The Rickster and RickMeister

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.20.1800EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)>

<I wish that people would examine what preceded the blowups, which was
almost always someone trying to push some idea that was really not
consistent with PCT – and which Rick, lacking my tact (or the tact
that I once thought I had), immediately objected to, quite correctly
if not always gently. In reply, Rick was attacked for being a thought
policeman, for being closed-minded, for being arrogant in insisting
on “PCT purity.” And of course that infuriated him, and Rick
infuriated is not the Rick of Teaching Dogma in Psychology. When he
is angry Rick pours gasoline on the flames. Or he used to. But I have
yet to see a case where he lit the match.>

I agree with you. Certainly privately to Rick, and perhaps on the CSG-Net (but I am too lazy to check), I have praised Rick for being the RickMeister who polices the posts with a goal for PCT purity. I have always been amazed to see how much time an effort the Rickster puts into responding to innaccurate understandings of the theory or its applications from seeing behavior through PCT glasses. I appreciate Rick’s presence and role in CSGNet and was very disappointed when he would leave, or threaten to leave, rather than continue the conflict.

In your assessment of Rick’s behavior, you say “Rick infuriated is not Rick…” When you state such observations, which seem true to me, there is an implication that one’s mood, emotional state, attitude, etc., (on in my terminology, one’s spirit, heart, countenance, etc.) affects one’s behavior.

I wish you, or the Rickster, or anyone, would revisit this issue and help me understand where in the loop model one’s emotional state or spirit appears that influences such a observable different behavior in Rick?

This is somehow at the heart of why I believe PCT is great; but significantly incomplete. And, this seems to limit PCT’s acceptance and interest compared to other theories (no matter how flawed or speculative) which include or even focus on us as unique, highly emotional, living beings. They have an inclusive reality and familiarity to humans that the present control loop seems to ignore as irrelevant to behavior, how people act.

Thanks,

Kenny

2

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.21.0631 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.20.1800EDT) --

In your assessment of Rick's behavior, you say "Rick infuriated is not Rick..." When you state such observations, which seem true to me, there is an implication that one's mood, emotional state, attitude, etc., (on in my terminology, one's spirit, heart, countenance, etc.) affects one's behavior.

I'd just say that one's higher-order organizations affect one's lower-order goals. I see emotional states as resulting from, not causing, goals and deviations from goal-states. That is, if I want to attack someone, I become what I call angry. I desire to do something forceful, and the downgoing reference signals tell my body to prepare to back up the ensuing action, I feel a change in physical state that I call (in that context) anger. These changes persist when not "used up" by the actions that normally achieve the goal.

I wish you, or the Rickster, or anyone, would revisit this issue and help me understand where in the loop model one's emotional state or spirit appears that influences such a observable different behavior in Rick?

As you see, I wouldn't say it influences behavior, but that changes in behavior are caused by adopting certain goals and (automatically) preparing to carry them out. Preparing to carry them out at physiological levels of organization is what leads to emotions, especially when the ability to act is blocked for some reason. Emotions are an effect, not a cause. What matters most in an emotional state is what you want to do. If you change what you want to do, you change the emotional state, too.

This is somewhat complicated in that we are not always aware of all our control systems. Quite the contrary. Therefore, often when a disturbance occurs, the control system whose CV was altered will respond strongly, preparing for action and even starting to produce an action, without our conscious intent to do so. In that case, it may seem to us that the external disturbance somehow acted directly to produce a set of sensations and reactions that we recognize as an emotional state. According to my theory, what really happened was that a control system not at present in consciousness was disturbed and prepared to, or actually did, act, and the first we knew of this consciously was that we felt the incipient action and the change in physiological state. That picture seems consistent with everything we know, as well as not having to invoke some complete "extra brain" that deals only with emotions. I see "emotion" simply as a label we attach to certain quite common aspects of ordinary behavior and experience. All behavior that requires action is "emotional."

This is somehow at the heart of why I believe PCT is great; but significantly incomplete. And, this seems to limit PCT's acceptance and interest compared to other theories (no matter how flawed or speculative) which include or even focus on us as unique, highly emotional, living beings. They have an inclusive reality and familiarity to humans that the present control loop seems to ignore as irrelevant to behavior, how people act.

I think that custom and misinterpretation have led us to think of emotions as causal rather than as simply a part of acting to achieve goals. In much the same way, people used to think that their ancestors actually returned from the dead and spoke to them in dreams, or that when they heard voices in their heads while waking, the voices were originating from ghosts outside them. As we all do, they were theorizing about experiences they did not understand.

There are many phenomena of the mind that people have had various theories about. I think many of them arose from not realizing that a perfectly normal brain could generate perceptions all by itself (imagination mode). If a sentence suddenly appeared in consciousness that one was not aware of causing, the conclusion was that it must have been spoken by some invisible person or being: God spoke to me, or the Devil, or the Ghost of Christmas Past. If sensations appeared like those experienced when one wanted to run from something, one theorized that some mysterious warning of danger had occured.

Another phenomenon of mind which we have seen in the Method of Levels results from the fact that one's awareness generally resides in middle regions of the hierarchy of systems. So we are conscious mainly of lower-level processes, and are conscious from a point of view below the highest levels of organization. In particular, we are not aware of the reference signals reaching those middle-level systems (they are not in the perceptual channels), but only of the urges to do or experience things in a certain way that we call "right" (and to avoid those experiences we call "wrong"). It's only when something jogs us up a level that we realize what higher-order purposes of our own those reference signals were supporting.

When one doesn't go up a level, it seems that there is some sort of mysterious direction of our thoughts and lives from somewhere outside our awareness. We find that we have a "conscience," in that we just seem to know that some things we experience are right and others are wrong. People have proposed theories about this phenomenon, too. A common theory is that there is some sort of supernatural being existing outside the space-time continuum that we experience, and this being is the source of (what we would now call) reference signals. My theory, as you know, is that these reference signals come from higher-level organizations in our own brains, which for some reason we are not usually involved with consciously. But which we can, I should add, become consciously involved with by doing that thing we call going up a level.

It's only been in recent times that some people began keeping systematic track of predictions they made on the basis of theories and watching skeptically to see how often the theory was actually upheld. A more popular approach has always been to state a belief, then begin collecting incidents that appear to support it while discarding or ignoring those that contradict it.

Of course my theories are no more self-evidently true than any other theories, and have to be tested by experiment and by using them to predict future experiences. However, I see a lot more systematic evidence for my theory than I do for the others. Of course -- otherwise I wouldn't prefer mine.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.21.1130)]

Bill Powers (2005.08.21.0631 MDT) --

Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.20.1800EDT) --

In your assessment of Rick's behavior, you say "Rick infuriated is not Rick..." When you state such observations, which seem true to me, there is an implication that one's mood, emotional state, attitude, etc., (on in my terminology, one's spirit, heart, countenance, etc.) affects one's behavior.

I'd just say that one's higher-order organizations affect one's lower-order goals. I see emotional states as resulting from, not causing, goals and deviations from goal-states...

At the risk of appearing presumptuous by adding to Bill's exceptionally clear and complete description of the PCT view of the place of emotion in behavior, let me just say that one of the most common reasons why people experience emotion -- and probably the main reason why "Rick infuriated is not Rick..." -- is interpersonal _conflict_. Extreme actions (like those seen as "infuriation") occur when one is pushing against another control system that wants the same perceptual variable in a different state. In my case, the perceptual variable in contention was, of course, PCT, and I acted in an increasingly infuriated manner as I pushed, ineffectively, against the efforts of others to push the meaning of PCT in what I experienced as the wrong direction. Actually, the emotion I experienced was more exasperation than infuriation since my goal was to change minds rather than cause pain -- though, apparently, I did a bit of the latter unintentionally. But ultimately, the emotion was a result -- not a cause -- of the loss of control that results from conflict.

So how do we deal with conflict like this? This, I believe, is where we go beyond the facts of PCT to our own desires regarding how we want the world to be. Conflict is simply a phenomenon that occurs when two control systems want the same perception in different states. Whether conflict (and the side effects thereof) is good or bad depends, I believe, entirely on the personal values of each of the parties to the conflict.

I suspect that conflict is involved -- or potentially involved -- in virtually every teaching situation. Even a willing student is bound to disagree with at least some of the things being taught because teaching involves, at least in part, trying to convince the student to change their reference for the state of a perceptual variable. Of course, students, being control systems, will push back against such efforts, especially if the perceptual variable in question is very important to them. Look at the current evolution/intelligent design debate.

Since CSGNet is, a least to some extent, a forum for teaching PCT, there is bound to be conflict. I may have pushed too hard -- and tactlessly -- on one side of some of these conflicts. But the only way to avoid such conflicts is simply to stop participating in discussions on CSGNet, which to a large extent has been my approach of choice lately. One really can't win such conflicts, but I don't want to give up entirely on the "fight" to teach PCT. I guess my current plan is to lighten up on the CSGNet teaching and find other venues for introducing PCT concepts. There will still be conflicts in these other venues -- wherever there is teaching there will be conflict -- but I think that -- knowing that such conflict is useless ("A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") -- I can stop the escalation toward infuriation sooner these days.

I would be very interested to hear what those interested in education have to say about this problem (or, at least, what I see as this problem) of unavoidable conflict in teaching. Is there a way to teach without conflict? If so, then how do we do it? If not, then how do we deal with the conflict?

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

4

[From Jeff Vancouver (2005.08.22.1700 EST)]

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.21.1130)]

I would be very interested to hear what those interested in education
have to say about this problem (or, at least, what I see as this
problem) of unavoidable conflict in teaching. Is there a way to teach
without conflict? If so, then how do we do it? If not, then how do we
deal with the conflict?

I would venture to guess that the excellent teacher knows how to
streamline the conflict to the focal system. A statement or set of
statements are loaded with information potentially relevant to many
control systems within individuals. If those statements might be
interpreted as "x is the fact" and "you are an idiot for not knowing
that;" the second perception is likely to create a discrepancy in a
control system that is not directly relevant to the discrepancy created
by the first. However, the second discrepancy will create error on which
individuals will expend resources. A good teacher generally knows how to
present information without evoking errors in most people's non-relevant
systems. I do not profess to be a good teacher.

Jeff Vancouver

5

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.22.2105)]

Jeff Vancouver (2005.08.22.1700 EST)--

Rick Marken (2005.08.21.1130)--

I would be very interested to hear what those interested in education
have to say about this problem (or, at least, what I see as this
problem) of unavoidable conflict in teaching. Is there a way to teach
without conflict? If so, then how do we do it? If not, then how do we
deal with the conflict?

I would venture to guess that the excellent teacher knows how to
streamline the conflict to the focal system. A statement or set of
statements are loaded with information potentially relevant to many
control systems within individuals. If those statements might be
interpreted as "x is the fact" and "you are an idiot for not knowing
that;" the second perception is likely to create a discrepancy in a
control system that is not directly relevant to the discrepancy created
by the first. However, the second discrepancy will create error on which
individuals will expend resources. A good teacher generally knows how to
present information without evoking errors in most people's non-relevant
systems.

I think what you are saying is that the good teacher is able to teach in a way that is not likely to be construed as insulting by the student. I certainly agree. I was actually assuming a good teacher of this kind. My point was that, even with a good teacher, a lot of teaching is bound to create a conflict. This will be particularly true, I believe, when the student is already controlling for some of the ideas being taught. My example of evolution is one obvious example: how do you teach, without conflict , the concept of evolution to students who already _know_ that the biblical Genesis myth explains the origin of species? How do you teach PCT to students who already _know_ that thoughts cause behavior?

I think a good teacher has to not only be able to teach in a non-insulting way (I think that's a sine qua non of teaching) but also such a teacher has to be able to negotiate through the conflicts that come from trying to teach students who already know everything they want to know.

Best

Rick

···

-----
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

6

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.23.0633 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.22.2105) --

how do you teach, without conflict , the concept of evolution to students who already _know_ that the biblical Genesis myth explains the origin of species? How do you teach PCT to students who already _know_ that thoughts cause behavior?

Perhaps the way is to teach how you do science in general -- that is, how you find things out about natural processes. The Intelligent Design people are saying that all they want is for evolution to be examined with an open mind. Well, why not ask the same thing about ID? How would a scientist go about testing for the existence of an intelligent designer?

The first thing most people will do in such a case is to start reasoning about the question. That's fine, that's how you form your first hypothesis. So the question is, what is your first hypothesis? Then the scientific process requires that you figure out ways of testing it. The second question is, how would you test it? Pure reason is not sufficient; you have to look for evidence, and try some experiments, make some predictions, and see if they check out.

I think that's an up-a-level way of teaching things that people think they already know.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.08.03, 16:15 EST)]

From Rick
Marken (2005.08.21.1130)

I
think a good teacher has to not only be able to teach in a

non-insulting
way (I think that’s a sine qua non of teaching) but also

such
a teacher has to be able to negotiate through the conflicts that

come from
trying to teach students who already know everything they

want
to know.

I think a
teacher must know whom she is teaching.

We know
that children develop during infancy. The first two years they just have
qualifications for sensorimotoric development. At this time the teachers should
just present opportunities for development.

The next
five years the children get a growing cognitive picture of the external world
with its many laws and relationships. At this time the teachers should let the
children feel safety and confidence. And the more stories the teacher can tell
about external world the greater cognitive picture the child will get.

Till the
children are seven years (±), they have developed and gathered experience (memory
and references) at the sensory level, the configuration level, the transition
level and the event level. The children will take their own shape. The teachers
should only present opportunities and let them feel safety and confidence. It
is not time (if ever) to be dogmatic.

