Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:17:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Deja vu, PCT promotion

[From Dag Forssell (920903-2)]

Rick Marken (920803.0930)

>What is it about PCT? Why don't people like it? Why do they prefer
>trendy junk (Chapman, Turvey, Brooks, etc) to solid quality (Powers)?
>Is there something wrong with PCT? Or is it the influence of network TV?

There is nothing wrong with PCT, except that it lives up to the standards
of a hard, explanatory science.

It compares to physics (Bill's background), chemistry, engineering, and
such, which are explanatory and predictive with expectations of 100%
correlation between science and results in the real world.

It is hard to comprehend for people thoroughly trained in the soft,
descriptive sciences, which explain little and predict even less. You can
tell the soft, descriptive sciences by the suffix science, as in science
of psychology, life science, social science.

You are one of the very few psychologists who have demanded that the
science of psychology should have something useful to say about the
practice of psychology. You are one of the very few who likes to think
for yourself based on the evidence, instead of conveniently accepting
what your teachers told you and what the abundant literature of the
prestigious association tells you.

You rant and rave against people who have another world view than you do.
People who cannot perceive the inconsistencies you see and are not
disturbed by the lack of clarity and application in what they "research."
They have different systems concepts and are happy where they are.

You edited American Behavioral Scientist, from Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, Ca, Volume 34 / Number 1, devoted to:

PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIOR: The Control Theory Approach.

I was reading it recently, and came across the following in Phil Runkel's
article on: Research Method for Control Theory:

.....Most psychological research, for example, does not assume the
circular causation specified in Postulate 4; it assumes linear,
input-output causation. I once sent a diagram of the input- output
metatheory to 16 psychologists, asking whether they thought it was a fair
representation of the theory underlying method in psychological research.
Most of them gave me offhand answers such as "Looks OK to me." Four of
the 16 wrote comments to the effect of "Method? I don't think about
method; I just do research."..........

So when you say:

>What is it about PCT? Why don't people like it? Why do they prefer

you know the answer. People will like it, and do. You have to consider
who you approach with this marvelous answer to the prayer of many people
who are troubled and need a better understanding.

Address groups and professions where people are used to hard,
explanatory, predictive thinking that have problems PCT can help them
solve. Show them the theory in all its glory, but start with some aspect
they can use right away, or they may not see the relevance and maintain
interest.

Address groups where people can use more "common sense" common sense in
their personal relations with Ed Ford's narrative approach and superb
counseling book: FREEDOM FROM STRESS. Brandt publishing, Scottsdale Az
(602) 991-4860

Stop worrying about the 1/10 of 1% who are already thoroughly trained in
the science of psychology and whose prestige is wrapped up in defending
what they already think they know, their school, teachers etc..

Approach the other 99.9% in the way PCT tells you to. Find and address
people's error signals.

As you well know, there are three ways to solve a conflict.

1) Change what you do.
2) Change what you want.
3) Change your choice of perception.

You can change your want in terms of people you want to convert.
You can of course continue on course, if you enjoy and want to rant.

All the best,      Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU