Enjoyed your response

CSGnet Archive CSG2012
1

Hi, Jim --

JM; Better to have believed and hoped than to have never believed at all.
My hats off to you and hoping for your Utopia to appear.
I suppose my years of working with the people from wealth and opportunity
just made me more leary of mans ability to every willingly seek fairness,
for all.

Not seeking fairness for all just shows that your analysis of the situation is inadequate . If you reason only in terms of what is in your immediate self-interest, you fail to see that your self-interest depends crucially on living in a system where you're not competing with others who don't care about you any more than you care about them. If the rising tide doesn't actually lift all boats equally, then you'll find swimmers boring holes in your hull when you rise too far. The rich people I have known spend a great deal of their time worrying about all the other people (inside and outside governments) who are trying to take their riches away. The very things they enjoy about being rich, which are mainly the things they do to demonstrate how far they are from being poor, advertise their wealth and they know it. They have to live in fortresses behind gates with guards and armor their cars. They are very fearful people, never feeling safe and secure except behind the castle walls. If you have had much contact with such people, you must have noticed that.

Self-interest lies in living among prosperous happy people who pursue their own intellectul and emotional interests while respectfully avoiding stepping on other people's toes, including yours. Mutual support instead of competition. So it's in everyone's self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

This doesn't sound like a terribly difficult or complicated message to get across. All that's needed is a good therapist who will help you figure all that out for yourself, so you'll believe it.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 09:06 AM 2/1/2012 -0600, jimandmaryjo wrote:

2

[Avery Anndrews 2 Feb 2012 2PM Eastern Oz DST]

OMG, so this was your response to Toad Hall! (just a joke ... We weren't actually rich

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012 1:54 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Enjoyed your response

Hi, Jim --

At 09:06 AM 2/1/2012 -0600, jimandmaryjo wrote:

JM; Better to have believed and hoped than to have never believed at all.
My hats off to you and hoping for your Utopia to appear.
I suppose my years of working with the people from wealth and
opportunity just made me more leary of mans ability to every willingly
seek fairness, for all.

Not seeking fairness for all just shows that your analysis of the situation is inadequate . If you reason only in terms of what is in your immediate self-interest, you fail to see that your self-interest depends crucially on living in a system where you're not competing with others who don't care about you any more than you care about them. If the rising tide doesn't actually lift all boats equally, then you'll find swimmers boring holes in your hull when you rise too far. The rich people I have known spend a great deal of their time worrying about all the other people (inside and outside governments) who are trying to take their riches away. The very things they enjoy about being rich, which are mainly the things they do to demonstrate how far they are from being poor, advertise their wealth and they know it. They have to live in fortresses behind gates with guards and armor their cars. They are very fearful people, never feeling safe and secure except behind the castle walls. If you have had much contact with such people, you must have noticed that.

Self-interest lies in living among prosperous happy people who pursue their own intellectul and emotional interests while respectfully avoiding stepping on other people's toes, including yours. Mutual support instead of competition. So it's in everyone's self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

This doesn't sound like a terribly difficult or complicated message to get across. All that's needed is a good therapist who will help you figure all that out for yourself, so you'll believe it.

Best,

Bill P.

3

Not compared with the rich people in Hinsdale, Illinois where I grew up. Many of my classmates had the names of furniture-store chains and financial institutions and went to my high school because they had been kicked out of better schools. I recall a Boy-Scout trip to Mr. Kettering's house on the east side of Hinsdale, where we were taken into the enormous basement and shown about an acre of electric-train layout, which we were told not to touch while Mr. Kettering ran it. He just wanted us to know he had it. What's the point of being rich if nobody envies you? We made him very happy because most of us lived way over on the other side of Hinsdale and didn't have electric trains. This was in the 1930s.

Hope all is well with you, Nephew. Be sure to let me know the next time you're in the States.

