From: 0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM (Dag Forssell)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Personal effectiveness
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:05:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[From Dag Forssell (930103 12.00)      Bill Powers (930103.1000)

You ask a lot of good questions:

>How can I tell if my mental map of the world is a "good" one?
>Who gets to decide whether it's good?

When your life works for you. You know in your heart you know REALITY.

>Who decides whether a set of wants is "reasoned" or "legitimate?"

Or causes violent conflict with other living control systems.

>How much control of me vs others is considered (and by whom?)
>"balanced?" What should the balance be? 90-10? 10-90? 50-50? 45- 55?

By a laissez faire manager where people are without common goals,
unproductive and unhappy or by a dictator trying to tell people in detail
what to do and they are unproductive and unhappy.

>Who decides whether a perception of data is accurate or biased?

Who???  The individual control system, of course. These are overhead
slides intended to generate questions about how people control themselves
and the different aspects of that individual control.

>>An effective person is attentive and sensitive to differences
>>between perceptions and corresponding wants.

>Isn't this true of ineffective persons too? Does anyone work in a
>different way than by being sensitive (to varying degrees) to the
>difference between perceptions and wants? Is maximum error sensitivity
>always what is wanted?

Have you ever experienced a ride with a driver who does not keep his eyes
on the road? I can think of one who appears surprised when he
periodically discovers that the ditch is approaching and jerks hard on
the wheel. This person has caused at least five wrecks in a driving
career. Attention makes a difference to the quality of control and the
quality of product produced. Is it more relaxing to ride with a driver
who makes small corrections to small deviations from the center of the
lane or with a driver who waits to make corrections until the car has
drifted far enough off course?

>>An effective person uses resources to function with adequate effort.

>How much effort is "adequate?" What are "resources?"

Use of resources is another way of saying amplification. If you give
people a business responsibility (to control), you must also give them
commensurate resources to get the job done.

>>An effective person recognizes or anticipates disturbances and
>>adjusts minor wants as required in time to withstand the effect
>>without loss of control.

>Anticipating disturbances is neither necessary nor sufficient for
>effective control.

In the Mary and Sally roleplay (_Money is not enough_, Ford/Soldani,
1984), a young woman is about to lose her job because she is often late.
It turns out that every other day her son takes a little extra time to
get ready and that she allows 25 minutes for a drive that takes 25
minutes under the best of circumstances. Her manager teaches her to be
more effective (stay in control) by changing her minor want to sleep late
in order to control her major want to keep collecting a paycheck.

Einstein is reputed to have asked the train conductor: "When does New
York stop at this train. If you are driving at 100 miles an hour and see
a sharp curve approaching, you may want to "anticipate" this approaching
disturbance to your position relative to the road and change your wanted
speed. When you have changed your want, you know what to do. Brake.

In our seminar, I stand up and declare that I am playing "King of the
hill." This is Christine's que to get up and approach me from the side.
Out of the corner of my eye, I notice an approaching disturbance and
demonstrably change my posture to take the blow without being toppled off
my "Hill."

The point I try to make is that Wants are changeable and hierarchical and
that we can and do change them all the time in order to control what is
most important to us (as it changes, too).

I am interested in any suggestion on how a teacher can draw the attention
of people to this (academic, irrelevant) theory by indicating what may
be in it for them. I think your post indicates success rather than
failure with this approach (even as it was posted by me somewhat out of
context), since you ask pertinent questions. - Questions which every
person must consider and develop personal answers to if they want to
understand PCT and enjoy Dick's "long run benefits."

>Do I really have until 2030 (age 104) to live? Or is that just when you
>predict that PCT will be overthrown by a better idea?

By 2030, PCT is taught in grammar school and Skinner is long forgotten.

Hoping for more comments.  Best to all,  Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU