I find David Goldstein's posting about the CEO and the printer a little
troubling because it suggests that PCT can be successfully used to
manipulate or maneuver others to our own ends.
In many ways, that is very close to what I have always viewed as a terrible
distortion of what Skinner had to say about reinforcement. Skinner defined
reinforcers operationally, that is, food isn't a reinforcer in an absolute
sense but only if it acts to reinforce certain behaviors (and this is the
case under a limited set of conditions, e.g., being hungry or in a deprived
state). Owing to our lack of knowledge of what might be termed "internal
states," this has always meant to me that, more often than not, we really
don't know what is or isn't acting to reinforce a given behavior. Moreover,
Skinner maintained that the only predictable response to control was
countercontrol. I have always taken this to mean that attempts by me to
manage your behavior through my manipulation of your reinforcers is a futile
exercise -- A) it's a dicey proposition from the outset, B) you see right
through it, and C) you might react in ways that I would find unpleasant.
Several digests back, Bill Powers commented about the futility of trying to
use PCT to control others. My own modest grasp of PCT suggests that direct
control of others through applying PCT is impossible (although I can see in
rough outline some ways PCT might contribute to improving the practice of
managing performance).
On the other hand, if PCT can be used to control the behavior of others, or
even manage it in reasonably effective ways, the future of PCT is
guaranteed: all PCT needs is a little shrewd marketing and the control
freaks will be lining up, wallets in hand and drooling at the prospect of
realizing at last the reference condition for the perception they like to
control; mamely, their own sense of control.
Which is it?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net