COMMENT: QUERY: [From Bill Curry 2000.01.19.1615 EST)]
Rick Marken (2000.02.01.1030)]
> Bill Curry (2000.02.01.1200 EST)--
> Thank you Bill for providing just enough disturbance to
> elicit Rick's real controlled perception in doggedly pursuing
> this RTP issue.
You mean _expose_ it, right? Controlled variables are not
"elicited"; they are controlled. The compensating reaction
to a transient disturbance to a controlled variable can appear
to be elicited; that's one version of the behavioral illusion.
But that reaction is actually aimed at protecting the controlled
variable from the disturbance. The controlled variable was there
before the disturbance came along; it was not elicited by the
disturbance.
Oops--I should have remembered that _elicit_ was on the PCT taxonomic
blacklist! Still, it seems like a quibble when _elicit_ is used, as I
intended it--to draw forth, bring out , or make visible. I was referring
to your tongue-in-cheek _self-report_ of your CV, not the CV itself. But
_expose_ is just fine with me. BTW, your original statement was
tongue-in-cheek wasn't it? 
. . . saying that Bill has exposed my "real" controlled
variable suggests that you think I was trying to conceal what
I was really controlling for in the RTP debate. I did not mean
to be doing that.
You're wrong, Rick, those were not my perceptions. You apparently
missed my ending ;-).
I think I was controlling for several
perceptions during that debate and I'm perfectly happy for
people (including myself) to know what they are. I mentioned one:
accurate and honest description of the best aspects of the RTP
process. Another, which I didn't mention, I would call "openness
to suggestions". When RTP was first discussed at the CSG meetings
I wondered what in the world it had to do with PCT. But I think
I have been open to suggestions about how RTP _is_ related to
PCT; I was moved by Tom's reports of how well RTP works in
schools; and I learned what was actually being done in RTP to
reduce conflict between teachers and students. But I have
seen considerably less openness on the RTP side to suggestions
about how the program _might_ be improved based on an
understanding of PCT. Maybe this is a problem for me because
I want to _think_ that my work with the science of PCT might
be of some use to people who are actually doing stuff in the
real world.
But can we ever be aware of _all_ the CV's we are controlling that can
impinge directly or indirectly on any situation? I ask this in all
seriousness because I would like to be able to understand how an
ostensibly technical discussion can degenerate to the point that people
have felt compelled to leave CSGnet [as opposed to just ending up at a
stalemate or an amicable disagreement].
My guess is that the actual breakdowns were more the product of the
interpersonal dynamics, than the technical content of the discussion
itself. Do you agree? If this is true, it would be interesting to
expose the controlled variables relating to the interpersonal
communications.
Regards,
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com