[From Bill Powers (2007.06.15.0835 MDT)]
Attached is an intro to PCT for beginners, written for Ed Ford to use
with his RTP program. Comments and suggestions welcome.
Best,
Bill P.
PCTForTheBeginner.doc (64.5 KB)
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.15.0915)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.15.0835 MDT)--
Attached is an intro to PCT for beginners, written for Ed Ford to use
with his RTP program. Comments and suggestions welcome.
When I first opened this I thought you had said "written by Ed Ford"
and I was startled to see how much Ed's writing had improved over the
years since I edited his piece for the _American Behavioral Scientist_
PCT issue. But then, after a couple paragraphs, I could detect (as I
can when I hear an unfamiliar, unannounced piece that Beethoven wrote
when he was 3 years old) the voice of the master. So I went back and
re-read your e-mail and saw that it was written "for" Ed Ford and
realized that I had once again been controlling some imaginations;-)
Anyway, I do have one little suggestion: re-write the whole thing with
a different emphasis. Spend only about 1 page describing PCT. Then
talk about the things that, I would imagine, would be relevant to
people in RTP:
1. How to become aware of one's own controlling. Discuss the
difference between controlling the inanimate and animate world but
note that it is all control.
2. Discuss the control of the behavior of other controllers (animate
objects). Explain when one is doing it and when one is not (classroom
examples would be good). Explain when it's good to exert control over
people (as when parents control a kid who can't yet perceive and
control the world the way they can) and when it's not (when it results
in escalating conflict).
3. Explain conflict: Talk about how all that great controlling we can
do can also get us into trouble with ourselves (intra personal
conflict) and others (inter personal conflict). I think a nice
explanation of how control (good thing) is itself the cause of
conflict (bad thing) would be very useful to people whose job is
really to control other people. So, of course, it would also be nice
to suggest ways to minimize conflicts that might arise from one's
benevolent efforts to control.
I would love it if you would such an essay because I could use it for
the seminar on PCT that I teach at Ucla.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Ted Cloak (2007.05.15.1140 MDT)]
This could prove very helpful. To retain the reader's attention, I'd
suggest that you simply mention and dismiss the three non-PCT models in your
main text, and relegate the detailed descriptions and critiques of them to
an end note.
Besides the change of reference signal occasioned by the approach of the
freeway exit, could you illustrate that occasioned by, say, a child suddenly
darting into the roadway?
Regards,
Ted
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.15.0835 MDT)]
Attached is an intro to PCT for beginners, written for Ed Ford to use
with his RTP program. Comments and suggestions welcome.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Erling Jorgensen (2007.06.15 1400 EDT)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.15.0835 MDT)--
Attached is an intro to PCT for beginners, written for Ed Ford to use
with his RTP program. Comments and suggestions welcome.
I think the main suggestion I might make is a slight change in the title --
"PCT for the Not-Quite-Beginner."
I think this might help the reader position him/herself better for what
follows. It also poses a bit of challenge to be surmounted, which is a
useful rhetorical device in itself.
As I was reading the essay, I was trying to figure out the implicit
audience. I had the sense of an in-house fight, that it was parrying
various critiques and questions that have been raised about PCT. But
of course, it is not usually the true "beginner" who raises such
questions.
It was almost the sense of reading an apologia, which was trying to
pre-emptively steer the novice away from certain plausible-sounding,
but nonetheless dead-end analyses.
I think that is a laudable goal, and a correct one when it is addressed
to a Not-Quite-Beginner.
And if this is the de facto audience, then a couple of pointers or
leading endnotes might be a useful addition. I'm thinking of very general
references to 'other ways of talking about such things'. For instance, the
"calculate-and-execute model" could have an endnote mentioning that some
writers talk about "inverse kinematics" as the form of the calculations,
or an early version called "TOTE - Test, Operate, Test, Execute." Such
orienting notes can help the Not- Quite-Beginner get the lay of the land
in terms of those competing models.
I especially like the distinction you make that some try to give a
"qualitative solution" to a highly quantitative problem. That is a
useful entree to the mathematical allusions, like the need for
"simultaneous differential equations." That, too, could be a place for
an endnote mentioning that the discrete approximations of such equations
-- like using a leaky integrator function -- can give very good
simulations of the dynamics involved.
Anyway, these are some of the impressions I had. I also like Ted's
suggestion of how a driving reference would change from staying-within-
a-lane to something quite different if a child were to run out in front
of the car. That would make the overall illustration stronger, I think.
All the best,
Erling
Hello Bill,
Attached is an intro to PCT for beginners, written for Ed Ford to use
with his RTP program. Comments and suggestions welcome.
It seemed to me, that here's something about teaching, and after Richards
post I got some ideas more. I hope Richard will not mind it.
1. How to become aware of one's own controlling. Discuss the
difference between controlling the inanimate and animate world but
note that it is all control.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree
2. Discuss the control of the behavior of other controllers
(animate objects). Explain when one is doing it and when one is not
(classroom examples would be good). Explain when it's good to exert control
over people (as when parents control a kid who can't yet perceive and
control the world the way they can) and when it's not (when it results
in escalating conflict).>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree, only that I would add some thoughts about means of interpersonal
control (McClelland) specially coercin and force. I think it's good that
people who are dealing with RTP, could recognize what is control and what is
attempt of control, especially when working with young control systems, who
need help in their development.
3. Explain conflict: Talk about how all that great controlling we can
do can also get us into trouble with ourselves (intra personal
conflict) and others (inter personal conflict). I think a nice
explanation of how control (good thing) is itself the cause of
conflict (bad thing) would be very useful to people whose job is
really to control other people. So, of course, it would also be nice
to suggest ways to minimize conflicts that might arise from one's
benevolent efforts to control.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PCT is I think the best theory in schooling children, because it helps
easily recognize the main problem in relation TEACHER - STUDENT (the source
of conflict) and it can in many ways prevent aggressiveness and violence of
any kind in schools. When once recognized, people (teacher, pupils,
students, parents...) who are aware of control, start to act more
humanly...and more peacefull. That's also some of my experiances while
working in project of ESF (European Social Fund).
Of course by my oppinion the most power PCT shows, when we take both actors
of education as equal perceptual control systems.
Hope help something,
Boris
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.15.1610)]
I think it's good that
people who are dealing with RTP, could recognize what is control and what is
attempt of control, especially when working with young control systems, who
need help in their development.
I think it's more important to recognize the difference between what
is control (and attempted control is certainly a form of control) and
what is not. As Bill says in the paper, control occurs when one acts
-- or withholds action -- in order to produce and maintain a
predetermined (desired) result; control is not occurring when one has
no concern at all about the results of one's action (or inaction). If
a desired result is responsible behavior in the classroom and one acts
(or refrains from action) in order to produce and maintain this
result, then one is controlling. If one doesn't care what kind of
behavior occurs in the classroom -- responsible or irresponsible --
then one is not controlling because whatever one does is not being
done in order to produce a particular result
PCT is I think the best theory in schooling children, because it helps
easily recognize the main problem in relation TEACHER - STUDENT (the source
of conflict) and it can in many ways prevent aggressiveness and violence of
any kind in schools. When once recognized, people (teacher, pupils,
students, parents...) who are aware of control, start to act more
humanly...and more peacefull. That's also some of my experiances while
working in project of ESF (European Social Fund).
I'm glad that awareness of control alone worked for you. But if I were
an applied psychologist I would want more details from PCT about how
to know more details about how to go about having a more peaceful
classroom. I would hope that PCT could be the basis for developing
specific, learnable techniques that can be used in order to produce a
more peaceful classroom (and world). I think that the relationship
between PCT and applied psychology should be like that between
Newton's laws and engineering. Just as you need to know more than the
"law of gravity" (objects fall towards earth) to reliably build a
strong bridge, I think you have to know more than the "law of control"
(that people control) to reliably build a peaceful classroom (or
world).
Best
Rick
···
On 6/15/07, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Stefan Balke (2007.06.16)}
Rick Marken (2007.06.15.0915)
2. Discuss the control of the behavior of other controllers (animate
objects). Explain when one is doing it and when one is not (classroom
examples would be good).
I agree, classroom examples would be very helpful!
I would love it if you would such an essay because I could use it for
the seminar on PCT that I teach at Ucla.
And I would use it for the German students and teachers 
An important experience in the work with teachers using the programm is the following. If the teacher (A) knows, that their is an other teacher (B) who cares for the correct performance (e.g. respectful, just and non-punitiv way) of A's work with the program, then the teacher (A) is more likely to care himself for the correct performance. Without teacher (B) teacher (A) tends to create his own rules. And furthermore if the student notices that the teacher (A) does it right, then the student will make efforts to fall into line. That means, everybody needs to have a person, who cares for him.
Therefore it could be useful to explain this hierachical social dynamic in PCT terms.
Best regards,
Stefan
Richard wrote :
I think it's more important to recognize the difference
between what is control (and attempted control is certainly a form of
control) and what is not. As Bill says in the paper, control occurs when one
acts -- or withholds action -- in order to produce and maintain a
predetermined (desired) result; control is not occurring when one has
no concern at all about the results of one's action (or inaction). If
a desired result is responsible behavior in the classroom and one acts
(or refrains from action) in order to produce and maintain this
result, then one is controlling. If one doesn't care what kind of
behavior occurs in the classroom -- responsible or irresponsible --
then one is not controlling because whatever one does is not being
done in order to produce a particular result>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks Richard for your kind critic :), but what I had in mind were troubles
that I had as a begginer and needed quite a time for understanding that I
have to control my "intrinsic errors" and not the "intrinsic error" of
others (specially students) what in fact is happening almost all of the time
in life situations in the form of attempt to control other people. I think
people try to use almost all the time each other for achieving their goals.
And one of most evident case is education. Teachers want to "take control"
over students perceptual control, what I think was many times emphasized
here (by you especially) as impossible. The only one who can control it's
own perception is person herself. So as far as I understood attempt of
controling other people is in fact "not control", because nobody can control
others. It's just an attempt of control. Could be that I understood
something wrong.
So what I have in mind was that PCT shouldn't be only theoretically
introduced, but also with some life sense and most important thing which I
saw in the education was the problem of control and "attempt of control",
which is leading to a possible conflict and violence in classrooms. And main
role of PCT I see in reducing problems in classrooms with understanding the
most powerfull theory right now.
Or as Stefan by my oppinion put it very nicely.
If there is a teacher (A) and teacher (B).
If teacher (A) attempts to "take over the control" of students "intrisinc
error" not only with "life-advices" but in fact in the classroom, by
demanding that students realize his "life-advices" or his way of thinking as
only possible view on the matter (regardless the differences between
students), may experiance many problems and agressive and violent
disruptions in classroom, ........and with knowing that there is a teacher
(B), who understands that children try to gain their own control of
"intrinsic error" and he helps them in doing that, and has practically no
problems in the classroom, "...then the teacher (A) is more likely to care
himself for the correct performance...", so to change his way of teaching.
So I think that here is the problem of cooperation and conflict between
control systems as described by McClelland. The teacher who cares that "...
desired result is responsible behavior in the classroom and one acts (or
refrains from action) in order to produce and maintain this result, then one
is controlling." ....and mybe he is all the time in conflict with some or
all of the sutdents all the time not notecing that he can not control other
people in our case students.
And one day apperas a student-shooter with machine gun and he shows this
teacher that in the fact teacher can not control. They just attempt to, but
in the case of shooter that's not good attempt.
I see no problem in teacher's peacefull attempt to control in the
calssrooms. But I see the problem in the way how they are trying to do it.
If they are using agressive means of control like phyisical violence or
coercin or shouting and yelling or insulting students and so on...for every
"wrong move" of the students, via arguments and kind explanation and help
with methods of learning or solving the problems, then I could say that
teachers who try to control by nasty means, better shouldn't try to control.
"Note that a teacher is not a transmitter or instructor of information or
knowledge, but rather one who provides support to the student...." (Gary
Chico, Without Miracles). In this case I could replace term "transmitter" as
an rather "agressive control system" which is attempting to contol
regardless to the "intrinsic state" of the students instaed of using "A
selctionist-reorganization view of learning" that "sees the teacher as
constantly aware of the student's abilities and continually imposing upon
her tasks that are just a bit beyond these abilities. Assuming that the
student wants to be able to gain control over this new situation,
reorganization will take place until she achieves control....." (Gary again).
If teachers attempt of control leaves much "space" for students to be able
to maintain their "intrinsic error" in limits, they are more likely to
cooperate with teacher and have a "good feeling" in the classroom. I could
say that such a teacher is producing good atmosphere in the classroom and in
such an positive atmosphere students are more motivated to work and the
results are more effective (all the research work shows advantages of such
an approach).
One of the most severe problems in education are different approaches of
teachers, and in the fact not only teachers can compare their work, but also
students compare their teachers and different attempts of control and they
judge who's who or who's "better".
"If one doesn't care what kind of behavior occurs in the classroom --
responsible or irresponsible --then one is not controlling because whatever
one does is not being done in order to produce a particular result".
I think teacher who is "not controling" in this case, in fact controls it
any way but with other means and goals, as one who is controling
"responsable behaviour"...using who knows what kind of methods and means to
reach I think more agressive goal...to totaly change students, to behave
like he wants...The goal doesn't always excuse means.
I think it's very hard to say what's responsable or what is not responsable
behaviour of teachers or students in the classroom.
In both upper cases I see attempt of control, better of worse...BUT AS THE
IBM COMPUTERS SAID IN THE BEGGINING OF IT'S GROWTH : QUALITY IS SATISFACTION
OF CONSUMERS...And I think satisfaction means ....be able to control own
"intrinsic error". So I think students and parents must be on the line too...
Best,
Boris
So what I have in mind was that
PCT shouldn’t be only theoreticallyintroduced, but also with some life sense and most important thing which
Isaw in the education was the problem of control and “attempt of
control”,which is leading to a possible conflict and violence in classrooms. And
mainrole of PCT I see in reducing problems in classrooms with understanding
themost powerfull theory right now.
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)]
Boris Hartman (2007.06.15) –
As I explained, the “PCT for beginners” paper was
intended as a guide for the first half hour of a two-day seminar for
educators, and was aimed only at introducing PCT itself.
Ed Ford, for whom this was written, explains later in the seminar that
teachers “can’t control students” and don’t have to try to do
that. As Rick Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP
program do try to control the behavior of students, that is, their
actions, but in Ford’s seminar they are taught to do this while showing
respect for the variables that the students are controlling, so as to
avoid direct conflict.
A number of years ago there was a controversy in this List over a phrase
then used in RTP, which was “I see you have chosen to go to the
Responsible Thinking Classroom [RTC]”. Of course the student did not
“choose” any such thing. In the seminar I just observed, this
phrase was not used; in fact it was pointed out that disruptions are
normally “unintended effects” of behavior created when students
are trying to control something else of importance to them. The wording
now used is different, indicating only that the rules of the classroom,
which have been discussed with the students, provide for the students’
working out problems in the RTC rather than in the classroom, so that is
where the student goes, or is sent, when there is another disruption.
Students can also obtain “chill passes” at any time when they
want to go to the RTC to calm down or recover from emotional upsets. Some
RTCs maintain a separate private place for this, screened from the rest
of the room. There was considerable emphasis on communicating to the
students that going to the RTC is not a punishment or a disgrace, but
simply an opportunity to work out a problem between the classroom teacher
and the student. After the student figures out a way to avoid disrupting
the class, a negotiation with the teacher follows to see if the teacher
is satisfied with the solution, too. All this seems very reasonable to
me, and in line with PCT.
An indication that the RTC is not used punitively is that many students,
on Parents’ Nights, take their parents to the RTC to meet the teacher,
and alumni(ae) often visit that teacher.
As things stand now, the RTP program is moving toward using the Method of
Levels in the RTC classroom, although it will take a while for that to
become an explicit part of the Responsible Thinking Program. I’m working
on it.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.16.0930)]
And one of most evident case is education. Teachers want to "take
control" over students perceptual control, what I think was many
times emphasized here (by you especially) as impossible.
Then you misunderstood me. Taking control of students is what teachers
are supposed to do. And they can do it. They just have to learn to do
it without creating _conflict_.
So as far as I understood attempt of
controling other people is in fact "not control", because nobody can
control others. It's just an attempt of control. Could be that I understood
something wrong.
Yes, you did not understand me correctly. Controlling other people is,
indeed, possible and it's done all the time. As a teacher you are
controlling for various aspects of your students behavior, unless you
don't care at all how your students behave. Even when I teach college
courses I am controlling for the kids behaving in certain ways, such
as not talking in class. Fortunately, college kids rarely talk in
class so I don't have to do much to keep the talking under control.
But when kids do talk in class I tell them to stop; I act to keep the
unsolicited (by me) talk in class at zero.
So what I have in mind was that PCT shouldn't be only theoretically
introduced, but also with some life sense and most important thing
which I saw in the education was the problem of control and "attempt
of control", which is leading to a possible conflict and violence in
classrooms. And main role of PCT I see in reducing problems in
classrooms with understanding the most powerfull theory right now.
I think this shows why its important to teach more than just the
theory. You have apparently concluded, based on reading just the
theory, that PCT says that teachers' attempts to control their
students is the problem and that, therefore, the solution is for
teachers to stop controlling students. I think the lesson of PCT is
that teachers do control students, that doing this is likely to result
in conflict and that understanding the nature of the relationship
between two controllers (teacher and student) can help minimize the
conflicts that will always arise.
I see no problem in teacher's peacefull attempt to control in the
calssrooms. But I see the problem in the way how they are trying to
do it.
Yes!! Right on. Of course teachers control students, but they have to
be aware of the possibility that conflict emerges when they do this --
education is inherently conflict producing (just look at dialogs on
this net). A good teacher respects the fact that their students are
doing their own controlling. So, as you say, a teacher, who is
required to control the students, has to learn to exert this control
_peacefully_. I think the people in the RTP program learn to do this
in actual practice, but I think they might learn how to do it more
efficiently if they understood that they are controlling their
students, that there is nothing "wrong" with this controlling and that
they have to learn to control "respectfully", in a way that minimizes
conflict. Again, I think RTP teachers learn to do this, but they learn
it in real life, in practive, not from PCT. They are taught that they
are not supposed to control; but, of course, they have to really
control or things would deteriorate in seconds. So they learn to
control without creating a lot of conflict as they go about their
actual business.
I think teachers who learn from PCT that they cannot (and should not)
control students are in an analogous position to that of teachers who
learn from reinforcement theory that they can (and should) control
them. Both teachers control their students with respect; the
difference is that the "reinforcement theory" teacher learns how to
control from the theory and how to respect from actual interaction
with the students; the PCT teacher learns how to respect from the
theory and how to control from actual interaction with the students.
If teachers attempt of control leaves much "space" for students to be
able to maintain their "intrinsic error" in limits, they are more likely to
cooperate with teacher and have a "good feeling" in the classroom.
Yes. Again, this recognizes that the teacher _is_ controlling. I don't
think you can effectively teach people how to control with less
conflict by trying to convince them that they are not really
controlling at all.
Best regards
Rick
···
On 6/16/07, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.16.1050)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)--
As I explained, the "PCT for beginners" paper was intended as a guide for
the first half hour of a two-day seminar for educators, and was aimed only
at introducing PCT itself.
Wow, that's not much time to deal with all the material in your little
intro. I still think the intro you've written is too technical for the
intended audience. I would suggest the following:
1. Start with a concise verbal statement of what PCT is.
2. Include a diagram of the PCT model and explain how it works.
3. Talk about how we control many aspects of our worlds at the same
time, both inanimate and animate (other controllers).
4. Explain how and why conflict results when efforts are made to
control animate aspects of the world (like students) and how it can be
avoided or minimized without completely giving up control.
This would all be done in two pages;-)
Again, having something like this from you, even if it were not useful
for Ed Ford, would be very useful for me in my class on personal
control.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
Hello Richard,
I hope you'll take everything as a trial and error conversation. I think
that's the way how we learn. And I hope you'll understand that we both learn.
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.05.1210)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2007.06.05,20:25 EUST)--
>Martin Taylor 2007.05.06.10.12
>What does "meaning" mean to you?
>That's not a frivolous question. It embodies the PCT mantra "all
>behaviour is the control of perception" as applied to communication:
>"All communication is the control of the perception of the other
>partner".All? Isn't that exaggerated?
I'll say!! This is virtually _never_ true. Communication can't
possibly be the control of the perception of the other partner because
one can only control their _own_ perceptions. You can hope to
influencing the perceptions of someone else by controlling certain
perceptions but you certainly can't _control_ someone else's
perceptions because, in order to control perceptions, you have to
perceive what you are controlling, and you can't perceive someone
else's percpetions. I'm sure what Martin meant to say was ""No
communication is ever the control of the perception of the other
partner". But, then, I can't control Martin's perceptions;-)
Best
Rick
Boris wrote :
So as far as I understood attempt of controling other people is in fact
"not control", because nobody can control others. It's just an attempt of
control. Could be that I understood something wrong.>
Richard wrote :
Yes, you did not understand me correctly. Controlling other people is,
indeed, possible and it's done all the time.>>>>
There is quite a confusion here and many contradictions as far as I
understand. I'm really getting confused.
Bill wrote :
If you understand PCT, that isn't anything revolutionary; it's just a
simple truth : People control their own experiances. The only way you can
truly force them to behave as you wish is through the threat or actuality of
overwhelmingly superior physical force ďż˝ and even that's only temporary
solution, unless you throw them in a cage or kill them>>>>>>>>>>
We see here that if we want to control we have to use means of control,
which are by nature violent. And even that is a temporary solution, only in
the time, when agression is "turned on". I agree with that, because my
experiances show that knowledge which is acquired under "controling"
(threatening) conditions is not worth much. It is temporary as Bil said.
Children soon forget it. Is that the point of schooling ?
Richard wrote :
Taking control of students is what teachers are supposed to do. And
they can do it. >>>>>>
I think that's not the primary role of teachers. I think teachers have to
teach, educate not to "control" if it's not necessary. So most of the time
teachers shouldn't be "controlling".
If you are teaching with your heart and kindness you don't need to
"control". Children feel your warmness, and they become warm in
relationship, because they learn from relationship.
If you are "controlling" they also learn it from your attitude to them. They
become "controller" too and that is usually seen from relationship between
children. They try to control other kids, because "control" is everything
they see. If you learn them to control their perception, they wouldn't try
to control others. They will rather control their perception. I think that's
the main massage from PCT. So I think that you have to use "control" only in
case WHEN CHILDREN TRY TO CONTROL EACH OTHER.
Richard wrote :
They just have to learn to do it without creating _conflict_.>>>>>
"Controlling" students without creating _conflict_...??
Richard wrote :
education is inherently conflict producing>>>>>>>
I think there is contradiction again. I think if you are educating, you can
educate with attempt of non agressive means in communication. If you are
"controling" you are using means of control and by Bill you can "control"
only with force. Children have to be quite, otherwise you will use some mean
of "control".
I would rather say, that most teachers are inherently producing a conflict
with using wrong means of "control"...it's not education itself. Some
teachers are trying not to "control" with threat or reward and punishment if
it's possible. They rather educate. And there are teachers who think that
students aught to be all the time under "control". And I think there is a
big difference between my and your approach.
Where does violent actions of students come from in schools ? Why is there
so much violence in school ? Why is there security in schools ? My answer is
that most teachers are using wrong means of "control", thus learning
students how to behave in wrong way. I think it would be better if teachers
would educate. Children do perceive everything what's happening in schools.
Bill wrote :
Reward and punishment has always been thaught of as means by which one
person can control the behaviour of another...People do want to control each
other....>>>>>>>>>
In schools where "control" is established, there are mostly in use reward
and punishment...and that are means of "reinforcement theory", as far as I
know. Maybe Richard you are familiar only with classical teaching which you
are describing here, and which is by the way very old theory, and stems also
from "reinforcement theory". The bases for "reinforcement theory" in school
is also "control" of other people with reward and punishment. So don't
"accuse" me please that I'm spreading "reinforcement theory".
Bill wrote :
we see that the idea of reward and punishment stems from
misunderstanding of human nature and a desire to control other people>>>>>
I think that "controling" or desire to control is meant as something "not
natural". So think, if "control" is really what you want to do in schools,
you must encount also brutal force and shooting.
Richard wrote :
But when kids do talk in class I tell them to stop; I act to keep
the unsolicited (by me) talk in class at zero. >>>>>>
Richard wrote :
A good teacher respects the fact that their students are
doing their own controlling.>>>>>>>
There are too many contradictions in your writing. You really think that
students who are quite, do their own controlling. Why do you think you have
to make them quite ? I will try to answer that question : because they try
to control something else. To make them quite you have to use means of
attempt of control. You can't really "control" them. Is that a respect that
students are doing their own control.
What you do Richard if they don't want to stop talking...? You threaten them
with punishment...?
How you think students feel after 6 hours listening to teachers like you.
They are certainly not machines or "taperecorders" only to listen and to
answer when they are asked to, and reproduce your knowledge.
Communication aparatus is made for to listen, think and to talk. So let
children do it. Are they human or not ? Why not include students in the
debate, to make them experiance that they are trying and making mistakes. In
the way you describe it, you want too perfectly to "control" your students,
so they would be quite and would think, as you think, duplicating your
knowledge. But beleive me they will soon forget you knowledge, because it
wasn't achieved in natural way : by trials and errors. You are giving them
formed knowledge which doesn't reveal the way you get it. You are trying to
transfer them ideal knowledge, while they are perfectly quite, talking at zero.
I think this shows why its important to teach more than just the
theory. You have apparently concluded, based on reading just the
theory, that PCT says that teachers attempt to control their
students is the problem and that, therefore, the solution is for
teachers to stop controlling students.>>>>>>>
Is this again some kind of yours mean of interpersonal control ? Are you
again trying to promote your idea of "my difficulties to hang on PCT".
Please don't make guesses what I thought.
First of all you forgot that I'm 28 years a teacher in school (children
between 15-20 years old). So I'm not theorizing but I practically do PCT, as
I'm aware of consequences, if I would do the wrong control, when I have to
use it. But mostly I don't have to use it and I'm feeling great. I use it in
my first 15 years of work, amd then I find out about control theory. Now I'm
mostly educating children. You'll come to the same conclusion if you'll have
so much practise.
I think that PCT is enough powerfull theory to help recognize that the main
problem in schools is "control" of other people (children) and that teachers
who "control" mostly do it in the wrong way (threatening, using phisycal
force, insulting students, use reward and punishment....and so on). Why is
that wrong way, we know from PCT, and in this cases teachers should be
taught about responsable behaviour, not students.
I think the lesson of PCT is that teachers do control students, that
doing this is likely to result in conflict and that understanding the nature
of the relationship between two controllers (teacher and student) can help
minimize the conflicts that will always arise.>>>>>>>>
Not just right. But if you decide to "control", don't forget that means of
interpersonal control that teachers use are very important here. Usually
teachers in reward and punishment system (classical "reinforcement" school
system) use wrong means of interpersonal control. And all what I wanted to
say is that I think they ussually use violent means of "control", and that
creates a violent "answer" of students or counteraction. And I think that's
the most important reason why you have so much violence in schools, too many
shooters.
If you really want to see the point of PCT in education (as you once said
that you are not an expert) I would kindly advice you (of course if you have
time) to read or re-read book from Gary Chico : Without Miracles, I think is
Chapter 12 : Education. There you can learn something about various
education strategies and PCT approach. Chico did really a lot on theory on
education field. I don't know how much practice does he have, because I
don't him, but from what he wrote, I could say he is a wise man, with quite
experiances.
I think you will find out there, that "controling" is something that you are
trying to "inforce" into children. You try to "inforce" them your way of
behaviour, your way of thinking through your way of perceptual control. Who
said that your way of "control" is the only right ?
Education is something where you try to enable children to construct their
own knowledge and their own behaviour on their trials and errors and if
possible on their interests. Then you got their internal motivation (not
external) and no "controling" is needed. They do it from the need of their
own perceptual control. But from Bill we know that they do it anyway. It's
the problem whether you are enabling them that, or you are disrupting it
with FORCED disturbances.
Best,
Boris
P.S. And Richard I think you are using our private conversation notes in
this debate. It's not fair, that you are not mentioning what you've already
learned from our private conversation.
I have mentioned when I used your knowledge, for example in baseball catch,
specially when I manage to make a PCT model of "catching" in basebal, of
course with much Freds help and his GAP-ACT MODEL.
And I've learned much from you, I'm not shame to tell that. Non agressive
conversation with you helped me a lot.
Also kind and top-level converastion with Bill is forcing my brains to the
limits, and they are producing miraculous things. I'm greatfull to him. For
example in table tennis. I was really proud that Bill and Martin kindly took
time for me.
Boris Hartman (2007.06.15)
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.17.0825 MDT)]
Rick
said:
I’ll say!!
This is virtually never true. Communication can’tpossibly be the control of the perception of the other partner
becauseone can only control their own perceptions.
“The perception of the other partner” means “one’s own
perception of the other partner” or “the perception that one
believes the other partner is having.” In either meaning,
communication can easily be the control of “the perception of the
other partner.”
Boris said:
Bill wrote :
If you understand PCT, that isn’t anything revolutionary;
it’s just asimple truth : People control their own experiances. The only way you
cantruly force them to behave as you wish is through the threat or actuality
ofoverwhelmingly superior physical force and even that’s only
temporarysolution, unless you throw them in a cage or kill
We see here that if we want to control we have to use means of
control,which are by nature violent.
When I wrote that, I was wrong. Controlling other people’s behavior is
quite possible, and the means of doing it is not always violent or even
unpleasant. Remember that controlling another person means only doing
what is necessary to result in the other person’s behavior being what you
want to experience. If you say “I didn’t mean that, please forgive
me” and the other person says “Of course I forgive you,”
you are successfully controlling the other person’s behavior. What you
said resulted in the behavior that you wanted to perceive from the other
person.
Whether you can control another person’s behavior this way depends on the
other person’s structure of goals. If you say “please forgive
me,” the other person might say “no, you have insulted me for
the last time and I want nothing further to do with you.” Evidently,
forgiving you would cause that person to experience a conflict with other
controlled perceptions, and you will be unable to control your own
perception as you wish.
As long as producing the behavior you want the other person to carry out
does not conflict with any of the other person’s goals, you can probably
control that other person’s behavior as you perceive it. Violence arises
when the other person refuses to generate the behavior you desire, and
you try even harder to get the other person to behave that way. That is
what leads to using more and more extreme forms of action to get the
other person to behave as you wish, with the other person’s resistance
also getting more extreme as necessary to keep you from succeeding. The
violence arises as a consequence of not taking the other person’s goals
into account, and from the other person’s refusal to produce the behavior
you want.
The easiest way to know when your attempt to control the other’s behavior
is disturbing something the other is controlling is to watch for opposing
actions. You can’t experience the other person’s perceptions and you
don’t know what the other person’s reference conditions are, but you can
easily see when there is resistance to your attempt at controlling. If
you want to avoid conflict and violence, you will interpret the
resistance as a signal to cease trying to control. If you understand what
“no” means, there will be no violence.
And even that
is a temporary solution, only inthe time, when agression is “turned on”. I agree with
that, because myexperiances show that knowledge which is acquired under
“controling”(threatening) conditions is not worth much. It is temporary as Bill
said.Children soon forget it. Is that the point of schooling ?
Richard wrote :
Taking control of students is what teachers are
supposed to do. Andthey can do it. >>>>>>
I think that’s not the primary role of teachers. I think teachers have
toteach, educate not to “control” if it’s not necessary.
When a teacher tells a student that a behavior is not acceptable in the
classroom, and sends the student to the RTC to work out a solution, the
teacher is controlling a perception of the student’s behavior. This form
of control can be carried out aggressively and brutally, or with a
minimum of confrontation and hurt. Ed Ford’s program provides an open
framework which everyone understands and which does not attack the
student’s goals, and the student’s experience of the RTC is made as
helpful and uncritical as possible. If a teacher forgets to use the
framework, the students will often complain “You didn’t ask the
questions.” So adhering to the basic structure of Ed’s program
allows all the parties involved – students, teachers, administrators,
and others – to control what is important to them – even each others’
behavior – without denying control of important things to anyone else,
as far as possible.
What has to be remembered in this discussion is that people do not
control their own behavior when that behavior is simply a means of
controlling something else. You don’t care which way you turn the
steering wheel of a car as long as the car stays on the road. So doing
something that causes another person to behave in a certain way does not
inconvenience that person, and may not even be noticed, unless producing
that behavior interferes with control of something else important to the
person. The attendant at an open-air parking lot gestures to you, causing
you to turn the car left or right – but this doesn’t disturb you and you
don’t mind behaving as you are told, because you and the attendant both
want you to go to an empty parking place instead of a full one. If you
start to do what the attendant wants you to do and find you are about to
exit from the parking lot, you would have good reason to refuse to obey.
But if you see open spaces ahead, why should you mind being controlled?
This kind of control of someone’s behavior never ends up in violence
because there’s no reason to resist it.
Violence comes from insisting that others do things that they strongly
resist doing. You don’t need to know why they resist – the resistance
itself is enough to tell you that doing as you want will cause problems
for them. And that tells you that if you want to avoid violence, you
should look for some other way to get what you want.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.0940)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)--
Ed Ford, for whom this was written, explains later in the seminar that
teachers "can't control students" and don't have to try to do that. As Rick
Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP program do try to
control the behavior of students, that is, their actions, but in Ford's
seminar they are taught to do this while showing respect for the variables
that the students are controlling, so as to avoid direct conflict.
So they are taught that they can't control students but that when they
do control students they should control only their actions, not their
controlled variables.
All this seems very reasonable to me, and in line with PCT.
Whatever.
Love
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[Jim Dundon 07.17.07.1317]
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.0940)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)--
Ed Ford, for whom this was written, explains later in the seminar that
teachers "can't control students" and don't have to try to do that. As Rick
Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP program do try to
control the behavior of students, that is, their actions, but in Ford's
seminar they are taught to do this while showing respect for the variables
that the students are controlling, so as to avoid direct conflict.So they are taught that they can't control students but that when they
do control students they should control only their
own?
actions, not their
own?
controlled variables.
I should not control my own controlled variables. Who should, a higher level?
Don't I exist at all levels? If I submit to a higher authority is it not voluntary? In which case I do control my controlled variables. If I don't control my controlled variables I must be a robot!
Best
Jim D
···
All this seems very reasonable to me, and in line with PCT.
Whatever.
Love
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1200)]
Hello Richard,
I hope you'll take everything as a trial and error conversation.
Of course, Boris. It's all trial and error to me;-)
Rick Marken (2007.06.05.1210)--
I'll say!! This is virtually _never_ true. Communication can't
possibly be the control of the perception of the other partner because
one can only control their _own_ perceptions.
Boris wrote :
> So as far as I understood attempt of controling other people is in fact
"not control", because nobody can control others. It's just an attempt of
control. Could be that I understood something wrong.>Richard wrote :
>>>>Yes, you did not understand me correctly. Controlling other people is,
indeed, possible and it's done all the time.>>>>There is quite a confusion here and many contradictions as far as I
understand. I'm really getting confused.
Don't be confused. It's really very simple. I said that I can't
control another person's perceptions. I didn't say that I can't
control my perception of another person. For example, I can't control
another person's perception of a fly ball as they catch it; but I can
control where that person runs in order to catch the ball. I do this
by throwing the ball where I want the person to run, knowing that, in
order to control the optical image of the ball, the person has to run
to get under the ball. What PCT shows is that people can't control
other people _arbitrarily_. I can't make a person run into a wall, for
example, by throwing the ball towards the wall if the person is also
controlling for avoidance of running into walls.
