Co-opting PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

From Rick Marken (2006.11.07.2200)]

Bill Powers (2006.11.07.0750 MST)--

Richard Pfau (2006.11.07) --

The approach seems quite compatible with and complementary to Locke and Latham's findings and preachings concerning relationships between clear specific goals and improved performance in work situations.�

You might try writing to Locke and Latham about this. Both my wife Mary and I� tried for at least four years to communicate with Locke� (as well as Bandura), but he was violently against my work and that of anyone else who used it. When Mary asked Locke f he had read my book, Behavior: the control of perception, he said he didn't need to, since the title itself was "incorrect."

I thought I'd warn you that if you have some idea of bringing the two views together you might run into some unexpected opposition.

These were my thoughts as well when I saw Richard Pfau's comments on Locke. As I recall, Locke was always actively hostile to PCT. He never based his work on PCT, right?

But while we're on the topic (sort of) I wonder if any of you out there could add to my list of people who have "co-opted" PCT, in the sense that they have explicitly said that there work is based on Powers PCT model of behavior but they do things, such as research based on statistical analysis of standard IV- DV experiments using multiple subjects, that betrays the fact that there are still thinking in terms of the standard open loop model of conventional psychology. The names the "co-opters" that I can thing of are

Carver
Scheier

and that's it. There must be others, like students of Carver and Scheier, who I can add to the list. I'd appreciate it, Bill, if you or anyone else listening in could help me out on this. Please add some names -- and references -- to the list of PCT Co-Opters if you can.

Thanks

Best

Rick

PS. I spent the last 15 straight hours as a poll worker here in my precinct. It's a heck of a price to pay for democracy. It would have been worth it if we had won the House and Senate. But we'll probably only get the House so I'm a little down. Boy, would I love to see that sorry ass of a President of ours impeached. But we'd have to impeach both the President and Vice President to do any good. But once we got rid of their sorry, greedy asses we'd have one of our own next in line -- a babe and a smart one to boot.

···

----
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

2

Hello Rick,
Robin Vallacher and Daniel Wegner are two others who have 'co-opted' PCT
without giving proper credit.
David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:01 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Co-opting PCT

From Rick Marken (2006.11.07.2200)]

Bill Powers (2006.11.07.0750 MST)--

Richard Pfau (2006.11.07) --

The approach seems quite compatible with and complementary to Locke
and Latham's findings and preachings concerning relationships between

clear specific goals and improved performance in work situations.�

You might try writing to Locke and Latham about this. Both my wife
Mary and I� tried for at least four years to communicate with Locke�
(as well as Bandura), but he was violently against my work and that of

anyone else who used it. When Mary asked Locke f he had read my book,
Behavior: the control of perception, he said he didn't need to, since
the title itself was "incorrect."

I thought I'd warn you that if you have some idea of bringing the two
views together you might run into some unexpected opposition.

These were my thoughts as well when I saw Richard Pfau's comments on
Locke. As I recall, Locke was always actively hostile to PCT. He never
based his work on PCT, right?

But while we're on the topic (sort of) I wonder if any of you out there
could add to my list of people who have "co-opted" PCT, in the sense
that they have explicitly said that there work is based on Powers PCT
model of behavior but they do things, such as research based on
statistical analysis of standard IV- DV experiments using multiple
subjects, that betrays the fact that there are still thinking in terms
of the standard open loop model of conventional psychology. The names
the "co-opters" that I can thing of are

Carver
Scheier

and that's it. There must be others, like students of Carver and
Scheier, who I can add to the list. I'd appreciate it, Bill, if you or
anyone else listening in could help me out on this. Please add some
names -- and references -- to the list of PCT Co-Opters if you can.

Thanks

Best

Rick

PS. I spent the last 15 straight hours as a poll worker here in my
precinct. It's a heck of a price to pay for democracy. It would have
been worth it if we had won the House and Senate. But we'll probably
only get the House so I'm a little down. Boy, would I love to see that
sorry ass of a President of ours impeached. But we'd have to impeach
both the President and Vice President to do any good. But once we got
rid of their sorry, greedy asses we'd have one of our own next in line
-- a babe and a smart one to boot.

----
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date:
11/7/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date:
11/7/2006

3

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.08.0730)]

Hi David

Hello Rick,
Robin Vallacher and Daniel Wegner are two others who have 'co-opted' PCT
without giving proper credit.
David

Thanks. But I'm not really looking for people who use PCT without giving proper credit (in fact I don't think such a beast exists because if people actually "got" PCT they would know they had something on their hands that was completely inconsistent with conventional psychology and they would have as much trouble promulgating their ideas as Bill has).

I'm looking for people, like Carver and Scheier, who explicitly say they are working on PCT, as described by Powers in B:CP, but who clearly don't understand or actually use PCT. Carver and Scheier are the prime examples of what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering of there are any others. There way not be.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

4

[From Fred Nickols (2006.11.08.1053 EST)] --

What about William Glasser?

···

Rick Marken (2006.11.08.0730)]

Hi David

> Hello Rick,
> Robin Vallacher and Daniel Wegner are two others who have 'co-opted'
> PCT
> without giving proper credit.
> David

Thanks. But I'm not really looking for people who use PCT without
giving proper credit (in fact I don't think such a beast exists because
if people actually "got" PCT they would know they had something on
their hands that was completely inconsistent with conventional
psychology and they would have as much trouble promulgating their ideas
as Bill has).

I'm looking for people, like Carver and Scheier, who explicitly say
they are working on PCT, as described by Powers in B:CP, but who
clearly don't understand or actually use PCT. Carver and Scheier are
the prime examples of what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering of
there are any others. There way not be.

5

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.08.0810)]

[From Fred Nickols (2006.11.08.1053 EST)] --

What about William Glasser?

He's not a researcher. I'm looking for people who claim to do research based on PCT.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400