From Greg Williams (930526)
I applaud Bill Powers' answering the L&L quotes (though I think it
was altogether too easy to refute the L&L misconceptions -- don't they
make Devils like they used to?), and I applaud Gary sending Bill's
answers to Locke.
Browsing through the L&L book, I came across the following (on page
133), perhaps indicating where Locke is "coming from" in a nutshell:
"The studies reported in Chapter 5 that measured personal goals
after the goals were assigned show that the two are HIGHLY CORRELATED
(r = .52)." [Italics added.]
I hope that if Locke replies to Bill's answers, he will stick around
long enough to discuss statistics a bit. I'm not holding my breath
with regard to either eventuality.
As ever,
Greg
From Tom Bourbon (930528.0841)
From Greg Williams (930526)
I applaud Bill Powers' answering the L&L quotes (though I think it
was altogether too easy to refute the L&L misconceptions -- don't they
make Devils like they used to?), and I applaud Gary sending Bill's
answers to Locke.
Browsing through the L&L book, I came across the following (on page
133), perhaps indicating where Locke is "coming from" in a nutshell:
"The studies reported in Chapter 5 that measured personal goals
after the goals were assigned show that the two are HIGHLY CORRELATED
(r = .52)." [Italics added.]
I hope that if Locke replies to Bill's answers, he will stick around
long enough to discuss statistics a bit. I'm not holding my breath
with regard to either eventuality.
For another enlightening comment from one of the experts on control theory,
read Bandura's reply to Bill's letter (in which Bill critiqued Bandura's
treatment of control theory in an eralier article) ) in American
Psychologist. Bandura uses an "I will show you" table summarizing the
results of research he accepts as supportive of his ideas about social
control theory. (After reading numerous pieces by people who are like
social control theory, I have never figured out what it is.) The table is
filled with grubby correlations, all significant or course. Bandura
conludes that his ideas must be right (all of that scientific vsalidation,
odn't you know). Bill must have seemed a a nasty gnat.
In my rejected manuscript on the coperation experiment, I cited and
discussed the exchange between Bill and Bandura and contrasted "science as
tables of low correlations" with the .99+ correlations in our study. One
reviewer sniffed, "I assure the authors that Bandura would not be
impressed." I am certain of that!
Greg, here's joining you in deeper breathing,
Tom Bourbon