The next
four years (±) the children control their perceptions special on the
Relationship level. They get problems when they shall arrange situations ahead
of time so that they will reveal the relations between factors. The teacher
should present opportunities where the children learn to understand the
relationship among the concrete operations they
have acquired earlier.

When the child is eleven (±), they can use
different tools (sensation level, configuration level and transitions level) ,
they can anticipate consequences of actions (relationship level) and they can
execute different events.

Now they start to develop concepts about the extern reality. Now
it’s time to respect the child and not teach in an insulting way. When the
child now experiences disturbances, perceptual signals often meet opposite set
of references and conflicts are experienced. Often it is the teachers who
“present” the disturbances. Therefore it is an advantage if the teacher knows
PCT.

The PCT teacher really knows that she doesn’t
know anything about extern reality she is teaching the children about. She
knows that she has a lot of theories and she knows that some children already
have their own theories. This is one of the theories she has.

In such a situation it is a great advantage
if the students and the teacher have rules about how to behave. Maybe Stefan
(Balke) will tell us about that. One set of rules expresses that nobody knows
anything about the extern reality, but somebody have theories about it.

A way to avoid conflicts between two people
is to share theories about extern reality.

What do teachers, with roots in PCT, know
about?

Sometimes different groups of people agree
about theories yourself don’t agree. If you will avoid conflicts, join the
theories. If you will avoid the greatest conflicts, negotiate with the group
about a theory you all can agree. There is also the possibility that you can
learn to live with some conflicts.

Sometimes different people have internal
conflicts. All teachers should at regular intervals tell the students about
internal conflicts and how to handle them.

Let me name an example where the student has references for biblical Genesis myth about the origin of species and
the teacher is going to teach about Darwinian evolution.

The
teacher should once again start with the PCT theory about people’s knowledge
about extern reality and say: “Nobody knows anything quite sure about the
extern reality. Somebody say they do, but I have the theory that also they just
have a theory. Some people have much fundamental knowledge that explains their
theory, mathematics, physics, biology and more. They think that their theories
are more correct than other people’s theories. That is also a theory.

Now I
shall teach you about Darwinian evolution. Many people have this theory as
their theory about the origin of species. If you listen to this and learn this
theory, there is a chance for you to learn about other people’s theories. You
can later talk with them and understand what they say. There is also a chance
for you to establish an internal conflict. It is your responsibility towards
yourself if you will live with the conflict or you will move up a level and
join the evolution system concept. Just remember, when you tell other people (exam)
about the extern world, tell them it is a theory.

Start
teaching the theory.

I have
the theory that this is an honest way of teaching.

bjorn

···
8

[From Jeff Vancouver (2005.08.23.1450)]

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.22.2105)]

I think what you are saying is that the good teacher is able to teach
in a way that is not likely to be construed as insulting by the
student. I certainly agree. I was actually assuming a good teacher

of

this kind.

Do you assume that YOU are a good teacher of this kind (see below)?

My point was that, even with a good teacher, a lot of
teaching is bound to create a conflict. This will be particularly
true, I believe, when the student is already controlling for some of
the ideas being taught. My example of evolution is one obvious
example: how do you teach, without conflict , the concept of

evolution

to students who already _know_ that the biblical Genesis myth explains
the origin of species?

Again I am not claiming to be good at this myself, but it seems you
might begin by describing how evolution and Genesis are not in conflict.
I position taken by many Christian faiths. Alternatively, though not
recommended necessarily in this case, is that you point out that to
critique a theory one must understand the theory.

How do you teach PCT to students who already
_know_ that thoughts cause behavior?

One can ease into it. I might ask; is all behavior caused by thought? I
provide counter examples (or ask you to think of them). I ask you to
recall your mother's name. I then ask you to tell us how you recalled
her name. I ask you to move your pencil. I ask how you moved your
pencil. I ask you how you moved your hand (since you said my hand moved
my pencil). I ask if processes might mediate the relationship between
the desires and the action, or at least some action. I might explore
what they think differentiates "thoughtful" action from not so
thoughtful action.

Alternatively, I might find out from you what "thoughts" mean. If
thoughts are experiences of some of the signals passed between
functions, are they not involved in the cause of behavior? I might not
be so quick to draw thick lines of demarcation between what is "wrong"
and what is "right," instead trying to understand what the words the
other is saying mean to that person and strive to determine how their
meaning might relate to my understanding of things.

I think a good teacher has to not only be able to teach in a
non-insulting way (I think that's a sine qua non of teaching) but also
such a teacher has to be able to negotiate through the conflicts that
come from trying to teach students who already know everything they
want to know.

To me this last statement implies communications that would be
insulting. It implies that despite communications and presumably the
desire to interact AND LEARN, you assume the individual does not want to
learn. I could see how interactions with "students" could give that
impression because the individual is disinclined to change all beliefs.
Thus, if a student says "it's 32" and the teacher says "no that is
wrong," the student would not say it is the "its" that is wrong, but the
32. (This is the frame problem, by the way - why do we not think the
"it's" is wrong?) But what if it is the "it's" that is wrong. It may
take some strained interaction to realize that. So going back to your
statement "thoughts cause behavior" I realize that I assumed "thoughts"
was the problematic part. But maybe it is how you think the person means
"cause" or "behavior." Maybe it is more than one of those.

In any case, we would be in bad shape it seems to me, if we did not
protect our knowledge. If everyday I could completely change my world
view (e.g., reorganize my higher level perceptions), it would be
difficult to negotiate in the world. People need time to work though the
process.

More specific to control theory, it seems to me that a large part of the
problem with control theory education is that there are many versions of
control theory such that often the "student" does not realize what it is
that he or she is presumably getting wrong. As a philosopher of mind
friend of mind recently said, control theory is the only game in town
for a computational representation of the mind. All cognitive
computational theories trace some central element of their theory to
Weiner and Rosenblatt (I don't know if that is true, but it is hard to
think of a counter example). The details though, are different. But
which details? What can I keep from other understandings and what should
I change? And of course, is yours more correct than this other? Give us
some time to work that through (or keep in our heads as unresolved until
more information is available).

Finally, let me say that one of the teacher I admire most (Professor
Dumbledore) had to get stern with Harry Potter such that he felt angry.
Thus, yes, I guess it is inevitable that sometimes the best will incur
anger in the teaching process.

(I like to end a lesson with comic relief and hope the student has some
inkling of the reference. I suppose for those teachers out there I
should note that I have observed that the instruction in the Harry
Potter books it generally very poor. I am not endorsing those books as a
reference for teaching [no letters please})

Jeff Vancouver

P.S. This is why I have not commented on this list. It is so easy to get
sucked in.

9

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.08.25.1345 CDTA)]

Greetings to you all. Yes, I have been virtually present for some of these
blow-ups. For the first few I was unable to interact the best way I knew, and in
others I just gave up. Rick, when you are piqued by some outside-the-pale
comment, it is that you are controlling that perception of PCT-Bent with the
high gain and with the attempt to quash it before it does more harm. We have
seen "applications" get root and then claim parentage or sibling relation to
B:CP etc. and it simply ain't so. And Rick, you have a marvellous sense of humor
that some participants could not deal with, and so they went for the throat, but
with full-metal-armour on, hahaha. So, you all start talking past each other,
and a positive feedback loop ensues til someone has to stop. And the better man
always stopped (threatened to go away, but because you were fed up with the
pain, I am guessing, or however you choose to put it better or differently--this
is my perception).

The big problem here is that we are not formal enough in some ways. When a
proposal for something that "extends" or "constrains" PCT is put forward, we see
the email and begin a conversation that is not synchronous, and is open to
misunderstanding that gets drawn out by time and lack of immediate feedback,
such as "Oops, I meant to say," or "is what you mean, this?" etc. And then that
positive feedback loop gets going.

We need to put such proposals in formal papers, and put formal abstracts out to
be read on the net. Otherwise, it will get Rick's, Bill's, Dick's and other
people's immediate attack on what is possibly not a well-articulated,
documented, and especially, *tested* set of assumptions. Kenny, I am thinking of
the 12th level, such as you have mentioned, where there is, by definition, an
untestable variable at the spiritual or at least the non-physical level. Because
of the mixing of scientific method and the force of belief, you are sure to get
smacked down for that. Sorry. But unless you can find a way that such a proposal
can be made, with experimental design, a pilot test or something, and a way that
the statistical or qualitative results can be presented to a body of scientists,
you had better rethink such a proposal.

