Tom Bourbon [941214.1459]
From Lars Christian Smith 941213 16:00 CET
. . .
2. Start a journal, either on paper or on Internet. If on paper, let
a commercial publisher handle printing and distribution.
That's a good idea. But . . ..
The final issue of _Closed Loop_, our attempt at a published journal, was
delivered a few days ago. It died, in part, for lack of submissions. Two
or three people can't provide enough research papers to support a journal,
especially if some of them must earn a living doing things other than PCT,
and the other one is retired.
3. Solve a hard problem using PCT.
I think explaining and predicting unimportant topics like tracking is pretty
hard -- no one else seems to have done it quite the way we do. 
Bill Powers and Greg Williams even went so far as to show that they could
use PCT to explain and model "pointing behavior." That seems to be a big
topic, or at least it is closely related to some big topics. They did it
without first solving "the inverse kinematic problem" (there is no
"inverse kinematic problem" in a perceptual control system) and without
programs and commands for movements (there are no such things in a PCT model
of a perceptual control system). That paper was rejected without review.
You point is legitimate. We are trying.
A problem in much of social science has been the conflict between rigor
and relevance. Much of mathematical economics is rigorous, but not
relevant to anything. Political economy, for example, is relevant, but
not rigorous.
You might want to communicate with Bill Williams, a PCTish economist who now
lurks in Kentucky, near Greg Williams's farm and publishing empire,
working on a book. (You'll need to ask Greg how to reach Bill W.; so far,
all Greg has said is that Bill is, "a few miles down the road." That's
about as specific as it gets in Kentucky. ;-))
Tracking experiments in PCT are rigorous, but we can hardly expect them to
catch the public imagination. They are not relevant to most people's
concerns.
That's what _they_ think. 
. . .
I was intrigued by the reference to "the behavior of defending a
self-concept against invalidation". What is the reference? Can the
paper be downloaded?
I hope Dick Robertson (the clinician who posted, "A Clinicians view of
Reorganization . . ."; Dick Robertson (941210l.2055CST)) sees your
inquiry. He has done some very neat little experiments on the subject.
Dick has been associated with PCT for many years. I recommend him over the
other sources suggested in: [Jeff Vancouver 941213]. No offense intended,
Jeff. It's just that I know Dick understands PCT, whereas Carver & Scheier
are talking about something else. I don't know the work of Claude
Steele, who you say, "has a theory of self-affirmation the addresses this.
He seems to be talking about the highest level in the hierarchy." Dick
Robertson _is_ talking about the highest levels, as we understand them.
You also say of Steele: "Of course, I suspect he has little knowledge of
PCT, he hangs with the Carver & Scheier crowd." In light of the company
Steele keeps, I suspect your suspicions are justified!
"In general the social cognition people are dealing with
the self-concept in a self-regulatory framework."
All with no awareness or knowledge of control, the phenomenon, or of control
theory, the explanation for the phenomenon of control. Actually, some of
them _do_ know about PCT; they have rejected it, in print, in large part
because even they recognize many inadequacies in the kind of "control
theory" described by Carver and Scheier and associates. But the biggest
social cognizer of them all, Al Bandura, rejected PCT and Powers, "face
to face," in an exchange of letters to the editor. Lars, I wouldn't suggest
that you spend much time looking to that group for insights into
self-concept as a controlled perception.
It's good to have you on the net.
Later,
Tom