Requirement

[Marken_Richard]

[From Rick Marken (01.04.12.1400)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 15:20 EDT)--

Let me put it this way. During speaking or typing, control is almost

always

so very good that disturbances are successfully resisted and the

effects of

disturbances are negligible for both speaker and hearer, or for both

typist

and reader, and so for the communication loop between them. Therefore,

for

the topic at hand (communication) these disturbances have little or no

relevance.

The topic at hand (as I understood it) was the variable(s) on which the
outputs of a control system depend. What you said was "What you say
depends solely on your intentions". This is true (to some extent) if
"what you say" is viewed as a controlled variable (which it surely is).
I was just pointing out that "what you say" is _also_ an output aimed at
achieving higher level goals. So "what you say" depends on both your
intentions (the reference setting for the input controlled by those
outputs) as well as by disturbances to the variable controlled by those
outputs.

Contrary to what you say above, by the way, disturbances certainly are
"relevant" in typing and speaking. The fact that disturbances are
effectively resisted simply means that the relationship between output
and disturbance variables is nearly perfect: o = -d approximately.

Other disturbances are very relevant, but they all involve the other

party

in a communication loop.

Disturbances are _always_ relevant to control. The state of a controlled
variable depends on effects produced by disturbance variables and by the
output of the system. It's always true that p= f(o , d).

Rick, I omitted mentioning possible disturbances while e.g. I am

saying or

typing the word "disturbances." This does not mean that I do not think

that

PCT applies. For you to say so to me is surprising.

It wasn't your failure to mention disturbances that led me to suggest
that you don't think PCT applies in certain practical situations. It was
your comment that "As a practical matter (which is what we are concerned
with), disturbances during the production of an utterance (speech or
email) have very little bearing on the question". From my point of
view, disturbances _always_ have a bearing on the question when the
question is about control.

I think I have demonstrated an understanding of the basic principles

of PCT

over the past 10 years or more. So I ask you: why are you doing this?

Sorry. I was only doing it to clarify something about control. I
probably didn't do a very good job of clarifying. When you said "What
you say depends solely on your intentions" my perception of "the nature
of control" was disturbed, probably more than it should have been
because (as I said above) this statement is true if "what you say" is
_only_ a controlled perception, p. In that case, p ~ r. But I think
what we say is nearly always also an output aimed at controlling some
higher level perception (a perception like "explaining PCT", or
"convincing someone to go out on a date" or whatever). In this case,
what we say certainly does _not_ depend solely on our intentions (r)
(unless disturbances are perfectly constant, something that is rarely,
if ever, the case in communication). The most common situation, I
think, in communication -- and the one that PCT explains beautifully --
is the one where what we say depends almost exclusively on disturbances
to the variable we are trying to control (protect from disturbance) with
"what we say".

Best regards

Rick

PS. Stefan, I am not ignoring you. Perhaps you will be able to get some
hints about verbal approaches to doing the test from this discussion. I
think you are on the right track.

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
RAND
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

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 20:41 EDT)]

Rick Marken (01.04.12.1400)--

The topic at hand (as I understood it) was the variable(s) on which the
outputs of a control system depend.

Then I have failed to communicate with you. That was not the topic that I intended to communicate about. Your response nicely illustrates an important aspect of the intended topic.

What you said was "What you say
depends solely on your intentions". This is true (to some extent) if
"what you say" is viewed as a controlled variable (which it surely is).
I was just pointing out that "what you say" is _also_ an output aimed at
achieving higher level goals. So "what you say" depends on both your
intentions (the reference setting for the input controlled by those
outputs) as well as by disturbances to the variable controlled by those
outputs.

Looks like with that disturbance you stopped reading further. Here's what you missed by changing the subject to how I said something wrong about PCT (a variable that you control with high gain). What I said drew a contrast between saying something and telling someone something. That contrast was the topic of what I said.

Contrary to what you say above, by the way, disturbances certainly are
"relevant" in typing and speaking. The fact that disturbances are
effectively resisted simply means that the relationship between output
and disturbance variables is nearly perfect: o = -d approximately.

Disturbances to speaking or typing are within or in the immediate environment of the speaker or typist-- peanut butter in the mouth, slapping a mosquito, things like that. Disturbances to telling (communicating) are perceptions that what the other person is saying or doing is inconsistent with their having understood what you said. (I won't unpack the complexity in that last clause at this point.)

There is a difference of course between misunderstanding and disagreeing. This makes a number of possibilities: (1) they are disagreeing with you, (2) they did not understand you (they may be agreeing with, disagreeing with, or simply paraphrasing what they think you said), (3) what they are saying/doing is unrelated to what you said, (4) you are misunderstanding them (independently or with 1, 2, or 3). Which it is can be determined only with the help of the other person.

> Other disturbances are very relevant, but they all involve the other
party
> in a communication loop.

Disturbances are _always_ relevant to control.

Well, yes, of course. But control of which variable? Disturbances to saying (like the above) have all been successfully controlled before we can even begin to consider disturbances to telling, that is, disturbances to the communication loop between autonomous control systems. This is why I say that disturbances to control of saying are irrelevant to control of telling.

Here's a parallel. Disturbances to my control of doing my work for Cisco are also irrelevant to control of withdrawing money for a trip from the bank this morning. My work activities are means for my having money in the bank, and not having money in the bank would sure be a disturbance to my taking it out, but disturbances to my work activities are routinely resisted to a sufficient extent to ensure that I continue being paid, and by the time we consider disturbances at the teller's window any relevant disturbances to my work for Cisco have long since been successfully resisted. So it is with saying and telling. By the time we consider disturbances to telling, any disturbances to saying have long since been successfully resisted.

