RTP

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980430.1204 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980430.1830)--

[From Bill Powers (980429.1751 MDT)]

The children do not choose to walk through the front gate.

How on earth can you substantiate a statement like that. _All_ children
_all_ the time are being forced to go to school?

The law says they have to go to school, here in the U.S. at least. It
doesn't matter whether the child wants to go to school. The child WILL go
to school (or something worse) whether it wants to or not.

It might surprise you to
know that some kids I've spoken to actually enjoy going to school. Even the
"bad" kids I worked with liked going to school (much to their teachers
dismay).

No surprise. The point is that they will go to school whether they like it
or not. If they like it, they will go to school. If they don't like it,
they will go to school. The ones who like to go to school don't experience
being forced to go, because they're doing what the coercers want: zero
error, for the coercers. It's the ones who don't want to go who cause an
error in the coercers, and experience the physical force that makes them go.

Do we assume that every kid sitting in every classroom is sitting there
because of force or the threat of force?

No. If they happen to want to be in class, they experience neither force
nor the threat of force. The coercers are perceiving the behavior they want
to perceive, and, experiencing no error, they produce no action on those
children. But they're always watching for error: if a "good" child fails to
produce the wanted behavior, the coercer will immediately take action.

The statement made above seems very hard to reconcile with a PCT view of
the world. I thought part of the rigour of PCT required that for something
to be considered important it had to be occurring 95% of the time. Are you
saying that at least 95% of the kids who walk through the front gate feel
forced to do it?

Please listen. Children who want to be in class do not elicit any physical
force from the coercers, because they are not disturbing the coercers.
Control systems do not act when they are experiencing zero error.

Do people only drive on the correct side of the road because they all feel
forced to do it?

I would guess they drive on the correct side to avoid head-on collisions;
however, if they violate the law about which side to drive on, they are
subject to legal coercion. The cops are always watching for them to drive
on the wrong side. Good thing, too. Drunks driving up an off-ramp are very
dangerous to everyone.

Their options are limited by the intentions of the adults involved. The
adults are responsible for limiting the options, and for using whatever
means they use to assure that the children can't choose the forbidden
options.

Now this is sounding more like PCT ... "the intentions of the adults". What
if the intention of the adults is to help the kid succeed? What if they
think their job is to constantly look for ways to reach the kid and find
ways to help him "make it" in school. Is coercion still going on?

Yes, if they use overwhelming physical force to cause the children to
behave as they want them to behave. That doesn't sound much like what you
describe them doing, so I guess the right answer is no. But you could
figure that out yourself, if you would take my definition of coercion
seriously.

Does an intervention team ever conclude that the child's desire not to be
in school should be honored? Does the child actually have any say at all
with respect to returning?

In my experience the intervention team would try to figure out what the kid
is controlling for. As you would be well aware, people have lots of goals
going on all the time. Where in the hierarchy would "staying out of school"
fit.

Wanting to do something incompatible with school, such as travelling,
hunting, exploring, living off the land, working full-time to make money.
Or simply avoiding unpleasant relationships with teachers or other
children. That would fit wherever you think such things would fit in the
hierarchy.

My approach, and the one I teach when I work with schools is to
figure out where that goal is coming from. What is the kid achieving by
staying out of school? A great application of MOL don't you think?

Absolutely. But are you determined to keep at it until the child is back in
school, or is there any point where you would say, "I guess this child
simply finds nothing attractive in school, and we should get off his back"?

I know I haven't answered your question and that's because in my experience
it hasn't happened.

It will happen some day. What you do defines what theory of human and
social nature you subscribe to. If your policy is to keep working on the
child until the child is back in school, you are on the edge of coercion,
because as an adult you can probably beat the child down into submission by
superior logic and the simple pressure of your determination, which a child
has trouble matching.

I have never met or worked with a kid who just didn't
want to go to school out right. I've worked with lots of kids who say that
they don't want to go to school, but after talking to them for a while they
always come up with a reason: they are failing; they are being bullied;
their friends are at another school; there mum is sick and they want to
stay at home and look after her; etc., etc.

And you reject all those reasons, without seriously considering whether
they are justifiable reasons?

You're talking about "RTP kids," but if all the kids were RTP kids, why
would you ever need RTP? What tests the program and shows its underlying
structure is what happens to the hard cases.

Sure. Isn't school an individual experience for every kid? You're
absolutely right about the hard cases and when I'm in schools I talk all
the time about the idea that these kids are the ones who will demonstrate
how well the personnel in the school have a handle on the process and the
theory. Some schools start to do things to these kids (some form of "nice"
coercion); other schools start to investigate what the kid might be
controlling for and help the kid experience success at school.

The only way to see if they're operating within a coercive school system
is to see what happens when some individuals rock the boat by not playing
the game by the rules of RTP.

And when these individuals are coerced (if they're coerced) does this mean
we have a coercive system, or does this mean that their experience at that
moment is one of coercion?

You're hearing "coercive system" to mean a system in which overwhelming
physical force is being applied all of the time, or regularly. But you can
have a coercive system in which no force at all is being applied to the
children for long periods of time, for the simple reason that the penalties
for failure to comply with the rules are so onerous that the children don't
dare break the rules. If the penalty for disrupting a class or appearing
unhappy were ten minutes of torture, you would probably have a student body
that never disrupted and (when any adult was watching) appeared happy.

RTP wouldn't work if the teachers let the disruptors stay in the class.
So it is _necessary_ to coerce this kid and get him out of the class even
against his will.

And if the administrator comes down and tells him that his choices are to
go to RTC or have his parents called and he then walks down to RTC is this
still against his will or is he controlling for not having his parents
called?

He's controlling for not having his parents called (we're assuming for the
sake of argument), but only because he considers that alternative to be
worse than going to the RTC. He wouldn't voluntarily choose either one.

This is a forced choice. Would you rather have your left foot or your right
ear cut off? If you don't choose your left foot to part with, then you must
have voluntarily chosen to have your right ear cut off. OK, if that's what
you want, but don't complain to me later that you didn't have any choice.

That's the kind of reasoning you're offering here.

Behind it is the physical power to make a person choose one alternative
instead of neither ("I'm not going to the RTC, and I'm not going home,
either" is not permitted). Why would you choose to have either a foot or an
ear cut off? Only because whoever is offering you this choice has the
physical power to make you choose one or the other ("We're assuming that if
you don't make a choice, you want your foot cut off, and that's what we
will do if you don't express a preference. So it's still your choice.").

This is an age-old ploy for passing responsibility for your own actions
onto someone else. Basically, you present a person with two choices,
neither of which the person wants to make. Because you have the physical
power, you can force the person to choose one or the other, and forbid the
person to reject both choices. One way to do this is to pick one
alternative as the default choice: not making a choice is treated as making
a specific choice.

Then, of course, later on, you can point out to the person that he actually
had a choice and made it, so the outcome is his responsibility, not yours.
This is the worst kind of twisted and self-serving logic. "Would you like
to give me a list of your confederates, or would you like me to torture you
some more? It's your free choice." Who in the sane world would accept the
torturer's defense that the victim asked to be tortured?

