To Learn or Spurn (Was Good News!)

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980409.0810)]

Me:

Does this mean that your answer to Bill Powers' (980408.0915 MST)
question to you:

Bruce, do you feel that any description is as good as any
other description? Is that what we're really talking about
here, a sort of equal-rights-among- theories principle?

is "yes"?

Bruce Gregory (980409.0411 EDT) --

No, it means what it says. Beating people over the head with one's
own version of the truth has rarely proved to be an effective way
to get them to see the light.

So you say "no, I am not talking about an equal-rights-among-
theories principle". But you say that we are beating people over
the head with "our own version of the truth". This seems a little
confusing to me. What do you suggest that I do when, for example,
you suggest that it is appropriate to describe control system
behavior as "whatever you attend to calls you forth"? When you say
this it sounds to me like you are saying something about control
system operation that is about as wrong as it can be. How do I
explain what seems wrong about this statement in a way that would
not constitute "beating you over the head with our version of the
truth"? I honestly would like to know how to handle this -- other
than by saying "yes, that's an excellent description of control
system behavior".

···

------
Related Rumination

On the way to work this morning I had a thought that I would like
to share with everyone who posts to CSGNet. If you _frequently_
find yourself saying things like "You just don't understand what I
am saying" or "You only see your version of truth" or "That's just
your view of PCT" etc. to those of us who are trying to teach PCT
then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you really
don't _want_ to learn PCT.

There's certainly nothing _wrong_ with not wanting to learn PCT. I
do think it would make life on CSGNet more civil if people were
more honest (with themselves) about their intentions. If you want to
defend an existing belief system rather than learn PCT that's fine;
stay on CSGNet and defend away. Just try to become aware of your
intentions -- the ideas you are controlling for. If you can do
this, then you might be able to stop blaming the PCT teachers for
disagreeing with some of your suggestions; indeed, you might expect
(and respect) such disagreement (and so would we).

Right now many people seem to think that the PCT teachers should
agree with whatever they say simply because they are fans of PCT.
It must hurt terribly when, as a fan, your enthusiastic contributions
to PCT are corrected by the teacher. I think the only way to fix
the problem to try to become a _student_ of PCT rather than an
_adherent_.

Best

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

[Oded_Maler6]

[From Oded Maler (980409)]

(Rick Marken)

  There's certainly nothing _wrong_ with not wanting to learn PCT. I
  do think it would make life on CSGNet more civil if people were
  more honest (with themselves) about their intentions. If you want to
  defend an existing belief system rather than learn PCT that's fine;
  stay on CSGNet and defend away. Just try to become aware of your
  intentions -- the ideas you are controlling for. If you can do
  this, then you might be able to stop blaming the PCT teachers for
  disagreeing with some of your suggestions; indeed, you might expect
  (and respect) such disagreement (and so would we).

The label of PCT should not interest anybody for the sake of itself
(unless interested in finding some flag to identify with). What might
be interesting for some people is an interesting and plausible model
of human behavior.

Interest and agreement with some principles of PCT does not mean
that one should applaud every rambling of veterans just for respect
for the dogma. PCT is not a value by itself. [Digression: if you
were an established scientific community with institutions, program
committees, etc., perhaps you could get more easily with saying
nonsense, because there would be a more hierarchical structure.
In this sense I sometime think that it is unfair that someone
like Bill has to argue with every young person who doubts this or
that fact. But this (Internet) is the medium you have with its pros and
cons.]

People disagree with you because you say a lot of very strong
statements whose base is sometimes very weak. That's all. Did it ever
occur to you, for example, that you preach for several years, almost
every day, for the importance of the Test, and only a month ago you
came to understand a trivial fact about its limitations (perceptions
of the tester vs. those of the testee) which everybody who hears about
PCT will raise in the first half an hour.

The same goes to your (and sometimes Bill's) reactions to things which
cannot be explained by PCT (e.g., conciousness) or to which you,
because of your background, are much less sensitive (inter-cultural
differences) or ideas that interfere with your system concepts
(societies as organisms).

You can, of course, say that "true" PCT is a term denoting exactly
what you say in your posts. In this case you might be right that no
one is interested in learning PCT. If, on the other hand, PCT denotes
some models and observations that can be useful in explaining *some*
aspects of human behavior, the story is different.

I recommend you, for the n^th time to read Wilson's Quantum Psychology
to improve attitude toward words.

Aid Mabruk,

--Oded

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1302 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980409.0810)]

On the way to work this morning I had a thought that I would like
to share with everyone who posts to CSGNet. If you _frequently_
find yourself saying things like "You just don't understand what I
am saying" or "You only see your version of truth" or "That's just
your view of PCT" etc. to those of us who are trying to teach PCT
then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you really
don't _want_ to learn PCT.

This is the first time in my experience I have seen a teacher in high-level
education (e.g., graduate program) ever express a contempt for questioning
students. Some might have thought it, but most faculty I know consider it
a good sign that their students are questioning them. I guess the
difference is that all those other faculty are teaching junk, whereas you
are teaching truth. And you wonder why comparisons to religion come up!

Sincerely,

Jeff

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory 9980408.1310 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980409.0810)]

So you say "no, I am not talking about an equal-rights-among-
theories principle". But you say that we are beating people over
the head with "our own version of the truth". This seems a little
confusing to me. What do you suggest that I do when, for example,
you suggest that it is appropriate to describe control system
behavior as "whatever you attend to calls you forth"?

I don't recall ever saying this, although I have no doubt that this is how
you interpreted what I did say. I said that _the experience_ of an LCS seems
to be that "whatever you attend to calls you forth." The explanation of the
mechanism behind this experience is PCT.

When you say
this it sounds to me like you are saying something about control
system operation that is about as wrong as it can be.

Yes, because you think I am talking about control system operation when in
fact I am trying to talk about the experience of being an LCT. It may be
that you are so steeped in PCT that it feels to you like higher level
control systems are altering the reference levels and gains in lower order
systems as you go through life. I think you will agree that it probably
doesn't feel that way to most people. I am trying to capture how it feels
before saying anything about the model. It is my belief that being able to
link the model with how life seems to be is empowering to people in a way
that simply being informed about the model is not. (For those of us on
CSGnet, on the other hand, being informed about the model _is_ empowering,
but we are hardly a random sample--not to mention the perils of sampling and
basing conclusions about individuals from group studies.)

How do I
explain what seems wrong about this statement in a way that would
not constitute "beating you over the head with our version of the
truth"? I honestly would like to know how to handle this -- other
than by saying "yes, that's an excellent description of control
system behavior".

You might say, "I see what you are trying to do [but only if you really _do_
see what I am trying to do}, but I have the following concerns about how
people could easily be misled by the approach you are taking..." Not only
would I feel that you were not beating me over the head, but I would feel
supported in a common enterprise and much more likely to pay thoughtful
attention to what you are saying. If you want another example, take a look
at Bruce Nevins' recent post to be about Heidegger.

------
Related Rumination

On the way to work this morning I had a thought that I would like
to share with everyone who posts to CSGNet. If you _frequently_
find yourself saying things like "You just don't understand what I
am saying" or "You only see your version of truth" or "That's just
your view of PCT" etc. to those of us who are trying to teach PCT
then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you really
don't _want_ to learn PCT.

Is there anything I have said about PCT models that leads you to believe
that I am not learning about PCT or that have fundamental misconceptions
about the role of controlling perceptions in producing behavior?

Bruce the Obscure

[bnhpct]

[from Bruce Nevin (980409.1359 EDT)]

(Jeff Vancouver 980409.1302 EST)--

Jeff, I don't see anyplace in the text you quoted or in its context that
says or implies contempt for students' questions or for students who ask
questions. Can you help me to understand what you see that says that, and
how you understand it to mean that?

  Bruce Nevin

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980409.1100)]

Me:

try to become a _student_ of PCT rather than an _adherent_.

Oded Maler (980409) --

People disagree with you because you say a lot of very strong
statements whose base is sometimes very weak.

It was just a suggestion.

Me:

If you _frequently_ find yourself saying things like "You just
don't understand what I am saying" or "You only see your version
of truth" or "That's just your view of PCT" etc. to those of us
who are trying to teach PCT then perhaps you should consider the
possibility that you really don't _want_ to learn PCT.

Jeff Vancouver (980409.1302 EST) --

This is the first time in my experience I have seen a teacher
in high-level education (e.g., graduate program) ever express a
contempt for questioning students.

Where did I express a contempt for questioning, Jeff? Those are
_statements_ up there, not questions. We encourage questions.

Here's an example of a question:

"Why do you say that a PCT model of behavior is completely
different than a cause-effect model of behavior?"

Here's an example of of a statement:

"I believe that there is no fundamental difference between PCT
and other cause-effect models of behavior".

See the difference? The first one is aimed at learning; the
second is aimed at protecting.

And you wonder why comparisons to religion come up!

No, I have never wondered this. I think I understand why it
happens. If you look, you'll see that the only people who see
our teaching of PCT as "religious" are those who are interested
in PCT qua theory rather than in PCT a model of an empirical
phenomenon -- purposeful behavior.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1510 EST]

[From Rick Marken (980409.1100)] & [from Bruce Nevin (980409.1359 EDT)]

If you _frequently_ find yourself saying things like "You just
don't understand what I am saying" or "You only see your version
of truth" or "That's just your view of PCT" etc. to those of us
who are trying to teach PCT then perhaps you should consider the
possibility that you really don't _want_ to learn PCT.

Jeff Vancouver (980409.1302 EST) --

This is the first time in my experience I have seen a teacher
in high-level education (e.g., graduate program) ever express a
contempt for questioning students.

Where did I express a contempt for questioning, Jeff? Those are
_statements_ up there, not questions. We encourage questions.

Here's an example of a question:

"Why do you say that a PCT model of behavior is completely
different than a cause-effect model of behavior?"

Here's an example of of a statement:

"I believe that there is no fundamental difference between PCT
and other cause-effect models of behavior".

See the difference? The first one is aimed at learning; the
second is aimed at protecting.

I think this is an interesting example of the error of inferring reference
signals from behaviors. The statements that open this post (e.g., "You
just don't understand what I am saying") are behaviors that might come
about because the person does not want to learn PCT (or whatever), or
because the desire (level/gain) is so strong that when the student
considers ideas beyond the instructor, the instructor's response creates a
perception in the student that produces the statement in question.

What is missing in your example of questions and statements is the
instructor's statement, which is often something like:

"The difference between cause-effect models of behavior and PCT is
fundamental."

You are correct that it is a statement aimed at protecting, but in this
case it is the instructor's statement, not the student's.

So the answer to your question, Bruce N., is that the statements from
students that Rick paraphrased, I see occurring after a long set of
behaviors that start with a question from the student and end with those
statements. The fundamental question is whether the answers given to the
student are true/reasonable/valid/whatever. For if they are, the student
is just being stubborn or dense, if they are not, the student might be
surpassing the instructor. A good instructor wants the student to surpass
her.

Jeff the Dense
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
                -- William James

[bnhpct]

[from Bruce Nevin (980409. EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.1510 EST --

the statements from
students that Rick paraphrased, I see occurring after a long set of
behaviors that start with a question from the student and end with those
statements.

I think this is an interesting example of the error of inferring reference
signals from behaviors.

There is a problem with trying to tell what a person is doing by watching
what he is doing. One of Rick's demos discloses this problem stunningly
well. Rick says he is performing the Test in these email exchanges. Perhaps
that is a bit disingenuous, and perhaps there is some presumption "you are
new to PCT, therefore we can expect you to have certain predictable
misconceptions" and a quickness of judgement that abbreviates proper
conduct of the Test. Perhaps people take offense at feeling boxed into a
category, what some folks used to call objectification.

instructor's statement[...] is often something like:

"The difference between cause-effect models of behavior and PCT is
fundamental."

You are correct that it is a statement aimed at protecting, but in this
case it is the instructor's statement, not the student's.

What is the cited difference fundamental to? Not to PCT. It becomes a
prominent part of our discourse (I don't think anyone would say it is
fundamental) if certain very commonly held preconceptions in fact are
hindering one's process of grasping PCT. A PCT teacher might say something
like that if the student's questions (or statements) only make sense by
presuming linear causation of behavior. Circular causation in a negative
feedback loop has some unexpected properties. When we haven't grasped this,
we say things like "Oh, you've just got this fussy religious thing about
phraseology, *you* know what I mean!" When we do bear it in mind, we say
things like "Wow, this really is kind of tough to put into words because
the commonplace meanings of the words just naturally slip into those old
S-R presumptions, but here's a try at it. Have I got it right?" Perhaps
this, even more than "statements vs. questions" is what Rick is driving at.

[Perhaps] when the student
considers ideas beyond the instructor, the instructor's response creates a
perception in the student that produces the statement in question.

[...]

The fundamental question is whether the answers given to the
student are true/reasonable/valid/whatever. For if they are, the student
is just being stubborn or dense, if they are not, the student might be
surpassing the instructor. A good instructor wants the student to surpass
her.

