From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.05.19.2152 )
Bill, I’m baffled. I decided to go public with this post because this is consistent with my attempt to be open and forthright. I realize that some may feel uncomfortable with this but I get to sleep better at night so I do it. I have gone back over my posts of the last two days and I am having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to say and what is bothering you. Any attempt I make to point out to you your inconsistency’s is met with outrage. As if I were trying to show you up, or embarrass you. Do you feel that is the case? If so, can you please point me to the passages in my posts that led you to those beliefs? You have claimed I don’t understand PCT. Your certainly entitled to your opinion. I believe otherwise. Can you please point out to me what I don’t understand? Can you please be specific in what you feel I don’t know. You claim I only have 1 of the 4 necessary “qualifications” to understand PCT. That is desire. What are the other 3, and what do I have to know about them to understand PCT?
You mentioned the George Richardson, Jay Forrester, and Bob Eberlein today and your meeting with them. You didn’t happen to mention who set that meeting up. Who spoke to George and arranged for the meet? Yes, George knew you from his book Feedback thought in Social Systems. But I thought it might be a good idea for you to meet Jay. Second, I don’t think you have you ever spoken to George at length and asked him what he thought you needed to do to get better known in the SD community? I did. Third, you mentioned in your post why you thought SD people were not interested. Check my dreams post earlier in the day. I gave an account of how I felt PCT could help inform SD. Your post did not acknowledge that passage in the your post. You restated something I said ( about the external reference condition ) and commented on why they would not be interested. Except for George Richardson of course. You are badly mistaken, on all counts. You wonder why they don’t get it. You think you know why they don’t get it. In fact you are so sure, it’s a fact. You don’t need to test that belief. It is self sealing. Don’t you see this kind of thinking is putting you into a hopeless situation? You could be right. But you could also be wrong. You could also be partially right. How would you know? You make generalizations about “famous” people and it’s sealed. How did I get a meeting with a “famous” person for you? Because George Richardson loves your theory. He is much less enthusiastic about the path you have taken with your research. I have talked To George about what it would take to turn some heads. I was hoping that Eberlein, when I brought him on to CSGnet, that he and you would be able to work together in developing a couple of working SD models. Things did not work out. Ok, you can’t “win” 'em all. But I know that if I can produce a model that George and I discussed ( and I believe it is possible, I don’t know if I can do it ) SD and Systems thinking people will take notice. I consider all these SD modelers potential researchers. Every time they build a model that includes people, PCT would be an important part of it.
Argyris is another story. What’s with the “rivalry”? Where do you see the competition? Your statement earlier today with;
Since Argyris’ basic
ideas have been in use unchanged for so many years, I don’t have much hope
of persuading him to reconsider the whole thing in the light of PCT.
You can make that statement about any highly educated or skilled individual. Just pick a name instead of Argyris and leave the rest of the statement intact.
Why does he need to reconsider the “whole” thing? What does PCT tell us about Action Science that he needs to reconsider? I know a few right of the bat, but it hardly means his having to reconsider the whole thing. If you have no interest in this fine. Don’t try and discredit me,because of my interest. Your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about both my lack of understanding of PCT and general education is troubling. I’m not offended. I really don’t care what you think. What I do care about is learning and If you have something to say to me say it to my face. I’m a big boy. Not knowing PCT is not real high on my list to commit suicide over. I’m not much interested in talking past one another anymore. I’m trying to make an effort not to. I would like to see you make the same attempt. As with Rick, my flaming days are over. You want to talk, it’s got to be a two way conversation. I’m no longer interested in hearing you from the top of a soap box. You can continue to bash me, and try to discredit me, but I could care less. I would much prefer a cordial relationship with you. If I can’t have one, I’ll manage to survive. The ball’s in your court. Your serve.
(Attachment Blank Bkgrd25.gif is missing)