Setting Others' References (was improper actions)

From ]Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0918)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 8:48:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.07,14:35 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

What I think you can do is set the references other people should
follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so.

What do you mean when you say you can set the reference on other people. Is
it a reference that doesn’t exists?

Of course the reference must exist. But the reference or I should say ‘a’ reference has been set by someone else.

In the rubber band demo I ask you to try to keep the knot over the dot. This is a reference you willingly take on as your own.

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.1039)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 10:27:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@att.net writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1020 EST)] -

I don’t think we “set” reference levels or conditions for other people, especially at >the lower levels of the PCT hierarchy. I think we can propose them at the higher >levels but others must adopt what we propose and make that reference their own >else they’ll not control their perceptions against it.

I’m not sure where you got this from, but its not from me.

I said;

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

First, I don’t believe you can control someone else’s perceptions. What I think you can do is set the references other people should follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so. Second, I can influence your perceptions by disturbing you.

We can “establish” references we’d like others to use, to follow, etc, but we can’t >“impose” them without resorting to coercion and even then our coercive >measures might not work or, quite literally, blow up in our face.

Did you see me say something different? If so, where did I say it? I don’t recall either saying that or implying it in any posts I’ve written

Although I don’t subscribe to the hierarchy, I do not feel any differently than you do about taking on ‘references’.

It has always seemed to me that one of the great puzzles or challenges facing >PCT and its adherents and advocates is to devise workable methods for >communicating desired reference values to others and for facilitating their >adoption by these same others.

No Fred, I disagree, if you are lucky enough to see the world through control glasses than you know that you cannot sustain non-coercive control over others for any indefinite period of time.

There is no way to get folks to ‘do’ what you want them to do unless they want to do it, period. Yes, you can try to manipulate others and you can con and lie as well, but all of those things are very difficult to sustain over any period of time.

So in my book, understanding control tells you about the utter futility involved in trying to control others, and the sooner we all realize it the better off we will all be.

But in attempting to manipulate the environment to control for our own perceptions we inevitably disturb the efforts of others in their attempts at controlling for themselves, and in my opinion we are blind to the consequences our control has on others.

The EVP who hired me at ETS told me in the course of our conversation that I had “a most unusual knack for getting ‘the little people’ to go along with the program.” In PCT terms, that would translate to getting them to adopt a particular set of reference values - to strive to accomplish a set of intentions that weren’t originally their own.

So, what methods do we have for such purposes?

In my book three exist. One, is that you make people aware of things that they were unaware of before (i.e. rules of the game) and they then decide to ‘join the program’. The second way is through manipulation or coercion, and the third I think is the best way to go; get folks to see the advantages for themselves in joining the program

‘Going along’ with the program doesn’t necessarily mean they have forsaken their goals for yours. Like the tracking task, it simply means I have decided to take on a reference of yours for a specific purpose and a limited time.

This could mean working an assembly line for eight hours doing a specific set of tasks.

If you asked me to jump out of the third floor window, I may not take that reference on.

When people understand what the ‘rules’ of the game are they can become very creative in getting what they want, even when they ‘join the program’.

I think you personally have a great way of explaining what the rules of the game are in plain straight talk.

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.1039)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 10:27:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@att.net writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1020 EST)] -

I don’t think we “set” reference levels or conditions for other people, especially at >the lower levels of the PCT hierarchy. I think we can propose them at the higher >levels but others must adopt what we propose and make that reference their own >else they’ll not control their perceptions against it.

I’m not sure where you got this from, but its not from me.

I said;

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.0752)]

First, I don’t believe you can control someone else’s perceptions. What I think you can do is set the references other people should follow, but it is up to each individual if they wish to do so. Second, I can influence your perceptions by disturbing you.

We can “establish” references we’d like others to use, to follow, etc, but we can’t >“impose” them without resorting to coercion and even then our coercive >measures might not work or, quite literally, blow up in our face.

Did you see me say something different? If so, where did I say it? I don’t recall either saying that or implying it in any posts I’ve written

Although I don’t subscribe to the hierarchy, I do not feel any differently than you do about taking on ‘references’.

It has always seemed to me that one of the great puzzles or challenges facing >PCT and its adherents and advocates is to devise workable methods for >communicating desired reference values to others and for facilitating their >adoption by these same others.

No Fred, I disagree, if you are lucky enough to see the world through control glasses than you know that you cannot sustain non-coercive control over others for any indefinite period of time.

There is no way to get folks to ‘do’ what you want them to do unless they want to do it, period. Yes, you can try to manipulate others and you can con and lie as well, but all of those things are very difficult to sustain over any period of time.

So in my book, understanding control tells you about the utter futility involved in trying to control others, and the sooner we all realize it the better off we will all be.

But in attempting to manipulate the environment to control for our own perceptions we inevitably disturb the efforts of others in their attempts at controlling for themselves, and in my opinion we are blind to the consequences our control has on others.

The EVP who hired me at ETS told me in the course of our conversation that I had “a most unusual knack for getting ‘the little people’ to go along with the program.” In PCT terms, that would translate to getting them to adopt a particular set of reference values - to strive to accomplish a set of intentions that weren’t originally their own.

So, what methods do we have for such purposes?

In my book three exist. One, is that you make people aware of things that they were unaware of before (i.e. rules of the game) and they then decide to ‘join the program’. The second way is through manipulation or coercion, and the third I think is the best way to go; get folks to see the advantages for themselves in joining the program

‘Going along’ with the program doesn’t necessarily mean they have forsaken their goals for yours. Like the tracking task, it simply means I have decided to take on a reference of yours for a specific purpose and a limited time.

This could mean working an assembly line for eight hours doing a specific set of tasks.

If you asked me to jump out of the third floor window, I may not take that reference on.

When people understand what the ‘rules’ of the game are they can become very creative in getting what they want, even when they ‘join the program’.

I think you personally have a great way of explaining what the rules of the game are in plain straight talk.

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.07.1429)]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 2:05:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@att.net writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1403 EST)] -

I wasn’t taking issue with what you said, Marc. What you said prompted me to saying something in a related vein. I was taking issue with the notion of “setting references” for others. I did so because I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that references are set by the behaving individual, not by anyone else.

Ultimately yes, but we do in fact take on the references others ask us to, if in doing so, it does not interfere with our own references.

When your wife asks you to take out the garbage or you ask her to make dinner for you are examples of what I’m talking about.

I believe we are on the same wave-length here.

Regards,

Marc

[Martin Taylor 2005.11.07.14.54]

[From Fred Nickols (2005.11.07.1020 EST)] -

It has always seemed to me that one of the great puzzles or challenges facing PCT and its adherents and advocates is to devise workable methods for communicating desired reference values to others and for facilitating their adoption by these same others.

There's a perfectly straightforward PCT description of this process. It involves nothing special or exotic.

If K has a controlled perception of M's pleasure, with a reference that M not be displeased, then if K perceives M to wish something to be done that K can do, one way for K to influence K's perception of M's pleasure is to do what M apparently wants done.

M does not impose a reference value or a controlled perception on K, but the use of language can allow K to create a reference value for a controlled perception (to do what M wants) as an effect of the output of the control is K's perception of M's pleasure.

Martin