Lawyers or Scientist?

What is going on with the CSG group, is this a group of Lawyers or scientist?

I am constantly amazed by the copious amounts of linguistic obfuscation and
pontification in this forum. The shear joy one seems to finds by ripping
apart someone's point with words from a different point a view -- without any
data or scientific experiment behind the words used to do so.

In my opinion, there is more bickering and armchair theorizing than science
and experimenting or discussing of Results.

I prefer to talk about....
What is it you want to do with PCT?
What can PCT do?
What are the Results of an experiment using a PCT model?
how to design and implement PCT methodologies.

This would be the difference between applied science and applied sophistry.

All this drivel about semantic jargon and using dictionaries is not much help
to me or the science. This may just be my short coming, but I can't see the
value in these arguments.

If this post infuriates you, it has found its target and the problem I am
addressing.

If this post makes you smile than thank you for your good work at applying
PCT in your work and obtain data.

Mark Lazare

In a message dated 6/4/99 11:18:49 AM, DTSDTO@AOL.COM writes:

<< If this post infuriates you, it has found its target and the problem I am
addressing.

If this post makes you smile than thank you for your good work at applying
PCT in your work and obtain data.
>>

Mark:

Smiling like a cat. 8=))

Kenny

[From Chris Cherpas (990604.0910 PT)]

"Lazare, Mark Crisis counselor, Phoenix AZ" wrote:

What is going on with the CSG group, is this a group
of Lawyers or scientist? ...

Have you considered a career as a lawyer?

Just kidding,
cc

[From Rick Marken (990604.2240)]

Mark Lazare (990604) --

In my opinion, there is more bickering and armchair theorizing
than science and experimenting or discussing of Results.

Sounds like there's a difference between what you want to see
people doing on this list and what they are actually doing:
you've got error. I think there are two basic aways for you to
try to reduce this error: 1) try to "infuriate" the people who
are not doing what you want in an effort to get them to start
doing what you want or 2) do what you can on your own (such as
bringing up topics that are of interest to you) to get the
perception you want (more discussion of "science and experimenting
or discussing of Results") without trying to control other people.
I recommend route 2).

If, as you say:

[you] prefer to talk about....
What is it you want to do with PCT?
What can PCT do?
What are the Results of an experiment using a PCT model?
how to design and implement PCT methodologies.

then why not talk about it? I bet there are many people on
this list who would like to talk about these things. Actually,
over the last couple weeks we've been talking about how to
apply the PCT model to the results of VI matching experiments.
Some of this discussion happened off-line because it seemed
like there was not much interest in it. Why not join in the
discussion of how we might explain the results of concurrent
VI experiments using the PCT model? It seems like this is a good
example of your third bullet: looking at the results of an
experiment using the PCT model.

Anyway, don't feel frustrated if the discussion on CSGNet is not
about what you want to discuss. Just discuss what you want to
discuss and see if anyone else bites. You might end up with a
thread you want before you know it.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Hank Folson (990605.2000)]

Rick Marken (990604.2240)

Mark Lazare (990604) --

In my opinion, there is more bickering and armchair theorizing
than science and experimenting or discussing of Results.

Sounds like there's a difference between what you want to see
people doing on this list and what they are actually doing:
you've got error. I think there are two basic aways for you to
try to reduce this error: 1) try to "infuriate" the people who
are not doing what you want in an effort to get them to start
doing what you want or 2) do what you can on your own (such as
bringing up topics that are of interest to you) to get the
perception you want (more discussion of "science and experimenting
or discussing of Results") without trying to control other people.
I recommend route 2).

Mark tried route 2) first, and on more than one occasion. I've taken the
liberty of including a post of his that brought _zero_ response. In
[Mark Lazare 990421] he posted about his area of interest (suicide
prevention). The post invited participation and comment. But not a peep
from anyone.

About the same time Fred Nickols posted a snippet of one rather ambiguous
short paragraph, completely without context, from a lifetime of work by
someone who wasn't a PCTer. This thread went for 20 or 30 posts before
fading out.

In parallel, someone posted a comment about behaviorism, I think (I
trashed the thread, so I don't have any details). It is probably still
going...

There is a significant difference between Mark's post (Mark Lazare
990421) and most other threads here. He specifically addressed the
failure to achieve goals by the person as leading to the "behavior"
(suicide).

Most often, other threads concentrate on "behaviors", and rarely look at
goals, as PCT says you must to know what is going on. And my impression
is that the posting "behavior" of others is accepted as the person's
goal, not just as their output to satisfy internal goals. What a waste.