I have nothing against talking and chatting, submitting snippets of procedures,
models, etc. That is not my objection. It's not my strong suit. However, we get
into "trouble" when someone presents a half-baked idea (not even a proposal)
that blends PCT assumptions and variables with other assumptions and variables,
mixing the language (choose, control, perception, behavior....) so that we are
open to disagree on a lot of terminology and concepts. It's dumb, plain dumb to
even think of doing that, but we do it. And then when Rick calls a person on
such an idea, and lays out particularly clear criteria for why it is half-baked,
then the original presenter gets defensive, emotional (not that there is
anything WRONG

Quoting Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.20.1800EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)>

<I wish that people would examine what preceded the blowups, which was
almost always someone trying to push some idea that was really not
consistent with PCT -- and which Rick, lacking my tact (or the tact
that I once thought I had), immediately objected to, quite correctly
if not always gently. In reply, Rick was attacked for being a thought
policeman, for being closed-minded, for being arrogant in insisting
on "PCT purity." And of course that infuriated him, and Rick
infuriated is not the Rick of Teaching Dogma in Psychology. When he
is angry Rick pours gasoline on the flames. Or he used to. But I have
yet to see a case where he lit the match.>

I agree with you. Certainly privately to Rick, and perhaps on the CSG-Net
(but I am too lazy to check), I have praised Rick for being the RickMeister
who
polices the posts with a goal for PCT purity. I have always been amazed to
see how much time an effort the Rickster puts into responding to innaccurate
understandings of the theory or its applications from seeing behavior through
PCT
glasses. I appreciate Rick's presence and role in CSGNet and was very
disappointed when he would leave, or threaten to leave, rather than continue
the
conflict.

In your assessment of Rick's behavior, you say "Rick infuriated is not
Rick..." When you state such observations, which seem true to me, there is
an
implication that one's mood, emotional state, attitude, etc., (on in my
terminology, one's spirit, heart, countenance, etc.) affects one's behavior.

I wish you, or the Rickster, or anyone, would revisit this issue and help me
understand where in the loop model one's emotional state or spirit appears
that
influences such a observable different behavior in Rick?

This is somehow at the heart of why I believe PCT is great; but significantly
incomplete. And, this seems to limit PCT's acceptance and interest compared
to other theories (no matter how flawed or speculative) which include or even
focus on us as unique, highly emotional, living beings. They have an
inclusive reality and familiarity to humans that the present control loop
seems to
ignore as irrelevant to behavior, how people act.

Thanks,

Kenny

10

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.08.25.1415 CDT)]

(Apologize for last post getting sent prematurely, good stuff preserved, full
text here.)

Greetings to you all. Yes, I have been virtually present for some of these
blow-ups. For the first few I was unable to interact the best way I knew, and in
others I just gave up. Rick, when you are piqued by some outside-the-pale
comment, it is that you are controlling that perception of PCT-Bent-out-of-shape
with the high gain and with the attempt to quash it before it does more harm. We
have seen "applications" get root and then claim parentage or sibling relation
to B:CP etc. and it simply ain't so. And Rick, you have a marvellous sense of
humor that some participants could not deal with, and so they went for the
throat, but with full-metal-armour on, hahaha. So, you all start talking past
each other, and a positive feedback loop ensues til someone has to stop. And the
better man always stopped (threatened to go away, but because you were fed up
with the pain, I am guessing, or however you choose to put it better or
differently--this is my perception).

The big problem here is that we are not formal enough in some ways. When a
proposal for something that "extends" or "constrains" PCT is put forward, we see
the email and begin a conversation that is not synchronous, and is open to
misunderstanding that gets drawn out by time and lack of immediate feedback,
such as "Oops, I meant to say," or "is what you mean, this?" etc. And then that
positive feedback loop gets going.

We need to put such proposals in formal papers, and put formal abstracts out to
be read on the net. Otherwise, it will get Rick's, Bill's, Dick's and other
people's immediate attack on what is possibly not a well-articulated,
documented, and especially, *tested* set of assumptions. Kenny, I am thinking of
the 12th level, such as you have mentioned, where there is, by definition, an
untestable variable at the spiritual or at least the non-physical level. Because
of the mixing of scientific method and the force of belief, you are sure to get
smacked down for that. Sorry. There is no detectable spirit in science, and
science does not test belief, only its artifacts. But unless you can find a way
that such a proposal can be made, with experimental design, a pilot test or
something, and a way that the statistical or qualitative results can be
presented to a body of scientists, you had better rethink such a proposal.

I have nothing against talking and chatting, submitting snippets of procedures,
models, etc. That is not my objection. It's not my strong suit to be able to
deal with the math, the calculus and the engineering details. However, we get
into "trouble" when someone presents a half-baked idea (not even a proposal)
that blends PCT assumptions and variables with other assumptions and variables,
mixing the language (choose, control, perception, behavior, dogma, models,
theory, testing, experimentation, teaching-learning....) so that we are
open to disagree on a lot of terminology and concepts. It's dumb, plain dumb, to
even think of doing that, but we do it. And then when Rick calls a person on
such an idea, and lays out particularly clear criteria for why it is half-baked,
then the original presenter gets defensive, emotional (not that there is
anything WRONG with that), and begins discussing (with Rick in hot pursuit)
something completely different. Am I wrong?

As one of the founders, with Bill as principle, and Dick and many others
participating in the furthering of PCT (I once called it evangelizing, after Guy
Kawasaki of Apple, and got slammed for "bringing religion" into it all hahaha),
Rick has the right and the duty to get down and dirty with someone who is not
reading and understanding (or at least even trying) the theory and science of
PCt before presenting an "application."

So in that way, I think we ought to be kinder to Rick than using "Rickster" or
"RickMeister," even in jest. I think he has the investment, he has the vision,
he has done the science, and most important, he has passion for what he has
learned (what you have learned Rick), and what he has (you have, Rick) taught me
and others who have done science with PCT assumptions and variables.

Now with all these nice words, I expect a glass of red, haha, next time I show
up at a PCT gathering, or that in China next year we all share a feast (I think
I will be able to make it).

But the bottom line is that once we see ad hominems from the likes of certain
individuals, I will be one of the shepherd dogs (maybe not the lead dog, only
the assistant to the assistant) to start biting a few ankles again. We can't let
the argumentation go from PCT to personal in-fighting any longer. I trust I
don't have to be specific.

Cheers,

--Bryan

Quoting Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.20.1800EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)>

<I wish that people would examine what preceded the blowups, which was
almost always someone trying to push some idea that was really not
consistent with PCT -- and which Rick, lacking my tact (or the tact
that I once thought I had), immediately objected to, quite correctly
if not always gently. In reply, Rick was attacked for being a thought
policeman, for being closed-minded, for being arrogant in insisting
on "PCT purity." And of course that infuriated him, and Rick
infuriated is not the Rick of Teaching Dogma in Psychology. When he
is angry Rick pours gasoline on the flames. Or he used to. But I have
yet to see a case where he lit the match.>

I agree with you. Certainly privately to Rick, and perhaps on the CSG-Net
(but I am too lazy to check), I have praised Rick for being the RickMeister
who
polices the posts with a goal for PCT purity. I have always been amazed to
see how much time an effort the Rickster puts into responding to innaccurate
understandings of the theory or its applications from seeing behavior through
PCT
glasses. I appreciate Rick's presence and role in CSGNet and was very
disappointed when he would leave, or threaten to leave, rather than continue
the
conflict.

In your assessment of Rick's behavior, you say "Rick infuriated is not
Rick..." When you state such observations, which seem true to me, there is
an
implication that one's mood, emotional state, attitude, etc., (on in my
terminology, one's spirit, heart, countenance, etc.) affects one's behavior.

I wish you, or the Rickster, or anyone, would revisit this issue and help me
understand where in the loop model one's emotional state or spirit appears
that
influences such a observable different behavior in Rick?

This is somehow at the heart of why I believe PCT is great; but significantly
incomplete. And, this seems to limit PCT's acceptance and interest compared
to other theories (no matter how flawed or speculative) which include or even
focus on us as unique, highly emotional, living beings. They have an
inclusive reality and familiarity to humans that the present control loop
seems to
ignore as irrelevant to behavior, how people act.

Thanks,

Kenny

11

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.08.25.1615 CDT)]

Well, it's like this. There are coaches like White (Indiana) and coaches like
the Dalai Lama (Tibet). I would say that the answer to your question, Rick, is:

What is the context of the instruccion, and the social contract between the
conversants? Here I have to insert a citation:

Young, Linda Wai Ling (1994). Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American
Communication (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics), John Gumperz (Series
Editor). Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0521416191. Amazon Used: $25.

In it, Young writes about crosstalk (talking at two different contexts) that
confounds communication. So, if a person is expecting the Dalai Lama's critique,
and gets Indiana University's Coach White's face-scalding comments, well, there
could be a discrepancy. Right? The thing is that many athletes expected and
wanted such scathing critiques, and often claim they benefited from it.

Now, as I wrote earlier today, I think Rick is a blend of the Dalai Lama and
Coach White. He is basically wise and well-grounded like the Dalai Lama, but
with a humor and directness that perhaps might remind one of being called on the
carpet. But, really, we all know Rick, and we have to believe that (I believe
it) Rick means no harm, but he truly sees merit in PCT not becoming comoditized
or trivalized as another "Atkins" approach to examining the behavior of living
things.

I think it is good to be direct to get to the point, rather than indirect and
leave everything open to interpretation. We are all too busy to be worrying
about what someone meant. So it is really good to cut to the chase. Yet, we can
be hurt by someone saying, "well, that is a bunch of crap!" (they say it in the
Raymond show...). But we can't be too busy to follow that up with "and here is
why...", which I think Rick and Bill do to the greatest of detail. I mean, come
on, they provide "free consulting" on the net, such that I actually adapted some
lines (ok I did quote) from personal communications for my research. But it is
in the spirit of getting it right and doing it with science.

