Notion Of Applied PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.10.1237 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.10.0943) --

>Purpose: I would like to address certain concerns I have about both the
Researcher vs. >Practitioner, and Phenomena vs. model entity and process
questions with this post for >your consideration.

This is a wonderful post, Marc. The link between researcher and
practitioner is critical, as you say, and I have great hopes for your
efforts to make it work. You seem to have discovered a new mode for
communication which reads well and goes down well.

Best,

Bill P.

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0510.1808)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.10.0943)

Purpose: To irritate Marc Abrams ;-)(Not really!)

In the "hard" sciences, practioners are called engineers and researchers
are called scientists. They rarely conflict or misunderstand each other.
The chief reason being, I suspect, that engineers are trained in the
science before they become practioners. This may be what happens in the
far distant future of social science. But first, of course, we need a
social science.

···

--
GOD BLESS AMERICA! IGNORANT AND PROUD OF IT!

Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

3

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.0010) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0510.1808)]

Purpose: To irritate Marc Abrams ;-)(Not really!)

At least your reading my posts. :slight_smile: By doing that, I don't know who is
irratating whom. :slight_smile:

In the "hard" sciences, practioners are called engineers and researchers

are called scientists.

I didn't think an applied mathematician was an engineer anymore then I think
a theoretical mathematician is a "scientist". What am I missing here?

They rarely conflict or misunderstand each other.

Yes. mainly because they generally have nothing to do with one another. :slight_smile:
Have you ever seen a theoretical mathematician take a Physisist to lunch? I
don't think so. :-). Have you ever seen an applied mathematician and a
theoretical mathematican exchanging ideas? :-). Again, I don't think so. But
I do get your point. "Hard" sciences do not have "intent" or purpose. That
changes the ballgame.

The chief reason being, I suspect, that engineers are trained in the

science before they become practioners.

Engineers yes. But are all "hard" science practitioners "engineers"?

This may be what happens in the far distant future of social science. But

first, of course, we need a social science.

Excellent point of discussion. I do believe we have a "social" science. I
believe it is called PCT. If you believe otherwise. What do you believe we
need in order to either make PCT into a science or have it become one. What
are the ingredients? What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

GOD BLESS AMERICA! IGNORANT AND PROUD OF IT!

Please. Give it a rest. LOL.

Of course you could not have completed this post without adding that. LOL,
LOL.

Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

Please wish Gray a happy mothers day. And NE couldn't join Canada fast
enough for me. What can I possibly do to help. :slight_smile:

Marc

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.0817)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.0010)

Mathematics is not normally considered a science, hard or otherwise.

They rarely conflict or misunderstand each other.

Yes. mainly because they generally have nothing to do with one another. :slight_smile:

Here, at the Center for Astrophysics, they do. They work "cheek by jowl."

The chief reason being, I suspect, that engineers are trained in the

science before they become practioners.

Engineers yes. But are all "hard" science practitioners "engineers"?

What else do you have in mind? In any case, regardless of what they are
called, the relationship seems to hold.

Excellent point of discussion. I do believe we have a "social" science. I
believe it is called PCT. If you believe otherwise. What do you believe we
need in order to either make PCT into a science or have it become one. What
are the ingredients? What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

More people using and testing it.

What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

Just what it looks like today.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

5

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.11.0940)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.10.0943)

The question becomes how do Practitioners and Researchers work
together, given their differences in perspective, but overlapping
interests.

A recommendation: Research should join practitioners ( T. Bourbon, to
his credit attempted this ) and extend the research function by
helping practitioners extend and enhance the inquiry they already know
how to carry out.

I completely agree with this. Indeed, I assumed that this was the way
things would work out with PCT. I was hopeful that the schism between
"clinical" practitioners and "scientific" researchers that exists in
most graduate departments of psychology would not exist in the world of
PCT.

But so far my experience as a researcher/theoreticican with
practitioners has been rather disappointing. I think this is because
many of those practitioners with whom I have had much truck have been
more interested in endorsement than in honest appraisal of their
practices. I think this happens because practitioners (like all good
salesmen) have to really believe in their product. And good
practitioners will typically be (or, at least, feel) quite successful.
So any suggested improvements to a successful practice, solicited or
not, are likely to be dealt with as a disturbance.

