PCT and its enemies

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[from Mary Powers (9810.19)]

To Rick:

First of all, if you would like I can send those Nature articles to you. We
are about to throw those issues out. Let me know.

Rick, I see you now in the same hassle-to-the-death Bill has been in over
and over again with Hans, Martin, Bruce, etc. I wonder if you could give it
over without feeling that you are losing. Yes, then Bruce A and G, and Jeff
and Marc will "win". But win what? These people have taken up so much time
with their quibbles, and rationalizations, and half-assed interpretations,
and abusive remarks, that they have already won: they have succeeded very
well in diverting PCT people from doing anything more than defending their
ideas and themselves. The final twist of the knife, from Bruce G, is to
blame the "drivel" on csgnet on you and Bill, and, along with Marc,
castigate the two of you for not being more productive. Sheesh.

As I've said before, the purpose of this net was to bring PCT people
together to discuss their work and ideas. Instead it is, and has been, a
forum for people who first thought PCT was going to confirm and justify
their views and, on discovering that this was not so, turned instead to
criticism, carping, personal attacks - anything but actually trying to
understand and apply this new concept.

Happily, there are a few people who treat this net as intended - Dick,
David, Chris, Tim, Fred, Hank, Phil, etc. But they are not the net
loudmouths. And few are active, practicing researchers. You are - and
every time you sit down to defend PCT, and yourself, from this endless
quibbling, you lose, as Bill has lost, and PCT has lost, hours of precious
time.

Let them rant on. If you stop trying to answer them, they'll have nothing
to say, and soon stop. They don't understand PCT, and don't want to, and
can't afford to, and have nothing useful to contribute. There's really
nothing you can do with them except ignore them and go on about your
business of programs and papers. I know arguing is fun, especially when
you're right, but is this argument really all that much fun any more?

love,

Mary

2

[From Bruce Gregory (981019.1200 EDT)]

Mary Powers (9810.19)

Mary, your post beautifully exemplifies exactly what I was talking about.
Sorry I omitted mentioning you in my last post.

Bruce Gregory

3

[From Rick Marken (981019.0920)]

Mary Powers (9810.19)

First of all, if you would like I can send those Nature articles
to you. We are about to throw those issues out. Let me know.

I would love it. Thanks.

Rick, I see you now in the same hassle-to-the-death Bill has been
in over and over again with Hans, Martin, Bruce, etc. I wonder
if you could give it over without feeling that you are losing.

Yes, of course.

I really was hoping to get some leads from Bruce A. on
psychological research articles dealing, in some way or
another, with controlled variables. But it looks like there
is just too much resistance and rationalization so I'll just
try to stick to my writing.

Yes, then Bruce A and G, and Jeff and Marc will "win". But win
what? These people have taken up so much time with their
quibbles, and rationalizations, and half-assed interpretations,
and abusive remarks, that they have already won: they have
succeeded very well in diverting PCT people from doing anything
more than defending their ideas and themselves. The final twist
of the knife, from Bruce G, is to blame the "drivel" on csgnet
on you and Bill, and, along with Marc, castigate the two of you
for not being more productive. Sheesh.

Yes. I'll let it go. I win because I know you and Bill -- and PCT.
That's winning! (Now, if only the Padres could get their act
together;-)).

Love

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

4

Mary,

Thanks for this straightening out of the mission statement. I seem to
remember in my history of philosophy books there was a faction of
philosophers who became sidetracked with quibbling, and did science no
service. This distraction or disturbance so ruined the ancient scientists
that a sizable number of dualists finally burned the Library at
Alexandria, killed Hypatia, and put western science into the dark ages.

I am one of those people who are trying to *read* the net as intended, and
I am frustrated that seeming civilized, intelligent people mentioned below
are being waylaid by "loudmouths" and dissemblers. One of the problems of
the net for me is having to winnow through the long tirades and equally
long defenses of certain assumptions the theory is supposed to be testing
(strike that) that I am soon to be testing.

I once e-mailed from the void about the use of expletives, attacks, and
unprofessional behavior from some authors (netters). I am
controlling right now for zero unprofessional posts and less carping, and
more responsible dialog management. However, I cannot control my own
behavior, much less anyone else's. So let this disturbance to your
self-concepts help you reorganize your perceptions.

YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. My brand of varied behavior at this moment is to
help you see how you appear when you attack people and their ideas instead
of refuting their conjectures thoughtfully and responsibly.

OK, now you may have somebody else to poke at, but at least I have had my
say.

Happily, there are a few people who treat this net as intended - Dick,
David, Chris, Tim, Fred, Hank, Phil, etc. But they are not the net
loudmouths. And few are active, practicing researchers. You are - and
every time you sit down to defend PCT, and yourself, from this endless
quibbling, you lose, as Bill has lost, and PCT has lost, hours of
precious time.

Sincerely,

Bryan Thalhammer
Human Resources Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

5

From [ Marc Abrams (981910.1329) ]

[from Mary Powers (9810.19)]

If this post wasn't a such a clear case of being off target
it would really be funny. Instead it is an extremely sad
statement. Mary you confuse passion with contention and
obedience. It is really unfortunate for you, Bill and Rick.

To Rick:

First of all, if you would like I can send those Nature

articles to you. We

are about to throw those issues out. Let me know.

Rick, I see you now in the same hassle-to-the-death Bill

has >been in over and over again with Hans, Martin, Bruce,
etc.

"Hassle-to- the-death" over what?

I wonder if you could give it over without feeling that you

are >losing. Yes, then Bruce A and G, and Jeff and Marc
will >"win". But win what?

What are you talking about? What is there to win or lose?
Anyone of us could walk away from this list if we did and we
"won" exactly what would we be walking away with? And if we
lost?.

These people have taken up so much time
with their quibbles, and rationalizations, and half-assed
interpretations, and abusive remarks, that they have

already >won: they have succeeded very well in diverting PCT
people >from doing anything more than defending their ideas
and >themselves.

Really?, Interesting twist. By quibbles. rationalizations,
and half-assed interpretations, ( please Mary watch the
potty mouth ) By this I guess ( don't feel like doing the
test just now ) you mean questions, understandings and
interpretations, then I guess your right. Exactly what have
I stopped the PCT movement, ( You, Bill, Rick, Fred ) from
accomplishing? I apologize for setting PCT back 100 years.
Btw Mary, do you intend to learn vensim or do you also see
nothing useful coming from that idea. That idea, let me
remind you came from one of "these people".intent on
destroying PCT as we know it.

The final twist of the knife, from Bruce G, is to
blame the "drivel" on csgnet on you and Bill, and, along

with >Marc, castigate the two of you for not being more

productive. Sheesh.

Mary, your right. Here, Lets hear from you and Rick and Bill
one more time how Bruce Abbott is single handedly keeping
the conventional psychologists away from PCT. I castigated
Rick for bashing Bruce Abbott and spending a whole bunch of
time moaning and groaning about Bruce Abbott. I never said a
word about Bill. My questions about the future direction of
PCT are questions that I have. Ignoring them won't make them
go away. You don't want to answer them fine. But don't be so
boorish as to ignore them or accuse me of half-assed
interpretations.

As I've said before, the purpose of this net was to bring

PCT >people together to discuss their work and ideas.

Except if "their" ideas or questions come from Bruce
Abbott, Marc Abrams, Bruce Gregory or Jeff Vancouver. Is
Bruce Nevin included on this "enemies" list. After all he
sent Bill those unsubstantiated diagrams on coercion wasting
lots of Bill's time. Are you going to convene sub-committee
on subversion on CSGnet?

Instead it is, and has been, a forum for people who first
thought PCT was going to confirm and justify their views
and, on discovering that this was not so, turned instead to
criticism, carping, personal attacks - anything but

actually >trying to understand and apply this new concept.

Right, I spend hours thinking about how to ruin your day
with my posts. And my aim in life is to bring down CSGnet.
I think you need to take a harder look at your ( you, Bill,
Rick )role in how this list has evolved. But you won't. It's
easier inventing straw men. This post of yours for instance
contains none of what you yourself complain about, right?

Happily, there are a few people who treat this net as
intended - Dick David, Chris, Tim, Fred, Hank, Phil, etc.

But >they are not the net loudmouths. And few are active,

practicing researchers.

Congratulations fella's you made the deans list. I am proud
of all of you.

You are - and every time you sit down to defend PCT, and
yourself, from this endless quibbling, you lose, as Bill

has >lost, and PCT has lost, hours of precious time.

I agree. Now what was it we were distracted from doing?

Let them rant on. If you stop trying to answer them,

You can't stop what you never attempted to do in the first
place.

they'll have nothing to say, and soon stop.

I agree. By avoiding answering questions you do not know
the answers to and have no interest in finding out, and by
spending your time bashing people for having different views
you have managed to see this list grow to 85 people in 7
years. Of course there was 125 or so last year, but who's
counting. I don't think we are looking at an exponentail
growth curve here. All this because of what Bruce A,G,N, and
Jeff have done to this list. Sometimes I amaze myself.