I haven't seen a lot of surpassing in the past 7 years or so. But trying to
go beyond the present theory and what we are now able to model? Yes. Lots
of that. The response, quite properly, is "How are you going to model
that?" That is what the enterprise is here, Jeff. And a lot of us say "Wow,
I can use this powerful theory to explain stuff that I'm involved with." So
we say "Uncle Bill, how do you explain this funny business over here? This
is how we describe it and explain it in my field. How does PCT explain it?"
Then the answers come back from Bill and Rick and Tom (not recently) and
others addressing the pre-PCT misconceptions that pervade the
explanation-in-my-field stuff. And later when the questions are framed more
aptly, the answers saying we don't know how to model that yet, this is a
science in its infancy. And the answers saying you have to learn how to
create a testable model and join in the work. But altogether too often we
get hung up in the first part, and somone gets painted into a corner
defending the verbiage of his field when all he really wanted to do was ask
a question like "Here's what I'm interested in, what's the PCT answer? What
does PCT say about this?"

It's a big universe, and we're just starting. Roll up your sleeves.

  Bruce Nevin

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1600 EST]

[from Bruce Nevin (980409. EDT)]

There is a problem with trying to tell what a person is doing by watching
what he is doing. One of Rick's demos discloses this problem stunningly
well.

Yes, that is why I mentioned it.

Rick says he is performing the Test in these email exchanges. Perhaps
that is a bit disingenuous, and perhaps there is some presumption "you are
new to PCT, therefore we can expect you to have certain predictable
misconceptions" and a quickness of judgement that abbreviates proper
conduct of the Test.

I think Rick knows I am not new to PCT. I have been on this list for 5 or
6 years.

Perhaps people take offense at feeling boxed into a
category, what some folks used to call objectification.

True enough, but I doubt Rick would ever admit that that is what he is doing.

instructor's statement[...] is often something like:

"The difference between cause-effect models of behavior and PCT is
fundamental."

You are correct that it is a statement aimed at protecting, but in this
case it is the instructor's statement, not the student's.

What is the cited difference fundamental to? Not to PCT.

Really? Can I say that in my chapter? Rick?

I haven't seen a lot of surpassing in the past 7 years or so.

Have you asked yourself why that might be? Could it be that the
gatekeepers are so good at what they do that no one gets through? That
might be a little harsh, but the point is that there is more than one way
to interpret a piece of information.

But trying to
go beyond the present theory and what we are now able to model? Yes. Lots
of that. The response, quite properly, is "How are you going to model
that?"

I think this is one of the fundamental gatekeeping mechanisms. Those of us
exploring the higher levels have a difficult time modeling. But let me say
that a little differently. It is difficult to model the higher levels. No
one has done it. Does that mean they do not exist?

That is what the enterprise is here, Jeff.

I am not sure what the enterprise is here. But I know this:

Here's what I'm interested in, what's the PCT answer? What
does PCT say about this?"

will get trounced.

I know what my agenda is: selling PCT to conventional psychologists,
understanding HPCT, testing that understanding, and creating applications
given that understanding. So I better stop typing and start working on it.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980409.1757 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.1600 EST --

What is the cited difference fundamental to? Not to PCT.

Really? Can I say that in my chapter? Rick?

It is important to the process of your readers understanding PCT. Can you
leave it out of your chapter? Depends on your purpose.

I think Rick knows I am not new to PCT. I have been on this list for 5 or
6 years.

It can take a long time.

Perhaps people take offense at feeling boxed into a
category, what some folks used to call objectification.

True enough, but I doubt Rick would ever admit that that is what he is doing.

Whatever Rick is doing, I'm talking about what people might feel is being
done. Two different things, with the possibility of tact being a third, and
taking offense or not being a fourth.

I think this is one of the fundamental gatekeeping mechanisms. Those of us
exploring the higher levels have a difficult time modeling. But let me say
that a little differently. It is difficult to model the higher levels. No
one has done it. Does that mean they do not exist?

I run into problems with the Category level, so everything from there up is
out of reach for modelling.

One possibility is to assume that each level lives in a universe of
perceptions handed up from the level below. It is too bad that this is an
oversimplification. But as a start it might be possible to simulate the
environment of, say, category perceptions much as models now simulate the
physical environment, and build a model of a portion of the hierarchy above
that. The immediate problem is that our chief set of clues about categories
is our vocabulary, and that is grossly misleading. It's very hard to
discriminate actual categories behind the words, the identities of homonyms
and the superficial differences of paraphrases fog everything, because
words are what we have to report what we find and what we use to organize
our thinking for ourselves. Which is another reason modelling is essential.

