[From Rick Marken (2010.04.27.1320)]
Fred Nickols (2010.04.27.1120 MST) --
Why would anyone on this list be happy to hear of your failure?� I find no
joy in it.
Thanks for the quick reply, Fred. And for the nice words. Just a bit
of paranoia on my part;-)
As for that �failure� (if it can truly be called that), I have a hunch as to
why they rejected it.� In blunt terms you were mainly tooting your own horn
(lots of references to your own publications).
I don't really think that's the reason. I just looked at the Letters
to the Editor for the January issue of _American Psychologist_ and
every comment (except one) cites at least one -- in one case three --
references to a paper by the author of the comment. The author of
every comment is, indeed, "tooting their own horn". That's pretty much
what the comments are about. (Note that I also tooted the horn of
Powers and Runkel).
Add to that my observation
that your comments were only obliquely related to Rodgers� article; you were
instead using Rodgers� paper to mount an attack.� Were I one of the editors
I probably would have rejected it, too.
Most of the comments published in AP are criticisms of (which could be
seen as "attacks" on) the target article. But I think you may have
something here because I did use Rodgers article to "mount an attack".
The problem for the editor (and reviewers) may have been that the
"attack" was not on Rodgers' paper per se (which I praised) but on
conventional psychological methodology. But since Rodgers' paper was
ostensibly on a "methodological revolution in psychology" (it's in the
title of his paper) I thought it would be appropriate to "criticize"
the paper by showing what a real methodological revolution in
psychology might look like.
On the upside, your letter was very well-written (as usual) and the
arguments are still compelling.
Thanks!
As an old military man, I don�t believe in frontal assaults unless I have
far superior forces at my disposal and the costs of dislodging an entrenched
enemy are far less than the benefits of doing so...
It seems to me that the only strategy being employed in relation to PCT vs
conventional psychology is a frontal assault.� That doesn�t seem to be
working.
I guess I betrayed my ignorance of military theory (not surprising
given my wimpy, pacifist, non-violent inclinations) but I thought that
I _was_ doing a "flanking" guerrilla attack. My frontal assault was
submission of the "Revolution" paper to AP (back in 2007 or so). This
assault was, as you would expect, easily repelled (though I did manage
to get a minor victory by pushing it through one of the more poorly
defended gates of the citadel of conventional psychology). This AP
comment was basically a guerrilla maneuver, trying to get behind enemy
lines using the Rodgers article as camouflage. Obviously, my rouse was
easily detected and, again, repelled.
I think of my submission of the "Revolution" paper to _American
Psychologist_ as my first major frontal assault on conventional
psychology since I joined the PCT revolution back in 1980. I think of
all my other publications as flanking actions. But you say that the
only strategy employed in the PCT battle against conventional
psychology is a frontal attack. And you are the expert in military
strategy. So I would really appreciate it -- really -- if you could
suggest some strategies that might be successful. Lord knows whatever
I've been doing hasn't been.
Thanks again Fred.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com