[From Kenny Kitzke (991130.1700EST)]
<Phil Runkel on Nov. 23 1999>
<I wondered what a list would look like of the experiencing of error at the
several
levels of the neural hierarchy,>
I am obviously quite far behind in reading mail, but I wish you would post
more about this idea and the responses you received. It seems to expose a
weakness in PCT and in potential applications.
For example, the RTP-type question, "What are you doing?" by a teacher to a
student who is kicking a classmate carries a "you got to be kidding!" flavor.
Isn't it a rather superfluous question for student A, the teacher and the
rest of the class when A is obviously kicking student B as hard as possible?
It seems like a rather dumb or at least rhetorical question, even if it is
part of some controlled sequence (process).
My point is that if the question was "A, what is the matter?" or "Why are you
kicking B?", wouldn't that be a more honest and relevant PCT question and
show more sincere interest by the teacher in what A is controlling for while
kicking B?
Same way with MOL. "What does that feel like?" "Tell me more about that?"
These questions are probing the background behind an obvious statement of a
problem. That seems really helpful to the person in conflict. Saying, "I
see you have chosen to go to a quiet place and work out a plan because you
are obviously upset about what your brother is doing about mother's estate."
might not be very helpful.
What I am trying (unsuccessfully, as usual) to convey is that internal error
being experienced is very real to people. A person would seem to be much
more aware of the error than what they specifically want, what precisely they
are perceiving or what they are doing (observable actions). IOW, a focus on
experienced error would acknowledge that PCT deals with something more
readily experienced by people in everyday life than their rather illusive
neural hierarchy of perceptual values of input and reference variables.
"What's the matter?" also shows empathy toward the person experiencing error.
I am wondering if more people would be interested in PCT if it better
explained what is going on when something is the matter with them?
There was a psychologist (David Viscott?, who I think has since passed away)
on talk radio some years ago who dealt with what people were feeling (mostly
emotions like anger, sorrow, low self-esteem, disappointment etc.) He seemed
to produce amazing resolutions for people rather easily and in a short time
by telephone just by asking questions and probing the background of these
feelings (errors) the caller was experiencing.
I sense you have put your finger on an untapped opportunity for PCT to
explore and find methods where PCT could readily help people when something
feels wrong for them. That would get attention in the psychology field,
wouldn't it?
I see others have made helpful comments to your inquiry about the description
of the typical error at various levels of perceptual hierarchy. My main
adder would be this one:
Level 12: Self-concept: I don't like the way I am.
This fits well with your idea of error. Lastly, I had talked to a man who
claimed to be a Phenomenologist a few years ago. He ridiculed the
behaviorist and cognitive psychologist approaches to human behavior as much
as PCTers. I gave him some PCT reference information but never followed up
with him. I have hardly ever seen anyone use that term on CSGNet. What do
you know about Phenomenology?
What you do to entertain yourself has also entertained me. Thanks.
Kenny