Is PCT a metatheory?

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the sum total of what can be known about L1 and said inn L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!] http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf), we get a very loose definition:Â

“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positivism, ppost-positivism, hermeneutics, …”

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all, they are at best notational variants of one theory.

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding, and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

···

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Â

Fred Good:

Â

No attachment; no link.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Â

Hi Fred.Â

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Â

Fred Good

Â

On Mo
n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

Â

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

Â

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book * Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D
o* are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s
eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just arrived today–hot off the press).

Â

I have tended to regard aspects of PCT as metatheory in the sense of behaviourism and cognitive psychology and their assumptions around how scientific experimentation is conducted and the mentality of living things, AND I see PCT as a theory owing to its detailed propositions and their associates scientific predictions, AND I see PCT as a modelling architecture owing to its tightly defining components, their functions and organisation…

···

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Fred Good:

No attachment; no link.

Fred Nickols

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Hi Fred.

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Fred Good

On Mo
n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book * Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D
o* are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today. In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s
eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just arrived today–hot off the press).

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-03-15]

I agree that PCT is not a metatheory in a strict sense, but rather a theory. Its relation to behaviorism is like Relativity
theory to Newtonian: It transcends and falsifies but at the same time explains its restricted adequacy. But it is not a study of other theories.

As a general theory of action of living beings it can of course be used to study and explain the other theories (and their
developers).

I want to mention still one use of the term metatheory which is familiar to me and quite handy. In my (branch of) science
(education) we differentiate between the metatheoretical and object theoretical perspectives in a following manner: the object of research is the practice of education; object theory is about this object; metatheory is about the practice of doing object theory.
This differentiation is useful and important because students and practical educators often tend to mix them with confusing consequences. Seems though that this differentiation is not so necessary in different kind of sciences, especially not for PCT where
it seems that practitioner (MOL) do quite similar things than object theoretical researchers?

···

Eetu

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: 15. maaliskuuta 2017 10:14
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Is PCT a metatheory?

I have tended to regard aspects of PCT as metatheory in the sense of behaviourism and cognitive psychology and their assumptions around how scientific experimentation is conducted and the mentality of living things,
AND I see PCT as a theory owing to its detailed propositions and their associates scientific predictions, AND I see PCT as a modelling architecture owing to its tightly defining components, their functions and organisation…

On 15 Mar 2017, at 01:59, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the
sum total of what can be known about L1 and said in L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence
types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!]
[

http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.integral-2Dreview.org_documents_old_Wallis-2CToward-2Da-2DScience-2Dof-2DMetatheory-2CVol.6-2CNo.3.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=thXsENvDMZpUDZ050MnpF3mv0WGt8PjOifWNAUK0PEQ&s=DbRtBOh2tpkqqw4K0TtxHjsGdN8Dj9IRWAe9mGQjZfU&e=)), we get a very loose definition:

“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positiviism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, …”

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory
is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all,
they are at best notational variants of one theory.

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of
them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding,
and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism
I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

/Bruce Nevin

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Fred Good:

No attachment; no link.

Fred Nickols

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com
]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Hi Fred.

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Fred Good

On Mo n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM,

richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D o are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As
you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today. In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why
they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *
as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just
arrived today–hot off the press).

Thanks, Bruce for your email.

First, I want to point out that I am not a scientist or academic, but rather an artist, primarily a painter. I love PCT and loved Bill Powers and his patience with me and those, who like me, are not gifted as scientists or academics, but respect those who are. I did pass my “review” of Richard’s book when it was in its various draft stages through several of the folks you mention, including Warren and Rick. I do, as a matter of fact, refer to PCT as a cognitive psychology when talking to people completely unfamiliar with PCT. I got the word mega-theory from Pfau’s book and didn’t realize that it would perhaps raise some controversy. I did my best, though, given the brain with which I was born, to give his effort the justice I personally thought that it deserves. Â

In any case, for me, its a little about missing the forest for the trees. At some point, it is important, if PCT is a valid theory, to spread the word by inviting others at multiple levels to consider it. I’m comfortable enough in thinking that it is a valid model of behavior to go at least that far and have attempted, over the years to work on getting better at doing that in the context of our confused world. Â

So, what might have been a better way of saying what I intended?

Thanks,

Fred Â

···

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the sum total of what can be known about L1 and said in L2 mmay be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!] http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf), we get a very loose definition:Â

“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positivism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, …”

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all, they are at best notational variants of one theory.

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding, and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

/Bruce Nevin

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Â

Fred Good:

Â

No attachment; no link.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Â

Hi Fred.Â

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Â

Fred Good

Â

On Mo
n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

Â

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

Â

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book * Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D
o* are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s
eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just arrived today–hot off the press).

Â

[Bruce Nevin 2017.1748.2156 ET]

Oh, gee, Fred, that was not intended as criticism of you or of what you had written. I can see that “taken aback” seems that way. I was very impressed with your review. Your use of the word metatheory is well within the social-science definition of it.

···

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks, Bruce for your email.

First, I want to point out that I am not a scientist or academic, but rather an artist, primarily a painter. I love PCT and loved Bill Powers and his patience with me and those, who like me, are not gifted as scientists or academics, but respect those who are. I did pass my “review” of Richard’s book when it was in its various draft stages through several of the folks you mention, including Warren and Rick. I do, as a matter of fact, refer to PCT as a cognitive psychology when talking to people completely unfamiliar with PCT. I got the word mega-theory from Pfau’s book and didn’t realize that it would perhaps raise some controversy. I did my best, though, given the brain with which I was born, to give his effort the justice I personally thought that it deserves. Â

In any case, for me, its a little about missing the forest for the trees. At some point, it is important, if PCT is a valid theory, to spread the word by inviting others at multiple levels to consider it. I’m comfortable enough in thinking that it is a valid model of behavior to go at least that far and have attempted, over the years to work on getting better at doing that in the context of our confused world. Â

So, what might have been a better way of saying what I intended?

Thanks,

Fred Â

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the sum total of what can be known about L1 and ssaid in L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!] http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf), we get a very loose definition:Â

"a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positivism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, …&quuot;

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all, they are at best notational variants of one theory.

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding, and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

/Bruce Nevin

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Â

Fred Good:

Â

No attachment; no link.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Â

Hi Fred.Â

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Â

Fred Good

Â

On Mo
n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

Â

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM, richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

Â

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book * Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D
o* are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s
eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just arrived today–hot off the press).

Â

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0316.1800 ET]

Interesting, Eetu, yes.Â

It seems to me that PCT is a metatheory to the object theory of MoL. The theory of MoL includes statements like this: All psychological distress is due to internal conflict. Evidence for this is ‘background thoughts’ about one side of the conflict while overtly talking about the other side of the conflict. Various signs indicate a background thought (pauses, interjections, etc.). Asking about these thoughts often leads to talking about the other side of the conflict, and so back and forth, until both sides are in awareness at once. Then, often, a resolution of the conflict is evident to the client or just magically happens. PCT as a metatheory explains this as ‘going up a level’.

Operations within MOL-theory (being alert to background thoughts, asking appropriate questions) are not the same as operations within PCT.

···

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-03-15]

Â

I agree that PCT is not a metatheory in a strict sense, but rather a theory. Its relation to behaviorism is  like Relativity
theory to Newtonian: It transcends and falsifies but at the same time explains its restricted adequacy. But it is not a study of other theories.

As a general theory of action of living beings it can of course be used to study and explain the other theories (and their
developers).

Â

I want to mention still one use of the term metatheory which is familiar to me and quite handy. In my (branch of) science
(education) we differentiate between the metatheoretical and object theoretical perspectives in a following manner: the object of research is the practice of education; object theory is about this object; metatheory is about the practice of doing object theory.
This differentiation is useful and important because students and practical educators often tend to mix them with confusing consequences. Seems though that this differentiation is not so necessary in different kind of sciences, especially not for PCT where
it seems that practitioner (MOL) do quite similar things than object theoretical researchers?

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com
]
Sent: 15. maaliskuuta 2017 10:14
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Is PCT a metatheory?

