Bill, and CSGfolk,
I more or less threatened a long time ago to provide a review identifying why many people have felt dismay about various things connected with CSG. This is the long delayed, but partial expression of my interest in why there is the level of unhappiness concerning CSG that there frequently is. No need as far as I can see for anyone to anticpate being stabbed in the back, it isn't that sort of a review.
You (that is Bill Powers) may recall that years ago we had a conversation in Durango concerning the peculiar mode in which CSG organization originated. In contrast to a normal, or should I say typical, research society or research group, the CSG process is a voluntary one. In contrast to a European university department in which the Professor more or less is in command of the efforts of collection of junior faculty, and graduate students, or a well funded American research program that can count on overlapping grants and a context of a somewhat assured resources-- the CSG program depends almost altogether upon who makes a choice to join the process. One of the implications of this, it seems to me, is that many of the assumptions which one could count on in a more traditional sort of program are invalid when they are retained in the context of CSG. Not that there is neccesarily anything wrong with these assumptions, but instead that they obiviously don't apply.
As I recall you mentioned your expectation that having, in your view, demonstrated the plausiblity regarding the applicablity of the control theory model when applied to human behavior, you would then be able to move on work on developing more sophisticated applications. What actually happened was in many ways a marked departure from, what as I understand, were your initial expectations as to how things would develop. The official recognition, the invitations to lecture, the grants, and what-all never arrived.
Rather than an orderly sequence of developments upon somewhat conventional lines your work has generated several distinct applications in clinical and social/community psychology. Each of these programs has been perceived as having to some extent to have strayed from a strictly PCT or HCPT body of theoretical assumptions in favor of some other set of principles. In my view each of the programs seems to provide a useful and better alternative than similar programs with inferior theoretical foundations. So that from your standpoint, while the over all favorable effect may to some extent be gratifying, this satisfaction may be tinged with irritation as a result of the eclectic way in which these programs mix what you consider to be incompatible assumptions.
I'm of the opinion that in the absence of an exposure to programing, or exercises in breadboarding elecronmic circuits few people are going to adopt a theoretical attitude toward the application of PCT or HCPT. Explicit experience writing programs or building circuits seems to be neccesary for making a transformation from a commonsense to a theoretical worldview. And, this element seems not be a feature of any of the applications in psychology in a clinical or school setting which require some sort of activities to obtain certification.
The most prominent controvery with regard to the clinical/school/commuity applications the "I see you have choosen..." seems to me to a controversy with many ambigious sources. I will excuse myself from making a judgement.
I can plead ignorance as an excuse. However, I think there may be a principle involved. The principle being that it is unlikely that people who are primarily interested in immeadiately practical results are not the sort of people who can be expected to be exactingly observant of theoretical principles. I could be proven wrong-- it is possible that a new applied PCT psychology program might be developed that would be 100 percent control theory and nothing but control theory. Will such a program be developed anytime soon? I don't think so. And, it seems to me that there might be a control theory explaination why it is so unlikely that such a thing will happen.
And, what about the discussions on the Net? I think the recent consideration devoted to linguistic issues may have been the best in history of the CSGnet. I'm not sure if anyone was convinced by the arguments developed, and maybe after a period of recovery a return bout might be inorder. Despite complaints recently expressed regarding the tone of disucssion on the list, I returned to active partisipation because it seemed to me that the conduct of discussion was no longer as dependent upon Bill Powers as I remembered them. And, it seemed to me that this was confirmed by my two commodity model despite its defects being acknowledged as making something of a contribution to the then ongoing discussion.
But there is still I think going to be a perception on Bill Powers' part that things aren't the way they should be. And, as long as CSG is the sort of thing it is, a primarily voluntary rather than a professional society I doubt that Bill is going to feel at ease. Even if everyone is polite as can be, I don't think that CSG is ever going to match the expectations Bill has had for it. Thus, I don't think it is at all surprizing that he might consider devoting less of his time to discussions of the sort that are often the typical CSG fare.
As best I can tell, for whatever such a self-assessment is worth, the above review contains a minimum of ax grinding. At least an Ax grinding of an immeadiately personal sort. Other people, of course, may perceive the situation quite differently. And, as far as I am concerned the "other people" are welcome to their opinions.
Bill Williams