From Greg Williams (921022)
···
-----
WARNING: Hit your delete key now if you aren't interested in the PCT approach
to social interactions -- this is liable to take several KB.
-----
Rick Marken (921021.1000)
You can try all you want to control a control system but, as
Powers points out eloquently and clearly in the Powers/Williams
debate, your "control" is at best ephemeral (at least, when you
are dealing with a control system that is organized the same as the
control system that is trying to do the "behavior control"-- ie.
a control system that controls the same perceptual world). When
a control system tries to control other control systems the typical
result is conflict -- unless you just want to see the control system
produce an action that is irrelevant to the control system itself
(the dog happily puts it's paw in the air to get all that dumb love
that it really cares about).
"Ephemeral." Another new PCT-definition? The dog "ephemerally" raises its paw
and walks beside its owner right into the neutering operating room. Look out,
you critical reference signal, you're about to get Ace-of-Spayed!
I think this is worth a discussion. I take the view that the way to
promulgate PCT is to present the model and the research honestly,
doing what we can to relate this to existing relevant concerns, but
not shying away from explaining the true implications of the model.
So do I. I love that phrase: "the true implications of the model." Here, here!
But I don't think it is worth it to compromise the model to try to get
recruits -- PCT is neither a religion nor a political party.
Neither do I. And I don't think it is worth it to claim that PCT supports an
ideology which it doesn't support, regardless of whether this gets or drives
away recruits.
It's not worth distorting the model to try to get people interested -- you
just end up with people who are really interested in the version of PCT that
you made up for their sake. But, I'd like to hear your point of view Greg.
Neither Bill nor I are attempting to distort the model itself. He and I differ
to some degree on the possible details (particularly those which are hard to
test at this time) of the model, but we differ most significantly on the
importance to many people of some implications of the model WHICH WE BOTH
AGREE ON. I claim that many people think that it is important to try to
explain and deal with social interactions involving what you call "ephemeral
control" and what Bill calls events which are "unimportant to the
'influencee.'" I don't deny that you can make such definitions as "ephemeral"
and "unimportant"; I do deny that they have relevance to the many people who
want to understand social interactions wherein parties are controlling their
perceptions dependent on actions of other parties. The question of whether
those people are misguided in some sense about what they think is important is
an extra-PCT matter of ideological conflict. As I see it, PCT (undistorted!)
has much to say about what these people think is important, even though you
and Bill say that what they think is important involves ephemera/unimportance.
For these people (but not for you!), your ephemera/importance is beside the
point.
Bill Powers (921021.0915)
I think you're still missing my point. The only way in which anyone
can even know what actions he or she is producing is to perceive them.
To "retrospectively consider having used those actions as being
important" can mean, under PCT, only that the person experienced a
perception dependent on the outputs at the time they were performed,
remembered it, and later considered it to be an important perception
(i.e., adopted a reference level for it).
I basically agree, with the exception that a person who does NOT remember
his/her earlier actions can become convinced that he/she actually did them by
receiving and accepting new information (such as a friend's explanation that
"you signed the deed!" or a video showing the signing). But, so what? What is
unimportant (your definition) at time x1 becomes important (your definition)
at time x2. And, because this often occurs in the course of human life, lots
of people are interested in situations where this is possible -- many of which
are situations where one party is controlling his/her perceptions which depend
on actions of another party, those actions being unimportant (your definition)
to the second party at the time of the interaction, but important (your
definition) to the second party at some time after the interaction. Note that
the second party doesn't actually need to adopt a NEW reference level after
the interaction: one can want to make money all along and think one is
controlling for that, but find out (too late!) that he/she has actually lost
money in the interaction. And that's one of the reasons for police and
criminal courts showing GREAT interest in such interactions.
If you can think of anything else beside a perception that can be
controlled (or be important to a person) then you are proposing a
different model from PCT.
I do not and am not, notwithstanding your own loose language about
"controlling another's actions," which I have complained about before even as
went along with you on it.
According to PCT, nothing CAN be of importance to a person but
perceptions. This applies now, later, and to third-party observers.
I agree. Their CURRENT perceptions. At time t1, their perceptions then; At
time t2, their perceptions then. At time t1, one's perceptions of one's
actions occurring then can be unimportant (your definition), while at time t2
(>t1) the perceived memory of those actions can be important in the sense of
causing a big problem for or making possible successful control of other
perceptions (e.g., all their money is gone, or now they can rescue that
drowning person).
