Often tactless

[From Rick Marken (940413.2315)]

Bill Leach (940412.21:33 EST) --

Greg, you need to explain what usefulness is served by
telling someone that signs: tactless that they are tactless?

Greg Williams (940413) --

I didn't just say "tactless"; I said "_often_ tactless"
(emphasis added). (Of course, Rick has _often_ signed
"tactless" since, so maybe he's catching on.) :->

Let me try to answer Bill L.'s question, too, since he is
relatively new to the net and might like some context.

There is a school of thought among some PCT afficionados
that attributes the apparently purposeful avoidance of PCT
by those who could benefit from it the most (psychologists,
biologists, roboticists, social and life scientists in general)
to poor presentation of the ideas; some PCTers (like yours truly)
are seen as "tactless", mean, stiffnecked, contrary, uncompromis-
ing and, well, just down right rude. This drives away potential
converts to PCT, and the rude fellows who drive them away
(mainly me, but Tom Bourbon sometimes joins in when he's
got a net connection) add insult to injury by kvething about
the fact that nobody likes PCT. G. Williams knows why nobody likes
PCT; it's because of me.

There is another school of thought that attributes the exact same
phenomenon (purposeful rejection of PCT) to the substance of the
PCT ideas themselves -- not to the manner in which they are presented.
People don't like the idea that 1) PCT is NOT really like what they
think it is 2) it is not compatible with ANY current theory of behavior
3) it is about control OF not BY perception 4) it does not account for
most of the what pass for "facts" in the social sciences becuase they
are mainly statistical noise 5) it is the same as control theory -- but
it's different in how it's applied to behavior so it looks familiar but
then becomes confusing to those who know control theory already 6) it
doesn't say what to do to solve any particular problem -- ie. it
doesn't say "do X and you will eliminate satanic ritual child abuse"
7) it claims to be a scientific psychological theory but rejects the
goals and methods of scientific psychology 8) it is a scientific model
so there are right and WRONG answers regarding how the model works and
what behaviors it predicts, etc.

We have gone around on this issue for years now. There is apparently no
convincing the first group (led by Greg Williams -- with many sympathizers)
that "being nice" won't help; there is also no convincing the second
group (led by Marken and Bourbon with hardly any sympathizers-- only
those who have actually tried to publish PCT research or presented the
results of their research at meetings) that it will (we've been VERY
nice in our communications with the psychological establishment when
we've tried to publish papers and we KNOW where it got us). Still, we
don't try to be mean; but it's hard to tell people that they are wrong
and not be perceived as a meany.

I don't think there is any way to resolve this; people believe what
people want to believe. Look at Martin Taylor; he's built a real time
simulation of a control system and he STILL thinks that a control system
uses information about disturbing variable(s) (or the disturbing variable
caused component of the fluctuation in the perception of the controlled
variable) to determine its compensating output. Go figure.

Best

Rick

<Martin Taylor 940414 11:00>

Rick Marken (940413.2315)

Rick is unusally often on the Mark(en) these days! Once again, he hits the
spot with his reasons for the non-acceptance of PCT. PCT does go a long
way toward explaining its own problems (as it should, if it is a correct
theory). It is subtly seductive. At first it looks very simple, even
simple-minded, but in understanding it, one goes through many stages
of rethinking its implications. I doubt that ANYBODY has completed that
journey, including the "old hands." And everybody that has gone part way
through the process has a lot in common with everyone else who is on the
journey, despite obvious areas of disagreement. When there is disagreement
among people who think they understand what is going on, the problem is
in principle resolvable, because

8) it is a scientific model
so there are right and WRONG answers regarding how the model works and
what behaviors it predicts, etc.

That doesn't mean that resolution is easy, so we get truths such as

Still, we
don't try to be mean; but it's hard to tell people that they are wrong
and not be perceived as a meany.

I don't think there is any way to resolve this; people believe what
people want to believe. Look at Martin Taylor; he's built a real time
simulation of a control system and he STILL thinks that a control system
uses information about disturbing variable(s) (or the disturbing variable
caused component of the fluctuation in the perception of the controlled
variable) to determine its compensating output. Go figure.

You see, I could easily paraphrase this, by substituting "Marken" for
"Martin" and changing "thinks" to "doesn't think." The rest stands.
But to do so would get us nowhere. It's what I believe, and Rick wrote
what he believes.

The only solution is the testing that Rick is always urging me to do and
that I hope to do, though it would be much better done in collaboration.

Incidentally, for those who know Rick only from his CSG-L postings, he's
really a nice guy in person. What comes across on CSG-L is his passion
for PCT, not himself.

Sorry, Rick, for blowing your cover.

Martin