You can fool young children with this kind of deformed logic, because
children aren't very good at logic, yet. You can convince them that they
have freely chosen whatever it was, when in fact you gave them no viable
choice at all. That makes them easier to control, because they believe they
really did have a choice and, perhaps, don't want to contradict themselves.

As far as I know Bill, teachers in my state are not allowed to use physical
force with kids unless there is a safety issue. A classroom disruption
would not constitute a safety issue and so the teacher would not be able to
use force. Many of the kids here know their rights (and isn't it curious
that the "badder" the kid the more aware of their rights they seem to be
;-)).

So how do the teachers get the student into the RTC if the student refuses
to go? I presume that they call in some higher authority, like an
administrator. If the student stands up against this display of higher
authority, the administrator, I presume, can get legal authorization to
apply physical force, or to call in law enforcement people who are
authorized to do it. The student simply cannot win: eventually the forces
raised against him will force compliance no matter how hard the student
struggles against them. The coercion is always there in the background,
ready to force compliance if it is not given "voluntarily." How far the
process goes toward physically laying hands on the student and literally
dragging him away depends on how long the student can maintain his nerve
against the mounting threats.

I doubt that many young children will be able to hold out very long against
these threats, if they don't give in immediately. Older children, like in
high school, would be more likely to carry it all the way to the violent
conclusion.

This is perhaps another difference between us Bill ... I consider I always
have a choice. For me it's not the choice that's the issue but the
consequences of each of the options.

You do have a choice, as long as you are permitted to act. But try this one
on:

Tim, I am giving you two choices: (1) cease to send posts to CSGnet, or (2)
agree that I am right about everything. It's up to you; I'm giving you a
real choice, so you're not having anything forced on you, are you? You
always have a choice, and I am giving you one. Of course if you refuse to
make this choice I will take it that you're choosing to stop posting to the
net and pull the plug on you accordingly. But it's your choice -- what will
it be?

What I'm missing is how some reliance on
coercion, translates into a coercive system all the time for everyone.

Coercion is not the active application of force to everyone all of the
time. It is a system, adopted by those in power, in which deviation from a
specific behavior automatically results in the use of overwhelming physical
force. It removes any choices, by making choice irrelevant. If you choose
to do what is demanded, no force is applied. If you don't, force is applied
and you end up doing what is demanded anyway. Your choice is therefore a
mockery, since only one outcome can be chosen: there is no real choice.

No civilization has

EVER figured out how to do without coercion. You don't have to like it to
admit that you sometimes use coercion for the simple reason that you

can't

think of anything else that would work.

How about negotiation and compromise with a dash of MOL?

Fine, I'd like to see it tried. It's never been tried on a large scale that
I know of. All social systems of any size are based on coercion -- that is,
on the rule of law.

On the contrary, the rules of RTP are set up so they must know they have
no other realistic options.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier about the kid not wanting to
go to the RTC but do other things like stay in class, or attack the
teacher. If the only two options the kid has in his head are class or RTC,
then for that kid, they are the options aren't they?

They are not options if they lead to exactly the same outcome: ending up in
the RTC. You are not given the option of staying in class AND disrupting at
the same time. Yet this may be the option you have in your head, the one
you would prefer to exercise. It's only after you finally believe that this
option is unavailable that you give in and go to the RTC (or go into open
rebellion). You give in when you admit that you have no choice.

That depends a lot on the systems concept reference you have of freedom.

OK. My system concept is that one is able to act to make the experienced
world be closer to the world one desires to experience.

Yes, dammit. The coercive machinery is built into the laws that say you
either go to school willingly or you go unwillingly.

And where exactly does this coercive machinery exist for an invidual living
control system?

In the legal system and all the people who act to enforce the laws.

What you're not understanding here is the idea that coercion is built
into the school system

And what you haven't explained to me is where this "school system" is.

It is in the written laws stating that there shall be schools, and how the
schools are to be run, and in the penalties prescribed for people who
violate these laws, and in the people who administer these penalties. It is
also in the desires of teachers and administrators and parents.

When does the school system actually become coercive?

As soon as people start enforcing the laws or their own wishes by means of
overwhelming physical force or the credible threat thereof.

Should we do a year
by year kind of check? How about the year before an individual starts any
formal schooling? As a three year old is their school system coercive? What
about as a four year old in their first year of preschool? How about as a
five year old in grade one? Does the coercive school system exist yet?

The coercion doesn't depend on the coercee. As I have said at length in
this post already.

>It seems that PCT has gone out the window momentarily. How do you know
that controlling someone's behaviour is _necessarily_ coercive?

It is coercive if it involves applying such a large disturbance that the
other person can't resist it. That is straight PCT.

Coercion goes beyond controlling behavior. In its purest form it consists
of _ignoring_ the other person's control systems,

So if you ignore the other person's control system how can you tell whether
or not you're coercing them? What if they're controlling for being coerced?
Is it still coercion then?

It doesn't matter what the other person does. If you want the person to go
up the stairs, you attach a rope to the person (while three other people
hold the person down), fasten the other end to a winch, and turn on the
motor. The person will go up the stairs. Whether the person cooperates or
resists makes no difference and is of no interest. You decide that the
person is to go up the stairs and do what is necessary to make the person
go up the stairs. If the other person says he wanted to go up the stairs
anyway, you just laugh. It makes no difference what he wanted. That's what
real coercion is like.

This is what I'm having difficulty with. From this description, it sounds
as though coecion is some aspect of an interaction between two people that
a third person could observe. I find this very curious.

It might take a little research, but yes, another person could observe it.
I could observe you being held down, and realize that one person can't
resist three determined people. I can observe the attachment of the winch,
and see that there's no way you could resist its pull. And when the winch
is turned on, I could see that your intentions or efforts have absolutely
no effect on your movement up the stairs. The winch totally determines your
position. That would be very reasonable to call coercion on the part of the
person or people who set all this up.

Well, consider the mother who rushes out into the street and snatches her
toddler out of the traffic. I'd call that coercion. The mother isn't
considering at all where the child wants to be, and where the child ends
up is totally due to the mother's actions. So the child's control systems
have been, for the moment, completely overridden by the mother's action.
The mother's intention is the safety of the child, and the child's
intentions are irrelevant.

Aren't you making a big assumption about what the kid is controlling for?

It doesn't matter what the kid is controlling for. The kid can't control
anything when the mother picks her up. Coercion negates control, makes it
irrelevant.

Isn't it possible that the kid has learned that looking like you're going
to run out on the road is a great way to get mum to notice you and to pick
you up?

Yes, this is possible. You can sucker an adult into behaving coercively if
you want to. It's a little risky, because at some point you actually lose
control and are at the mercy of the coercer. The protesters did this in
1968 at the Chicago Democratic Convention. They broke the rules and taunted
the police until the police went into a frenzy of coercion. There were
broken bones and skulls, and serious internal injuries, and severe fines
and jail terms as a result. I expect that many of the protesters were
dismayed to find out just what this exercise had cost them.

I've seen kids do this with hot things like saucepans. The parent
tells them not to touch and they keep putting their hand near the saucepan.
Do they really want to touch the saucepan, or are they controlling for
parental attention? Wouldn't we need the Test?