If you would try analyzing these situations in PCT terms, under which
all the accountant or the little old lady can do is to control
perceptions (including a perception of "gladness" and a perception
that is "realized"), perhaps you would see that there is no
contradiction. On the other hand, if you simply take appearances at
face value and give them their traditional informal non-PCT naive
realist interpretation, you will continue to miss my point.
I have not been doing and do not wish to do what your last sentence says. I
don't want to be set up as a strawbuddy, either.
To be explicit, I claim that many people consider as highly
important social interactions of the type wherein B controls for
some of his/her perceptions which depend on some actions of A,
REGARDLESS of whether A's actions during the interaction are
important (your definition) to A or not ...
Do they view those social interactions as important because they ARE
being successfully controlled by the viewer, or because they are NOT
being successfully controlled?
Neither. They view them as important because A later says that his/her actions
which occurred during the interaction are (at that later time) important to
him/her: "He tricked me into signing the deed." "It's a good thing I did
those 10 laps of the pool each day like the teacher wanted, or I would have
drowned, myself, out there!"
Perhaps we can use the term "problem" or "difficulty" or some synonym
to refer to perceptions that are important because attempts to control
them do not work, and reserve the less specific term "important" to
mean simply that the person perceives something, has a reference level
for it, and acts to correct any difference (or would do so if
possible). Thus to say that something is important to a person tells
us that there is a reference level for a perception, but does not tell
us whether the person is succeeding at controlling the perception. To
say that a person has a difficulty with an important perception
implies that attempts to control it are not working, and implies that
reorganization is likely to be occurring.
Fine by me. Just don't ignore changes in what is a "problem" and what is
"important" over time.
And I think we should avoid further confusing the meanings of words by
referring to THE importance of a social interaction or anything else,
as if there were some objective standard of importance that is
independent of anyone's perceptions or desires.
I continue to agree.
I am not telling people what SHOULD be important to them. I am telling
them that what IS important to them is their own perceptions. I am
telling them that their perceptions are important because of what they
desire those perceptions to be.
I have no problems with your definition, as I've said before.
I am trying to tell them that even while they are trying to control
other people and objective aspects of the environment, what they are
really doing is controlling for their own perceptions. THEY NEVER HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO CONTROL ANYTHING ELSE.
I'm saying the same thing, and trying to use PCT ideas to explain the nature
and limits of controlling one's own perceptions which depend on others'
actions.
The resistance become mightiest from people who believe they are
controlling other people for their own good. Not only do they insist
that they must be doing good because that is what they intend, but
they insist that the effects they have are OBJECTIVELY good for the
other person.
The people I tend to respect are those who listen and (with reasonable
caution) BELIEVE others when they claim that "what I did then is important to
me now." Those who "objectively" disregard a "victim's" judgements about the
importance to him/herself (the "victim") of others' controlling their (the
others') perceptions depending on the victim's actions rate lowest in my own
ideology.
I am saying that even when people think they are controlling other people,
all they are actually controlling are their own perceptions.
I'm saying the same thing, and noting that often when a person controls
his/her perceptions which depend on others' actions, the others and many
third-parties (i.e., sociologists) think it important, either during or after
the control episode.
They can go right on doing what they're doing -- but it isn't what they think
they're doing. I'm pointing out that this is the reason that they are so
unsuccessful at controlling other people; they never were doing that in the
first place, except in some trivial way that caused no problem for the other
people. I am showing that when they have difficulties in achieving such
apparent control of others, and try their best to overcome those
difficulties, all they accomplish is to create conflict or put the other
person in a state of reorganization that, in the end, preserves the other's
capacities to control (or ends fatally).
But control of one's perceptions dependent on others' actions IS OFTEN
SUCCESSFUL -- otherwise nobody would care about it! "Trivial" -- another new
definition? Something can be perceived as "trivial" now and NOT "trivial"
tomorrow. Why should anybody NOT be concerned about such phenomena? Because it
is not PCT-control? Oh, come on! The FACT that anybody CANNOT make anybody
else want what they don't want in the short-term is beside the point -- it
looks to me like many people figured that out long ago, and went on to do what
they CAN do (sometimes): control their own perceptions depending on others'
actions.
If you want to avoid conflict with others, then you have to stop trying to
control what you can't control -- which is anything that matters to them,
anything they are already controlling.
I agree. I think I see so little conflict in my own everyday life (speaking,
of course, from the distinctly privileged viewpoint of a farm in central
Kentucky!) because the "trivial" type of control (your word), as exercised
both by myself and my acquaintances, is so often successful. When the
"trivial" type of control is occasionally UNSuccessful, I begin to appreciate
its importance ever more!
Best,
Greg