I don't know how to deal with this problem. But I don't think it's
particularly serious since most successful applications, whether
ostensibly based on PCT or not, work pretty well or they wouldn't _be_
successful. I guess I would just recommend that
researchers/theoreticians just be aware of the possible unpleasantness
that may result from making practical suggestions -- particularly
suggestions regarding ways to improve practice -- based on PCT and act
accordingly, suggestion-wise.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

6

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1013) ]

Instead of putting smileys and lol's throughout the post I want Bruce and
all to know I am writing this with a smile on my face and some laughter at
myself in spots. I love you Bruce. Why do I feel like I'm going to the
dentist every time I speak to you on the net?

Purpose: Clarification

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.0817)]

Mathematics is not normally considered a science, hard or otherwise.

What is it considered? I find it kind of ironic that all of "hard" science
is researched by a "non - science" method.

Here, at the Center for Astrophysics, they do. They work "cheek by jowl."

Maybe by giving me some examples it would help clear this up for me. What
kind of "engineers" work in an Astrophysics lab and how do the engineers and
researchers collaborate. I am interested in understanding.

> > Engineers yes. But are all "hard" science practitioners "engineers"?

What else do you have in mind?

Nothing. I was wondering what you had in mind.

> Excellent point of discussion. I do believe we have a "social" science.

I

> believe it is called PCT. If you believe otherwise. What do you

believe we

> need in order to either make PCT into a science or have it become one.

What

> are the ingredients? What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

More people using and testing it.

Using it and testing it how? Can you be more specific here? Are you
speaking here of some more of the same kinds of tests?, Different ones? If
different, do you have anything specifically in mind?. Do you just believe
it is a matter of simply more people doing the same kinds of tests? Bruce,
please try to elaborate on this a bit. I know you like short answers, but
please, on this one, throw me a bone.

> What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

Just what it looks like today.

Does this contradict your answer above? and if not, why answer my question
of what a PCT science should look like with this response. What am I
missing?

Marc

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.1504)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1013)

Instead of putting smileys and lol's throughout the post I want Bruce and
all to know I am writing this with a smile on my face and some laughter at
myself in spots. I love you Bruce. Why do I feel like I'm going to the
dentist every time I speak to you on the net?

Purpose: Clarification

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.0817)]

Mathematics is not normally considered a science, hard or otherwise.

What is it considered? I find it kind of ironic that all of "hard" science
is researched by a "non - science" method.

Mathematics is about patterns. Those patterns often have no application
in the physical world. When they do, anyone can appropriate and use
them. Mathematics is not a science because it is not empirical.
"Evidence" plays no role in establishing the truths of mathematics. In
the base 10 number system, 2+2=4. These is absolutely no danger that
someone will find evidence that calls this relationship into doubt.

Here, at the Center for Astrophysics, they do. They work "cheek by jowl."

Maybe by giving me some examples it would help clear this up for me. What
kind of "engineers" work in an Astrophysics lab and how do the engineers and
researchers collaborate. I am interested in understanding.

Scientists work with engineers to design and construct the instruments
that allow new measurements and observations to be made by scientists.
In our case this includes instruments that fly on NASA satellites and
are attached to our ground-based telescopes. The two work together to
design and build new telescopes, as well.

> > Engineers yes. But are all "hard" science practitioners "engineers"?

What else do you have in mind?

Nothing. I was wondering what you had in mind.

Engineers design things to accomplish the goals of others. Scientists do
what they do in order to be able to construct useful models that allow
them to predict the behavior of nature.

More people using and testing it.

Using it and testing it how? Can you be more specific here? Are you
speaking here of some more of the same kinds of tests?, Different ones? If
different, do you have anything specifically in mind?. Do you just believe
it is a matter of simply more people doing the same kinds of tests? Bruce,
please try to elaborate on this a bit. I know you like short answers, but
please, on this one, throw me a bone.

