[from Jeff Vancouver 940929]
This is going to be my last post for awhile. I cannot maintain my
involvement and still maintain what I thing is sufficient progress toward
tenure. Also, perhaps more importantly, I echo Bruce Nevin's position. I
do not know how to model and it seems I need to learn to continue the
debates I am participating in. Tom, Mark, and Bill (and probably others)
cannot be expected to respect my position until I respect theirs. I
don't think the relevance of Kernan & Lord's data is explainable until the
"lobs" we are making can be reduced. That will happen by either me
adopting your mind set or me expanding your mind set through your mind set
(i.e., modeling).
I think Bruce Buchanan [940927] made some excellent points (too bad about
the behavior/perception mix-up, but it is a closed loop - I am very
forgiving). I just gave my conference presentation from August (at
the Academy of Management) locally (NYU I/O Psych colloquium)
the other day. The feedback was most informative. Basically, I need to
show how PCT helps the individual researcher do their work. I cannot
argue that the science needs this model as I have been, only that you
(i.e., some
individual scientist) needs it (or it will help the scientist do his/her
work). Just like with the individuals on the net, I need to do that from
their perspectives/beliefs etc., by showing them where their
believe/perspectives are limiting their progress and provide the PCT
alternative. (Bruce B.- send me your address and I will send my revised
paper that I think you will appreciate - it is almost done.)
I have learn a lot from this interaction and loath to give it up, but the
time drain to just too much. I have one specific, practical suggestion
regarding the goals/future of CSG-L. Perhaps a short prefix in the
subject field can clue readers and lurkers into the domain of the message.
For example, posts on models having to do with levels 1-3 begin M1-3:.
Philosophy of science post begin PS: etc. A post that lists the agreed
upon prefixes could be accessable or made part of the intro post. It
is just a thought.
Two more notes, I saw Locke's paper in Applied Psychology this last
weekend. It was appalling. You [I cannot remember who] did not quote the
truly wretched sentences where Locke says:
"...I received a letter from a prominent advocate and founding father
of control theory .... This theorist was not exactly clear on just what
control theory really was..."
This is from the guy who refused to read the book, which I assume Mary
(or Bill) cited in their letter to Locke. Correct me if I am wrong. BTW,
I am trashing Locke and Bandura in my revision (I am side-swiping Lord)
2nd note is a quote from my wife after describing the situation and the
net with her:
"It sounds like Locke should be shut out, Lord is not God, and that Powers
defines right."
I thought that summed it up pretty well.
Much Later
Jeff