You asked for examples in your practice, Rick. You’re the only one of us who has extended permission for this. Let me add myself. If I write something that is disruptive to our good collegial relations I would like to know about it.
Here’s an example, Rick, from our recent discussion of the “About” post for the Phenomena category.
Yes, taken out of context as you have done it is possible to read the first sentence that way. But read together with the immediately following sentence that interpretation is not possible:
To avoid this myopic piecemeal interpretation, I reversed the first two sentences and added “so defined” to make the link between them unignorable:
PCT explains purposeful behavior as control: acting to keep variable aspects of the environment in states which the subject organism prefers. This category is for discussion of the observable phenomena of behavior, so defined.
However, instead of this, in the current state of that discussion I have invited you to substitute your own preferred “About” text, so these changes do not appear there.
Perhaps you can now see that this was not left out.
This ‘shoot from the hip’ style recurs frequently in your CSGnet responses, and persists to some extent even now. My guess is that you are controlling correctness of talk about PCT with gain so high that any disturbance requires an immediate reply to correct it, without any time allowed to perceive the larger context or to consider how matters might be perceived from the other person’s point of view.
The effect of this myopic hair-trigger style on others is not pleasant and does not enhance how you are perceived (reputation, credibility, esteem, etc.).
Actually, my interpretation is even more possible in this case because you don’t say that behavior is control, you say PCT explains behavior as control. Big difference.
No, I still can’t see it. Maybe its my PCT glasses;-)
I want people to know that there is a phenomenon to be explained; the phenomenon is control. And that phenomenon should be described. Your description of control is a mix of explanation and description: “acting to keep variable aspects of the environment in states which the subject organism prefers”.
As description, it should be added these states are aspects of the environment are protected from disturbances by the organism’s actions. It’s explanation when you say that these states are what the organism prefers. To the extent that control has been noticed by conventional psychologists, it has been explained as a caused phenomenon, where external events cause variables (like reinforcements) to be in the state that appears to be the one you prefer (consumed).
I think my suggested change to the description of the Phenomena category does a much better job of making it clear that control is an observable phenommenon and of describing what it is that one can observe:
“Control is an objective phenomenon that is seen when variable aspects of the world – controlled variables or CVs – are maintained in fixed or variable reference states , protected from the effects of disturbances.”
I’ll go with Bill’s evaluation of my ‘shoot from the hip’ style. The quote below is from one of Bill’s CSGNet posts that Dag was nice enough to copy to this thread in his efforts to show that I’m a disruptive character:
[From Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)]
…
I wish that people would examine what preceded the blowups, which was almost always someone trying to push some idea that was really not consistent with PCT – and which Rick , lacking my tact (or the tact that I once thought I had), immediately objected to, quite correctly if not always gently. In reply, Rick was attacked for being a thought policeman, for being closed-minded, for being arrogant in insisting on “PCT purity.” And of course that infuriated him, and Rick infuriated is not the Rick of Teaching Dogma in Psychology. When he is angry Rick pours gasoline on the flames. Or he used to. But I have yet to see a case where he lit the match.[emphasis mine - RM]
I am not in this to be liked; I’m in it to teach PCT. But don’t worry, I’m liked just fine by the people out there – most of whom are apparently not on Discourse – who understand PCT as well (or, at least, in the same way) as I do.
Then that would have been an appropriate critique to have made of the two sentences together. The point of this post is the piecemeal putdown of one sentence at a time, and too often only responding to the bits that you can put down. This has the appearance, as I said, of controlling “making a mistake about PCT” with high gain. High gain results in quick response to slight error, leaving not enough time for higher cognitive functions to consider context, etc.