So, yes, as I am doing here, being very verbal in my writing, perhaps Rick
should mitigate more things like "You are an idiot for blah blah blah..." It is
the hallmark of a good teacher to call a student on a dumb proposal. My college
teacher had a practice, using a stamp when he read a poorly written assertion
and supporting evidence and so on: V.E.T.B.T. = Vague Enough to be True. Maybe
Rick, you might want to adopt Prof. Hugh Fitzgerald's method of mitigation? :wink:

Cheers,

--Bry

Quoting Jeff Vancouver <vancouve@OHIO.EDU>:

···

[From Jeff Vancouver (2005.08.22.1700 EST)]

> [From Rick Marken (2005.08.21.1130)]
>
> I would be very interested to hear what those interested in education
> have to say about this problem (or, at least, what I see as this
> problem) of unavoidable conflict in teaching. Is there a way to teach
> without conflict? If so, then how do we do it? If not, then how do we
> deal with the conflict?
>

I would venture to guess that the excellent teacher knows how to
streamline the conflict to the focal system. A statement or set of
statements are loaded with information potentially relevant to many
control systems within individuals. If those statements might be
interpreted as "x is the fact" and "you are an idiot for not knowing
that;" the second perception is likely to create a discrepancy in a
control system that is not directly relevant to the discrepancy created
by the first. However, the second discrepancy will create error on which
individuals will expend resources. A good teacher generally knows how to
present information without evoking errors in most people's non-relevant
systems. I do not profess to be a good teacher.

Jeff Vancouver

12

This is Phil Runkel replying to Rick Marken's of 2005.08.21.1130:

About conflict and education. Yes, I agree with what you say. There is a long-standing concept or hypothesis, too, called readiness. The idea has long been familiar in elementary schools, though widely ignored at higher levels. The idea is that if your present understanding of a topic is too different from the teacher's, your conflict will be so great that you will imply reject, ignor, or run. If it is exactly like the teacher's, you will be bored. The teacher can be of use to the student if the difference is enough to allow the student to perceive the teacher's idea as posing an interesting conflict. Then the student can devote energy to finding a way to go up a level instead of merely turning the back on it.

--P

13

This is Phil Runkel replying to Bjorn Simonsen 2005.08.03, 16:15 EST:

I liked very much your implication that a conflict in the student is an OPPORTUNITY to learn something. I refer to your words, "There is also a chance for you to establish an internal conflict." I think that is what we mean when we say we want students to be "curious" about things. When we say we want them to enjoy finding a "new" idea, I think we mean an idea that comes into conflict with what they already know, but a conflict that is mild enough for them to "entertain" -- that is, mild enough so that they will hold it in consciousness and seek for a higher level that will enable them to hold both ideas without conflict. I think that is the trick to learning new viewpoints -- hunting for bearable conflicts among ideas. Of course, doing that every now and then leads us into unbearable conflicts, at which point the teacher can do little more than remain available.

--P

14

[Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.05,20:15 EST)]

Thank
you Phil Runkel for your comment 2005.09.03.

I
always appreciate your mails.

chance
for you to establish an internal conflict." I think that is what

we
mean when we say we want students to be “curious” about things. When

we
say we want them to enjoy finding a “new” idea, I think we mean an

idea
that comes into conflict with what they
already know, but a

conflict
that is mild enough for them to “entertain” – that is, mild

enough
so that they will hold it in consciousness and seek for a higher

level that will enable them to hold both ideas
without conflict.

Yes, some people are “curious”. In PCT I think they
have a reference for exploring the novel, the rare and the bizarre. Other
people are not “curious”.

Yes, if a teacher is able to implant “curiosity” as a
reference in the control systems belonging to not “curious” students, half the
teaching is done.

I expressed in my mail that teachers should let
children in the age of 2-7 years feel safety and confidence because the
children in this age got a growing picture of the external world with many laws
and relationships.

I think not “curious” students need the same feeling
of safety and confidence if the teachers wish to implant “curiosity” as a
reference in their control systems. I understood your last sentence in this
way.

How do a teacher implant a “curiosity” reference or
another reference in their control systems?

I am not sure I know, but I think there is a congenital
power, a reference that may be extended. I think upon the grasping reflex.

I also think we control curiosity at all but
the lowest level.

Is there another name that is better than “curiosity”
in PCT nomenclature?

bjorn