X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 10:37:50 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:37:50 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      control and children, connections

[From Rick Marken (920908.1030)]

Ed Ford (920906:1415) says:

>Rick Marken (920906)

>>The parent has no choice, right?

>I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

What I was responding to was the following statement by you:

>All this means the parent must set standards and rules which
>reflect the parent's own values and beliefs (systems concepts
>level)

It sounded to me like you were suggesting that parents set references
for standards and rules FOR THEMSELVES -- since we know that nobody
can set references for other people (kids in this case).
So the parent can only control his or her own system concepts by
varying (setting) the references for standards (principles) and
rules (programs) as necessary to keep their perception of system concepts
matching their reference. Thus, it SOUNDED like you were saying that it
was important to tell parents to control their system concepts. Thus, I
was puzzled and said "the parent has no choice, right" meaning there is
no choice but to control system concepts by setting references for
lower level perceptions (assuming the parent can perceive and has a
reference for a particular level of a system concept -- not always a
reasonable assumption).

Your answer to my suggestion that you don't need to teach control
systems to control was absolutely beautiful; worth a second quote:

>Like any group of people organized to live or work together such that
>they can cooperatively get along, many parents seek help and
>instruction (I was one of them) on the best way to set standards in
>such a way that everyone would cooperatively get along.  Control
>systems naturally control, but in any community or between any two
>individuals, part of growing and maturing is to learn to control in
>such a way that you do no harm to yourself and that you learn to
>respect the rights of those in your environment.  That is not something
>we do naturally, and thus, in a family setting, I believe it is the job
>of the parent to teach their children in as patient and loving way as
>possible how to use their control systems to their greatest advantage
>and with the least amount of violence to anyone's system.

This is an EXCELLENT paragraph. It captures what, to me, is the big problem
that is made palpable (and understandable) by PCT, namely; how do
you teach (NOT MANIPULATE OR CONTROL) control systems to get
along with other control systems, knowing full well that you cannot
arbitrarily control these systems nor stop them from controlling.

I guess I get hung up on one little point. In your statement above it is
where you say "the best way to set standards". The way you have stated it
here it sounds OK to me because I can hear it as a recommendation to vary ones
own references at all levels so as to avoid conflict and act cooperatively.
This can often be achieved only by reducing the gain of certain control
systems or seeing the situation from a higher level so that lower level
possibilites for reference variations become apparent.

Maybe it is a communicaton difficulty, but I sometimes get the impression
from your writing, Ed, that you think that there is some RIGHT
setting for "standards" (which I take to mean references for principles
and/or programs) that will produce good results (which I take to mean lack
of intra or interpersonal conflict). The paragraph above suggests that
I might just be laboring under a misconception -- so that I think we
can agree that ANY setting for a standard that eliminates intra and
interpersonal conflict is "good". I think, then, that we can also agree
that it is impossible for an outside observer to know what the setting
of any standard should be that would accomplish this result. The way you
discuss standards in "Freedom from stress" I get the uncomfortable
impression that you imagine that there is some particular set of standards
(values, beliefs, whatever you want to call them) that is "best" in a general
sense (meaning, for all people, not just for Ed Ford). The paragraph above
suggests that maybe my interpretation of your position is wrong and that
we can agree that references for standards can only be set situationally
(due to varying disturbances) and contextually (context provided by the
continuously changing values of other references in the system).

I think that it is more consistent with the PCT model to say that "the best
way to set standards" means: always be able to VARY your references for
the perception of "standards" in such a way that no malfunctions
(conflicts) are created in one's own or other people's control systems.

Greg Williams (920906 - 2) says --

> another part
>of my ideology is my belief that more work on PCT can be fostered by
>emphasizing how it connects to other ideas, rather than how everybody else is
>wrong.

I think my "Blind men" paper fills that bill. It says that psychologists are
right in the sense that control DOES look like response to stimulation, adapt-
ation to constraint (reinforcement) and output generation. But these appear-
ances, taken at face value, give a misleading impression of how behavior works.
At no point in the paper do I say that anyone is "wrong" -- just that they have
missed one little thing: the fact that all these appearances are aspects of
the phenomenon of control. The paper also connects current approaches to
psychology with the PCT approach. Is this consistent with your ideology?
I hope so.

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