Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:38:00 GMT
From:         Henry James Bicycles Inc <0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Language, Interactionism

[From Hank Folson (921110)]

(penni sibun 921109.1630)

>however, whether pct has a handle on the brain is
>strictly a matter of faith at this point.

Penni, my understanding and accepting the concepts and claims of PCT for me
requires trying to apply them to my world to see if PCT really does work for
me, and so is more likely to be true (to me). My interest is in applications
of PCT to life in general. (My perception is that PCT is about life in
general.) It is working for me so far....

One generally agreed consequence of PCT for believers is that only through
force can people make other people do or believe anything. This is because
PCT says everyone is an independent control system. I can't sell you on PCT
or make you give up your existing belief in interactionism. The only way I
can achieve that sort of result is to over time supply your control system
with inputs that you can relate to which will gradually build up until your
internal comparison engine decides it likes the new inputs better than the
old established ones. A decision to change will be made only if the new
inputs lead you to have better success in controlling your perceptions than
the old ones do. If PCT can't pass that test, the rules of PCT say you will
never accept PCT no matter how long or how much information on PCT you
absorb. This is because one of the premises of PCT is that control systems
continue to do only what works for them in controlling their perceptions. A
corollary is that if what the control system is doing stops working or is
not working, the system will try at random variations on what has been
working, and if that doesn't fix things, it will "reorganize" and try
something new, again at random. It is only at this final stage that PCT
might get anywhere inside your world.

If you reread Dag Forssell's (921108) post, you may see that Kuhn noticed
this aspect of life, as it applies to accepting new theories, but he did not
know why it happened. Dag and I are explaining why, in PCT terms that we
have learned from others. Just some more background for you.

>i, on the other hand, would rather approach language from the point of
>view of interactionism.

I am ignorant of interactionism and what it is all about. Okay, so I haven't
been reading your posts in detail. That is because I am not controlling to
learn a lot about linguistics. PCT says that if you are not interested in
something (controlling for it, in PCT terms) you will not observe it, or it
will go in one ear and out the other (to use my mother's term, as she often
does with me).

I am controlling both to learn how to apply PCT and also to minimize the
time spent doing it. The following 7 questions are my attempt to apply PCT
to a real world situation of interest to us both. The questions are in line
with my earlier statements of my ideas about how PCT works, and how new
ideas evolve in living control systems.

1.  Will you give me a couple of sentences long grossly oversimplified
outline of interactionism?

2.  Who developed interactionism?

3.  About when did they develop it?

4.  What did (s)he believe in before (s)he came up with interactionism?

5.  What did his/her old belief lack that interactionism offered?

6.  How well has interactionism worked for those who use it?

7.  Has any independent research backed up interactionism's claims?

If you try to answer these questions about interactionism, I will answer
them about PCT.

Hank Folson
Henry James Bicycles, Inc. 704 Elvira Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-540-1552 (Day & Evening) MCI MAIL: 509-6370 Internet: 5096370@MCIMAIL.COM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU