From Rick Marken (930326.1330)]

I said:

I don't see where Bill, Mary or I (we've been the only participants
in this discussion) have supposed that our goals are the only or the
most important ones. What gave you that impression?

Greg Williams (930326 - 2) replies --

I got the impression from such comments as (paraphrasing here) non-PCT
behavioral scientists and/or pseudo-PCTers don't know what a real
model looks like.

Yes. Thanks Greg. I can see how that would, indeed, sound like what
I would call "arrogance". I know where that sentiment comes from;
it is difficult to make a PCT point (always based on the operation
of a working model) when the opposition just dismisses it with words
(instead of an alternative model). This is particulary exasperating
when dealing with reinforcement theorists; since they have no working
models it is impossible to convince them that their theories (as
stated) don't account for what they observe. But still, I think we
could try to make our point about modelling more diplomatically

So I would like to apologize for any contribution that I might have
made to this perception of arrogance; while I do think it is important
to have working models in order to be able to deal coherently with
the behavior of living systems, non-modellers can certainly make important
and worthwhile contributions to our efforts by observing phenomena and
applying models (I'm thinking of the clinicians here, for example).

Then you aren't arrogant, even though you might sound that way to some
netters. (:>)

Oh, Greg, you sweety. You know I'm an asshole in many ways; but
I'm not an arrogant asshole.

And I'm still waiting for Ken Hacker to point out the hyperbolic claims
of PCT.