I've been on CSG-L since about three years ago. I got to know about the group
from a message that Gary Cziko sent to ERL, the educational research list. When
I read Gary's message I thought that maybe that was what I was looking for. The
message had an impact on me; at least it called my attention. I've always been
very suspicious and critical of conventional psychology (Myself, with some
friends, wrote a book about it); so, in a way, I was ready to, at least, listen
to what PCTers had to say about the field of psychology.
However, I must admit that some "preparation" helped a bit. Since long ago I had
been looking for an alternative to conventional, experimental psychology. I
looked around. I read a great deal of "alternative" psych, Rogers (yes, the guy
that had the debate with Skinner), Maslow (the so called humanist), Gordon Pask
(I am probably one of the few psychologist who actually read his Conversation
Theory); then I went to Maturana (of autopoiesis fame) and Varela (lately with
Eleanor "prototype" Rosch) looking for some inspiration. Unfortunately (or
fortunataly, it depends) I found none.
Until I read came into contact with CSG-L and had the opportunity to read B:CP.
More or less at the same time (actually a bit before), I came to know Mario
Bunge's work in philosophy of science and read his Treatise of Basic Philosophy
(a monumental work in 9 volumes that summarizes his work, which, I think, is in
philosophy the best work of the last 50 years and I amply recommend).
I see some paralles between the work of Bill P and that of Mario B. Both are
ignored by the mainstream (who prefer the Madonnas and the Michael Jacksons,
such as Thomas Kuhn and Locke to the Domingos and the Pavarottis of psychology
and philosophy, like Bill P and Mario B): Who prefer easy intuitions over hard
thinking. Both are very unpopular. Both are very rigoorous, yet very clear in
their writing and in expressing their ideas. Both defenders of science against
the attacks from irrationalists (T Kuhn) and t-tests.
I cannot say that I understand them both Bill P and Mario B completely. But my
"feeling" is that, at least in the fundamentals, I do. I know that I have a
great deal to learn, but the first obstacle have been surmounted. From here on,
I have to sharpen the knifes I've got.
I guess that the point of all this is to say that it is people like me, who
already distrust mainstream psychology (who does not believe in F-tests nor in
ethereal concepts of the mind), that PCters should try to attract. Forget about
trying to convert the children of the Lockes and the Banduras of this world.
They have already made up their minds. They already know what science is. They
already know what psychology is. Let then live their delusions.
As for Rick M., well, I like him. Stop complaining about his "bad manners". He
has done great experimental work and is the first defender of the basic ideas of
PCT. Besides, for me, he is to CSG-L what chillies is to mexican food. It may
make me sweat, but I sure like it.
Salud,
F.