The RTP Gap

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (991129.1510)]

Kenny Kitzke (991129.1000)--

1) Is saying "I see you have chosen" dishonest?

Of course it is, if you say it _knowing_ that you
haven't seen the person chose what you say you saw
him chose.

Could there possibly be more accurate expressions?

In the RTP situation where the teacher is supposed to
say "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room" it
would be more accurate for the teacher to say "Please
go to the RTC room now".

2) Is saying "I see you have chosen" disrespectful to
the student?

I think so. The student to whom it's said may not think
so but it strikes me as disrespectful. It does not seem
to respect the student's will. It verbally attributes the
questioner's will (that the student go to the RTC) to the
student.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you Rick, could admit that
using such an expression could or could not be
disrespectful?

I can admit that. I admit that people can say "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room" without being
disrespectful (that is, without intending to communicate
disrespect). It's like a parent who gives a spanking to a
kid while saying "I'm doing this because I respect you".
I think some parents _do_ think that giving a spanking
shows their respect for the child.

Isn't that a determination which only the student can make?

No. It's a determination anyone can make.

Are you being true to PCT with your argument?

Of course. All this is based on the most basic tenets of PCT.

Could all PCTers agree that attempts to control the
behavior (actions and perceptions) of other people is likely
to lead to frustration

Yes. PCT certainly shows that attempts to control behavior
will lead to conflict. I think RTP works because the teachers
are not required to control the kids _in the classroom_; they
don't have to spend their time trying to make the kids sit
quietly or do their lesson or whatever. The teachers only
control for keeping disruptive kids out of class. This takes
up very little class time so the teacher can spend his/her
time teaching instead of fighting.

can PCTers use their knowledge of a unique theory of
psychology to reduce their own inner conflict and external
conflict created with other people whether intended or not?

Sure. We can stop the external conflict with RTP people by
not trying to get them to agree with us. I no longer intend
to try to get them to agree with me. If I do any more
"preaching" about RTP from now on it will only be to the
PCT choir (W. T. Powers, Choral master).

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 Kenny Kitzke (991129.1000)]

<Rick Marken (991126.0850)>

Despite Bill's attempt to encourage you to quit beating this dead RTP
"choice" horse to death and cease and desist, I dislike leaving the subject
with such "tastes great, less filling" polarized viewpoints among PCTers. I
think it might be good advice if the matter was clearly about _you_. You
being stupid (uninformed about RTP), or stubborn (unwilling to lose an
argument) or paranoid (with some hidden evil agenda).

It seems such a sharp disagreement about basic PCT (or Bill's Control Theory,
BCT) application does harm to the cause of those who want to understand and
apply PCT to various behavioral situations and see it prosper as a better
theory of human psychology.

So, I am going to try to raise some issues again in a new thread about this
impasse with the hope of closing the gap and enhancing professional agreement
and congeniality.

1) Is saying "I see you have chosen" dishonest?

These are real disturbing words to any one practicing RTP. I do not believe
anyone saying that (and it is not clear how often it is actually said, even
if the published RTP instruction manuals/books suggest it) has an intention
of deceit or dishonesty.

Could there possibly be more accurate expressions? Wouldn't it be wonderful
if RTP advocates could acknowledge at least that, pick an alternate
exclamation they like, and in future publications use it? Wouldn't that
pretty much get all PCTers back on the same page where we can all be
supportive of RTP?

2) Is saying "I see you have chosen" disrespectful to the student?

<Doing this is not just wrong,
it is also disrespectful because it gives you the impression
that the speaker is aware of the fact that you have your own
wants and goals ("choices") yet cares not what they actually
are because he is telling you what _he_ "knows" they are.

This seems like an unwarranted conclusion of intent on your part, Rick.
While you can conjure up a scenario that might be considered disrespectful in
the student's eyes, there are plenty of ways to conclude otherwise. You just
can't generalize this specific perception as valid or typical. It all
depends on the circumstances and perceptions specific to the teacher and the
student at the time, which may depend upon their past relationships and
RTP/PCT understandings, the nature of the disruption and too many other
variables that can't be known at all.

