[From Dag Forssell (991119 1345)]
I have been watching with increasing horror the current replay of the
coercion "debate" from the spring of 1998. My error signals are getting
huge. My stomach turns. I guess it is called anger. Friends, you may win
the semantic battle of the choice word, but you sure are losing the war.
There has never been a debate about coercion and RTP on CSGnet. Ed Ford and
Tom Bourbon have not been reading CSGnet for some years. I don't know why
Tom dropped out at the time, but I can understand some of the reason why Ed
signed off. I remember seemingly countless times when Rick without
provocation (and despite pleas to stop this practice) would bring up an
example to illustrate PCT where he would find reason to innocently and
deliciously mention the Pope, Ed Ford, ignorant and ridiculous in the same
sentence. These are all in the GSGnet record, so Rick's legacy in this
regard is secure. As I reflect on this arrogant ad-hominem nonsense, I find
myself agreeing with Bruce Gregory's assessment of perhaps a year ago that
Rick may be the worst feature of CSGnet. With friends like Rick Marken, PCT
hardly needs enemies, although Bill is no slouch when he gets going in the
wrong direction. The coercion "debate" was and appears to still be a
one-sided shouting match where the absence of response and Rick's and
Bill's integrating output functions cause them to escalate their
simplistic, black and white rhetoric. Bill's recent post (991115.1115 MDT)
was a most welcome exception, but much damage is already done.
Bill and Rick lack data about how the RTP program is being implemented, but
that does not preclude cock-sure nitpicking of statements deprived of
context and use of language that questions the integrity and self-respect
of long-time friends. Bill and Rick have no knowledge of what deliberations
are going on in the RTP camp on issues of wording, including the choice
word, (deliberations going back well before the "debate" of spring 1998),
so I guess they assume that there are none.
In Vancouver 1998, Tom made a clear statement about the very unscientific
and offensive nature of the coercion "debate" and I know that Rick
committed to withholding further comment on RTP until he knew what he was
talking about. Rick's committment did not last very long. Snide remarks
soon reappeared on CSGnet. I now question in my own mind the validity of
having any theoretician passing judgement on any application program unless
the theoretician first lives with the application the way Tom has lived
with RTP.
One thing that strikes me is that systems concepts formed regarding various
issues change slowly or never. Another is that the systems concepts we
develop in our own heads become our personal truths, and we accept our
personal truth as the only right one. Bill seems to be basing his
evaluation of what he reads and imagines about RTP on his own childhood
experiences -- they define the way schools are and how teachers behave
everywhere and forever. How could it be otherwise? This has little to do
with PCT and does no favors for either Bill or RTP. Over the years, Rick
has made a habit of using his political views as examples of what one can
deduce from PCT, but PCT is not about political convictions, on the left or
on the right, nor about anyone's personal but oh-so-subjective truths.
Rick (991116.0810) notes
... since Ed and Tom won't attend CSG meetings anymore or list the CSG web
site at the RTP web site) why not tell Ed and Tom?
Rick, if you were to develop an educational program, write an intro to PCT
or lecture on PCT, would you refer your students to CSG the way it is now?
Seriously!
I believe there are others who long ago tired of the toxic atmosphere
surrounding a genuinely arrogant (PCT theory says that it does not matter
how nasty I write, you are the one interpreting my words and making
yourself feel bad) Rick Marken and keep their distance. Marc Abrams
recently posted part of an old exchange where Rick cut up Michael Fehling
when he made a perfectly accurate deduction based on his understanding of
PCT. We never heard from Michael again.
There are many people who are in awe of PCT and are working to apply it or
spread insight about its elegance and power, each in their own way, at
their own pace and given their own ability. I think the current nitpicking
"debate" is highly counterproductive, draining energies and creating anger
and enemies.
CSGnet has been a wonderful forum for questions and answers since its
inception in August 1990. There is a vast collection of jewels from many
contributors to mine and Marc Abrams is currently laboring to organize the
posts so they will be even more accessible than straight text. Many of the
questions being asked and debates raging have been covered before. I
believe it would do no great harm if Bill and Rick were to limit their
participation to real PCT questions for a while, questions such as Phil's
recent one about gain.
I think it would be wonderful if Bill buckled down to write that book on
modeling, supporting the modeling group and future modelers -- that would
get PCT research going, while Rick might buckle down to write his own PCT
intro and create his own application of PCT so he could discover how easy
it is to design a perfect one. 
For my part I will lurk again and buckle down to set up my version of a PCT
reference site, then take another stab at promoting PCT to engineers and
managers. I will not invite either Bill or Rick to evaluate my program when
I get it going (I already know what Bill thinks about those nasty managers
:). By now, it should be obvious that we are all independent perceptual
control systems, doing our own thing. The foundation for PCT as a solid
science has been laid and countless future thinkers and researchers will
make sure that PCT develops in a scientifically rigorous way, keeping any
and all applications on the straight and narrow.
Meanwhile, I will continue to attend and video tape every PCT event in
sight. Stand by for order forms for 1999 CSG video tapes within two weeks.
Best to all,
Dag
Dag Forssell
dag@forssell.com, www.forssell.com
23903 Via Flamenco, Valencia CA 91355-2808 USA
Tel: +1 661 254 1195 Fax: +1 661 254 7956