Aaaarrfff! PCT allows one to model purposeful behavior. If you are not
interested in modeling purposeful behavior, PCT is not of much use or
interest. It makes no sense to talk about testing the model unless you
have quantitative data; otherwise, you are simply telling just-so
stories. Since PCT provides an more-than-adequate model of the data we
do have, only new data can provide a measure of how good the model is.
That data will likely come from people who are gathering it to solve
some problem, not to test the PCT model.

The present PCT model of learning applies to skills, rather than
understanding. (It is not even clear that understanding is a control
process.) The closest that I have come to exploring understanding as a
skill is to ask students to explain their understanding. How such
explanations evolve over time remains unexplored territory. Even a
greater mystery, from my point of view, is how to measure and thus model
this process.

What should a PCT/HPCT science look like?

Just what it looks like today.

Does this contradict your answer above? and if not, why answer my question
of what a PCT science should look like with this response. What am I
missing?

PCT has a restricted domain, but only because people are not gathering
data and modeling it.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

8

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1326) ]

Purpose: To engage Rick in a dialogue I feel is extremely important to PCT
and CSG. Nice post Rick.

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.11.0940)]

But so far my experience as a researcher/theoreticican with
practitioners has been rather disappointing. I think this is because
many of those practitioners with whom I have had much truck have been
more interested in endorsement than in honest appraisal of their
practices.

Yes, this will always be the case. It has nothing to do with "honesty". It
has to do with roles and the desires and needs of each.

I think this happens because practitioners (like all good
salesmen) have to really believe in their product. And good
practitioners will typically be (or, at least, feel) quite successful.

This one of the reasons but not the only one. There are others.

So any suggested improvements to a successful practice, solicited or
not, are likely to be dealt with as a disturbance.

You got it.

I don't know how to deal with this problem.

It is interesting that you defined only one side of the problem. That of the
practitioner. What about the inability of the researchers to understand the
needs of the practitioner. Do you really believe that any practitioner would
listen to anyhthing you have to say when you a) believe the "problem" is
theirs alone, and b) you define their "problem" as selfishness. You need to
rethink this, _big time_.

But I don't think it's particularly serious since most successful

applications, whether

ostensibly based on PCT or not, work pretty well or they wouldn't _be_
successful.

It's not a matter of it being "bad". It's a matter of _not_ being helpful.
It's obvious that both researchers and practitioners have been "successful"
without helping each other. I claim that works against both the researchers
and practitioners. Am I hear you saying it really doesn't matter?

I guess I would just recommend that
researchers/theoreticians just be aware of the possible unpleasantness
that may result from making practical suggestions -- particularly
suggestions regarding ways to improve practice -- based on PCT and act
accordingly, suggestion-wise.

What about the practitioner that makes a recommendation to the researcher?
Or the practitioner who provides the researcher with data the researcher
refuses to acknowledge. Maybe like on the subject of coercion, for instance?
Who's problem is that?

Rick, It's about working together if at all possible. Not at all costs.

Marc

9

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.1724)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1554)
>

>
> I am really not trying to bust chops or be difficult here but I am
> perplexed. Quantitative data = numbers. The use of numbers = mathematics.
> Mathematics is _not_ empirical according to your definition.

Frankly I have never met or read a mathematician who thought mathematics
was empirical.

> How does this
> square with your last sentence? What are you empirically testing with
> a`model that is represented by non-empirical data?

Huh? You test the model, not the mathematics. Say you test a large
number of people and the resulting scores are _not_ normally
distributed. This does not lead you conclude that there is something
wrong with the mathematics of normal distributions, but rather there is
something wrong with the model that predicted that the scores would be
normally distributed. No matter how the chess game turns out, nobody
says, "Well, that outcome disproved the rules of chess!" You can cheat,
but you can't play a legitimate game of chess without following the
rules. Mathematics are the rules.

