[From Rick Marken (931030.2300)]
Greg Williams (931030) --
I personally
think that PCT has lots of potential to help people. Does that goal justify
nasty (as perceived by those who need help) means? I have a difficult time not
saying "fuck it!" when Rick Marken insultingly makes fun of my "optimism" --
and I'm a bona fide SUPPORTER of PCT.
I am really sorry if my joking with you about your optimism seemed
insulting. I have enormous personal respect for you. I just don't
buy the idea that we can build the kind of bridge that you envision.
I speak as one who has tried mightily to find ways to bridge the gap
between conventional and PCT psychology. I have never submitted what
I considered an insulting paper to a professional journal. Yet the
journal editors and reviewers often felt fine about writing I think
you would consider to be insulting rejections of those papers. I bet
Tom and Bill have recieved reviews of the same character -- reviews
that basically say "how could you be so dumb?" or "let me explain to
you how this REALLY works".
I have received very few "bridge building" reviews; and even after
I've managed to publish some of these papers there were no attempts
by the "opposition" to work on the bridge that I had started. Are
PCTers the only ones who have to be nice and build the bridge?
Maybe the reviewers were not being insulting -- maybe we all just
perceive criticism as an insult (because we all think that
we are right). But I don't see why the other side should be treated
with kid gloves when they feel just fine about knocking us about
quite violently (usually in the privacy of reviews rather than in
the public light of publications). If they're tough enough to dish
it out (and believe me, they are) I think they should be considered
capable of "taking it" -- even when we are not consciously "giving
it". All they have to take is criticism of their theories -- we aren't
attacking these people personally.
We are just cricizing their work (as we understand it). They have
every right to criticize our work as well. It would just be nice
if the criticism of PCT could be carried on in public. I don't
care if the reviewers criticize PCT -- I would just prefer that
they publish the experiments and models that rebutt what we claim
is the case (that behavior is the control of perception). Right
now, PCT is rebutted only by the journal review process; PCT is
typically counted out before it even gets in the ring. I consider
that an insult. Don't you? Are you going to chastize the reviewers
who have prevented publication of "Models and their world" or "The
Little Man Arm Demo" or "The hierarchical behavior of perception"
(a paper in which every effort was made to show links between
PCT and conventional views with not one "insult" to a conventional
theory) or ...
It is because of what I perceive as insults like this that I might
seem like I am "making fun" of your optimism. I can understand why
you might feel like saying "fuck it" to me; but I feel like saying
"fuck it" to you too, when you to make fun of my pessimism. I have
seen PCT ideas "insulted" by the type of people to whom you would
like us to build bridges. It is insulting when people reject
(nay, dismiss) a model (authoritatively) when it is clear that
these people have no idea how the model works, no idea what it is
designed to explain, and when their their rejection is based on
"facts" that are patently false (feedback too slow, etc).
As I said, based on Tom's nice post about Zimmermann, I am prepared to
believe that there are people who are "bridgable"; people who don't
have a religious committment to the beliefs that make an understanding
of PCT impossible. But the fact of the matter is, I have never met
anyone (in person or print) who seemed willing to "go all the way"
toward grasping the basic tenet of PCT -- that behavior is the process
of controlling percepual variables.
I have more evidence for my pessimism than you do for your optimism;
I have tried to build bridges, just to have them torn down or abandoned.
I would love to believe that we can promulgate understanding of this
extraordinarily important and useful concept (PCT) just by being "nice".
But it seems to me that we have been awfully nice (in our papers, at
least); it's the other side that's been mean. Also, my impression is
that the only way I can be "nice" from your perspective is by
accepting statements as being true of PCT that seem to be patently
wrong (such as the Wicken's quote about specifying "how" to achieve goals).
For what it's worth, however, I won't mind at all, Greg, if you throw
a few expletives my way; it will help me see where I am being "insulting"
instead of "bridge building" (from your point of view, anyway) and it will
use up all that nice physiological preparation for response that is just
being experienced as anger because the other side of your conflict prevents
you from saying "fuck it" to me. Solve your conflict (and my ignorance);
undelete those expletives.
Best
Rick