[From Bill Powers (950821.0840 MDT)]
David Goldstein (950820.1223 EDT)]
PCT approach: What is the experience which he wants help in
learning how to control better? He wants to not feel so
uncomfortable when his parents leave him. I have been able to
determine that he does not want to see his parents leave the room,
with the emphasis on see. It is not comforting to him if his
parents are in the next room and they periodically speak to him.
He thinks that his parents will leave him, get in the car and he
will never see them again. So, what is the reference perception?
I guess he wants his parents not to get in the car and leave him
forever. I can sympathize with that; I wouldn't want that either, at
that age. At that level I'd say there is nothing wrong with the kid. One
question that comes to mind is why he considers this a real possibility,
or IF he does. Is this simply a method the kid had learned for
controlling his parents?. Or does the kid himself recognize this as a
problem and want to get over it? Or does he really think his parents
wish they had a better kid and want to be away from him?
Why does he expect this? His parents act mad at him sometimes. He
doesn't think that he is worthwhile enough so that they would want
to stay around him. He doesn't feel well liked at school. Other
kids act as they don't know who he is after he has been in the same
class for a year. He is not sure that his parents love him.
Could it be that his parents have told him all these things? Have they
somehow given him the message that he's not good enough? Let's face it,
sending a child to a psychotherapist three times a week carries a pretty
strong message, as does sending him to get a Black Belt in karate. It
seems pretty clear that the parents consider this child to be a real
problem, with a personality in need of drastic revision. They don't
sound as though they are willing to accept him as he is -- it's more
like, he's a defective product and they want it fixed in time for the
school year. It would be a miracle if the child didn't get the gist of
this message. I get a picture of a child who has continually demanded
attention, and parents who have continually resisted giving him any when
he wanted it (and gave him plenty of the wrong kind when he didn't).
In fact, this whole situation looks to me like a conflict between the
parents and the child, which the parents want solved through getting the
child straightened out. Isn't that what all your patients start out
doing? "If you'll just get my wife, husband, mother, father, boss, co-
worker, child, you name the person, to start acting right, I'll be OK."
If I had your problem (and thank goodness I don't, and can say all this
problems on all sides and that the only way to solve them is to deal
with the whole family. The child isn't the only one who's going to have
to change something. If the parents absolutely refuse to consider this,
then I'd change my whole approach to the child.
I'd say, "Look, kid, it seems that you were right all along. If you want
to get along in the world you're going to have to do it without much
help from your parents. They love you but it doesn't look as though
they're going to change much. This is not going to be easy, but if you
want some help in figuring out how to do it, my business is helping
people and I'm sure we can work out something together. I know how you'd
like things to be, but if they can't be that way, then we'll just have
to figure out another way for you to be happy and get what you want out
of life. Just say the word after you've thought it over. It's up to
you."
I suppose that would get me sued for malpractice, but what the hell,
this is only a fantasy anyway.
···
from my comfortable armchair), I'd put it to the parents that there are
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Blom (950821) --
Are flexible rules OK?
Flexibility in choosing which rules to apply is OK. I see what you mean,
though: a flexible rule is hardly a rule.
It is not the rules that are important here, it is the way people
interact with those rules. There are, I agree, extreme differences.
It is therefore not sufficient to have _one_ internal model of how
a fellow human works. Since different people operate according to
different rules, our control will be best if we have a separate
model for each individual that we interact with. Yet, we cannot do
that, and I do not mean that our brain capacity is too limited. I
mean that initially we have insufficient information about a person
to be able to build an adequate model of that person. What would be
very helpful is to have an a priori model of how an as yet
unspecified human behaves, and tune it when you get to know that
person better.
All this is made much easier if you recognize that actually controlling
another person is not a practical way to interact with anyone. I think
that when we "model" another person, the reason we do it is mainly to
get what we want without stepping on the other person's control systems.
The important thing to know is what would lead the other person to take
offense, resist, or otherwise be uncooperative. That's why Mommy says
"Don't ask Daddy now; wait until after supper when he'll be in a better
mood."
I assume that we have such an a priori internal model as an innate
given. It would even help us if we meet a total stranger from a
completely foreign culture under weird circumstances.
I can't agree with that; there's too much ordering around of other
people, and too much concern with getting them under control, to suppose
that there's a universal model that just needs trimming to suit a
particular person. I think there are cultural models that get passed
along, and that most of them are based on incorrect theories of human
nature.
I would propose only one universal model, which is that people behave to
control their own perceptions, and we'd be better off taking that into
account when we deal with them. If that model is already universal, why
are we having so much trouble getting PCT across?
Societies consist of individuals, all different. Yet, some
individual behaviors (stimulus-response patterns or elementary
control systems) are remarkably alike in a given society, culture
or subculture. Therefore a model of a _society_ may be helpful,
even if it applies to not a single individual of that society. Such
a model may be so general, however, that it easily leads to
stereotypes.
Well, you said it yourself. Such a model IS a stereotype. But then, all
you Belgians think alike.