They don't understand PCT,

Nonsense

and don't want to,

Even more nonsense

and can't afford to,

The next to the biggest bunch of nonsense

and have nothing useful to contribute.

This is the biggest bunch of nonsense. Sorry you feel that
way.

here's really nothing you can do with them except ignore
hem and go on about your usiness of programs and papers.

Right. Just like you are doing. Why not just give Rick a
call and tell him this privately?

This I assume is advice you are giving to Rick. Yes?

I know arguing is fun, especially when
you're right, but is this argument really all that much fun

any >more?

Right about what? It hasn't been fun for awhile.

Marc

6

From [ Marc Abrams (981019.1518) ]

[From Rick Marken (981019.0920)]

Yes. I'll let it go. I win because I know you and Bill --

and >PCT. That's winning!

And to think of the odds, It'll be an epic tale.

(Now, if only the Padres could get their act together;-)).

They will, next spring. :slight_smile:

Marc

7

[From Bruce Abbott (981019.1725 EST)]

Re: Mary Powers (9810.19) --

PCT began under a banner of humanism (see the last chapter of Bill's B:CP).
How ironic that it should end with an enemies list, a la Richard Nixon.

Bruce Abbott

8

[From Bruce Gregory (981019.2023 EDT)]

Bruce Abbott (981019.1725 EST)]

Re: Mary Powers (9810.19) --

PCT began under a banner of humanism (see the last chapter
of Bill's B:CP).
How ironic that it should end with an enemies list, a la
Richard Nixon.

As a mentor of mine would say, we become what we resist.

Bruce Gregory

9

[from Mary Powers (9810.19)]

To Rick:

First of all, if you would like I can send those Nature articles to you.

We

are about to throw those issues out. Let me know.

Rick, I see you now in the same hassle-to-the-death Bill has been in over
and over again with Hans, Martin, Bruce, etc. I wonder if you could give

it

over without feeling that you are losing. Yes, then Bruce A and G, and

Jeff

and Marc will "win". But win what? These people have taken up so much

time

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: PCT and its enemies [from Mary Powers (9810.19)]
Date: 10/19/98

My list of helpful/not helpful stuff on CSGnet, lately:

Helpful, give me more of this:

the discussion on models: I am learning some good things in spite of my
model phobia and poor math skills.

the discussion on MOL: I see this as a major PCT contribution to therapy.

the discussion of people's struggle to get PCT ideas right which involves
comparing them to ideas they already know; I find it interesting to talk
about how some smart people like Bill Glasser and
Charles Carver have tried to understand PCT but have not quite got it right.

the discussion of how PCT demands some changes in the way we do research.

Not helpful, no more thanks:

personal verbal attacks on each other; this stops communication.

getting carried away with our language; this reminds me a little of road
rage or dropping bombs on people when you can't see them--I am sure we would
be less extreme in our language if we were face to face.

Would like to see:

Each person say something about what they are trying to do with PCT.

Thanks.

I love the

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list CSGNET <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 12:11 PM
Subject: PCT and its enemies

with their quibbles, and rationalizations, and half-assed interpretations,
and abusive remarks, that they have already won: they have succeeded very
well in diverting PCT people from doing anything more than defending their
ideas and themselves. The final twist of the knife, from Bruce G, is to
blame the "drivel" on csgnet on you and Bill, and, along with Marc,
castigate the two of you for not being more productive. Sheesh.

As I've said before, the purpose of this net was to bring PCT people
together to discuss their work and ideas. Instead it is, and has been, a
forum for people who first thought PCT was going to confirm and justify
their views and, on discovering that this was not so, turned instead to
criticism, carping, personal attacks - anything but actually trying to
understand and apply this new concept.

Happily, there are a few people who treat this net as intended - Dick,
David, Chris, Tim, Fred, Hank, Phil, etc. But they are not the net
loudmouths. And few are active, practicing researchers. You are - and
every time you sit down to defend PCT, and yourself, from this endless
quibbling, you lose, as Bill has lost, and PCT has lost, hours of precious
time.

Let them rant on. If you stop trying to answer them, they'll have nothing
to say, and soon stop. They don't understand PCT, and don't want to, and
can't afford to, and have nothing useful to contribute. There's really
nothing you can do with them except ignore them and go on about your
business of programs and papers. I know arguing is fun, especially when
you're right, but is this argument really all that much fun any more?

love,

Mary