[From Bruce Abbott (951011.1425 EST)]
Rick Marken (951011.0815) --
I will momentarily break my resolution to stay off the net in order to help a
fellow human in distress.
Thanks, Rick [sniffle, sniff!]. I feel much better now [sniff, sniff!]. It
always helps to be enfolded within warm, caring, loving arms when one is
distressed. In psychology we call this effect "contact comfort," a label
that emerged from attachment research. It is, of course, yet another
example of those loose nontechnical unscientific terms that have no place in
psychology, but I like it. It seems to capture the essence of the observation.
I think you'd feel a lot better, Bruce, if you realized you are in a
conflict. You are trying to control for acceptance by people who understand
behavior from a PCT perspective while trying to control for perceiving value
in the results of conventional behavioral research. Once you recognize this
conflict, you will see that there are many ways to solve it and you will feel
a lot less discouraged and depressed.
If I were trying to control for "acceptance" (oops, another unscientific
term) it would be a much easier strategy for me to simply echo the party
line. From where I stand, there is an important difference between PCT the
theory (and its implications) and certain attitudes and conclusions held by
some of its major proponents. One can well accept the former while
disagreeing strongly with some of the latter. Where these disputes arise, I
think a serious and open-minded debate is the only way to come to grips with
these differences and at least come to understand their basis.
This particular conflict arises at least partly because my experience with
and knowledge of certain areas of psychological research has led me to
recognize their value in helping to understand certain aspects of human and
animal behavior. Attachment research is one of those areas I believe has
contributed enormously to our understanding of some important
developmentally-related phenomena and to the gradually elaborating
understanding of basic brain mechanisms. You have a theory which you
interpret to imply that this particular scientific bumblebee can't fly; what
makes this hard to accept is that I see the critter happily buzzing from
flower to flower every day.
As you say, there are many ways by which I could resolve this conflict. I
could say screw the evidence, I want to be loved and appreciated by Bill and
Rick, and adopt your position on every point. I could say screw Bill and
Rick and go on my merry way. I could attempt to convince Bill and Rick that
the position they defend with such vigor is only partially correct, and hope
to get them to see things my way: that would resolve the conflict, too. I
could continue to maintain my views and just decide not the "rock the boat"
by raising these issues for debate. I think you can see which option I am
currently (if perhaps foolishly) pursuing.
One thing I don't seem to have much control over is what I perceive (at
least conditionally) to be true, partially true, untrue, or undecided. The
best I can do there is to gather and weigh the evidence and arguments, and
let the chips fall where they may.
Anyway, Rick, thanks. I feel much better now, as you can see ---> (:->
Bravely smiling and wiping away the tears,
Bruce