Here is Mark's post:

···

--------------

In a message dated 4/21/99 7:39:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kurtzer@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes:

<< Thats nice, now lets talk about PCT >>

I would like some help building a frame of PCT around these points.

The following statistic's from
CDC - National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Suicide in the
United
States

The Problem

� Suicide took the lives of 30,484 Americans in 1992 (11.1 per 100, 000
population) 1

� More people die from suicide than from homicide in the United States.

� On an average day, 84 people die from suicide and an estimated 1,900
adults
attempt suicide.

� Males are at least four times more likely to die from suicide than are
females. However, females are more likely to attempt suicide than are
males.

� In 1992, white males accounted for 73 % of all suicides. Together, white
males and white females account for almost 91% of all suicides. Suicide
rates
are higher than the national average for some groups of Asian and Native
Americans.

� Suicide rates are generally higher than the national average in the
western
states and lower in the eastern and Midwestern states.

� Nearly 60 % of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

� Suicide rates increase with age and are highest among- Americans aged 65
years and older.

� The ten-year period, 1980-1990, was the first decade since the 1940s
that
the suicide rate for older residents rose instead of declined.

� Firearms were the most common method of suicide used by both men (74%)
and
women (31%).

� Risk factors for suicide among older persons differ from those among the
young. Older persons have a higher prevalence of alcohol abuse,
depression, a
greater use of highly lethal methods, and social isolation. They also make
fewer attempts per completed suicide, have a higher male-to-female ratio
than
other groups, have often visited a health-care provider before their
suicide,
and have more physical illnesses.

� Persons under age 25 years accounted for 16.4% of all suicides in 1992.

From 1952-1992, the incidence of suicide among adolescents and young adults

nearly tripled. From 1980-1992, the rate of suicide among persons aged
15-19
years increased by 28.3 % and among persons aged 10-14 years by 120%. For
African American males aged 15-19, the rate increased 165.3 %.

� For young, people 15 to 24 years old, suicide is the third leading
cause of
death, behind unintentional injury and homicide. In 1992 more teenagers
and
young adults died from suicide than died from cancer, heart disease, AIDS,
birth defects, stroke, pneumonia and influenza, and chronic lung disease
combined.

� Among persons aged 15-19 years, firearm-related suicides accounted for
81 %
of the increase in the overall rate of suicide from 1980-1992.

� People living in a household where a firearm is kept are almost five
times
more likely to die by suicide than people who live in gun-free homes.
(Ref.:
Kellerman et al, Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New
England Journal of Medicine 1992;327;467-72)

� The risk for suicide among young people is greatest among young white
males; however, from 1980 through 1992, suicide rates increased most
rapidly
among young black males. Although suicide among children is a rare event,
the
dramatic increase in the rate among persons aged 10-14 years underscores
the
urgent need for intensifying efforts-to prevent suicide among- persons in
this age group.

1Suicide data was obtained from vital statistics on the underlying causes
of
death prepared annually by the National Center for Health Statistics at
the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
______________________________________________________________________

Myth: People who talk about killing themselves rarely commit suicide.
Fact: Most people who commit suicide have given some verbal clues or
warning
of their intention.

Myth: The tendency toward suicide is inherited and passed from generation
to
generation.
Fact: Although suicidal behavior does tend to run in families, it does not
appear to be transmitted genetically.

Myth: The suicidal person wants to die and feels that there is no turning
back.
Fact: Suicidal people are usually ambivalent about dying and frequently
will
seek help immediately after attempting the harm themselves.

Myth: All suicidal people are deeply depressed.
Fact: Although depression is often closely associated with suicidal
feelings,
not all people who kill themselves are obviously depressed. In fact some
suicidal people appear to be happier than they've been in years because
they
have decided to "resolve" all of their problems by killing themselves.
Also,
people who are extremely depressed usually do not have the energy to kill
themselves.

Myth: There is no correlation between alcoholism and suicide.
Fact: Alcoholism and suicide often go hand in hand. Alcoholics are
prodded to
suicidal behavior and even people who don't normally drink will often
ingest
alcohol shortly before killing themselves.

Myth: Suicidal people are mentally ill.
Fact: Although many suicidal people are depressed and distraught, most
could
not be diagnosed as mentally ill; perhaps only about 25 percent of them
are
actually psychotic.

Myth: Once someone attempts suicide, that person will always entertain
thoughts of suicide.
Fact: Most people who are suicidal are so for only a very brief period
once
in their lives. If the person receives the proper support and assistance,
he/she will probably never be suicidal again. Only about 10 percent of the
people who attempt later kill themselves.

Myth: If you ask someone about their suicidal intentions, you will only
encourage them to kill themselves.
Fact: Actually the opposite is true. Asking someone directly about their
suicidal intentions will often lower their anxiety level and act as a
deterrent to suicidal behavior by encouraging the ventilation of pent-up
emotions through a frank discussion of his problems.

Myth: Suicide is quite common among the lower class.
Fact: Suicide crosses all socioeconomic distinctions and no one class is
more
susceptible to it than another.

Myth: Suicidal people rarely seek medical attention.
Fact: Research has consistently shown that about 75 percent of suicidal
people will visit a physician within the month before they kill
themselves.

When a control system is all out of purposes, belives they, can no longer
make effective changes, and percive only disturbances. The ideations,
plans,
and intentions of sucide come to volition.

Mark Lazare

---------

then why not talk about it? I bet there are many people on
this list who would like to talk about these things.

I think you lost the bet. :slight_smile:

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

[From Rick Marken (990606.0940)]

Me:

I think there are two basic aways for you to try to reduce this
error: 1) try to "infuriate" the people who are not doing what
you want in an effort to get them to start doing what you want
or 2) do what you can on your own (such as bringing up topics
that are of interest to you) to get the perception you want...

Hank Folson (990605.2000) --

Mark tried route 2) first, and on more than one occasion.

And those were nice tries. I was suggesting that it's _always_
best to stick with route 2); route 1) never works.

You can't force people to care about what you think they should
care about. The lack of interest in Mark's suicide prevention
post just means that, for whatever reason, no one cared to continue
the thread. Maybe they will now; re-posting is a good "route 2)"
strategy. I think the thing to try to avoid is blaming others for
not talking about what you want to talk about.

When people don't talk about what you want them to talk about on
CSGNet, I think it's better (for one's own stress level) to assume
that you haven't yet found the topic that fires people interest
(so you might try bringing up another topic) than to assume that
people want to talk about the wrong things.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

Rick Marken (990606.0940)

You can't force people to care about what you think they should
care about. The lack of interest in Mark's suicide prevention
post just means that, for whatever reason, no one cared to continue
the thread.

If the topic were suicide, I could see your point.

But I feel quite strongly that Mark Lazare clearly wants to talk about
PCT (as applied to understanding and preventing whatever leads to
suicide).

[I would offer a PCT lesson here. In our pre-PCT culture, what are called
"behaviors" are very important. Since Mark is quite involved in work that
involves suicide, our culture tells us that his "behavior" shows he is
interested in suicide. But, under PCT we know that Mark's "behaviors" are
just the means he uses to achieve his internal goals. Whatever his
internal goals are, preventing suicide helps him achieve them. The
differences between pre-PCT and PCT understandings are drastically
different, yet hard to grasp. For example, Rick, with all his PCT
experience, nonetheless says that Mark wants to talk about suicide. (This
is just an anecdotal example, not an attack on Rick. I still find myself
doing the same sort of thing.)]

When people don't talk about what you want them to talk about on
CSGNet, I think it's better... to assume
that you haven't yet found the topic that fires people interest
...than to assume that
people want to talk about the wrong things.

Note that Fred Nickols (990422.1832) "Those Darn Ants" never offered his
interpretation of the quote that started the long thread that followed.
He didn't participate in the thread, so he wasn't interested in resolving
the issue. Yet, the thread continued.

···

-----------------
Here is Fred Nickols (990422.1832) "Those Darn Ants":

The comments below turned up in another list where I play. I seem to
recall a reference to this by Bill P at some point a while back. In any
event, do any bona fide PCTers care to comment on the description below?

Herbert Simon, in his monograph "Sciences of the Artificial," uses the
example of the path taken by an ant attempting to get back to its home.
Its path -- an erratic, almost random-looking one -- cannot be understood
from looking within the ant (assuming one could do so.) Within the ant
are simply a goal (to get home) and some capabilities (leg strength,
etc.), none of which help us much in understanding why the ant is taking
this particular path. No, to understand this particular path one must
look primarily at the environment outside the ant -- what terrain, what
obstructions lie in the ant's straight-line path toward home? Put
together an understanding of the "task environment" and the ant's few
relevant capabilities, then you'll understand why it turned left here
(obstruction too steep to crawl over), went right there (downhill slope),
etc.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
------------

Clearly, Fred's post helped some people on CSGnet control their variables
much better than Mark's post did. What does this tell us?

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

[From Rick Marken (990606.1820)]

Hank Folson (990606) --

The differences between pre-PCT and PCT understandings are
drastically different, yet hard to grasp. For example, Rick,
with all his PCT experience, nonetheless says that Mark wants
to talk about suicide.