>>otherwise, you are simply telling just-so stories.
>
> Am I hearing you say that if everyone tells the same just-so story,
that the
> story has worthless "data"?,

I am not sure what you are asking. What does the popularity of a just-so
story have to do the quality of the data? The data is the data. The
story is told about the data. In order for the story to be empirical,
the data must be able to conflict with it. The salient feature of
just-so stories are that they are fashioned to accommodate the data
whatever it may be.

Or say 95% of the people tell the same story?
> How are numbers gathered and interpreted to mean any differently then
words
> are? how do you know that the numbers you gathered do in fact
represent the
> variables they are replacing?

Numbers don't represent variables, variables represent numbers. Are you
asking me how do I know that the numbers recorded by a digital
thermometer represent the temperature? By using an independent measure
of the temperature and comparing it with the output of the thermometer.
(A process called calibration).

> Can you give me an example of a problem that might be useful in
generating
> PCT data, besides a tracking task?

It depends on what you mean by a tracking task. Is matching cards in a
suit a tracking task? Catching a fly-ball? Flying an airplane on
instruments? Driving a car in heavy traffic? Each of these has been or
could be a good way to collect data to model via PCT.

> Skills require understanding ( i.e prior knowledge ) whether they are
part
> of the model or not. If not part of the model and not connected in
some way
> to the model, then skills cannot be explained by the model.

Sorry, I don't follow you. How is flying a plane on instruments part of
the PCT model? To the extent understanding is verbal and many skills are
not, it is possible to be able to exercise a skill, e.g., riding a
bicycle without being able to explain how you do it. I daresay very few
people can explain how they ride a bicycle.

>>The closest that I have come to exploring understanding as a
>>skill is to ask students to explain their understanding. How such
>>explanations evolve over time remains unexplored territory.
>
> Not totally. I believe Argyris might have some data that might prove
useful.

That would be very nice.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

10

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1554) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.1504)]

Aaaarrfff!

I told you I didn't know who was bothering whom. :slight_smile:

Mathematics is about patterns. Those patterns often have no application
in the physical world. When they do, anyone can appropriate and use
them. Mathematics is not a science because it is not empirical.

I see where you are coming from. I don't think everyone shares your views.
I'm not sure I do. But that doesn't matter. I was simply asking for
clarification and I got it. Thank you.

Scientists work with engineers to design and construct the instruments
that allow new measurements and observations to be made by scientists.
In our case this includes instruments that fly on NASA satellites and
are attached to our ground-based telescopes. The two work together to
design and build new telescopes, as well.

Good example. Why couldn't this happen with PCT?

Engineers design things to accomplish the goals of others. Scientists do
what they do in order to be able to construct useful models that allow
them to predict the behavior of nature.

So maybe we need a finer distinction in the social sciences. Maybe
"scientists" are more on par with a theoritician, and an engineer with a
researcher/practitoner or pure researcher, with a practitioner as potential
3rd party user ( like a non- astronomer using a telescope ). ???

Aaaarrfff! PCT allows one to model purposeful behavior. If you are not
interested in modeling purposeful behavior, PCT is not of much use or
interest. It makes no sense to talk about testing the model unless you
have quantitative data;

I am really not trying to bust chops or be difficult here but I am
perplexed. Quantitative data = numbers. The use of numbers = mathematics.
Mathematics is _not_ empirical according to your definition. How does this
square with your last sentence? What are you empirically testing with
a`model that is represented by non-empirical data?

otherwise, you are simply telling just-so stories.

Am I hearing you say that if everyone tells the same just-so story, that the
story has worthless "data"?, Or say 95% of the people tell the same story?
How are numbers gathered and interpreted to mean any differently then words
are? how do you know that the numbers you gathered do in fact represent the
variables they are replacing?

Since PCT provides an more-than-adequate model of the data we
do have, only new data can provide a measure of how good the model is.
That data will likely come from people who are gathering it to solve
some problem, not to test the PCT model.

Can you give me an example of a problem that might be useful in generating
PCT data, besides a tracking task?

The present PCT model of learning applies to skills, rather than
understanding. (It is not even clear that understanding is a control
process.)

Skills require understanding ( i.e prior knowledge ) whether they are part
of the model or not. If not part of the model and not connected in some way
to the model, then skills cannot be explained by the model.

The closest that I have come to exploring understanding as a
skill is to ask students to explain their understanding. How such
explanations evolve over time remains unexplored territory.

Not totally. I believe Argyris might have some data that might prove useful.

Even a greater mystery, from my point of view, is how to measure and thus

model this process.

I don't know about measuring the entire process. But we might be able to
measure parts of it.

PCT has a restricted domain, but only because people are not gathering
data and modeling it.

Maybe we can help change this.

Marc

11

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.11.1730)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1326)--

> So any suggested improvements to a successful practice, solicited or
> not, are likely to be dealt with as a disturbance.

You got it.

> I don't know how to deal with this problem.

It is interesting that you defined only one side of the problem. That of the
practitioner. What about the inability of the researchers to understand the
needs of the practitioner. Do you really believe that any practitioner would
listen to anyhthing you have to say when you a) believe the "problem" is
theirs alone, and b) you define their "problem" as selfishness. You need to
rethink this, _big time_.

Maybe so. What should a researcher/theoretician understand about the needs of a
practitioner who wants to use PCT?

>I guess I would just recommend that
> researchers/theoreticians just be aware of the possible unpleasantness
> that may result from making practical suggestions -- particularly
> suggestions regarding ways to improve practice -- based on PCT and act
> accordingly, suggestion-wise.

What about the practitioner that makes a recommendation to the researcher?
Or the practitioner who provides the researcher with data the researcher
refuses to acknowledge. Maybe like on the subject of coercion, for instance?
Who's problem is that?

Good point. It works both ways. The researcher/scientists can have problems
because the practitioners don't like their their suggestions and the
practitioners can have problems because the researcher/scientists don't like
their suggestions. I certainly wouldn't dismiss any suggestion simply because
it came from a practitioner. But as a (hopeful) researcher/scientist I will say
that I'm probably somewhat more likely to be interested in the suggestions of
other researcher/scientists than of practitioners.

I think what I was referring to in what you quote above is the situation where
a researcher/scientist is asked by a practitioner to evaluate some practice
from a PCT perspective; the researcher/scientist gives the evaluation and is
then told by the practitioner that the evaluation is wrong. I've always
wondered, in that case, why the practitioner asked in the first place?

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

12

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.11.1934) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0511.1724)]

I am not sure what you are asking. What does the popularity of a just-so
story have to do the quality of the data?

Nothing, but lets follow this thought through. Popularity is not important.
What _might_ be important is the commonality of the stories and the data the
stories contain.

The data is the data.

Yes.

The story is told about the data.

_NO_. The story _is_ the data. The stories are our thoughts. they are our
plans, evaluations, outlook on life, etc.

In order for the story to be empirical, the data must be able to conflict

with it.

Not necessarily so. What Argyris has found is that many, but not all people
have espoused theories that are quite different then, their theories-in-use.
But ultimately all people "use" and have the same "governing variables" of
Model I.

The salient feature of just-so stories are that they are fashioned to

accommodate the data whatever it may be.

Just-so stories are Argyris' espoused theories. It is meant, not to
accomodate the data. The data remains the same. It is meant to accomodate a
set of values and assumptions an individual has with regard to the data. Big
difference.

Marc

13

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.12.0810)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.0609)--

> I think what I was referring to in what you quote above is the situation
> where a researcher/scientist is asked by a practitioner to evaluate some
> practice from a PCT perspective;

I don't think a practitioner is asking to be "judged" ( evaluated )
by a researcher/scientist.

Right. Practitioners have typically asked for an evaluation of their _practice_,
not of themselves.

>the researcher/scientist gives the evaluation and is
> then told by the practitioner that the evaluation is wrong. I've always
> wondered, in that case, why the practitioner asked in the first place?

The practitioner never really "asked" in the first place ( i.e. asked to be
judged ) that's something you inferred.

