RTP spin

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Bruce Gregory (980514.1246 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980514.0940)

Whatever word is used, it can't change the fact
that the behavior of problem kids is being _controlled_. I have no
problem with that but it seems that the RTP people _do_ have a
problem with that. I suggest that the solution to this problem is
not to go into denial; the solution (as always) is to use one's
keppela (head) and think of non-controlling (non-coercive)
alternatives.

I'm sure your suggestions would be welcomed by one and all.

Best Offer

2

[From Rick Marken (980514.0940)]

Bruce Gregory (980514.1142 EDT) -

If students are required to participate in this program it can
certainly be called coercive. But this seems to be missing the
point. Requiring drivers to have licenses is coercive, but it
facilitates their ability to drive safely.

We've been acknowledging that coercion facilitates all kinds of
good things. Taxation is coercive but how else do you insure that
people will contribute their fair share to the common weil? Traffic
rules are coercive but how else do you insure that people don't
ram into each other all the time? Just because the results of
coercion are nice doesn't mean that there is no coercion. Why deny
coercion when it exists? How can you deal with something like
coercion in the RTP program when you are busy trying to ignore it?

Calling both prisons and RTP "coercive" seems to miss something
very important.

What does it miss? Both RTP and the legal system give the offender
a choice. RTP says "stay in the room and behave or go to the social
skills room". The legal system says "stay in society and behave (get
"probation") or go to jail". Looks similar to me.

Why all this desire to put some kind of "non-coercive" spin on RTP?
Why not just deal with the program as it exists. Heck, RTP is just a
human invention; surely it can be improved. But how can it be improved
if the people involved in it refuse to deal with it as it is? Bill
Powers noted that one aspect of the program is coercive: giving
the "choice" of staying and playing along or going to the social
skills room is coercive. So? He didn't say that that was wrong;
or that he had a better alternative. He just explained that that
was what was happening. If RTP people don't like this kind of
coercion then they should try to think of alternative approaches to
dealing with the situation. If they just don't like calling it
"coercion" then that's fine; but it doesn't change what's going
on in the program. Whatever word is used, it can't change the fact
that the behavior of problem kids is being _controlled_. I have no
problem with that but it seems that the RTP people _do_ have a
problem with that. I suggest that the solution to this problem is
not to go into denial; the solution (as always) is to use one's
keppela (head) and think of non-controlling (non-coercive)
alternatives.

Best

Rick

···

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

3

[From Tim Carey (980515.0650)]

[From Rick Marken (980514.0940)]

coercion when it exists? How can you deal with something like
coercion in the RTP program when you are busy trying to ignore it?

Who's ignoring it Rick? I personally can think of at least three or four
occasions when I've said that if we're talking about your kind of coercion,
of course it exists in RTP schools. Additionally, if we're talking about my
kind of coercion then it also exists in RTP schools but I would think to a
much lesser degree than your version of coercion.

Why all this desire to put some kind of "non-coercive" spin on RTP?
Why not just deal with the program as it exists. Heck, RTP is just a
human invention; surely it can be improved. But how can it be improved
if the people involved in it refuse to deal with it as it is?

Are you dealing with it "as it is"? I don't even know what that means. What
do you want people in RTP to do so that you and Bill would think they were
being more honest?

Bill

Powers noted that one aspect of the program is coercive:

And my point was how do you jump from taking one aspect of the program and
use it to describe the _whole_ program?

on in the program. Whatever word is used, it can't change the fact
that the behavior of problem kids is being _controlled_. I have no
problem with that but it seems that the RTP people _do_ have a
problem with that.

What RTP people are you talking about Rick? I don't have a problem with the
above statement at all. What I have a problem with is taking one way of
operating and using it to describe _everything_ that's going on. In RTP
schools a robust finding seems to be that about 2-5% of the school
population will use the room frequently and require a lot of support in
order to make it in school. In terms of what goes on in school you're
talking about something (using force to control someone's actions) that
happens a tiny percentage of the time (if it happens at all) and yet you're
happy to label the whole school experience as coercive.

I suggest that the solution to this problem is

not to go into denial; the solution (as always) is to use one's
keppela (head) and think of non-controlling (non-coercive)
alternatives.

But as you and Bill have pointed out, thinking of noncontrolling
alternatives would be impossible since we're in a coercive school system
and if we don't follow the system's rules then the system will expel us.

Cheers,

Tim

4

[From Rick Marken (980514.1840)]

Tim Carey (989515.0610)--

How do you explain kids who self-refer to the RTC to sort out there
problems?

They either want to be there (quite likely) or they are trying
to preemptively avoid some undesired consequence of not going.
We'd have to Test to find out.