The state of a controlled
variable depends on effects produced by disturbance variables and by the
output of the system. It's always true that p= f(o , d).

Yes, of course. And when you consider more than one loop each loop has its own p, o, and d variables. The loop for saying is entirely within the sayer and the sayer's immediate physical environment, ignoring any other person. The loop for telling (communicating) is not.

> Rick, I omitted mentioning possible disturbances while e.g. I am
saying or
> typing the word "disturbances." This does not mean that I do not think
that
> PCT applies. For you to say so to me is surprising.

It wasn't your failure to mention disturbances that led me to suggest
that you don't think PCT applies in certain practical situations. It was
your comment that "As a practical matter (which is what we are concerned
with), disturbances during the production of an utterance (speech or
email) have very little bearing on the question". From my point of
view, disturbances _always_ have a bearing on the question when the
question is about control.

Read that again. Disturbances during the production of an utterance (saying, a solo performance) have very little bearing on the question of communication (telling, a dialog). Disturbances to that dialog loop have vastly more relevance to telling, when compared to the (already successfully resisted) disturbances to saying.

> I think I have demonstrated an understanding of the basic principles
of PCT
> over the past 10 years or more. So I ask you: why are you doing this?

Sorry. I was only doing it to clarify something about control.

Yes. This "something about control" was more important to you than understanding what I was trying to communicate.

I probably didn't do a very good job of clarifying.

You did a great job of clarifying something that was already quite clear.

When you said "What
you say depends solely on your intentions" my perception of "the nature
of control" was disturbed, probably more than it should have been
because (as I said above) this statement is true if "what you say" is
_only_ a controlled perception, p. In that case, p ~ r. But I think
what we say is nearly always also an output aimed at controlling some
higher level perception (a perception like "explaining PCT", or
"convincing someone to go out on a date" or whatever). In this case,
what we say certainly does _not_ depend solely on our intentions (r)
(unless disturbances are perfectly constant, something that is rarely,
if ever, the case in communication). The most common situation, I
think, in communication -- and the one that PCT explains beautifully --
is the one where what we say depends almost exclusively on disturbances
to the variable we are trying to control (protect from disturbance) with
"what we say".

Yes. What you say is your means for controlling what you are telling someone.

Now that we're talking about the same thing (I hope) -- that is, now that we're talking about this interpersonal loop in which one tries to control telling by means of saying -- let me reconnect it to the context.

Bill Powers(2001.04.11.1144 MDT)--

Rick Marken (01.04.09.2140)--

>>To me, the only issue of any
>> importance was the phrase and its implications; there never was
>> any important criticism of RTP.
>
>Suppose that you actually _had_ been critical of the RTP program.
>Would you have thought you were doing something wrong?

Never crossed my mind either way. I was just noting some details that I
thought would improve the program.

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 11:58 EDT)--

>What you say depends solely on your intentions.

This is the point where you got distracted. I should have said "depends solely on your intentions (plus disturbances that affect you alone and are almost always resisted with very little effort)." Better? At the time this seemed pedantic and fussy, and, frankly, redundant for the audience.

>What you say depends solely on your intentions [etc.].
>What you tell someone depends upon their control of what you say.
>The rhetorical effect -- in this case whether or not there was criticism
>of RTP -- is in the latter. Communication involves a feedback loop
>between autonomous control systems. If the loop is not closed, there
>are words for it other than communication.

In other words, it isn't entirely up to Bill whether or not there was criticism of RTP in what he said. And if it was construed that way in his telling, even if he didn't intend it in his saying, he bears some responsibility for that interpretation. "Responsibility" is a loaded word, I know, and not agreed upon in PCT. What I mean is, if you wish to tell someone something, it is incumbent upon you, simply as a matter of successful control, to check to see how they are understanding what you say, and to engage in any necessary dialog to correct misperceptions.

The only way that I know of to demonstrate understanding is paraphrase. If you can say it back in your own words (and deeds), that's pretty good evidence of understanding. This can include disagreement (or disobedience, etc.) but obviously not all disagreement shows understanding.

A corollary is the pitfall attendant on talking about people who are not present (or talking about things that they care about). There is no way to close the loop and verify that what you told them is what you said.

It's important to close the loop and engage in some mutual verification of intentions. Unless you don't care. And if you fail to do so, the conclusion might be drawn that you don't care, regardless of your intentions.

It is also incumbent on the other person to verify that they have understood correctly.

I believe these are the principle issues involved in the RTP rift.

From there we get into how easy or difficult it may be to initiate reciprocal verification of intentions. One gauge of how easy it is for another person to do this with you, is how easy it is for you to paraphrase what another person is saying when you strongly disagree with them, to do so fairly, without tendentious language or anything that could possibly be construed as a put-down or insult, as though you were adopting their position for the nonce in a debate. If it's hard for you to do that, then you may be perceived as difficult to talk to. For each person approaching the question arises whether the effort is worth it.

Once they perceive that you have understood what they are saying, it's easier to try to persuade them that they should say something different.

If this is extremely difficult for you, or if you never do it (which is in any practical sense the same thing), then healing such a rift ain't gonna happen. The question arises whether the effort is worth it. Pretty quickly, variables that are easier to control come to seem more important.

If you are able and willing to do this, but one or more other people who are perceived as being on the "same side" with you are not, then all your skill and good will is masked by the disruptive interventions of the other.

All sorts of other variables are possible on both sides, of course, as you progress into the hall of mirrors. Agreement with the "other side" (or mere restatement of their position as part of verification) may be perceived as betrayal, for instance.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 14:02 04/12/2001 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0413.0532)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 20:41 EDT)

Rick Marken (01.04.12.1400)--

The topic at hand (as I understood it) was the variable(s) on which the
outputs of a control system depend.

Then I have failed to communicate with you. That was not the topic that I
intended to communicate about. Your response nicely illustrates an
important aspect of the intended topic.

What you said was "What you say
depends solely on your intentions". This is true (to some extent) if
"what you say" is viewed as a controlled variable (which it surely is).
I was just pointing out that "what you say" is _also_ an output aimed at
achieving higher level goals. So "what you say" depends on both your
intentions (the reference setting for the input controlled by those
outputs) as well as by disturbances to the variable controlled by those
outputs.

Looks like with that disturbance you stopped reading further. Here's what
you missed by changing the subject to how I said something wrong about PCT
(a variable that you control with high gain). What I said drew a contrast
between saying something and telling someone something. That contrast was
the topic of what I said.

You may have noticed that this kind of misunderstanding happens with
depressing regularity on CSGnet. Based on my recent exchange with Bill, I
am inclined to attribute it to perceptual organization rather than
perversity. If your perceptual system is structured (as a result of
reorganization) in a strongly bimodal way, you see the world in "black and
white", Attempts to convince you that there are important shades of gray
are largely futile, absent a fairly profound reorganization of your
perceptual system. This "model" has obvious applications to politics as
well as CSGnet.

BG

···

At 14:02 04/12/2001 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.04.13.0800)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 20:41 EDT) --

As you said in a previous post, you have been on CSGNet for 10 years or
so and you are comfortable with your understanding of PCT. So unless
someone expresses some interest in hearing my comments on your post I
think it would be a waste of my time and yours for me say anything more
about it.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
RAND
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

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (001.04.13.1130EST)

[From Rick Marken (01.04.13.0800)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 20:41 EDT) --

As you said in a previous post, you have been on CSGNet for 10 years or
so and you are comfortable with your understanding of PCT. So unless
someone expresses some interest in hearing my comments on your post I
think it would be a waste of my time and yours for me say anything more
about it.

I would be interested. I feel he has made some meaningful comments. Was
there a specific thing
you found disagreeable?

i.

[Marken_Richard]

[From Rick Marken (01.04.13.0900)]

i.kurtzer (001.04.13.1130EST)

I would be interested. I feel he has made some meaningful
comments. Was there a specific thing you found disagreeable?

I think you've been around long enough to be comfortable with your own
understanding of PCT too. I'm afraid I'd be wasting my time with you
too.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
RAND
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

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)]

Rick Marken (01.04.12.0920)--

My "basic question" to you about criticism of RTP was based on your
earlier post [Bill Powers (2001.04.09.0643 MDT)] in which you seemed to
be going out of your way to make it sound like you were _not_
criticizing RTP at all or, if you were, that it was so minor as to not
merit consideration. This was troubling to me, not because I have any
important criticisms of RTP, but because it seemed that you were tacitly
supporting the idea, which seems to be prevalent in the RTP community,
that RTP should not suffer criticism from anyone except, possibly, those
in the RTP community itself.

I don't care about that. If they're sensitive to criticism, that is how
they are, and if we want to influence them we have to take that into
consideration. I don't want to make enemies of them, but I do hope they
will alter certain recommendations that I have problems with. I don't think
hitting them with a sledgehammer will encourage them to change to suit my
preferences.

This is the aspect of RTP that has always
been most troubling to me. The program itself seems fine. It's the
attitude of those in the program toward _any_ criticism of that program
that has been most troubling to me.

When you land with both feet on people, they are likely to push back in
self-defense. If you want to test PCT as a social theory, go ahead and
clobber them; I predict that they will behave as expected. On the other
hand, if you think there are changes that would make the program better, I
submit that it would be better to approach the people with some humility
and try to open a discussion -- my own experiments with applying
disturbances to RTP people (and practically everyone else) have convinced
me of that. I'm a slow learner but eventually I get the point.

This aversion to criticism seems
totally out of synch with the scientific spirit and self-critical
attitude that is at the heart of PCT, the approach to understanding
human nature upon which RTP is purportedly built.

So? Not everyone is a pure-hearted scientist, and telling someone he or she
ought to be one isn't going to do much good. Getting along with ideal
scientists is easy, but shouldn't we be concerned also with dealing with
real people, as they actually are? When applying the Test, we have to
remember to keep the disturbance small enough that the other person can
successfully counteract it without requiring any bothersome amount of effort.

The trouble with criticism is that too easily the goal becomes that of
crushing the other person with irrefutable arguments and forcing the other
to admit that (a) he is wrong, and (b) you are right. This is why criticism
seldom has any effects you want. And that's why I usually avoid it, when I
manage not to get mad.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1103 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 20:41 EDT)--

Disturbances to speaking or typing are within or in the immediate
environment of the speaker or typist-- peanut butter in the mouth, slapping
a mosquito, things like that. Disturbances to telling (communicating) are
perceptions that what the other person is saying or doing is inconsistent
with their having understood what you said. (I won't unpack the complexity
in that last clause at this point.)

This is a highlight of a very good post(i.e., I agree with you). The
distinction between talking/writing and communicating, or between saying
and telling, is probably the most important thing to understand about
social aspects of language.

Best,

Bill P/

···

There is a difference of course between misunderstanding and disagreeing.
This makes a number of possibilities: (1) they are disagreeing with you,
(2) they did not understand you (they may be agreeing with, disagreeing
with, or simply paraphrasing what they think you said), (3) what they are
saying/doing is unrelated to what you said, (4) you are misunderstanding
them (independently or with 1, 2, or 3). Which it is can be determined only
with the help of the other person.

> Other disturbances are very relevant, but they all involve the other
party
> in a communication loop.

Disturbances are _always_ relevant to control.

Well, yes, of course. But control of which variable? Disturbances to saying
(like the above) have all been successfully controlled before we can even
begin to consider disturbances to telling, that is, disturbances to the
communication loop between autonomous control systems. This is why I say
that disturbances to control of saying are irrelevant to control of telling.

Here's a parallel. Disturbances to my control of doing my work for Cisco
are also irrelevant to control of withdrawing money for a trip from the
bank this morning. My work activities are means for my having money in the
bank, and not having money in the bank would sure be a disturbance to my
taking it out, but disturbances to my work activities are routinely
resisted to a sufficient extent to ensure that I continue being paid, and
by the time we consider disturbances at the teller's window any relevant
disturbances to my work for Cisco have long since been successfully
resisted. So it is with saying and telling. By the time we consider
disturbances to telling, any disturbances to saying have long since been
successfully resisted.

The state of a controlled
variable depends on effects produced by disturbance variables and by the
output of the system. It's always true that p= f(o , d).

Yes, of course. And when you consider more than one loop each loop has its
own p, o, and d variables. The loop for saying is entirely within the sayer
and the sayer's immediate physical environment, ignoring any other person.
The loop for telling (communicating) is not.

> Rick, I omitted mentioning possible disturbances while e.g. I am
saying or
> typing the word "disturbances." This does not mean that I do not think
that
> PCT applies. For you to say so to me is surprising.

It wasn't your failure to mention disturbances that led me to suggest
that you don't think PCT applies in certain practical situations. It was
your comment that "As a practical matter (which is what we are concerned
with), disturbances during the production of an utterance (speech or
email) have very little bearing on the question". From my point of
view, disturbances _always_ have a bearing on the question when the
question is about control.

Read that again. Disturbances during the production of an utterance
(saying, a solo performance) have very little bearing on the question of
communication (telling, a dialog). Disturbances to that dialog loop have
vastly more relevance to telling, when compared to the (already
successfully resisted) disturbances to saying.

> I think I have demonstrated an understanding of the basic principles
of PCT
> over the past 10 years or more. So I ask you: why are you doing this?

Sorry. I was only doing it to clarify something about control.

Yes. This "something about control" was more important to you than
understanding what I was trying to communicate.

I probably didn't do a very good job of clarifying.

You did a great job of clarifying something that was already quite clear.

When you said "What
you say depends solely on your intentions" my perception of "the nature
of control" was disturbed, probably more than it should have been
because (as I said above) this statement is true if "what you say" is
_only_ a controlled perception, p. In that case, p ~ r. But I think
what we say is nearly always also an output aimed at controlling some
higher level perception (a perception like "explaining PCT", or
"convincing someone to go out on a date" or whatever). In this case,
what we say certainly does _not_ depend solely on our intentions (r)
(unless disturbances are perfectly constant, something that is rarely,
if ever, the case in communication). The most common situation, I
think, in communication -- and the one that PCT explains beautifully --
is the one where what we say depends almost exclusively on disturbances
to the variable we are trying to control (protect from disturbance) with
"what we say".

Yes. What you say is your means for controlling what you are telling someone.

Now that we're talking about the same thing (I hope) -- that is, now that
we're talking about this interpersonal loop in which one tries to control
telling by means of saying -- let me reconnect it to the context.

Bill Powers(2001.04.11.1144 MDT)--

Rick Marken (01.04.09.2140)--

>>To me, the only issue of any
>> importance was the phrase and its implications; there never was
>> any important criticism of RTP.
>
>Suppose that you actually _had_ been critical of the RTP program.
>Would you have thought you were doing something wrong?

Never crossed my mind either way. I was just noting some details that I
thought would improve the program.

Bruce Nevin (2001.04.12 11:58 EDT)--

>What you say depends solely on your intentions.

This is the point where you got distracted. I should have said "depends
solely on your intentions (plus disturbances that affect you alone and are
almost always resisted with very little effort)." Better? At the time this
seemed pedantic and fussy, and, frankly, redundant for the audience.

>What you say depends solely on your intentions [etc.].
>What you tell someone depends upon their control of what you say.
>The rhetorical effect -- in this case whether or not there was criticism
>of RTP -- is in the latter. Communication involves a feedback loop
>between autonomous control systems. If the loop is not closed, there
>are words for it other than communication.

In other words, it isn't entirely up to Bill whether or not there was
criticism of RTP in what he said. And if it was construed that way in his
telling, even if he didn't intend it in his saying, he bears some
responsibility for that interpretation. "Responsibility" is a loaded word,
I know, and not agreed upon in PCT. What I mean is, if you wish to tell
someone something, it is incumbent upon you, simply as a matter of
successful control, to check to see how they are understanding what you
say, and to engage in any necessary dialog to correct misperceptions.

The only way that I know of to demonstrate understanding is paraphrase. If
you can say it back in your own words (and deeds), that's pretty good
evidence of understanding. This can include disagreement (or disobedience,
etc.) but obviously not all disagreement shows understanding.

A corollary is the pitfall attendant on talking about people who are not
present (or talking about things that they care about). There is no way to
close the loop and verify that what you told them is what you said.

It's important to close the loop and engage in some mutual verification of
intentions. Unless you don't care. And if you fail to do so, the conclusion
might be drawn that you don't care, regardless of your intentions.

It is also incumbent on the other person to verify that they have
understood correctly.

I believe these are the principle issues involved in the RTP rift.

From there we get into how easy or difficult it may be to initiate
reciprocal verification of intentions. One gauge of how easy it is for
another person to do this with you, is how easy it is for you to paraphrase
what another person is saying when you strongly disagree with them, to do
so fairly, without tendentious language or anything that could possibly be
construed as a put-down or insult, as though you were adopting their
position for the nonce in a debate. If it's hard for you to do that, then
you may be perceived as difficult to talk to. For each person approaching
the question arises whether the effort is worth it.

Once they perceive that you have understood what they are saying, it's
easier to try to persuade them that they should say something different.

If this is extremely difficult for you, or if you never do it (which is in
any practical sense the same thing), then healing such a rift ain't gonna
happen. The question arises whether the effort is worth it. Pretty quickly,
variables that are easier to control come to seem more important.

If you are able and willing to do this, but one or more other people who
are perceived as being on the "same side" with you are not, then all your
skill and good will is masked by the disruptive interventions of the other.

All sorts of other variables are possible on both sides, of course, as you
progress into the hall of mirrors. Agreement with the "other side" (or mere
restatement of their position as part of verification) may be perceived as
betrayal, for instance.

        Bruce Nevin

[Marken_Richard]

[From Rick Marken (01.04.13.1640)]

Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)--

If they're sensitive to criticism, that is how they are

True.

I don't want to make enemies

Nor do I. But I've got plenty of friends so I don't need to court those
who are hypersensitive to criticism.

I don't think hitting them with a sledgehammer will encourage
them to change to suit my preferences.

With the hypersensitive, a wet noodle is as good as a sledgehammer. But
I'm not interested in getting people to change to suit my preferences.
I'm interested in avoiding people who think they are above criticism and
who hit you with a sledgehammer when you deign to point out that the
Emperor seems to be running around naked.

Getting along with ideal scientists is easy, but shouldn't we be
concerned also with dealing with real people, as they actually are?

The only real people I've dealt with who were that hypersensitive to
criticism were religious zealots. I don't get along with such people and
I don't care because there are more than enough real people (who are not
ideal scientists) around who can deal with criticism (ie. have a normal
discussion) just fine.

The trouble with criticism is that too easily the goal becomes that

of

crushing the other person with irrefutable arguments and forcing the
other to admit that (a) he is wrong, and (b) you are right. This is

why

criticism seldom has any effects you want. And that's why I usually

avoid

it, when I manage not to get mad.

That's silly, Bill. You can't avoid criticism when you do science. B:CP
is one long criticism of causal models of behavior. Every piece of
research that produces results that cannot be handled by existing models
is a criticism of those models. I think criticism can be kept civil and
informative. But I don't think it can be avoided (at least not by those
who care about truth).

I don't care if people don't change their minds on the basis of my
criticism; if I did I would have stopped doing my PCT research work long
ago. Nor do I care if people get all tied up in their shorts when they
get criticized. What I do care about is people who feel that their ideas
are too important to be subjected to criticism. I am happy to have as
little contact with such people as possible . And I hope that such
people feel exactly the same way about me (and I'm quite sure they do).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
RAND
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

[Stefan_Balke1]

[From Stefan Balke (01.04.14)]

Rick Marken (01.04.13.1640) to Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)

You can't avoid criticism when you do science.

I think that it's important to find out, what is the common and what are
different goals for Ed Ford's RTP and PCT. PCT is a way to model human and
animal behavior. RTP is an advice for teachers to deal with disruptive
students. RTP doesn`t really need PCT. All the instructions that are given
within RTP could be reasoned by philosophical thoughts about morality. I
think that Ed Ford doesn't depend on a complete understanding of HPCT while
teaching RTP. This implies that he doesn't control for a perceptual variable
like "teaching precise PCT". He is not open for scientific criticism. Tom
Bourbon states in a private post to me that he is not the person to alter
the program of Ed Ford.

My impression is that RTP is a closed society with a leader who needs a
scientific model as a method to sell his ideas. I can't judge whether RTP is
a good messenger for PCT. Unfortunately I didn`t experience that deeper
questions for understanding are answered in a serious sense.

The problem with PCT and RTP seems to be that RTP is the only messenger of
PCT to a broader public. But right now RTP is surely not a method to further
develop PCT. So I would say, let them go their way. But there is one
question open for me. Ed Ford says that everybody who changes his program
will not be allowed to use the name RTP. He protects the integrity of his
program. That is his decision as a businessman. But he uses the name of PCT
without being open for a dialogue with other PCT'ers than Tom Bourbon. That
is not fair. If he uses the good name of PCT to put quality into RTP he has
the _duty_ to deal with well reasoned arguments from PCT'ers. Otherwise he
is not fair. And that weights heavy for a person who claims to be an expert
on morality and fairness. Ed Ford would exclude himself from the right of
using the name of PCT if he would apply his own rules for his own behavior.
That is the reason why there is a kind of hypersensitivity to criticism from
both of you. You hit an open wound.

I think that Ed Ford should be asked in an open and respectful way to
clarify his understandig of team work between RTP and PCT.

Regards,
Stefan

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (01.04.15.1220)]

Stefan Balke (01.04.14)

If he [Ed] uses the good name of PCT to put quality into RTP
he has the _duty_ to deal with well reasoned arguments from
PCT'ers.

I don't think so. PCT is not a business. People are free to do whatever
they want with it. The RTPers don't have to deal with my criticisms of
what RTP says any more than I have to deal with their criticisms of what
I say. (Actually, I don't believe I have criticised what RTP says in
recent weeks. I have resolved to try to avoid criticism of RTP since it
seems to cause so much commotion. I think my latest "complaint" was
about the "I see you have chosen..." phrase. I don't believe I
criticized RTP at all but if I did I'm happy to withdraw it.)

I thought (years ago) that the RTP people would be very interested in
(even appreciative of) Bill and my comments and criticisms. Obviously
they are not. That seems to be fine with Bill and it is certainly fine
with me.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[Stefan_Balke1]

[From Stefan Balke (01.04.15)9

Me:

> If he [Ed] uses the good name of PCT to put quality into RTP
> he has the _duty_ to deal with well reasoned arguments from
> PCT'ers.

Rick Marken (01.04.15.1220)

I don't think so. PCT is not a business. People are free to do whatever
they want with it.

Are people free to distort PCT? Of course, it's not illegal in a business
sense, but it's misleading in a scientific sense and I can`t see any use of
it. There are rules, not only in the schools but also in science. I expect a
person who cares for working rules in the schools to respect the idea that
there are also rules in science and therefore in using scientific theories.

Ed Ford also says that everybody is free to do what he wants with RTP. But
he adds: If a person decides to change RTP he shouldn't use the name RTP. I
can follow his argument here. Wouldn`t it be just to ask Ed Ford to label
the PCT-like theory he uses with his own words (maybe PCT in the version of
Ed Ford) to avoid misunderstandings? In that case I would not perceive any
error.

I thought (years ago) that the RTP people would be very interested in
(even appreciative of) Bill and my comments and criticisms. Obviously
they are not. That seems to be fine with Bill and it is certainly fine
with me.

Okay, I can live with that too and I think there are more important problems
to solve than this one (which seems to be unsolvable).
I finished my exchange with Tom Bourbon without a result. He didn`t comment
any of my proposals to involve other persons (like RTPnet, Rick Marken, Tim
Curry) in the discussion. He told me to ask Ed Ford. I will not do that,
because I have no new arguments. Everything has been said several times.

Best regards and happy easter
Stefan

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0415.1839)]

Stefan Balke (01.04.15)

Are people free to distort PCT?

I am unaware of anyone distorting PCT, least of all Ed Ford. What did you
have in mind?

BG

[Dag_Forssell3]

[From Dag Forssell (010415 18:00)]

>Stefan Balke (01.04.14)]
>
>Rick Marken (01.04.13.1640) to Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)
>
>> You can't avoid criticism when you do science.
>
>I think that it's important to find out, what is the common and
>what are different goals for Ed Ford's RTP and PCT. PCT is a way
>to model human and animal behavior. RTP is an advice for teachers
>to deal with disruptive students. RTP doesn`t really need PCT.

How come there are not programs similar to RTP throughout the
field of education? Might it possibly be that Ed Ford's study of
and writings about PCT over a ten year period preceding the
conception of RTP had something to do with the emphasis on
individual autonomy, for example?

>All the instructions that are given within RTP could be reasoned
>by philosophical thoughts about morality.

This is high praise indeed. If PCT describes how humans and other
living organisms have functioned since life began billions of
years ago, the point of whether or not a program is based on PCT
is moot, since anything and everything can claim that it is and
in fact it is. The question becomes whether a program "feels right"
and if it does so because the designer - understanding PCT -
designed the program to be supportive of a worthy purpose and
work in harmony with autonomous hierarchical living control
systems.

>I think that Ed Ford doesn't depend on a complete understanding
>of HPCT while teaching RTP. This implies that he doesn't control
>for a perceptual variable like "teaching precise PCT".

I believe this is a fair statement about RTP in the initial
phases. Ed did not want to emphasize PCT in the first years of
RTP because he was less than confident that his audience of
teachers, parents and administrators would care about the in-
depth reasoning behind the program.

>He is not open for scientific criticism.

How do you know? You have received a huge amount of support from
Ed without ever paying him a penny. You operate in Germany and
have adapted/changed the program as you see fit without any
review by Ed or Tom. You have never attended any of Ed's
conferences or met him personally. You acknowledged as much in
your reply to Bruce Nevin a few months ago. I suspect your
comment derives from reading and believing CSGnet far too much.

>Tom Bourbon states in a private post to me that he is not the
>person to alter the program of Ed Ford.

That seems both correct and appropriate. Tom is Ed's scientific
adviser, not the person who created RTP and responsible for the
program.

>My impression is that RTP is a closed society with a leader who
>needs a scientific model as a method to sell his ideas.

Quite the contrary. Selling a radically new, strange idea such as
PCT is extremely difficult. Selling a humane program that can be
reasoned by philosophical thoughts about morality is far easier.

The problem is that a program reasoned by philosophical thoughts
about morality will be changed by any and all users without any
understanding of what the reasons really are. Soon, the program
will be distorted beyond recognition, fragmented and fails.
Schools may still claim that they do "RTP" but the peaceful,
quiet learning environment will be gone.

This is the basic reason that Ed was persuaded by Tom and Tim to
bring PCT front and center to RTP conferences and training. A
core group of educators are now embracing PCT, as they understand
how vital it is to a sensible application of all those RTP
principles that can be reasoned by philosophical thoughts about
morality.

>I can't judge whether RTP is a good messenger for PCT.
>Unfortunately I didn`t experience that deeper questions for
>understanding are answered in a serious sense.

Are you saying that you did not like answers or challenges you
received from Ed and Tom in your private e-mail exchanges a few
years ago? As any reader of CSGnet for many years can plainly
see, it is easy to talk past each other in e-mail discussions.
This is best resolved by attending conferences, both CSG and RTP,
and engaging in long discussions after hours. By the way, I look
forward to seeing you again in Hanover in September.

>The problem with PCT and RTP seems to be that RTP is the only
>messenger of PCT to a broader public.

This may appear so only from a narrow perspective. There are many
people who promote the PCT literature and web sites. Additional
literature is in the works.

>But right now RTP is surely not a method to further develop PCT.
>So I would say, let them go their way.

Yes, indeed, just as you go your way without interference from
anyone, so should all people who are interested in PCT be allowed
to go their own way. My judgement is that as long as the basic
literature is clear, available and referred to by practitioners
of whatever personal understanding, others in turn will read the
literature, understand or misunderstand as the case may be, and
the rings of PCT understanding will continue to spread on the
vast ocean of contemporary ignorance.

>But there is one question open for me. Ed Ford says that
>everybody who changes his program will not be allowed to use the
>name RTP. He protects the integrity of his program. That is his
>decision as a businessman.

I sense that you agree with this. RTP is not just a business with
Ed. It is his personal contribution to mankind, just like PCT is
Bill's. Several academics and school consultants in the U.S. have
materialized out of thin air, suddenly experts lecturing on RTP.
Ed's lawyer has sent letters to these people, telling them to
call their programs something other than RTP. You do the same
thing, but in Germany, so you can say and do whatever you please
simply because you are so far away, geographically and legally.
You have made it clear here on CSGnet that you have not been
trained in RTP and are not in touch with the people who teach it.
I make no judgement of what you are doing. Do you call your
program RTP or do you call it something else, while giving credit
to Ed Ford for teaching and inspiring you?

>But he uses the name of PCT without being open for a dialogue
>with other PCT'ers than Tom Bourbon. That is not fair. If he uses
>the good name of PCT to put quality into RTP he has the _duty_ to
>deal with well reasoned arguments from PCT'ers. Otherwise he is
>not fair.

There is a difference between PCT and RTP. PCT is basic science,
just like Newton's laws of motion in kinetics, the periodic table
of the elements in chemistry, and Ohm's law in electrical
engineering. (There is no basic science worthy of the name in
your field, social science, prior to the arrival of PCT). RTP is
an application, a particular design, such as any innovative
mechanism, computer program or industrial process would be. There
are no laws saying you have to discuss Newton's laws of motion
with Mr. Newton or another engineer to have the right to consider
them when you design mechanisms. There are laws preventing you
from infringing on innovations of others where designs have been
patented or names copyrighted. The name RTP has been copyrighted
in the U.S.

There are more aspects of Ed's "duty" to deal with "well reasoned
arguments" from PCT'ers. I don't believe you have been on CSGnet
long enough to have witnessed Rick Marken's persistent, cruel,
insensitive ridicule of Ed Ford for Ed's personal beliefs some
five or six years ago. (Beliefs Ed never mentioned on CSGnet). I
believe you have read "Freedom from Stress" and understand the
concept of quality time. What Ed experienced on CSGnet was the
very opposite of quality time. Ed has not participated on CSGnet
for many years. There is no "RTP community" listening to Rick's
tirades on CSGnet, just sensible people like Bruce Gregory and
Bruce Nevin telling Rick that he is way out of line.

In Ed's and Tom's absence from CSGnet, Rick (and Bill) undertook
in 1997-1998 to criticize RTP and its coercive nature. (Almost
everything in any society is coercive by its nature). This one-
way shouting "debate" reached a crescendo in May/June 1998, when
Rick resurrected a speculative "plug-in" addition to PCT called
the "Universal Error Curve" to explain why children subject to
the RTP program would "give up." Plug-ins of this kind, inserting
arbitrary functions (usually look-up tables) into a theory or a
model, just so the model would "do what it is supposed to do" are
not uncommon in "scientific" psychology, but have never before
been tolerated in PCT. Isaac Kurtzer, Bruce Nevin, Bruce Abbot,
Chris Cherpas and Bob Christensen objected vigorously, but Rick
loved his Java demo, so there it sits, one of the PCT demos at
Rick's web site, an unnecessary, speculative addition that
destroys the scientific rigor of PCT and a basic PCT web site
along with Rick's claim to be a scientist with intellectual
integrity.

The worst of this occurred while Bill (and I) were at Schloss
Kroechlendorff at the CSG conference (and met you). I doubt that
Bill reviewed this outrageous correspondence and the objections
to the Universal Error Curve before he responded to Tom Bourbon's
open letter to himself and Rick in late June 1998.

Most of the "reasoned arguments from PCT'ers" that I guess you
refer to have been nothing much more than personal prejudices and
nitpicks expressed over and over and over to an imagined audience
that has never been present. There has been very little
"scientific" about any of the comments made by Rick Marken about
RTP. Rick is not particularly qualified to comment on RTP or any
other social application. His basic Ph.D. in psychology is no
qualification at all, by definition. He mixes a huge amount of
personal prejudice and political views with his PCT
pronouncements, which are rarely reasoned from PCT first
principles (as Bill's are), but often based on "my PCT sense,"
which is no argument at all. When you catch Rick being
inconsistent or wrong (which he often is), you are told you don't
understand PCT. Do you think Rick could develop something like
the RTP program if his life depended on it? Do you think his post
"On Criticism" Rick Marken (01.04.14.1815)] which followed yours
in yesterday's CSG digest would form a sound basis for a school
program of any kind? Rick has produced wonderful, valuable PCT
research and made great contributions, but I for one wish he
would stick to PCT research and write educational materials.

So there have not been any "well reasoned arguments from PCT'ers"
on CSGnet, Ed has not been subscribing to CSGnet for many years,
and there is no "duty."

You may have noted that during the last year, Bill has tried very
hard to change the approach and tone of discussion on CSGnet.
He has distanced himself from and sworn off Rick's brand
of nastiness on several occasions. Bill makes no claim that
everything he writes is scientific. Rick does.