If it is true, and I would hope all PCTers would agree that it is, that
neither can the teacher possibly know for sure the intention of the student
when s/he disrupted, and neither can you or anyone else know the intention of
the teacher when s/he uses a slightly inaccurate expression.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you Rick, could admit that using such an
expression could or could not be disrespectful? Isn't that a determination
which only the student can make? Are you being true to PCT with your
argument?

If some progress could be made on these two issues by their most adamant PCT
adherents, might it be possible to walk together concerning agreement on PCT
and its value in RTP?

I realize it would still leave some sticky issues about whether RTP contains
"coercive" elements and whether that hampers its success. But, I do not see
that as a fundamental concern for either PCT or RTP advocates. PCT does not
depend on a specific definition of "coercion" for it to be sound theory. RTP
does not depend on being "coercion" free (by anyone's definition) to be a
successful application of PCT.

Could all PCTers agree that attempts to control the behavior (actions and
perceptions) of other people is likely to lead to frustration on the part of
either the controller or the controllee or both regardless of whether the
interactive attempt is called coercion, negotiation, discussion, discipline,
cooperation, logic, punishment, reward, etc., but that these are all part of
our human nature in dealing with other humans and are as natural as
breathing? It often leads to attempted counter control,
counter-counter-control, and more conflict.

Given all that, can PCTers use their knowledge of a unique theory of
psychology to reduce their own inner conflict and external conflict created
with other people whether intended or not? If PCT advocates can't do this
individually and with each other concerning this RTP gap, why learn this
theory at all?

Kenny

3

[From Bruce Gregory (991129.1443 EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (991129.1000)

It seems such a sharp disagreement about basic PCT (or Bill's
Control Theory,
BCT) application does harm to the cause of those who want to
understand and
apply PCT to various behavioral situations and see it prosper
as a better
theory of human psychology.

I don't think there is any disagreement about PCT.

So, I am going to try to raise some issues again in a new
thread about this
impasse with the hope of closing the gap and enhancing
professional agreement
and congeniality.

1) Is saying "I see you have chosen" dishonest?

Dishonest is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific
discussion. The statement is inaccurate. It is not possible to see
whether someone else has chosen or simply acted in the absence of
conflict.

Could there possibly be more accurate expressions?

"I see you have pulled Susie's hair again." or "I infer from Susie's
scream that you have pulled her hair again. Is that what you did?"

2) Is saying "I see you have chosen" disrespectful to the student?

Disrespect is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific
discussion. No statement is _eo ipso_ disrespectful.

I realize it would still leave some sticky issues about
whether RTP contains
"coercive" elements and whether that hampers its success.

RTP is carried out in an environment that ultimately relies on the
threat of coercion. (This is true of all social structures.) It is less
coercive than many systems and probably more coercive than a few others.

Bruce Gregory

4

[From Kenny Kitzke (991129.1700EST)]

<Bruce Gregory (991129.1443 EST)>

<I don't think there is any disagreement about PCT.>

Then what is all CSGNet buzz about BT instead of PCT about? I have been able
to follow all the discourse over the past month.

<Dishonest is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific

discussion. The statement is inaccurate.>

<Disrespect is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific

discussion. No statement is _eo ipso_ disrespectful.>

I guess you see science as a non value-laden discipline? I am wondering
whether you therefore see "responsible thinking" as a nonscientific process?

If the statement is inaccurate, why not just correct it and make it accurate?
Why stand on your linguistic and imaginary head to make it accurate? Is
your point that science is, by decree or definition, morally neutral? Can
scientists be dishonest or disrespectful? Can't what they say be so too?

