[From Rick Marken (971231.0830)]
Bruce Nevin (971231.0844) --
An excellent commentary on McCrone's paper. Thanks.
Fred Nickols (971231.0940 EST) --
Bill had the good taste to not cite himself in Chapters 2 or 13
(and I assume it was Rick who made him cite himself in Chapter
18.
Your assumption is correct. Taste (as I'm sure you can tell) was
never my forte;-)
I also cite myself profusely (and tastelessly) in all of my own
published papers but if no one else is doing this stuff who do
I cite?
Your observation about the citations of Powers' work in "Volitional
Action" is actually quite astute. Only a small portion of those
who published in that collection reported research that was based
on the idea that volitional action is the control of perception.
Indeed, only a portion of those who are on your list of authors
who _do_ cite Powers have actually signed up to the idea that
behavior is the control of perception.
I have no idea what to make of those numbers, in that context,
or anywhere else.
What it means is that "control of perception" is an idea up with
which conventional behavioral scientists simply will not put. It
is a _dangerous_ idea that makes Darwin's "dangerous" idea (of
"natural selection") look like a walk in the park. Darwin's
idea (which is almost certainly wrong; Darwin should be celebrated
for amassing the data that proves the _fact_ of evolution)
didn't threaten those in his own discipline. "Natural selection"
was not a threat to biologists. It was a threat to the Judeo-
Christian priesthood and lay believers. "Control of perception"
is not a threat to lay people; rather, it a threat to the
behavioral science priesthood -- a priesthood that bases its
authority on the idea that behavior is _caused_ by internal or
external inputs to the brain.
The fact that you see very few references to William T. Powers
in the behavioral science literature -- even in a book that
purports to be all about volitional action -- is no accident;
it is _intentional_. Conventional behavioral scientists don't
cite WTP because they want PCT to disappear or turn into
something else (like an alternative theory of reinforcement;-)).
They have as much interest in dealing with "control of perception"
and its implications for behavioral research as Episcopal ministers
have in spending Sunday morning dealing with evolution and its
implications for the Judeo-Christian creation myth.
I'll be back with my New Year's predictions later today;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/