[From Rick Marken (971209.1812)]
Mike Acree (971209.0252 PST) --
My own opinion of the value of conventional psychological
research, and of the use of statistics within it, is so low
that I would never have expected to be accused, even implicitly,
of "defending" it.
Well, I for one would certainly not have "accused" you of
defending it if you weren't defending it. Do you think you
were framed, Mike? It's happening a lot out here in California;
the police (including the PCT variety) are running amok; I hear
their targets are celebrity football players and libertarians;-)
But that's the way our conversations work. Someone, usually
Marken, makes a statement about some non-PCT approach that is
so extreme as to be misleading or false.
Ah, extremism again? And here I thought you and Bruce A. and
Martin were the extremists.
Since silence risks being construed as agreement, those of
us trying to control perceptions of ourselves as intelligent/
critical/thoughtful are obliged by that goal to attempt a
clarifying response, which reliably serves only to have us
labeled as defenders of that particular orthodoxy
Well, you can sure help me out on the political correctness
front, Mike. Just give me some examples of statements of mine
about some non-PCT approaches that were so extreme as to be
misleading or false? Then show me how to re-state them so that
I can seem intelligent, critical, thoughtful (and moderate),
like you;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[Martin Taylor 971210 10:35
Rick Marken (971209.1812)]
Ah, extremism again? And here I thought you and Bruce A. and
Martin were the extremists.
Ah, the political centre rears its pretty head, whereever one stands,
doesn't it:-) From where I stand, Bill P is the rational centrist, Marken the
right-wing theological fundamentalist (i.e. extremist), and I am the
doubting Thomas, believing only when assumptions and assertions are tested.
But we all think we stand on the firm centre ground, with better support
than most ground gives in La-la Land:-)
Martin
[From Rick Marken (971210.0820)]
Disclaimer: The author takes no responsibility for any extremist
statements in the following post.
Me:
Ah, extremism again? And here I thought you and Bruce A. and
Martin were the extremists.
Martin Taylor (971210 10:35) --
Ah, the political centre rears its pretty head, whereever one
stands, doesn't it:-)
Oh, the things you say, big boy;-)
From where I stand, Bill P is the rational centrist, Marken the
right-wing theological fundamentalist (i.e. extremist), and I am
the doubting Thomas, believing only when assumptions and assertions
are tested.
It was a _joke_, Martin. PCT isn't politics; it's science. Saying
someone is "extremist" or "centrist" makes no sense when talking
about PCT. The dimension for judging PCT is "right/wrong" not
"right/left". And the arbiter of "rightness/wrongness" is empirical
test, not vox populi. The correctness of statements about PCT (and
conventional psychology) is evaluated by comparision of the results
of properly conducted experiments to the predictions of PCT and
competing models of behavior.
People try to make it seem like PCT is a political issue when they
are unwilling to give up their existing beliefs (in environmental
determinism, model based control, the value of conventional
methodology, etc) on the basis of evidence. It's just a way of
defending perceptions (of the value of one's favorite aspects of
conventional psychology) from the disturbance that is the PCT
model and the copious amount of existing evidence that PCT is
currently the best model of behavior and that conventional
psychology has been in the grip of an illusion for over 100 years.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken