[Fred Nickols (980127.1615 EST)]
Bruce Nevin (980126.1240) --
Bruce:
I think the parenthetical instruction could have been left out.
I agree. The parenthetical instruction was, for me, the source of my confusion.
Fred (earlier)
In reading the paragraph I was taken by the manipulation of what I know as
"set" (a predisposition to see, believe, or act in certain ways).
Bruce:
It might be an illuminating exercise to describe "set" as a control
phenomenon, and see what people here have to say about your description.
It's a great way to learn. Would you be willing to try that?
Well, I'm no psychologist, and I'm no authority on PCT either, but I'll give
it a shot.
I'm nowhere near my library so I'll start with a definition of "set" taken
from the dictionary (albeit in the psychological sense): "an adjustment of
an organism in preparation for a certain definite kind of activity."
Example: the parenthetical instruction on page 8 of IMP bid me to examine an
upcoming string of numbers in blocks of three. Had I not been plowing
through the paragraph in a very word-at-a-time serial fashion, I might have
scanned ahead, seen the string of numbers and interpreted it differently.
However, I didn't; I was chewing up the paragraph a word at a time (my
preferred reading style when I really want to digest what I'm reading). In
any event, I was primed or "set" to take in the string of numbers in blocks
of three.
That's an example of "set" as I understand the concept in common usage.
Now, I'll try my hand at doing as BruceN asks.
Based on the instruction, I adopted (or, if you prefer, I "established") a
reference condition for perceiving the string of numbers in blocks of three.
On my own, I set this reference condition in a way that I began parsing the
string of numbers at its beginning. My subsequent perceptions can be
articulated as "seeing first 131, then 415, and then 161," at which point I
said to myself, "Yep, that appears to a random string of numbers." After
getting farther into the paragraph, I came upon the comment that another way
of viewing that string of numbers was as a continuation of an earlier
string. At this point, I reviewed the 1314... string, with a new "set" and
saw right away the 13 through 31 sequence.
So, if I try to recast all that in PCT terms, it seems to me that the
conventional notion of set translates to something like "establishing a
reference condition for contemplated actions." It also seems that such
reference conditions can be disestablished or replaced by other reference
conditions (e.g., examining the string of numbers as a continuation of an
earlier sequence instead of in blocks of three).
This establishment of reference conditions might be conscious and
deliberate, or not marked by conscious deliberation at all; it might be
temporary and situational, or continuing and very general; it might be
cognitive (as in viewing the string of numbers), or it might be kinesthetic,
as is the case when we are "set" to lift a heavy suitcase and discover that
it weighs very little because it is empty).
It further strikes me that "the hierarchy" comes into play somewhere along
the line. Presumably, some of what we know as "set" is established in lower
level systems, the functioning of which we are not consciously aware. For
example, I have no idea how the body might establish a reference condition
that would constitute the "set" involved in preparing to lift a heavy
suitcase, but I'd be willing to guess that it entails somewhat more than a
subvocal statement such as, "Gee, that big, fat, bulging, tan leather
suitcase over there looks like it weighs a lot." (That, by the way, is an
ex-Bellboy talking.)
Having tried an example taken more or less from the list itself, let me try
a different one. This won't work in the printed medium, but you can try it
for yourself with folks you know.
Ask people to pronounce words you're going to spell.
Then spell the following words, with a brief pause between
the first three letters and the rest.
Macdougall
Macgregor
Macpherson
Machine
I've had a lot of luck getting people to say, "Mac Hine" to the last word in
that series. (Some, a few, immediately afterward say, "S--t!" and correct
themselves.) That, too, is an example of "set" as conventionall defined.
In PCT terms, I'd hazard the guess that it's something like a reference
condition that, if articulated, might sound like, "Hmm, I'm getting a bunch
of words that begin with 'Mac' and end with whatever follows. So, the sound
to make is 'Mac' plus whatever else is spelled out."
Okay, BruceN, I've done as you asked, even if it's not what you had in mind,
but then what the heck, we're all trafficking in perceptions, right?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
