[From Rick Marken (950212.1350)]
Marc Abrams (950211.2300) --
Me
It is the systematic way in which they are made that distinguishes
scientific from other kinds of observations.
Marc:
Who's systematic way.
I was referring to the systematic manipuation of one set of variables to
determine their relationship with variations in another set of
variables. In PCT we use this approach to determine what variables an
organism is controlling and how these variables are controlled. The
relationships we observe are predicted with great precision by a simple
model that controls perceptual representations of variables in its
environment.
Is that why the *scientific* community usually sticks its nose up at
PCT.
I don't think so.
The scientific community is committed to a cause-effect model of
behavior; it sticks its nose up at PCT (good description of what
it does) because PCT shows that the cause-effect model of behavior
is wrong; this means that most of what the scientific community
thinks it knows about the behavior of organisms is wrong. This is
news that the scientific community has been more likely to greet with
upturned nose rather than open arms.
Do astrologers and Tarot card readers have *scientific* models.
No, because the models are not "working models" built on simple
axioms and they are not designed to explain scientific data (data based
on the systematically determined relationships between variables).
Your *truth* is different then mine. Thats not bad. It just is.
Yes. But some data is better than other data and some models predict
this data better than other models. If all explanations ("truths") are
equally valid then there's not much to discuss. You are certainly free
to reject the scientific approach to finding "truth"; I persaonlly don't
find the alternative to science particularly satisfying.
Your absolutely right. *WHAT EVER HAPPENS TO WORK, USE IT*
REGARDLESS of the theoretical background. see Astrology and
tarot Card reading above.
If Astrology and Tarot Card reading worked then they would be useful
scientific models. Unfortunately, they don't work -- but they can be
lots of fun and good ice-breakers on dates (as I recall;-)).
If someone doesn't *understand* PCT and we are trying to influence
them. Who's problem is It. I say its OURS, Big Time. If people do not
understand, we need to develop better ways of communicating PCT to
others.
So whaddya think
I agree completely. Got any ideas?
Lars Christian Smith (950212 20:30 CET) --
How have you applied the 'method of levels' to yourself?
In my better moments, yes.
Could you give an example?
I apply it when I'm feeling stress. Usually I'm feeling frustrated in my
efforts to achieve a particular goal -- like getting Martin Taylor to see
things my way;-) So when I'm in a nice, relaxed situation (like sitting
in traffic on my way home on the 405) I think about what I'm trying to
do and then I ask myself "why do you want to get Martin Taylor to see
things your way". Suddenly, "getting Martin Taylor to see things my
way" becomes the object of my attention rather than something I am
doing; I have "gone up a level" and I feel a little more relaxed.
Things continue to get better when I start to see the higher level goals
(like "getting PCT right" and "make sense of having giving up a tenured
professorship") that make me want to "get Martin Taylor to see things
my way". Suddenly, I see alternative ways to achieve these goals (for
the moment) and "getting Martin Taylor to see things my way" suddenly
becomes less important.
Are Ed Ford, David Goldstein, or others using it in clinical work?
Yes, to some extent. Ed works with kids now and one easy way to get
kids to go up a level real quick is to ask them "what are you doing?'I
think David has used the method of levels quite successfully with a multiple
personality individual. But I would still like to see more descriptions
of the use of this approach in clinical (or everyday) situations. I know
that clinicians have to work with everyday people who are not experts
in PCT but I think it would be nice if we had more descriptions of the
use of the method of levels that can be understood by people who DO
know PCT.
There's nothing weird or mysterious about the method of levels; it's just
hard for people to "go up a level" when they are embroiled in a conflict
(with themselves or others); consciousness does not like to go above the
level of a conflict, for some reason. This is true even though the goals
you find above a conflict are typically a great deal less scarry than
Freud thought they would be.
Best
Rick