from [Marc Abrams (2003.11.27.1153)]
[David Goldstein (2003.11.27.1051)]
It is not OK in a setting where we are supposed
to be exploring a set of ideas.
Fair enough and I wish that were true. If we _were_ exploring _ideas_ you
and I would not be having this conversation.
Second, about your attitude.
In my opionion, neither you, or I, are equals with Bill Powers, even
though he treats us like we are. He is a true genius and we are very
forturnate to have him around and willing to discuss PCT with us.
Please speak for yourself. I may not be his equal as a scientist but _I am_
as a person, and I better damn well be treated that way. Second, the only
god I worship does not live on this planet. As I have said _many_ times. I
don't agree with my mom on most things but that doesn't stop the love,
respect, and exchange of ideas and thoughts we share. I do not _idolize_
anyone.
>More than anyone I know, he is willing to listen to different ideas with
an
open mind.
Sure he is. Like the hierarchy, right? I'm afraid you don't know many
people, You see David, for some unknown reason, I am the boogie man. I stay
up late at night devising was of conspiring to 'get' Bill Powers. That is my
mission in life. To destroy him, his model and life. Now, why would I want
to do that? Got me, ask Bill. The second aspect to this is his irrational
fear that if people see holes in the theory they will not want to learn it.
Do you remember this from his post on 11/24;
[From Bill Powers (2003.11.24.2114 MST)]
..."There's a reason, to look at the other side of this, for not spending
too much time talking about general shortcomings of PCT or other theories.
It is all too easy to use this lack of perfection as a reason for not
learning and understanding the theoretical structure as it is. A person can
easily decide that since the theory is incomplete, lacks data, and might
even be false in some regards, there is no point in putting out any serious
effort to understand it (Considering your ambitious efforts to go to school
and learn what you're talking about, you need not fear that this is directed
at you)."
David, you are a psychologist. How can you possibly fix anything if you're
unwilling to discuss it? For some on this list the hierarchy is meaningless.
That is, it doesn't stop you from using PCT and _some_ hierarchal construct
to expalin past events. I sit in a different position. For _my_ work, I
_need_ a _working_ PCT model, period. What do you suggest I do? Ignore it?
Make believe the problems don't exsist? My needs of the HPCT model are not
the same needs Bill Powers, Rick Marken, or David Goldstein have.
I was and _will_ continue to try and get some dialouge going on this matter.
I have made it perfectly clear that I have no firm solutions to these
problems. I _do_ have some ideas. Can't we spend time exploring the validity
of those ideas and other ideas people may have on the subject rather than
trying to demonize the attempt to correct, learn and grow?
Rick Marken is one of the few people on the list who has mastered the
modeling approach that Bill Powers is trying to teach us. Not bad for "a
lapdog."
It's amazing what kind of tricks dog's can learn.
I take it that you want Bill Powers to correct and update
the theory so that it is perfect when you are ready to use it, based on
your reading of what is happening in neuroscience and the biological
sciences.
Huh? Is that what you got from my posts? I suggest you go back and read them
a bit more carefully. I don't _want_ anything from him. If he is so inclined
I would like him to comment on the ideas I present on CSGnet. _NOT_ my
motives. But unfortunately that does not seem to be an option. What I would
like from Bill is a willingness on his part to explore the hierarchy and he
seems to unwilling to do so without getting personally enmeshed. His
response to Bruce Gregory today would have been a very welcome to me. Now,
is Bill willing to talk about his theory and model? I don't think so. He
believes his theory is the correct one and he is not willing to explore
_anything_ that comes close to invalidating what he has done. In this mode
both Bill and Rick are of absolutely no 'use' to me.
Everyone loses here. It's unfortunate, but life is not always so
accomodating.
I emphasized the point of wanting a working model _NOT_ to give me a
'perfect model' to work with but to try and alay any fears that I was _not_
simply trying to destroy the work Bill has done.
No matter how smart you become from your studies,
I'm already smart. I hope to be more _informed_.
if you don't learn to
talk to people in a more respectful way, no body will want to work with
you, or listen to you.
Thanks for the advice David, but I've had a _very_ successful career in
Sales for 25 years and I _always_ show the same amount of respect to others
that I receive from them, in addition, I _always_ show a great deal of
respect in any initial encounter I have with anyone and will continue to do
so provided I receive it back . It's worked quite well for me in my life. As
far as my language is concerned, some like the directness and no nonsense
approach I take, some don't. Again, it's worked well for me and I will
continue to do so. Your objections to my word choices has been noted and I
will endeavor to eliminate those words from future use on this list. I
certainly do not want those words obfuscating my ideas.
I would be surprised if I were the first person
to tell you something like this. You must have heard it before.
Cooperation and competition have to be balanced. In my opinion, you are
way close to the competition side of things.
Interesting. Exactly what am I 'competing' for here? I thought this list was
_ALL_ about cooperation in learning and (should I say this?) understanding
_how_ the HPCT model works. I guess it's not. What is this list for David?
It certainly doesn't seem to be about exploring HPCT.
I hope that we can get past this and return to the reason that we are
all on CSGnet. Namely, we all want to learn about PCT from the person
who created it and from the persons who are actually trying to apply it,
so that we can do the same. Or, maybe in your case, you will be the one
who modernizes the theory when you finish your studies.
Are you really sure your speaking for me and everyone else? I'd be very
careful here. You can't and don't _apply_ PCT. PCT simply_IS_. It's not a
lotion, and it's not something you cannot do. Saying you are 'applying' PCT
is like saying you apply behavior to do something. Second, I am not on this
list to 'learn' Bill's theory. I came back on this list because I am
interested in a working model of HPCT, not his theory. To me, without a
working HPCT model the theory is just another man's opinion on things. Don't
get me wrong here. I think Bill did a wonderful job in putting his theory
together, but now comes the hard part. Developing a working model of it. He
has succeeded in showing and modeling control. He has not yet succeeded in
modeling and showing HPCT. Third, I am _not_ looking to 'modernize' his or
any other persons theory. I would _LOVE_ to be a part of, or a contributor
to the team that ultimately produces a working HPCT model. I will attempt to
do this _WHILE_ I attend to my studies. This modelling attempt will be _my_
contribution to PCT and it's dedicated to Bill and the genius that developed
this theory.
Marc