I am not sure what the enterprise is here.

Figuring out what is going on with living things by the method of testing
specimens rather than by the method of casting nets. Since we can't examine
the inner workings of a living thing while it is doing its thing, the
technique of building an inspectable model that performs practically
identically is the technique of choice.

You're farther along than me if you're getting your hands dirty with coding
simulations and models. I'm still trying to figure out where my feet go and
where the fulcrum goes. And attending to other commitments that still have
higher priority than relearning basic programming skills and plunging in as
intensively as I will have to in order eventually to get on with it. I
commend you. I am not a paragon of PCT virtue, that is, a modeller. I'm not
even a next-best paragon, applying PCT in my work the way the clinicians
are. Just a fellow student.

  Bruce Nevin

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980409.1833 EST]

[From Bruce Nevin (980409.1757 EDT)]

I am not sure what the enterprise is here.

Figuring out what is going on with living things by the method of testing
specimens rather than by the method of casting nets. Since we can't examine
the inner workings of a living thing while it is doing its thing, the
technique of building an inspectable model that performs practically
identically is the technique of choice.

Again, be aware of potential gatekeeping mechanisms. Figuring out what is
going on with living things is laudable. Limiting yourself to the testing
specimens methodology might be limiting. Please to not misunderstand me,
many of the notions in the testing specimens book are excellent.
Psychology needs to wake up to many of them. But, I believe, useful
information about living systems can still be had with the old-fashioned
experimental design, time-series correlational designs and a few other
techniques.

Eliminate theories, develop methods.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980411.0858 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 980409.1833 EST--

You have mentioned gatekeeping mechanisms a number of times as something to
watch out for and beware of.

What, specifically, is a gatekeeping mechanism? For the sake of an explicit
description, can you model it in PCT terms? Or if not, can you give a
comparably explicit description? I get the impression that a gatekeeping
mechanism is a Bad Thing or at least something to be wary of. Why? If it
has negative effects or influence (which?), how?

These are not meant to be challenging questions, some sort of test
forbidding further discourse if you don't pass. The phrase suggests some
meanings that are floating around in my mind. I want to know more clearly
what you have in mind.

  Bruce Nevin

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 980413.1645 EST]

[From Bruce Nevin (980411.0858 EDT)]

You have mentioned gatekeeping mechanisms a number of times as something to
watch out for and beware of.

What, specifically, is a gatekeeping mechanism?

A device that determines who of potential members can become members of a
group. Alternatively, a device that limits the flow of information, as
when a secretary screens calls to the boss.

Here is an example:

[From Rick Marken (980411.1400)]

Sign me up for the society. I think the "secret
handshake" should be a testable proposal regarding PCT.

Bruce N again:

For the sake of an explicit
description, can you model it in PCT terms? Or if not, can you give a
comparably explicit description?

It is generally a social process, but always looking for isomorphism, I
will give it a try.

It seems that it would be carried in the input function for a
category-level perception. Thus, the level of an attribute of an object
might determine whether that object is an x or not. For example, one might
describe any vehicle with more than two wheels as not a bicycle.

I get the impression that a gatekeeping
mechanism is a Bad Thing or at least something to be wary of.
Why? If it
has negative effects or influence (which?), how?

It is a bad thing if the attribute is not, in fact, related to the thing
that is being categorized. In the cases that I use (e.g., modeling,
producing a testable proposal), I am suggesting that one critically
evaluate the use of the attribute as a classifier. Rick has developed a
specific set of attributes and levels of those attributes that he looks at.
He uses them for categorizing. The question is whether the group should
use them as such. They often seen reasonable for they seem to follow from
the main PCT "philosophy." But they actually may follow a chain of
inferences, some of which may be dubious. Hence, they create an unfounded
exclusivity.

On the other hand, they may be perfectly legitimate. Given the "bi" means
two, the example above seems like a good case in point.

However, for me PCT is about understanding the negative feedback loop as it
applies to humans. All the rest is up for debate. Further, the
understanding occurs in a community, not just in an individual's head (it
occurs in individual's head, but not _just_ there). Modeling, hierarchical
arrangements, etc., are important correlates, but I hesitate to raise them
to categorization level.

Sincerely,

Jeff