Â

I have tended to regard aspects of PCT as metatheory in the sense of behaviourism and cognitive psychology and their assumptions around how scientific experimentation is conducted and the mentality of living things,
AND I see PCT as a theory owing to its detailed propositions and their associates scientific predictions, AND I see PCT as a modelling architecture owing to its tightly defining components, their functions and organisation…

On 15 Mar 2017, at 01:59, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

Â

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

Â

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

Â

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the
sum total of what can be known about L1 and said in L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence
types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Â

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â

Â

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!]
[

http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.integral-2Dreview.org_documents_old_Wallis-2CToward-2Da-2DScience-2Dof-2DMetatheory-2CVol.6-2CNo.3.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=thXsENvDMZpUDZ050MnpF3mv0WGt8PjOifWNAUK0PEQ&s=DbRtBOh2tpkqqw4K0TtxHjsGdN8Dj9IRWAe9mGQjZfU&e=)), we get a very loose definition:Â

“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positiviism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, …”

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

Â

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory
is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

Â

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all,
they are at best notational variants of one theory.

Â

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of
them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â

Â

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding,
and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Â

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism
I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

Â

/Bruce Nevin

Â

Â

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

Â

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Â

Fred Good:

Â

No attachment; no link.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com
]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Â

Hi Fred.Â

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Â

Fred Good

Â

On Mo n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

Â

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM,

richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

Â

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D o are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As
you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why
they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *
as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just
arrived today–hot off the press).

Â

Â

Â

Thanks Bruce. I’m overly sensitive (trying hard all my life to get over it, but still have a way to go) and therefore don’t ever go on the CSGNet. So to have my review of Richard’s book put on there (not by me, I might add) was both surprising and I must admit, encouraging in the sense that I may be understanding something of PCT that can be useful to others seeking answers that PCT has provided for me in helping me deal with my life.

Warm regards, Fred
Â

 Â

···

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0316.1800 ET]

Interesting, Eetu, yes.Â

It seems to me that PCT is a metatheory to the object theory of MoL. The theory of MoL includes statements like this: All psychological distress is due to internal conflict. Evidence for this is ‘background thoughts’ about one side of the conflict while overtly talking about the other side of the conflict. Various signs indicate a background thought (pauses, interjections, etc.). Asking about these thoughts often leads to talking about the other side of the conflict, and so back and forth, until both sides are in awareness at once. Then, often, a resolution of the conflict is evident to the client or just magically happens. PCT as a metatheory explains this as ‘going up a level’.

Operations within MOL-theory (being alert to background thoughts, asking appropriate questions) are not the same as operations within PCT.

/Bruce

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-03-15]

Â

I agree that PCT is not a metatheory in a strict sense, but rather a theory. Its relation to behaviorism is  like Relativity
theory to Newtonian: It transcends and falsifies but at the same time explains its restricted adequacy. But it is not a study of other theories.

As a general theory of action of living beings it can of course be used to study and explain the other theories (and their
developers).

Â

I want to mention still one use of the term metatheory which is familiar to me and quite handy. In my (branch of) science
(education) we differentiate between the metatheoretical and object theoretical perspectives in a following manner: the object of research is the practice of education; object theory is about this object; metatheory is about the practice of doing object theory.
This differentiation is useful and important because students and practical educators often tend to mix them with confusing consequences. Seems though that this differentiation is not so necessary in different kind of sciences, especially not for PCT where
it seems that practitioner (MOL) do quite similar things than object theoretical researchers?

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com
]
Sent: 15. maaliskuuta 2017 10:14
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Is PCT a metatheory?

Â

I have tended to regard aspects of PCT as metatheory in the sense of behaviourism and cognitive psychology and their assumptions around how scientific experimentation is conducted and the mentality of living things,
AND I see PCT as a theory owing to its detailed propositions and their associates scientific predictions, AND I see PCT as a modelling architecture owing to its tightly defining components, their functions and organisation…

On 15 Mar 2017, at 01:59, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2017.0315.2156 ET]

Â

I appreciated reading your review, Fred.

Â

I was taken aback when in your review you refer to PCT as a metatheory.

Â

The term metatheory was coined in the field of logic. An illustrative quote from logician Rudolf Carnap is given with Merriam Webster’s definition: “if we investigate, analyze, and describe a language L1 … the
sum total of what can be known about L1 and said in L2 may be called the metatheory of L1”. L1 is the language that is used within the theory, e.g. the language of astrophysics, or the language (at its best!) of PCT. L2 has more restricted vocabulary and sentence
types, those that are sufficient for talking about the theory that is expressed using L1.

Â

Almost immediately, the term metatheory was extended to philosophy of science. A typical definition in that vein: “a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theory itself” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary). Even less precisely, a “philosophical discussion of the foundations , structure, or results of some theory” (Collins English Dictionary).Â

Â

In the social sciences, where it seems that every proposal comes with its own theory (see Steven E. Wallis “Toward a science of metatheory” [sic!]
[

http://www.integral-review.org/documents/old/Wallis,Toward-a-Science-of-Metatheory,Vol.6,No.3.pdf](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.integral-2Dreview.org_documents_old_Wallis-2CToward-2Da-2DScience-2Dof-2DMetatheory-2CVol.6-2CNo.3.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=thXsENvDMZpUDZ050MnpF3mv0WGt8PjOifWNAUK0PEQ&s=DbRtBOh2tpkqqw4K0TtxHjsGdN8Dj9IRWAe9mGQjZfU&e=)), we get a very loose definition:Â

“a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. [For example] – positiviism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, …”

Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

Â

In other words, metatheory in a strict sense is the system of terms, definitions, and relations that define a theory, but in the social sciences (which includes what philosophy of science often becomes) metatheory
is a set of methods for evaluating alternative theories. A taxonomy from this philosophical perspective is at
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory.html

Â

This latter seems to be what you mean when you refer to PCT as a metatheory. I suppose this is a politic way of putting it. For if two theories have the same metatheory, they are not different theories at all,
they are at best notational variants of one theory.

Â

In my view (and I think it is shared), PCT is a theory, and these other views are poorly informed attempts at theory-making. PCT does not evaluate such views relative to each other pairwise to decide which of
them is superior, which is the evaluative sense of metatheory. Nor will such views be reconciled and merged into PCT by talking about them using the language of PCT, a function inconsistent with any definition of metatheory.Â

Â

Something like this more diplomatic strategy is (it seems to me) what Warren and colleagues are having some success with by framing MoL under a Cognitive Therapy umbrella. It’s been a good way to get funding,
and a good cover story for getting the word out.

Â

Cognitive psychology is an umbrella with a lot of mutually inconsistent ‘theories’ under it. I don’t know what others’ experience is, but when I suggest that Cog Psych still retains essential features of behaviorism
I no longer have a hearing. I’m thinking of presenting it as a form of cognitive psychology that has the peculiar merit of working.

Â

/Bruce Nevin

Â

Â

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Fred Good fredgood66@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry! Here is the attachment. Fred

Â

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.14.1055 ET)]

Â

Fred Good:

Â

No attachment; no link.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Fred Good [mailto:fredgood66@gmail.com
]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Free Review Copies of “Your Behavior” Available

Â

Hi Fred.Â

Here’s a review of Richard Phau’s book which I wrote FYI. Please feel free to use any part of it in any way if it helps further the effort.

Best,

Â

Fred Good

Â

On Mo n, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

Fred Nickols

922 Country Club Dr

Howard, OH 43028

Â

I will write a review.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:27 PM,

richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

Â

From [Richard Pfau (2017.03.13 17:25 EST)]
Copies of the book Your Behavior: Understanding and Changing the Things You D o are available to interested persons willing to:
(1) write and submit a book review about it to a journal, magazine, or newspaper.
       or
(2) seriously consider using it as a textbook for a course on human behavior.
As
you may know, the book highlights PCT and is aimed at taking readers past the outdated thinking that dominates psychology today.   In particular, readers are helped to (1) understand why
they behave as they do, (2) understand why other people behave as they do, and (3) change their behavior if they really want to.Â
For more information, you might go to Amazon.com and have a l ook at “Your Behavior by Pfau” i ncluding the reference to PCT at the end of my author’s biography.
If you are s eriously interested in writing a book review or possibly using *Your Behavior *
as a textbook, please send me your postal mailing address and I will send you a copy. (A first batch just
arrived today–hot off the press).

Â

Â

Â