From [ Marc Abrams (981020.1005) ]
[from Mary Powers (981020)]
To Marc Abrams
Glad to hear you've taken up reminding people to watch
their >language on the net. How about the following? From
Abrams 981019.0130: BS, horse's ass.
From Abrams 981019.0221: wise ass, BS, sh-t, smart ass.
Agreed I will watch my potty mouth 
I agree that you support PCT and want it to flourish - but
you >do go about it a funny way. Ranting on at Rick,
I don't rant on about Rick. I ask questions that I truely
want answers to I am not trying to break any chops. Instead
I get smug, smarty answers or no response at all. I don't
like the way Rick deals ( or more accurately, doesn't deal )
with my concerns. I think his constant bashing of Bruce
Abbott is counter-productive and makes no sense.
complaining that Bill isn't doing
anything worthwhile, etc. After about the 20th post in the
same vein, it gets pretty old.
Sorry Mary, I _never ever_ intended to accuse Bill of
anything If it came acreoss that way i am sorry, But why not
ask if that was in fact my intent.close to that. I
_recently_ accused Rick of accusing Bruce Abbott of things
_he_ was unwilling to do.
himself. Case in point. Bruce has worked with Bill before on
some research. Does Rick ( not Bill ) have something
specific in mind that Bruce has refused to do in PCT
research? Has Bill asked or suggessted and been turned away
by Bruce. Am I being a smarty pants for asking?
But I'd like to comment on your question "WHAT THE HELL IS
THE NEXT STEP?"
Just trying to be emphatic about how frustrating it has been
getting non answers from Rick on how i can possibly be of
some help in either collecting data or working on new
experimental designs that might help. I was not asing for a
_specific_ step to take. This was asked of the _list_ not of
Bill
I think that when Bill finally finished his book, he
expected to >(and did) continue to develop some aspects of
it: writing the >arm (or little man) program and others,
writing the papers in >the LCS books, the Byte articles,
etc. I think he also hoped >that interested people would
pick up where he
left off and extend the theory into areas where they were
trained and he was
But they haven't ( not to a large degree anyway ). So do we
fold up the tent and go home? I don't think so. But
continual lamenting of past wrongs will not further our
cause and I think this bothers me the most. Mary this comes
from the heart. If we (PCTer's) are going to advance the
science we need good people _willing_ to learn and do some
hard work. I think you made a _terrible_ mistake yesterday.
I don't think you will find people with any more passion or
willingness to contribute then Bruce's Gregory, Abbott,
Nevin, Jeff Vancouver, or myself. Do we really all have to
believe in _exactly_ the same thing to contribute to various
aspects of PCY. I don't think so. I don't think you will
find major differences about our understanding of PCT. What
I think you will find are various questions each of us has
that PCT ( at least up until now ) does not have answers
for. This is not a crime and I am not accusing anyone of
anything because of it, But the questions remain. I don't
see the questions ( from any of us ) as questions about the
validity of the PCT model. Just how some of the mechanisms
actually are formulated and work. I sincerly believe we need
to work toward new research methods because I don't think
the old ones will get us what we need..
not. This has happened, I think, in sociology. It is
beginning >to happen in psychotherapy. Organizational
development, >maybe. Perhaps a few personal lives have been
affected. >All these ifs, buts, and maybes,
primarily because while a great number of disciplines are
represented by people who have found PCT interesting over
the years, there are really only two or three people, or
maybe only one, in each field, and not necessarily
whole-heartedly at that. And there is a huge missing area:
neuro-micro-bio-whatever-ology - the life sciences.
And I believe a major reason for this is _not_ a
disbelief of PCT,but a difficult if not impossible way to
experiment with it. I think the rubberband demos and the
tracking experiments get people excited initially but they
hit a stone wall when they try to design experiments based
on real world interactions or try to figure out exactly how
PCT changes How they currently understand how people work.
It's real easy ( at least for me ) to see why Glasser and
Carver and Scheier are popular. Perception controls
behavior. Wamt to "see" somthing different, "do" it
differently. Doesn't _seem like much of a difference, but we
know it makes a world of difference. How do we show this? We
can take the Rick Marken approach and bash it all as BS. or
we can actually try to show them ( through models of real
situations and such ) _how_ it makes a difference. I like
the latter approach and the one I am advocating. But in
order to do this you _must_ understand what baggage someone
is bringing to the party. Not everyone will learn it the
same way or over the same time period. Some unfortunately
will reject it entirely.
So 25 years after BCP is published, the next step is yet to
be taken, the step where PCT stands on its own and is no
longer "Powers' theory". Where other people, who don't
even know Bill, do research in various fields using
the control model.
But Mary, that has been one of my points. If we ( meaning
the list ) collectivelly can't come up with suitable
experiments how do we hope others will. Maybe modeling will
help? So we have taken the next step. The next step is to
identify and find useful real world experiments that will
help explain and show the importance of the PCT model. On
another front MOL provides a useful and important theraputic
tool. How do we research that and coordinate that with our
existing knowledge of the HPCT or if the two are different
is there a synergy tht can help us understand one or the
other.
But what has happened? PCT has been ignored, in a >number
of cases FURIOUSLY rejected, and quite often >misinterpreted
by well-meaning folks who think
OK, Again is that reason to fold up the tent? I hope not.
Bill (and Rick) should relax a bit and focus on
the compatibilities of what they are talking about with
other >notions of self-regulation and control. Because
really what's >the difference between controlling behavior
and controlling >perception anyway? Between the EAB and PCT
take on >things? Etc.
And if people _continue_ to ask these questions _maybe_
_they_ are not convinced of the answers. Who's problem is
that? I think it's _our_ problem. It is a sales maxim that
it is up to the salesperson (PCTer's) to insure that the
potential customer has _all_ _their_ questions answered to
_teir_ satisfaction. You will not make every sale. Everyone
is not always interested in what you have to sell. What you
_don't_ want to do is lose someone who _is_ willing to buy.
Marc, you are asking Bill what the next step is. That's
the >problem.
The next step is for other people to take. Bill's "game
plan" >was, basically, to say "Here is an enormous,
challenging >idea; here is my evidence for it; go for it."
And what's >happened? Not much.
OK, do we lament about the failed game plan or try to devise
another? i made a proposal earlier in my post. It was aimed
at the list. I would certainly like to know Bill's thoughts
on it but I am not laying this on him.
After all, his own theory tells
him he can't shove PCT down the throats of the unwilling.
Granted, see my comments on this above.
He is not aggressive, he is not a salesman, he is not a
guru, >he is not charismatic. If that means that his ideas
die with >him, so be it.
No but 25 years says he's persistant. If you mean by
"salesman", someone who try's to get you do something you
ordinarially wouldn't do. I agree, but i call those kind of
people con artists. If it means finding out what it is
people are "buying" then try to provide it in a way the
_customer_ understands then he has no choice. People will
not Buy it any other way, unless they are conned ( lied
to ). I don't believe Bill does not care whether this dies
with him or not. I care. .
If other people value his ideas, it is incumbent on them
to do >something with them.
Yes, but it incumbent on Bill _and_ this _list_ to _show_
through models and interesting research )that value. Not to
_our_ satisfaction, but to that of the potential customer.
He will continue to do what he can, but this is not a show
he >is ringmaster of - and if that's what people demand,
they are >going to be disappointed.
But he is the ringmaster. And will continue to be so until
others are capable of and willing to do PCT research. He
helped give birth to a theory. The theory will not pass into
adulthood until others are doing meaningful resarch. As a
parent he is responsible to help his child into into
adulthood. There are no guarentee's in life but you've got
to give it your best shot and I don't think your best shot
has been made yet.
It should be clear by now that PCT has all the hallmarks of
a >Kuhnian revolution, and the main reason it isn't further
along >is because it really sticks in the craw of
traditional IV-DV, >cause-effect, S-R scientists (especially
those who can't >figure out the rationale for lumping all
those terms together), >not because of the lack of a game
plan.
Maybe so, But I don't agree.
And by the way, whether or not I learn Vensim is irrelevant
to >whether I see anything useful coming from it. Yes, I do
think >it will be useful, and no, I do not intend to learn
it. Can you >handle that?
I'll try :-), I think I can get over it
I hope you continue to recover well,
Thank you. That's much appreciated. I hope your feeling
better.
Marc
