In a message dated 7/9/99 12:21:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kurtzer@BRANDEIS.EDU writes:
<< there is virtually no systematic attempt to explore PCT within a field--as
opposed to demonstrations of principle, which are wonderful but not
cumulative
science. >>
Except for Tom Bourbon, the Theses of his grad students started with one
control system controlling for one variable, on to, one control system
controlling for 4 degrees of freedom on to 8 dyads, controlling for multiple
variables.
Powers and Marken have done tremendous experimental work with models
Clark and McPhail -- PCT applied to Cooperation and To Crowds.
Other than these 5 and some Masters Theses and One Dissertations. NO one
else seems to be doing much -- so if you want some answers to you question --
quit talking about it and in the words of Nike "just do it"
... so if you want some answers to you question --
quit talking about it and in the words of Nike "just do it"
Thanks Mark for your wonderful contribution. I see your going to be a big
help. What's up your ass?
As I recall, it was you, Not to long ago, said in part: In a post dated
6/4/99 @ approx. 11:30 am
btw, is there a reason you don't put a header on your posts?
"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."