Richard wrote :
>>>>>Taking control of students is what teachers are supposed to do. And
they can do it. >>>>>>I think that's not the primary role of teachers.
I agree. It's just one role.
I think teachers have to
teach, educate not to "control" if it's not necessary. So most of the time
teachers shouldn't be "controlling".
I think you are confusing not acting with not controlling. I rarely
have to act to prevent talking in my college courses (indeed, I've
only had to do it a couple of times that I can recall); but I am
_always_ controlling for quiet in class. This becomes evident when
someone talks in class.
If you are teaching with your heart and kindness you don't need to
"control".
I think that is the illusion under which the RTP people labor. I agree
that kind teachers rarely need to act to deal with things like
disruptions in class. But teachers are always controlling for such
things. It's important to understand that we are controlling even when
we are not acting.
Richard wrote :
>>>>>>They just have to learn to do it without creating _conflict_.>>>>>"Controlling" students without creating _conflict_...??
Right. There will always be the possibility of conflict. What I meant
was that one has to learn to see when they are in a conflict, when it
is escalating and how to reduce the force of their own opposing output
(and, thus, of the other control system's output).
Richard wrote :
>>>>>>>education is inherently conflict producing>>>>>>>I think there is contradiction again. I think if you are educating, you can
educate with attempt of non agressive means in communication.
Yes. But, like controlling, conflicts can exist even when there are no
aggressively opposing outputs occurring.
Where does violent actions of students come from in schools ? Why is there
so much violence in school ? Why is there security in schools ? My answer is
that most teachers are using wrong means of "control",
I would say it's because the teachers are controlling with gain that
is too high. If they lower the gain -- lighten up -- which is what
they learn to do in RTP, there will be less violence.
Richard wrote :
>>>>>>>>But when kids do talk in class I tell them to stop; I act to keep
the unsolicited (by me) talk in class at zero. >>>>>>Richard wrote :
>>>>>>A good teacher respects the fact that their students are
doing their own controlling.>>>>>>>There are too many contradictions in your writing.
Sorry, I do my best;-)
You really think that students who are quite, do their own controlling.
I think you mean quiet, not "quite" and, yes, I know that the students
are doing their own controlling.
Why do you think you have to make them quite ?
I don't have to make students quiet who are already quiet. I only have
to do this if I am controlling for other students being able to hear
what's going on and, even then, I only have to deal with students who
are not quite quiet -- which, as I said, is rare. And all I have to do
is ask the talker to be quiet and I typically get instant (if
grudging) compliance, to the relief of the rest of the students.
I will try to answer that question : because they try
to control something else. To make them quite you have to use means of
attempt of control. You can't really "control" them. Is that a respect that
students are doing their own control.
Of course. What do you do when kids talk in class? Just let them talk?
If so, then you're not controlling for kids being quiet in class.
Which is fine, but I think the talking disturbs other kids, at least
it does in my college classes. So I control for keeping it quiet.
What you do Richard if they don't want to stop talking...?
I've never run into that problem. But if they really didn't want to
stop talking I would just ask them to continue their talking outside
of class. If that didn't work I'd have to deal with things as they
went, trying to avoid turning it into an escalating conflict.
Actually, I did have an experience that required a very careful
response. A student (obviously having a "nervous breakdown") burst
into the last lecture of my statistics course, jumped into the seats
and then jumped in front of the room and started ranting and raving;
this in the middle of a lecture I was giving to about 150 students. I
did nothing but stand still, knowing that if I had said anything it
might have driven him even farther over the edge. He went on for about
2 minutes and eventually left on his own. If he hadn't left, the
campus police (who, to my relief, had been called by my TA) would have
removed him. If there were no campus police I might have probably
waited to see how the situation developed and then gone from there.
But if I were not controlling for anything, like giving a lecture, my
safety and that of the other students, this little mad encounter would
have elicited no reaction at all; it would be just some stuff that
happened (as Homer Simpson would say).
How you think students feel after 6 hours listening to teachers like you.
Bored as hell.
Please don't make guesses what I thought.
So you do want to control something after all! You want to control my
making guesses about what you thought, keeping that guessing at zero.
See, we all do it (controlling, that is). It's just natural;-)
One thing I would like to include in all instruction about PCT Is
awareness training regarding one's own controlling. We all control and
among the things we want to control is what other people do. That's
one of my main gripes about RTP; they are teaching people how to
control for a classroom with kids who behave well (which is great)
while telling people that they can only do it by not controlling.
I think that PCT is enough powerfull theory to help recognize that the main
problem in schools is "control" of other people (children) and that teachers
who "control" mostly do it in the wrong way (threatening, using phisycal
force, insulting students, use reward and punishment....and so on).
Exactly right. I agree completely. The problem in the schools (those
where there are problems) is control, but not because control occurs
(it has to) but, as you say, because it is done the wrong way! That's
exactly what I think RTP should be teaching: they should teach that
teachers are controllers; that you, as a teacher, have to keep your
class under control: but you have to do it the _right way_. And that
right way is based on the recognition that control is inherently
conflict producing. You (Boris), like my son the teacher, rarely have
to do anything to keep your classes under control because you exert
control the right way: you don't use threats, physical force, insults
or reward and punishment. You use respectful discipline (when it is
necessary, which I presume is virtually never).
Why is that wrong way, we know from PCT, and in this cases teachers should be
taught about responsable behaviour, not students.
