Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:15:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      No Paradox of Influence
X-To:         CSGnet <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

From Greg Williams (920828)

Rick Marken (920827.1530)

>I'm not that interested in the paradox as a way of getting S-R theorists
>to switch to control theory. I am much more interested in the paradox
>as a way of illustrating the self-contradictory nature of the assumption
>that human problems can be solved by control of other people. This
>solution to problems is not just a penchant of SR theorists or
>reinforcement theorists. It is the the approach that is advocated (and
>used) by many people, every day, as a way to make the world a better
>place. I bet that most people think about control just the way Skinner did.
>They believe that people can be controlled and that they themselves
>can exert that control if they just try hard enough.

Once again, Skinner's "control" = PCT's "influence" -- consistently. If "most
people think about control just the way Skinner did," then they believe that
people can be influenced and that they themselves can influence people to have
particular outputs. And that belief IS in fact true, isn't it, at least in a
circumscribed way? Advertising, propaganda, education, those beautifully
contrived con games, "psychic" demonstrations, politics, family interactions
all show it to be true, I think. Do you disagree? Are we incapable of
influencing each other at all? As I've noted before, PCT tells us that the
more we know about others' control structures, the better we are able to
manipulate them to do what we want -- just set up situations so they will be
satisfying their reference signals by doing what we want (and they needn't
even be aware of being manipulated). So PCT-inspired manipulation could be
quite insidious! (It could even get worse. One's current reference signals
could result largely from past manipulations. "My country, regardless," etc.)

>Parents believe it; teachers believe it; civic leaders believe it; employers
>believe it; managers believe it; children believe it; even I apparenly
>believe it sometimes (as some of my efforts to brow beat people into
>accepting PCT might suggest -- thanks Chuck). The paradox of control is for
>people who believe that they can make things better (ie. the way they want
>it) by controlling other people.

If "control" means "influence" -- and I think it does for virtually everybody,
there is no paradox; people (even you) believe it because it works. People CAN
(to an extent) make things the way they want by influencing others.

>It points to why it doesn't work even though it seems like it should.

It DOES work in a circumscribed way. And PCT shows why. PCT explains why
influence which opposes the influencee's wishes is resisted. PCT also explains
why influence which is consonant with the influencee's wishes is NOT resisted,
in fact is embraced. In short, PCT explains why influencers need to be
sophisticated about their techniques to be successful (in particular, it says
that they should learn about the control structures of the influencee -- and
advertisers and con men understand this to the nth).

>It suggests how important it is for psychologists to start trying to
>understand how people control, and to stop worrying about how to control
>people.

Understanding what a particular individual is trying to do can be the key to
successful manipulation, but I don't think that is how you meant the
statement. And given that there is no paradox of influence, there is no reason
for psychologists to stop worrying about how to influence people.

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU