Dear Eva,
my personal oppinion is that you understand PCT with “attractive power” quite well.
EdH : …the advancement of understanding PCT (and the higher level goal the understanding of humans (and life in general).
HB : I can’t think of more perfect starting thought about relation between PCT and humanitiy of human kind and understanding life on Earth and maybe life in Universe in general. Lately if I understood
right “demos” on PCT annual conference Richard Pfau was emphasizing the same “moto”. I think it can be easily general frame for conversations on CSGnet forum. So can you explain to us how you understand life on Earth and functioning of humans ?
EdH : Thanks for the replies in the group and personal. These replies have changed my perception of the mailing list as a sort of intimidating group to a welcoming group of people willing to share
knowledge,…
HB : I’ll admitt that I could be one of “intimidater” on CSGnet forum, but only for some members who started insulting me for no reason. At least I didn’t know for them. I’ll discover you a secret. I’m from a little Europe country and I’m as you part of EU. So maybe that was one of the reasons why “insulting” started. It was centred arround the problem that I don’t understand “english” or “american” language. So I can’t judge about PCT or any oppinon about PCT speccially not about Ricks as he is speaking perfect american PCT ???
But the real question is : do I need to understand language perfectly if I can observe the main subject of discussion by myself. Does observing people and introspection needs some special language to understand ? Is anatomy, phyisiology or neurophysiology, clinical psychology etc. really privilege of English or American language ?
I know that “reason” for using “language” as an excuse was just mean of some members on this forum who were trying to achieve their “higher” goals with no concern to the rights of others. Not your higher goals about humanity of human kind. Just some “low-kick-level” goals in relation to certain members.
Maybe “languiging” for some members means that they are from big, “developed” countries and they can do whatever they want. Something like “leader” is doing lately.
My oppinion is that members who were advertising their language as favourite use even more excuses for reaching their private goals (which by my oppinion has nothing to do with science in PCT) by “attacking” other members who don’t think as they do. Or they don’t think as one member wan’t them to think. It’s an old story about people taking care about their own wellbeing. Why should they care for others ?
Anyway I’ve been speccially treated as “third” and unimportant member of this forum. By this I mean that oppinions of this forum are not equally “pondered”. Some oppinions are more important. Whether they fit into PCT or not it doesn’t matter. I still don’t know with what I deserved privilge to be third order member, but I could guess probably because of language or beacause I’m from little country or maybe because I didn’t always agreed to author of PCT. Who knows ? But I still think that PCT should be upgraded and I proposed direction of upgrade, which ended sadly. But I think that sooner or later upgrade has to be done. It’s “evolution” neccessity 
.
I think that one of the main mistake in using “low-kick-level means” for attempt of “controlling” others is hidden in “fact” that no means are limited when somebody tries to achieve own goals (like leaders in history and today). People will do whatever they need to realize their goals speccially if they have power. Problem is when they “colide” with other people goals and conflict begins. And still people to resolve conflict use whatever means they can to achieve their goals.
For example. We all know that one member is “selling” other theory than PCT by using PCT forum for some reason as promoting forum. He has priviliges. And whoever “protect” his priviliges will do whatever she/he has to do to protect “theoretical” approach of a friend no matter if it fits to PCT or not. She/he will use any mean to support friends goals and/or achieve own goals and insult enemy of friend. It has nothing to do with science which should be promoted on this forum. But it has to do with human nature which is “fixed” in biological structure of Living beings. And thats’ what by my oppinion PCT is succefully and with great “sovereignity” solving.
I would say that PCT is the best scientific theory today to explain how organisms (people) function trying to achieve their goals no matter whether humanity is used in their thinking and actions or not.
I promise I’ll be as gentle as possible in relation to you. You are a lady for me, and I’m old fashion school. At least I’ll try to be polite . Not just beacuse we are “neighbours” but also because I’d like to learn something from you. I see great potential. I usually am polite to other members at least as much as they are.
I came on this forum full of hope, that I’ll learn and that we’ll become one great big PCT family who will at least aproximately understand PCT the same in it’s core knowledge. It seems that I was wrong. Mostly members have their own “phylosophical approaches” which are by my oppinion rarely in aaccordance to PCT and they sometimes change their mind. I don’t say that they shoudn’t think in their own way or that they shouldn’t make experiments (real or thought experiment). I think it’s right that they don’t hide their own theoretical oppinon behind PCT frame if it’s not. I also think that they should say that it’s their oppinion and maybe that their theory differs from PCT. That’s O.K. We think differently what is the main point of life on Earth. We are different what is by my oppinion the beauty of the life which should be preserved.
