[Martin Taylor 950228 20:45]
Rick Marken (950228.0945)
If we persist in making a distinction between scientific and 'rubber meets
the road' applications of PCT we will end up with a schism between scientific
and clinical practitioners of PCT that mirrors the one that now exists
between scientific and clinical practitioners of conventional psychology.
Allow me to second that. And the rest of Rick's posting. For once, I'm
quite serious in responding to Rick. I think he is spot-on in what he says.
One thing that initially attracted me to HPCT, and that has kept me
enthusastic as I learn more about it, is that, unlike most "laboratory
psychology," it is reasonably easy to apply usefully in a wide range
of real-life circumstances. Initially, I found myself understanding
myself better, and then all kinds of everyday situations. That doesn't
happen when one tries to generalize most psychological "findings" (something
I had discovered for myself as I have shifted between being a theoretical
and a practical psychologist over the years).
In PCT, there is no reason why the scientists shouldn't be expected to
understand clinical problems just as well as the clinicians; and there is no
reason why the clinicians shouldn't be expected to understand the PCT model
as well as the scientists. The scientists would not be expected to DO the
clinical work as well the clinicians just as the clinicians would not be
expected to DO the lab work as well as the scientists; this is where the
difference is -- and there should be no rivalry (as there is none -- or very
little-- between engineers and scientists).
Now can we get back to arguing?