Yes, I agree. The ones who have to learn to control the right way --
the responsible way -- in the classroom, are the teachers. RTP
apparently does a good job of teaching teachers to avoid the wrong way
to approach discipline -- which is in the ways you describe. I think
it could do a better job of teaching the _right way_. I think that's
where the real value of the PCT model comes in. Anyone with even a
trace of civility knows that threats, physical force, and insults are
a lousy way to deal with other people. The problems with reward and
punishment (which I know are very popular) are more subtle so, to the
extent that RTP shows that this is also a poor approach to dealing
with discipline problems, that's a good thing. But PCT can also help
one understand the right way to exert control: ease up on the gain, be
willing to go up a level in yourself to avoid conflict, etc
>>>>>>>>I think the lesson of PCT is that teachers do control students, that
doing this is likely to result in conflict and that understanding the nature
of the relationship between two controllers (teacher and student) can help
minimize the conflicts that will always arise.>>>>>>>>Not just right. But if you decide to "control", don't forget that means of
interpersonal control that teachers use are very important here. Usually
teachers in reward and punishment system (classical "reinforcement" school
system) use wrong means of interpersonal control. And all what I wanted to
say is that I think they ussually use violent means of "control", and that
creates a violent "answer" of students or counteraction. And I think that's
the most important reason why you have so much violence in schools, too many
shooters.
Actually, I think the shooter problem results from too easy access to
guns in the US (the data on that are overwhelming). There are other
reasons as well, of course, but that's by far the biggie.
If you really want to see the point of PCT in education (as you once said
that you are not an expert) I would kindly advice you (of course if you have
time) to read or re-read book from Gary Chico : Without Miracles, I think is
Chapter 12 : Education. There you can learn something about various
education strategies and PCT approach. Chico did really a lot on theory on
education field. I don't know how much practice does he have, because I
don't him, but from what he wrote, I could say he is a wise man, with quite
experiances.
Gary Cziko is a very wise, talented and good looking man. But I think
he fell a little too hard for the RTP "no control" propaganda in the
"Miracles" book;-)
I think you will find out there, that "controling" is something that you are
trying to "inforce" into children. You try to "inforce" them your way of
behaviour, your way of thinking through your way of perceptual control. Who
said that your way of "control" is the only right ?
No one. But I think that you're not helping the situation by imagining
that you are not controlling when you are. It's easy to show that you
are controlling in your classroom just as I am, and that is not an
indictment of you or me. If kid walked into your class and started
yelling and ranting you would (I am sure) do something to stop it; you
are controlling for having a good atmosphere in class. I believe you
would do this controlling in the right way; but you would do it.
P.S. And Richard I think you are using our private conversation notes in
this debate. It's not fair, that you are not mentioning what you've already
learned from our private conversation.
I guess I really pissed you off somehow. Sorry. I didn't use anything
(at least not to my knowledge) from our private conversations. If
there is anything in what I said that you consider privileged then I
apologize. I haven't looked at our correspondence in what seems like
months.
Best regards
Rick
···
On 6/17/07, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1215)]
Jim Dundon (07.17.07.1317)
> Rick Marken (2007.06.17.0940)--
> So they are taught that they can't control students but that when they
> do control students they should control only theirown?
>actions, not their
own?
> controlled variables.
I should not control my own controlled variables. Who should, a higher
level?
I don't understand your question. My comment was about the absurdity
of teaching people that control of other people is impossible and that
when they _do_ control other people they should only control their
actions, not their controlled variables. What are you asking about?
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
I don’t understand your
question. My comment was about the absurdityof teaching people that control of other people is impossible and
thatwhen they do control other people they should only control their
actions, not their controlled variables. What are you asking
about?
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.17.1422 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1215) –
The basic problem here other than syntax is that “controlling
people” is in fact impossible, just as it is impossible to control
cars and razors and bowling balls. We do not control things; we control
variables. A person or a bowling ball is not a variable. Variables we
might try to control in relation to people are a person’s goals, and a
person’s actions. Control of goals or variables already under control
relative to those goals is not likely to work (even if you manage
to figure out what they are) since that will disturb multiple systems
using those goals to achieve higher-level purposes. Control of actions
can work, as long as the change in action does not cause errors in other
control systems in the person.
So it is not absurd to teach that people should control only other
people’s actions, not their controlled variables. Nor is it absurd to
teach that we can’t control “people” if you explain that this
means trying to control what is important to people and being controlled
by them already.
In explaining what he means by saying you can’t control a student, Ed
Ford explains that you can’t control something that person is already
controlling without causing conflict and resistance. He also points out
that you often can control a student’s actions, since actions are not
important to a person when they are only part of a means of control. I
think that after all these years Ed Ford has attained a reasonable grasp
of PCT, though like many of us he does not always achieve perfect
communication of this understanding.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1420)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.17.1422 MDT)--
Rick Marken (2007.06.17.1215) --
> I don't understand your question. My comment was about the absurdity
> of teaching people that control of other people is impossible and that
> when they _do_ control other people they should only control their
> actions, not their controlled variables.
So it is not absurd to teach that people should control only other people's
actions, not their controlled variables.
That's not what I thought of as absurd. What strikes me as absurd is
teaching a person that it is impossible to control other people but
when you do control them you should control their actions rather than
their controlled variables. Of course, since what is really being
taught is that people can't control other people because it is only
variable aspects of their behavior than can be controlled, then there
is really no absurdity at all. I didn't pick that up from the RTP
literature but it's certainly a good point. But I would suggest that,
in that case, they should also make it clear that you can't control
actions either but only variable aspects of those actions (like their
direction, speed, etc).
I think that after all these
years Ed Ford has attained a reasonable grasp of PCT, though like many of us
he does not always achieve perfect communication of this understanding.
I wish you were as generous about my work;-)
Happy Father's Day
Best
Rick.
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com
[Jim Dundon07.17.07.1923edt]
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.17.0940)]
Bill Powers (2007.06.16.0330 MDT)--
Ed Ford, for whom this was written, explains later in the seminar that
teachers "can't control students" and don't have to try to do that. As Rick
Marken has pointed out, in fact teachers even in the RTP program do try to
control the behavior of students, that is, their actions, but in Ford's
seminar they are taught to do this while showing respect for the variables
that the students are controlling, so as to avoid direct conflict.So they are taught that they can't control students but that when they
do control students they should control only their actions, not their
controlled variables.
When I read Bill's words above yours it cleared things up.
thanks
Best
Jim D
···
All this seems very reasonable to me, and in line with PCT.
Whatever.
Love
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology UCLA
Statistical Analyst VHA
rsmarken@gmail.com