Debate with Locke?

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.23.2200)]

To Bill Powers:

I was going over some old files and discovered your letter to the editor (of
_American Psychologist_ I believe) regarding Locke and Latham's article
entitled "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation". In that letter you said: "I will participate in an orderly
discussion of the issues if Locke will, in a forum that gives us both fair
scope to make our cases. I will not sit by in silence while my life�s work is
put in disrepute for no better reason than ignorance. Perhaps the editor of
this journal could find a way to organize a proper discussion of these
matters". I wonder whether you actually sent the letter and, if so, whether
the editor replied.

On a related note, the _Journal of Applied Psychology_ issue with the Bandura
and Locke article criticizing control theory is now in the RAND library and I
copied it this afternoon. It still contains the quotes from your papers that
are mis-arranged so as to give the impression that PCT is nothing more than
radical behaviorism. It's like a terrorist attack on PCT. Then I noticed
that Bandura is at Stanford, which is where Lise will be starting in the
graduate PhD program in Communications/Media this Fall. Since this means that
I will be up a Stanford as much as I can over the next four years I was
wondering if you would like me to prepare a pre-emptive strike (using my
access to some F-15C simulators) to eliminate Bandura's WMD (Words of Mind-
boggling Dumbness). I'm sure I can get Jeff Vancouver (sounds British to me)
to join me in a coalition of the willful.

Best regards

Rick

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.24.0950)]

Bill Powers (2003.04.24.0916 MDT)--

I received a letter from the editor of American Psychologist, Denise Park,
offering to consider a reply to the (much-toned-down) Locke and Latham
article. I will be concocting the reply any day now (the letter is under my
keyboard so I see it every time I sit down at the computer).

Great. I look forward to seeing it.

As to the Applied Psychology article, I considered Jeff Vancouver's reply
to be sufficient. The advance of science, it has been said, is just a
matter of waiting for the right funerals.

Yes. I thought Jeff's reply was great and I look forward to seeing it in JAP.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.24.0916 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.23.2200) --

>I was going over some old files and discovered your letter to the editor (of

_American Psychologist_ I believe) regarding Locke and Latham's article
entitled "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation".

I received a letter from the editor of American Psychologist, Denise Park,
offering to consider a reply to the (much-toned-down) Locke and Latham
article. I will be concocting the reply any day now (the letter is under my
keyboard so I see it every time I sit down at the computer).

As to the Applied Psychology article, I considered Jeff Vancouver's reply
to be sufficient. The advance of science, it has been said, is just a
matter of waiting for the right funerals.

Best,

Bill P.