[from Mary Powers 991206]
While people on this net are certainly free to be foul-mouthed,
hypercritical, sarcastic, or anything else, it would be nice to take a
moment to consider whether the self-indulgence of such free expression is
damaging to PCT. Presumably we are here because we believe that PCT is a
good thing, flawed and incomplete though it may be. I think most of us
share the hope that PCT will become better known, and eventually replace
other, less successful models.
A number of people have left this net because they are tired of
unproductive wrangling, bcause they don't want to be verbally abused,
because they are disgusted with what they read, and perhaps for several
other similar reasons. Others lurk rather than say things or ask questions
because they anticipate unpleasantness if they do. Some have come on and
been blasted off when they have hardly opened their mouths. Some are being
grimly tolerant in hopes that a worthwhile paragraph or two will show up
occasionally.
Does any of this help PCT in any way? Is it actively harmful? I believe
that it is harmful, and that some of the putative friends of PCT who are
active on the net are doing a lot of damage - at least as much, if not
more, than hostile reviewers and editors.
Think about it. Please.
Mary P.
[From Hank Folson (991206.2300)]
Mary Powers 991206
The heart of the problem is simply this: There are some vocal people on
CSGnet who have a serious disconnect between their understanding of the
technical aspects of PCT, and the real world application of PCT.
These individuals may understand the basics of the theory, but they
haven't a clue about what the theory means in the real world. With
various justifications, they continue to control in the same ways they
always have. These people probably fit in two categories:
1. Those that mean well, but are using their pre-PCT communications
techniques because they haven't figured out what PCT tells them about the
nature of truly effective communication.
2. Those who exhibit the "behavior" of supporting PCT, but have some
internal goals that conflict with their statements of support, whether
they realize it or not.
A number of people have left this net because they are tired of
unproductive wrangling... Others lurk rather than say things or ask questions
because they anticipate unpleasantness if they do.
I find it quite a good sign that the most profound observations and
questions about PCT come from Lurkers or sporadic posters. I suspect that
there are a lot of people that are Lurkers because they are successfully
controlling to learn more about PCT and its application. They have
neither the time nor desire to post garbage on CSGnet. The Unintended
Consequence of this is that some mistakenly assume that Lurkers lurk
because they have nothing to offer.
Amongst the Lurkers are those who are just beginning to explore PCT.
Here's a hint for you: If you see someone posting in a style that shows a
lot of 'attitude', they probably fit in the 'disconnect' segment. For
practice in applying PCT, try to determine whether they fit in Category 1
or 2.
When you come out of the shadows to post questions and comments, don't
waste your time or get emotional about nasty responses. Just ask
yourself, "What is this person trying to achieve here?" It should soon
become clear that he has a problem, not you.
Sincerely,
Hank Folson
704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com
[From Kenny Kitzke 991207]
<Mary Powers 991206>
<�unproductive wrangling
�verbally abused
�disgusted with what they read
�lurk rather than say things or ask questions because they anticipate
unpleasantness if they do
�blasted off when they have hardly opened their mouths
�grimly tolerant in hopes that a worthwhile paragraph or two will show up
<Does any of this help PCT in any way?>
It helps PCT because it is hard evidence that people are autonomous creatures
who do not control their own behavior but rather control perceptions in their
own mind. It confirms PCT as a valid theory of human behavior.
<Is it actively harmful?>
Of course it is to all those who perceive the behavior of certain people on
the CSGNet to be harmful to them from time to time.
<I believe that it is harmful, and that some of the putative friends of PCT
who are
active on the net are doing a lot of damage - at least as much, if not more,
than hostile reviewers and editors.>
Thanks for your perception.
<Think about it. Please.>
I have. What I think I have recorded on a new thread called "Hopeless." If
you care to know what I think, you can read it there. If not, the "Delete"
key is the proper choice.
Kenny
from [ Marc Abrams (991207.1417) ]
[From Rick Marken (991207.0730)]
I bet I'm one of those perceived as having a serious disconnect
between my understanding of the technical aspects of PCT and
the real world application of PCT. I wish those of you who
understand this connection would stop being so coy and
just tell me what it is. A nice, tangible example would
help.
For me ( although not "technically astute ) I probably fall into your
category Rick I found this post from Bill helpful. It's about moral
relativism but really talks to anyone who has _high_ gain passion for
positions they take. Read it carefully. It's not about your PCT skills.
never was, and I don't think ever will be.
Marc
[From Bill Powers (921202.0830)] Rick Marken (921201.1300) -
Moral relativism, I think, is a problem for people with conflicting system
concepts. If a certain practice, for example birth control, is immoral for
people who are devoted to one religion but not for others, how are the
people for whom it is immoral to think about those for whom it is not? Many
people take the moral precepts that go with their system concepts as
absolutes (or think they do). After all, if it is absolutely immoral for you
to practice birth control, how can you be "tolerant" of other religions that
preach no such prohibition? How can something that's absolutely wrong for
you to do be OK for others to do? This is the problem with fundamentalism of
any kind, isn't it? A true moral absolutist, obviously, considers his or her
morals to be the absolutely right ones, and therefore must act to correct
deviations from that moral code by ANYONE, not just by those who share the
same principles. This requirement clearly conflicts with goals such as
getting along with others, respecting their rights, belief in freedom of
thought, and so forth. Many people resolve this conflict by saying that
others are free to do as they wish, but that their violations of the moral
precepts will catch up with them later -- God, for example, will get even
with them after they're dead. Some consider it their duty to try to save
others from their sins -- persuade them to change their moral codes. ...
···
Date: Wed Dec 02, 1992 3:49 pm PST
Subject: Moral relativism; uncontrolled perceptions; Wolfgang's program
[From Shannon Williams (991207.2300)]
[From Hank Folson (991206.2300)]
The heart of the problem is simply this: There are some vocal people on
CSGnet who have a serious disconnect between their understanding of the
technical aspects of PCT, and the real world application of PCT.
Have you all heard of interest-based negotiation? It is introduced in
a book called _Getting to Yes Without Giving In_, and it is outlined
with examples in a book called _Getting Ready To Negotiate: The
Getting To Yes Workbook_.
The concept of interest-based negotiation is that people act to
protect their interests. The books above were written in hopes
that people can develop conflict resolution procedures based on
identifying and developing people's basic interests.
I think that interest-based negotiation is based on a non-mechanistic
(hand waving) explanation of the phenomena that we explain using
PCT. It is pretty cool, and PCT explains every step in the procedures
that are identified in these books.
BTW- in _Getting to Yes_, the author also advises against identifying
choices and insisting that the other side must choose from one of the
choices that you have identified. If your choices do not meet the interests
of the other party, then the other party will be unable to uphold any of
your choices. We can, of course, predict this by applying PCT.
Shannon