<[Bill Leach 950225.19:59 EST(EDT)]
NET
I am still wrestling with punishment ideas... (still thinking in terms of
small children)
It seems to me that "punishment" does have the 'ability' to create
conflict and the resulting reorganization activity.
Even the 'sharp NO!' is punishment, yes? It certainly is usually a
disturbance to a controlled perception.
It still seems to me, that prior to the ability to reason or handle many
"higher level" abstractions, punishment is a better way to "induce"
reorganization than the natural consequences of continued behaviour.
In the sort of situation that Ed Ford describes and deals with, some
major reasoning capability already exists and what is attempted is to
provide a sets of consistent rules and consequences from which the child
is allowed to choose.
I see Ed's position as one where he is trying to use PCT to improve
interaction within an environment that has quite limited options.
When I read Rick's questions to Ed, I wanted to reply... almost felt that
I NEEDED to reply but I just could not work out in my mind what it was
that "felt uncomfortable" about Rick's questions. Now, I think that I
have...
In fairness to Rick, his 'stickler' attitude for precisions of expression
is doubtless (to me anyway) a good thing for us here on CSG-L.
However, I think that the point of Ed's postings was missed. As stated
before, Ed is 'where the rubber meets the road'. In the world of
counseling the one science of behaviour is currently able to do no more
than suggest a means of approaching a problem. Even in therapy it is
likely that attempting the TEST will give marginal results.
Ed is dealing in a world where, through various agencies, quite specific
limits are placed upon what children, parents, teachers and
administrators are permitted to do.
Like it or not, we DO have this concept of 'responsibility' that others
will (attempt) to hold us to. This is life as it is. Some of these
'responsibilities' are codified into laws (not saying that they are
necessarily codified very well -- but that is irrelevent anyway). Others
are just "rules" but rules which when 'broken' have someone that has some
ability to force consequences to occur. Children will (hopefully) have
to live long enough to have to deal with this "rule system". Calling
such "responsibility" or "accepting the consequences for the results of
one's own behaviour" is the typical term.
A perception that exists for many, is that in the nation's public school
system (and especially some schools), there is a growing "behavioural"
problem.
What I perceive Ed as doing, is working within the limited "framework"
provided to try to change the manner in which all people associated with
the educational system deal with disruption in class -- discpline
problems.
The previous "you were wrong" or "you did a wrong thing" so *I* am
sending you to the dean (or whomever) is pretty clearly a poor approach
as suggested by PCT. In the first place "you were wrong" or "you did a
wrong thing" both are likely to be a strong conflict. "I was right" as a
controlled perception (as a general concept is probably pretty close to
an intrinsic) will likely control well. In the second place, it deals
only with the "authorities" perception of the behaviour with its
implicity understanding of reference. Experience with PCT certainly
tells us that this is filled with pitfalls.
The what Ed is getting the school personnel to do is to first establish
result/consequence standards leaving as much choice to the student as the
limits permit.
Then next step is to analyze the results of the behaviour in question
specifically attempting to get the student to identify the want(s) that
resulted in the undesired results (undesired as perceived by the
'authority').
The next step is to attempt to have the child reason for himself why the
results could reasonably be perceived by others as undesirable.
Finally, the child is required to formulate a plan to minimize future
"bad" results of the same sort.
In all of this is an attempt to help the child to understand what is
expected and assistance in completing the requirements.
As in all attempts to "control others", this one will have its limits and
its problems. No doubt some children will be able to "control around"
some of the requirement with varying degrees of success.
It seems to me, that the real success of this program of Ed's is the
recognition of the fact that anytime one attempts to 'restrict' the
behaviour of another SOME amount of conflict will exist and that the more
options and influence over the process that the 'weaker' of the parties
is given, the more likely that conflict resolution will be non-violent
(including psychological).
Ed:
No matter if it's at program level (choices), principles level
(standards, rules, criteria) or systems concepts level (values,
beliefs), it [knowing the three top levels] helps to articulate what
you perceive as the possible options or possibilities to those who
struggle to deal with their own internal world of conflicts.
Rick:
Is the "you" you are talking about here the patient or the therapist? I
think you must mean the "patient" since the therapist is not really in a
position to "articulate...the possible options or possibilities" for
solving another person's conflict. Is that right?
This is just not true in the sense in which it is intended (practical use
sense). An experienced person can know many options that a child (in
particular) may not realize even exist. In addition, many adults much
less children are not even aware when a conflict exists much less how to
analyze the possible source(s).
I'm also not clear about why knowing the top three levels of the
hierarchy (I presume you mean the types of perceptions controlled by
systems at the top three levels) helps in resolving conflict. Could you
elaborate a bit?
I hope that he will do so. I believe that close scrutiny of Ed's work
can be quite beneficial to us all -- as long as we remember that he IS
working within some system of predefined limits.
-bill