Having said all that, I should say that Ed _does_ listen to and
respond to well reasoned arguments from PCT'ers. Specifically
supportive PCT'ers such as Tom Bourbon and Tim Carey. Are you
tuned in to Responsiblethinking.net? The discussions there focus
on PCT much of the time. You will even find new and refreshing
information about the "choice" question there.

>And that weights heavy for a person who claims to be an expert on
>morality and fairness.

Does Ed claim that? That's news to me! You are not quoting
Rick, are you?

>Ed Ford would exclude himself from the right of using the name of
>PCT if he would apply his own rules for his own behavior.

Will you exclude yourself from the right to talk about PCT,
psychology or sociology when you present Stefan Balke's program?

>That is the reason why there is a kind of hypersensitivity to
>criticism from both of you. You hit an open wound.

You are quite right that Rick is hitting an open wound. Rick has
been deliberately, deliciously, wounding Ed for many years, and
will not stop trying for more. Rick owes many people on and off
CSGnet a thorough apology. (I recall that Rick suggested a few
months ago that everyone should apologize to him for being
disrespectful, so fences could be mended). When Rick has
apologized, he will likely discover that an apology is not
enough. He will have to demonstrate for some years to come that
he no longer looks down his nose at everyone who does not
understand PCT just exactly the way he does (misunderstand it)
himself. Perhaps some day when Rick recognizes his own severe
shortcomings as a PCT scientist, will he change his tune.

>I think that Ed Ford should be asked in an open and respectful
>way to clarify his understandig of team work between RTP and PCT.

By whom? What team work? Why don't you talk to Ed about attending
the RTP conference in Phoenix June 26-29 2001. You can have beer
and discuss these issues with Tom, Tim, George Venetis (and me)
on the tennis court behind Ed's house until the wee hours of the
morning. You can ask Ed, too, but only before 9:00 p.m.
I am sure you would be most welcome.

Best, Dag

Dag Forssell
dag@forssell.com, www.forssell.com
23903 Via Flamenco, Valencia CA 91355-2808 USA
Tel: +1 661 255 6948 Fax: +1 661 254 7956

[Stefan_Balke1]

[From Stefan Balke (010416)]

Dag Forssell (010415 18:00)

By whom? What team work? Why don't you talk to Ed about attending
the RTP conference in Phoenix June 26-29 2001. You can have beer
and discuss these issues with Tom, Tim, George Venetis (and me)
on the tennis court behind Ed's house until the wee hours of the
morning. You can ask Ed, too, but only before 9:00 p.m.
I am sure you would be most welcome.

Best, Dag

Hello Dag,

I'm happy to read your post, which gives new input for me (I didn't follow
and knew nothing about the "universal error curve", I will read it from the
archive). And I'm happy to read the invitation (I can't come, because I
don't have holidays, but I would like to come, if I could.) I feel that the
place behind Ed´s house could be the right location to talk successful about
such things.

I want to make clear to Rick, Ed and you what my concern is (I posted it to
Tom some days ago):

My problem with the phrase: "I see you have choosen... " started when I
explained the PCT closed loop model including the statement that it is not
possible to see the goals of a person in one part of my talk and in the next
part I explained the teachers to use the phrase: "I see you have choosen ...
". At that moment a teacher compared this message with the message I gave
before and he told me: "That doesn`t fit together". I thought also about it
and replied: "Oh, you are right, I think about it and ask the others what to
do". So this is the story. The error message comes originally from the
teachers.

I'm of the opinion, that it is not good to say: "I see you have choosen
...". PCT makes clear that it
is impossible to _see_ a decision of another person, because it is only
possible to _see_ the behavior.

For me it doesn't fit:

a) to use this phrase on a planned regular basis,
b) to be a teacher with a high reference for accuracy,
c) knowing that this phrase doesn`t cover the facts,
d) having a lot of easy alternative phrases that will cover the facts and
e) controlling for being accepted as an accurate teacher of PCT for
teachers.

My question is, what can I do, if I want to agree with RTP and PCT? I want
both and PCT is fixed.

I personally received a lot of email support from Ed Ford, Bill Powers and
Rick Marken. I hope that this will last and that I can give something back
through the results of my work with families, children and PCT in the long
run. In my work with schools I _always_ refer to Ed Ford and Bill Powers as
the originators of theory and practice. But I still avoid writing something
about the "I see you have choosen ... " phrase, until there is a
clarification. My writing stops at this point - that´s the reason why I
continue to post my questions.

What I don`t want is to involve myself in quarrels, if I don't know enough
about the whole story (the most important reasons are sometimes well
protected and hidden - I usually ask for this reasons, if they are not
presented, I respect that). There are always two sides in each quarrel and I
become crazy if I believe in both sides at one time.

Best regards,
Stefan

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (20010416.1410)]

Stefan Balke (010416)

My problem with the phrase: "I see you have choosen... " started when I
explained the PCT closed loop model including the statement that it is not
possible to see the goals of a person in one part of my talk and in the next
part I explained the teachers to use the phrase: "I see you have choosen ...
". At that moment a teacher compared this message with the message I gave
before and he told me: "That doesn`t fit together". I thought also about it
and replied: "Oh, you are right, I think about it and ask the others what to
do". So this is the story. The error message comes originally from the
teachers.

The reason it does not fit is that "choice" plays no role in PCT. This is
why the phrase "I see you have chosen" is so ambiguous. Hierarchical
control systems do not choose, they act. When you impute an action to an
unobservable choice you are falling back on "folk psychology" where terms
like "free will" are still in vogue. Choice and free will have no place in PCT.

BG