[From Dick Robertson, 2001.08.15.1722CDT]

Hello to all. I just got back from a family holiday in Wis. to find
CSGnet awash with good stuff. I hope I can catch up a little.

First, as to your request about applications Rick, my first take on it
was a student of mine, years ago, who grasped the theory right off and
began making useful applications, assuming its validity without
worrying too much about whether it was proven, because it made such good
common sense to her. Her first application was while taking the course
and also working as a volunteer aide in a psychosomatic treatment
facility in a local hospital ( of which program she was a graduate
One of her "patients" was a woman who--as she started getting
better--reached a crisis where she began to panic and was thinking about
quitting the program. My student puzzled about her wanting to quit just
when she was starting to improve. Then it hit her and she burst out to
the "patient,' "Why, that's just what you'd expect when you start to
change. All the old familiar experiences are disappearing and you're
having new experiences which don't seem right because you've never had
them before." The student told me she got that straight from my
explanations of reorganization. Anyway, the "patient" took comfort in
the explanation, stayed with the program and turned out a great success.

Is that what you had in mind?

Here is another one from the same student, years later after she
graduated; she called to touch base now and then. Her story was of a
conflict she was having with a boss or co-worker on her new job as a
social worker. She said, "I was getting more and more upset and began
to get locked into winning the argument. Then, I stopped and thought
about the theory and asked myself, 'What is my real goal here, to win
the argument, or to be persuasive?' I settled down, refocused and we
reached an agreement."

How is that for "naturalistic MOL?"

Glasses: I liked your paper and didn't have any big insights or
criticisms and couldn't think of anything to add. Then I read Jeff
Vancouver 2001;08.14.1200EST and got to thinking about his point that a
lot of psychologists think they understand and use circular causation
explanations in their theorizing. True, but what about a challenge on
the math. There is only one way to do the math on circular causation,
isn't there? And either your math gets you data that fits a model or it
doesn't . That brings up the question of models of course and that led
me to take another look at the paper. What struck me on this review was
that you do seem to be trying to explain, i.e. teach. I wonder what it
would look like if you just challenged: OK here is the math that gets
you this model - which parallels the data from the guy with the camera
on his shoulder. Can you (challengee) do the math any other way and get
the same results?

Best, Dick R.