From [Marc Abrams (971215.0934)]
To Mark Lazare:
Thanks for the thoughtful posts.
In reponse to Rick:
[From Rick Marken (971214.1120)]
I think a PCT dictionary is a fine idea (although there are
glossaries already -- one in B:CP and another at the end
of the ABS "Purposeful Behavior" issue) --
True, except, everyone who comes on-line doesn't necessarily have or want
either publication. If CSG net is a first exposure to PCT ( and I think to
alot of people it is) the terms and language should be as unequivocal as
possible.
I just don't think such a dictionary will eliminate the arguments about PCT.
I don't think they will either. The purpose of the dictionary is not (imho)
to _dictate_ definitions. It is to represent the meanings of words and
terms _within the context_ of the theory (PCT) _period_ no other reason.
_Within_ PCT certain words and phrases have _certain_ meanings. If one is
going to understand PCT you must understand those words and phrases within
the context of the theory of PCT.
Mark Lazare said:
A PCT Dictionary would be great if it also offered rebuttals
to common misperceptions.
Ricks response:
Yes. But from the point of view of those who have these
"misperceptions", they are not misperceptions. They are
reputations and careers. So these "misperceptions" are defended
with great skill and zeal. There's not much we can do to get
these people to change their own internal organization --
Although I don't think it was, and is, intended by you, this statement
comes off as being very "righteous". Yes, people defend positions to
protect existing situations and beliefs, but thats not always done to the
_exclusion_ of their perceived truth People do and will disagree with the
theory (PCT). Some people still "believe" in a flat earth. It doesn't make
them the "enemy" or "evil".
PCT "shows" _very_ clearly that people _buy_, they are not _sold_. People
who believe they are capable of _selling_ something to someone who is not
interested in what is being sold is largely delusional 
and illusionary
:-).
.
I think a much bigger reason for the lack of "acceptance" of PCT is that it
just really doesn't _matter_ enough to most people. It does not matter
because most people have no problem either functioning or explaining their
fuctioning in terms of their _current_ set of beliefs. Wether those beliefs
include religous, mystical or magical properties is _besides_ the point.
They _BELIEVE_ and only they can _UNBELIEVE_ and REBELIEVE in something
else ( did someone say PCT :-))
Later,
Marc
[From Rick Marken (971215.1230)]
Marc Abrams (971215.0934)
People do and will disagree with the theory (PCT). Some people
still "believe" in a flat earth. It doesn't make them the "enemy"
or "evil".
It certainly doesn't make them evil. But it's hard for me not to
see some of those who disagree with PCT as "enemies". I have seen
commentaries by well-known psychologists that are basically hatchet
jobs on PCT -- the authors of such tracts never give a correct
description of the PCT model or the data on which it is based. I'm
sure the people who write such commentaries are not evil; they are
probably wonderful parents, dutiful children and responsible citizens.
But they are unquestionably acting (I suspect intentionally) to
prevent their peers from giving serious attention to PCT. Most of
what I have seen seems like it was written as reassurance to peers
that there is nothing new of threatening about PCT; that PCT was
already rejected 30 years ago; that PCT can't explain this or that.
I don't know why psychologists are so actively hostile to PCT. But
the level of hostility I've seen toward PCT strikes me as being
far more intense than the level of hostility I've seen toward any
other psychological theory. If you look through introductory psychology
texts you will see discussions of behavioristic theories sitting
comfortably beside discussions of cognitive and Freudian and other
theories. But you will be hard pressed to find _any_ discussion of PCT
(Tom Bourbon managed to publish a page about PCT in a 1981 or 1982
edition of Zimbardo's intro text but I haven't seen anything
about _control of perception_ in a well-known psychology text
since then).
I think B:CP was recognized as a competent and serious attempt to
develop a _comprehensive_ theory of behavior when it came out (1973).
Yet there has been virtually no mention of the theory (what we
now call PCT) in any psych textbooks since 1973; there has been
very little research based on that theory since 1973. I don't think
any other major psychological theory developed since 1973 has been
blessed with this level of neglect. This suggests to me that PCT
has enemies in the psychological community. But maybe I'm just
paranoid.
I think a much bigger reason for the lack of "acceptance" of PCT
is that it just really doesn't _matter_ enough to most people.
I agree that most people don't care about PCT or any other theory
of behavior, for that matter. But I am only interested in people
who _are_ self-acknowledged students of behavior: psychologists,
ethologists, economists, etc. It is lack of acceptance (indeed,
lack of even serious _consideration_) of PCT by these people that
I find interesting (and, of course, somewhat frustrating).
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
and illusionary