Phenomena, APCT, constraints on "personalities"

[From Chris Cherpas (970826.1105 PT)]

Rick Marken (970826.0850) --

I have long felt that the best way to promulgate PCT is to publish
tons of papers describing demonstrations of the _phenomena_ of control.

I think you have to consider the tremendous impact applications can have.
Whether you believe in the long-term efficacy or theoretical underpinnings,
Skinnerians led the way to various forms of therapy, programmed instruction,
certain management techniques, and most obviously a way to work with
retardates and autistics. Now, the test of a science can hardly be whether
it scales up to applications the minute it gets started, but PCT's been
around a while now, while "APCT" (Applied PCT) is seemingly limited at
this point in time (correct me if I'm wrong).

But on a lighter note:
Bill's recent primer made me think that a pop psych/self-improvement book
might be a really good PCT investment. Think about, nobody REALLY wanted to
give up purpose, let alone introspection. There's a lot of interest out there
in self-control, a perfect kind of topic. I recently went through some of those
later chapters in Intro to Modern Psych and was impressed with how easily PCT
could accommodate current cognitive-behavioral therapies and self-improvement
programs that I've read about; however, the book is meant to be a college text
and seems a bit uneven (multiple authors doesn't fit the pop best seller
profile) to launch the APCT wave. Once the pop book becomes a bestseller,
you could get all kinds of serious people wanted to do more technincally
deep applications.

Just to "prove" my point:
My wife the shrink has been considering something called the "enneagram"
as an aid to diagnosis (apparently, patients are always bringing
the latest self-improvement books into her office and she likes to understand
these). I read the book and was amazed at how clearly the nine personality
types or fixations were expressed in terms of opposing disturbances to nine ways
of perceiving. Of course, one obvious question is why (ennea = nine) nine?
If this were just another numerological cult thing, PCT probably might not
have much to say about it that would preserve the mapping to their system
(except maybe why people like numerological explanations). On the other
hand, perhaps there are only so many ways that "personalities" can stabilize,
that certain combinations of higher-order perceptions are simply too unstable
to settle into the organizations of controlled perceptions that are called
"personality." Anyway, I feel justified in pushing for a true PCT pop classic.

But back to the main point: make up a name, like "Bill Powers" (this sounds
like somebody who's probably really into the _powers_ of controlling one's
perceptions) and write the ultimate self-help book! Science, schmience.

Wait. One more spin: Bill _and_ Mary Powers would be perfect. A book
on self-improvement written by a couple is marketing dynamite! With
the extra cash you could open the PCT Institute, start a grad program,
merge with Microsoft... (And the thing is, I'm not so sure I'm kidding).

Best regards,
cc

[From Bill Powers (970626.1555 MDT)]

Chris Cherpas (970826.1105 PT)--

I think you have to consider the tremendous impact applications can have.
Whether you believe in the long-term efficacy or theoretical underpinnings,
Skinnerians led the way to various forms of therapy, programmed instruction,
certain management techniques, and most obviously a way to work with
retardates and autistics.

I withhold comment on the applications of operant technology to humans.

As to applying PCT in the ways you imply, we have to move carefully and
with due respect for the Hippocratic principle: first, do no harm. Under Ed
Ford and Tom Bourbon, I believe the "Responsible Thinking Process" is being
applied that way, with constant attention to what is actually happening
rather than what should, theoretically, happen. Those who install the
program at a school don't just abandon it once it's running; the school is
periodically revisited, for recertification and refresher sessions on how
the method is to be applied. And actual results, good or bad, are carefully
assessed. That process is still on a learning curve.

I would be delighted to see counselling methods developed using PCT. But
this means devoting a lot of time to working out an actual process and
testing it with volunteers who know they are in an experimental program. It
may mean that the people in charge of developing this application will have
to be certified by their states and satisfy other professional
requirements. It means dealing with enough real people to get a sampling of
many different problems with which people seek help, for enough time to
work the bugs out of the program, and with sufficient follow-up to see
whether we have, indeed, done no harm. If anyone thinks that simply
understanding PCT is enough of a qualification to offer help to people in
trouble, think again. If anyone wants to follow another L. Ron Hubbard, go
join the Scientologists.

Anyone who seriously wants to get such applications going can count on me
for help. Anyone who just wants to dabble in parlor tricks can count on me
for vociferous opposition.

But on a lighter note:
Bill's recent primer made me think that a pop psych/self-improvement book
might be a really good PCT investment.

What I have to say about a counseling program also applies to self-help
books. Before you write a self-help book, you have to know what will help
all those selves out there -- not just reason it out in terms of your
personal experiences. You have to work with real people having real problems.

Promoting PCT must always come second to knowing what we're talking about.

Just to "prove" my point:
My wife the shrink has been considering something called the "enneagram"
as an aid to diagnosis (apparently, patients are always bringing
the latest self-improvement books into her office and she likes to understand
these). I read the book and was amazed at how clearly the nine personality
types or fixations were expressed in terms of opposing disturbances to

nine >ways of perceiving. Of course, one obvious question is why (ennea =
nine) >nine?

Is it possible that this is because there were nine levels in my first book?
Who wrote the book?

Anyway, I feel justified in pushing for a true PCT pop classic.

Fine. Are you willing to do the homework?

Best,

Bill P.