[From Rick Marken (2000.09.08.2100)]
Ray Bennett (2000.10.07.1000AustCST)--
I was thinking that
respect was having the kind of regard for others that I
would like others to have towards me.
Yes. Basically, you're saying respect is "Do unto others...".
This kind of respect is often based on seeing others as being
like oneself. I think most people do respect each other in
this way, if not always for this reason. But people are also
controllers and when other people do things they don't like they
will be inclined to act to make them behave the way they "should".
I think this is where the behavioristic attitude comes in; when
you want to control people you can feel better about it if you
can believe that people are just S-R devices. I don't think this
necessarily diminshes one's respect for others; some of the most
respectful people I've ever met have been behaviorists. What I
think it does is provide a justification and a means for trying
to exert control. Parents, for example, who love and respect their
kids, often try to control those kids with rewards and punishments
because it's for the kids own good and it seems to work.
What I'm trying to say is that respect per se is not going to change
a person's desire to control another person or reduce their belief
in the importance of exerting control.
S-R Theory suggests that prediction is
possible and that assumptions can be made on the basis of what one
observes. PCT suggests that every action is to adjust an error from
inward comparison and that what is observed is just that, what is
observed.
But PCT says that the observed action is completely predictable
once one knows the variable being controlled, the reference state
of that variable and how action and disturbance affect this variable.
Check out my "Nature of Control" java demo at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html
When assumptions are not made
and conclusions are not jumped to I would consider myself as
giving respect.
Yes. I agree. That is a respectful way to deal with people.
But are you going to worry about assumptions and conclusions
when your kid jumps into traffic following a rolling ball? No.
You are going to control that kid's behavior; out of the street
he goes. And are you going to worry about assumptions and conclusions
when a kid keeps yelling in class, after being asked to be quiet? No.
You are going to control that kid's behavior; out of the class he
goes.
Powers,1998 (p122)...seems to be suggesting that trying to control
behaviour is worth giving up, that trying to manage other's
behaviour will be frought with difficulty and conflict.
Yes. That's correct. But I think the assumption was that this applies
to adults who are educated and capable of negotiating their
disagreements.
So do you see teachers as having the job of forcing their
students and of having conflict?
Yes. Though they may never have to use force or get into an
active conflict. The job of the teacher is to teach. To do
this, the teacher must control certain aspects of the kids'
behavior; the teacher must keep the kids in class, being quiet,
working on their lessons, not disturbing other kids. What I
have described is the reference state for a teachers' perceptions
of student behavior. I think they are good reference states.
If all the kids always behaved like this -- in a way consistent with
the teachers' references for how they should behave -- the teacher
would never have to exert any force to produce these perceptions;
and there would never be any conflict. But the teacher is still
controlling to keep all these perceptions in their reference
states, a fact which becomes readily apparent as soon as there
is a disturbance: a kid walking out of class without permission,
a kid shouting, a kid staring out the window rather than taking
the quiz, a kid passing a note to another. When such disturbances
occur, the teacher will act, in some way or another, to return the
perception of class behavior to its reference state.
Is this what PCT is going to help me to realise?
I hope so.
Do you see a way for teachers to operate that does not
involve some controlling of their students' behaviour?
Sure. I think teachers can negotiate with kids more; be a lot
nicer, less rigid, etc. But it's hard for me to imagine teachers
operating without any controlling at all. A teacher who didn't
control at all would not care what the kids did; the kids could
yell, scream, leave anytime, whatever, and the teacher would
do nothing at all. I think some control, especially when kids
are involved, will always be necessary. I think what PCT does
is help us understand controlling _in general_, that which is done
by others _as well as by ourselves_. In a way, I think that second
part is the most important. I don't think it's possible to
develop ways to reduce or eliminate our own controlling if
we don't even know when we are doing it! I think one of the most
important mottos of PCT should be: know thy own controlling.
By the way, it's not easy to see when one is controlling; and
it's even harder to step back from one's own controlling in
order to reduce conflict. Believe me. I know! Even though I
understand PCT rather well I still have difficulty "applying
it" to myself. It's still hard for me, for some reason, to "go
up a level" to get out of control based conflicts; it feels like
one is losing a battle (or giving up "points", as Bill said).
But once you get up there, the air is clear.
My point is that there is more to learning how to "respect
others" (in the sense of not trying to control them -- ie., win
battles) than just learning PCT. PCT helps you see when you
are controlling and when you are in conflict. But to get above
that kind of controlling you really have to learn the method
of levels, (MOL). Once you master PCT I think the most bang for
you buck will come from learning MOL.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com