Qualitative Modeling

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990526.0041) ]

Among some other things that I am doing ( PCT wise ) is trying to come up
with a plausible way of _qualitatively_ rather then quantitatively modeling
the upper levels of the hierarchy and a broader set of behaviors when
dealing with human interactions.

The very fine quantitative modeling done by Bill, Rick, Tom, Richard,
Martin, are important and necessary for the development and growth of PCT. I
also believe that at some level they are also insufficient for "explaining"
human "behavior" in it's continuous totality.

I personally believe that _this_ is what really separates PCT from the more
conventional approaches.

Let me try to explain my position.

Most conventional psychologists ( and just about everyone else ) that I
have seen and experienced, ( including myself ) seem to view "behavior" as
singular, sequential, events. These events ( goals ) are "optimized" ( or at
least an attempt to do so ) for the system. An example, I have a high level
goal to be a successful banker. All of my subgoals ( reference levels ) in
the hierarchy are then "aligned" ( or at least attempted to ) with this high
level goal. Of course we have many "goals", some short term, some long, but
all follow the same basic strategy of "aligning" our hierarchy with our
higher level goals.

I believe this is a _huge_ mistake, For a number of reasons After doing
and continuing to ) self directed MOL's you begin ( or at least I have
) to see the _continuous_ _always changing_ _SETS_ of _simultaneous_
BEHAVIORS that are continually occurring.

To use an analogy ( probably not a good one ) observing someone's behavior
is like observing the light of a star that is 4 million light years away.
The light ( behavior ) we see is 4 million light years old. It is _not_ the
light that particular star is generating _NOW_. I believe the same holds
true for behavior. ( although obviously not to the same extent :-)) The
behavior we observe in others are _artifacts_ of _attempts_ to reduce
_prior_ errors. Not _ONE_ error. But potentially a whole Busload of them.
Some changes can be done in fractions of a second. Others might take
minutes, hours, days, years.

The point here is that if we ever hope to _begin_ to understand the
hierarchy we will _only_ be able to do it starting with _OURSELVES_.

This has not been easy. I wish I could say it's been a lot of laughs. It
hasn't. What it has been is _EYE OPENING_. Listening to my words about it
are also insufficient. They would be insufficient if Bill, Rick, or even God
explained to you in fine detail what the experience is like.

As Bruce Gregory mentioned in a post to me recently,
"As a strategy, it parallels the idea that one can learn to be a good player
by learning how to apply the rules of chess. While it is true that every
masterful game follows the rules of chess, so does every disastrous game.
The rules are necessary, but far from sufficient. The only way to become an
accomplished chess player is by playing and re-playing many chess games.
Students cannot extract the features of experiences they have not had.

I believe this holds for many things. Including self-directed MOL's..

Tim, David G, Dick, you have all "done" the MOL. Have any of you tried
self-directed ones. If so are you willing to share your experiences? If you
haven't tried are you willing to give it a shot?

Marc

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (990526.1000)]

Marc Abrams (990526.0041) --

The point here is that if we ever hope to _begin_ to understand
the hierarchy we will _only_ be able to do it starting with
_OURSELVES_.

It may not be our only hope but it is definitely an excellent
way to start. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading
papers about concurrent VI schedules;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990526.1320) ]

Thanks for the support Rick.

[From Rick Marken (990526.1000)]

Marc Abrams (990526.0041) --

> The point here is that if we ever hope to _begin_ to understand
> the hierarchy we will _only_ be able to do it starting with
> _OURSELVES_.

It may not be our only hope but it is definitely an excellent
way to start. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading
papers about concurrent VI schedules;-)

Actually I meant in conjunction with _some_ modeling effort. With a
qualitative approach used initially until we had a better handle on some of
the more useful quantitative approaches based on the qualitative work.

I was not suggesting that the self-directed mol was the only way :.-). What
I like about the self-directed MOL is that you get a _real_ feel for how we
behave. The only problem is that you can't do the actual mol.for someone
else. But it _does_ produce real data that might be useful when we compare
either over similar "problems" or level "types" that have been identified.

