[From Bruce Abbott (990701.2145 EST)]
Rick Marken (990701.1630) --
I didn't blame Bill
for whatever error I experienced; I acted to correct the error
by checking my knowledge and correcting _it_.
If it had been anyone else but Bill, you would have acted to correct the
error by implying that the other person was an idiot who didn't really
understand PCT and was persisting in attempting to apply an inappropriate
S-R analysis.
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (990701.2130)]
Me:
I didn't blame Bill for whatever error I experienced; I acted to
correct the error by checking my knowledge and correcting _it_.
Bruce Abbott (990701.2145 EST) --
If it had been anyone else but Bill, you would have acted to
correct the error by implying that the other person was an
idiot who didn't really understand PCT and was persisting in
attempting to apply an inappropriate S-R analysis.
Actually, I believe that just about a year ago you corrected
me when I went into a big spiel about control of behavior
being illusory. I think that I checked my knowledge (by writing
the interactive control model that became the "control of
behavior" demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html)
and corrected myself when I found (and acknowledged) that you
were right.
But now that you mention it, I can't remember you ever
acknowledging (or correcting) any error on your part. This
must mean that you are right about the merits of reinforcement
theory, conventional psychological research methodology and
open-loop interpretations of egg-rolling behavior. Does that
mean that you are implying that I am an idiot who doesn't
really understand conventional psychology and persists in
attempting to apply an inappropriate PCT analysis? No. Of course
not. Only I do that.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
from [ Marc Abrams (990702.0124) ]
[From Bruce Abbott (990701.2145 EST)]
If it had been anyone else but Bill, you would have acted to correct the
error by implying that the other person was an idiot who didn't really
understand PCT and was persisting in attempting to apply an inappropriate
S-R analysis.
Glad to see you read my posts Bruce. 
Is this your attempt at
"communicating"? Regardless of how much I or anyone else on CSG net ( like a
Rick Marken ) disagree with _some_ of your notions about PCT I think you
have a lot to contribute to this forum. But your no better then Rick or
anyone else when you go _down_ to the level of lashing out rather then
reaching out. I really don't care what you think of me personally, only
that, in this forum, you are willing to communicate with me in a way that
will help me learn. I don't think this post will further _any_ learning by
anyone ( especially Rick ) But then again, let me ask the question. What was
your intent by posting this? I think you would have been much more effective
if you came on with an example or two to show Rick what you mean. I made the
same claim in my last post to Rick, but I suggested it as a _possibility_.
You talk as if it were a fact. I am not saying it isn't a fact. I am saying
that you _speak_ of it as if it were, without any data to back up your
claim.
Marc
from [ Marc Abrams (990702.0200) ]
Look, I am sorry for being a butinski here but have either of you thought
about the fact that each of you _might_ have some valid claims against the
other ( and then again, maybe you don't ), but your refusal to explain
why you say what you do, with _data_ to back up your claims ( references to
old posts will do ), makes this nothing more then a he said/she said type of
BS argument. I thought you guys were scientists. I guess making
unsubstantiated claims is ok as long as the subject is not "scientific".
Marc
[From Rick Marken (990701.2130)]
Me:
> I didn't blame Bill for whatever error I experienced; I acted to
> correct the error by checking my knowledge and correcting _it_.Bruce Abbott (990701.2145 EST) --
> If it had been anyone else but Bill, you would have acted to
> correct the error by implying that the other person was an
> idiot who didn't really understand PCT and was persisting in
> attempting to apply an inappropriate S-R analysis.Actually, I believe that just about a year ago you corrected
me when I went into a big spiel about control of behavior
being illusory. I think that I checked my knowledge (by writing
the interactive control model that became the "control of
behavior" demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html)
and corrected myself when I found (and acknowledged) that you
were right.But now that you mention it, I can't remember you ever
acknowledging (or correcting) any error on your part. This
must mean that you are right about the merits of reinforcement
theory, conventional psychological research methodology and
open-loop interpretations of egg-rolling behavior. Does that
mean that you are implying that I am an idiot who doesn't
really understand conventional psychology and persists in
attempting to apply an inappropriate PCT analysis? No. Of course
not. Only I do that.Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/