Going Rogue: Share Traders More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows

CSGnet Archive CSG2011
1

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.27 09:30 CST]

Only PCT can explain this behavior. If your goal is clean streets and
smiling faces, you actions attempt to make that happen. If your goals
involve only yourself, then your actions support only the
self-satisfying goals that you have. There are no 'people' in your
life that you want to see smile. No parents. No children. No Friends.
And no future. Just right now and a faceless opponent in a game that
you are focused on besting.

SPIEGEL ONLINE, 09/26/2011

···

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Going Rogue: Share Traders�More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------------

What makes individual stockbrokers blow billions in financial markets
with criminal trading schemes? According to a new study conducted at a
Swiss university, it may be because share traders behave more recklessly
and are more manipulative than psychopaths.

You can download the complete article over the Internet at the following
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,788462,00.html

More about this issue
---------------------------

The New Face of Deutsche Bank: Anshu Jain Mixes Success and Controversy
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,785834,00.html

Rogue Trader Jerome Kerviel: 'I Was Merely a Small Cog in the Machine'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,729155,00.html

2

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 27 2344 MDT]

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.27 09:30 CST]

Only PCT can explain this behavior. If your goal is clean streets and
smiling faces, you actions attempt to make that happen. If your goals
involve only yourself, then your actions support only the
self-satisfying goals that you have. There are no 'people' in your
life that you want to see smile. No parents. No children. No Friends.

That doesn't sound like the PCT explanation and assumes facts not in evidence, like no parents, children or friends.

  And no future. Just right now and a faceless opponent in a game that
you are focused on besting.

Perhaps the researchers should have compared the traders to first person shooter game players. Instead of being greedy as Richard and Bill fear, we can take solace that to them, money may just be a way of keeping score, and that they were dealing in billions of dollars, not trillions like governments do.

-- Martin L

···

On 9/27/2011 8:23 AM, Shannon Williams wrote:

SPIEGEL ONLINE, 09/26/2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Going Rogue: Share Traders More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------------

What makes individual stockbrokers blow billions in financial markets
with criminal trading schemes? According to a new study conducted at a
Swiss university, it may be because share traders behave more recklessly
and are more manipulative than psychopaths.

You can download the complete article over the Internet at the following
URL:
Going Rogue: Share Traders More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows - DER SPIEGEL

More about this issue
---------------------------

The New Face of Deutsche Bank: Anshu Jain Mixes Success and Controversy
The New Face of Deutsche Bank: Anshu Jain Mixes Success and Controversy - DER SPIEGEL

Rogue Trader Jerome Kerviel: 'I Was Merely a Small Cog in the Machine'
Rogue Trader Jerome Kerviel: 'I Was Merely a Small Cog in the Machine' - DER SPIEGEL

3

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.28 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 27 2344 MDT]

That doesn't sound like the PCT explanation and assumes facts not in
evidence, like no parents, children or friends.

This 'no other person' concept is actually in reference to a
discussion that I had with you where your perfect world is 'a
spaceship with no other people'. Since that is your perfect world,
that is actually what you try to make happen.

Instead of being greedy as Richard and Bill fear, we
can take solace that to them, �money may �just be a way of keeping score,
and that they were dealing in billions of dollars, not trillions like
governments do.

I think they would agree that money is just a way to keep score.

Thanks,
Shannon

4

Bear in mind that this was an MBA student project using a sample of 27 traders and 24 psychopaths. It's getting massive airplay not because of the quality of the research but because a lot of people want to believe the results. I hope I am not the only person on CSGNET whose reaction to this and any other story of psychology in the news, regardless of its findings, is to look for the primary source and see what actual experiments were done.