Bill

···

At 02:08 PM 2/3/2012 +1100, you wrote:

[Avery Anndrews 2 Feb 2012 2PM Eastern Oz DST]

OMG, so this was your response to Toad Hall! (just a joke ... We weren't actually rich

4

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.02.2030)]

Self-interest lies in living among prosperous happy people who pursue their own intellectul and emotional interests while respectfully avoiding stepping on other people’s toes, including yours. Mutual support instead of competition.

This is the way I have always felt, even well before control theory. It just seems so obvious to me. And control theory just seals it. Mutual support, not competition. That’s the social message of PCT, as far as I’m concerned. Beautifully articulated, as usual, Bill.

So it’s in everyone’s self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

Works for me. Thanks.

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

5

Hi Richard,

Bill :

So it’s in everyone’s self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

Rick :

Works for me. Thanks

Boris :

Is this a joke Rick ? If I didin’t understand something wrong, and considering what I can see is happening on CSGnet, you are one of the most conflicting persons on the CSGnet (including me :)))).

Could you make a “PCT analysis” of your relationship with Gavin Ritz, Bruce Gregory, Martin L, me… ? As I perceived, what happened in the past, you didn’t try only to “avoid” colliding with others, you tried to “elimimnate” or “remove” those who thought differently from CSGnet. If you try to keep good relationship with people, you need more than words and preparedness to be what you want to be. You need acts that will bring also others perception near their references. There’s still much work to be done. And it seems to me, you are not closing to a goal “be kind to all people or help all people”.

And if I see right, Bill wrote “everyone else gets what they want…”. The focus is on EVERYONE. That’s realy hard to achieve only with dreaming…:). We need appropriate acts and perceptual evidence…

I think Bill is right in every word he said. We can say that this is a Theory. But how that will be achieved in practice, that’s another problem. Because people are LCS (Living control systems) and they act goal-oriented to control their perception near their references, mostly regardless to others (mostly only when they need them). 24 hours a day people have to maintain their physiological dinymical stability in varying environment. So I think that deep in their nature people are egoistic creatures, who are mostly cooperative only when their better stability is concerned. They have to keep their integrity and identity in not quite “kind circumstances” on Earth or Universe. And that’s what we can see probably also in economy.

So I think if we know PCT, it’s not difficult to predict what people will do (on general). Maybe the case with Lehman Brothers will help.

There are differences among Living control systems how they will act to control and we can be sometimes surprised. But mostly they act as PCT theory predicts.

Maybe the standing point of Adam Matić is good. People as PCT agents do act as “Crusoe” on the Island maintaining only his “esential variables” in the appropriate limits. That’s how Ashby made his analysis of human behavior.

So if I understood Adam Matić right, the question is : how will all people act if we imagine them interacting as mutliple “Crusoes”… They will probably try to maintain their “essential variables” in genetically predicted limits, following their goals, or “time-scheduling” or whatever, what probably on general depends from varying values in “essential variables” ? They will probably conflict and cooperate in order to maintain their stability and consequently wished evironmental stability.

In order not to discover “hot water” or “America” again I would suggest works of Bill and Kent McClelland. As far as I know, wanted “economical” model could be described with help of Bill’s and Kent’s model of human interaction in common environment. Speccially Kent provided a good basis for analysis of simultaneously varying values in interacting PCT agents (experiments with mouse). Maybe it’s enough to put some other problems (goals) in diagrams and maybe it will work.

Best,

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Richard Marken

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 5:33 AM

Subject: Re: Enjoyed your response

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.02.2030)]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net > wrote:

Self-interest lies in living among prosperous happy people who pursue their own intellectul and emotional interests while respectfully avoiding stepping on other people's toes, including yours. Mutual support instead of competition.

This is the way I have always felt, even well before control theory. It just seems so obvious to me. And control theory just seals it. Mutual support, not competition. That’s the social message of PCT, as far as I’m concerned. Beautifully articulated, as usual, Bill.