I have no problem admitting that your kind of coercion exists.
In fact I think your brand of coercion is an inherent part of
life, gravity coerces, air coerces, brick walls, coerce, people
coerce .... The sky's blue, water's wet, we all coerce :wink:

Then you still don't quite understand "my kind of coercion". Only
control systems can do my kind of coercion. Gravity, air and brick
walls are not control systems; they can _influence_ behavior but
they can't control (coerce) it.

what is your opinion about air travel? If you're sitting
on a plane and the pilot decides to go to another destination
(for whatever reason, inclement weather) etc. is this then coercion?

The pilot's reason (intention) is what determins whether or not
this is coercion. If the pilot is doing this in order to control
the behavior of the passengers (say, bring them to a destination
of _his_ choice) then it's coercion (we even have a name for this
unpleasant kind of coercion: kidnapping). If, on the other hnd, the
pilot is doing it to avoid bad weather, then what happens to the
passengers' behavior is a side effect of these actions; the pilot
is not trying to control the passenger's behavior so there is no
coercion.

This is really not that tough. Detecting coercion is just a matter
of detecting a controlled perceptual variable. In the case of
coercion, the controlled vperceptual variable is an aspect of
someone's behavior.

Based on your's and Bill's statements RTP _can't_ change until the
system changes.

No. All Bill said is that RTP has to be implemented in the context
of a coercive system (that is, in the context of a school system
that has rules that teachers and administrators are supposed to
enforce). I presume there is plenty of room for variation in how RTP
is done in the context of such a system.

I guess this is what I have the most trouble with Rick. I _know_
that most kids aren't forced to come to school and I _know_ that
most kids don't fear school.

I know that too.

The kids over here that are in the schools that are working at
implementing the RTP seem to genuinely want to be there.

I have no doubt. I'm not saying the RTP program is wrong or bad.
I'm just saying it involves coercion. So? When I went to school
I and most everyone I knew was happy to go to school; I went to
great public schools. There was little or no violence; the kids
were smart as hell and we did VERY interesting stuff. There was
also no RTP and the school was a coercive system. Indeed, these
idyllic schools were coercive as hell. They had rules and those
rules were _enforced_. But if you had seen those schools I'm sure
you would have found them to be completely non-coercive; disciplinary
actions were _very_ rare. But when kids did deviate from the
rules, the teachers and administrators were there to bring the
behavior back to the reference -- or expel the kid.

Coercion doesn't necessarily involve constant, violent action, just
as driving doesn't necessarily involve constant, active steering
wheel turning. Coercion simply involves control of behavior.

My point is that what's a coercive consequence for one person may
not be for another.

I know that. But that doesn't change the fact that the RTP program
involves coercion (in Bill and my sense).

Me:

How can you deal with something like coercion in the RTP program
when you are busy trying to ignore it?

Tim Carey (980515.0650)--

Who's ignoring it Rick?

I think you are.

I personally can think of at least three or four occasions when
I've said that if we're talking about your kind of coercion,
of course it exists in RTP schools.

But do you see that coercion is part of the RTP _program_? Do you
see that "giving a kid a choice" is coercion? That it is control
of behavior? That this is true _regardless_ of whether the kid
who is offered the choice actually wants one of the offered choices.

When coercion is applied in the RTP schools (in the form of "giving
a choice") it is not a mistake; it is what the RTP practitioner is
_supposed_ to do. The program says that the practitioner is to "give
the student a choice" between staying and behaving or going to the
social skills room. The program _requires_ that the RTP practitioner
be _coercive_ (in my sense). The program would _not_ require coercion
if the practitioner were required to "let the student do whatever
the hell he wants -- throw things, make noise, stab the teacher,
whatever". That's _non-coercive_.

Are you dealing with it[ the RPT program] "as it is"?

I think so. I'm just relying on what I've heard Ed say practitioners
are required to do.

What do you want people in RTP to do so that you and Bill would
think they were being more honest?

I've already told you. I would like people in RTP to be able to
say "Yes, there is coercion in RTP. We don't allow the kids to
do certain things. But we try to be as non-coercive as possible.
We try to take the students' intentions into account, if only just
by being aware that teh students _have_ intentions. We are trying to
think of ways to be less coercive and at the same time achieve one
of the main goals of the program, which is to have an educational
environment where _all_ kids can get the most from their educational
experience".

But as you and Bill have pointed out, thinking of noncontrolling
alternatives would be impossible since we're in a coercive school
system and if we don't follow the system's rules then the system
will expel us.

We never said it would be impossible. We just said we don't know
how to do it and that it would probably be very hard to figure
out how to be completely non-coercive.

I find the defensiveness about coercion in the RTP program rather
unsettling. It's particularly unsettling because neither Bill nor
I have criticized the program for being coercive. All we have said
is that the program _does_ involve coercion (most evident in the
"choice" teachers are asked to offer disruptive students). The point
we are making comes right out of PCT; it is based on the observation
that the teacher _is_ being required by the program to control the
behavior of the disruptive kid. This observation is being treated
as a threat to RTP rather than as some potentially useful information
that comes from the PCT model. This is unsettling because RTP is
presumably _based on_ PCT. If this is true then why all the
resistance to a PCT analysis of RTP?

Best

Rick

···

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

5

[From Bruce Gregory (980515.0535 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980514.1840)

Would it be fair to conclude from this post that there are two types of
social system, coercive and anarchic and that what you have seen saying all
along that RTP is not anarchic? Or are there systems fall into neither of
the above categories? If so, could we have some examples?

Best Offer

6

[From Rick Marken (980515.0910)]

Bruce Gregory (980515.0535 EDT) --

Would it be fair to conclude from this post that there are two
types of social system, coercive and anarchic and that what you
have seen saying all along that RTP is not anarchic? Or are
there systems fall into neither of the above categories? If so,
could we have some examples?

I think social systems (as implemented by the individuals who
adopt the goals that define the social system) vary in their
_level_ of coerciveness. Level of coerciveness probably depends
on the gain of the system relevan control systems in the
individuals who make up the social system; it probably also
depends on whether or not the individuals in the social system
have goals that conflict with their social system relevant goals.

So the level of coerciveness of a particular school depends on the
gain of the school rule relevant control systems of the teachers
and administrators who make up the school. If, for example, you've
got an administrator who is willing to have a kid locked up for
the slightest transgression (high gain control for behaving according
to school rules) this would contribute (I think) to one's perception
of the school as highly coercive.

Also, the level of coerciveness of a particular school probably
depends on some of the other goals of the teachers and administrators
that may conflict with the school relevant goals. For example,
if you've got a school filled with a bunch of bleeding heart liberals
like me, who have the goal of seeing other people happy, you might
find that these people are reluctant to lock a kid up, no matter how
large the transgression; this would contribute to one's perception
of the school as non-coercive.

I can't really think of _any_ social system that is completely
non-coercive (anarchic). Even Libertarians have rules that are
enforced (you have to agree that that government is bad and that
private industry is the best way to do everything; I'm pretty sure
that a Libertarian who advocated higher taxes and larger government
programs would be kicked out of the party or, at least, have other
Libertarians saying that he is not a Libertarian).

Some groups are very low gain about enforcing the rules of the
group. But I can't think of any group -- any identifiable social
system -- that is completely anarchic (zero gain for enforcing
group rules). I can't really even vizualize a social system that
is completely anarchic. It's like vizualizing Bill Powers'
(980515.0218 MDT) perfectly straight and level road that allows a
car to stay in its lane for a mile without any steering (coercion)
necessary. I can visualize it for a bit but then a very small
speck ends up in my vision of the perfect surface of the road,
and the _very_ slight change in direction imparted by the speck is
soon integrated into the car moving off the road. This is what
happens to my vision of the perfect society with no coercion;
eventually some little tiny thing happens -- a small, unintended
insult, say -- and soon all hell breaks loose and (since there
is no coercion) this ideal, anarchic society ends up in the ditch
next to the car;-)

I think what PCT can show us is not how to _eliminate_ coercion
but how to _minimize_ it and how to _live comfortably with_ what
remains. It's the same thing with conflict; PCT can't show us how
to eliminate conflict but it certainly suggests ways to minimize
it and live comfortably with what remains.

Best

Rick

···

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

7

[From Bruce Gregory (980515.1315 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980515.0910)

I think what PCT can show us is not how to _eliminate_ coercion
but how to _minimize_ it and how to _live comfortably with_ what
remains. It's the same thing with conflict; PCT can't show us how
to eliminate conflict but it certainly suggests ways to minimize
it and live comfortably with what remains.

Could you be more specific? I think I understand the fundamentals of PCT,
but I have no idea how to minimize coercion or conflict or to live
comfortably with what remains. The best I can do is describe why we have
conflicts and to predict that conflicts will remain as long as these
conditions exist. For example, I have no advice for the Israelis and the
Palestinians on how to minimize conflict and to live comfortably with what
remains. In this sense, RTP is a major advance over what I might come up
with.

Best Offer

8

[From Bruce Gregory (980515.1635 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980515.1310)]

Nor do I. I meant that clever people like you and Ed Ford could
devise methods, based on an understanding of the PCT model of
humans, for minimizing coercion and conflict while maximizing
everyone's ability to control the perceptions that matter to them.

That's just what Ed has done, as far as I can tell.

And now that I think of it, just what is it about PCT that led
to the selection of the "give a choice" technique of RTP?. This
technique is certainly not unique to RTP; it was one of the
most frequently used technique for dealing with trouble-makers
(including me, on rare occasions;-)) when I was in school ("You
can stay in class and behave, Richard, or go to detention"). What
is the major advance of RTP over what _any_ decent person might
come up with? How was this advance made possible (if it was) by
the development of PCT?

I thought you'd never ask. RTP is based on the realization that disrupting
students are controlling their perceptions in a way that interferes with the
ability of others to control their perceptions. (Was this realized when you
went to school? If so, it explains your appreciation of PCT.) In any case,
the RTP process provides a mechanism by which students can learn to control
their own perceptions while not interfering with others and, among other
things, constantly getting into hot water. Ed realized that in order to
encourage disruptive students to adopt a different strategy a support
mechanism was needed. (I suspect that such a mechanism did not exist in the
school you attended.) Further, he realized that students must see that the
way they are now controlling their perceptions will not work in the
environment of the school. This is certainly fundamental PCT--no
reorganization in the absence of persisting errors. Further, Ed does this
without beating the students over the head with this lesson--they leave the
classroom only to work on a plan to get back in and stay in. Frankly, I
think RTP is a brilliant application of PCT in _exactly_ the way you call
for. I'm not sure why you have so much trouble seeing this. Perhaps your
experiences as a student soured you on schooling.

Best Offer

9

[From Rick Marken (980515.1310)]

Me:

I think what PCT can show us is not how to _eliminate_ coercion
but how to _minimize_ it and how to _live comfortably with_ what
remains.

Bruce Gregory (980515.1315 EDT) --

I think I understand the fundamentals of PCT, but I have no idea
how to minimize coercion or conflict or to live comfortably with
what remains.

Nor do I. I meant that clever people like you and Ed Ford could
devise methods, based on an understanding of the PCT model of
humans, for minimizing coercion and conflict while maximizing
everyone's ability to control the perceptions that matter to them.

PCT is like Newton's laws; Newton's laws don't tell you how to
design a stable bridge any more than PCT tells you how to design a
stable society. These models just provide the correct context in
which such engineering efforts should occur -- since they represent
the best models of the world in which this engineering will be done.

RTP is a major advance over what I might come up with.

That's fine. There is much about RTP that is admirable (from my
point of view). I am just puzzled by all the resistance to a PCT
anaylsis of the program. All we have been saying is that giving
the choice of staying and behaving or going to the social skills
room is coercive because you are implicitly denying other possible
choices. Since RTP is presumably based on PCT then what's wrong
with understanding, from a PCT perspective, what is actually being
done in RTP?

And now that I think of it, just what is it about PCT that led
to the selection of the "give a choice" technique of RTP?. This
technique is certainly not unique to RTP; it was one of the
most frequently used technique for dealing with trouble-makers
(including me, on rare occasions;-)) when I was in school ("You
can stay in class and behave, Richard, or go to detention"). What
is the major advance of RTP over what _any_ decent person might
come up with? How was this advance made possible (if it was) by
the development of PCT?

Best

Rick

···

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

10

[From Tim Carey (980516.0746)]

[From Rick Marken (980514.1840)]

This is really not that tough. Detecting coercion is just a matter
of detecting a controlled perceptual variable. In the case of
coercion, the controlled vperceptual variable is an aspect of
someone's behavior.

Unless the control system you're interested in is part of a school system
and then you don't have to do any of that, you just _know_ what there
intentions are :wink:

But do you see that coercion is part of the RTP _program_?

OK, I'll say it again. Coercion, the way you and Bill define it is part of
the RTP program.

Do you

see that "giving a kid a choice" is coercion?

I think giving choices _can_ be coercive but I don't think it _has_ to be,
any more than the choice I have between continuing to breathe in and out or
die.

That it is control

of behavior?

Yep.

That this is true _regardless_ of whether the kid

who is offered the choice actually wants one of the offered choices.

By your definition it's true, by mine it's not.

When coercion is applied in the RTP schools (in the form of "giving
a choice") it is not a mistake; it is what the RTP practitioner is
_supposed_ to do. The program says that the practitioner is to "give
the student a choice" between staying and behaving or going to the
social skills room.

Actually Rick, the program _doesn't_ say "give the student a choice". This
will probably cement even further that coercion is part of the RTP program
but I've already acknowledged that above.

The RTP procedure is as follows:
1. The teacher observes a kid disrupting the learning that is going on and
assumes that the kid is currently not controlling for "staying in class"
since class is an environment for learning.

2. As an invitation for the kid to begin controlling for staying in class
again, the teacher attempts to disturb the kids reference of "staying in
class" by asking the following questions. The dialogue might proceed as
follows:
Teacher: John, what are you doing?
Student: Talking
T: What are the rules about talking in class?
S: You have to put your hand up if you want to talk.
T: What happens if you break the rules?
S: You have to go to RTC
T: Is that what you want to happen?
S: No
T: What do you want to do now?
S: Get on with my work
T: What will happen if you disrupt again?
S: I'll go to RTC

And then the teacher goes back to the business of the class ...
facilitating learning.

3. If the kid disrupts again, the teacher concludes that the kid is not
able/prepared/willing/interested in controlling for staying in class at the
moment and so the teacher says:
T: I see you've chosen to leave

(I have already acknowledged elsewhere that I'm not entirely comfortable
with this wording)

4. The kid goes to a place where he is able to learn _when he is ready_ how
he might be able to achieve his goals without interfering with others who
are trying to achieve their goals.

