[From Dag Forssell (970416. 1400]
[Richard Kennaway (970415.1650 BST)]
You make it plain that the dialog on CSGnet is not in vain. As you know,
some posts are written for lurkers. Good to have you on board.
...My attitude to PCT might be summarised as "starry-eyed lay convert"
(the last sort of person you want proselytizing for you, so I try not to).
I have no background in psychology.
As a "starry-eyed lay convert" myself, I think that is the best kind -- what
PCT needs to become accepted. I think people without a background in
psychology find it much easier to understand and accept PCT, since they
don't have anything to unlearn; no deeply held beliefs to battle. So I
disagree with you, we would want you to proselytize. You want to anyway, you
can't help it, right? Sounds like your project is a good place to start.
On the difficult subject of proselytizing, I am presently mulling three
essays and will solicit comments by spelling it out here:
1) Preface to Bill's upcoming book that makes the point that while we all
learn from experience, we get further with good explanations.
2) Essay on history of sciences. Few people are aware (I believe) of Thomas
S. Kuhn's perspective on scientific revolutions. If a person views sciences
as the continuous accumulation of data and explanations, with new insight
always building on old, the suggestion that PCT offers something truly new
and upsetting is preposterous and gets rejected out of hand. If a person has
read and understood Kuhn, the idea of something that upsets the applecart
and the collected wisdom of 100,000 life scientists becomes believable and
exciting.
3) Essay and lecture with a personal HPCT perspective on human growth and
development, including a discussion of belief and knowledge. This would tie
in with 2).
Anyhow, I think us lay people can make a very important contribution to the
ultimate adoption of PCT thinking.
and topic B:
It's incomplete, in that I repeat critical remarks I've seen on CSGNET
about 20% correlations being published as meaningful results, but I'm
just taking that on trust without any actual references. Can anyone
suggest any? The library here doesn't get JEAB, so I can't browse
through it, and I've no experience in reading such material.
The study is cited in Phil Runkel's book _Casting Nets and Testing
Specimens_ (You *have* read that, haven't you? It deals with the proper use
of statistics.) page 82: Daniel J. Brown _Mirror, Mirror.... Down with the
Linear Model_ American Education and Research Journal Fall 1975, Vol 12, No
4, Pp 491-505.
The mean correlation in the articles was 27.
Gary Cziko sent me a photocopy three years ago. If you provide a fax number
I will be happy to fax, I can also mail a copy if you provide a complete
mailing address.
Starry-eyed lay converts of the world, Unite!
Best, Dag