So it's in everyone's self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

Works for me. Thanks.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.04.0945)]

BP: So it’s in everyone’s self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

RM: Works for me. Thanks

BH: Is this a joke Rick ? If I didin’t understand something wrong, and considering what I can see is happening on CSGnet, you are one of the most conflicting persons on the CSGnet (including me :)))).

RM: What’s that got to do with it? The people I am in conflict with are grown ups who should be able to get what they want. If they aren’t getting what they want then perhaps they have to learn to control better.

BH: Could you make a “PCT analysis” of your relationship with Gavin Ritz, Bruce Gregory, Martin L, me… As I perceived, what happened in the past, you didn’t try only to “avoid” colliding with others, you tried to “elimimnate” or “remove” those who thought differently from CSGnet.

RM: I think yours is a good PCT analysis of those relationships. The people you mention were saying things that disturbed my perception of what PCT is about. So I pushed back verbally (you say “collided” and I think that’s a fair way of describing it). Your inference that I was controlling for eliminating them from CSGNet is just your misinterpretation of my behavior. I did disagree with much of what these people said but I actually had no interest in removing them from CSGNet. They decided to leave on their own. I was actually sorry to see them go; I get some of my best research ideas when I’m engaged in intellectual conflict about PCT.

BH: If you try to keep good relationship with people, you need more than words and preparedness to be what you want to be.

RM: I admit that it is difficult for me to even want to maintain a good relationship with some people. Part of maintaining a good relationship with people with whom you disagree is that both parties have to willing to maintain such a relationship. When the people with whom I disagree are willing to have a good relationship with me then we do have a good relationship. I vehemently disagree with Martin Taylor, for example, about some things but I believe we have been able to maintain a good relationship because we both want it and are willing to forgive what I’m sure we both see as the other’s inability to see things correctly;-)

BH: You need acts that will bring also others perception near their references.

RM: It’s hard enough to control one’s own perceptions without trying to control other people’s perceptions for them. Actually, I don’t think you can control other people’s perceptions for them. I want people to be able to do that for themselves.

BH: Maybe the standing [starting–RM] point of Adam Matić is good. People as PCT agents do act as “Crusoe” on the Island maintaining only his “esential variables” in the appropriate limits. That’s how Ashby made his analysis of human behavior.

RM: That’s the way I start my own economic analysis, too: the one person economy. Crusoe is both producer and consumer all in one agent. Crusoe acts to produce the goods (food) and services (bathing) he wants to consume. He is a one man economy. He supplies to meet his own demands.

BH: So if I understood Adam Matić right, the question is : how will all people act if we imagine them interacting as mutliple “Crusoes”…

RM: This is where libertarian economist go off the rails, I think. Once you get more than one Crusoe they must cooperate to produce what they all want to consume or they all go down. And they cooperate by specializing their participation in production and then share in the benefits of that cooperation. Once you have a lot of Crusoes and specialization becomes very complex (as it is now) you have to have a way to distribute what was cooperatively produced to all the producers. That’s what money is for. But as Bill noted money brings its own problems when it becomes a commodity in itself.

BH: In order not to discover “hot water” or “America” again I would suggest works of Bill and Kent McClelland. As far as I know, wanted “economical” model could be described with help of Bill’s and Kent’s model of human interaction in common environment. Speccially Kent provided a good basis for analysis of simultaneously varying values in interacting PCT agents (experiments with mouse). Maybe it’s enough to put some other problems (goals) in diagrams and maybe it will work.

RM: I like Bill’s “Degrees of Freedom in Social Interaction” paper in the edited volume “Communication and control in society” edited by Krippendorf.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

Hi Rick,

I have an impression that you gave quite honest answer. But I stll am not sure, that I understood right what was written. So maybe you could help me understand…

Bill :

So it’s in everyone’s self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

Rick :

Works for me. Thanks.

Boris :

I understood your communication as :

It’s in everyone’s self-interest (Rick is included as it works for him thankfully too) to make sure that everyone gets what they want as near as possible (Rick who said that this is working for him too, have to make sure, that everyone gets what they want as near as possible). When you (Rick) do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own (Rick) goals, without constantly colliding with others.

