# Where Do We Go From Here / Summary **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG1999\ **Created:** [December 13, 1999, 11:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here-summary/12397 "1999-12-13T23:16:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Erling\_O\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Erling\_O\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Erling_O_Jorgensen)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 11:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here-summary/12397/1 "1999-12-13T23:16:40Z")

[From Erling Jorgensen (991213.1530 CST)] > Bill Powers (991212.0809 MDT) > There is a simple question that remains unanswered. Suppose > a child has committed to being quiet so others can learn. > If he or she has really adopted that reference condition, > how is it even \_possible\_ for the child to be noisy and > disrupt the learning of others? Even starting to do so would > cause an immediate error in the child, which would be > immediately corrected -- unless that control system had > come into conflict with another one in the same child > that required being noisy to achieve its own ends. Or, of > course, if the committment had never actually been made. I think the answer lies in your post about gain that I quoted -- Bill Powers (991201.0933 MDT). The commitment may have been made in a system with moderate gain, so that \*as long as nothing else more interesting\* is going on, the commitment \_is\_ maintained at that reference. But if Bruce A. just told me a neat joke and I want to get Sally to laugh at it, the gain in that program path may take precedence. The previous commitment to not disrupt is presumably still being controlled, (at a lower gain), but the condition of that program path "does not apply until after I finish my joke". (Incidently, this sounds remarkably like the excuses students give all the time about their disruptions.) I have not simulated systems at the same level having different gain, so I do not know if this proposal actually happens in a working model. In particular, I do not know of \_any\_ model that has both program control systems \*and their referencing\* systems at a higher level as a working part of the simulation. So I do not know whether this is an accurate way to think of switching among program paths -- what we once called "making choices," though it seems we are now using that term when overt conflict is involved. In this proposal the gain levels are doing the arbitrating, so it does not really seem to be a choice per se. (It begs the question, however, as to what sets the gain levels -- and whether there is a way in which they dynamically change.) BTW, this proposal about gain is not mine. I think I am picking up on Kent McClelland's work on conflicting control systems, and then the comments you recently made re: purposeful conflict. As I read further, I hear you talking in a similar way about \_other\_ commitments/interests the child may have -- > If you think a child has made a committment (as we > interpret it in PCT) to being quiet, then the first time the > child becomes noisy you have to revise your belief, > because it has just been disproven. Either the child > made no such committment (despite saying the right > words), or there is something else the child feels is > just as important that requires being noisy. Your words here do sound a little all-or-nothing, however. I remind you of your own caution in that previous post about purposeful conflict -- > It's too easy to think of control either existing or not existing. > Actually, it exists on a continuous scale from none to perfect. If that is true, why do we have to speak as if there were \_no\_ previous commitment at all about not disrupting? I like how you phrase the problem in the rest of this post, especially -- > The basic problem is to find a level at which the child is > not just willing but eager to agree to a reference condition. > Perhaps you could ask, "Would you like to be able to > get along with me, other teachers, and other kids without > being angry or afraid? Would you like us all to be friends?" > Somewhere in there there must be a reference condition > already present, or easily accepted, on which or under > which to build a structure that is socially viable. My sense is that some of this is part of the initial discussions with students that introduce the RTP program and which try to instill some bonding and commitment to each other. I am not sure that your words -- > ...sticking stubbornly to > your word and slavishly obeying rules... is a fair way to describe the commitments that the RTP is attempting to teach. I think there is a social utility in having control systems \*capable\* of keeping one's word. But I agree that word-keeping is done \_for a reason\_, and moving up a level or two to those reasons is (or should be) the main point of RTP. All the best, Erling ---

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 3:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here-summary/12397/2 "1999-12-14T15:33:48Z")

[From Bill Powers (991214.0832 MDT)] Erling Jorgensen (991213.1530 CST)-- I should just let you speak for me on this matter, Erling. You're doing fine, in my estimation. Best, Bill P.