There are some “cliques” on this forum, including some “advising group” to Powers ladies (owners of CSGnet and Powers heritage). The tragedy is that we don’t know who they are. But as I’m concerned nothing “deeply moving” happend on this forum in last 5 years. There are still some personal theories which don’t show PCT support for their oppinion (theoretical background). I gave names to those theories.
So to be clear. I don’t “attack” personal oppinions which could be “right or wrong” from PCT perspective. It’s anyway realtive. I “attack” only personal oppinions which claim that they are PCT and in fact they are not. And I do it strictly with PCT means.
There was one person who “attacked” for decades every oppinon that was not in “accordance” to PCT, but I hope he calmed down. He chased away many members because of their different oppinon. Of course it has nothing to do with Rick and me ? We are separate story ?
Best regards,
Boris
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Hullu, Eva de eva.dehullu@ou.nl
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 11:05 AM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Gender imbalance
Dear all,
Thanks for the replies in the group and personal. These replies have changed my perception of the mailing list as a sort of intimidating group to a welcoming group of people willing to share knowledge, for the advancement of understanding PCT (and the higher level goal the understanding of humans (and life in general).
I hope these reactions help others feel free to join in as well. I’d like to close the gender subject, because I don’t think gender is the most important factor here. As discussed, it’s more a matter of being the kind of person that feels comfortable hitting the “reply to all” button. I look forward to the forum, but in the meantime, I’ll not hesistate to share thoughts and questions on PCT in the mailinglist.
As Boris noted: PCT has attractive power. I’d say: that’s the attraction of a theory that helps solving many errors in my (and the general) understanding of psychology.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 6:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Gender imbalance
Hello lady Eva,
If you see discussions on CSGnet interesting and lively than I assume you feel some atractive power to PCT. If you are afraid of showing your knowledge to the unknown crowd of people, why don’t you try to talk separately to members whom you feel you can trust… . As clinical psychologist I doubt that you could show “lack of knowledge”. I’m quite sure that your experiences would be quite welcome to the forum full of theory.
Kind regards,
Boris
-----Original Message-----
From: “Hullu, Eva de” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 9:06 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Gender imbalance
Dear Martin,
I just caught up with the pct mailing list and this question about gender imbalance has not been answered. Which might mean that there are no women subscribed to this list or that they don’t want to answer.
In that case I’d gladly share my perception.
Although the discussions on gsgnet are interesting and lively, I haven’t felt free to post new questions or reply to discussions. To do so would require quite some bravado, showing my knowledge or lack of knowledge to an unknown crowd of knowledgeable people.
This might be the case for more (male and female) subscribers, but based on my experience in academia in general, I think mostly women would withhold venting their opinion in such environment.
On that account: it’s easy to spot that there are no women. The point is that it’s not just gender; probably just a small sample of the people that could be involved, is actively involved. Perceiving that there are no women means you need to work on being more inclusive in general. It would help if there would be more ways (styles) available to participate in discussions.
What would help these PCT discussions in my view is a more structured environment such as a webforum, where my question or reply is not instantly delivered to all unknown subscribers, but to people looking for information on a certain topic within PCT. It’s the difference between jumping on a stage in front of a large audience or talking to a bunch of interested people. If you’d like more variation, let’s start there.
Kind regards,
Eva de Hullu
assistant professor clinical psychology
Open University, the Netherlands
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Gender imbalance
[Martin Taylor 2019.01.02.13.14]
Happy New Year to all.
A quick Google search for “percentage of female psychology doctorates”
yielded this: “Data from APA’s Center for Workforce Studies show that women make up 76% of new psychology doctorates, 74% of early career psychologists and 53% of the psychology work force.”
So far as I can determine, apart from the Powers ladies, of the 2600 or so messages to CSGnet in 2018, none were posted by anyone whose name was clearly female or who I know to be female, and less than a dozen by anyone with an ambiguous name. This gender imbalance seems to me to be significant, and something to be worthy of PCT research, as well as representing a problem that we should try to fix.
If there are any female lurkers reading this, would you care to comment on why women don’t post here? Is there something about PCT that seems unworthy of research to you but not to men? Do you actually do research on or with PCT but don’t like CSGnet? Or what?
Martin
Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.
This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights may be derived from the contents of this message.
Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.
This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights may be derived from the contents of this message.
. As clinical psychologist I doubt that you could show "lack of knowledge". I'm quite sure that your experiences would be quite welcome to the forum full of theory.