I understood it as generalized argument for which you said that works for you too. But as we can see it doesn’t work you, as you are admitting that you can’t avoid conflicts with some people on CSGnet. So it’s not in your interest to make sure “that everyone gets what they want as near as possible”. Bill’s thought so doesn’t work for you. Did I missed something ? If I didn’t understand conversation (what is possible) please explain to me, what was the real meaning of your communication.

I also beleive as Bill that it’s in everyone’s interest “to make sure that everyone else gets what they want” as that could mean stable society (empathy and cooperation between people instead of competition, roberies, manipulations, murders, wars and so on…) in every sense, also in economic. I also think that this way is also good for PCT to advance, speccially with making sure that everyone who “get in”, gets what they want as near as possible their reference knowledge (are explained PCT as possible as easy for them to understand). This is also a good “methodical” trick when you want children to understand or accept “knowledge”. But for doing that you have to know recepients (children) very good (you have to feel them, try to understand) and than it’s pretty easy to get their trust and attention.

Rick, I see you as “teacher” of PCT and so I thought that it colud be good to follow what Bill wrote, as I’m pretty sure that it could work for you if you want it to. I think you could cooperate with all people (everyone) as this is, as you said and Bill, the essence message of PCT : “Mutual support, not competition. That’s the social message of PCT, as far as I’m concerned”. But standing on the position that “…I admit that it is difficult for me to even want to maintain a good relationship with some people….” will hardly change your attitude to some people, even if it’s in the PCT greatest interest. I think you are a good guy and good dancer :slight_smile:

Best,

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Richard Marken

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:50 PM

Subject: Re: Enjoyed your response

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.04.0945)]

  BP: So it's in everyone's self-interest to make sure that everyone else gets what they want, as near as possible. When you do that, you will find it much easier to achieve your own goals without constantly colliding with others.

RM: Works for me. Thanks

BH: Is this a joke Rick ? If I didin't understand something wrong, and considering what I can see is happening on CSGnet, you are one of the most conflicting persons on the CSGnet (including me :)))).

RM: What’s that got to do with it? The people I am in conflict with are grown ups who should be able to get what they want. If they aren’t getting what they want then perhaps they have to learn to control better.

BH: Could you make a “PCT analysis” of your relationship with Gavin Ritz, Bruce Gregory, Martin L, me… As I perceived, what happened in the past, you didn’t try only to “avoid” colliding with others, you tried to “elimimnate” or “remove” those who thought differently from CSGnet.

RM: I think yours is a good PCT analysis of those relationships. The people you mention were saying things that disturbed my perception of what PCT is about. So I pushed back verbally (you say “collided” and I think that’s a fair way of describing it). Your inference that I was controlling for eliminating them from CSGNet is just your misinterpretation of my behavior. I did disagree with much of what these people said but I actually had no interest in removing them from CSGNet. They decided to leave on their own. I was actually sorry to see them go; I get some of my best research ideas when I’m engaged in intellectual conflict about PCT.

BH: If you try to keep good relationship with people, you need more than words and preparedness to be what you want to be.

RM: I admit that it is difficult for me to even want to maintain a good relationship with some people. Part of maintaining a good relationship with people with whom you disagree is that both parties have to willing to maintain such a relationship. When the people with whom I disagree are willing to have a good relationship with me then we do have a good relationship. I vehemently disagree with Martin Taylor, for example, about some things but I believe we have been able to maintain a good relationship because we both want it and are willing to forgive what I’m sure we both see as the other’s inability to see things correctly;-)

BH: You need acts that will bring also others perception near their references.

RM: It’s hard enough to control one’s own perceptions without trying to control other people’s perceptions for them. Actually, I don’t think you can control other people’s perceptions for them. I want people to be able to do that for themselves.

BH: Maybe the standing [starting--RM] point of Adam Matić is good. People as PCT agents do act as "Crusoe" on the Island maintaining only his "esential variables" in the appropriate limits. That's how Ashby made his analysis of human behavior.