Sure. But at the time when the parent seizes the kid and yanks him away
from the hot saucepan, there's no way to do the test on the kid: there is
no position control system in the kid while the parent is controlling the
kid's position.

No, you haven't been coerced, because you never caused any error in the
"coercion system," whatever or whoever it was. But you were living in a
coercive system, and if you had ever broken those rules, it would have
made itself known to you.

So am I just born with a coercive system in my head?

The coercive system is not in your head. It's in the coercer's head.

I don't understand your distinction between mild coercion and real coercion.
Either the threat of force is there or not. How can the one system have
such differing amounts of coercion?

If a person has experienced real coercion -- direct violent application of
physical force that totally overrides one's intentions and efforts -- it is
likely that this experience will be so unpleasant that the mere threat of
coercion becomes enough to force compliance in the future. So the coercer
finds that it is not necessary to keep applying the maximum force to the
other person; simply stating the intention to do so accomplishes the same
result. This makes control by the coercer easier.

I'm afraid this wouldn't help because in my head the existence of choices
and limits doesn't equal coercion.

It's not the options or the limits that constitute coercion. It's what
you're prepared to do to make sure that the person chooses only from the
offered options, and stays within the limits. If there is any way for the
child to reject all your offered options, or go outside the limits, then
there is no coercion. Coercion arises when you are willing to use direct
physical force to prevent the child from doing anything but what you want.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, I
just don't get it. If I decide to go to the snow for the holidays, I can't
at the same time go to the beach.

Where is the direct application of physical force by one person to another
in that?

If I decide to spend money on object A, I
can't at the same time spend the same amount of money on object B.

Same question.

I think
that the Boss Reality we exist in at the moment is one of choices and
limits. Are we living in a coercive universe? If I let go of something it
will fall, is gravity coercive?

Same question.

I don't know of any situation, anywhere where you can do anything you want.
Our goals are never unlimited but are always defined in part by the
environment we are in. I don't see this as coercion, I just see it as life.

Me too. I see coercion ONLY when one person applies overwhelming physical
force to another, to get what the coercing person wants.

I'd say that calling it physical force is just a description. If I twist
your arm behind you and force you to march out of the room, or drag you,
or pick you up and carry you, I'd say that is physical force being used.
And my definition of coercion doesn't leave much room for interpretation,
does it?

Does the fact that I might have been controlling for you to do that have
any influence on whether the act is coercive or not?

None whatsoever. When coercion begins, what you're controlling for becomes
irrelevant, because your actions can no longer affect your perceptions.
They are overridden by the coercer's superior strength.

How about if I like a
little pain and I say things like "Gee, can't you get my arm any higher up
my back than that, what are you weak?!!" Am I now coercing you?

No. You are not applying overwhelming physical force to overpower my
efforts and make my intentions irrelevant.

Do we need the Test to find out whether or not it's coercion to the kid or
can we suddenly rely on observation of actions to tell what's going on. I
thought this was called the 'behavioural illusion'.

You keep attributing coercion to the kid's perceptions. Coercion is not a
perception that the kid controls. It's the means that the coercer uses to
force the kid to behave as the coercer desires, regardless of the kid's
goals. It's the coercer's way of controlling the coercer's perceptions.

OK, then that's coercion at least from someone's perspective, I'm just not
sure that it's coercion from the kids perspective.

What the kid experiences when coercion is going on is loss of control. The
coercer is controlling some variable, and the kid is prevented from
controlling it.

The kid may think it's a
contest, but as you're an adult with comparatively immense resources, the
kid can't win.

I can tell you Bill that at least some teachers and some kids don't see it
this way. Some teachers definitely feel that they are losing and some kids
are relentless in how far they will go, they literally have teachers on the
end of a string. It isn't always physical force that wins a battle.

Right, but this may arise indirectly. The teachers are suffering coercion
in that the law forbids them to take the action that would (seem to) end
the problem: the direct application of force to the kids. If they do this,
the law will come down hard on them no matter what their excuse. The kids
know this, and in effect are using the irresistible force of the law as
their lever for coercing the teachers.

Of course if it's an RTP teacher, the problem doesn't arise. The second
disruption takes the kid out of the classroom, no matter what the kid tries
to do to resist. The Administrator, the cops, or a swat team -- whatever it
takes, the kid is out of there. The kids never get the chance to control
the teacher.

Sure, I can see that something like gravity is a regularity. I'm just
missing the part where coercion is a regularity.

I think that if you use my definition of coercion, you will easily be able
to identify it when it occurs.

Best,

Bill P.

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980501.0640)]

[From Bill Powers (980430.0337 MDT)]

Rick is getting to the kernel of the problem we're having here. What

makes

the system coercive is that the adults in it with the most power are
willing to use physical force to make sure the children behave as the
adults want them to behave.

OK, so now we've got a situation where some adults who come together to do
a task have references about using force to control other people. How many
of these adults need to have these references before the "system" is
described as coercive? I still don't think we've got a definition for what
the "system" is.

learned their lesson. However, the people in the system are still

coercive,

because they will still use physical force if any child fails to follow

the

critical rules (like going to the RTC when told to go).

Which people and how many Bill? How many of these people does it take
before "the system" is coercive.

Yes, I think so. How free is a child's choice to go to school at all?

Most

children have some fear of going to school;

Bill, how can you justify statements like this? _Most_ children have some
fear of going to school? I think we are talking about very different school
students. In my experience _most_ children _enjoy_ going to school _most_
of the time.

many don't want to give up

their freedom to play all day;

Little kids starting school are perhaps the kids who enjoy school the most.
The ones I know literally can't wait. They go shopping for their books,
they nag their parents about when the holidays will be over, etc., etc.

many don't want to try things they're afraid

they may fail at. So left to make their own choices, many children would
never even start school.

Again, we just know different children, that's all.

do something if the child fears it or doesn't want to do it. On the first
day of kindergarten, the first half hour is spent peeling little limpets
off the parents' legs so the parents can leave. Heartbreaking scenes of
abandonment. Lots of direct physical force.

I taught preschool for 3 years and in my limited experience, only a handful
of kids ever cry at the beginning of school. Your making a big assumption
that these kids are crying because they are afraid to stay. Actually, in my
experience it is the parents who are the most upset and the kids pick up on
this. I've actually seen parents go up to their kids who were happily
engaged in an activity and start to tell them they are leaving. They say
things like: "Now don't worry, I'll be back soon, you'll be alright" and
they do things like rub the kids back. Pretty soon the kid starts to cry.
Parents who are more comfortable with separating don't have the same
problem with their kids.

Not with all the children, of course. Some children sail through this
process without a hitch, enjoy the other children and the new teacher

from

the start, and comply with requests out of love and joy.

So do these kids have coercive school system references in their heads?

And while we're on this topic _many_ teachers sail through their teaching
careers without ever having to force or threaten a single student. In fact
some teachers I know _refuse_ to threaten or force. Do these teachers have
references of coercive school systems?

You're focussing on the wrong side of the equation. Of course if the
children always do what is wanted of them, they never trigger the

coercive

aspect of the system and never experience it.

"they never trigger the coercive aspect of the system" doesn't sound very
PCT to me Bill.

If someone never experiences something then they won't have references for
it will they? If they don't have references for it, how can it be in their
perceptual world?

They don't know they're in a

coercive system.

So from their point of view, they're not in a coercive system.

under any circumstances. The use of force is forbidden. If children obey
the rules, it is strictly because they want to, not because they know

what

will happen to them if they don't.

This seems a bit circular. You have to know why kids are following rules
before you know whether the system is coercive or not, but kids might be
following the rules just because of the "threat" of force which would make
it coercive.

Don't forget that control systems also act. Coercion is action involving
the application of overwhelming force to a child. We're not imagining

this;

it really happens. The child experiences being forced, and the adult
experiences doing the forcing. If they experience anything else, they ARE
imagining. If I came up to you, wrestled you to the ground, and put
handcuffs on you, I don't think that your experience of being coerced

could

be called a matter of individual interpretation.

What if I was controlling for having some kind of kinky fun with you?

You don't do it by trying to pretend that coercion is not built in to the
RTP program (unless you can prove that force is never used on children by
anyone under any circumstances). You do it by pointing out the exact
circumstances under which coercion is used, and showing that these
circumstances are much too narrow and restricted to explain what has
happened in the school. If you try to deny that coercion is basic to the
system, and anyone ever sees coercion being used, your credibility will

be

totally lost.

I'm not aware that I've ever denied that coercion is not part of some
people's system concepts of school, and if I have I'm correcting that now.
The point I am trying to clarify is how this then translates into a
coercive system.

I know many teachers who have ideas about nuturing as part of their
systems' concepts about school .... is it then a nurturing school system.

I could say the same about "cooperation", "respect", friendly", etc.

Cheers,

Tim

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980501.0710)

>From [Hank Folson (980430)]

My perception is that Tim perceives observations that I arbitrarily
called Innocence and Awareness, and does not consider coercion as being
present.

Hank, I have said a number of times that I am well aware that coercion is
_one_ of the experiences that may go on at school. I'm just not convinced
that because it occurs then that is an accurate way to describe a "school
system". And nobody has been able to tell me what this "school system" is.

As a parent Rick at least said that from time to time he coerced his kids -
particularly when they were younger. If a parent does this, does that mean
that they are described as "coercive parents"?

Cheers,

Tim

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980430.1510)]

Bruce Gregory (980430.2000 BST) --

Rick has never addressed my question as to what he thinks that I
do not understand about PCT. He has never acknowledged the
distinction I have repeatedly made between the model that explains
behavior (PCT) and the perceptual world of a Living Control System.

Actually, I thought I had done that (and Bill did too).

He continues to talk as if I thought "calling forth" represents a
modification of or alternative to PCT, when I have repeatedly said
that it refers to the way the world shows up for a LCS whose
actions are described by PCT.

I think I have already agreed that "calling forth" is a fine
description of the way the world "shows up" (sometimes) for an LCS.
When a pretty girl walks into my field of view it feels like my
head turning is "called forth" by this perception.

What you seem reluctant to agree to is that this experience of having
one's actions "called forth" is, according to PCT, an _illusion_;
actions are not called forth by perception; actions control perception.
I am happy to agree that "calling forth" is a fine description of
the occasional, _illusory_ experience of having your actions "pulled
out" of you by what you see.

Rick has ignored my arguments that since different HPCT systems
have different perceptual organizations, the world shows up for
them in different ways

I don't think I have ever disputed that. It's just that the meaning
of "the world shows up for them in different ways" is ambiguous.
The world could show up in different ways if 1) people are controlling
the same perceptual variables at different reference levels 2) people
are controlling different perceptual variables and/or 3) people
experience the same perceptual variables differently.

Rick has never acknowledged my statement that this admittedly peculiar
language _does_ communicate to many people in a way that "controlling
for different perceptual variables" or "wanting the same perceptual
variable to be in different states" does not.

I think that language is ambiguous. It might mean controlling different
perceptual variables but it might also refer to the fact thay they
keep the same perceptual variables in different states or it might
mean that they experience the same perceptual variable differently. So
I acknowldge that you have said that "people live in different
perceptual worlds" but I certainly don't acknowledge that this
phrase necessarily communicates what "controlling for different
perceptual variables" communicates; and I certainly don't acknowledge
that it has anything to do with _why_ people get into conflict (which
was the context in which the notion of "different worlds" came up).

That's a start. Acknowledging that he has heard what I said about
these points and agreeing, disagreeing, or presenting an alternative

Do you acknowledge that I have done this now?

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980430.2113 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980430.1510)

Bruce Gregory (980430.2000 BST) --

> Rick has never addressed my question as to what he thinks that I
> do not understand about PCT.

How about this one?

> He has never acknowledged the
> distinction I have repeatedly made between the model that explains
> behavior (PCT) and the perceptual world of a Living Control System.

Actually, I thought I had done that (and Bill did too).

> He continues to talk as if I thought "calling forth" represents a
> modification of or alternative to PCT, when I have repeatedly said
> that it refers to the way the world shows up for a LCS whose
> actions are described by PCT.

I think I have already agreed that "calling forth" is a fine
description of the way the world "shows up" (sometimes) for an LCS.
When a pretty girl walks into my field of view it feels like my
head turning is "called forth" by this perception.

What you seem reluctant to agree to is that this experience of having
one's actions "called forth" is, according to PCT, an _illusion_;
actions are not called forth by perception; actions control perception.

Not at all. I agree completely.

I am happy to agree that "calling forth" is a fine description of
the occasional, _illusory_ experience of having your actions "pulled
out" of you by what you see.

Great.

> Rick has ignored my arguments that since different HPCT systems
> have different perceptual organizations, the world shows up for
> them in different ways

I don't think I have ever disputed that. It's just that the meaning
of "the world shows up for them in different ways" is ambiguous.
The world could show up in different ways if 1) people are controlling
the same perceptual variables at different reference levels 2) people
are controlling different perceptual variables and/or 3) people
experience the same perceptual variables differently.

I agree that these three components can contribute to the way the world
shows up. For the purposes I envision this is not a great problem, however.
Once someone agrees this is the case, they can begin to explore the
possibilities you describe. The distinctions are vitally important in
modeling behavior, but may not be essential in recognizing that for whatever
reasons, the world looks different to different people. For example, I
experience commuting in a different way knowing that every driver is in his
or her own world. For many of us, these worlds are probably quite similar
and we minimally interfere with each other (remember, this is New England,
not California). Every once a while someone appears on the road controlling
different perceptual variables, for whatever reason. These folks used to
upset me greatly. They now amuse me as I back off to give them room,
acknowledging that whatever is going on in their world, it sure looks
different from mine.

> Rick has never acknowledged my statement that this admittedly peculiar
> language _does_ communicate to many people in a way that "controlling
> for different perceptual variables" or "wanting the same perceptual
> variable to be in different states" does not.

I think that language is ambiguous. It might mean controlling different
perceptual variables but it might also refer to the fact that they
keep the same perceptual variables in different states or it might
mean that they experience the same perceptual variable differently. So
I acknowledge that you have said that "people live in different
perceptual worlds" but I certainly don't acknowledge that this
phrase necessarily communicates what "controlling for different
perceptual variables" communicates; and I certainly don't acknowledge
that it has anything to do with _why_ people get into conflict (which
was the context in which the notion of "different worlds" came up).

I know you are firmly convinced that conflict only arises when people are
controlling to put the same perceptual variable into different states. As a
technical statement I have no problem with this formulation. I would only
add that there are probably situations that look a lot like PCT conflict,
but which require descriptions in terms of different perceptual
organizations. (I don't think one can give an operational meaning to
"experiencing the same perceptual variable differently.") Given the
incredible complexity of higher order perceptual organizations it seems very
likely to me that we often give the same names to different perceptions. I
further think that this might be important in resolving some forms of
"conflict".

Let me give you an example of how I see the "different worlds" label as
useful for non-PCT people. Mary tells John about a problem in her office.
John tells her how he thinks she should deal with the people involved. Mary
becomes upset and John has no idea why. John might say, "I'm not sure what
is going on in your world. What were you expecting when you told me about
your office problem?" Mary responds, "I just wanted you to listen to me and
show some sympathy." "Ah," responds John, "I see." "In _my_ world, when
someone tells me about a problem, I try my best to solve it for them." "I
didn't want your good ideas about solutions to my problems," Mary says. "I
just wanted empathy." "I'll try to remember," John says. "If I forget,
remind me." He hugs her. (Sorry about the psychodrama!) My point is that
_we_ can diagram this interaction in terms of controlled perceptions, but
John and Mary may well be able to make progress using the less technical
idea that from time to time they need to check on what the other person's
perceptual world looks like. I know this is an application and talking about
it violates Rule 7, but I wanted you to understand my motivation, which is
not to gratuitously mess with the clean PCT approach.

> That's a start. Acknowledging that he has heard what I said about
> these points and agreeing, disagreeing, or presenting an alternative

Do you acknowledge that I have done this now?

Yes indeed. Thank you. I would still appreciate an answer to my first
question, however. If I don't know where I am going astray, it is very hard
to get back on track.

Best Offer

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980430.2230)]

Bruce Gregory (980430.2113 EDT) --

I would still appreciate an answer to my first question, however.
the question of what I think Bruce doesn't understand about PCT].
If I don't know where I am going astray, it is very hard to get
back on track.

The only "chinks" I saw in your understanding of PCT were the
two we have been discussing; "calling forth" and "different
worlds". You now seem to understand the problem with "calling
forth" as a description of the behavior _or_ the experience
of a control system; it's just an illusion. But you still seem
to think "different worlds" is a useful way to describe conflict
to non-PCT people. Let's look at the example you use to show me
why this is the case:

Mary tells John about a problem in her office. John tells her
how he thinks she should deal with the people involved. Mary
becomes upset and John has no idea why. John might say, "I'm not
sure what is going on in your world...Mary responds, "I just
wanted you to listen to me and show some sympathy." "Ah,"
responds John, "I see." "In _my_ world, when someone tells me
about a problem, I try my best to solve it for them."...

The problem with this example is that it _assumes_ that the problem
here exists because John and Mary live in different perceptual
worlds. I could write a similar script to show that a problem
exists because John and Mary have different goals for the _same_
perceptual world.

My point is that _we_ can diagram this interaction in terms of
controlled perceptions, but John and Mary may well be able to
make progress using the less technical idea that from time to
time they need to check on what the other person's perceptual
world looks like.

I think this is where our difference lies. I think that we learn
nothing about John and Mary's problems unless we diagram the
interaction in terms of controlled variables. You seem to
think that modeling is unimportant or often impossible. I think
that the PCT model is important because it explains superficial
appearances (like the interaction between John and Mary). You
seem to think that the model is superfluous. I think that the
PCT model shows that most human problems (conflicts) result from
the fact that people are controlling the same or very similar
perceptions of the same physical environment relative to different
reference specifications. You seem to think that this conclusion
of the model is unwarrented, misleading or unnecessary; conflicts,
like that between John and Mary, result from the fact that people
live in differnet perceptual worlds and that's just the way it is.
You seem to think that this is what the PCT model says or that this
is the best way to _explain_ what the PCT model says. In fact,
it's not.

So our difference seems to be over the value of PCT _modeling_.
I think PCT modeling is essential; you seem to think it's not.
You may have an excellent understanding of the PCT model but you
don't seem to think that there is much to be gained from using it
to analyze human interactions.

We also differ about your claim that a non-technical story (like
the one about John and Mary) will help people "make progress"
better than would a technical story like the PCT model. Your
story suggests a solution to conflicts (checking on what the
other person's perceptual world looks like) that won't work.
It works in your story; but I've made up stories where Skinnerian
methods work like a charm, too. I think there is no substitute
for the ability to properly apply the PCT model to real life
problems.

I know this is an application and talking about it violates
Rule 7,

There is nothing wrong with applications. But applications
like your "analysis" of the John/Mary spat are pretty
unconvincing if they are not developed in terms of the PCT
model (or any model, for that matter).

but I wanted you to understand my motivation, which is
not to gratuitously mess with the clean PCT approach.

I never thought you were "messing" with the "clean" PCT approach.
It just didn't seem to me that you were _using_ the PCT approach
(which is to analyze human behavior and interactions in terms of
control of perceptual representations of aspects of the environment).

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980501.0605 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980430.2230)

I think this is where our difference lies. I think that we learn
nothing about John and Mary's problems unless we diagram the
interaction in terms of controlled variables. You seem to
think that modeling is unimportant or often impossible.

No. What I meant was that the different worlds approach might be a good
place for John and Mary to _start_ looking at their problems.

I think
that the PCT model is important because it explains superficial
appearances (like the interaction between John and Mary). You
seem to think that the model is superfluous.

Not at all. I think the model is the heart of understanding human actions.
Without we can't even begin to understand what is happening.

I think that the
PCT model shows that most human problems (conflicts) result from
the fact that people are controlling the same or very similar
perceptions of the same physical environment relative to different
reference specifications. You seem to think that this conclusion
of the model is unwarranted, misleading or unnecessary; conflicts,
like that between John and Mary, result from the fact that people
live in different perceptual worlds and that's just the way it is.

No. The different perceptual worlds expression simply includes different
perceptual organizations in addition to same perceptual world, different
reference levels. To understand what is happening, we still need to model
(and Test) further.

You seem to think that this is what the PCT model says or that this
is the best way to _explain_ what the PCT model says. In fact,
it's not.

No and no. Your explanations and Bill's are much more precise and
_essential_. I view the different worlds approach as a way to introduce the
more detailed and accurate models that true understanding requires.

So our difference seems to be over the value of PCT _modeling_.
I think PCT modeling is essential; you seem to think it's not.
You may have an excellent understanding of the PCT model but you
don't seem to think that there is much to be gained from using it
to analyze human interactions.

I hope my views are now clear(er).

We also differ about your claim that a non-technical story (like
the one about John and Mary) will help people "make progress"
better than would a technical story like the PCT model. Your
story suggests a solution to conflicts (checking on what the
other person's perceptual world looks like) that won't work.
It works in your story; but I've made up stories where Skinnerian
methods work like a charm, too. I think there is no substitute
for the ability to properly apply the PCT model to real life
problems.

