There are other PCTers

from Ed Ford (930526:1850)

Over the past week I have been in contact with numerous school
districts, trying to get a job. I talked with one assistant
superintendent who told me he "understood control theory, was teaching
it in his classes at the local university" and what turned out to be ct
for him were Glasser's ideas. I acted excited (in a devious way) and
asked him if he'd read Powers' BCP. He hadn't heard of it. Then he
became what has been my experience in most cases with those in
educational field. OPEN! He asked me to send him some material on my
parenting program along with stuff on PCT. He really wanted to know
more about my ideas of PCT. He asked me the difference between
Glasser's and Powers' model. I said that as far as I was concerned,
Glasser's ideas on CT were nothing other than cognitive theory. He said
"your right." My point in all this is that when you meet
someone "out in the trenches, plowing the fields" where
they are honestly looking for ways to lighten their load, they tend to
be more honest and open. Where they are writing and teaching or have
written a book, there seems to be little need to change, but rather an
attempt to maintain status quo.

So for those of you who who've become discouraged, there ARE people,
other than just us CSGnetters and members of CSG who
are honestly struggling to understand PCT. They might not be building
models or they might not understand all the math (as I don't), but the
models they're working with are far more precious. They're our
children.

Best, Ed

Ed Ford 5913466@MCIMAIL.COM
10209 N. 56th St., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253 Ph.602 991-4860

From Tom Bourbon (930528.0922)

from Ed Ford (930526:1850)

Over the past week I have been in contact with numerous school
districts, trying to get a job. I talked with one assistant
superintendent who told me he "understood control theory, was teaching
it in his classes at the local university" and what turned out to be ct
for him were Glasser's ideas. I acted excited (in a devious way) and
asked him if he'd read Powers' BCP. He hadn't heard of it. Then he
became what has been my experience in most cases with those in
educational field. OPEN! He asked me to send him some material on my
parenting program along with stuff on PCT. He really wanted to know
more about my ideas of PCT. He asked me the difference between
Glasser's and Powers' model. I said that as far as I was concerned,
Glasser's ideas on CT were nothing other than cognitive theory. He said
"your right." My point in all this is that when you meet
someone "out in the trenches, plowing the fields" where
they are honestly looking for ways to lighten their load, they tend to
be more honest and open. Where they are writing and teaching or have
written a book, there seems to be little need to change, but rather an
attempt to maintain status quo.

So for those of you who who've become discouraged, there ARE people,
other than just us CSGnetters and members of CSG who
are honestly struggling to understand PCT. They might not be building
models or they might not understand all the math (as I don't), but the
models they're working with are far more precious. They're our
children.

Ed, many people can be "open." A few years ago, I invited Carver, of Carver
and Scheier, to attend a CSG meeting. He was busy, but "interested" (a
variety of "openness") in what CST ,odeling (as it was then known). Why
didn't I send him some things. He sent me some of his newer writing, filed
with wrong statements about control theory. That was the end of it.

Similarly, more recently, with Lord, of Lord and Hanges (also cited by Locke
and Latham). He saw some of the PCT demos, and my interactive
tracking, at a meeting. He watched in silence, for a long time. He had
written many loose, wrong things about control theory, but had never before
seen a CT model in action. He was "very interested" and wanted to see more,
but has since merely gone on writing wrong things.

There are many more examples. I don't want to be a wet blanket, but being
"open," like expressing "interest," may be a necessary step in learning
about PCT, but it is not a sufficient one.

Tom Bourbon