RM: That’s the way I start my own economic analysis, too: the one person economy. Crusoe is both producer and consumer all in one agent. Crusoe acts to produce the goods (food) and services (bathing) he wants to consume. He is a one man economy. He supplies to meet his own demands.

BH: So if I understood Adam Matić right, the question is : how will all people act if we imagine them interacting as mutliple "Crusoes"...

RM: This is where libertarian economist go off the rails, I think. Once you get more than one Crusoe they must cooperate to produce what they all want to consume or they all go down. And they cooperate by specializing their participation in production and then share in the benefits of that cooperation. Once you have a lot of Crusoes and specialization becomes very complex (as it is now) you have to have a way to distribute what was cooperatively produced to all the producers. That’s what money is for. But as Bill noted money brings its own problems when it becomes a commodity in itself.

BH: In order not to discover "hot water" or "America" again I would suggest works of Bill and Kent McClelland.     As far as I know, wanted "economical" model could be described with help of Bill's and Kent's model of human interaction in common environment. Speccially Kent provided a good basis for analysis of simultaneously varying values in interacting PCT agents (experiments with mouse). Maybe it's enough to put some other problems (goals) in diagrams and maybe it will work.

RM: I like Bill’s “Degrees of Freedom in Social Interaction” paper in the edited volume “Communication and control in society” edited by Krippendorf.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

8

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.05.0920)]

BH: I have an impression that you gave quite honest answer. But I stll am not sure, that I understood right what was written. So maybe you could help me understand…

RM: I’ll try. Maybe I can help me understand too;-)

BH: I understood your communication as :

It’s in everyone’s self-interest (Rick is included as it works for him thankfully too) to make sure that everyone gets what they want as near as possible …

I understood it as generalized argument for which you said that works for you too. But as we can see it doesn’t work you, as you are admitting that you can’t avoid conflicts with some people on CSGnet. So it’s not in your interest to make sure “that everyone gets what they want as near as possible”. …

RM: Yes, when I said I want everyone to get what they want I was thinking mainly in terms of basic necessities: food, shelter, healthcare, etc. But if people want what I consider to be bad things then I don’t want them to get those things. And I know that even when people have all they want and need they can still want some very bad things. So while my general bias is for people to be able to get what they want – to be in control-- I know that this will not produce utopia. There are still going to be greedy, racist, mean, selfish people who want things that hurt others or that are ignorant.

BH: I also beleive as Bill that it’s in everyone’s interest “to make sure that everyone else gets what they want” as that could mean stable society (empathy and cooperation between people instead of competition, roberies, manipulations, murders, wars and so on…) in every sense, also in economic. I also think that this way is also good for PCT to advance, speccially with making sure that everyone who “get in”, gets what they want as near as possible their reference knowledge (are explained PCT as possible as easy for them to understand).

RM: Bill does a much better job than I do of correcting people about control theory while making them feel like he’s agreeing with them. But correct people he does; part of learning anything involves conflict. Heck, I’m always in conflict with my piano teacher about fingering I think is “right”. Conflict is a constant in knowledge acquisition. How could it be otherwise?

BH: Rick, I see you as “teacher” of PCT and so I thought that it colud be good to follow what Bill wrote, as I’m pretty sure that it could work for you if you want it to. I think you could cooperate with all people (everyone) as this is, as you said and Bill, the essence message of PCT : “Mutual support, not competition. That’s the social message of PCT, as far as I’m concerned”. But standing on the position that “…I admit that it is difficult for me to even want to maintain a good relationship with some people….” will hardly change your attitude to some people, even if it’s in the PCT greatest interest. I think you are a good guy and good dancer :slight_smile:

Well, I do agree with the last sentence-)

Best

Rick

···

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:32 AM, boris_upc boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.06.0940)]

Jim Wuwert (2012.02.05.1039)–

RM: Yes, when I said I want everyone to get what they want I was thinking

mainly in terms of basic necessities: food, shelter, healthcare, etc. But

if people want what I consider to be bad things then I don’t want them to

get those things…

JW : What if what you consider to be a “bad thing” is actually

perceived as a “good thing” by the other person?