Well, in 15 minutes the nearest thing I can find to the original source is here (in German, but Google Translate does a fair enough job):

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wirtschaft/aktuell/destruktive_dynamik_im_handelsraum_1.12641170.html

That's just a newspaper report, but it goes into a bit more detail than Spiegel (the source that most of the blogosphere is echoing). The researchers apparently had the participants in the study play iterated prisoner's dilemma with each other (traders with traders and psychopaths with psychopaths). They found that the traders, on average, cooperated less than the psychopaths and as a result ended the game, on average, with smaller winnings.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
Tel. 01603 593212
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

5

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.28.0700 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 27 2344 MDT --

Perhaps the researchers should have compared the traders to first person shooter game players. Instead of being greedy as Richard and Bill fear, we can take solace that to them, money may just be a way of keeping score, and that they were dealing in billions of dollars, not trillions like governments do.

It's the game they're playing that I'm concerned about. You could excuse the hoodlums drag-racing down Main Street by saying the drag-racing is just a way of finding out who is the fastest, if you could bring yourself to ignore the broken bodies and baby-carriages strewn along the course.

The trillions Obama spent were an attempt to recover from the damage done by the Wall-Street drag-racers. The drag-racers manipulated billions, but it took trillions even to try to clean up after them, and many smart people are saying that not enough was spent. We can't pay off any debts from the depths of an indefinite recession. And it looks as if that recession is going to be deliberately extended as a strategy for defeating Obama.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0658 MDT]

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.28 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 27 2344 MDT]

That doesn't sound like the PCT explanation and assumes facts not in
evidence, like no parents, children or friends.

This 'no other person' concept is actually in reference to a
discussion that I had with you where your perfect world is 'a
spaceship with no other people'. Since that is your perfect world,
that is actually what you try to make happen.

That must have been my interstellar winnebago dream. Are you sure I didn't have accommodations for multiple wives in mind? If not, perhaps I was a little too glib. :sunglasses: Yes, I do try to make affordable energy, cures for disease, immortality and space exploration happen. But I wouldn't think of a taking my family on an interstellar winnebago trip, unless there was a prospect of obtaining mates for my children along the way. Humans are social animals and although I don't feel a need for extensive interactions, I do appreciate the benefits of a wealthy mass society that can be so productive in goods, services, entertainment and research. It would be nice if the federation of planets would beam the internet and directv NBA league pass to enjoy on the family trip.

regards,
      Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 6:12 AM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Instead of being greedy as Richard and Bill fear, we
can take solace that to them, money may just be a way of keeping score,
and that they were dealing in billions of dollars, not trillions like
governments do.

I think they would agree that money is just a way to keep score.

Thanks,
Shannon

7

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0802 MDT]

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.28.0700 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 27 2344 MDT --

Perhaps the researchers should have compared the traders to first person shooter game players. Instead of being greedy as Richard and Bill fear, we can take solace that to them, money may just be a way of keeping score, and that they were dealing in billions of dollars, not trillions like governments do.

It's the game they're playing that I'm concerned about. You could excuse the hoodlums drag-racing down Main Street by saying the drag-racing is just a way of finding out who is the fastest, if you could bring yourself to ignore the broken bodies and baby-carriages strewn along the course.

But that is different than blaming it on "greed" or justifying class warfare vengence upon the innocent who may have been providing services and goods and people valued.

The trillions Obama spent were an attempt to recover from the damage done by the Wall-Street drag-racers.

How sincere were Obama's good intentions? Key advisors within his cabinet think there are too many people and economic growth consumes scarce resources needed by future generations. At the same time green initiatives and healthcare were put forward without consideration of the costs. Obama's stimulus was not shovel ready projects and infrastructure investment, but instead just a laundry list of the usual Democratic pork barrel. It appears he would rather redistribute and tax than recover.

The drag-racers manipulated billions, but it took trillions even to try to clean up after them, and many smart people are saying that not enough was spent. We can't pay off any debts from the depths of an indefinite recession. And it looks as if that recession is going to be deliberately extended as a strategy for defeating Obama.

I'd be happy to advise Obama on how to get us out of the recession even at the risk of getting him re-elected, including how to sell the plan to both his base and the opposition. Most of those opposing Obama's plans truly think they won't work any better than what he has already tried.

-- Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 7:10 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0800)]

Martin Lewitt (2011 Sep 28 0802 MDT)_-

I'd be happy to advise Obama on how to get us out of the recession even at
the risk of getting him re-elected, including how to sell the plan to both
his base and the opposition. � Most of those opposing Obama's plans truly
think they won't work any better than what he has already tried.

Please let us know what advice you would give!

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

9

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Jul 28 0900 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0800)]

Martin Lewitt (2011 Sep 28 0802 MDT)_-

I'd be happy to advise Obama on how to get us out of the recession even at
the risk of getting him re-elected, including how to sell the plan to both
his base and the opposition. Most of those opposing Obama's plans truly
think they won't work any better than what he has already tried.

Please let us know what advice you would give!

Reform the Federal Reserve to "print" money direct to every citizen via debit card accounts. This would make federal reserve actions transparent, and would not require a pyramid of debt to increase demand and would more fairly allocate the benefit of money creation. The resistance to cutting spending even among republicans demonstrated by the recent debt ceiling crisis demonstrate that we are going to have to inflate our way out of this debt. Simultaneously dial back fractional reserve banking to increase stability and decrease leverage in the economy. Allow interest rates to float so there is an incentive to save again. Eliminate the double taxation on dividends and capital gains, financing it by capping the deductibility of interest at say $1 million, the would either make dividend payments by corporations deductable or reduce the personal income tax on dividends to zero. The overall plan is one of reducing leverage in the private sector of the economy, increasing demand, employment, investment and savings. The risk is greater inflation, but that is reduced by the huge amount of unemployed and underemployed labor ready to honor the dollars that are printed. China is still intent on manipulating its currency for trade advantage, so it too must honor the dollar if it intends to continue to artificially keep the value of yuan low.

Inflation can be thought of as a tax on savings, i.e., the other currency out there, and all dollar denominated assets like treasuries and other bonds and mortgage securities. This form of "quantitative easing" overcomes the problem of creating money through credit that doesn't work during times of economic uncertainty. The money policy should continue to target 1.5 to 3% inflation, but initially should risk a bit more. I'd start at $1.2 trillion, i.e., $4000 for every man, woman and child.

thanx for asking,
           Martin

···

On 9/28/2011 8:55 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

RSM

10

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.28 11:00 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0658 MDT]

That must have been my interstellar winnebago dream.

Yes. I think you even called it that.

Are you sure I didn't
have accommodations for multiple wives in mind?

I am sure that your 'accomodations' involve a luxurious room where you
can put them when you are not interacting with them. I am sure that
you want them happy too. You want them happy, not because you
vicariously enjoy their happiness (their triumphs, their hopes, etc)
but because you don't want them to bug you.

Yes, I do try to make affordable energy, cures for
disease, immortality �and space exploration happen.

Again, because you want these things for yourself. Are you interested
in adding a kiln or a splash park to your community recreation center-
not because you or your family would use these things but because
others would.

But I wouldn't think
of a taking my family on an interstellar winnebago trip, unless there was a
prospect of obtaining mates for my children along the way. �Humans are
social animals

Do you mean to say 'sexual' or 'social'? Social can also mean that
they like to 'sit and chat'. I don't think you are visualizing your
children sitting around a table knitting while they chat.

Note: In your world, someone else takes care of the non-stop
pestering and attention sink generated by children. If you have any
daughters that share your view, I suspect that they do not have
children. Also, the more women that share your view, the fewer
children that will be born into the world, and the more likely that
the ones born will not receive the attention that they need to develop
appropriately. This may actually be one of the driving factors of the
rise of Autism and other psychological ailments among the children of
professional couples.

Thanks,
Shannon

11

[From Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0900)]

Martin Lewitt (2011 Jul 28 0900 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0800)]

Please let us know what advice you would give!

Reform the Federal Reserve to "print" money direct to every citizen via
debit card accounts. ...

Before I reply can you tell me how we can evaluate success if your
programs are implemented. What are the aggregate measures to look at
to see if this is working?