I quite agree that for skillful and accurate model-based control to
work, the world must be structured in a very rigid way, and also in
a simple way.
Simple only if the world that the organism lives in is simple, or
if the organism's modelling capacity (association cortex?) is
small. Rigid only if the properties of the world are rigid -- like
the eternal (?) laws of nature. It is not too difficult to keep a
model's parameters at all times tuned to _changing_ laws or rules
(just one parameter in my demo, which I didn't explain).
There's a gray area between tuning the parameters of a world-model and
tuning the parameters of a model-less control system. I tend to agree
with you that at the higher levels of organization, true world-models
exist, at least in some form. But the need to keep modifying parameters
to keep up with changes in the world puts a limit on the usefulness of
all models, and requires continual monitoring of the world in a true
feedback loop. My only objection to model-based control arises when it
is considered the primary mode of control at all levels of organization.
You don't have to
know exactly what other people are going to do in order to maintain
your relationships with them or protect your own interests.
Whereas I (somewhat) agree about the wind, I certainly don't agree
about the people. It is my personal experience that warm, personal
relationships require a finely tuned model of the other person. No
one likes to be treated as just anybody. In your restaurant
scenario you may recommend the sirloin to her as the best thing in
the place, but it certainly helps if you remember that she once
told you that she was a vegetarian.
I agree in general, but I think that worrying about her reaction too
much is unnecessary. If she gets all indignant and walks out on you just
because you forgot she was a vegetarian, you'd be better off looking for
a different dinner companion. I'd prefer to have dinner with a person
who would just say calmly, "I'd better order for myself, since I'm a
vegetarian." And without looking pained each time I stab my steak.
If you have a warm and loving attitude toward others, being yourself and
being quite happy for the other to be himself or herself whatever that
may be, I don't think you have to be too worried about pussyfooting
around to avoid hurting feelings.
As to your statement that no one likes to be treated as "just anybody,"
I question the implied view that people generally like to be treated as
other than what they are. Are you taken in by a maitre'-d who remembers
your name and bows and scrapes in front of you? I know that there are
lots of people who demand such treatment, but to me this only indicates
how unsure they are of themselves. If somebody seems to need that, of
course I will give it to him or her, but with a mental note to minimize
future encounters.
I would even go so far as to believe that social interaction is
possible _only if_ we, at least temporarily, adopt common rules, of
which a common language and common definitions of terminology are
the least that are required.
I'd be inclined to go even further, and say that the adoption of common
rules and language IS social interaction. I'd also say that if you cast
your eye over the world, you might conclude that people are not yet very
skilled at social interactions.
It may or may not be desirable to _conform_ to a rule. That depends
upon the economics of using it: do I gain more -- in terms of
getting closer to (controlling for) my goals -- by using it or by
not using it? Anyway, it is essential to _know_ the rule, if only
in order to be able to do your economic calculations (consciously
or subcon- sciously).
Right. This is what I was referring to as "flexibility." The opposite,
inflexibility, would be to adopt one set of cultural rules and then
behave according to it no matter what everyone else was doing. I'm sure
you have seen foreign tourists doing this.
I made no mention of "right" or "wrong". To me, rules are like
tools, only some of which I like and use. But regardless whether I
like a rule or not, it is very important to at least be able to
_recognize_ it.
When I speak of right and wrong, I refer to perceptions and goals above
the level of rules -- principles, for example. "Wrong" means an error at
the principle or system concept level, and is relative to the person
whose goals are being discussed. In terms of rules, it is illegal, in
the United States, to drive faster than 55 mph on most roads. But
drivers may argue, "Officer, it was three o'clock in the morning, there
was no other traffic, I have a new and very reliable car, I'm sober, and
I was driving safely." In terms of the principle of obeying traffic
rules, the driver was wrong; in terms of the principle of driving
safely, probably right. Traffic cops generally have a lot of leeway as
to which principle to apply, if they aren't behind on their quotas.
Very true. In more theoretical terms: I think of rules as sub-goals
that one adopts to reach a certain goal; we -- a society, a culture
or a subculture -- specifies somehow that we want to reach some
goal through some specified means, in some specified way, and not
in another way.
Right. I think of the superordinate goals, however, not as rules in the
usual sense, but as principles and system concepts. A principle is not
cast in the same terms as a rule: given premises a, b, and c, behavior d
is called for. Instead, a principle can be exemplified by many different
rules; driving safely, for example, implies one set of rules on dry
pavement and a different set on wet pavement or snow. Principles are
more like heuristics or generalizations.
A system concept is even more general than principles. It's like a way
of life which implies a whole set of principles, and NOT many other sets
of principles. I'm agreeing with you, but trying to be a little more
specific.
So the important things seems to be a) how to recognize (man-made)
rules, and b) how to value them (as tools).
Excellent way of putting it, to my taste. This attitude toward rules
doesn't encourage total anarchy, and it doesn't elevate rules to the
status of unquestional commandments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.