RM: I would imagine that that’s always true. That is, I’m sure that people who want what I consider to be bad things consider them good things.

RM: I think yours is a good PCT analysis of those relationships. The people

you mention were saying things that disturbed my perception of what PCT is

about. So I pushed back verbally (you say “collided” and I think that’s a

fair way of describing it)…

JW: It is not just enough to just say that you want a relationship.

RM: Who said I did? I don’t want a relationship with people unless they are extremely smart, kind and humane (forgiving).

JW: One must act and behave in a manner that demonstrates that you value it and

want it. The science behind all of this is wonderful, but you sometimes

chuck the science for the sake of being right which alienates people.

RM: Could you give me an example of where I have done this.

Perhaps you think the “science” of PCT is like the Mikado’s decree about flirting (from memory):

The youth who winked a roving eye
Or made a non-connubial sigh
Was there upon condemned to die
He usually objected

And I suspect that you’ll agree
That he was right to so decree
And I am right and you are right

and everything is quite correct

JW: You can add my name to Boris’ list above.

Will do.

JW: Perhaps if you reflected more on the

application of the science you may advance the science to the level that it

deserves.

That and listening to more Gilbert and Sullivan, I presume.

JW: By the way, your (Rick) intellectual knowledge of PCT is incredible, but I

feel that it is lost when you interact with people on this forum.

Thanks, I think?

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[From Rick Marken (2012.02.06.1745)]

Jim Wuwert (2012.02.06.1312) –

RM: Who said I did? I don’t want a relationship with people unless

they are extremely smart, kind and humane (forgiving).

JW: This makes you no different than the right wing conservatives that you

despise.

RM: No surprise there. The only difference between right wingers and me is in what we think a society should be. I can’t imagine they would want to have an intellectual relationship with me (which is the kind of relationship I thought you were talking about). I have other kinds of relationships with right wingers. I have a racquetball relationship with a right winger, I have a familial relationship with others (most everyone in my family) and I have a cordial friendship relationship with several right wingers at work (they are very easy to find there).

JW: You know, the people who you were frustrated with that were going

to vote for McCain. You can’t kick them out of the country, but you still

have to live with them.

RM: The classic meaning of liberal is “tolerant”. I tolerate right wingers being in my country, just as I tolerate religious fundamentalists and other people whose ideas I find distasteful. That’s what a liberal democracy is about. Of course, a lot of those other people would like liberals like me to leave the country and I probably will eventually have to leave if they ever come into power again. The US as a liberal democracy is so last century anyway. CItizen’s United pretty much put the kabash on that.

JW: You may not want a relationship with them, but you

still have to deal with them from time to time. So, how do you deal with

the extremely dumb, unkind, and unforgiving people that you do not want a

relationship with, but have to live with?

RM: It depends on the circumstances. Usually I just try to ignore them.

JW: I have to find a way to live with the left wing liberals. I may not want a

relationship with all of them, but I am still required in many

circumstances to work with them and do business with them.

RM: If you will tolerate liberals being around then you are well on you way to being a liberal (tolerant). Mazel tov.

JW: One must act and behave in a manner that demonstrates that you

value it and want it. The science behind all of this is wonderful, but you sometimes

chuck the science for the sake of being right which alienates people.

  RM: Could you give me an example of where I have done this.

JW: When I observe you interacting on the CSGnet, you appear to chuck the

very thing that you are advocating. Do you find that approach effective for

advancing what you are advocating for? I feel that it is disconnect. I feel

that it alienates people. Check the archives. You can start with my name.

RM: I’m not sure I would be able to recognize an instance of my chucking PCT. I don’t even know what that would look like. I would really appreciate it if you would show me just one example of me chucking PCT on CSGNet.

Thanks

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com