The chosen

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (991117.0940)]

Bruce Gregory (991116.1802 EST) to me:

How did the child get to the RTC room if the child did not set a
reference for perceiving him or her self in the RTC room?

Bill Powers (991116.0407 MDT)

If necessary, the child _is_ picked up and carried to the room.

Bruce Gregory (991117.0640 EST) --

I appreciate your response, but it did not answer my question. If the
child walks to the RTC room, how did it get there with setting a
reference level for being there?

The child gets to the RTC by setting a reference for getting there.
Most kids apparently chose to walk, rather than be dragged or
carried, to the RTC. But that's what the coercion discussion was
about; after a disruption, the kid is given another choice, this
time between walking to the RTC or being dragged or carried there;
if the kid chooses (sets a reference for) going anywhere but the
RTC room, he will be prevented (physically if necessary) from
producing this outcome.

The kid is dealing with a credible threat of force; so although
most kids chose (set a reference for) going to the RTC when they
are told to go, it is not clear that they always (or ever) chose
to go for any reason other than their desire to avoid being
physically forced to go.

If the child sets a reference level for being in the RTC,
why is it "dishonest" to say that the child chose to go to
the RTC room, if Rick is correct and choosing in HPCT means
setting a reference level? I'm quite mystified at this point.

The dishonesty is in saying that the child chose to do something
(set a reference for an outcome) that s/he _didn't_ chose. Here
is the dishonesty, plain and clear, in Ford's bus driver example
quoted in Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT):

If the child continues to disrupt, Ford advises the driver,

"Then say I SEE YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE FRONT SEAT."

There is no evidence that the child has set a reference for being
in the front seat. Ford is advising the driver to tell a lie (the
bad kind; bearing false witness against thy neighbor-- the kid).
There is some evidence that the child has set a reference for
(has chosen) the outcome that the driver sees as "disruptive".
But telling the child that he has chosen (is controlling for)
an outcome (the front seat) that he has not chosen is dishonest.

Thanks to Samuel Saunders (991116) post, it's clear that I'm not
nearly as obtuse about this as you seem to want to think I am.
Your cheeky reply to Samuel [Bruce Gregory (991117.0944 EST)]
doesn't conceal the wisdom of his observations, one of which
I quote here:

Sometimes it is necessary to to have a coercive elements in
a program, at least within our current understanding; refusing
to admit that will not make the program no-coercixe, but will
make the description dishonest and may make it harder to make
efforts to reduce the degree of coercion involved.

This is a wonderfully succinct statement of my point of view.
Saying that a child, by disrupting, has chosen (set a reference
for) anything other than the disruptive outcome is just dishonest.
I am against this kind of dishonesty because, as Samuel says so
eloquently, it makes it harder (I would say, impossible) to
develop ways to reduce the degree of coercion involved in
the program; the coercion is denied so there is nothing to fix.
I am particularly upset about this dishonesty (to answer a
question of yours from a while back), not because of any
childhood trauma involving people saying that I had chosen
what I had not chosen, but because it obviates any contribution
PCT can make to the improvement of the RTP (or any) behavior
management program.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

2

[From Rick Marken (991117.1030)]

Bruce Gregory (111799.1253 EST)--

I'm glad we've cleared this up. I trust the RTP teachers
will get the word and get with the PCT program!

Yes. That would be wonderful!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

3

[From Bruce Gregory (111799.1253 EST)

Rick Marken (991117.0940)

Thanks to Samuel Saunders (991116) post, it's clear that I'm not
nearly as obtuse about this as you seem to want to think I am.
Your cheeky reply to Samuel [Bruce Gregory (991117.0944 EST)]

Cheeky?

doesn't conceal the wisdom of his observations, one of which
I quote here:

> Sometimes it is necessary to have a coercive elements in
> a program, at least within our current understanding; refusing
> to admit that will not make the program no-coercive, but will
> make the description dishonest and may make it harder to make
> efforts to reduce the degree of coercion involved.

As I understand it, you and Sam would have no problem at all if the
teacher simply said, "I see that you have chosen to initiate a series of
actions that will result in your being in the RTC room." You two are all
bent out of shape because you fear that the shorter version, "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room" will undermine all hope of
constructive reform. I'm glad we've cleared this up. I trust the RTP
teachers will get the word and get with the PCT program!

Bruce Gregory
One man's hurricane is another man's storm in teacup.

4

[From Bill Powers (991117.1752 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (111799.1253 EST)--

As I understand it, you and Sam would have no problem at all if the
teacher simply said, "I see that you have chosen to initiate a series of
actions that will result in your being in the RTC room."

I guess we have just failed to find the magic words that will let you see
our point. Why not just have the teacher say, "My rule in this classroom is
that the second time you disrupt I send you to the RTC. So here's your hall
pass; hope you come back soon." THAT is the honest way to put it. The
teacher takes responsibility for the teacher's action.

What I object to is the tortured use of language as a way for the teacher
to avoid admitting playing any role in the proceedings, and of intimating
that the child stopped, considered the consequences, and disrupted the
class in order to bring about those consequences. Ed has one story -- one
-- about a case in which this was literally true; the child wanted to go to
the RTC and decided to put on a little disruption to get there (as later
confessed). This example was mentioned precisely because it was so rare, in
fact the only known instance. Most kids who want to go to the RTC just ask.

I think there are a hell of a lot better ways to tell the kids what the
consequences of their actions are going to be. The least that those who
enforce those consequences can do is to take the lead in showing how
responsible thinking is done.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bruce Gregory (991117.2048 EST)]

Bill Powers (991117.1752 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (111799.1253 EST)--

>As I understand it, you and Sam would have no problem at all if the
>teacher simply said, "I see that you have chosen to initiate a series of
>actions that will result in your being in the RTC room."

I guess we have just failed to find the magic words that will let you see
our point. Why not just have the teacher say, "My rule in this
classroom is
that the second time you disrupt I send you to the RTC. So here's
your hall
pass; hope you come back soon." THAT is the honest way to put it. The
teacher takes responsibility for the teacher's action.

I can see why this approach would appeal to you. It would, in fact, be an
accurate reflection of the way you would act and the reasons behind your
actions. In that sense I agree with you. For you to do otherwise would be
dishonest. What you seem to have trouble grasping is it might not reflect
how others would act or the reasons for their actions. You'd need much data
before this possibility would even emerge for you.

What I object to is the tortured use of language as a way for the teacher
to avoid admitting playing any role in the proceedings, and of intimating
that the child stopped, considered the consequences, and disrupted the
class in order to bring about those consequences.

I don't interpret this as an attempt to avoid responsibility, but rather as
an attempt to encourage the child to see himself or herself as an
intentional agent rather than as a victim. If her choice led to the trip to
the RTC, she can choose some other way. Claiming that the teacher is the
causal agent would make you and Rick happy, but not necessarily do anything
for the child.

Ed has one story -- one
-- about a case in which this was literally true; the child
wanted to go to
the RTC and decided to put on a little disruption to get there (as later
confessed). This example was mentioned precisely because it was
so rare, in
fact the only known instance. Most kids who want to go to the RTC
just ask.

I'm sure that's true. I don't think the teacher is attempting to read the
child's mind, as I said above.

I think there are a hell of a lot better ways to tell the kids what the
consequences of their actions are going to be. The least that those who
enforce those consequences can do is to take the lead in showing how
responsible thinking is done.

In your case, this would be the only responsible way to act.

Bruce Gregory