[From Rick Marken (931019.0900)]
Greg Williams (931019) --
Did you avail yourself of this splendid
opportunity for bridge building to attempt to find out what they mean?
Well, I see Tom Bourbon already got to this. He said it all much
better than I could -- and with a lot more cool. All I can say
is: Didn't you read the the posts from Wickens and Lintern!?!? Did
you see ANY evidence of an interest in bridge building on their part?
Come on.
Also, bridges aren't built until they are built; people who want
to build them keep working on them. Haven't you noticed what happens
to those to whom you would have us build bridges -- they DISAPPEAR.
Where is Wickins' answer to Powers' explanation of why error is NOT
the cause of action? Where are the descriptions of examples of the
test for controlled variables -- a test that is presumably well
understood by manual control theorists?
I imagine that you would say that these people duck out of the bridge
building activities because those of us on the PCT side are so rigid
and uncompromising; or because we are just plain assholes. Well,
fine, there are some nice, non-asshole bridge builders out there;
Carver, Scheier, Locke, Karoly, Hyland, etc. Let them build the
bridge (just don't ask me to walk across it when it's done).
As ever,
Hope springs eternal.
Believe me, the people like those at the HF meeting don't want to build
bridges to PCT because they see it as too simple minded, ignoring all
the important new "discoveries" (like chaotic attractors), and way
out of date. They know this becuase we use simple little models to
make simple little points. Of course, if they bothered to try to
understand these simple little points they would realize that all
their complex theories and data are useless (as in "Useless Bay").
There was a bridge over "Deception Pass" -- it took you into OR
out of "Useless Bay" (depending on which way you went over it).
So maybe there already is a bridge between PCT and conventional
psychology; the problem is which way you cross. At the HF meeting
there was a mass migration into "Useless Bay"; I was heading the
other way -- waving as I headed off to "Understanding Peak".
Martin Taylor (931018 17:00) --
In
"language-in-use" contrast involves the perception of the partner's
momentary state, as it affects the specific misunderstandings that might
be caused by language actions.
So there is no contrast between the "p" and "b" sounds in "spin" and
"bin" until I perceive something about the "momentary state" of the
person to whom I am speaking these words?
If this is what was meant by "contrast" all along, why didn't someone
mention it?
Best
Rick