Kenny

5

[From Bruce Gregory (991129.1738 EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (991129.1700EST)

<Bruce Gregory (991129.1443 EST)>

<I don't think there is any disagreement about PCT.>

Then what is all CSGNet buzz about BT instead of PCT about?
I have been able
to follow all the discourse over the past month.

A tempest in a tea pot.

<Dishonest is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific

discussion. The statement is inaccurate.>

<Disrespect is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific

discussion. No statement is _eo ipso_ disrespectful.>

I guess you see science as a non value-laden discipline?

In the same sense that engineering is non value-laden.

I
am wondering
whether you therefore see "responsible thinking" as a
nonscientific process?

If you are referring to RTP it is a program designed to meet social
ends. It is designed on the basis of scientific thinking, but it is not
science.

If the statement is inaccurate, why not just correct it and
make it accurate?

I did.

Why stand on your linguistic and imaginary head to make it
accurate?

Did I do that? I didn't think I had it in me. Nice to know I haven't
lost my touch.

Is
your point that science is, by decree or definition, morally
neutral?

In exactly the same way engineering is. I think it is fairly obvious
that scientific knowledge can be used to build weapons of mass
destruction that can kill millions of innocent people. It can also be
used to develop vaccines that save millions of people.

Can
scientists be dishonest or disrespectful?

Definitely.

Can't what they say be so too?

It can be judged to be dishonest or disrespectful. But in this case you
are evaluating the motives of someone and PCT warns of the perils
involved.

Bruce Gregory

6

from [ Marc Abrams (991129.1950) ]

Ken, this post includes my feelings on these matters as well. I post this to
close the "tempest in the tea pot chapter" My arguments with Rick were
_non-PCT_ related. I voiced my dislike for the PCT name awhile ago, so when
Rick used BT
I jumped at the oppotunity to use a different name. But upon relflection I
don't like BT either so I will continue to use PCT on this list and HACT
Hierarchial Adaptive Control Systems ) when talking privately with others.

Be well.

Marc

···

[From Bruce Gregory (991129.1738 EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (991129.1700EST)
>
> <Bruce Gregory (991129.1443 EST)>
>
> <I don't think there is any disagreement about PCT.>
>
> Then what is all CSGNet buzz about BT instead of PCT about?
> I have been able
> to follow all the discourse over the past month.

A tempest in a tea pot.
>
> <Dishonest is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific
>
> discussion. The statement is inaccurate.>
>
> <Disrespect is a value-laden term inappropriate to a scientific
>
> discussion. No statement is _eo ipso_ disrespectful.>
>
> I guess you see science as a non value-laden discipline?

In the same sense that engineering is non value-laden.

> I
> am wondering
> whether you therefore see "responsible thinking" as a
> nonscientific process?

If you are referring to RTP it is a program designed to meet social
ends. It is designed on the basis of scientific thinking, but it is not
science.
>
> If the statement is inaccurate, why not just correct it and
> make it accurate?

I did.

> Why stand on your linguistic and imaginary head to make it
> accurate?

Did I do that? I didn't think I had it in me. Nice to know I haven't
lost my touch.

> Is
> your point that science is, by decree or definition, morally
> neutral?

In exactly the same way engineering is. I think it is fairly obvious
that scientific knowledge can be used to build weapons of mass
destruction that can kill millions of innocent people. It can also be
used to develop vaccines that save millions of people.

> Can
> scientists be dishonest or disrespectful?

Definitely.

> Can't what they say be so too?

It can be judged to be dishonest or disrespectful. But in this case you
are evaluating the motives of someone and PCT warns of the perils
involved.

Bruce Gregory

7

[From Bruce Gregory (991129.2016 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991129.1510)

Sure. We can stop the external conflict with RTP people by
not trying to get them to agree with us. I no longer intend
to try to get them to agree with me. If I do any more
"preaching" about RTP from now on it will only be to the
PCT choir (W. T. Powers, Choral master).

When that day arrives, I'll keep a sharp eye out for three wise men coming
from the East. I sure don't want to miss the parade. The drop in temperature
caused by Hell freezing over will be a welcome counter to global warming.

Bruce Gregory

8

Chuck Tucker (991130b)

All of the comments below are "off the top of the head'" as it appears to me
that Rick's statements appear to me to be.

In a message dated 11/29/99 6:07:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET writes:

<< [From Rick Marken (991129.1510)]

Kenny Kitzke (991129.1000)--

> 1) Is saying "I see you have chosen" dishonest?

Of course it is, if you say it _knowing_ that you
haven't seen the person chose what you say you saw
him chose.

CWT:
The person making the statement has a previous agreement with the hearer that
the statement has a consensual meaning; "by doing X you have chosen"!

> Could there possibly be more accurate expressions?

In the RTP situation where the teacher is supposed to
say "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room" it
would be more accurate for the teacher to say "Please
go to the RTC room now".

CWT:
Actually, if you had read the RTP Literature you would have discovered that
this statement is made quite often (see Ford, 1997:117-159;174;181-188). It
works the same way the "chosen" statement works.

> 2) Is saying "I see you have chosen" disrespectful to
> the student?

I think so. The student to whom it's said may not think
so but it strikes me as disrespectful. It does not seem
to respect the student's will. It verbally attributes the
questioner's will (that the student go to the RTC) to the
student.

CWT:
Oh, it "strikes" you as disrespectful! Is not the question from the PCT
perspective - Is it seen as disrespectful to the student(hearer)? Or are you
staying with your research method of introspection?

> Wouldn't it be wonderful if you Rick, could admit that
> using such an expression could or could not be
> disrespectful?

I can admit that. I admit that people can say "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room" without being
disrespectful (that is, without intending to communicate
disrespect). It's like a parent who gives a spanking to a
kid while saying "I'm doing this because I respect you".
I think some parents _do_ think that giving a spanking
shows their respect for the child.

CWT:
My parents never said that but rather : "This hurts me more that it does
you." I never believed that as a child but I do as a parent.

Isn't that a determination which only the student can make?

No. It's a determination anyone can make.

CWT:
Not from the PCT perspective: the student has to make it.

> Are you being true to PCT with your argument?

Of course. All this is based on the most basic tenets of PCT.

CWT:
I disagree. You are not being true to the perspective.

> Could all PCTers agree that attempts to control the
> behavior (actions and perceptions) of other people is likely
> to lead to frustration

Yes. PCT certainly shows that attempts to control behavior
will lead to conflict. I think RTP works because the teachers
are not required to control the kids _in the classroom_; they
don't have to spend their time trying to make the kids sit
quietly or do their lesson or whatever. The teachers only
control for keeping disruptive kids out of class. This takes
up very little class time so the teacher can spend his/her
time teaching instead of fighting.

CWT:
So the RTP program is not disrespectful.

> can PCTers use their knowledge of a unique theory of
> psychology to reduce their own inner conflict and external
> conflict created with other people whether intended or not?

Sure. We can stop the external conflict with RTP people by
not trying to get them to agree with us. I no longer intend
to try to get them to agree with me. If I do any more
"preaching" about RTP from now on it will only be to the
PCT choir (W. T. Powers, Choral master).

CWT:
This is the type of statement that makes me not take you posts seriously; are
you just a worshipper of BT and a sycophant of Bill?

9

[From Rick Marken (991129.2015)]

Chuck Tucker (991130b) --

are you just a worshipper of BT and a sycophant of Bill?

I love Bill's control theory model of behavior (BT) and
believe it is one of the greatest intellectual achievements
of all time. The theory is beautiful and elegant and it helps
me make sense of my behavior and that of other organisms. But
I don't worship BT; I test it and use it. I guess it's up to
you whether I am Bill's sycophant. I do want Bill to like
me and I do say nice things about him so maybe I am. I think
of myself more as someone who tries to win Bill's affection
by doing good research on BT rather than by flattery.

Best

Rick

···

--

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