# Responsibility III

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [November 22, 1999, 2:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901 "1999-11-22T14:57:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 4:21pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/21 "1999-11-23T16:21:23Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.0920)]

Marc Abrams (91123.1115) --

> You don't have to hold me resposible.

Thanks. I would never really do that anyway.

> if I continue to provide you with the same kinds of posts I  
> know what effect they have on you. I can live with it.

Apparently you can live without taking responsibility for  
what had been the unintended side effects of your posts  
(my feeling of depression and hopelessness). So you are as  
irresponsible as a child who continues to disrupt class  
after he has been told about the unintended side effects  
of his actions. What would you do with a child who could  
"live with" knowing that his actions are having a  
disruptive effect?

> They are no longer side effects. They are part of the  
> intended consequences of the CV

So my feelings of depression and hopelessness are now  
intended results of your posting actions? Is that what it  
means to be be responsible? Is the disruptive child being  
responsible when he continues to disrupt knowing that  
his actions are a disruption?

Me:

> So I am giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility  
> for that side-effect and control for making me feel happy  
> and hopeful or go to the nearest RTC room.

Marc Abrams:

> It's not your choice to give. It's mine to make.

Which has been my point all along.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 4:21pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/22 "1999-11-23T16:21:25Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (91123.1115)]

> [From Rick Marken (991123.0730)]

> OK. I take it, then, that you would agree that you should also  
> be held responsible when you are no longer causing \_unknown\_  
> side effects. I am now letting you know that a side effect of  
> your posts is that they make me feel depressed and hopeless.  
> I now hold you responsible for that side effect.

You don't have to hold me resposible. if I continue to provide you with the  
same kinds of posts I know what effect they have on you. I can live with it.  
They are no longer side effects. They are part of the intended consequences  
of the CV. I may also choose to lighten up the posts. i don't know what  
effect that would have but I would be trying to minimize the hurt and  
hopeless feeling. You'll let me know if it's working though :-).

> So I am  
> giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for that  
> side-effect and control for making me feel happy and hopeful  
> or go to the nearest RTC room.

It's not your choice to give. It's mine to make.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Abbott_Bruce)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 4:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/23 "1999-11-23T16:30:43Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (991123.1130 EST)]

> Rick Marken (991122.0900)

> 1) The number of unintended consequences of any control  
> action is large, probably infinite. Any one of these myriad  
> consequences could be something another person wants the  
> controlled to take responsibility for.

I agree. However, the number of unintended consequences that a given  
individual may actually be held responsible for by others is, relative to  
the number possible, small. Most of them fall under the heading of social  
rules, which everyone grows up learning -- and generally obeying. Because  
they are part of the environment in which the individual develops, it is  
likely that the control hierarchy that the person develops will already have  
been optimized with their effects and side-effects already taken account of.

> 2) Taking responsibility for \_any\_ consequence means setting  
> up a system to control a perceptual representation of that  
> consequence. It also implies that the consequence will be  
> controlled at a particular level. For example, one unintended  
> consequence of opening the refrigerator door may be a  
> squeaking sound. One takes responsibility for this consequence  
> by controlling for it. But "taking responsibility" also implies  
> controlling the consequence at a particular level. I would  
> not be seen as "taking responsibility" if I controlled for a  
> loud squeak; the assumption is that I am "taking responsibility"  
> when I am controlling the consequence (squeak) at the level  
> desired by the person wanting me to "take responsibility".

I agree, except for the following: Taking responsibility does not only mean  
accepting responsibility for seeing that your actions do not disturb some  
variable another person is controlling, it also can mean accepting  
responsibility for having disturbed it in the first place. "Rick, you  
stepped on my foot!" Rick: "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to."

> 3) When a person is asked to take control (and set a particular  
> reference for) any particular unintended consequence of a  
> control action, they are being asked to set up a new control  
> system (with a fixed reference for the controlled variable)  
> in an existing hierarchy of control systems. Based on my models  
> of hierarchies of control systems, inserting a control system  
> with a fixed reference into this hierarchy is almost certain  
> to lead to conflict between control systems. For example, if one  
> tried to insert the squeak control system (with a reference of  
> zero, say) into their existing hierarchy of control systems,  
> it is likely that the actions that had to be taken to keep  
> the squeak at zero (very slow movement of the door) would  
> conflict with other systems that are controlling for things  
> like getting a glass of milk.

Unlike your spreadsheet demo, real people normally are able to quickly and  
easily resolve or accommodate to such conflicts, as Chuck Tucker alluded.  
As you note, to reduce the intensity of the squeek, you simply open the door  
more slowly. This is done by resetting the reference for the speed of  
door-opening -- no problem unless a fast speed is required by some  
higher-level system (e.g., you're in a hurry). Or, as Chuck Tucker notes,  
you can get the can of WD-40 out and oil the squeeky hinge. This eliminates  
the conflict, because now opening the door no longer produces the offending  
squeek.

The reorganization model seems to imply that \_any\_ change in the control  
hierarchy will have consequences that will require quite a bit of random  
reorganization to iron out, but real human beings evidently have much more  
efficient methods than random reorganization for accommodating such changes  
, as Bill has noted in the past.

> 4) So my conclusion, based on my understanding of what is  
> involved in "taking responsibility for unintended consequences  
> of one's actions" and of Bill's theory of behavior, is that  
> it is not wise to expect that asking a person to "take  
> responsibility for the \_unintended\_ consequences of their  
> actions" will necessarily increase their power (in terms  
> of the number of variables they are controlling). In fact,  
> it is far more likely (given the large number of unintended  
> consequences that one might want a person to become responsible  
> for and their arbitrary relationship to that person's existing  
> control hierarchy) that "taking responsibility for the  
> \_unintended\_ consequences of one's actions" is more likely  
> to reduce one's power (breadth of control) by creating internal  
> conflict that will reduce one's ability to control variables one  
> was previously able to control successfully.

Which of these outcomes actually happens in a given situation will depend on  
quite a number of factors, probably the most important being whether the  
individual being asked to "take responsibility" perceives the request as  
reasonable. It would appear that much effort is expended in RTP to foster  
that perception in the students.

Regards,

Bruce A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 4:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/24 "1999-11-23T16:32:31Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.0930)]

Bruce Gregory (991123.1050 EST)--

> What does it mean in Bill's Theory "to hold someone responsible"?

A person who says "I hold you responsible for X" typically means  
that they intend to control your behavior using the threat of  
punishing consequences. It means "if you do X you will punished"  
The goal of the person who says "I hold you responsible for X" is  
to make sure that you don't do X or (if you've done it) that  
you never do it again.

Me to Marc Abrams:

> So I am giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for  
> that side-effect and control for making me feel happy and  
> hopeful or go to the nearest RTC room.

Bruce G.

> Sounds coercive to me.

Me too.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 5:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/25 "1999-11-23T17:20:34Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.1030)]

Bruce Gregory (991123.1246 EST) --

> O.K. What does it mean to "be responsible" in Bill's Theory?

I already told you: "responsible" is an ambiguous word; it's  
not a technical term. In some contexts "be responsible" is used  
to mean "be the cause of"; in others it is used to mean "be  
in control of".

Me to Marc Abrams:

> So my feelings of depression and hopelessness are now  
> intended results of your posting actions? Is that what it  
> means to be responsible?

Bruce Gregory (991123.1255 EST)

> Yes, if I understand Bill's Theory.

This has nothing to do with Bill's theory. This is just  
a matter of word use. All Bill's theory does is explain  
what's involved in controlling.

> To be responsible for X mean's to be controlling for X.

Again, that's one way to define "responsible". It has  
nothing to do with Bill's theory. Some people define  
responsible (in not so many words) as "controlling a  
perception at a \_particular level\_". So Marc might not  
be considered "responsible" by some unless he were  
controlling for me feeling happy and hopeful (rather  
than depressed and hopeless). All Bill's theory can tell  
us is whether Marc is or is not controlling a particular  
variable; it doesn't say what \_really\_ constitutes being  
"responsible".

