[From Hugh Petrie (990301 13:00 EST)]
I have been following the discussion about different kinds of theories and
just recently gave a talk on PCT to a number of teachers and administrators
around Western New York. Like John Appel, they are interested in theories
for achieving certain ends. Many of them are familiar with Glasser, and I
introduced them to Ed Ford's responsible thinking process. At the
beginning of the session, I tried to draw a distinction between what I
called descriptive theories, e.g., PCT, and prescriptive theories, e.g.,
Glasseer and RTP. I also used the terms scientific theory that tells us
how the world works and engineering theory which tells us how to achieve
certain goals in a world that has certain intransigent features.
To help them understand the distinction, I talked about the bacterial
theory of infections - how the world works - as contrasted with a variety
of prescriptive theories about how to achieve the goal of keeping people
from dying from infections, e.g., everything from sterilizing instruments
and operating rooms and surgeons hands to instituting Army field hospitals
in battlefield conditions and providing a variety of antibiotics for
soldiers to self administer. Some of these "medical engineering" theories
work better than others and in different contexts. However, all of them
"work" only insofar as they knowingly or unknowingly are compatible with
the bacterial theory of infection. Furthermore, if one is interested in
knowing why a given engineering theory fails in a given context, that can
only be understood from the point of view of the underlying scientific
theory. E.g., there was a strain of sulfa-resistant bacteria.
Another example I used was the scientific theory of hydraulic displacement
compared to the engineering theories of canoe or ship building. This was a
nice example because the engineering theories actually evolved first. Wood
can be observed to float and metal to sink, so it is not surprising that
the first engineering theories used wood or bark or other light materials
to get what the ship builders wanted, namely a vessel that floated.
However, once they started designing iron ships with enough hydraulic
displacement to keep them afloat, new engineering theories were developed.
In any case, however, the scientific theory of hydraulic displacement
explains why all of the engineering theories work - why bark canoes float
and why iron ships float. Furthermore, it explains why iron ships of a
certain design float and others do not and why, when the Titanic strikes an
iceberg, punches a hole in the hull, fills with water (so that not so much
water is displaced), it sinks.
PCT is the scientific theory. BCT (and Glasser and RTP) are engineering
theories.
>>From John Appel (022799)
>
>BTC certaibly "works'" for me curing patients with mentat disorder. However I
>can readily believe BCT might work better if I could use physical models or
>theories. A world class mathemetician once told me he was unable to, but
>wished he could, use mathematical thinking to help him solve his problmes of
>getting along with people,.His problems getting along with people were severe.
Hugh Petrie
Just as with all engineering, prescriptive, or recipe theories, they work
"better" when they are as congruent as possible with the underlying
scientific, descriptive theories which explain how the world works in the
areas of concern. The underlying descriptive theories also are what needs
to be appealed to to explain those occurrences when the engineering theory
does not work.
As for mathematics helping you get along with people, there are two
problems. One, mathematics is a descriptive theory, so it will never give
you prescriptions. Two, although it may be that certain kinds of possible
schemes for working with people run up against the laws of mathematics and
that's why they don't work, the main reason math won't help is that it is
not a scientific theory trying to explain the major areas of concern.
John Appel
>For some reason I keep thinking of a mother's control, or her attempts to
>control, the behavior of her two year old child. She tries to stop the child
>ffom running out on to the street into oncoming traffic. All of us have
>expeienced such control, eithe as controller, or controlee, and so have some
>intuitive understanding of the phenomenon. How would PCT explain it? Could
>PCT explain it to a mother in a way which might, help her, even if she did not
>undestand physicial theory?
Hugh Petrie
PCT, the scientific theory, would likely explain the phenomenon in terms of
what the mother wants (all of this would actually have to be subjected to
The Test for the controlled variable, but I will simply assume some likely
results). Let's say, she doesn't want her child hurt. She believes large
objects like cars can hurt you. She sees in her imagination or from memory
a perception of someone getting hurt by a car. She wants that not to
happen. She sees her child running into the street. She imagines a
perception, child getting hit, she does not want to see, and runs into the
street and forcibly controls the child's spatial position, perhaps
overcoming some physical resistance from the child who wants to continue
running after the ball.
Moving to an engineering theory of how I, as a mother, can control my
children (with only the best of interntions), the story above is an example
of one way, namely coercion, you can control the behavior of another, if
you want to, consistent with the scientific theory of PCT. Coercion works
ok for kids and running into the street, but PCT helps us understand why it
works much less well for people roughly my size and strength and for other
kinds of behavior of theirs I want to control. They push back and I am not
strong enough to coerce them.
Coercion probably also enters into other engineering ways of dealing with
other people. Prisons, implied threats of police, etc. Some even say that
RTP has a bit of coercion built into its process of removing the disrupting
child from the classroom the second s/he disrupts.
However, there are other engineering theories which might work. "Reward
and punishment" works in some cases, primarily those in which I can be
pretty sure of having sufficient control of the environment and a good
enough knowledge of the people I am interacting with to know what they want
in their lives. In such cases I can arrange things so that they get what
they want only through doing what I want them to do (and assuming that they
want what they want sufficiently so that getting it in the way I want them
to get it is no big deal. If it becomes a big deal, then we get into
countercontrol.
Mom might use this engineering theory of control consistent with PCT if she
knows junior really loves to watch Barney on tv and she can shut Barney off
if Junior runs into the street again. Again, PCT, the scientific theory
explains how this works when it works. We would also appeal to PCT to
explain why it starts ceasing to work as junior gets older (he no longer
loves Barney, he sneaks around and watches what he wants anyway, Mom can no
longer physically restrain him to his room, etc.)
Yet another engineering theory of how to "control other people" seems to
rely on a much deeper understanding of the underlying scientific theory
that always explains why people do what they do. We might call this
negotiation. Folks who understand PCT realize the major limits of coercion
and reward and punishment as engineering theories and so they try
negotiation. We all give up a little at lower levels of control in order
to achieve better control at higher levels. I agree to put in 8 hours a
day at my job with such and such supervision in return for a wage that
allows me to control other aspects of my life. Negotiation is perfectly
compatible with the scientific theory of PCT.
Notice, too, that PCT is what we would appeal to when negotiation as an
engineering theory doesn't work. We would start looking for certain things
that some people really want and are unwilling to give up, even for the
sake of imagined better overall control. And we get all kinds of phenomena
as a result - impasse (nobody gets anything done), a stronger person
resorts to coercion, a weaker person gives up because they don't want to
get hurt, or they want to keep their job, and so on. The important point
to notice is that all of these phenomena are explained by referring to the
scientific theory, PCT.
John Appel (022899)
>How about the theory that blood circulates? Is that a theory, or a fact? A
>model? Is it an explanation? Is it a cybernetic loop? Why can't a doctor use
>it as recipe for treating high blood pressure, for example. Same with Darwin's
>evolution, theory? fact? And why can't someone use it to figure out how to
>survive himself?
Hugh Petrie
I hope you can now see what is wrong with your questions above. Whatever
we call the theory of the circulation of blood, I would probably say a
model if I include all the components, heart, arteries, capillaries, veins,
electrical regulation of the pumping, it is clear that it is NOT a recipe
for treating high blood pressure, nor could it easily be turned into one.
What it is, is a description of how blood circulation works. Now any
engineering doctor who wants to do something, e.g., lower a patient's blood
pressure, will have to construct a theory that is compatible with the
scientific theory. Many engineering theories in medicine are really rules
of thumb, at least when they first get proposed, and only later do we
understand the underlying scientific theory sufficiently to see why the
engineering theory in question works and where it works and when it works.
For example, I know exercise lowers blood pressure and I exercise. I don't
know why. If, however, I were an exercise physiologist, I would want to
know about blood circulation and blood pressure as scientific theories so
that I could more accurately choose what kinds of exercise and how vigorous
and when not choose exercise for my patients.
The gap, John, that you talk about between descriptive scientific theories
and prescriptive engineering theories is the gap between understanding the
way the world behaves and what I might do to achieve certain ends I have.
What I do or can do depends on the way the world is, but the way the world
is takes little heed of what my goals are. It just works the way it works.
I don't know if this helps or not. But, John, PCT simply is not a theory
of the same type as BCT. PCT underlies BCT and explains both its successes
and failures. Understanding PCT may help you design other engineering
theories of controlling peoples behavior. Like the surgeon how religiously
scrubs before an operation, you may not want to know about the underlying
theory of bacterial infection, but if scrubbing doesn't work in a
particular case, the only way you will find out why is through referring
back to the scientific theory.
Cheers.
===========+++++++++++===========***********===========+++++++++++===========
Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-6614
422 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2481
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU