demographics of PCT

[Martin Taylor 930416 19:00]
(Avery Andrews 930416.1048)

It goes without saying that it's today's young innocent faces who are
the target audience, not established KFT figures.

There is an assumption here that I am not sure is warranted, but is often
made: that older, more established professionals will be more resistant
to PCT than youngsters. But on CSG-L, writers occasionally declare or
otherwise let us know their age and background. Of those I can remember,
most are either at or approaching grandfatherly age, or are students
of PCT-oriented professors. Is this a correct impression? If it is,
then perhaps the people most vulnerable to the seduction of PCT are those
who have spent long enough in their discipline to become dissatisfied,
not those emerging from their graduate studies dazzled by the blinding
truth of what they have been taught.

I don't know if this demographic impression is correct. Does anyone?

Martin

[Avery.Andrews 930417.1926]
(Martin Taylor 930416 19:00)

> Of those I can remember,
>most are either at or approaching grandfatherly age, or are students
>of PCT-oriented professors. Is this a correct impression? If it is,
>then perhaps the people most vulnerable to the seduction of PCT are those
>who have spent long enough in their discipline to become dissatisfied,
>not those emerging from their graduate studies dazzled by the blinding
>truth of what they have been taught.

Hmm. Bruce Nevin and I would be superficial exceptions to this, except in
my case, maybe being Bill's nephew is similar to having a PCT-oriented
professor, plus I have actually been doing linguistics for a fair while,
long enough to be unimpressed with certain aspects of it, and to have seen
a few fads come and go and come again (lexical decomposition, for example).

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au