It seemed like he did becuase his post was all about suicide.
What do you think it was about? If you think it was about PCT
then that's true too -- at another level of perception. It was
also about "what we should be discussing on CSGNEt". And it was
about statistical relationships. I said it was about suicide
because that seemed to be the main focus.

Note that Fred Nickols (990422.1832) "Those Darn Ants" never
offered his interpretation of the quote that started the long
thread that followed. He didn't participate in the thread, so
he wasn't interested in resolving the issue. Yet, the thread
continued.

The thread continued because Bruce Abbott insisted that the Simon
quote (the one Fred posted) was perfectly consistent with the PCT
view of behavior. As I recall, the thread was pretty productive
because it led to some nice observations of the variables that
might be controlled in apparently "open loop" behaviors like
the egg-rolling behavior of a goose.

Clearly, Fred's post helped some people on CSGnet control
their variables much better than Mark's post did. What does
this tell us?

Actually, when threads go on like that it's evidence that some
important controlled variables are being disturbed. The Simon
quote (and Abbott's comments on it) was a big disturbance to
variables controlled by Bill, Mary and myself (variables having to
do with what behavior is and how it works). Our replies to the
Simon quote (and Abbott's comments on it) were a big disturbance
to the variables controlled by Abbott. The ensuing conflict
lasted over many posts. There was no long thread of posts as a
result of Mark's post on suicide because that post was apparently
not a big disturbance to any variables anyone was controlling.

If there is no disagreement (mutual disturbance) then there's
not going to be a long series of posts on a subject.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Hank Folson (990607.0700)

Rick Marken (990606.1820) in responding to Hank Folson (990606) did not
reduce my error signals. I have already said what I wanted to say to try
and keep some variables under control. Now other priorities are higher
for me, so I will not continue on this topic.

···

---------
Mark Lazare (990607) says:

thanks for the feed back

Mark, your 990421 post is one of the few I've saved. Only time
constraints have kept me from discussing the subject. I will say that I
think you're on the right track. While I can understand if you give up on
some CSGnet individuals, I hope you won't give up on the Theory.

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-316-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

[From Bruce Gregory (990607.1045 EDT)]

Hank Folson (990607.0700)

Rick Marken (990606.1820) in responding to Hank Folson
(990606) did not
reduce my error signals. I have already said what I wanted to
say to try
and keep some variables under control. Now other priorities are higher
for me, so I will not continue on this topic.

Who was that masked man, anyway?

Bruce Gregory

[From Fred Nickols (990607.1730 EDT)] --

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 14:26:51 -0700
From: Hank Folson <hank@HENRYJAMES.COM>

Note that Fred Nickols (990422.1832) "Those Darn Ants" never offered his
interpretation of the quote that started the long thread that followed.
He didn't participate in the thread, so he wasn't interested in resolving
the issue. Yet, the thread continued.

You are correct, Hank; I wasn't interested in resolving the issue. In
fact, I didn't perceive an issue. I thought, however, that others
might--and the ensuing discussion seems to have confirmed my assessment. I
didn't participate because, although I know a little bit about behaviorism
and a little bit about PCT, I don't know enough about both to have
participated at the depth and intensity of that ensuing discussion. I
could, however, follow it pretty well and I think, as Rick Marken points
out, that it was a very productive thread. I learned something from it.
"Active learning" doesn't require overt action.

I've mentioned before that when I was trained as an interventionist that
one gauge of an intervention is what happens afterward. If I view "Those
Darn Ants" as an intervention, I judge it a successful one--almost as
successful as I like to think the Herrnstein posting will turn out to be.

Am I "fiddling" or "playing games" with the list and its members? No, I
don't think so. I participate as mood, inclination, interest and relevant
knowledge and expertise move me (or, in PCT terms, as I perceive
disturbances to controlled variables).

I didn't respond to Mark Lazare's posting because I don't feel qualified to
comment on suicide in any way other than as a layman. I'm not a clinician
or an expert in PCT (or even behaviorism for that matter). As a layperson,
I don't believe that all suicides are necessarily a bad thing. Some really
bad people have killed themselves when cornered or confronted and that
doesn't bother me a bit. Some really tormented souls have killed
themselves, too. That's too bad but I really don't know what to do about
it and doing something about doesn't rank high in my own priorities. Some
people, seriously, painfully and terminally ill as Rick Marken pointed out,
also kill themselves. It might be that some day I will do that, too; I
really can't say. And some people kill themselves in the course of laying
down their lives for others. But, we don't call that "suicide" do we?

I guess what I'm saying is that the subject of suicide holds very little
interest for me. Maybe that's too bad, too, but that's the way it is (I
think...or that's what I think I think...whatever...)

···

--

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting "Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095