No. It's an observation. Practitioners have asked to have their practice evaluated
from a PCT perspective. I think Bill Powers has been asked for such evaluations
far more often than I have. But we have been asked. In almost every case it has
turned out that what the practitioner really wanted was an endorsement rather than
an evaluation of his or her practice.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

14

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.12.0840)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1000) to Bill Powers --

>They read PCT and want to tell me all about their practices
>so I can tell them how PCT supports their beliefs and methods.

And you fall into the trap of assuming that they either do or don't know
your theory. You do not clarify if in fact they do or don't. You make no
attempt to inquire into, or why _they_ feel their method aligns with your
theory. You do not test their assumptions nor your own on the validity of
either of yours claims. It goes downhill real quick

Are you basing this on some observation you have made of Bill's behavior? My
experience has been completely different. I have seen Bill patiently try to
explain and clarify PCT to practitioners, sometimes over many months and years. I
have seen Bill go to extraordinarily creative lengths to find alignment between
PCT and the practices being described to him. Bill is always trying to find common
ground with practitioners, often in situations where the common ground is only the
narrowest sliver of land. And things have not gone downhill quickly. In my
experience, they have gone downhill only after several years of Bill's failure to
satisfy the practitioners by stating publicly that what they are doing is
completely consistent with PCT and/or that they understand PCT better than Bill
does.

>They're asking for an evaluation, but they really want only validation.

Sorry you got this mixed up. They are asking for validation. You want to
evaluate.

Maybe you're right. Perhaps they are asking for validation (endorsement) and I
misunderstood. If that is the case then I think we should just have ignored them.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

15

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.12.0741 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.0609)--

>The practitioner never really "asked" in the first place ( i.e. asked to be
>judged ) that's something you inferred.

Actually, my experience with practitioners is more like what Rick
describes. They read PCT and want to tell me all about their practices so I
can tell them how PCT supports their beliefs and methods. They're asking
for an evaluation, but they really want only validation.

Best,

Bill P.

16

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.12.1015)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1213)--

> Maybe you're right. Perhaps they are asking for validation (endorsement)
> and I misunderstood.

> If that is the case then I think we should just have ignored them.

That is certainly your choice. given the time and effort expended and the
end result wanted, I would recommend you do this in the future.

The problem is that it's really difficult (probably impossible) to tell the
practitioners who just want endorsement from those who really want a PCT-based
evaluation of their actual or proposed practice. This is because they are all
saying the same thing: "please evaluate my practice". I'd rather assume that
everyone who asks really wants a PCT-based evaluation of practice rather than an
endorsement. That way we "win" no matter what because, regardless of what is
really wanted, we learn something about the application of PCT to practice.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

17

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.0609) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.11.1730)]

Maybe so. What should a researcher/theoretician understand about the needs

of a

practitioner who wants to use PCT?

and 14 in *Casting Nets*. This would be a great start. The
researcher/practitioner question is one of the 4 different paths Argyris'
work went. The book _Action Science_ ( which is on the web ) is basically
devoted to this question. You might want to check it out at the web site I
cited yesterday, and even think of buying it, if you felt it might be of
some value.

Good point. It works both ways. The researcher/scientists can have

problems

because the practitioners don't like their their suggestions and the
practitioners can have problems because the researcher/scientists don't

like

their suggestions. I certainly wouldn't dismiss any suggestion simply

because

it came from a practitioner. But as a (hopeful) researcher/scientist I

will say

that I'm probably somewhat more likely to be interested in the suggestions

of

other researcher/scientists than of practitioners.

Yes, I wouldn't think it would be, or could be, otherwise. For any
practitioner/researcher

I think what I was referring to in what you quote above is the situation

where

a researcher/scientist is asked by a practitioner to evaluate some

practice

from a PCT perspective;

Ah, here is where we might have a conflict. ( not between you and I, but
between you and a practitioner :-)) I don't think a practitioner is asking
to be "judged" ( evaluated ) by a researcher/scientist. I believe if
collaboration is going to take place it must take place on an even playing
field. By this I mean an open exchange of what each perceives to be valid
information concerning the _others_ possible concerns. This means revealing,
clarifying, validating, inquiring, testing, and ultimately resolving issues
that arise. This must be done by _both_ parties. As the saying goes, it
takes two to tango.

the researcher/scientist gives the evaluation and is
then told by the practitioner that the evaluation is wrong. I've always
wondered, in that case, why the practitioner asked in the first place?

The practitioner never really "asked" in the first place ( i.e. asked to be
judged ) that's something you inferred.

Marc

···

from my perspective, plenty. It might be useful for you to review Chap's 13

18

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.12.1035 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1202)--

>Your "observations" are my "inferences". :-). I see the practitioners
>differently. When they ask for an "evaluation", they are asking for an
>endorsement, period. They honestly believe that their method aligns with PCT
>and simply want you to rubber stamp it. They are not asking you to evaluate
>the efficacy of their method. They already know that from the success they
>have experienced in the field. They simply feel that your theory "explains"
>their method, when in fact the practitioner sees and "understands" only bits
>and pieces of the theory. Ed Ford is probably a good example of this.

I can't figure out where we stand here. We seem to agree that many people
who seem to be asking for an honest evaluation don't really want one --
they just want you to say how wonderful their idea or practice is. They
want your endorsement.

Of course they judge their own practices to be successful (nobody says
"I've been doing this for 20 years with thousands of people, and it doesn't
work"). The practitioner is the last one we should listen to about how
successful his methods are. Anyhow, I'm only interested in giving honest
evaluations, not in lying to someone about what I think of his work.
Generally, when someone asks me to evaluate something truly atrocious, I
find a way to get out of it and say nothing. I don't enjoy being the Bad
Guy, and what I say would be ignored anyway.

You _seem_ to be saying that if I think a guy's practice is worthless and
should be abandoned, I should look for common ground and try to encourage
him. Somehow I don't think that's quite what you want to say, so ???

Best,

Bill P.

19

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1000) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.12.0741 MDT)]

Actually, my experience with practitioners is more like what Rick
describes. They read PCT and want to tell me all about their practices so

I

can tell them how PCT supports their beliefs and methods. They're asking
for an evaluation, but they really want only validation.

Sorry to be so disagreeable so early in the morning but .... :slight_smile:

I hear what you guys are saying. I simply disagree with the premise. lets
take a look at your statement.

They read PCT and want to tell me all about their practices

Yes. because they are excited and see some validation for their practices in
your theory. They don't really "understand" your theory, but they infer they
do. They do not ask to specify, clarify, nor do they test those assumptions.
They simply assume they "know", and your off and running on the wrong foot.
They expect you to agree with their inferences even though they really have
no idea as to whether you should or shouldn't.

so I can tell them how PCT supports their beliefs and methods.

And you fall into the trap of assuming that they either do or don't know
your theory. You do not clarify if in fact they do or don't. You make no
attempt to inquire into, or why _they_ feel their method aligns with your
theory. You do not test their assumptions nor your own on the validity of
either of yours claims. It goes downhill real quick

They're asking for an evaluation, but they really want only validation.

Sorry you got this mixed up. They are asking for validation. You want to
evaluate.

Marc

20

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.12.1202) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.12.0810)]

> The practitioner never really "asked" in the first place ( i.e. asked to

be

> judged ) that's something you inferred.

No. It's an observation. Practitioners have asked to have their practice

evaluated

from a PCT perspective. I think Bill Powers has been asked for such

evaluations

far more often than I have. But we have been asked. In almost every case

it has

turned out that what the practitioner really wanted was an endorsement

rather than

an evaluation of his or her practice.

Your "observations" are my "inferences". :-). I see the practitioners
differently. When they ask for an "evaluation", they are asking for an
endorsement, period. They honestly believe that their method aligns with PCT
and simply want you to rubber stamp it. They are not asking you to evaluate
the efficacy of their method. They already know that from the success they
have experienced in the field. They simply feel that your theory "explains"
their method, when in fact the practitioner sees and "understands" only bits
and pieces of the theory. Ed Ford is probably a good example of this.

I can see why you say what you do. Do I make any sense?

Marc