[Marc Abrams (2005.12.08.0936)]
In a message dated 12/8/2005 1:15:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
>[From Rick Marken (2005.12.07.2210)]
>> Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.1822)
> >> So either you see no connection to what you do and how I react
>> simply don't care. In either case I find it offensive.
>You certainly are a sensitive fellow.
And what if I am? Is that any reason to dismiss it? You see Rick
*/_this_/* is exactly what I have been talking about with you and
why I call you a phoney.
You espouse the idea that you 'care' deeply about others when in
fact you can care less about others, or so it seems.
You discount my feelings and make believe they don't exist and are
not worthy of your time.
Is this your idea about tolerance or respect? Is this how you would
expect and want others to treat you?
Try putting yourself in my shoes and what would you think after
getting a reply like that?
Do you think I care about anything you said after that?
I'm not asking you to answer any of these questions to me. But if
you want to know why folks think you are a jerk here it is.
BTW Bryan I know you are reading this so a note in passing to you. I
dumped your message and did not read it. If you want to apologize to
me I might consider talking with you again but until that time you
cab shove it, I'm not interested nor will I read or respond to any
of your posts. You may not like my language big boy but I am a man
of my word.
Now, back to Rick.
If you think being dismissive of others is the way to their hearts
you have some major issues, but I think you are so narcissistic that
you really don't care and that is unfortunate for you.
> It looks to me like you're not
>really all that interested in having a critical discussion (unless
>you mean is that you just want to be critical of me;-))
When you start responding to what I post and say and not to what you
want to advocate maybe we could have an argument; if you actually
respect my ideas we might even be able to have some dialogue, but
until that time you will be advocating your ideas to yourself
because I'm not interested.
Yes, one way to stay in control is to be dismissive of others and
not acknowledge the ideas of others as being valid and simply moving
on to what you want to advocate for.
Again, a very well worn tactic of both you and Powers that have
endeared you to many people.
But you will be just as dismissive about everything I have said so
far because you really believe it doesn't matter and people can't
see through any of this. Does the emperor have any clothes?
>I'll just take this opportunity to talk a little more about the PCT
>hierarchy, the topic that started this discussion off in the first
>place. There was something I wanted to mention in reply to your
>about the hierarchy being "foundational" to PCT, but I forgot. So
>it is now, for those who might be interested.
I'm glad you feel everything is already in the bag. I don't believe
this to be the case.
If PCT were the only way of explaining behavioral phenomenon there
would be not questions and everyone would accept it as fact but this
is not the case and not simply because people are not aware of it.
Many hundreds of people have passed through this forum and have
rejected the ideas presented here . Now whether that rejection was
due to a lack of understanding about PCT or anything else doesn't
really matter. People have seen deficiencies that you are unwilling
to acknowledge throwing all responsibility onto the shoulders of
others like you did to me in this post.
Until you painfully start to acknowledge that you play an active
part in this rejection, for whatever reasons you are doomed to your
present place in the sun.
Again, you can pooh-pooh this all you want, but you are only hurting
yourself when you do. My life, unlike Bryan's does not revolve
around the success or failure of CSGnet.
>There is quite a bit of evidence that control systems are organized
>hierarchically. But there is very little evidence that this
>hierarchical organization is exactly like the 11 or so level
>that Bill described in B:CP,
No, there is no evidence, not little. There is little evidence that
control systems exist as portrayed by PCT. We know that control
exists, and there might be some evidence that some of this control
is hierarchical but these control processes that are known are
physiological in nature and not related to PCT.
>with systems controlling intensity-type
>perceptions at the lowest levels and system concept type
>the highest. The 11 or so...
>level hierarchy of control systems was
>proposed by Bill mainly, I believe, as a _hypothesis_ to guide future
>research based on a control of input model of behavior.
Yes, that is what I thought as well, but instead has become
'foundational' and taken as a given. Why do you suppose this is the
>levels -- intensity, sensation, configuration, transition, sequence,
>event, you know the drill
A drill? If they were an hypothesized beginning, why and how did
they turn into accepted 'fact' and require a remembrance of? It
would seem to me that if this were genuinely the case then it would
make little difference what the ultimate foundation became.
But I don't believe this for a minute and neither should you. Bill
himself has said many times that what separates his ideas from
others is the hierarchy, so although he threw it out as a hypothesis
his whole theory is one big conjecture.
When 'drills' are needed to remember conjectures am afraid our toes
are no longer touching the ground.
>-- are hypothetical -- based on some
>reasonable but subjective observations -- and Bill has said
>that they should not be treated as fact.
Then why treat them that way?
>The 11 or so level hierarchy
>was developed not only to guide research but also to show how a
>of input model could, in principle, explain _all_ behavior, from the
>simple motor behavior that was the focus of the early applications of
>control theory up to very complex "cognitive" behaviors like playing
>chess or being a control theorist.
Ah, so here it is folks.The hierarchy was not just 'tossed' out on
the table for folks to ponder, it is in fact the entire foundation
of Bill's claims, and my denouncing of the hierarchy effectively
This is both unfortunate and regrettable. The validity of PCT should
not hang and balance on the validity of the hierarchy as stated.
There is just no reason for that to be the case except for the
possible narcissist needs of an individual.
If this truly is the case you are in much worse shape then I thought.
To think that the hierarchy as currently configured without a strong
memory component and a strong emotional component could account for
cognition places PCT right up there with the Leakage theory in
Rick, you put cognition in scare quotes because you truly believe it
is questionable that cognition plays a part in human behavior, and
they have you teaching a course in cognition?
>So the 11 or so level hierarchy is not the foundation of PCT; it is a
>set of guesses about how control systems _might_ be organized to
account to all the different kind of behaviors we see.
BS, you just contradicted what you just said above. Can't you even
see your thoughts from paragraph to paragraph?
Research into what? The levels? People have tried and failed to be
able to devise ways of testing this.
>to some extent, it has become an impediment to research, to the
extent that the > hierarchy is treated as "decided law". It's not
decided at all.
Yes, and */_this_/* has been my only claim. It has become 'law'
because nothing else is allowed to be discussed on CSGnet because
Bill Powers will not explore or get involved in discussing any and
all options, so when you restrict yourself to 'researching' in only
one 'approved' and narrow manner what else do you think would
happen? 'Researching' the levels as stated by Powers became the only
'legitimate' way to 'research' PCT and nobody has been able to pull
it off, nobody.
>I've done some little research
>projects on the hierarchy; none have been published (except one in
>_More Mind Readings_). Now that I'll (hopefully) have more time
>PCT research I'll try to make studies of the hierarchy a focus of my
>Until we learn a great deal more about the details of the
>suggest that it be treated as what I believe it was meant to be -- a
>proposal for research and a heuristic for thinking about how input
>control can explain some of the very complex things we see people
Gee Rick, this last paragraph seems to have come right out of my
playbook. Why the sudden change of heart?
You espouse a good game but rarely come through on what you preach.
I will respond to you the same way you responded to me over these
past years on this subject.
Instead of complaining about it, why haven't you devised a test for
the levels that would be publishable?
What has prevented you from doing so?