Purpose

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
21

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1532) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.18.1120)]

Who has said or even implied that "behavior " is unimportant or less

important

in the model than perceptions? I think "behavior" is the term we use to
describe the general phenomenon we want to explain: what organisms do.

Yes, I agree, and herein I believe lies a problem. behavior is a phenomena
"produced" by the model, just like perceptions are both a model entity and a
phenomena "produced" by the model. We often talk as if all of these words
( i.e. Perceptions, the model entity, and perceptions the model phenomena )
represent the same things, they don't, they come close, but that only seems
to count in the game of horse shoes. This is one of the reasons I was
pushing for a lexicon.

When we move our lower jaw, lips, and tongue we do not necessarily produce
words. When we perform these actions and do produce words they are produced
with _intent_. Words can be used to hurt someone just as effectively as
hitting them with a fist, the intent might not be any different.

According to PCT, behavior is an observable consequence of the process of
controlling perceptions. I don't think the relative "importance" of

perception

vs behavior has ever come up.

It's implied in the slogan "It's all perception. You can't tell what someone
is intending by watching their behavior". This at best is a half-truth,
and I believe very misleading. I believe we can perceive intent in many
instances. But it is not _sufficent_ to use actions alone in some instances.
Both PCT and Argyris say this. Although at times it is very _efficent_ to
use actions alone. When we need to reduce error, we reduce it in the most
_efficent_ not necesarily the most _sufficent_ manner.

How's that? I have never thought in terms of perception being more

important

than behavior, or vice versa.

We often don't think about how someone else might perceive something we
intend to mean something else. You are not alone. Everyone does it. The key
words here are; "I have never...". That does not mean others have not as
well. That's why it is sometimes useful to try on someone else's hat (i.e.
view ) on. This being a possible case in point.

Why do you think we overplay the importance of perception vs. behavior?

I think I have stated my case above. Did I make myself understandable?

> They are both important aspects of the model.

That's certainly true.

Yes, I really didn't think you thought otherwise. I think you were unaware
of how others might have perceived your notion of "It's all perception".

Marc

22

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.18.1650)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1532)--

behavior is a phenomena
"produced" by the model, just like perceptions are both a model entity and a
phenomena "produced" by the model. We often talk as if all of these words
( i.e. Perceptions, the model entity, and perceptions the model phenomena )
represent the same things,

Do you mean we do this when we say they are all perceptions? If so, I can see
how this could be confusing to newcomers. I'd wait on explaining that "It's all
perception" until a person had a good understanding of the variables and
functions in the model and how the behavior of these variables is presumed to
relate to actual observed behavior.

When we move our lower jaw, lips, and tongue we do not necessarily produce
words. When we perform these actions and do produce words they are produced
with _intent_.

Do you mean movements of the jaw, for example, are produced with intent only if
they are used to produce words? Or do you mean that when we move the jaw in
order to produce words the words are produced with intent? I think most
behavior, such as moving the jaw, is both an action and an intended result of
action. We can move the jaw in a particular way (by tensing facial muscles, the
action that produces this result) so that jaw movement is an intended result,
protected from disturbance. We can also move the jaw as the means of producing
different word sounds, so the jaw movements are actions that contribute to the
production of the intended sounds and the protection of these sounds from
disturbance. The hierarchical model of PCT explains how jaw movements can be
both actions and intended results of action at the same time.

> I don't think the relative "importance" of perception
> vs behavior has ever come up.

It's implied in the slogan "It's all perception.

I don't think that is an intended implication of that slogan. All the slogan
means (to me) is that everything we experience, including other people's
behavior, is a perception. But I do agree that the "It's all perception" slogan
could be very misleading to someone who doesn't understand the model (and it's
relationship to behavior) pretty well.

You can't tell what someone is intending by watching their behavior".

Again, that's not really intended to mean that perception is more important
than behavior. It's intended to call attention to the fact that you can't
really tell what a person's behavior is about -- what they are doing -- without
knowing what perception(s) they are trying to control for. It's meant to call
people's attention to the fact that, in order to understand behavior, you
really have to look at behavior from the point of view of the behaving system.

I believe we can perceive intent in many instances.
But it is not _sufficent_ to use actions alone in some instances.

How do you know when looking at a person's actions is a sufficient way to
determine their intent? I think PCT suggests that it never is.

>Why do you think we overplay the importance of perception vs. behavior?

I think I have stated my case above. Did I make myself understandable?

I think so. I think you believe we overplay the importance of perception by
saying things like "It's all perception" and "You can't tell what a person is
doing by looking at what they are doing". If this is right, then I think you
have a point. It's not wise to try to teach PCT using slogans. But I think
it's also not wise to try to learn PCT that way, either.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

23

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.18.1734 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1532)--

>We often talk as if all of these words ( i.e. Perceptions, the model
entity, and >perceptions the model phenomena ) represent the same things

I don't and never have. Ditto for Rick, and many others on the net. Don't
assume that just because an idea is new to you, it's new to everyone else.

>Words can be used to hurt someone just as effectively as
>hitting them with a fist, the intent might not be any different.

However, it's a rather serious mistake to assume that every effect one
experiences from someone else was intended. Children do this -- if Mommy or
Daddy slips and hurts the child, children can think that the hurt was a
punishment, and ask what they did wrong. But when adults continue to make
similar assumptions, they are flirting with some grave misinterpretations.

The easiest way to discover someone else's intent is to do something to
frustrate what you think is the intended effect. If the person changes his
behavior so as to have the same effect again, you may have some grounds for
saying the effect was produced on purpose. There could still be some other
explanation, but one thing is sure: if the other person does not do
anything to continue producing the same effect, it was most probably not
done purposively.

>It's implied in the slogan "It's all perception. You can't tell what someone
>is intending by watching their behavior". This at best is a half-truth,
>and I believe very misleading.

I wish we could put this term "behavior" in the garbage can where it
belongs. I don't know, in the above paragraph, whether you mean "action" or
"perceptual consequence of action", which are the two ways we use the word
behavior. You certainly can't tell what someone is intending by watching
their actions. It is a lot more informative if you pay attention to
consequences of their actions that they might be perceiving, and that are
repeatedly stabilized against disturbances by their actions. In fact
without the latter sort of information, there is no way in the world you
can deduce intention from action.

If you understand "behavior" to mean "action," the second part of the
slogan is obviously (to me) true. As to everything being perception, name
me something you know about, anything at all, that's not a perception. In a
way, the motto explains itself: if you're aware of it, it's a perception by
definition. That's how we use the word perception in PCT.

>I believe we can perceive intent in many instances.

I say we can't. Without the systematic process of the Test for the
Controlled Variable, we can only imagine it. Give me an example that isn't
simply an instance of applying the Test.

> But it is not _sufficent_ to use actions alone in some instances.

I don't know what you mean by "use action alone." Something you were
thinking never got written down. The Test, of course, does not consist of
using action alone.

We often don't think about how someone else might perceive something we
intend to mean something else. You are not alone. Everyone does it. The key
words here are; "I have never...". That does not mean others have not as
well. That's why it is sometimes useful to try on someone else's hat (i.e.
view ) on. This being a possible case in point.

This is quite true; how other people experience our words and other actions
is unknown to us, though we try to guess. However, one person is not
responsible for another's feelings. This does not mean that one person
can't care about another's feelings, but that each person causes his own
feelings by how he intends to act, so that nobody else can do much about
them. Your feelings are caused primarily by your own intentions (including
intended defenses), not by what others say and do.

I don't want this to be taken as meaning that we should never adjust our
own words or acts to spare the feelings of someone else. A person who has
bad feelings as a part of a response to our actions may be responsible for
them, but they are there and they are painful however they were caused.
Most people do not enjoy seeing others, especially friends, in pain. I
don't. So often I will curb my tongue and hold back the remark that is
likely to arouse a defense, because I can predict what the other person
will do, and how that person will feel as a result of doing it.

However, I do not treat other people's pain as more important than my own,
and when my own pain level rises sufficiently to lead me to a defense of my
own, I will put my comfort first. In that case, it is futile to tell me I
am causing pain on purpose. The pain I cause may be a side-effect of my
actions, but it is not the purpose of the actions. However, it is true that
in such a case I rate the other person's pain as less important than my
own, so I will not often cease my defense just to spare another person some
figurative pain.

Have I read your post correctly, or am I speaking into a vacuum?

Best,

Bill P.

24

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1847) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0518.1714)]

Strictly speaking, the model does not produce phenomena, the model
predicts that phenomena will be observed in the "real" world. When these
predictions are born out, the model is validated. When they are not, the
model needs more work. At least that's the way I see it.

Yes, The model does not "produce" anything. It predicts it. Thank you for
the adjustment. That's why I put the word "produce" in quotes.

Marc

25

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.2039) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.18.1650)]

Do you mean we do this when we say they are all perceptions? If so, I can

see

how this could be confusing to newcomers.

What I am saying is that some people might perceive it that way, yes.

I'd wait on explaining that "It's all perception" until a person had a good

understanding of the variables and

functions in the model and how the behavior of these variables is presumed

to

relate to actual observed behavior.

I tend to agree. How do you suggest we do this?

> When we move our lower jaw, lips, and tongue we do not necessarily

produce

> words. When we perform these actions and do produce words they are

produced

> with _intent_.

Do you mean movements of the jaw, for example, are produced with intent

only if

they are used to produce words?

Of course not. But when you do produce words, there is intent behind all the
movement that helps produce those sounds.

Or do you mean that when we move the jaw in
order to produce words the words are produced with intent?

Yes. When we intend to produce words, we are usually successful. Not 100% of
the time, but most of the time (laryingites, being a case where you can't )

I think most behavior, such as moving the jaw, is both an action and an

intended result of

action.

Yes. I agree. What are we speaking of when we speak of behavior in the
model. In my mind the "intended" result is the phenomena predicted by the
model. The "action" is the model entity derived from the output function.

We can move the jaw in a particular way (by tensing facial muscles, the
action that produces this result) so that jaw movement is an intended

result,

protected from disturbance.

Yes, and not necessarily produce words. In that case the action and intended
result would be the same.

We can also move the jaw as the means of producing
different word sounds, so the jaw movements are actions that contribute to

the

production of the intended sounds and the protection of these sounds from
disturbance.

yes, and this is an example of both an action and intended result. I call
intended results," model phenomena" ( i.e. predicted model behavior/action )

The hierarchical model of PCT explains how jaw movements can be
both actions and intended results of action at the same time.

Sure does. Now why don't we explain it this way?

I don't think that is an intended implication of that slogan.

I emphatically agree with this. By trying to differentiate PCT from other
theories, I think we may have gone a little overboard. I'm just as guilty as
anyone. This is not a Bill, Rick thing. We spend so much time trying to show
how we are different we tend to focus in on the things that make us
different. I think it becomes so automatic we tend to lose sight of it. This
hit me recently when I gave Bill's book to a practicing Psychological Social
worker friend who I thought might benefit. He gave it back and said he
couldn't "get-into-it". I was baffled. I couldn't understand what he didn't
"get". After some reflection I realized it was me who didn't, or wasn't
"getting" something. The question became, what was he seeing that I wasn't?
I went back to the book and there it was in the first chapter, in the first
page, in the first paragraph. Wearing a neophytes hat , can you see what I
see? Did Bill intend to be so emphatic? Probably yes, but not in the way
this person and I might have interpreted it. Bill was trying to make a
statement right out of the box to say; "Look folks, this not your run of the
mill, everyday BS that your used to, this is about ......

Making Sense of Behavior: The Meaning of Control

Chapter 1

In which we explore a closed circle of causation that is involved in all
control processes.

Controlling

Perceptual Control Theory is about controlling. It's not about responding to
stimuli, or planning actions and then carrying them out; it's not about
effects of traumatic incidents on later behavior; it's not about particular
things people do under particular circumstances. It's not about attitudes or
habits or beliefs or tendencies. It's not about predicting. It's just about
one kind of behavior that we can see people carrying out, called
controlling.

All the slogan means (to me) is that everything we experience, including

other people's

behavior, is a perception.

Me too. But, I can see how others might think we are minimizing the
importance of behavior. Again, take a long hard look at that paragraph.

But I do agree that the "It's all perception" slogan
could be very misleading to someone who doesn't understand the model (and

it's

relationship to behavior) pretty well.

Ok, any suggestions?

Again, that's not really intended to mean that perception is more

important

than behavior. It's intended to call attention to the fact that you can't
really tell what a person's behavior is about -- what they are doing --

without

knowing what perception(s) they are trying to control for. It's meant to

call

people's attention to the fact that, in order to understand behavior, you
really have to look at behavior from the point of view of the behaving

system.

Yes, and perceptions are part of the system. So are actions. It is the
intended actions that most people focus in on.

How do you know when looking at a person's actions is a sufficient way to
determine their intent? I think PCT suggests that it never is.

I agree. Take another look at my statement below. I said looking at someones
actions is not sufficent alone. I said it is sometimes _efficent_;

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1532)

I believe we can perceive intent in many instances. But it is not

_sufficent_ to use actions alone in some instances.

Both PCT and Argyris say this. Although at times it is very _efficent_ to

use actions alone. When we need to reduce error, we reduce it in the most

_efficent_ not necesarily the most _sufficent_ manner.

Do you understand my intent with this statement? There are many instances
where I can tell intent from actions alone. There are equally as many that I
can't. Controldemands the most efficent, not necessarily the most sufficent
way of reducing error.

I think so. I think you believe we overplay the importance of perception

by

saying things like "It's all perception" and "You can't tell what a person

is

doing by looking at what they are doing". If this is right, then I think

you

have a point. It's not wise to try to teach PCT using slogans. But I

think

it's also not wise to try to learn PCT that way, either.

I agree. It seems that we do agree that maybe something different should be
attempted. The questions becomes, what and how?

Marc

26

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.2125) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.18.1734 MDT)]

Bill, I don't know what your intent was but;

Have I read your post correctly, or am I speaking into a vacuum?

What does this mean? Are you asking whether you have "gotten-through-to-me?"
What was your purpose in ending your post with this question? I will wait
for your answer before responding to the rest of your post.

Marc

27

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.19.1130)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.2039)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.18.1650)--

>I'd wait on explaining that "It's all perception" until a person had a good
> understanding of the variables and functions in the model and how the presumed

> behavior of these variables is to relate to actual observed behavior.

I tend to agree. How do you suggest we do this?

I don't think there's all that much we can do. People are going to understand the
model as well as their capabilities and interests allow. You can't force people to
a discipline. And PCT is a discipline.

>I think most behavior, such as moving the jaw, is both an action and an
intended result of
> action.

Yes. I agree. What are we speaking of when we speak of behavior in the
model. In my mind the "intended" result is the phenomena predicted by the
model. The "action" is the model entity derived from the output function.

Both the intended result and the action produced by that model correspond to
observable phenomena. Take a look at the model fits tin my JEP "Perceptual
organization..." paper, for example. The fit of model to human handle movements is
a fit of predicted (model output) to actual (handle movement) actions; the fit of
model to human cursor movements is a fit of predicted (model controlled variable)
to actual (cursor) intended results of action.

>We can move the jaw in a particular way (by tensing facial muscles, the
> action that produces this result) so that jaw movement is an intended
> result, protected from disturbance.

Yes, and not necessarily produce words. In that case the action and intended
result would be the same.

The action (jaw movement used to produce words) is also an intended result (if it
is protected from disturbances, such as a person pressing gently on you jaw) even
if a word is not produced.

>The hierarchical model of PCT explains how jaw movements can be
> both actions and intended results of action at the same time.

Sure does. Now why don't we explain it this way?

We do. See B:CP and the articles on hierarchical control in _Mind Readings_ and
_More Mind Readings_.

>All the slogan means (to me) is that everything we experience, including
> other people's behavior, is a perception.

Me too. But, I can see how others might think we are minimizing the
importance of behavior. Again, take a long hard look at that paragraph.

There is quite a bit more to learn about PCT then what is said in one particular
paragraph or another. If a person thinks we are minimizing the importance of
behavior after reading some of the basic texts and doing the lab work then I don't
think that's a person who could have contributed much to PCT anyway.

> But I do agree that the "It's all perception" slogan could be very misleading
> to someone who doesn't understand the model (and its relationship to behavior)

> pretty well.

Ok, any suggestions?

I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a scientific
discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy btu what else can you do?

> How do you know when looking at a person's actions is a sufficient way to
> determine their intent? I think PCT suggests that it never is.

I agree. Take another look at my statement below. I said looking at someones
actions is not sufficent alone. I said it is sometimes _efficent_;

So sometimes looking only at actions is an efficient way to determine intent?
Again, I have to ask how you know when this is true? Is looking at the actions in
my "Mind Reading" demo an efficient way to determine the participant's intent?

Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.1532)

There are many instances where I can tell intent from actions alone.

Could you give an example of one?

> It's not wise to try to teach PCT using slogans. But I think
> it's also not wise to try to learn PCT that way, either.

I agree. It seems that we do agree that maybe something different should be
attempted. The questions becomes, what and how?

I don't think something different should be attempted because I don't think we
currently are teaching PCT using slogans. What we are teaching is in the texts
referred to at Mind Readings.com Books. The contents of those books
are what we should be and are teaching. And we are (or should be) going over the
details -- and describing new ideas for testing and applying the model, like
Bill's [Bill Powers (2003.05.19.0941 MDT)] great suggestion for a memory
experiment -- of PCT on CSGNet.

I think Bill Powers has been the greatest teacher I have ever had in my life. I
can't think of anything I would have him do differently in terms of teaching PCT.
I guess the only thing I would suggest we might do differently, in terms of
teaching PCT, is get better students, who attend class regularly and do their
homework.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

28

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.19.0941 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.18.2125)--

> Have I read your post correctly, or am I speaking into a vacuum?

What does this mean?

I was guessing that your comments had to do with words that, like a
physical blow, result in pain and distress, and that you were indirectly
saying that this had happened to you in the last few days. My purpose was
to leave an opening for a comment on that if you wanted to make one, while
not ruling out the possibility that I was not interpreting you correctly.

I think the lexicon project is worthy, but I am not impressed by Argyris'
work as having anything to contribute to PCT. It's simply a practical
approach intended to persuade people to abandon one set of principles and
adopt another one in its place that Argyris thinks is better. I don't mean
to downplay the usefulness of this -- that's up to the customer to decide.
It just doesn't add anything to PCT that I have seen. Since Argyris' basic
ideas have been in use unchanged for so many years, I don't have much hope
of persuading him to reconsider the whole thing in the light of PCT. Maybe
I'm wrong -- it's worth a try if you want to spend the time at it. But my
experience has been that famous people do not become famous by accident.
Many of them that I have met tend to blow their own horns loudly,
exaggerate the value of their work, and indulge in endless self-promotion.
The reaction to PCT has all too often been one of competition and seeking
to show that they knew it all the time. That still goes on.

With respect to the terms connected with Memory, there are some experiments
that need to be done before we chisel any definitions into stone. For
example, is it true, as I assumed, that remembering/imagining are
incompatible with present-time perception of the same thing at the same
level? That assumption is what led me to propose one of those "switches." A
similar question relates to the other "switch." Is it true that we must
choose between perceiving recorded information as in remembering or
imagining, and using the same information as reference signals for active
control? Devising experiments to answer these questions will take some
ingenuity, effort, and time.

The fact that I have proposed something as part of the model shows only
that the questions have been raised, not that the answers have been
found. My nephew Avery Andrews once remarked that B:CP is just one giant
research proposal. I agree with him. I wish I were 100 people so I could
actually do all that research. That is why I welcome any offers to do some
of it. But that is also why I am diffident about promoting PCT. I don't
want to convince people that it's the truth. I just want to persuade some
people to do the work needed to find out if it's the truth.

Best,

Bill P.

29

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.05.19 14:22 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.18.1734 MDT) --

···

At 08:13 PM 5/18/2003, Bill Powers wrote:

As to everything being perception, name
me something you know about, anything at all, that's not a perception. In a
way, the motto explains itself: if you're aware of it, it's a perception by
definition. That's how we use the word perception in PCT.

The objection could be made that this confuses the map with the territory. Even if the map is all we know of the territory, the distinction remains.

         /Bruce Nevin

30

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.19.1413 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1319)--

>> I just want to persuade some people to do the work needed to find out
if it's the >>truth.

>Noble. Try something different. What you have done in the past has not
worked.

But it has worked. It has worked with people who have or acquired the
needed background training, the willingness to grasp something new, the
patience to develop their understanding and the competence to do their own
investigations. You have a willingness to grasp something new, but that's
just one out of four so far. Don't blame me for your own shortcomings. Most
comments about my "failures" in this regard come from people who want me to
cut some slack for those who believe something very different from PCT but
want to pretend that they understand it. Every time I have tried to do that
in the past the results have been disastrous. I am not going to tell people
they get it when they don't get it, not any more. And I'm not going to
regret "causing" such people to leave CSGnet: they were never in it.

If you succeed in turning the ST and AS people on to PCT, I will admit that
you are a great salesman. Some of the SD people were already turned on to
it (I'm sure you remember that I published an article in their journal),
but their handicap is that they have a long history of ignoring active
agents and are, to say the least, not enthusastic about changing their
habits (George Richardson excepted). Eberlein and Forrester found my
tracking demo and analysis using Vensim very impressive -- but they
couldn't understand why I put the reference signal inside the person
instead of saying that that target was the reference signal. After they
conferred a while, they decided that the model might work with the
reference signal where it belonged, in the environment. I let George speak
for me and kept my mouth shut. I don't think a salesman would have helped.

By the way, when I said I have met many famous people who are working very
hard at staying famous, I wasn't guessing or making it up. I have come to
know most of the major players in cybernetics (who were still alive) very
well, and have (sometimes with Mary taking the lead) interacted with many
others like Bizzi, Damasio, Skinner, and many more. The only one in that
category who struck me has having two neurons left over with which to
consider someone else's ideas was Donald T. Campbell -- well, I suppose
Phil Runkel is another pretty famous person in that category. My point was
that you don't keep hearing about such people by accident. They work hard
at promoting their own ideas and themselves. Promotion of this kind has, in
my experience, led famous people very often into exaggerating
accomplishments and overestimating their own worth. Look at Francis Crick.
My experiences with such people usually arose through trying to get them
interested in PCT (control theory as it was then called), efforts that were
almost always greeted with a variation on "Thank you for your interesting
ideas, but they have nothing to do with my work." Made me feel like a nut case.

I sincerely hope that you do NOT have similar experiences.

Best,

Bill P.

31

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1319) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.19.0941 MDT)]

>What does this mean?

I was guessing that your comments had to do with words that, like a
physical blow, result in pain and distress, and that you were indirectly
saying that this had happened to you in the last few days.

I was not referring to myself but I can see how you might of thought I was.
It was the first example of how a physical act ( punching something ) was no
different then an assault with words.

My purpose was
to leave an opening for a comment on that if you wanted to make one, while
not ruling out the possibility that I was not interpreting you correctly.

I'll probably irrate the hell out of you with this but this is a perfect
example of someone's "espoused" theories-n-use. That is the explanation of
whay certain actions took place. The question then becomes, is that what you
actually did? My answer is no. It was not clear to me that you left the
possibility that you were interpreting me incorrectly. In fact your
statement "... Have I read your post correctly, or am I speaking into a
vacuum?" suggests to me that _I_ am the one who is having the problem
interpreting. That is why I asked for clarification. Do you see this
contradiction on your part? Our espoused theories are often not the
theories-in-use. This being an example of that.

I think the lexicon project is worthy, but I am not impressed by Argyris'
work as having anything to contribute to PCT.

Your entitled. I disagree. I will continue to persue this line. I'm
disappointed that you closed yourself of from learning, but that's a
decision you've made. I have no problem with it. We both understand each
other.

It's simply a practical
approach intended to persuade people to abandon one set of principles and
adopt another one in its place that Argyris thinks is better.

Yes, and PCT is a theory intended to persuade people to abandon one set of
principles and adopt another one in it's place that Powers thinks is better.

As I said. We do understand each other.

I don't mean to downplay the usefulness of this -- that's up to the

customer to decide.

Again, your espoused theories, and theories-in-use are at odds. Why you
feel Argyris is a rival I have no idea. I really don't. What do you see that
I don't? What am I missing? Please point it out to me.

It just doesn't add anything to PCT that I have seen.

It's not what it "currently" adds it's what it has the _potential_ to add.
in my mind, it provides methods and tools for looking at the upper levels of
the hierarchy and possibly seeing how our "program" level operates. Why are
you closed to these ideas?

Since Argyris' basic
ideas have been in use unchanged for so many years, I don't have much hope
of persuading him to reconsider the whole thing in the light of PCT.

I guess the same could be said for you. But you don't either see this or
admit it. You suggest he reconsider the "whole thing". I certainly believe
he needs to reconsider _some_ things. But the "whole" thing? I'm not certain
of that. I believe _you_ may need to reconsider some of your notions on
memory and the both the # of levels in the hierarchy and the actual
composition of those levels. I believe Argyris might shed some light on both
of those issues. I am not saying he will, I'm suggesting he might.

Maybe I'm wrong --

But of course you absolutely believe your not.

it's worth a try if you want to spend the time at it. But my
experience has been that famous people do not become famous by accident.

Again, this is some generalized code you use to explain your beliefs

Many of them that I have met tend to blow their own horns loudly,

Some more beliefs, based on....???

exaggerate the value of their work, and indulge in endless self-promotion.