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[Shannon Williams 2011.28.11:30 CST]

Bear in mind that this was an MBA student project using a sample of 27
traders and 24 psychopaths. �It's getting massive airplay not because of the
quality of the research but because a lot of people want to believe the
results.

My point is that by using PCT, we can easily theorize these people
will exhibit the same behavior as registered psychopaths. We 'know'
that our actions exist only to control our perceptions. If our
perceptions do not include the welfare of other people, then our
actions will not be moderated to not harm other people. If our
perceptions do not include the welfare of other people, then our
actions can destroy other people and we will never perceive it.

Thanks,
Shannon

···

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Richard Kennaway <jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk> wrote:

13

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1200 MDT]

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.28 11:00 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 0658 MDT]

That must have been my interstellar winnebago dream.

Yes. I think you even called it that.

Are you sure I didn't
have accommodations for multiple wives in mind?

I am sure that your 'accomodations' involve a luxurious room where you
can put them when you are not interacting with them. I am sure that
you want them happy too. You want them happy, not because you
vicariously enjoy their happiness (their triumphs, their hopes, etc)
but because you don't want them to bug you.

I'm secure enough to want them to be intelligent with interests we can share.

Yes, I do try to make affordable energy, cures for
disease, immortality and space exploration happen.

Again, because you want these things for yourself. Are you interested
in adding a kiln or a splash park to your community recreation center-
not because you or your family would use these things but because
others would.

I did propose that my community pool their kiln resources, my daughter's has space enough to share.

But I wouldn't think
of a taking my family on an interstellar winnebago trip, unless there was a
prospect of obtaining mates for my children along the way. Humans are
social animals

Do you mean to say 'sexual' or 'social'? Social can also mean that
they like to 'sit and chat'. I don't think you are visualizing your
children sitting around a table knitting while they chat.

They usually crochet or quilt in the living room.

Note: In your world, someone else takes care of the non-stop
pestering and attention sink generated by children.

Actually we homeschooled and enjoyed reading aloud.

If you have any
daughters that share your view, I suspect that they do not have
children. Also, the more women that share your view, the fewer
children that will be born into the world, and the more likely that
the ones born will not receive the attention that they need to develop
appropriately.

My two daughters are pretty domestic and intend to have 4 or 5 children. They seem pretty happy with earth, so I'm not sure they'd come with me. I'd miss them, they are good company.

This may actually be one of the driving factors of the
rise of Autism and other psychological ailments among the children of
professional couples.

It might be, but I think you must have entangled your recollection of me with someone else. I love children and women and domesticity. But i also think humans are about more than sex and socializing. We would degenerate to bonobos with just that. We are the branch that strived for more.

regards,
     Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 10:02 AM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Thanks,
Shannon

14

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1253 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0900)]

Martin Lewitt (2011 Jul 28 0900 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2011.09.28.0800)]

Please let us know what advice you would give!

Reform the Federal Reserve to "print" money direct to every citizen via
debit card accounts. ...

Before I reply can you tell me how we can evaluate success if your
programs are implemented. What are the aggregate measures to look at
to see if this is working?

1) The net assets of the people due to asset purchases, debt paydown and asset value increases such as housing prices and the percent of mortgages that are underwater.
2) reduced unemployment levels and foreclosure levels
3) increases in tax revenues (without increasing the tax rates or taxing the Fed Reserve distributions)
4) improved dividend returns from corporations providing a more fundamental rather that speculative basis for stock prices and reduced overall volatility
5) a reduced "misery index" (inflation + unemployment), some inflation is expected
6) enough deleveraging of the economy from reductions in corporate and consumer debt to enable further Federal Reserve distributions to the people without igniting inflation
7) increases in exports and imports, increased growth in China, India, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Europe, etc.

-- Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 10:03 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

RSM

15

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.13:30 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1200 MDT]

My two daughters are pretty domestic and intend to have 4 or 5 children.
�They seem pretty happy with earth, so I'm not sure they'd come with me.
�I'd miss them, they are good company.

My point is: they would not be happy all alone in an airship. 'They
are domestic'. If they were the type that could be happy in the
airship, they would not have children.

I can see how this dichotomy evolved in the west, and how it leads to
psychotic behavior in men but not women. A family needs two totally
different set of controlled perceptions to survive in a small
community versus in a large one. If your family is surviving in a
small community, you need one set of perceptions focussed internally
on the family, and you need another set of perceptions focussed on the
world beyond the family (into which you venture to bring stuff back to
the family). Both sets of perceptions can naturally develop without
any details devoted to 'non-family' lifeforms, however only one
generates actions on the world outside of the family. These actions
made without regard to 'non-family' lifeforms, can be described as
psychopathic behavior. This mindset has captivated a segment of
society (the segment that loves Dexter and rationalizes the traders'
behavior). This same segment also adores Capitalism, and for the same
reason.

The problem that we have now in 2012 is that communities are not small
anymore. Although we still need two sets of perceptions, we do not
need them within the same family. We need a few people in the
community to focus on the world beyond the community, but everyone
else can now focus on the family. Also, there are no 'non-family'
lifeforms anymore. The world that the capitalist psychopath evolved
to survive in no longer exists- unless he can succeed in recreating
it.

Thanks,
Shannon

16

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1508 MDT]

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.13:30 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1200 MDT]

My two daughters are pretty domestic and intend to have 4 or 5 children.
  They seem pretty happy with earth, so I'm not sure they'd come with me.
  I'd miss them, they are good company.

My point is: they would not be happy all alone in an airship. 'They
are domestic'. If they were the type that could be happy in the
airship, they would not have children.

That doesn't follow at all. What would be the point of having the women along if they weren't going to have children, we would have an obligation to the species. I know I'd be thinking beyond my small community.

I can see how this dichotomy evolved in the west, and how it leads to
psychotic behavior in men but not women.

  I really think they should be using sociopathic rather than psychotic.

  A family needs two totally
different set of controlled perceptions to survive in a small
community versus in a large one. If your family is surviving in a
small community, you need one set of perceptions focussed internally
on the family, and you need another set of perceptions focussed on the
world beyond the family (into which you venture to bring stuff back to
the family). Both sets of perceptions can naturally develop without
any details devoted to 'non-family' lifeforms, however only one
generates actions on the world outside of the family. These actions
made without regard to 'non-family' lifeforms, can be described as
psychopathic behavior. This mindset has captivated a segment of
society (the segment that loves Dexter and rationalizes the traders'
behavior). This same segment also adores Capitalism, and for the same
reason.

Trading pre-dates capitalism by millenia and was the source of Minoan and Athenian wealth. "The same segment" is an overgeneralization, there may be some overlap, but it is quite common in the pro-capitalist community to question the role played by the bankers and wall street. Opposition to the bailouts was wide spread, the Fed policies and quasi-governmental status of fannie and freddie were both questioned before the crisis.

Much of what you call "rationalizes", may be little more than an analysis and understanding of the perverse incentives set up by tax and regulatory policy.

The problem that we have now in 2012 is that communities are not small
anymore. Although we still need two sets of perceptions, we do not
need them within the same family. We need a few people in the
community to focus on the world beyond the community, but everyone
else can now focus on the family.

Presumably the few people focused on the world beyond the community could make the decisions for the rest of us because they don't have sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies.

Also, there are no 'non-family'
lifeforms anymore. The world that the capitalist psychopath evolved
to survive in no longer exists- unless he can succeed in recreating
it

I didn't know.

-- Martin L

···

On 9/28/2011 1:44 PM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Thanks,
Shannon

17

[From Richard Kennaway (2011.09.29.0902 BST)]

[Shannon Williams 2011.28.11:30 CST]

My point is that by using PCT, we can easily theorize these people
will exhibit the same behavior as registered psychopaths. We 'know'
that our actions exist only to control our perceptions. If our
perceptions do not include the welfare of other people, then our
actions will not be moderated to not harm other people. If our
perceptions do not include the welfare of other people, then our
actions can destroy other people and we will never perceive it.

