Blues, 2 (%)

From Greg Williams (920727-2)

Rick Marken (920727.1000)

My prescription: ignore the "wrongs" and concentrate on
publicizing the "right." In particular, I suggest showing how PCT can
explain numerous empirical findings already in the literature. That should
keep PCTers too busy to be depressed.

I would be happy to do this. But what I have discovered (recently) is that
most (say 90%+) of these empirical findings are of such LOW QUALITY
(being statistical results -- the highest degree of relationship I found
while perusing published studies was .90; not bad, but still not good
enough for doing modeling) that they are really NOT RESULTS.

I would be surprised if high quality results amount to as much as 2% of the
total.

An unfortunate implication of PCT
is that there are almost NO empirical findings of any use to the PCT
modeller in the current, standard psychological literature. PCTers may
not have collected hugh amounts of research data in big research projects
but I've looked through a lot of journals lately and unless one considers
noisy statistical results to be data, conventional psych ain't got much
data either.

Still, the good 2% (or maybe more) would keep PCTers busy for a long time in
ways which could be perceived as relevant by non-PCT psychologists. In fact,
there's more than enough to keep PCTers busy for a long time just in the sub-
sub-sub-field of limb trajectories!

Greg