I certainly don't have the technique down as a well oiled machine but I
think with the help of others on the net it can become a useful starting
approach to a number of questions we might have about the hierarchy.

I really don't want to go into my experiences because they were mine and
others probably would not find them interesting and to try and explain the
"experience" wouldn't do much good to anyone who has not had the experience
themselves.

I would;d be happy to share my approach and would love to hear about
alternative ways of exploring this phenomenon ( the hierarchy )

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (990526.1450)]

Me:

It may not be our only hope but it is definitely an excellent
way to start. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading
papers about concurrent VI schedules;-)

Marc Abrams (990526.1320) --

Actually I meant in conjunction with _some_ modeling effort

And actually I meant that almost _anything_ is better than
reading papers about concurrent VI schedules. This is research
that has nothing to do with testing models of behavioral
organization. The concurrent VI researchers have made a _career_
out of doing research aimed a testing one simple question: I
wonder what will happen if I do _this_ to the animal? And the
answer is always the same: Oh, _that_ happens. Of course, what
happens is _always_ consistent with the researcher's preconceptions
about how behavior works. That is, it's _always_ consistent with
the assumption that environmental circumstances (rewards,
reinforcers, stimuli, schedules, etc) control behavior. There is
never so much as a peep about the possibility that it is the
organism (not the environment) that is doing the controlling.
Surprise!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990527.0106) ]

[From Rick Marken (990526.1450)]

And actually I meant that almost _anything_ is better than
reading papers about concurrent VI schedules. This is research
that has nothing to do with testing models of behavioral
organization. The concurrent VI researchers have made a _career_
out of doing research aimed a testing one simple question: I
wonder what will happen if I do _this_ to the animal? And the
answer is always the same: Oh, _that_ happens. Of course, what
happens is _always_ consistent with the researcher's preconceptions
about how behavior works. That is, it's _always_ consistent with
the assumption that environmental circumstances (rewards,
reinforcers, stimuli, schedules, etc) control behavior. There is
never so much as a peep about the possibility that it is the
organism (not the environment) that is doing the controlling.
Surprise!

I hear you and agree with this assessment. Doesn't seem like the
self-directed MOL is a "hot" topic :-).

It surprises me to a certain degree because I would think that people who
were interested in "applying" PCT would want to experience not simply "going
up a level" but in seeing how "prioritiies" change and just how complicated
seemimgly simple things can become.

The discussion on the net, I think, would benefit, not so much from talking
about _what_ happened ( although I think this could be interesting ) but
_how_ it seems to be organized.

Rick, it would only take the two of us to start something useful. Are you
game?

Marc

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990527.0713CDT]

Marc Abrams wrote:

>From [ Marc Abrams (990526.0041) ]

Among some other things that I am doing ( PCT wise ) is trying to come up
with a plausible way of _qualitatively_ rather then quantitatively modeling
the upper levels of the hierarchy and a broader set of behaviors when
dealing with human interactions.

The very fine quantitative modeling done by Bill, Rick, Tom, Richard,
Martin, are important and necessary for the development and growth of PCT. I
also believe that at some level they are also insufficient for "explaining"
human "behavior" in it's continuous totality.

I personally believe that _this_ is what really separates PCT from the more
conventional approaches.

Let me try to explain my position.

Most conventional psychologists ( and just about everyone else ) that I
have seen and experienced, ( including myself ) seem to view "behavior" as
singular, sequential, events. These events ( goals ) are "optimized" ( or at
least an attempt to do so ) for the system. An example, I have a high level
goal to be a successful banker. All of my subgoals ( reference levels ) in
the hierarchy are then "aligned" ( or at least attempted to ) with this high
level goal. Of course we have many "goals", some short term, some long, but
all follow the same basic strategy of "aligning" our hierarchy with our
higher level goals.

I believe this is a _huge_ mistake, For a number of reasons After doing
and continuing to ) self directed MOL's you begin ( or at least I have
) to see the _continuous_ _always changing_ _SETS_ of _simultaneous_
BEHAVIORS that are continually occurring.

To use an analogy ( probably not a good one ) observing someone's behavior
is like observing the light of a star that is 4 million light years away.
The light ( behavior ) we see is 4 million light years old. It is _not_ the
light that particular star is generating _NOW_. I believe the same holds
true for behavior. ( although obviously not to the same extent :-)) The
behavior we observe in others are _artifacts_ of _attempts_ to reduce
_prior_ errors. Not _ONE_ error. But potentially a whole Busload of them.
Some changes can be done in fractions of a second. Others might take
minutes, hours, days, years.

The point here is that if we ever hope to _begin_ to understand the
hierarchy we will _only_ be able to do it starting with _OURSELVES_.

This has not been easy. I wish I could say it's been a lot of laughs. It
hasn't. What it has been is _EYE OPENING_. Listening to my words about it
are also insufficient. They would be insufficient if Bill, Rick, or even God
explained to you in fine detail what the experience is like.

As Bruce Gregory mentioned in a post to me recently,
"As a strategy, it parallels the idea that one can learn to be a good player
by learning how to apply the rules of chess. While it is true that every
masterful game follows the rules of chess, so does every disastrous game.
The rules are necessary, but far from sufficient. The only way to become an
accomplished chess player is by playing and re-playing many chess games.
Students cannot extract the features of experiences they have not had.

I believe this holds for many things. Including self-directed MOL's..

Tim, David G, Dick, you have all "done" the MOL. Have any of you tried
self-directed ones. If so are you willing to share your experiences? If you
haven't tried are you willing to give it a shot?

I applaud your interest, Marc. I think you are onto somethng there. I don't
think I have
done a self-directed MOL formally, if I understand what you mean by that, but
yes, I have taken note of something I was observing and then wondered what I was
controlling
at a higher level that the current observation was trying to satisfy. Is that
anything like what you are talking about? I'll think about this some more.

Best, Dick R.

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990527.1106) ]

[From Dick Robertson,990527.0713CDT]

First, Thanks for responding Dick. Your interest is important.

.... I don't think I have done a self-directed MOL formally, if I

understand what you mean by

that,

Let me try to clarify if I can. The MOL as currently practiced, and as i
perceive it ( Please correct me if I am mistaken ) Focuses on a clients area
of concern. You "go up a level" to try and view the AOC ( area of concern )
from the perspective of _why_ the AOC is of concern to the client. The MOL
is directed ( as it should be ) by the client and _centers_ around the AOC.
This is critical and important to the client so the client can try and come
to some understanding as to _why_ the AOC _is_ an AOC :-). This is great for
focusing a client on an AOC and allowing the client to discover and possibly
redirect efforts with regard to the AOC.

from a PCT research percprective though, this approach presents a number of
"problems" to the _researcher_ :-). A partial list, not necessarily in order
of importance:

1) The focus by neccessity ( at least the neccessity of the client ) is
much to narrow. We need to be more concerned with _how_ things happen
between and among levels then with specific _whats_.

2) As a facilitator for the method, we can appreciate the insights and
understanding an individual might gain. But do we really have any idea
_where_ we might be able to go with it? Can we understand how other
"behaviors" ( meaning, other CV's ) affect and are effected by AOC's. I
believe self-directed MOL's _might_ provide an opening for us to begin to
explore some of these important questions.

3) Certainly, the collective understanding and insights we might be able to
share on this net are mind boggling ( at least to me ) But all
contributors must be participants.

I am formalizing a number of different approaches I have used for myself
recently. I would be happy to send this to anyone interested. I would think
the first order of business would be to decide on an initial method with
very specific goals in mind. These techniques are not written in stone and I
woukd be most appreciative if people actually cared enough to change and
fine tune what I have tried already. I should be done by the end of the
weekend.

but yes, I have taken note of something I was observing and then wondered

what I was

controlling at a higher level that the current observation was trying to

satisfy. Is that

anything like what you are talking about? I'll think about this some

more.

Sort of. Remember, I am not necessarily trying to solve a specific
problem as much as I am concerned with identifiying as many of the
_components_ ( levels, CV's, etc. ) of the AOC and how they are
interrelated.

Marc

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990527.1804CDT]

Marc Abrams wrote:

>From [ Marc Abrams (990527.1106) ]

> [From Dick Robertson,990527.0713CDT]

First, Thanks for responding Dick. Your interest is important.

>.... I don't think I have done a self-directed MOL formally, if I
understand what you mean by
> that,

Let me try to clarify if I can. The MOL as currently practiced, and as i
perceive it ( Please correct me if I am mistaken ) Focuses on a clients area
of concern. You "go up a level" to try and view the AOC ( area of concern )
from the perspective of _why_ the AOC is of concern to the client. The MOL
is directed ( as it should be ) by the client and _centers_ around the AOC.
This is critical and important to the client so the client can try and come
to some understanding as to _why_ the AOC _is_ an AOC :-). This is great for
focusing a client on an AOC and allowing the client to discover and possibly
redirect efforts with regard to the AOC.

O K, but in my experience there is quite a variety of ways that different
clients treat attempts to encourage going up a level. With some I have pretty
much had to give a mini tutorial on PCT before the person would assent to answer
the question, "How do you feel about that?" or "What is your attitude toward
that....[?] the fact that you feel as you just said?" With others I haven't yet
found a way to phrase the question that didn't get an answer, "I don't know."
That latter is more likely to occur with people who would otherwise be called
"schizoid," or "borderline," in the traditional treatment jargon. With a scant
few I have got the ready grasp that let's us keep going deeper.

>From a PCT research percprective though, this approach presents a number of
"problems" to the _researcher_ :-). A partial list, not necessarily in order
of importance:

1) The focus by neccessity ( at least the neccessity of the client ) is
much to narrow. We need to be more concerned with _how_ things happen
between and among levels then with specific _whats_.

2) As a facilitator for the method, we can appreciate the insights and
understanding an individual might gain. But do we really have any idea
_where_ we might be able to go with it? Can we understand how other
"behaviors" ( meaning, other CV's ) affect and are effected by AOC's.

Good questions all right.

I believe self-directed MOL's _might_ provide an opening for us to begin to
explore some of these important questions.

Could you illustrate a bit?

3) Certainly, the collective understanding and insights we might be able to
share on this net are mind boggling ( at least to me ) But all
contributors must be participants.

I am formalizing a number of different approaches I have used for myself
recently. I would be happy to send this to anyone interested. I would think
the first order of business would be to decide on an initial method with
very specific goals in mind. These techniques are not written in stone and I
woukd be most appreciative if people actually cared enough to change and
fine tune what I have tried already. I should be done by the end of the
weekend.

Looking forward to see it.

Best, Dick R.

···

[rahintz]

from [Bob Hintz (990527.2200

[ Marc Abrams (990527.1106) ]

< I am formalizing a number of different approaches I have used for myself
recently. I would be happy to send this to anyone interested. I would think
the first order of business would be to decide on an initial method with
very specific goals in mind. These techniques are not written in stone and I
would be most appreciative if people actually cared enough to change and
fine tune what I have tried already. I should be done by the end of the
weekend.>

Please add me to the list of persons who would be interested in seeing your
formalized methods and willing to spend some time trying to apply them with
himself and others.

bob

[Bjoern_Simonsen]

[From Bjoern Simonsen (990529.09:00 EU time)]

From [ Marc Abrams (990527.1106) ]

I am formalizing a number of different approaches I have used for myself
recently. I would be happy to send this to anyone interested. I would think
the first order of business would be to decide on an initial method with
very specific goals in mind. These techniques are not written in stone and I
woukd be most appreciative if people actually cared enough to change and
fine tune what I have tried already. I should be done by the end of the
weekend.

Please add me to the list of persons who would be interested in seeing your
formalized methods and willing to spend some time trying to apply them with
himself and others.

Bjoern

e-mail: bsimonse@c2i.net

[David_Goldstein1]

From [ Marc Abrams (990526.0041) ]

Among some other things that I am doing ( PCT wise ) is trying to come up
with a plausible way of _qualitatively_ rather then quantitatively modeling
the upper levels of the hierarchy and a broader set of behaviors when
dealing with human interactions.

The very fine quantitative modeling done by Bill, Rick, Tom, Richard,
Martin, are important and necessary for the development and growth of PCT.

I

also believe that at some level they are also insufficient for "explaining"
human "behavior" in it's continuous totality.

I personally believe that _this_ is what really separates PCT from the more
conventional approaches.

Let me try to explain my position.

Most conventional psychologists ( and just about everyone else ) that I
have seen and experienced, ( including myself ) seem to view "behavior" as
singular, sequential, events. These events ( goals ) are "optimized" ( or

at

least an attempt to do so ) for the system. An example, I have a high level
goal to be a successful banker. All of my subgoals ( reference levels ) in
the hierarchy are then "aligned" ( or at least attempted to ) with this

high

level goal. Of course we have many "goals", some short term, some long, but
all follow the same basic strategy of "aligning" our hierarchy with our
higher level goals.

I believe this is a _huge_ mistake, For a number of reasons After doing
and continuing to ) self directed MOL's you begin ( or at least I have
) to see the _continuous_ _always changing_ _SETS_ of _simultaneous_
BEHAVIORS that are continually occurring.

To use an analogy ( probably not a good one ) observing someone's behavior
is like observing the light of a star that is 4 million light years away.
The light ( behavior ) we see is 4 million light years old. It is _not_ the
light that particular star is generating _NOW_. I believe the same holds
true for behavior. ( although obviously not to the same extent :-)) The
behavior we observe in others are _artifacts_ of _attempts_ to reduce
_prior_ errors. Not _ONE_ error. But potentially a whole Busload of them.
Some changes can be done in fractions of a second. Others might take
minutes, hours, days, years.

The point here is that if we ever hope to _begin_ to understand the
hierarchy we will _only_ be able to do it starting with _OURSELVES_.

This has not been easy. I wish I could say it's been a lot of laughs. It
hasn't. What it has been is _EYE OPENING_. Listening to my words about it
are also insufficient. They would be insufficient if Bill, Rick, or even

God

explained to you in fine detail what the experience is like.

As Bruce Gregory mentioned in a post to me recently,
"As a strategy, it parallels the idea that one can learn to be a good

player

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Qualitative Modeling [Marc Abrams (990526.0041)]
Date: 5/29/99
Marc asks: Tim, David G, Dick, you have all "done" the MOL. Have any of you
tried self-directed ones. If so are you willing to share your experiences?
If you haven't tried are you willing to give it a shot?

Yes, I have tried a self-directed MOL. Actually, it started with Bill and
then it developed into a self-directed one. The outcome was a self
description which included three different selves and a higher level self
which I call the observing self.

The method I use incorporates Q Methodology and MOL. I found that when I
was using MOL alone that I became lost. MOL was the source of
self-statements. Q Methodology was applied to the set of statements and
resulted in three different selfves. Then I re-applied MOL to the three
different selves.

In any given situation, I can become aware of which of my selves are
involved and how.

Yes, I would be interested in trying the approach that you propose.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Abrams <mabrams@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:35 AM
Subject: Qualitative Modeling

by learning how to apply the rules of chess. While it is true that every
masterful game follows the rules of chess, so does every disastrous game.
The rules are necessary, but far from sufficient. The only way to become an
accomplished chess player is by playing and re-playing many chess games.
Students cannot extract the features of experiences they have not had.

I believe this holds for many things. Including self-directed MOL's..

Tim, David G, Dick, you have all "done" the MOL. Have any of you tried
self-directed ones. If so are you willing to share your experiences? If you
haven't tried are you willing to give it a shot?

Marc

[Chris_Cherpas]

[From Chris Cherpas (990529.1535 PT)]

David Goldstein 5/29/99 --

Yes, I have tried a self-directed MOL. Actually, it started with Bill and
then it developed into a self-directed one. The outcome was a self
description which included three different selves and a higher level self
which I call the observing self.

This is very interesting. David, are you going to Vancouver
for the MOL workshop? I plan to go to it and the CSG conference.

The method I use incorporates Q Methodology and MOL.

I don't know a lot about MOL, but I'd love to explore the possibility
of an interactive computer program which might facilitate this work.

Best regards,
cc