[From Bill Powers (950825.0100 MDT)]
Ft. Lewis was down most of yesterday, so I'm late getting this off.
···
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Goldstein (082225.1110 EDT) --
Among PCTers, the most controversal aspect of the case's
development, I know, will be in the recommendation for medication.
However, all the therapists involved in this case agree that we
should try it.
Well, we've been around and around on this subject in direct
conversations; I've heard all your reasons for using drugs with cases
that don't respond to conventional approaches and you've heard all mine
for trying PCT instead of the conventional approaches. There seems to be
little point in my repeating what I've said so many times before about
drug treatments. I have stubbornly clung to the hope that you, as one of
the tiny handful of psychotherapists I know who understand PCT would
become a pioneer in learning how to develop PCT as the basis for a new
approach. Is it time for me to give up on that hope? The use of Prozak
is an admission that the standard approach didn't work. But if you don't
see it that way, I guess it will be someone else who gives the PCT
understanding of human nature a chance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Marken (950823.2230) --
Rick Marken (950824.1000) --
I don't want to try to control you with praise, but your expositions on
contingencies and rules are the clearest and most direct that have yet
appeared on the net. Also, Joel Judd's (950824.0215 CST) explanation of
the difference between natural and man-made contingencies fits right in.
Especially important are Joel's comments:
There is at least one gross distinction to be made among students
according to maturity--when to insist on following rules "no matter
what," and when to help students understand and (theoretically)
accept rules because doing so can reduce conflict and error.
and yours:
You can probably get away with teaching "the rules that must be
followed" to young kids; tell a kid that the rule is "blacks use
this bathroom, whites use that one" and the kid will have fun
trying to follow it (control for the perception of the rule). But
at a certain point, most people are capable of perceiving aspects
of the world that transcend rules -- principles and system
concepts, for example.
This is the point I have been trying to express: that simply teaching
rules does not address the quality of the rules, or higher-level
concepts in terms of which we evaluate rules for ourselves. At the same
time children are learning the adult-defined rules of their social
environments, they are laying the groundwork for developing a sense of
principles and ultimately system concepts. You can either lead them to a
specific pre-selected set of principles and system concepts, or you can
show them how these things relate to each other and give each child a
new chance to work out a better structure.
The basic problem, and the basic controversy in education, stems from a
conflict. If we just leave children to develop their own rules and
principles, they will come up with random or bizarre solutions or
solutions which have been tried over and over and have failed over and
over (which we can see all around us in people who came from highly
permissive or neglectful backgrounds). But if we apply all our adult
wisdom to make sure they are raised with the same rules, standards and
values that we were raised with, we will be raising them simply to
preserve all the flaws that exist in our present world (as we can see in
people who simply want us all to go back to the old traditional values
-- _their_ ancestors' old traditional values, of course).
The way out of this conflict, it seems to me, is a lot like what Ed Ford
has been doing (as opposed to saying). You go over the rules and try to
pare them down to the absolute minimum that is really needed to make the
social system work, and you try to teach the children and teachers how
to confront conflicts and try to resolve them. The resolution you teach,
to the extent you can, is negotiation, not force; you leave the result
of the negotiation open for the individuals involved to find. You teach
respect for the will of others by trying to _have_ respect for the will
of others. "I detest what you're saying, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.