I have it
is s
The reviewers of this paper will likely become defensive when
they read the paper. How are you going to deal with this?
The sections on common misconcepts could be written as if it were
a test. Each item could consist of two parts, the misconception
and the accurate version. Readers, including reviewers, could be
asked to take the test to see if what they believe comes closer
to the misconception or the accurate version. A scoring key could
be provided. If a reader's beliefs are closer to the
misconceptions, it could be suggested tha
CT-based papers including the
present one and are advised to proceed with caution. Basically,
this section is about people who are against PCT for the wrong
reasons.
I am not sure what you have in mind for the second part of the
paper. Some ideas which occur to me:
(1) People Who Have Adopted PCT But...
I am thinking of William Glasser; Carver & Scheier; IT theorists?
Family Systems Therapists
In these cases, the people have a favorable attitude but have not
completely grasped the message and its implications. This section
is about people who are for PCT but are not quite willing to go
all the way.
(2) People Who Are Gung Ho PCT
This section could be a description of the CSG group. It could
describe the people, their fields and what they are doing with
PCT and why they are attracted to PCT.
(3) PCT Analysis Of Why Reviewers Oppose PCT And PCT Solution To
The Situation
The purpose of the paper is to draw awareness to the issues
involved in fairly dealing with a theory which is fundamentally
different than the current ones which will lead to
reorganization.
ยทยทยท
To: Bill Powers, others on CSG-L
From: David Goldstein
Subject: draft 2 of paper
Date: 05-07-93