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 5:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/26 "1999-11-23T17:37:35Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.1030)]

Me:

> So my feelings of depression and hopelessness are now  
> intended results of your posting actions? Is that what it  
> means to be be responsible?

Marc Abrams (991123.1253)--

> What makes it irresponsible? I have a strong dislike  
> for what you are doing and I'm expressing it. Could you  
> show me what you mean in a model? No "in principle" or  
> "framework" jobs please

You continue to make me feel depressed and hopeless. I  
see you have chosen to go to the RTC room.

Me:

> Is the disruptive child being responsible when he  
> continues to disrupt knowing that his actions are  
> a disruption?

Marc:

> Whole different ball of wax and if you can't see  
> it, I can't show it.

So I'm just supposed to take your word for it that  
what you are doing and what a disruptive kid is doing  
are a whole different ball of wax? This makes me feel  
even more depressed and hopeless. You keep choosing to  
go to the RTC and yet you don't go. What's up?

> I'm sorry I ever got started in this exchange.

I bet;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 5:51pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/27 "1999-11-23T17:51:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1246 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.0930)

> A person who says "I hold you responsible for X" typically means  
> that they intend to control your behavior using the threat of  
> punishing consequences. It means "if you do X you will punished"  
> The goal of the person who says "I hold you responsible for X" is  
> to make sure that you don't do X or (if you've done it) that  
> you never do it again.

O.K. What does it mean to "be responsible" in Bill's Theory? In your  
previous post to Marc, you ask "Is the disruptive child being  
responsible when he continues to disrupt knowing that his actions are a  
disruption?" The word responsible seems to function in a different way  
than it does in the expression "to hold you responsible". Are you asking  
if the child should "be held responsible" for continuing to disrupt? In  
other words, are you asking if coercion is an appropriate response to  
continued disruption?

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 5:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/28 "1999-11-23T17:56:46Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1255 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.0920)

> So my feelings of depression and hopelessness are now  
> intended results of your posting actions? Is that what it  
> means to be responsible?

Yes, if I understand Bill's Theory. To be responsible for X mean's to be  
controlling for X. If Marc's intention is to perceive you feeling  
dressed and hopeless as a result of his posts, he is responsible for  
seeing you depressed and hopeless. However, to say that you "hold him  
responsible" for your depressed and hopeless feelings, is to say that  
you intend to coerce him to stop posting in a way that you do not  
approve of.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 6:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/29 "1999-11-23T18:01:25Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (991123.1342 EST)--

> Just wanted to let you know that an unintended side effect  
> of whatever you are controlling for is to create the  
> impression that you are babbling incoherently. No need to  
> thank me, it's the least I could do.

You don't seem to like being told what you've chosen, do you?

How does it feeeel?😉

Best

Bob

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 6:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/30 "1999-11-23T18:12:36Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (991123.1253)]

> So my feelings of depression and hopelessness are now  
> intended results of your posting actions? Is that what it  
> means to be be responsible?

What makes it irresponsible? I have a strong dislike for what you are doing  
and I'm expressing it. Could you show me what you mean in a model? No "in  
principle" or "framework" jobs please

> Is the disruptive child being  
> responsible when he continues to disrupt knowing that  
> his actions are a disruption?

Whole different ball of wax and if you can't see it, I can't show it.

> Me:
> 
> \> So I am giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility  
> \> for that side-effect and control for making me feel happy  
> \> and hopeful or go to the nearest RTC room.
> 
> Marc Abrams:
> 
> \> It's not your choice to give. It's mine to make.
> 
> Which has been my point all along.

I'm sorry I ever got started in this exchange.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 6:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/31 "1999-11-23T18:39:32Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1339 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1030)

> All Bill's theory can tell  
> us is whether Marc is or is not controlling a particular  
> variable; it doesn't say what \_really\_ constitutes being  
> "responsible".