My story was just a beginning. Describing your different worlds may, and
should, reveal the kinds of conflicts you describe so well. At that point
people can begin to see what sort of adjustments they are willing to make in
their own worlds to accommodate the worlds of others.

> I know this is an application and talking about it violates
> Rule 7,

There is nothing wrong with applications. But applications
like your "analysis" of the John/Mary spat are pretty
unconvincing if they are not developed in terms of the PCT
model (or any model, for that matter).

I agree.

> but I wanted you to understand my motivation, which is
> not to gratuitously mess with the clean PCT approach.

I never thought you were "messing" with the "clean" PCT approach.
It just didn't seem to me that you were _using_ the PCT approach
(which is to analyze human behavior and interactions in terms of
control of perceptual representations of aspects of the environment).

In fact I always (try to) use the PCT approach. In the future I will try to
make this completely explicit. Please remind me (gently if you can) when I
seem to be going astray.

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Richard Kennaway for
"facilitating" this exchange.

Bruce Gregory

[KENNETH_J_KITZKE1]

Tim,

A school system is separate from the people in the system.

Principals, Teachers and Students are not free to do what they want to do
while in the system. There are rules and limits to their individual
freedoms. This makes public education a coercive system.

Not everyone in the system perceives coericion from these rules (and the
remedies for breaking them) every single moment. Only if and when they
want to do something against the rules do they feel the coercion, the
environment for which is ever present.

The rules apply to all whether they agree or not. Most just behave to get
around the system and still satisfy their wants. Unless people in the
system agree with the rules that apply to them, it can be perceived as
coercive. I wish I had a nickel for every public school teacher who wanted
to conduct their class the way they wanted to but cannot. Teachers are
forced to comply, be reprimanded or quit. This causes them to do the same
to the students.

I agree with Bill. A public school system is fundamentally coercive. When
it isn't is when everyone can do what they want without checking with
anyone. A difficult situation to imagine, even in a private school system.

The degree to which coercion applies depends on the individual people and
the situation. So, you seem to be right too. That is PCT, isn't it?

I've enjoyed this thread immensely. Thanks for encouraging my thinking
without coercing me.

Kenny

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980514.0700)]

From: Kenneth J. Kitzke <71042.2733@COMPUSERVE.COM>

I've enjoyed this thread immensely. Thanks for encouraging my thinking
without coercing me.

Hi Kenny,

I've purposely stayed out of this discussion since my "signing off post"
but since you've addressed this to me personally I'll reply.

Frankly, I found the whole coercion argument quite curious from a PCT point
of view. Let me explain .... my first introduction to PCT was through Tom
Bourbon. Tom was very keen to impress on me how different PCT was from
other psychological theories. According to Tom, PCT was a mathematical
model and so when PCT theorists disagreed about something they didn't rely

···

on words but instead returned to the mathematical model to explore their disagreements. Also, Tom impressed upon me that PCT theorists were interested in finding fundamental laws of human behaviour. Again, Tom said
this was very different from the current psychological methodology of
testing large numbers of people and making huge assumptions based on group
averages. These are the kinds of things I found (and still find)
refreshingly honest about PCT. It was these kinds of notions that I was
initially attracted to in PCT.

And the we have the coercion debate ....

I have observed that the coercion debate was essentially people offering
different opinions. I don't have anything against a sharing of opinions but
I found it curious that I was labelled dishonest because my opinion
differed from others. That might sound harsh but essentially the tone of
the conversation was that Bill and Rick's definition of coercion was _the_
definition of coercion and unless you agreed with that you were dishonest.

I also found it interesting that people were prepared to talk about vast
masses of people and describe what they _all_ do _all_ the time. The
doesn't seem like PCT methodology to me.

On a final point I have observed Bill make statements in the past about how
he wished people would really learn PCT before they started to criticise it
or make comments about changing it. I guess I feel the same way about
schools. I have taught in schools for 18 years and I have not experienced
the sort of schools that Rick, Bill, and others have described. It seems
that everyone is an expert on schools regardless of their experience. It
also seems that the standards we apply to PCT don't apply to other areas.

Again, I suppose people will just say I'm twisting and turning or being
dishonest or delusional or something but seeing all we're discussing is
_opinion_ this worries me very little.

I"m glad, though, that some people benefitted from the conversation. From
my point of view Kenny, I learned a great deal and so I too was glad of the
conversation.

Thanks for your post.

Cheers,

Tim

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980514.1142 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980514.0815)

Maybe you also just don't like the word "coercion". Saying that
RTP or the school system is coercive sounds like a put down. How
about calling it "free responsibility" instead. RTP, the school
system and the state use free responsibility to produce responsible
behavior. People do "free responsibility" by comparing the behavior
they observe to a reference for what that behavior should be. If
the behavior they see differs from the reference ("responsible")
behavior, the person is "free" to choose one of two different
versions of the reference behavior but they are not allowed to
choose to continue the behavior that deviates from the reference.

How's that? RTP doesn't advocate the use of "coercion"; it advocates
the use of "free responsibility"

I suspect that part of the problem is the limited context of this exchange.
Imagine a school system based on "three strikes and you're out". Three
disruptions and you are suspended from school indefinitely. We now introduce
a program, let's call it RTP, that provides a way for students to enhance
their ability to exercise control by allowing them to develop ways to
achieve their goals without suffering suspension. 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. Most of us
learned to drive and took a test for a license. This allowed us to minimize
our overall system error and we saw it as a facilitation, (since our parents
would now allow us to drive, something they may have been more reluctant to
do without this "certification"). In my example, many people would see RTP
as way to enhance the students' ability to accomplish their goals. Prisons
are also coercive, but they are not designed to enhance the ability of
inmates to control their perceptions. Calling both prisons and RTP
"coercive" seems to miss something very important.

Best Offer

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980514.0815)]

Tim Carey (980514.0700) --

I have observed that the coercion debate was essentially people
offering different opinions. I don't have anything against a
sharing of opinions but I found it curious that I was labelled
dishonest because my opinion differed from others. That might
sound harsh but essentially the tone of the conversation was
that Bill and Rick's definition of coercion was _the_ definition
of coercion and unless you agreed with that you were dishonest.

I didn't mean to imply that _you_ personally are being dishonest.
I think you honestly believe that coercion only occurs when person
A makes person B do what person B _doesn't_ want to do. I think
you honestly believe, therefore, that when a kid is given the
forced choice of behaving in class or going to the social skills
room there is no coercion if the kid wants (or seems to accept)
one of those options. I also think, given your view of coercion,
that you honestly believe that the school system is not coercive.

I think what is disturbing you is a turn of phrase. Bill said
something like "Advocates of RTP should be honest about the
fact that coercion is involved in the program". I'm sure Bill
didn't mean this to imply that you or Ed Ford or anyone involved
in RTP is intentionally lying about the existence of coercion in
the program. I think he meant something more like "Control of
behavior -- coercion -- is involved in RTP. It exists in the form of
a "forced choice" between staying quietly in class or going to the
social skills room. Giving this "choice" implies a willingness to
limit choice to the given alternatives. Why not just admit that
this kind of coercion exists? People who can see that this kind
of coercion exists in RTP would then see your description of the
program as "honest". Also, once you see that such coercion exists
in the program, it will be possible to consider alternative
approaches that might achieve the same goal. This could lead to
possible improvements in the program."