With some more beliefs that are based on ...???

The reaction to PCT has all too often been one of competition and seeking
to show that they knew it all the time. That still goes on.

And of course here is the conclusion,based on all of these prior "facts". In
PCT lingo, how much of this is Remeberance, and how much of it is
Imagination? What public testing have you done to validate these beliefs?
Your "belief" that they are true does not make them so.

With respect to the terms connected with Memory, there are some

experiments

that need to be done before we chisel any definitions into stone. For
example, is it true, as I assumed, that remembering/imagining are
incompatible with present-time perception of the same thing at the same
level?

Very good question. I have my doubts this is the case. Especially at the
"program" level. It seems our "inferences" are made up of many thoughts that
are a "mixture" of perceptions.

That assumption is what led me to propose one of those "switches." A
similar question relates to the other "switch." Is it true that we must
choose between perceiving recorded information as in remembering or
imagining, and using the same information as reference signals for active
control? Devising experiments to answer these questions will take some
ingenuity, effort, and time.

Yes, and are central in understanding how memory is utilized in the model.

The fact that I have proposed something as part of the model shows only
that the questions have been raised, not that the answers have been
found.

Yes, but with regard to an issue recently discussed. Just because we don't
have a good explanation for it now doesn't mean we need to minimize the
importance of it by making declarations like, memory is not important, and
control does not need memory. Like "it's all perception", I think we tend to
downplay the importance of it, to the detriment of us all.

My nephew Avery Andrews once remarked that B:CP is just one giant
research proposal. I agree with him. I wish I were 100 people so I could
actually do all that research.

That is my hope in reaching out to the ST,SD, and AS people.

That is why I welcome any offers to do some
of it. But that is also why I am diffident about promoting PCT. I don't
want to convince people that it's the truth. I just want to persuade some
people to do the work needed to find out if it's the truth.

Noble. Try something different. What you have done in the past has not
worked.

32

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1613) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.19.1130)]

I don't think there's all that much we can do.

Why not?

People are going to understand the model as well as their capabilities and

interests allow.

Rick, this is some kind of code. Your trying to be non-offensive and your
saying nothing here. Try saying what you _really_ think. If you do, you
might be able to test whether your beliefs are justified or not. You assume
your right and have sealed off all discussion. This is what I was trying to
address yesterday with my *purpose II* post. Please read it again. You very
well might be right, you could also be wrong.

You can't force people to a discipline. And PCT is a discipline.

You can't force people to do most things.

Both the intended result and the action produced by that model correspond

to observable phenomena.

Yes. So?, your point is.....?

Take a look at the model fits tin my JEP "Perceptual
organization..." paper, for example. The fit of model to human handle

movements is

a fit of predicted (model output) to actual (handle movement) actions; the

fit of

model to human cursor movements is a fit of predicted (model controlled

variable)

to actual (cursor) intended results of action.

The action (jaw movement used to produce words) is also an intended result

(if it

is protected from disturbances, such as a person pressing gently on you

jaw) even

if a word is not produced.

Yes. I understand that. The movement of the jaw does not necessarily mean
that someone wants to produce a word. I yawn a lot.

We do. See B:CP and the articles on hierarchical control in _Mind

Readings_ and

_More Mind Readings_.

How many people do you estimate have read these papers and with that began a
deep understanding of PCT? Who were these papers "aimed" at. People like
me?, Gregory the physicist, Nevin the linguist, or Goldstein the
psychologist? Do you think we each brought the same things to the party?

There is quite a bit more to learn about PCT then what is said in one

particular

paragraph or another.

Sure is. Even in one paper from Mind readings.

If a person thinks we are minimizing the importance of
behavior after reading some of the basic texts and doing the lab work then

I don't

think that's a person who could have contributed much to PCT anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. Your simply sealing it that way, so no one will
contribute, and then you will say, see, I told you so. It's unfortunate you
do not see yourself as part of the problem. You continue to blame the world.
Maybe some day that will change. When It does I predict your luck with
communicating PCT will also change.

> Ok, any suggestions?

I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a

scientific

discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy btu what else can you do?

Ah yes. Continue to blame the other guy. Your line of reasoning is: It's all
his fault. I am helpless, therefore I can't do anything about, so I won't,
and I'll be darned, that nothing ever seems to change. I can't figure out
why. I am truly a victim here. You just don't see this do you?

So sometimes looking only at actions is an efficient way to determine

intent?

yep.

Again, I have to ask how you know when this is true?

When a mugger points a gun at me, and asks for my money. I will not either,
do the Test on him, or question whether or not he _really_ intends to use
that gun if I refuse his demands. That's what I mean by _efficent_. Do you
need other examples. What I am saying is it's not really all that important
most of the time to know what the "true" intentions of a person are. I am
usually only concerned with how that person's actions affect me. In fact I
will take this a step further. I really don't care what anyone else
"intentions" really are _unless_ it affects me.

> There are many instances where I can tell intent from actions alone.

Could you give an example of one?

I did above. Another is if I see a man in the bathroom, pulling down his
pants and underwear ( assuming he's wearing any ) and sitting on the toilet
bowl, I bet ggod money on what he might be doing. How about someone putting
some food into their mouths?

I can think of a 1,000 things, Again, I am not interested in A) actions
that do not affect me B) individual acts that might be part of "intended
consequences". When somebody is talking, I tend to care more about the words
then I do about hoe the jaw, lips, teeth and tongue are coordinated in
making the speech. That of course is my personal preference and _not_ the
one I perceive here on CSGnet. Not at least with regard to you and Bill
anyway.

I don't think something different should be attempted because I don't

think we

currently are teaching PCT using slogans.

That wasn't _my_ reason for thinking of doing something different. Slogan's
are not necessarily a bad thing.
There really is nothing left to "discuss" here. You believe the problem lies
with everyone else, and since you cannot do anything about that, you throw
up your hands in disgust and dismiss any attempt to change. Your loss.

What we are teaching is in the texts
referred to at Mind Readings.com Books. The contents of

those books

are what we should be and are teaching. And we are (or should be) going

over the

details -- and describing new ideas for testing and applying the model,

like

Bill's [Bill Powers (2003.05.19.0941 MDT)] great suggestion for a memory
experiment -- of PCT on CSGNet.

I think Bill Powers has been the greatest teacher I have ever had in my

life. I

can't think of anything I would have him do differently in terms of

teaching PCT.

I guess the only thing I would suggest we might do differently, in terms

of

teaching PCT, is get better students, who attend class regularly and do

their

homework.

Amen, Hallelujah, and please pass the cup.

Marc

33

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1807)

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.19.1413 MDT)]

You continue to lash out and try to diminish me to others about what I know
and don't know. You do this by innuendo and code. You would sooner think
your being "kind" by not confronting ignorance when you see it, but you
don't, you live in a dream world of make believe. I know PCT well. In fact I
know it a lot better then you wish I did. But that's ok. You just continue
to make a fool of yourself by displaying the behavior you say you don't
display and by making outrageous claims you can't back up. Your posts are
getting funnier and funnier, in a very sad way.

btw, I am a _great_ salesman, not a good one, and as such, I know when the
chances of "making a sale" are slim, so it's time for me to move on. Not off
the net, off this thread. Bye, bye.

Marc

34

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.19.2215)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1613)

Rick Marken (2003.05.19.1130)

I don't think there's all that much we can do [to teach people PCT].

Why not?

I should have said there's not much more we can do that we've not already
doing or that we've already done. Teaching is not like pouring wine into
bottles. In teaching, the bottles have to _want_ to get filled and they have
to put in a lot of effort to get filled with wine instead of vinegar.

People are going to understand the model as well as their capabilities and

interests allow.

Rick, this is some kind of code...Try saying what you _really_ think.

That's what I really think. People will learn PCT to the extent that their
capabilities allow it and they won't even _try_ to learn it unless they are
interested in doing so, for some reason.

Both the intended result and the action produced by that model correspond

to observable phenomena.

Yes. So?, your point is.....?

That is my point.

The action (jaw movement used to produce words) is also an intended result
if it is protected from disturbances, such as a person pressing gently on
you jaw) even if a word is not produced.

Yes. I understand that. The movement of the jaw does not necessarily mean
that someone wants to produce a word. I yawn a lot.

No. That's not what I meant. I mean that jaw movement is simultaneously a
controlled variable and an action that affects the state of another
controlled variable.

We do. See B:CP and the articles on hierarchical control in _Mind
Readings_ and _More Mind Readings_.

How many people do you estimate have read these papers and with that began a
deep understanding of PCT?

One or two, I hope.

Who were these papers "aimed" at.

Scientific psychologists and the intelligent lay person.

People like me?, Gregory the physicist, Nevin the linguist, or Goldstein
the psychologist?

Yes.

Do you think we each brought the same things to the party?

No.

If a person thinks we are minimizing the importance of behavior
after reading some of the basic texts and doing the lab work then
I don't think that's a person who could have contributed much to
PCT anyway.

Maybe, maybe not.

No. Definitely not. PCT is all about behavior, what it is and how it works. A
person would have to be blinder than the fellow with the elephant if he or
she could read even the first chapter of B:CP or _Mind Readings_ and came to
the conclusion that PCT minimizes the importance of behavior.

I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a
scientific discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy btu what
else can you do?

Ah yes. Continue to blame the other guy.

I don't blame anyone for not understanding PCT and I will always keep trying
to help them as long as they are interested. I do think people who don't
_want_ to learn or accept PCT are responsible for not wanting to learn or
accept it. I don't think I or anyone else is responsible for making other
people want particular things, like PCT.

So sometimes looking only at actions is an efficient way to determine
intent?

Again, I have to ask how you know when this is true?

When a mugger points a gun at me, and asks for my money. I will not either,
do the Test on him, or question whether or not he _really_ intends to use
that gun if I refuse his demands.

So you can't tell the person's intent from their actions. You are just not
taking a chance that the person _might_ intend to use it.

That's what I mean by _efficent_.

That's what I mean by "guess".

Marc, why do you want to sell PCT so badly? What is it about PCT that makes
you think it's so important for others to buy it?

Best

Rick

35

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.0243) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.19.2215)]

I'd like to start off last with this post;

Marc, why do you want to sell PCT so badly? What is it about PCT that

makes

you think it's so important for others to buy it?

I don't. You and Bill seem to think that's my sole reason for exsistence. I
simply believe that PCT is very important to researchers who are interested
in understanding how "homeostasis" works and how human minds work. I would
like to see research that is meaningful, not the crap that is currently
produced. I don't know if you know David F. Horrobin? He is a specialist in
research neurophysiology and endocrinology who studied control in the early
60's. He wrote a few books on the subject, one being _Principles of
Biological Control_ . He was fascinated by the concept of control and
homeostasis systems in the body and Brain. He had to give up his work in
this area because he could get no funding for it. My life might depend on
what someone "learns" from current "medical" research. That scares the hell
out of me. I would like to think that researchers are busy doing meaningful
work, and if they are studying things other then control, thier likely
looking at the wrong end of the cow. I would like to think that people, when
faced with a choice of either A or B will choose the one which is more
meaningful to them. Whether that be TV sets or scientific theory's. In this
post, which I will address later, is a perfect example of the difference
between you and I, with Bill being with you. I am going to say something
that might offend Bill and you. This is not my intent. My intent is to bring
it to your attention. It might be right, and I could be wrong. The reason I
am saying it is because I believe it to be so.

Both of you have demonized "sales". To both of you it is a dirty word. It is
a dirty word because you are both ineffective and bad salespeople. I will
define what a "good" salesman is. You have no idea. You think a good
salesperson is one who can withstand all objections and convince someone to
"buy" something they really don't want. That is not a good salesperson. That
is a very _poor_ salesperson, that is a person who at the end of a week
can't feed his family. I'll tell you the secret to a successful salesperson.
It is a person who try's to carry ( that is sell ) product ( anything ) to
as many people who are interested in what that person has to sell. It's
about not wasting time trying to convince someone that they need what you
have. It's by finding out what the people want and then providing it. Drug
dealers are big on this. I am not interested in talking to people who are
not interested in what I have ( PCT ) but when I do find someone interested
I need to find out why the person might want to use or know what I have.
Sort of like an unofficial Test. I try to spend as little time as possible
with people who are not interested and spend lots of time with people who
are. The people I spend time with I spend time talking about _them_, not me.
I talk about how my product will help them do or know what they want done. I
will also explain why _my_ product is superior to others, if that is the
case, and explain why, not in matters or terms that concern me. But in
matters and concerns that matter to the customer.

Both of you don't care what someone else thinks. You have been concerned
solely with what they know about what you want them to know about. Bill
thinks that "keeping quiet" is helpful. Why? So someone, "thinks" they know
something they don't. I don't find that helpful. So since your both bad
salespeople the best thing to do is demonize the process and "say" it's not
something you want to do anyway, It's beneath you. In fact the thought
proicess is "I'm _proud_ I'm a lousy salesperson" It proves I'm "honest" and
caring. _Bullspit_.

I should have said there's not much more we can do that we've not already
doing or that we've already done.

How do you know this to be true?, when you believe there is nothing more you
can do and you have essentially sealed off any attempts to try something
different then you have been doing. I have not seen a different strategy

Teaching is not like pouring wine into
bottles. In teaching, the bottles have to _want_ to get filled and they

have

to put in a lot of effort to get filled with wine instead of vinegar.

To use your analogy. What if someone were interested in soda instead of
wine? Would you go out and get the soda or simply tell someone you only have
wine.

>>People are going to understand the model as well as their capabilities

and

>interests allow.
>
>Rick, this is some kind of code...Try saying what you _really_ think.

That's what I really think. People will learn PCT to the extent that their
capabilities allow it and they won't even _try_ to learn it unless they

are

interested in doing so, for some reason.

What kind of "capabilities" are required to learn PCT?

>> The action (jaw movement used to produce words) is also an intended

result

>> if it is protected from disturbances, such as a person pressing gently

on

>> you jaw) even if a word is not produced.
>
>Yes. I understand that. The movement of the jaw does not necessarily mean
>that someone wants to produce a word. I yawn a lot.

No. That's not what I meant. I mean that jaw movement is simultaneously a
controlled variable and an action that affects the state of another
controlled variable.

Yes, I understand that as well, you very conviently left out my remark later
in the post, which was;

I can think of a 1,000 things, Again, I am not interested in A) actions
that do not affect me B) individual acts that might be part of "intended

consequences".

>How many people do you estimate have read these papers and with that

began a

>deep understanding of PCT?

One or two, I hope.

But like everything I have seen you really have no idea, do you? How do you
gauge whether your successful or not?
If you tell me it doesn't matter, I will say your full of it. If it wasn't
you wouldn't be interested in publishing, or even talking about PCT. So
don't tell me your not interested in sales.

Scientific psychologists and the intelligent lay person.

> People like me?, Gregory the physicist, Nevin the linguist, or Goldstein
> the psychologist?

Yes.

> Do you think we each brought the same things to the party?

No.

So why do you assume we all need the same things to get our interest and
keep it.

>> If a person thinks we are minimizing the importance of behavior
>> after reading some of the basic texts and doing the lab work then
>> I don't think that's a person who could have contributed much to
>> PCT anyway.

>Maybe, maybe not.

No. Definitely not. PCT is all about behavior, what it is and how it

works. A

person would have to be blinder than the fellow with the elephant if he or
she could read even the first chapter of B:CP or _Mind Readings_ and came

to

the conclusion that PCT minimizes the importance of behavior.

How do you know what anyone's conclusion was after finishing any PCT
material. The only thing you are interested in is how much PCT they know
from it. people often don't complain, they just go away. silently. For
instance, we picked up 2 new people on CSGnet this week and lost 1. I wonder
why?

>> I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a
>> scientific discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy btu what
>> else can you do?

>Ah yes. Continue to blame the other guy.

I don't blame anyone for not understanding PCT

Really? Do you really want me to list the posts and passages? I will if you
want. How about this one from yesterday

I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a

scientific

discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy btu what else can you do?

and I will always keep trying to help them as long as they are interested.

[ In what I have to say & then blame you for not being able to understand me
because of a lack of education or desire]

Add the bracketed words.

>> So sometimes looking only at actions is an efficient way to determine
>> intent?

>> Again, I have to ask how you know when this is true?
>
>When a mugger points a gun at me, and asks for my money. I will not

either,

>do the Test on him, or question whether or not he _really_ intends to use
>that gun if I refuse his demands.

So you can't tell the person's intent from their actions. You are just not
taking a chance that the person _might_ intend to use it.

Here is my example of what I am talking about at the beginning.

The gunmen might have _several_ "intents". One being to get my money, the
other maybe to hurt or kill me, or maybe just to threaten me. _ALL_ could be
intent. In fact they could all be the intent during a single event. Which
one is the "real" intent? From a PCT perspective how could you tell? He
might be controlling for all 3 things . Now, for you and Bill, and possibly
others on this list, this matters. To me it doesn't. I'll take any of the 3
as being distinctly disadvantageous to me. The "intent" to harm is there. I
could really care less what his "real" intent was, and in this situation PCT
provides no answers.

> That's what I mean by _efficent_.

That's what I mean by "guess".

Yes, so is the Test.

36

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0520.07430]

Rick Marken (2003.05.19.2215)

Marc, why do you want to sell PCT so badly? What is it about PCT that makes
you think it's so important for others to buy it?

This is something i've been wondering for quite some time, and not only
with respect to Marc. If someone wants to model behavior they would be a
fool not to investigate PCT which is really the only game in town as far
as I can tell. If I the other, hand, their goal is to gain a greater
understanding of why they and others behave as they do, what benefit do
they gain from the struggle to learn PCT?

I've thought of few things that maybe counterintuitive, or at least
obscure, such as the nature of conflict and the importance of being able
to perceive the consequences of one's actions in terms of negative
feedback. But I really would like to know other examples. I'm sure
you've thought about this a great deal and I would welcome your insights.

Since my motives are sometimes obscure to some people, let me add that
this post is exactly what it appears to be -- a request for information.

Thanks.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

37

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.20.0830)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.0243)--

> Rick Marken (2003.05.19.2215)

> Marc, why do you want to sell PCT so badly? What is it about PCT that
> makes you think it's so important for others to buy it?

I don't.

If you really don't want to sell it then what's all the commotion about?

I simply believe that PCT is very important to researchers who are interested
in understanding how "homeostasis" works and how human minds work.

Wonderful. That's what I believe, too. So why are you so upset at me?

Both of you have demonized "sales". To both of you it is a dirty word.

I think it's the effort to sell a scientific theory which was being objected to. I
have nothing against sales per se. I think it can be a useful component of
commerce.

>Teaching is not like pouring wine into bottles.
> In teaching, the bottles have to _want_ to get filled and they have
> to put in a lot of effort to get filled with wine instead of vinegar.

To use your analogy. What if someone were interested in soda instead of
wine? Would you go out and get the soda or simply tell someone you only have
wine.

The latter. I am assuming that PCT is the wine.

What kind of "capabilities" are required to learn PCT?

The ability to reason logically. The ability to do basic mathematics and/or
computer modeling. The ability to maintain an open but critical attitude toward
information. Some basic knowledge of physics and physiology. The ability (and
willingness) to carry out empirical tests of theoretical predictions.

> No. That's not what I meant. I mean that jaw movement is simultaneously a
> controlled variable and an action that affects the state of another
> controlled variable.

Yes, I understand that as well, you very conviently left out my remark later
in the post, which was;

>I can think of a 1,000 things, Again, I am not interested in A) actions
>that do not affect me B) individual acts that might be part of "intended
> consequences".

That remark shows no evidence that you understand that an action can be a
controlled variable and an action affecting another controlled variable at the
same time. I am talking about the way the hierarchical control model actually
works. Your quoting yourself as saying "I am not interested in A) actions that do
not affect me B) individual acts that might be part of "intended consequences"
does not convince me that you have any idea what I'm talking about.

> I don't blame anyone for not understanding PCT

Really? Do you really want me to list the posts and passages? I will if you
want. How about this one from yesterday

> I would suggest that we try to avoid people whose understanding of a
scientific
> discipline is based on slogans. That's not easy but what else can you do?

"Blame" suggests condemnation. I don't blame people for not understanding PCT but
I do see them as being at least partly responsible for it. As I said, I think Bill
has been an incredibly generous teacher. If, after a couple years learning PCT
from Bill, someone hasn't learned PCT, then I hold the person themselves entirely
responsible. The same goes, even more emphatically, for acceptance of PCT. I
think whether or not a person accepts PCT is completely that person's
responsibility. I don't blame people if they don't accept PCT but I do think they
are responsible for it.

> > That's what I mean by _efficent_.

> That's what I mean by "guess".

Yes, so is the Test.

The Test is not a guess. If you really believe that PCT is an important topic for
researches to understand, don't you think it's important to communicate it
accurately? The Test does involve guessing inasmuch as the Tester has to come up
with hypotheses (guesses) about the variables that might be under control. But
these guesses are tested (via the Test) to see if they are _wrong_. A guess that
can't be rejected by the Test is considered the controlled variable.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

38

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.20]

<Bruce Gregory (2003.0520.07430>

<If someone wants to model behavior they would be a

fool not to investigate PCT which is really the only game in town as far

as I can tell.>

Agree. I have no reference perception to personally “model” behavior.

<If I the other, hand, their goal is to gain a greater

understanding of why they and others behave as they do, what benefit do

they gain from the struggle to learn PCT?>

Because understanding the PCT model gives a superior understanding of human behavior than other theories/models; both regarding my own behavior and that of others which I observe.

I have used my understanding of PCT to help resolve two intractable problems in my relationships with two of my sons. Nothing else I had experienced in life was able to resolve these conflicts between me and my sons.

With an understanding of PCT, and using MOL as a method, these entrenched conflicts and hard feelings literally melted away in an hour though they had festered for years despite neither father nor son wanting these thorns in our relationships.

Experiencing such rather dramatic desired changes in human relationships once some knowledge/understanding of PCT was obtained, I imagined that others could possibly find such improvement for entrenched human relational problems in their lives.

Besides helping family and friends put on their own PCT glasses to help end relational problems, I have also used my understanding to differentiate my own consulting and training services to help organizations solve a myriad of HR problems that restrict human performance achievements.

While I don’t try to “sell” PCT per se, I do try to sell a different way to view and address what people do and how it affects group performance and harmony. I think a number of application practitioners have been reasonably successful in controlling for being a successful counselor or educator.

You are probably aware that I believe that a more complete understanding of human nature requires more “self-purpose” articulation than what current PCT/HPCT has proposed or demonstrated with its models. While I have thought about that a lot over the past eight years, and tried some informal experiments, I am woefully incompetent at, and probably not much interested in, doing the formal research or modeling that would advance the science of PCT beyond the current understanding and prediction of observable human behavior or action.

Does this help your understanding or answer your question at all?

39

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.20.0959 MDt)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.0243)--

>Both of you have demonized "sales". To both of you it is a dirty word. It is
>a dirty word because you are both ineffective and bad salespeople.I'll
tell you the >secret to a successful salesperson. It is a person who try's
to carry ( that is sell ) >product ( anything ) to as many people who are
interested in what that person has to >sell. It's about not wasting time
trying to convince someone that they need what you
>have. It's by finding out what the people want and then providing it.

There's the whole problem. You take the viewpoint of the salesman, to whom
it's much more important to make a sale than it is to sell a particular
thing. You find out what people _do_ want and you provide it. But PCT
researchers are not salesmen, they are manufacturers. It's important to
them that you sell _their_ product and not someone else's. If as a salesman
you find that a certain manufacturer's product is not what people want,
don't you try to find some other manufacturer who makes what they do want?
Of course you might try to persuade the first manufacturer to change his
product so it will be more to people's liking, but in the case of PCT the
point is not to find out what people like to hear, but what is, as nearly
as we can find out, true. If you want to give people what they want to
hear, and they don't want to hear what PCT has to say, you're going to have
to sell something beside PCT.

>Both of you don't care what someone else thinks. You have been concerned
>solely with what they know about what you want them to know about. Bill
>thinks that "keeping quiet" is helpful. Why? So someone, "thinks" they know
>something they don't. I don't find that helpful. So since your both bad
salespeople the >best thing to do is demonize the process and "say" it's not
>something you want to do anyway, It's beneath you.

That's completely off the target. "Sales" is simply a pursuit totally
different from "research" and "communicating ideas." The good salesman
cares about making sales, not selling a particular thing if people don't
want it. That's the opposite of the researcher's aim, which is to produce a
good product whether people want it or not, study its deficiencies, and
then keep improving it. Science is about the development of ideas, not
about whether those ideas are popular. This is why science relies so much
on the unselfish generosity of others who offer their financial support
without demanding that science give them just what they want. When you try
to make science depend on sellability, you cripple science. Look at what's
happening to the drug industry and to biochemistry.

Nobody here is looking down on salesmen just because they want to sell
things. But their interests are not our interests and what is good for them
may be bad for us.

Best,

Bill P.

40

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0520.1306)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.20]

<Bruce Gregory (2003.0520.07430>

Does this help your understanding or answer your question at all?

Yes, it does. Thank you. Do you think it is necessary to understand PCT in
order to use, and to benefit from MOL? I ask this because from what I know
about MOL its connection to PCT seems tenuous.

Do you find that your consulting practice requires you to explicitly discuss
PCT with your clients?

I will address the "self-purpose" perception in a separate post.