[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