From [Marc Abrams (2006.08.16.1044)]
Since this arrived before I had a chance to sign off I felt a response might be worthwhile
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.16.0915 CDT)]
Yikes, here we go again.
At last the civility police has arrived and on cue.
I hope others out there can see the significance and pattern of these posts from Rick, Bill and Bryan. They are very interesting and informing for anyone interested in perceptual control.
Marc, I think you are getting a bit snarky and testy. I haven’t noticed any swearing yet, but you know, I think you are again close to >the edge:
Bryan, I would not want to disappoint you, so: Go Fuck yourself. How’s that? You just got what you both anticipated and wanted from me.
Now you can be fully justified in perceiving me as you do, and back in control. Feel better?
Why would you possibly want to perceive me in a negative light?
Simple, because I represent a very big and real threat to you and your belief system. I provide reasons that could lead someone to question the validity of the current PCT model and that is something you just can’t handle. So instead of being able to open yourself up to the possibility that the model just may not be all its cracked up to be and make the necessary but very difficult changes for yourself that it might entail, it is much easier not to refute my claims or answer any of my questions and to take the low road and try to paint me as a bad guy, villain, and no nothing.
This defensive controlling strategy is used by you, Rick, and Bill and it has been used repeatedly over the years. Why change a winning strategy?
To say it all a bit differently. You don’t have the courage to question your own beliefs. What I find so interesting is how similar you, Kenny, Rick, and Bill are in this way.
I know linking you to Kenny is something you would have a hard time doing but you two are more alike than you are different.
Now, your response to all this will not be curiosity as to why and how I come to all is and a willingness to discuss it, but a complete and a total outrage that I had the audacity to make this claim or that I’m talking out of hand. You perceive me as attacking and trying to destroy probably one of the most important things in your life and this simply is not true.
It is a defensive response and one according to perceptual control could be projected based on past experience.
I’m willing to explore the possibility that I am wrong and need to readjust my thinking. But that is not going to happen unless you are willing to do the same but I’m afraid that will never happen. Like any other fanatic, you are incapable of questioning your own motives.
Like some others on this list your perception of yourself is based on how “righteous” you believe you are and that is a very sad state to be in.
Abrams: (2006.08.16.0848) “Bill, you really are a joke.” and “In being the megalomaniac you are I hope you get the fame and recognition you so desperately crave and want.”
Regarding the original post that started this flurry of posts from both you and Kenny, I think that you both need to look at the >science,
And who’s version of “science” are you referring to here? Yours? Mine? Martin Taylor’s?
and leave the personality and/or pseudoscience/religion out of it.
Why? Isn’t that what psychology is all about? Isn’t PCT supposed to be a theory of human psychology? Isn’t “personality” part of psychology?
How can you understand and study something if you refuse to look at it?
And while of course you want to throw things like 12th levels of spirituality, and other non-PCT descriptions of emotion
Glad you noted the lack of an emotional component in PCT. I guess you did not read the 2nd edition of B:CP either. The one that has a whole chapter on emotion in it. Maybe Rick will fill you in. I know how messy stuff like religion and emotion makes a behavioral model but than again without them are you talking about a human model?
If so, I’d like to meet this person. Can you arrange it?
Exactly how did Kenny get into the equation here? You are responding to a thread between myself and Bill and Rick.
…but it doesn’t impress me.
I’m not trying to “impress” you. I’m trying to get answers to questions I have and legit criticisms to my ideas. Neither of which seem to be forthcoming from either you or this forum. Frankly Bryan I could care less what you think. You have already shown me that you are incapable of applying a set of behavioral standards equally among people. You have shown yourself incapable of understanding how anyone could possibly have any ideas that differ from yours and remain legitimate.
But wandering far away in economic theory, a reference to emotional drive, some kind of spiritual level of perceptual control, and >gosh knows what else, makes me think that, as Rick so rightly noted, you are just waiting for any assertion to appear, and then, in a >very troll-like way (see below), take pot shots at it and turn the discussion very defensive and useless. Not that it started that way, >but your actions made it turn out that way.
Why would anyone need to be defensive unless they felt like they were being “attacked”, and why would a set of questions be construed as an attack?
In fact I asked this directly and Bill pointed this out as one reason why he could not continue the discussion with me. Huh?!? Can someone explain the logic behind this.
Why would a set of assertions make anyone defensive unless they felt that the assertions were true and that they needed to defend themselves. Why not simply say; “Marc, your wrong or off base here and let me explain why…”. My assertions are made NOT to make anyone defensive.
They are made to open up lines of discussion, NOTHING ELSE is involved, nothing.
You become defensive not by the facts, but by the way you construct your perceptions
But it seems that you cannot open up to the possibility that you are going down the wrong road. I’m NOT saying you are. I’m saying the possibility exists and unless you open up your beliefs to legitimate public testing you will never know.
Everything else originates out of YOUR desires and needs.
But that has not, nor can it be done, so the low road always provides an attractive alternative.
Far be it from me to warn, but I fear that an explosion of obscenties
are about to flow,
Yes, everyone get into your bunkers The world is about to implode.
and I am just not ready for it.
That’s ok, I have time. Let me know when you are
And I object to it, frankly.
Really?
I’m afraid Bryan you wouldn’t know & recognize good science if it smacked you upside the head and knocked you on your tush.
Be well.
Regards,
Marc
···
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.