Since we are trying to be accurate, I will simply note that as I  
understand Bill's Theory, it cannot tell us whether Marc is or is not  
controlling a particular variable. \_If\_ Marc is controlling a particular  
variable, Bill's Theory provides a framework in which we can develop a  
model to explain \_how\_ Marc is controlling the variable. In order to  
apply Bill's Theory, we first need evidence (the Test) that Marc is  
controlling some variable. Otherwise we are simply trying to explain  
imaginary data. (I acknowledge that it is often easier to explain  
imaginary data than to explain real data.)

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 6:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/32 "1999-11-23T18:46:59Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1342 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1030)

> You continue to make me feel depressed and hopeless. I  
> see you have chosen to go to the RTC room.

Just wanted to let you know that an unintended side effect of whatever  
you are controlling for is to create the impression that you are  
babbling incoherently. No need to thank me, it's the least I could do.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 7:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/33 "1999-11-23T19:07:20Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (991123.1400)]

\<Rick Marken (991123.0730)\>

\<OK. I take it, then, that you would agree that you should also  
be held responsible when you are no longer causing \_unknown\_  
side effects. I am now letting you know that a side effect of  
your posts is that they make me feel depressed and hopeless.  
I now hold you responsible for that side effect. So I am  
giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for that  
side-effect and control for making me feel happy and hopeful  
or go to the nearest RTC room.\>

I must admit that I perceive you can control for being a genius and a wise  
ass at the same time. I do not expect you to be responsible for how that  
makes me feel about you or change your behavior one iota since I do not want  
to be coercive.

8-))

Your spiritual and romantic PCT friend,

Kenny

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 9:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/34 "1999-11-23T21:06:02Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.1400)]

Me to Marc Abrams:

> OK. I take it, then, that you would agree that you should also  
> be held responsible when you are no longer causing \_unknown\_  
> side effects. I am now letting you know that a side effect of  
> your posts is that they make me feel depressed and hopeless.  
> I now hold you responsible for that side effect. So I am  
> giving you a choice: take immediate responsibility for that  
> side-effect and control for making me feel happy and hopeful  
> or go to the nearest RTC room.

Kenny Kitzke (991123.1400)--

> I must admit that I perceive you can control for being a  
> genius and a wise ass at the same time. I do not expect you  
> to be responsible for how that makes me feel about you or  
> change your behavior one iota since I do not want to be  
> coercive.

Would that you felt the same way about children.

Since you (and Marc and Bruce G. and probably many others)  
feel that my treatment of Marc (giving him the choice of  
posting things that make me feel happy and hopeful or  
going to the nearest RTC room) is in no way comparable to  
the way an RTP teacher is asked to treat disruptive  
students, I presume that you are implacably committed  
to the notion that "giving a choice" is a respectful way  
to deal with children. You may even continue to advocate  
this approach as one that is perfectly consistent with  
Bill's theory (or with PCT or with reinforcement theory  
or with your common sense or whatever).

What I would like to know is what attracted you all (Marc,  
Bruce G., Kenny and whomever) to PCT in the first place?  
What was it about PCT that made you think that ignoring  
another person's intentional nature while saying how  
much you "respect" them, forcing that person to do what  
you want while saying that you are giving them a "choice"  
(behave or go to the RTC) and then saying that the  
person "chose" one of the options you provided as though  
the person were free to have chosen to do anything else  
would be a recommended practice?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 9:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/35 "1999-11-23T21:17:30Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1613 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1100)

> You don't seem to like being told what you've chosen, do you?
> 
> How does it feeeel?😉

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Are you  
babbling incoherently? If this is intentional, feel free to babble away,  
I have no problem choosing that. (We have no rules or agreements  
regulating babbling, so you won't even be coerced into going to the  
RTC.)

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 10:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/36 "1999-11-23T22:42:47Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.1741 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1400)

> What I would like to know is what attracted you all (Marc,  
> Bruce G., Kenny and whomever) to PCT in the first place?  
> What was it about PCT that made you think that ignoring  
> another person's intentional nature while saying how  
> much you "respect" them, forcing that person to do what  
> you want while saying that you are giving them a "choice"  
> (behave or go to the RTC) and then saying that the  
> person "chose" one of the options you provided as though  
> the person were free to have chosen to do anything else  
> would be a recommended practice?