One does not need PCT to "theorize" this. One, does, however, need to assume that share traders' perceptions do not include the welfare of other people, which renders the whole thing circular. This is just dressing up folk psychology and political presumptions in PCT vocabulary and pretending to have scientifically proved something. People are believing this because they want to believe it, and claiming that PCT supports the conclusion can only bring discredit on PCT -- or if credit, then credit for the worst of reasons.

People haven't even read the study, just a newspaper report. They're mostly echoing the Spiegel version, which contains no information about the actual experiment.

The other original newspaper report, that I linked to in my previous message, says that the study was conducted on 27 traders and 24 psychopaths, and measured their performance on a task of iterated prisoners' dilemma, finding statistical differences between the two groups in the direction of less cooperation among the traders than the psychopaths.

I'm waiting for a shoe to drop here.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

18

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.29 7:00 CST]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Sep 28 1508 MDT]

The problem that we have now in 2012 is that communities are not small
anymore. �Although we still need two sets of perceptions, we do not
need them within the same family. �We need a few people in the
community to focus on the world beyond the community, but everyone
else can now focus on the family.

Presumably the few people focused on the world beyond the community could
make the decisions for the rest of us

It is a matter of 'controlling perceptions' not 'making decisions'.
Your daughters are not perceiving the details of their environment
outside of their domestic environment. Not to the extent that control
of these perceptions takes priority over control of the domestic
perceptions. Their control extends to nagging you (or their husbands)
to do something.

When you talk about the 'few people focussed on the world beyond the
community', the people you are referring to are councilmen,
congressmen, etc. It is not that they are 'making decisions for the
rest of us', your daughters could substitute your 'decision' making
for theirs. It is YOU who is impacted, not your daughters. YOU are
the one having your position in society changed. YOU are the one who
no longer can control your perceptions. For example, when two
companies merge, there are often two people doing the same job-
controlling the same perceptions. That is the position that the
American white man is finding himself. Other American cultures do not
have this dichotomy to the extent that American Whites do.

Also, there are no 'non-family'
lifeforms anymore. �The world that the capitalist psychopath evolved
to survive in no longer exists- unless he can succeed in recreating
it

I didn't know.

Exactly. Thirty years ago, perhaps Rick and Bill did not know either.
But they had (for whatever reason) details in their perceptions that
allowed them to find control in the bigger community. The form that
this control is taking is that there are no 'non-family' lifeforms
anymore. The tea-partiers and Libertarians are people who have not
found this.

Thanks,
Shannon

19

[Shannon Williams 2011.09.29 9:00 CST]

[From Richard Kennaway (2011.09.29.0902 BST)]

This is just dressing up folk psychology and political presumptions in
PCT vocabulary and pretending to have scientifically proved something.

In this statement, you are guessing at my motivations. You would need
to ascertain my assumptions to determine if my conclusion were based
on logic. As far as 'proving' a theory: theories can only be
disproved. They cannot be proven.

Thanks,
Shannon

20

[From Bill Powers (2011.09.29. 0815 MDT)]

Shannon Williams 2011.09.29 9:00 CST --

> [From Richard Kennaway (2011.09.29.0902 BST)]
>
>This is just dressing up folk psychology and political presumptions in
>PCT vocabulary and pretending to have scientifically proved something.

In this statement, you are guessing at my motivations. You would need
to ascertain my assumptions to determine if my conclusion were based
on logic. As far as 'proving' a theory: theories can only be
disproved. They cannot be proven.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Richard on this one. Guessing at motivations is a pretty unreliable way to reach the truth, but you're doing that a good deal more than Richard is, especially when you start guessing about the detailed circumstances of other people's children (Martin's), and their personal preferences. It's too easy to make up stories that fit what you're trying to prove.

The behaviorists had this much right: it's best to base theories on what you observe rather than what you imagine.

Best,

Bill P.