Coercion, as Bill and I have been using the term, is a clearly
observable phenomenon that can be easily modeled using PCT. It is
ubiquitous; it is used in all social systems: schools, social clubs,
corporations, states, etc. You can reveal it't existence very
easily by visibly violating a rule of the group. Try walking
up to strangers today and hitting them; see how long it takes
before you are coerced by the state (actually, by an individual
charged with enforcing the rules of the state) into performing
some other kind of behavior -- like sitting behind bars.

Maybe you also just don't like the word "coercion". Saying that
RTP or the school system is coercive sounds like a put down. How
about calling it "free responsibility" instead. RTP, the school
system and the state use free responsibility to produce responsible
behavior. People do "free responsibility" by comparing the behavior
they observe to a reference for what that behavior should be. If
the behavior they see differs from the reference ("responsible")
behavior, the person is "free" to choose one of two different
versions of the reference behavior but they are not allowed to
choose to continue the behavior that deviates from the reference.

How's that? RTP doesn't advocate the use of "coercion"; it advocates
the use of "free responsibility"

Me:

I have always disliked the "personification" of the state.

Tim Carey (980514.1300) --

Does this also apply to school system?

Yes, of course. See Bill Powers (980514.0538 MDT).

Best

Rick

···

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

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (989515.0610)]

[From Rick Marken (980514.0815)]

I think you honestly believe that coercion only occurs when person
A makes person B do what person B _doesn't_ want to do.

Yep.

I think

you honestly believe, therefore, that when a kid is given the
forced choice of behaving in class or going to the social skills
room there is no coercion if the kid wants (or seems to accept)
one of those options.

I think you're biasing the argument by calling it a forced choice. It may
not be a forced choice to every kid. How do you explain kids who self-refer
to the RTC to sort out there problems?

I also think, given your view of coercion,

that you honestly believe that the school system is not coercive.

I don't believe there is a "system". I believe there are collections of
individuals. Some individuals control for making other people do what they
want them to do, and some don't.

social skills room. Giving this "choice" implies a willingness to
limit choice to the given alternatives. Why not just admit that
this kind of coercion exists?

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

Actually, now that I'm back in this for the time being (what have I got
myself into ;-)), 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? And is it only
coercion for the people on the plane who he is physically stronger than and
is it contingency based manipluation for the people on the plane who are
physically stronger than him?

People who can see that this kind

of coercion exists in RTP would then see your description of the
program as "honest".

That's only important if we're controlling for having other people think of
RTP as honest. I have worked in a number of schools now and have _never_
heard anyone complain about the dishonesty of the program.

Also, once you see that such coercion exists

in the program, it will be possible to consider alternative
approaches that might achieve the same goal. This could lead to
possible improvements in the program."

There are two points I'd like to make here:
1. The reason I initially wrote to Bill about this topic was because he
described RTP as operating within the framework of a coercive school
system. I don't see how you can say on the one hand that the system is
coercive and then on the other hand it's up to us to consider alternative
approaches to improve the program. Based on your's and Bill's statements
RTP _can't_ change until the system changes.

2. I find it really difficult to talk about changes to the program in this
kind of forum. Ed actually invites people to modify and change the program
but in order to do that, don't they have to know the program first? Have
you and Bill ever been to an RTP school? I'm not saying that to try to be a
smart-ass, I think RTP schools need to be expereinced before anyone can
talk about them sensibly. I say this because this was my experience. I had
spent a lot of time talking to Tom and Ed about the process before I
actually visited a school. I took exception to many things they said. As an
example Tom described the RTP schools as ones with a pervasive sense of
calmness. I used to get really annoyed that a "scientist" would use such
mamby-pamby language. I don't anymore. After visiting an RTP school I found
that "calm" was the best way to describe it. I know this won't matter a fig
to what you and Bill think about coercion (the kids were still being
coerced ... I know, I know ;-)) but when I had the opportunity to walk
around the school and speak randomly to adults and kids I got a real sense
that this is what the _world_ should be like. People seemed genuinely happy
to be there. Kids were still running around, yelling and carrying on being
kids but there was a real respect for others being demonstrated.

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. And when I use the word "most" I mean the huge majority. 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 reports of kids who ask to go to
school when they're sick. I just don't have the same school system in my
head as you and Bill have in yours.

Try walking

up to strangers today and hitting them; see how long it takes
before you are coerced by the state (actually, by an individual
charged with enforcing the rules of the state) into performing
some other kind of behavior -- like sitting behind bars.

Agreed. However I know some people who _want_ to be behind bars so they go
and slug someone as a way of getting there. My point is that what's a
coercive consequence for one person may not be for another.

Maybe you also just don't like the word "coercion".

A word's a word. I just have a different experience of this word to you
guys that's all. As I've described above, if we're talking about your
definition of coercion, I don't have a problem with it (anymore than I have
a problem with the word gravity) but if we're talking about my definition
then I don't think it's a great way to live with other people.

Saying that

RTP or the school system is coercive sounds like a put down.

To me it just sounds inaccurate.

Cheers,

Tim

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980515.0331 MDT)]

Tim Carey (989515.0610)--

I don't believe there is a "system". I believe there are collections of
individuals. Some individuals control for making other people do what they
want them to do, and some don't.

I used to think that too, but I've been persuaded that it's too simplistic
an idea. People and their beliefs are at the root of everything we call
"the system," but there's more to it than that. In a school system, there
are not only administrators and teachers and legislators and enforcers,
there are also statutes that are written down, legal judgments filed away
in books and used as justifications and precedents, teachers' colleges with
their curriculums, and a whole network of government procedures over which
any one person has only a very limited influence. It is very hard to change
what is written down and the network of customs. To achieve any substantial
change in the school system, you must either isolate some small part (like
one school) and change it essentially secretly, or somehow achieve a
consensus for change over the entire social system. Individuals can change
FAR faster than "the system" does. Often they are interchangeable, like the
treasurer or even the CEO of a large company. The corporation continues
while all its personnel are replaced.

Best,

Bill P.

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980515.0845 EST]

[From Bill Powers (980515.0331 MDT)]

People and their beliefs are at the root of everything we call
"the system," but there's more to it than that. In a school system, there
are not only administrators and teachers and legislators and enforcers,
there are also statutes that are written down, legal judgments filed away
in books and used as justifications and precedents, teachers' colleges with
their curriculums, and a whole network of government procedures over which
any one person has only a very limited influence. It is very hard to change
what is written down and the network of customs. To achieve any substantial
change in the school system, you must either isolate some small part (like
one school) and change it essentially secretly, or somehow achieve a
consensus for change over the entire social system. Individuals can change
FAR faster than "the system" does. Often they are interchangeable, like the
treasurer or even the CEO of a large company. The corporation continues
while all its personnel are replaced.

Bill, just when I think I have an aspect of you modeled in my feable brain
you disturb my "consistent with model" perception. With this paragraph
you seem to saying sociology needs to be more than simply a description of
the patterns of interacting human systems. My model of you had "is"
instead of "needs to be more than" in the sentence above. I realize "needs
to be more than" is far from "may be modeled with some PCT-like concepts" a
la living systems theory, but it is an acknowledgement that transcends the
reductionist philosophy. Bravo.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980516.2131)]

Bill Powers (980515.0331 MDT)--

Tim Carey (989515.0610)--

I don't believe there is a "system". I believe there are collections of
individuals. Some individuals control for making other people do what they
want them to do, and some don't.

I used to think that too, but I've been persuaded that it's too simplistic
an idea. People and their beliefs are at the root of everything we call
"the system," but there's more to it than that. [...] It is very hard to

change

what is written down and the network of customs. To achieve any substantial
change in the school system, you must either isolate some small part (like
one school) and change it essentially secretly, or somehow achieve a
consensus for change over the entire social system. Individuals can change
FAR faster than "the system" does. Often they are interchangeable, like the
treasurer or even the CEO of a large company. The corporation continues
while all its personnel are replaced.

Some "systems" make it easy to be coercive and difficult to collaborate.
Some social arrangements foster cooperation, and in that context bullying
is like the time you were in the midst of telling a dirty joke and realized
that it really didn't have much point to it.

What is a coercive system?

  Bruce Nevin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980518.0315 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980516.2131)]

Some "systems" make it easy to be coercive and difficult to collaborate.
Some social arrangements foster cooperation, and in that context bullying
is like the time you were in the midst of telling a dirty joke and realized
that it really didn't have much point to it.

What is a coercive system?

A social arrangement, to use your words, that fosters coercion. A person
will be coercive only if he or she has a personal goal of supporting that
social arrangement, and intends to abide by its rules. For example, in some
religious cults, "spare the rod and spoil the child" is taken literally;
parents are expected to beat their children as severely as necessary for
misbehavior, and they do so to support the system they believe in.

Some systems are coercive in that the social arrangement includes people
whose role it is to coerce others who are reluctant to use coercion
themselves.

Best,

Bill P.

···

       Bruce Nevin

[Marc_Abrams5]

From[Marc Abrams (980520.1015)]

Hi Bruce G,

I am probably a day late and a dollar short with this post but what
the hell :-). ( I get the digest)

In a post yesterday ( Bruce Gregory (980519.1205 ) you said in part to
a post from Rick that...

<snip>
I think it misses the very important feature that RTP is designed to
aid the
disrupting student to accomplish his or her goals within a coercive
society.

I don't believe that this is true. If it were, the _first_ thing you
would want to do is find out _what_ the child is controlling for and
figuring out _if_ and _how_ the _child_ could eliminate the error.
This option is not even considered until the child _refuses_ to
cooperate by writing a plan that satisfies the _teacher_. At that
point an intervention team is called in to see if something can be
done.

I had the pleasure of seeing Ed, LeEdna, George, and Darlene in
action. I spent a week with Ed and I think his program was and is
_light years_ better then what they had before. These people were and
are _fantastic_. I think the world of there effort and I think they
make a difference.

But you and Tim seem to be having a hard time separating what _is_
going on versus what _looks like_ is going on. I think Rick and Bill
are correct in saying that if you are _unwilling_ to _look_ ( I.e.
analyze ) You are _missing_ an _opportunities_ to improve the program.

Not trying to open a can of worms, but a little historical footnote.
RTP is based on Glassers _Reality Therapy_ not PCT. Ed Ford, to his
credit has tried to bring RTP in line with the precepts of PCT. Thats
why for me, this whole thread on RTP is kind of crazy. If in fact the
RTP people _are_ interested in aligning their program with PCT why
defend? ( i.e. refuse to ask questions about _how_ things are
_actually_ working). I think Rick and Bill have asked some terrific
questions and have brought out some salient points. I believe that
both Rick and Bill have spent a great deal of time and effort because
they really _care_ about the program not because they are looking to
trash it.

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory 9980520.1135 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (980520.1015)

Hi Bruce G,

I am probably a day late and a dollar short with this post but what
the hell :-). ( I get the digest)

In a post yesterday ( Bruce Gregory (980519.1205 ) you said in part to
a post from Rick that...

<snip>
I think it misses the very important feature that RTP is designed to
aid the
disrupting student to accomplish his or her goals within a coercive
society.

I don't believe that this is true. If it were, the _first_ thing you
would want to do is find out _what_ the child is controlling for and
figuring out _if_ and _how_ the _child_ could eliminate the error.
This option is not even considered until the child _refuses_ to
cooperate by writing a plan that satisfies the _teacher_. At that
point an intervention team is called in to see if something can be
done.

I don't think so. The child has to figure out how to eliminate the error.
It's a process called "growing up". Developing and carrying out the plan is
part of growing up, the intervention team is not.

But you and Tim seem to be having a hard time separating what _is_
going on versus what _looks like_ is going on. I think Rick and Bill
are correct in saying that if you are _unwilling_ to _look_ ( I.e.
analyze ) You are _missing_ an _opportunities_ to improve the program.

The problem, of course, is that PCT tells us nothing about growth and
learning. This makes it very difficult to apply to schools, which are about
growth and learning (among other things).

Not trying to open a can of worms, but a little historical footnote.
RTP is based on Glassers _Reality Therapy_ not PCT. Ed Ford, to his
credit has tried to bring RTP in line with the precepts of PCT.

I only claim that RTP is applied PCT to yank Rick's chain.

Thats
why for me, this whole thread on RTP is kind of crazy. If in fact the
RTP people _are_ interested in aligning their program with PCT why
defend? ( i.e. refuse to ask questions about _how_ things are
_actually_ working). I think Rick and Bill have asked some terrific
questions and have brought out some salient points. I believe that
both Rick and Bill have spent a great deal of time and effort because
they really _care_ about the program not because they are looking to
trash it.

They may really care, but they lack the tools to be helpful. Maybe when more
data is available on learning, PCT will have something to contribute. At the
moment all it tells about is conflict between control systems. Unfortunately
the most expeditious ways to reduce conflict ("I made him an offer he
couldn't refuse") are illegal or frowned upon.

Best Offer

[KENNETH_J_KITZKE1]

[From kenny kitzke 9980520.1330 EDT)]

<From Bruce Gregory 9980520.1135 EDT)>
<The child has to figure out how to eliminate the error.
It's a process called "growing up". Developing and carrying out the plan is
part of growing up, the intervention team is not.>

I see possbile problems with this observation. It is true for the
student's error, not for the error his teacher selects for him. Seeing
mandatory public school systems as a process for "growing up", is your
perception.

It seems that one "grows up" whether you experience RTP or not or stay at
home and learn by yourself, perhaps with help from your parents or friends
instead of public school system teachers.

Can you believe that others believe that the goal of public education is,
or should be, something else besides growing up or even learing what you
have to do to stay out of the RTP room?

Just wondering,

kenny

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980520.1414 EDT)]

kenny kitzke 9980520.1330 EDT)

Can you believe that others believe that the goal of public education is,
or should be, something else besides growing up or even learning what you
have to do to stay out of the RTP room?

Sure.

Best Offer