Nowhere in this process do I see the kids being "given a choice"

The program _requires_ that the RTP practitioner

be _coercive_ (in my sense).

Yep

I've already told you. I would like people in RTP to be able to
say "Yes, there is coercion in RTP. We don't allow the kids to
do certain things. But we try to be as non-coercive as possible.
We try to take the students' intentions into account, if only just
by being aware that teh students _have_ intentions. We are trying to
think of ways to be less coercive and at the same time achieve one
of the main goals of the program, which is to have an educational
environment where _all_ kids can get the most from their educational
experience".

And how would this make Ed's program better? I would think most RTP
practitioners would share the sentiments of the above paragraph with the
possible exception of the first sentence (but then that's subsumed in
subsequent sentences anyway) and for me that's a definitional issue. Your
coercion exists all the time currently in any school RTP or not. My
coercion exists some of the time.

I find the defensiveness about coercion in the RTP program rather
unsettling.

Ah, so I'm being defensive by maintaining a particular definition ... does
this also apply then to you and Bill :wink:

The point

we are making comes right out of PCT; it is based on the observation
that the teacher _is_ being required by the program to control the
behavior of the disruptive kid.

Again Rick I see this differently. You may see this as me twisting and
turning again but I don't think RTP teachers are required to control the
kids behaviour. The disruptive kid is _free_ to keep disrupting, he just
can't do it in class. There is no requirement placed on him though to cease
his disuptive behaviour.

The message given to kids in RTP schools is that you _can_ do whatever you
want, you just can't do it in class. If you want to stay in class there are
certain things you need to do. RTP teachers are only interested in teaching
the kids who want to learn; the other kids have the opportunity to make use
of the extra support that is offered but they are really free to do
whatever they like, they just can't do it in class. That may be coercive
from yours and Bill's point of view and that's OK.

I don't expect this to make any difference to the way you see the program
(in fact I'm not even controlling for that ;-)) and I don't know how this
fits with PCT but from my experience, if I want to live a happy, conflict
free life, then my goals will always be defined _in part_ by the
environment I find myself in. My goals as a single man are likely to be
different from the goals I have when I find myself in the environment of a
marriage; and different again when I'm a father. The goals I have when I'm
at the tennis club will be different from the goals I have at the office.
etc., etc.

I think we do kids a _huge_ disservice when we give them the message that
you can do whatever you like, because I think that's only half the message.
Sure I think anybody's free to do whatever they like, but for everything
they do there will be consequences. And the consequences will be good or
bad. I'm free to walk off a cliff if I want to; but I'm not free to walk
off a cliff _and_ continue to live. I'm free to break the road rules; but
I'm not free to break the road rules _and_ continue driving.

Isn't one of the tenets of PCT that we don't control our actions but the
perceptual consequences of our actions. I think this is what RTP invites
kids to learn.

Cheers,

Tim

11

[From Tim Carey (980516.0820)]

[From Rick Marken (980515.1505)]

> what is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "give a
> choice" technique of RTP?

I'll answer that if you'll tell me where in the RTP program does the "give
a choice" technique occur?

Cheers,

Tim

12

[From Rick Marken (980515.1505)]

Bruce Gregory (980515.1635 EDT)]

Frankly, I think RTP is a brilliant application of PCT in
_exactly_ the way you call for. I'm not sure why you have so
much trouble seeing this.

I think it's becuase I'm just a simple minded kinda guy. I think
I might have a better chance of seeing the brilliance of RTP as an
application of PCT if you could start by answering one of my real
simple minded questions first:

what is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "give a
choice" technique of RTP?

Thanks

Rick

···

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

13

[From Tim Carey (980516.0935)]

[From Rick Marken (980515.1550)]

The teacher has just offered the kid a choice between "get
on with my work" and "go to RTC". The kid has chosen "get
on with my work" in your scenario.

That's an interesting interpretation of it Rick. I see it as the teacher
asking the kid what the procedures of the class are.

I would think in a forced choice kind of situation you would say something
like: "You have a choice. You can either ... or ...." and this would
probably be an attempt to control the kids actions.

This doesn't seem to me like what's happening in RTP. In RTP the teacher
invites the kid to control for following the procedures of the environment
he is in; but the teacher _doesn't care_ what the kid decides to do. There
is no attempt made to stop the kid from disrupting if he wants to. He just
can't disrupt _and_ stay in class.

Cheers,

Tim

14

[From Rick Marken (980515.1550)]

Me:

what is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "give a
choice" technique of RTP?

Tim Carey (980516.0820) --

I'll answer that if you'll tell me where in the RTP program does
the "give a choice" technique occur?

Right here:

Tim Carey (980516.0746) --

T: What happens if you break the rules?
S: You have to go to RTC
T: Is that what you want to happen?
S: No
T: What do you want to do now?
S: Get on with my work
T: What will happen if you disrupt again?
S: I'll go to RTC

The teacher has just offered the kid a choice between "get
on with my work" and "go to RTC". The kid has chosen "get
on with my work" in your scenario.

Best

Rick

···

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

15

[From Bruce Gregory (980515.2020 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980515.1505)]

Bruce Gregory (980515.1635 EDT)]

> Frankly, I think RTP is a brilliant application of PCT in
> _exactly_ the way you call for. I'm not sure why you have so
> much trouble seeing this.

I think it's because I'm just a simple minded kinda guy. I think
I might have a better chance of seeing the brilliance of RTP as an
application of PCT if you could start by answering one of my real
simple minded questions first:

> what is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "give a
> choice" technique of RTP?

That's not part of RTP as far as I know. Can you tell me where it appears in
Ed's writings?

Thanks.

Best Offer

16

[From Tim Carey (980516.1510)]

[From Rick Marken (980515.2130)]

> And how would this make Ed's program better?

I don't know. All I know is that I have never heard any suggestions
about ways to change the RTP program to make it less coercive. All
I hear is defenses of the program as it is.

Heard from who?

Apparently RTP people

consider the program perfect as is and in no need of analysis
from a PCT perspective.

Which RTP people?

One of the aspects of RTP I have found exciting Rick is the way that people
are encouraged to learn the principles and then think up creative solutions
to their own local problems. From my experience, people are constantly
thinking up ways to improve the program.

Me:

> I find the defensiveness about coercion in the RTP program rather
> unsettling.

What defensiveness are you referring to?

Ye:

> Ah, so I'm being defensive by maintaining a particular
> definition ... does this also apply then to you and Bill :wink:

Of course! But from our perspective we are not defending a
particular definition of coercion; we are defending the PCT
model of behavior.

Not according to Bill:

[From Bill Powers (980505.1540 MDT)]
I think that the main problem here is that we've all been trying to make
technical sense out of a nontechnical term, coercion (as I think one of the
Bruces said -- I have to admit that I've been skimming lately). The word
coercion has been around a lot longer than PCT, and what it means is
whatever a given person understands it to mean. There has never been any
agreement on what it is to mean.

I think part of the difficulty might be that there is no PCT definition of
coercion but in order to model it we need a definition. I suspect in a
modelling sense our definitions wouldn't be very dissimilar. Your
definition would have to do with Person A having a reference to control the
actions of Person B. My definition would be exactly the same with Person A
having the added reference of making Person B feel some discomfort.

That's what I find so unsettling about your

defensiveness. I thought we were both interested in applying PCT
to RTP; then suddenly I'm getting in trouble for applying PCT to
RTP.

I'm sorry if you've perceived my posts as putting you in trouble. From my
perspective, I see very little difference between this conversation and
others we have had about PCT. I may not be communicating it very well but
I'm actually enjoying exploring what you think. I find it is helping me
think of RTP and PCT in lots of new ways. Part of the problem may be that
in the formal PCT model, answers to questions (at least to my questions)
are a lot easier to demonstrate. The coercion conversation is a lot less
black and white however (at least from my perspective)

Just for the record, I don't think of you as being in trouble and I don't
think I'm participating in this conversation from a position of
defensiveness (delusions can come in handy sometimes can't they :wink: ??)

I wish I could communicate to you more sincerely the enormous respect I
have for both you and Bill. I regard every conversation I have with you as
a privilege and honour. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to agree
with everything you say just because you said it (sorry, ;-))

There is a requirement placed on him to stop _disrupting the class_.

Only if he wants to remain in class.

It's a requirement I happen to agree with, but it's still coercion.
The teacher (presumably with help, if necessary) will not allow
the kid to disrupt the class.

Hang on, how is it that it's the _program_ that requires teachers to
control kids; and it's the _system_ that requires teachers to use force;
and yet it's the _teacher_ who's not allowing the kid to disrupt the class?
Isn't it the _program_ that's not allowing the kid to disrupt the class?

Another tenet of PCT is that you don't have to learn this; it's the
way we work.

Where's that one written?

I can't see why anyone would want to design a program

that invites kids to learn this; it's like inviting a kid to
learn how to digest food.

Sure, and if you have problems with digestion wouldn't it be helpful if you
learned about your digestive system so that you could help it function more
efficiently. I personally think it's a neat idea to teach people about the
way they work. Many people would probably look after their cars in
different ways if they understood how they work. I think a lot of conflict
could be avoided between people if they understood how they work.

OK. What is it about PCT that would lead one to develop a program
that says teachers should ask disruptive kids what the procedures
of the class are?

OK, here's were I display once again to CSG my very basic knowledge of PCT.
I think in this situation the teacher is a disturbance. Specifically, I
think the teacher is attempting to disturb the kids reference of staying in
class in an attempt to discover whether the kid wants to control for
staying in class or continue controlling for disrupting. To answer your
question you'd need to ask Ed as he developed the program, but my guess
would be
that PCT says you can't arbitrarily control another human being. From the
outside of the system all we can be is either a disturbance or part of the
feedback function. One of the properties of a control system is that it
acts to oppose disturbances. Perhaps by talking to the kid about staying in
class, the kid goes up a level (or two) and becomes aware of the situation
he is in. I imagine these are the kinds of things that Ed thought about
when designing the program.

What is it about PCT that would lead one to develop a program
that says teachers should "invite" disruptive kids to control
for following the procedures of the environment he is in? What
is the teacher doing, according to PCT, when she is "inviting"?

Again "invite" is probably a bit touchy-feely but I think the teacher is
acting as a disturbance. I use the term invite because for me it reflects
the idea that there is no requirement on the kid to control for one thing
or another. The teacher is interested in finding out which reference is
more important (I think ... I'm doing a pretty awful job of this)

of the environment he is in". So I'll rephrase my question:
What is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "asking the
kid what the procedures of the class are" and the "inviting disruptive
kids to control for following the procedures of the environment he is
in" techniques of RTP?

The paragraphs above probably don't help but they're the best I can do at
the moment.

Cheers,

Tim

17

[From Rick Marken (980515.2130)]

I would like people in RTP to be able to say "Yes, there is
coercion in RTP. ... We are trying to think of ways to be less
coercive and at the same time achieve one of the main goals
of the program...

Tim Carey (980516.0746)--

And how would this make Ed's program better?

I don't know. All I know is that I have never heard any suggestions
about ways to change the RTP program to make it less coercive. All
I hear is defenses of the program as it is. Apparently RTP people
consider the program perfect as is and in no need of analysis
from a PCT perspective. That's why I don't post to respthink
anymore; my comments are obviously unwelcome.

Me:

I find the defensiveness about coercion in the RTP program rather
unsettling.

Ye:

Ah, so I'm being defensive by maintaining a particular
definition ... does this also apply then to you and Bill :wink:

Of course! But from our perspective we are not defending a
particular definition of coercion; we are defending the PCT
model of behavior. That's what I find so unsettling about your
defensiveness. I thought we were both interested in applying PCT
to RTP; then suddenly I'm getting in trouble for applying PCT to
RTP.

Me:

The point we are making comes right out of PCT; it is based on the
observation that the teacher _is_ being required by the program to
control the behavior of the disruptive kid.

Ye:

Again Rick I see this differently.

Yes. That's our problem;-)

I don't think RTP teachers are required to control the kids
behaviour. The disruptive kid is _free_ to keep disrupting, he
just can't do it in class. There is no requirement placed on him
though to cease his disuptive behaviour.

There is a requirement placed on him to stop _disrupting the class_.
It's a requirement I happen to agree with, but it's still coercion.
The teacher (presumably with help, if necessary) will not allow
the kid to disrupt the class. The teacher may allow the student
to keep disrupting but she won't allow the kid to keep disrupting
_the class_.

I think that one nice feature of RTP is that it let's the teacher
spend more time teaching and less time trying to control disruptive
students. All the teacher has to do is get the disruptive students
out of class. Getting the kid out of class is still control (coercion)
but it doesn't take up a lot of the teacher's time -- not as much
time as it takes if the teacher feels compelled to make the student
behave properly _in class_. This one little change in how the teacher
has to spend her time probably reduces the stress level in the school
by 90%.

Isn't one of the tenets of PCT that we don't control our actions
but the perceptual consequences of our actions.

Yes!

I think this is what RTP invites kids to learn.

Another tenet of PCT is that you don't have to learn this; it's the
way we work. I can't see why anyone would want to design a program
that invites kids to learn this; it's like inviting a kid to
learn how to digest food.

Me:

The teacher has just offered the kid a choice between "get
on with my work" and "go to RTC". The kid has chosen "get
on with my work" in your scenario.

Tim Carey (980516.0935)--

That's an interesting interpretation of it Rick. I see it as
the teacher asking the kid what the procedures of the class are.

I give.

OK. What is it about PCT that would lead one to develop a program
that says teachers should ask disruptive kids what the procedures
of the class are?

In RTP the teacher invites the kid to control for following the
procedures of the environment he is in;

What is it about PCT that would lead one to develop a program
that says teachers should "invite" disruptive kids to control
for following the procedures of the environment he is in? What
is the teacher doing, according to PCT, when she is "inviting"?

Me:

what is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "give a
choice" technique of RTP?

Bruce Gregory (980515.2020 EDT)--

That's not part of RTP as far as I know. Can you tell me where it
appears in Ed's writings?

I'm sorry. Tim says I was mistaken. Apparently what is part of RTP
is "asking the kid what the procedures of the class are" and
"inviting disruptive kids to control for following the procedures
of the environment he is in". So I'll rephrase my question:
What is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "asking the
kid what the procedures of the class are" and the "inviting disruptive
kids to control for following the procedures of the environment he is
in" techniques of RTP?

Best

Rick

···

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

18

[From Bruce Gregory (980516.0722 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980515.2130)

Apparently what is part of RTP
is "asking the kid what the procedures of the class are" and
"inviting disruptive kids to control for following the procedures
of the environment he is in". So I'll rephrase my question:
What is it about PCT that led to the selection of the "asking the
kid what the procedures of the class are" and the "inviting disruptive
kids to control for following the procedures of the environment he is
in" techniques of RTP?

The question, of course, is related to the MOL, although I have no reason to
believe that Ed had MOL in mind when he developed it. It serves to draw the
child's awareness to an impending error--being removed from the classroom.
Bill conjectures that awareness is involved in reorganization.
Reorganization is necessary to allow the child to control his own
perceptions without disrupting others. Inviting the child to think of ways
he can successfully control _all_ the perceptions he wants to control
encourages him to take advantage of the imagination mode--something we must
all learn to do. I find it a very creative use of HPCT. I'm not sure why you
have trouble seeing this. I suspect it is because you are convinced that the
techniques _must_ be coercive. Of course it is coercive, but minimally so.
More importantly it allows the child to discover ways to be more successful.
Finally, it is one of the most successful applications of PCT to the real
world. What's to dislike?

Best Offer

19

[From Kenny Kitzke (980516.1030)]

Rick Marken (980515.1310) said:
That's fine. There is much about RTP that is admirable (from my
point of view). I am just puzzled by all the resistance to a PCT
anaylsis of the program. All we have been saying is that giving
the choice of staying and behaving or going to the social skills
room is coercive because you are implicitly denying other possible
choices. Since RTP is presumably based on PCT then what's wrong
with understanding, from a PCT perspective, what is actually being
done in RTP?

Unfortunately, not owning up to the coercive nature of RTP in an even more
coercive public school system will inhibit those in authority from
improving these systems so they permit personal responsible thinking
without coercion.

There is an old saying that "a fish is the last to discover water."
Unfortunately, "teachers are the last to discover why the coercive school
system they swim in does not maximize learning." It will take people
outside the system, like Ed Ford and his minions and you and I and Bill,
etc., to help people in the education system to understand PCT and what it
suggests about how and what others learn.

Looking forward to seeing you all again at the CSG conference!

Kenny

20

[Kenny Kitzke (980516.1045EDT)]

Tim Carey (980516.0935) said:

I would think in a forced choice kind of situation you would say something
like: "You have a choice. You can either ... or ...." and this would
probably be an attempt to control the kids actions.

This doesn't seem to me like what's happening in RTP. In RTP the teacher
invites the kid to control for following the procedures of the environment
he is in; but the teacher _doesn't care_ what the kid decides to do. There
is no attempt made to stop the kid from disrupting if he wants to. He just
can't disrupt _and_ stay in class.

It is not what *you* percieve is happening in RTP. But as an outside
observer, others perceive it differently (no big PCT surprise here). Some
perceive that under the normal public school system, the teacher says "you
are out of here (my classroom), go to the detention center right now or
I'll call the Principal!" With RTP the teacher says "you can stay in my
class if you will stop disrupting my class or you can go to the RTP center
where they will help you make a plan to return and obey my rules. Its your
choice."

An improvement? Probably. Two choices instead of no choice. But the
choices are limited by the coercer. A more subtle use of coercion, perhaps.
A different way for the teacher to get what they want, definitely. Done
with good intentions? Probably.

PCT views power as a way to control other people to what the enforcer
wants. It robs liberty and personal freedom sometimes in a guise to make
people more responsible (like RTP?). I fear coercion makes people more
dependent on others. As every parent eventually learns, they cannot
control what their children do. All they can do is care about them and
help them if they want help. This is also an admirable strength of RTP
within a coercive public school system.

When parents (teachers) stop trying to control children (students), mutual
respect and love break out. It is a better way for human beings and
students to become responsible people. PCT explains the way human beings
were made by their Creator to behave. Humans, uniquely among all creation,
have a free will to set their reference values. When we treat humans like
dogs, they tend to bite, sometimes even the hand that feeds them!

If we ever recognize humans as being the very image and likeness of the
Creator, we will perceive them differently. We will let them be free;
counting only on our care and love for them to influence their perceptions
of us. We will stop trying to control them as we do not like when others
attempt to control us (the golden rule for humans).

These are the important lessons of life that go beyond the understanding
the mechanism of behavior (both our own and that of others). They are at
the top of the hierarchy in human beings. Why do I exist? What is my goal
(purpose) in life. These set many of the lower reference values that
determine what each of us autonomous control systems spend our time doing.

Aren't we and PCT marvelous?

Kenny