Bryan Thalhammer Part II

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.14.1410)]

Bryan, I am truly sorry for the ‘pain’ you have experienced. But you must understand, for your own health, that it is you and not me who is ‘causing’ the pain.

It is you who cannot answer the questions that challenge, what for you, is hopefully a career path.

But herein lies the problem.

I too am interested in ‘PCT’ and I see things a bit differently then you. I don’t see ‘PCT’ accepted by anyone until ‘PCT’ addresses what people are interested in, not what Powers and Marken are.

Second, I put ‘PCT’ in scare quotes because I really don’t have a clue as to what PCT does or does not contain, nor do I know what the theory is supposed to encompass and what its not.

Is cognition the basis for human behavior? I believe it is, so FOR ME, PCT MUST include and describe cognition for it to be a viable theory of human behavior.

Are you and I, or anyone else still talking about the same PCT? I can’t answer that question, can you?

I strongly believe that at the level of the organism, we currently have NO clue as too the effects of control. That is the AGGRAGATE effects, NOT the singular effects.

Are you really convinced that PCT can ‘explain’ human conflict in a way that people can actually utilize in trying to understand how we can all live together?

Do you honestly think Powers and Marken have a clue in hell about the effects control has on interpersonal interactions? I don’t mean interactions among and between specific individual control processes. I’m talking about the AGGREGATE effect of ALL control processes, not only on the individual organism, but how it ultimately plays out between each of us as well.

All I know about PCT is from what I have read from Bill Powers, what others have written, and from phone conversations with Powers.

PCT seems to encompass whatever it is that Powers feels like it should encompass on any given day.

So, since I am interested in a theory of human behavior, and in my theory, it must contain the cognitive elements, MY theory of human behavior, or MY version of PCT must address cognition.

So if PCT is synonymous with human behavior, and I believe it is, MY version will have cognitive elements.

If PCT is not supposed to encompass cognition then I am not doing ‘PCT’.

Last I looked, ‘prediction’ was part of cognition.

What is PCT?

If I am NOT doing PCT, I’ll leave. If I am, then I think I will stay.

regards,

Marc

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.02.14.2215 EST)]

I really don't need your explanation, since I have no pain (seems you are
prompting it, but no need, eh?), I am sorry to tell you. I do have professional
expectations and 4 questions that I will answer in my own time, and after doing
a bit of research for which time does not permit at the present.

Let us participate in negative feedback, and take the gain down, rather than any
positive feedback arms race, eh? Be patient, be polite, and be a professional
mensch (all in the spirit of a recommendation, since I cannot, will not, and
have no time to try to control your actions!) :wink:

Cheers,

--Bryan

···

>From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.14.1410)]

Bryan, I am truly sorry for the 'pain' you have experienced. But you must
understand, for your own health, that it is _you_ and not me who is 'causing'
the pain.

It is _you_ who cannot answer the questions that challenge, what for you, is
hopefully a career path.

But herein lies the problem.

I too am interested in 'PCT' and I see things a bit differently then you. I
don't see 'PCT' accepted by anyone until 'PCT' addresses what people are
interested in, _not_ what Powers and Marken are.

Second, I put 'PCT' in scare quotes because I really don't have a clue as to
what PCT does or does not contain, nor do I know what the theory is supposed
to encompass and what its not.

Is cognition the basis for human behavior? I believe it is, so _FOR ME_, PCT
_MUST_ include and describe cognition for it to be a viable theory of human
behavior.

Are you and I, or anyone else still talking about the same PCT? I can't
answer that question, can you?

I strongly believe that at the level of the organism, we currently have _NO_
clue as too the effects of control. That is the _AGGRAGATE_ effects, _NOT_
the singular effects.

Are you really convinced that PCT can 'explain' human conflict in a way that
people can actually utilize in trying to understand how we can all live
together?

Do you honestly think Powers and Marken have a clue in hell about the
effects control has on interpersonal interactions? I don't mean interactions
among
and between specific individual control processes. I'm talking about the
_AGGREGATE_ effect of _ALL_ control processes, not only on the individual
organism, but how it ultimately plays out between each of us as well.

All I know about PCT is from what I have read from Bill Powers, what others
have written, and from phone conversations with Powers.

PCT seems to encompass whatever it is that Powers feels like it should
encompass on any given day.

So, since I am interested in a theory of human behavior, and in my theory,
it _must_ contain the cognitive elements, _MY_ theory of human behavior, or
_MY_ version of PCT _must_ address cognition.

So _if_ PCT is synonymous with human behavior, and I believe it is, _MY_
version will have cognitive elements.

If PCT is _not_ supposed to encompass cognition then I am _not_ doing 'PCT'.

Last I looked, 'prediction' was part of cognition.

What is PCT?

If I am _NOT_ doing PCT, I'll leave. If I am, then I think I will stay.

regards,

Marc

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

3

From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.15.0342)

As a very dear friend of mine always counsels me, Make sure you define the problem BEFORE you try and solve it.

I think that is counsel you should consider. It is NOT intended as a condemnation, it is an observation, and I’m not sure you can tell the difference at this point.

In a message dated 2/14/2005 10:18:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.02.14.2215 EST)]

I really don’t need your explanation, since I have no pain (seems you are
prompting it, but no need, eh?), I am sorry to tell you.
Why? Do you really believe I take, and get pleasure in seeing others in ANY kind of pain? Do you have any clue as to my medical & military history? I do NOT take pain lightly, and I DON’T like seeing ANYONE in it, NOT even my worst enemy. BUT, when others care little for the pain I experience, any regrets I have about administrating it go out the window. Then I I both don’t like it, but don’t care as well.

You may find that an appalling and ‘anti-Christian’ philosophy, but I’m not Christian, and it has served me well.

I do have professional
expectations and 4 questions that I will answer in my own time, and after doing
a bit of research for which time does not permit at the present.

I wish you luck, and I mean that sincerely. We all have questions. The big one I have for CSGnet; is anyone interested in helping anyone else answer theirs? It doesn’t look like it, and with that EVERYONE loses.

Let us participate in negative feedback, and take the gain down, rather than any
positive feedback arms race, eh?
Please Bryan, save me from the lingo. Speak English. I am who I am and I damn well LIKE who that is, so it seems that you and I will have a very difficult time coming to some agreement on how I should ‘behave’. Why not try and control YOUR ‘gain’. That is the ATTRIBUTIONS you make about me and the assumptions and meanings YOU feel drive your reactions to me.

Your attempts at trying to get me to change sound like you are whining and unable to deal with or have any tolerance for other ways of people doing business.

Be patient, be polite, and be a professional
mensch (all in the spirit of a recommendation, since I cannot, will not, and
have no time to try to control your actions!) :wink:
It seems you and I have different definitions for a number of different words and I’m not certain it has to do solely with the different dictionary’s we each may use.

But we are talking, so maybe there is hope that some tolerance may yet be attained for both of us. I hope that is so.

regards,

Marc