to the "rules". This is a
start and as just a start it is still likely a vast improvement.
Also, can you explain the difference between where I am and where
"the rubber meets the road". ...
I can tell you what I perceive to be the "difference". You don't deal
professionally with "Momma doesn't love me!" and you do deal
professionally with "simplistic" tracking tasks.
Your work is rigorous, anyone with half a brain "could" duplicate your
experiments and obtain the same results once you have done the work the
first time and documented same. By this, I mean anything but that you
have only 'half a brain' or even that it does not take both a high level
of dedication and intelligence to do what you do. Indeed, it is the
creation of experiements that actually test something useful that IS
difficult. Once that has been done, then just about anyone should be
able to repeat the experiment.
Where the 'rubber meets the road' is where the scientific rigor is not
possible -- where there are too many unknowns and results may be both
vague and delayed (years instead of hours).
Lest I be further missunderstood; It is precisely the sort of thinking
about questions that can not yet really be answered by you, Tom, Bill P.
and others that provide the guidance for others (ie: Ed) for dealing
with specific situations that are currently beyond the technology of PCT.
Understanding control theory itself may be difficult for many and easy
for others. Appreciating the implications of control theory to "common
wisdom" WILL NOT be simple for anyone. It has taken Bill P. forty years
to develop some of his PCT thinking and the process is obviously not
I just didn't want to offend those nice, gun-toting folks in Arizona;-)
Don't worry too much... the way I understand it, most of them 'zona folks
don't like to travel to Californy (or is that Caliphoney? Calibalony?)