Applying PCT, Glasses

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.14.1330)]

Bill Powers (2001.08.14.1241 MDT)--

Let's not mix professional critiques of formally described research
results with personal reactions to casual statements. I don't think
Bruce N. knows any more about Mike's agenda than I do. We're just
talking opinions here. Low gain is appropriate.

I agree. I did not mean to be high gain about "agendas". I know people
(especially me) have agendas and that sometimes these agendas conflict
with a PCT agenda. But I wasn't disputing or defending your list of
agendas at CSG. What I was doing was using a comment Bruce N. made about
disturbances and determining controlled variables as an example of a
misapplication of PCT. My goal was not to embarrass or chide Bruce by
doing this. I just saw it as an opportunity to discuss a concrete
example of what I am currently controlling for with high gain: the
correct application of PCT to real world situations.

I think an important part of correctly applying PCT to real world
situations is describing things correctly. I think it's very possible
that many of the examples of misapplications of PCT that I am thinking
of (including the one I took from Bruce) are simply the result of people
saying things in a way that leads me to think they mean something
different than what they really mean. Much of what I consider to be
"misapplication of PCT" may be nothing more than "misuse of language"
(at least, from my point of view). So this discussion of "misapplication
of PCT" may boil down to being nothing more than a discussion of how
best to verbally _describe_ applications of PCT. But even if the
discussion of "applying PCT" does end up as a lesson in rhetoric, I
think it would be worth it since most of those who apply PCT will know
the model only in terms of how it is verbally described, not in terms of
a working model. And even those who understand PCT as a working model
have said things about the application of PCT that _sound_ quite wrong
to me.

Maybe we can minimize the potential contentiousness of this discussion
if we assume that we all understand PCT and its applications pretty well
but we are just working on figuring out the best way to communicate it
to people who will know it only in terms of words.

Jeff Vancouver (2001.08.14.1200 EST) --

You asked for feedback on your glasses paper.

Thanks very much. Good points. I'll try to incorporate them before I
submit it to the next journal.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

2

[From Bill Powers (2001.08.15.0833 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.08.14.1330)--

I think an important part of correctly applying PCT to real world
situations is describing things correctly. I think it's very possible
that many of the examples of misapplications of PCT that I am thinking
of (including the one I took from Bruce) are simply the result of people
saying things in a way that leads me to think they mean something
different than what they really mean.

My impression is that this is often the case.

... even those who understand PCT as a working model
have said things about the application of PCT that _sound_ quite wrong
to me.

Nothing wrong with saying so. But it would help if you would cite exactly
what sounds wrong, say what you took it to mean, and ask if that was the
meaning the writer intended. I know this slows down communication, but
where disagreements seem to be happening it's probably a good idea to make
sure there _is_ a disagreement before taking any further steps. Believe me,
I'm talking as much to myself as to anyone else.

Another thing that would help would be for people to thicken their skins a
little when it comes to being misinterpreted. Let's eschew cries of "How
could you think I would be so stupid and ignorant as to have meant what you
say you thought I meant?" Just resolve to write even more clearly in the
future.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2001.08.15.0900)]

Me:

... even those who understand PCT as a working model have said things
about the application of PCT that _sound_ quite wrong to me.

Bill Powers (2001.08.15.0833 MDT)--

Nothing wrong with saying so. But it would help if you would cite exactly
what sounds wrong, say what you took it to mean, and ask if that was the
meaning the writer intended.

I will do this from now on. If I forget, please feel free to help me
out. I won't do it for the example I was referring to above (the person
who understands PCT but has said things about the application of PCT
that sound very wrong) because that person doesn't participate in CSGNet
discussions and, thus, can't explain his intended meaning.

Another thing that would help would be for people to thicken their skins a
little when it comes to being misinterpreted. Let's eschew cries of "How
could you think I would be so stupid and ignorant as to have meant what
you say you thought I meant?" Just resolve to write even more clearly in
the future.

A very helpful suggestion, indeed. In my opinion.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com