joint paper

[from Gary Cziko 930503.0246 UTC]

Bill Powers (930501.1010) said:

The following paper is a first draft, the final product to be
submitted to an unselected journal. I am inviting comments,
revisions, deletions, additions, rewordings, new concepts, or
anything else that will make it acceptable to readers on this
net. I particularly want these things from people who will be
willing to become co-authors of the paper. I would like this
paper to appear with many authors from many disciplines in many
countries around the world: the more the better.

I would love to be a part of this if I could make a useful contribution.

I wonder if it would be informative to quote from some of the many reviews
of PCT papers to illustrate the revolutionary nature of PCT and how PCT
concepts are routinely misinterpreted.

I realize that this would be a very unorthodox move and might make the
paper look like a sour grapes diatribe, but the reviews do lend credence to
the what appears to be the main thesis of the paper.--Gary


Gary Cziko Telephone: 217-333-8527
Educational Psychology FAX: 217-244-7620
University of Illinois E-mail:
1310 S. Sixth Street Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990

[from Joel Judd 930505]


Now that I have computer and ELECTRICITY together in the same place,
I would also be very interested (as one might imagine) in the paper.

I am sympathetic to David's comments about a "griping" tone, but
part of reorganization is trying different things to see what works,
right? All "they" can say is NO again. On the other hand...

With respect to the initial section, I think a *brief* description
of a closed loop model would be helpful to the many potential
readers who aren't familiar with it (this was a consistent
complaint with my rejected paper, although how much explanation
is "enough" is difficult to judge.

Also, I think a paragraph or two emphasizing the humanistic nature
of PCT would be worthwhile. I'm trying to remember what I wrote
in the margin of the draft, but it was something to the effect
of balancing what is sometimes seen to be the mechanistic model
of negative feedback with how such a model actually accounts
for goal-driven behavior, the key to being purposeful beings,
and how S-R or I-O models actually take freedom of choice away
and place it in the environment or in unexplained cognitive plans.
Runkel's comments about the "human" might be relevant here, as
would Jerome Bruner's _Acts of Meaning_ comments about pscyhology's
avoidance of purpose, intention, etc. In short, that purposeful
behavior is what makes us HUMAN BEINGS.

Regards--Joel Judd