WHY PCT ????

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

From [Marc S. Abrams (950216.11:44)]

Hi Folks, I have a dilemma that I'd like to present in the form of a role
play, Followed by a question or two at the end.

First some prelims. I believe very strongly in the precepts of PCT. As a
practicing Organizational consultant I would like to Integrate/replace
existing models/and or utilize PCT in my current and future work. To this
end I present the role play. Drum roll pleasee....

Setting: Marc and Bill, two Philosophers/Scientists of the 15th century are
in a field on a beautifuk moon-less evening. Marc's scientific views are
considered to be *mainstream* scientific thought of the day. Bill, on the
other hand is considered to be a bit of a loose cannon, and is considered
to be on the outskirts of scientific thought. Bill none the less believes
he is "correct" in his fundamental beliefs.

Marc: "What a beautiful Sky"
Bill: Sure is.

Marc: It's amazing how everthing revolves around the earth.
      Bill: Not quite my friend.

Marc: Oh Bill your not going to start with that poppycock theory of yours
      about the Sun being in the center, Are you?

Bill: It's not poopycock. Its the truth. If you stand there for a year I
      can prove it to you by the location of the planets.

Marc: Hmmm !!!, Ok Bill, Lets say I'am willing to go along with you on
      this. Does it really make all that much difference ? We both *see*
      the *same* sky, don't we ?

Bill: Hmmm !!!, I suppose so, but we *really* are NOT *seeing* the same
      sky. especially over time.

Marc: What are the implications for me ? How will it alter the way I go
      about doing my business ?

Bill: Good Point, If you were intersted in space travel it would be huge.
      Other then that there is the matter of acknowledging the *truth*.

Marc: Space Travel ??? get real. Why would we ever want to do that ???

The End.

Thats the dilemma. How do i show the value for them in replacing there
existing views and methods about behavior with the PCT model. Most folks
are not intereted in "space travel". or in the "correctness" of thought.

If this really only matters to handful of "rocket scientists" so be it. It
doesn't take away from the beauty or elegance of the theory. Just makes
earning a buck with it a bit difficult. Now I understand that last
statement might be repungnant to few of the theorists out there. I am NOT
ASKING how to COMPROMISE the theory for general use. I understand we have a
few of those already. I am simply asking if we are doing what we need to do
to align ourselves with people who may benefit from the knowledge and use
of PCT.

I believe Ed Fords work gives us a glimpse of the possibilites. I believe
that PCT CAN make an impact into existing methods, tools and techniques
that utilize, either implicitly or expilicitly the S-R model.

Can anybody help ? Or better yet. Is anyone *interested* in helping ?

Much Thanks

marc

···

--------------------------------------------------------
                "As far as the laws of mathematics
Marc S. Abrams refer to reality, they are not certain,
msa@panix.com and as far as they are certain, they do
Brooklyn, NY not refer to reality." A. Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------02/16/9511:54:03

-------------------------------------

2

[From Rick Marken (950217.1530)]

Marc S. Abrams (950216.11:44) --

As a practicing Organizational consultant I would like to Integrate/replace
existing models/and or utilize PCT in my current and future work.

How do i show the value for them in replacing there existing views and
methods about behavior with the PCT model.

A very good question. We have had several discussions about this on the
Net. It's always worth talking about it, at least to help clarify the
issues.

I believe Ed Fords work gives us a glimpse of the possibilites.

I think it would be a very good idea to try to figure out why Ed has
succeeded in "selling" PCT as a practical approach to deal with other people
where others have failed (or, at least, had far less success). Maybe Ed has
some ideas.

Can anybody help ? Or better yet. Is anyone *interested* in helping ?

I am certainly interested in helping. I'm not sure that I can, though. I've
had zero success "selling" PCT to scientific psychologists, but I think there
is more resistance to PCT among people in that group (for obvious reasons)
than among counselors, management consultants and others in "helping" type
professions. Still, individuals in the latter professions do have prior
committments to their often unspoken beliefs about "how people work" so it's
not like they are just waiting to be given PCT on a silver platter.

It's a tough problem. Maybe some other people who are doing "practical
applications" with PCT would be willing to discuss this on the net.

