X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 14:39:42 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:39:42 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Teaching, control, and what matters

[From Rick Marken (920908.1400)]

Greg Williams (920906) says:

>I say that SOMETIMES manipulation can be judged (afterwards) by a kid as
>"good" for him/her. The PCT model does not imply that this is impossible or
>even improbable.

I agree. Sometimes, hauling the kid out of the street IS the right thing to
do from your point of view and (eventually) from the kid's too. But that's
just your call in that situation -- and we are assuming that it was a good
call that time. All I'm saying is that, if one takes the position that this
kind of "wise" controlling is a good thing to do they will be creating
problems for themselves and the controllee AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. I
agree that it often is "right" to do some emergency controlling of a
kid when you are a parent. After all, the kid can't control perceptions at
the level you can, yet. I just object to the idea that control of the kid
is good as a matter of principle.

Now that I think of it, Greg (and Pat too, I presume) maybe we can find some
common ground on child rearing in terms of levels of control.
I think I could be comfortable with the recommendation that parents
CONSIDER controlling a kid's behavior when the kid needs to be able to
control a variable that is at a higher level than those that the
kid is currently able to perceive and control. For example, a 2 year old can
probably control the perception of it's relationship to a rolling ball
by adjusting it's running speed, etc. But sometimes, while controlling
this variable, the kids behavior becomes part of a higher order variable
that the kid cannot perceive/control but the parent can -- for example, a
program variable like "IF kid follows ball into street WHILE car approaches at
high rate of speed THEN possible squashed kid". The parent can, I think,
guess pretty well whether or not the kid can perceive and control this
higher order variable and will CONTROL THE KID by forcibly changing
a result it intends to produce (getting close to the ball) in order to
control a higher level variable the way the parent would have controlled him/
herself if the parent had been chasing the ball into the street. F. Plooij
found that chimp mothers do something like this intuitively; they help
the kid by controlling variables at levels that the kid cannot control.

An important corollary of this concession is that parents should stop
controlling higher level variables for the kid once the kid can control
those variables. Thus, once the kid can perceive and control programs
like "running after the ball into the street" then it's time to stop
controlling program level variables for the kid. Besides, by the
time the kid starts to understand program level perceptions,
the kind of physical force control that worked on the
three year old becomes a bit more difficult -- and probably a
lot less justifiable.

>you apparently believe that PCT DOES imply that a PARTICULAR KIND of
>manipulation (NOT control) is best for teachers to practice:

No. There is no manipulation or control involved in what I described
as education.

I said:

>Education is not control exerted by the teacher -- it is a process where the
>teacher uses the teachee's ability to understand, imagine, remember, and
>reorganize in order to help the teachee be able to control.

>Here you are agreeing with me that education makes great use of manipulation.

I am imagining a person who wants to produce some results and doesn't
know how. The teacher tries to communicate POSSIBLE perceptions to control
and possible ways to control them so that the person can produce the desired
end. I imagine no manipulation on the part of the teacher. The teacher says,
in effect, "try to create this perception". The teachee does not "have to"
produce it; and might come up with a better way. My idea of a good teacher
does not try to MAKE the teachee do things the RIGHT way. The teacher is
a suggestor, not a manipulator.

Thomas Baines says:

>          What I am about to say will probably mortify some folks, but
>          I believe it to be accurate.  Our kids were raised much the
>          same way we raise our dogs.

Thank you, Thomas. This helped put things back in perspective. We have
been doing TONS of talking about PCT and child rearing. But when push
comes to shove it turns out that how we talk about child rearing is
probably only incidentally related to how we actually interact with our
kids -- and those interaction styles probably vary HUGELY. And, yet,
most kids come out just fine. Skinner had great kids and so did Dr. Spock,
as far as I know. Thomas says he got great results from raising his kids
like dogs; I got great results raising mine like humans. I really think
that all kids (unless their is brain damage or some other physiological
problem) will turn into fine, functional control systems regardless of
who is raising them; it just doesn't matter that much unless the kids
are subjected to the systematic violence (literally) of control that you
usually only read about in national enquirer. How many people lock their
kids in closets in restaints and pass food under the door? REAL
control, the kind that produces REAL resistance and, hence, real violence,
is what I care about.  This is the control that keeps people out of
jobs, schools, parks, neighborhoods, etc because of their race, religion
or accent. It is the control that forces some people to adapt to the
violence of poverty because they are seen as incompetant or lazy. It is the
control done by all of us who have (and want to make sure we keep having)
at the expense of those who don't. Bill Powers went through the litany
already.  It is THAT kind of control that matters -- not whether you
say to your kid "the one who has the gold, rules". This latter kind of
control is annoying but basically harmless, unless you really, REALLY
do what is done to MANY people in this society -- let them have the
gold ONLY if they are white, smart, clean, "hard working", and do only
PRECISELY what YOU want. Only armed groups of people are able to exert
THAT kind of control over control systems. And it creates all the
problems it is designed to solve. PCT explains why.

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU