[From Fred Nickols (2014.04.23.1354 EDT)]
I have had some experience with “spin� (i.e., stating things so as to create this or that effect) and I can see how PCT might benefit from a certain amount of “spin.� Consider the following.
Let’s suppose that I’m dealing with a bunch of hard-nosed behaviorists who don’t know squat about PCT and probably wouldn’t want to if they could. I might present PCT to them as BCT (Behavior Control Theory). Right away they’re interested.
Now I surprise them a little. I indicate that we’re not talking about the control of behavior but what behavior controls. “Okay,� they nod, “we can go along with that. That’s relevant.�
Now I confirm with them that what behavior serves to control is the world out there – to which they will readily agree, once again nodding.
Then I ask them how it is we know of or about the world out there, to which they will happily reply that we know about it through our senses, our perceptions. To which I will nod and say, “I agree.�
So far so good.
Then I ask, “Would it then be fair to say that behavior serves to control our perceptions of the world out there?� They might pause but would say, “Yes� or “I suppose so.�
Then I ask, “Are you interested in a robust theory of how behavior serves to control our perceptions?�
They would doubtless say, “Yes.�
I would say, “Okay,� and the lesson would be on. At the lesson’s end, after they’ve swallowed it all, I would say, “Oh, by the way, the formal name for this theory is Perceptual Control Theory or PCT for short, which acknowledges that behavior serves to control perception or, as its creator, the late, great William T. Powers put it, “Behavior is the control of perception.�
End of “spin.�
Fred (The Spin Jockey) Nickols
···
From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:42 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Words (was Re: Self-Regulation)
“Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name?” This is Perceptual Control Theory. It is not Perceptual Regulation Theory, or Perceptual Following Theory. I can agree that the VALUE does not depend on its name, but this theory is about control. If someone is mistakenly believing it means they will be controlled by someone or something else, then this theory is not being properly explained.
Rick is correct. Dad struggled for years to get anyone to even listen to him, as this theory was (and still is) considered very radical, turning the world of behavioral psychology on its ear. I was witness to endless conversations in which he expressed his frustration at people “window shopping,” not doing their homework before offhandedly dismissing his work. Thankfully, I also often witnessed that certain slow-spreading grin of his, as the dawn of understanding touched another enthusiastic student.
Dad set an example of endless patience, spending his entire adult life ever so slowly sharing this knowledge, often sitting for hours with one person at a time. We might all benefit from learning to exercise even a fraction of that virtue.
I don’t know why there is a lopsided ratio of men to women, but I’m sure that, too, can change with time. After all, there used to be more men graduating from college, more men in government, etc. Some of these ratios have evened out or changed places, some are still slow to change. As suggested in an earlier email, perhaps that merits some study.
*barb
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2014.04.22.23.38]
On 2014/04/22 6:31 PM, bara0361@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder at their resistance; one would think they would first do their research before making assumptions about the applicable definition(s) of “control.” I have little patience for snap judgements.
Changing a word as a way to accomodate a few people feels to me like changing the speed limit because everyone is speeding anyway. It’s not a solution.
Is it “a few people”? And don’t you make snap judgments all the time when you first come across something and decide whether you have any interest in taking time and effort to investigate it? Don’t you pass by shop windows that have uninteresting displays, but take a second look at a window showing something that looks attractive or that matches an interest of the moment? What I’m suggesting is that it takes a little attractive hook to get somebody to take a first look, because if that first look is not attractive, there won’t be a second look.
This theory by any other name would no longer be PCT. It took 60 years of hard work to get this far. With patience and all of your valuable efforts, hopefully it will take less than 60 more to reach a larger audience, male, female, or otherwise…
Why would the theory be no longer the same theory if it had a different name? The value of a theory doesn’t depend on its name. It depends on the theory itself. Maybe a grandiose Graeco-Latin name that translates into PCT would be more intriguing and generate second looks. As I said, I don’t have a candidate name myself – I’ve never been good at inventing names for things or people.
I am well aware of Rick’s theory about why PCT is not accepted in the wider world, and he might well be right. But whether he is right or not, it seems to me that anything that could be helpful in getting more people to take PCT seriously would be a good thing, not to be rejected out of hand. And I think that the 34/2 gender ratio for all contributors so far in 2014 (and 35/8 in 2013, 41/2 in 2012) has to be a datum worth something, especially when the "2’ side represents the majority of practicing psychologists. Are men more capable of learning new ideas? I don’t think so.
Martin
