(Gavin Ritz 2008.03.02.10.15NZT)
Ok where do I post the cheque?
I have looked carefully at the levels, this is what I think.
Categories: is an or-or logic descriptor and I do measure this, but it is
required to be quantified to a time (in months or weeks). This is like
Sequences can also be quantified, this too is a logic descriptor (and-and)
and can be linked to a time (also in months and years), it is like the
ordinal numbering ie a fixed order.
Programmes can also be quantified, this too is a logic descriptor (if-then)
and can also be linked to a time in years, and it's a new level of logic
Linked to a quantified time. This is like interval scale numbering. John
Holland's Echo programme is this type of thinking.
Systems concept is also a level of logic and is called bi-conditional
parallel variables (like if-and-only-if) in parallel. Also linked and
quantified as a time. This is similar to ratio scale numbering. This is like
Systems Thinking methodology logic.
Principles can also be measured, that's what I called internal value
analysis and modelled using a word sort linked to the "error" or what I
called the fundamental formula, I sent you this paper that I measure
organisation capability and human intrinsic values. What can't be measured
here is trust and honesty.
For example I can analyse what level you are using by going through the
logic descriptors of your text in email conversations.
Most times in these emails it was unpacked to a category which is not useful
in the type of method I was asking for. I was not talking about catching
balls or playing music that is at a very low hierarchy level. When
knowledge, discretion, judgements, and decision making is required the
levels immediately pop up to systems concepts, if a further level of
abstraction is required even more discretion is required.
[From Rick Marken (2008.03.01.1120 PST)]
Martin Taylor (2008.02.29.23.03)--
>Gavin Ritz (2008.03.01 14.17NZT)
>What's the point then in PCT then if it can't provide a simple solution
>set of simple behaviours, is it not a theory of behaviours?
>I'm confused with these responses, Am I missing something or have I just
>the limit capability of this theory, if so a lot of work needs to be
Yes, it's been acknowledged for as long as I've been on CSGnet (16
years now) that a lot of work needs to be done on PCT. Conventional
psychology has had over 150 years and thousands of people doing the
research in that framework; PCT has had no more than half a century,
if that, and from single digits to tens of people working on the
I can't think of more than 7 people who have worked on PCT research.
It's definitely been single digits since I've been involved in it
(about 30 years now).
As I said, people made good engines and motors before the science of
thermodynamics was used to make better ones. Skilled artisans of the
job interview will select good applicants for a long time before a
knowledge of PCT will enable good interviewers to be reliably trained.
Good point, Martin. But as you and I know, PCT actually does provide
the complete solution to Gavin's problem (as well as to all management
and human problems; we have even determined the site of the Ark of the
Covenant). But we don't give out these secret for free.
As treasurer of CSG, I give you permission, Martin, to tell Gavin
where to mail the check. Then I'll mail him the solution as well as
his secret decoder ring;-)
Richard S. Marken PhD