Best

Rick

3

<[Bill Leach 950217.21:12 EST(EDT)]

[Marc S. Abrams (950216.11:44)]

Your "roll playing" is cute but misleading. The implication is that a
proper understanding of human behaviour will not change the way we
conduct interactions now.

Interestinly you used the Potolmy/Copernicus example that Rick is so
fond of using as a comparison between current 'conventional' behavioual
science and PCT. Many view such a comparison as arrogant.

Rick also pointed out (I believe quite correctly) that not only is such a
comparison NOT arrogant but it is a significant UNDERSTATEMENT!

Continuing to borrow from Rick:

He pointing out that at least 'both camps' were talking about the same
phenomenon and agreed upon the issues.

Rick did not (to my knowledge) also point out that the "epicycles" were
considerably MORE accurate than the predictions based upon Copernicus'
theory. It was not until Kepler (using Brays painstakeningly detailed
observations) realized that in reality neither were actually right and
that the Sun was at one focii of ellipical oribits. As to your "space
travel" comment -- we still have not solved the "three body problem" and
must use emperical data... that is there is still no formula that will
solve for the future position of any of the heavenly bodies (close but
never certain).

THE issue raised by PCT is that the ISSUES themselves that are the focus
of 'conventional' behavioural sciences ARE NOT THE ISSUES AT ALL. We are
neither talking the same language NOR subject. The truth of PCT is that
(as a minimum) the vast majority of behavioural research is irrelevent!

Now if Marc was maintaining that the "chariot of fire" was drawn across
the sky by the horses of the Gods and that we much sacrific a couple of
maidens tomorrow to provide sustance for said horses as opposed to either
an earth centered or sun centered system THEN we would have a relevent
example.

So this statement should be reworded:

Marc: Space Travel ??? get real. Why would we ever want to do that ???

to:

Marc: Live successfully with others ??? get real. Why would we ever
want to do that ???

Thus, this IS NOT a 'rocket scientists' only issue. Personally,
understanding PCT can make a vast difference in "how your own life"
proceeds. If you are a 'manager' or other leader then understanding PCT
(and really using that knowledge) may literally make a world of difference
to many people.

Indeed, Ed Ford's work gives just a glimpse of the possibilities. It is
in using PCT to create working solutions to problems that people perceive
have no real solution that is percisely what is needed for "general
acceptance" of PCT. Ed's approach (in my opinion) is outstanding for
several reasons.

In the first place, Ed focuses upon the problem in his work. He is not a
crusader for PCT directly in the work. Instead, he is focusing upon the
same 'issue' that his client is focusing upon. When the client sees it
working then is the time to crusade -- the client is MUCH more receptive
(that is not to say that Ed tries to 'hide' PCT either but only that he
presents just enough 'PCT' to provide a 'logical' basis for the program
as opposed to 'making PCT theory' the central issue).

... I am simply asking if we are doing what we need to do to align
ourselves with people who may benefit from the knowledge and use of PCT.

I would suggest here again that Ed IS doing what you are suggesting. It
is not so much a matter of "aligning ourselves" or "aligning PCT" as it
is a matter of using PCT to control our own lives (environment) better
and teaching others as the opportunity comes up.

"Earning a buck" with PCT may or may not be repugnant for people on the
net. As far as I am concerned such opinions are irrelevent. What is a
pretty common opinion is that it is very difficult to get S-R trained
managers to take a "long view" about such obvious items as material
quality and material logistics much less take a "long view" concerning
their employees... try telling the typical manager that they CAN NOT
successfully 'control' that which everything they have been taught to
believe IS their responsibility to control -- their employees.

I almost feel that the sort of thing that Ed is doing is the ONLY
solution. That is, after we have a couple of generations of kids raised
in school systems that actually use PCT based principles successfully
then we will find a 'community' receptive to the theory.

-bill

4

[Lars Christian Smith (950219 19:00 CET)]

Re: CSG Video Tapes, Glasser's book

I am intersted in some of the video tapes from the 1994 and/or 1993
CSG annual conference. I would very much like your and other
recommendations as to which presentations and tapes are of interest. Are
there any presentations covering interesting stuff not included in the
PCT Literature list?

In a previous post you mentioned Glasser's _Stations of the Mind_. Has
there been any critique of the book on the net?

Best regards,
Lars

···

To: Dag Forssell