[From Rick Marken (950210.1100)]
Joel Judd (950210) --
Rick, Ed--have your personal e-mail addresses changed in the last couple
of months?
Yes and no for me. I'm still at marken@aero.org but my other address changed
from marken@courier4.aero.org to marken@courier3.aero.org
Rick, will you be available during the week of March 28-April 1?
Well, let me check my calendar here... Yep, I'm available! Actually, I'm
almost always available. Just ask my daughter. She knows that my wife and
I have "no life". Would I post so much to CSG-L if I had one?
Actually, if you're going to be out here in pardise around that time be sure
to get in touch with me; I look forward to meeting you.
One of the things I fear about a widespread acceptance of PCT is that it
can be used as justification for detrimental behavior just as surely as
behaviorism, but perhaps worse. I can hear someone in court saying:
"You've got to respect me as an autonomous control system."
I think there is no way to avoid this. People will do what they can in
order to be in control, including in control of other people. They (we) will
use whatever tools can be found, including a theory that explains why it
CAN'T be done, to try to improve their (our) control over other people.
But I think that people who grasp the essentials of PCT are ultimately in a
better position to solve (rather than exacerbate) their human problems. For
example, although PCT doesn't recommend one position over another in
practical debates (like that over "gun control") it does suggest ways to
solve the conflict -- if (big "if") people WANT to solve the conflict.
In the "gun control" debade we seem to have the folloiwing conflict. Some
people are controlling for easy access to guns for everyone; others (like
myself) are controlling for making that access (as Bill Powers suggested) at
least as difficult as access to a driver's license.
How can PCT help with this problem. Well, it can't help by saying that the
"free access to guns" people are "right" and the "gun control" people are
wrong -- or vice versa. PCT says that all the people involved have real goals
for real (for them) perceptions. To the extent that people on each side are
not achieving their goal they are experiencing error. If everybody involved
in this debate could accept the fact that everybody's error is real and
legitimate (which PCT says it is) and if they could like the idea of everyone
(including themselves) experiencing as little error as possible (a BIG "if")
then perhaps they can work towards a compromise where everyone is
experiencing some, but very little, error. For example, maybe all parties
could compromise and allow strict licensing but, once a license was obtained,
allow free access to ANY kind of gun authorized by the license. So if you
qualified for a class A gun license you could keep any kind of gun in your
house (including automatic weapons and howitzers); class B would limit you to
handguns, etc. The "free guns" people would still be a little unhappy because
they would have to go to the trouble of getting a license (which they might
not get if they happen to be as crazy as they seem;-)) ; and the "gun
control" people would still be a little unhappy because there would still be
all kinds of guns in private hands. But it's a possible compromise. PCT
suggests that, if you want to avoid the detrimental side effects of conflict,
you have to be willing to compromise.
PCT shows that you can't expect to be completely in control (have things be
exactly the way you want them) when those "things" are perceptual variables
that are also controlled by others; social variables. Extremism (which means
"I want it my way or NO way") does not work as a conflict avoidance strategy.
I think this is one "message" of PCT -- moderation and compromise. I don't
think that this is a novel or sinister message; all PCT does is show what
moderation is (selection of intermediate levels for perceptual variables) and
WHY compromise is a good idea (because it avoids violent conflict -- a good
thing if that is something you want to avoid -- again, the big "if").
Lars Christian Smith (950210 13:00 CET) --
what needs to be done to advance the state of the science of PCT. What are
the top 5 or 10 research priorities? What are the most important unresolved
questions, in order of priority?
1. Research to demonstrate the difference between control and cause effect
models of behavior.
I had assumed that this was the TOP research priority when I started doing
PCT research. I still think this is important but I, personally, think that
we have done enough to rule out the cause-effect model. And we have learned
that, despite this research, people continue, for social reasons, to operate
as though the cause- effect model were true. Psychologists, for example, are
not going to start all over again because a few tracking experiments show
that there is a fundamental flaw in their assumptions about behavior works.
So, while research to illustrate the difference between control and cause-
effect should be a priority for anyone moving from conventional psychology to
PCT, it's not really a top priority for me any more.
2. "Informal" research to demonstrate everyday examples of controlled
variables.
This would be descriptions of lots of relatively informal tests to determine
the variables people control. I imagine something like an "ethnographic"
database of descriptions of controlled variables; what the variables are
(like "position of arm", or "position on gun control"), how it was determined
that the variables were under control ("the arm didn't move when I pushed
down gently", "the person got upset when I suggested that all guns should be
sold to anyone who wants them"), etc.
3. Formal, quantitative research to determine the detailed characteristics of
the operation of a simple control loop. Determine "standard" approaches to
evaluting model parameters. Time
This research would be aimed at developing the basic PCT methods, analogous to
titration methods in chemistry.
4. Evaluation of the structural relationship between controlled variables; is
it a hierarchy? a network? etc
There are probably several ways to approach this; simple tracking experiments
might work; more complex tracking experiments (like the one's I've done with
sequence and program control) would be less precise but might give hints
about what's going on. Analysis of the "ethnographic" database of controlled
variables might be interesting. But, of course, this can only be done once
the database exists.
5. Study of interacting control systems; "social control".
This is related to (4). This is a research program that has already been
started (by Tom Bourbon) and could easily and profitably be expanded. This is
also the kind of research that might be the most interesting to the general
public.
6. Applied PCT studies
I think we need more formal descriptions of the use of "the method of levels"
in clinical practice and personal life. This method (from my own experience)
can be an extremely useful way to deal with the everyday intra- and inter-
personal "conflicts" of life; we need more lucid examples and descriptions
of this method that can be easily understood by lay people.
Best
Rick