There is such a vast gap between what you are hearing and what I am  
saying that it seems we are not speaking a common language. Given this,  
it is difficult to believe that anything I might say at this point or in  
the future would disabuse you of your belief. You told me that  
responsibility is not a technical term in Bill's Theory. Is choice a  
technical term in Bill's Theory? If so, could you show me a BT diagram  
of choice. Thanks.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 1999, 11:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/37 "1999-11-23T23:25:19Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (991123. EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1400)--

> Since you (and Marc and Bruce G. and probably many others)  
> feel that my treatment of Marc (giving him the choice of  
> posting things that make me feel happy and hopeful or  
> going to the nearest RTC room) is in no way comparable to  
> the way an RTP teacher is asked to treat disruptive  
> students, I presume that you are implacably committed  
> to the notion that "giving a choice" is a respectful way  
> to deal with children.

Did you read Chuck Tucker's post this morning about the negotiations,  
agreements, and dialog that precede the "choice" statement in RTP? I'm  
referring to his 991123 sent at 08:41 AM 11/23/1999. None of those  
negotiations, agreements, and dialog preceded your statement to Marc. Nor  
is there an RTP room for him to go to, a teacher to be present there with  
him, or an agreed process established for them to get involved with  
together while he is there. These differences are so many and so great that  
one \*could\* almost say that your use of a "choice" statement is "in no way  
comparable" to its use in RTP. Almost, but not quite, because after all you  
are using similar words.

This is not "common sense" or some rival theory of psychology. Negotiation  
and agreement and convention are not alien ideas rejected by PCT. I know of  
no model of behavioral data involving negotiation, agreement, and  
convention, but we have talked about them as things that can in principal  
at least be modelled.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 01:06 PM 11/23/1999 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 1:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/38 "1999-11-24T01:12:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991123.1715)]

Me:

> What I would like to know is what attracted you all (Marc,  
> Bruce G., Kenny and whomever) to PCT in the first place?

Bruce Gregory (991123.1741 EST)

> There is such a vast gap between what you are hearing and  
> what I am saying that it seems we are not speaking a common  
> language.

Bruce Nevin (991123. EST)--

> Did you read Chuck Tucker's post this morning about the  
> negotiations, agreements, and dialog that precede the  
> "choice" statement in RTP?

Well, that doesn't quite answer my question... but, maybe  
it does. I do love that negotiation, agreement and dialog  
stuff. Sounds like PCT to me.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 1:44am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/39 "1999-11-24T01:44:12Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (991123.2043 EST)]

Rick Marken (991123.1715)

> Well, that doesn't quite answer my question... but, maybe  
> it does. I do love that negotiation, agreement and dialog  
> stuff. Sounds like PCT to me.

Am I to infer from your "response" that choice is not well-defined in Bill's  
Theory?

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 2:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901/40 "1999-11-24T02:05:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (991123.2105 EST)]

That should have been labelled according to negotiated and agreed-upon  
convention, as above, showing that it is from me, not Rick. For the  
archivists among us ...

Rick Marken (991123.1715)--

> Bruce Nevin (991123. EST)--
> 
> > Did you read Chuck Tucker's post this morning about the  
> > negotiations, agreements, and dialog that precede the  
> > "choice" statement in RTP?
> 
> Well, that doesn't quite answer my question... but, maybe  
> it does. I do love that negotiation, agreement and dialog  
> stuff. Sounds like PCT to me.

Do you agree that these are differences between the use of the "choose"  
statement in RTP and your use of it with Marc and in imagined examples?

I am not suggesting that this context obviates the coercion that would come  
into play if a child would neither go nor stop disrupting. Is it possible  
that a child might already have a reference set for going to the RTP under  
this circumstance? That this reference could have got set, not by coercion,  
but by a great deal of prior negotiation and agreement? That the dialog  
preceding the "choose" statement might nudge the child to go up a level  
from the immediate conflict, and then to control for that reference?

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 05:12 PM 11/23/1999 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901.md?page=1)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/responsibility-iii/9901.md?page=3)