From: marken@AERO.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Paradox of Control
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:38:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:38:11 PDT

[From Rick Marken (920892.1000)]

I stated writing this reply to Greg before I read Bill's wonderful
reply this morning. I'll just post what I had written up to that point
to prove that great minds think alike:
-----
Greg Williams takes issue with my interpretation of Skinner's
ideas about control:

Greg says (after an appropos Skinner quote):

>Suffice it to say, once again, that Skinner did NOT "use 'control' in the PCT
>sense" AT ALL. Q.E.D. (or R.I.P., or maybe not so peacefully, since the PCT
>bulldozer is headed Skinner's way!)
>I think you need to read what the opposition (loyal or not) says before
>putting words into their mouths. Your turn to quote scripture.

I'm willing to believe that Skinner and all the others who advocate
behavior control as a solution to behavior problems will be able
to verbally message the meaning of "control" as necessary so that
it doen't mean "has the purpose of producing a particular behavior".
When I talk about the paradox of control I'm talking about what is
actually going on when one person tries to get another person to
perform a PARTICUALR behavior. This person is claiming is trying to
control behavior (in the PCT sense) whether he will admit it in print or
not.  So, no matter what Skinner says (and he says plenty) he advocated
controlling behavior while claiming that he could do this because all
behavior is organized in a way that would obviate his own ability to
exercise control. Whether he would admit it or not, Skinner was caught
squarely in the paradox of control.  Poor B.F. was a control freak who
simply refused to try to undertsand what he was so excited about -- CONTROL.

eric harnden asks:

>is this subject (pct) formally taught anywhere?

Good question. I think Dick Robertson teaches it in Chicago. I gave a
seminar in it several years ago when I was a professor. Tom Bourbon
taught it in Texas. Chuck Tucker, Gary Cziko, Clark McPhail and Wayne
Hershberger and Kent McClelland also come to mind as people who might have
given courses in it )they are real professors still). Ed Ford teaches it
for clinical audiences, Dag Forssell teaches it in industry. But basically
CSG-L is the main forum for learning PCT right now. PCT is certainly not
part of the standard psychology curriculum yet -- indeed, if people ever
got it the PCT would BE the standard psychology curriculum, which is
one reason PCT will probably not be showing up in many classrooms soon.

> one also requires a
>place where naive, perhaps even stupid questions may be taken seriously
>if they are offered in good faith.

I hope that this net is just such a place. I certainly welcome questions
and I certainly don't consider ANY question stupid. There is no contest on
CSG-L to prove who's the smartest, quickest, or whatever. We are ALL here to
learn and teach all we can about an extraordianary insight into the nature
of living systems known as PCT. I hope that my own rants have not scared
you. I am the veteran of many years of trying to present PCT to an
audience that has absolutely no interest in learning it (scientific
psychologists, mainly, and the reviews who stand at the gates of their
journals). But I'm really quite tame -- and I am quite sure everyone is
a hell of a lot smarter than I am, so I have nothing to prove. I do
understand and love one thing (besides the wife and kids) -- PCT.
So PLEASE feel free and comfortable to ask and challenge; we need it.

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