PCT Dictionary

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bill Powers (971202.0802 MST)]

Marc Abrams [(971201) 2307 --

I think it might help if we (the
list) had an _Official PCT Dictionary_.

One of the things that I have "learned" on this list is that "things are
not always as they seem to be" especially where word and phrase definitions
are concerned :-). Fred Nickols brought this up a while ago and again in
asking for certain clarifications. I agree with him. Words and phrases that
are important in helping define PCT and its related concepts should be
_clearly_ defined in terms of PCT. A word may have ten different meanings
but should have only _one_ with regard to PCT.

I do agree. In the past, however, the main reaction to this has been "Well,
I have just as much right to my meaning as you have to yours." The idea of
a quasi-mathematical lexicon in which meanings are fixed doesn't seem to
have much appeal. After all, if you always have to mean the same thing by
each technical word, you lose all the rich sloppiness of normal discourse.

Bill, since this is _your_ theory, you should have the pleasure of defining
the words and terms as _you_ feel they best describe and define your
theory. Thats not to say that others would not have useful input, you need
to be the final judge.

What you mean is that you want everyone to be mad at me instead of you. No
thanks. Look at the fate of my attempts to provide a strict technical
meaning for "control." It didn't make the slightest impression except among
those who already accepted it.

If A controls B, then for any disturbance acting on B, A will change its
effect on B to counteract the disturbance.

Best,

Bill P.

2

[From Bruce Nevin (971202.1115 EST)]

Bill Powers (971202.0802 MST) --

Marc Abrams [(971201) 2307 --

I think it might help if we (the
list) had an _Official PCT Dictionary_.

I do agree. [...] The idea of
a quasi-mathematical lexicon in which meanings are fixed doesn't seem to
have much appeal.

The pitfall of standing guard over PC usage (so to speak) is seeming to say
it's all semantics and nothing more, and that is a hydra indeed. The basis
for science is not theory, it is confrontation with nature in structured
experiments and demos. The appropriate usage of words then follows much
more easily.

The seductive grip of some theories is what you might call their keyhole
effect. Students can be enchanted by a science that seems to offer narrow
glimpses of mother nature in her boudoir. "Aha! So that's what's *really*
going on! Contrary to socalled common sense!" Initiates privy to these
disclosures (as they seem) enjoy their superiority to others not yet
disabused of naive notions like purpose--and thereafter look at everything
through a particular keyhole. PCT is much more difficult for those who have
been initiated to certain psychological peepshows.

Structure is necessary for experiments and demos. Efforts to make
psychology scientific have confused structure with stricture. PCT is not a
keyhole, it is an open door. Science need not be intellectual voyeurism.

A lexicon restricting people to orthodox PCT usage could actually make
matters worse. It would direct attention to the scoreboard, away from the
ball. There is already a great deal of shibboleth-slinging here. Perhaps
that is inevitable in email, where the only way to tell if someone has "got
it" is by judging their words. But appropriate use of words is an effect,
not a cause. You can't tell what someone is doing by watching what they're
doing, and to most folks a perception of being misunderstood is a
disturbance that merits launching a lot of words, which merit rejoinders,
and so on. When someone doesn't seem to get it, the appropriate remedy is
experience, not more words.

  Several monks were crossing a bridge with their teacher.
  "Master," said one, "how deep is this river?" The teacher
  turned and pushed him into the water.

Preaching to the choir, I know, but just to reaffirm what works and what
doesn't, IMO.

Bruce Nevin

3

[From Richard Kennaway (971202.1738 GMT)]

Bruce Nevin (971202.1115 EST):

You can't tell what someone is doing by watching what they're
doing, and to most folks a perception of being misunderstood is a
disturbance that merits launching a lot of words, which merit rejoinders,
and so on. When someone doesn't seem to get it, the appropriate remedy is
experience, not more words.

Perhaps an appropriate maxim would be: You can't tell what someone is
saying by watching what they are saying.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
   School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

4

From Marc Abrams [(971201) 2307 ]

Howdy folks. I have enjoyed the exchanges that that have been going on over
this list these last couple of weeks. I think it might help if we (the
list) had an _Official PCT Dictionary_.

One of the things that I have "learned" on this list is that "things are
not always as they seem to be" especially where word and phrase definitions
are concerned :-). Fred Nickols brought this up a while ago and again in
asking for certain clarifications. I agree with him. Words and phrases that
are important in helping define PCT and its related concepts should be
_clearly_ defined in terms of PCT. A word may have ten different meanings
but should have only _one_ with regard to PCT.

Bill, since this is _your_ theory, you should have the pleasure of defining
the words and terms as _you_ feel they best describe and define your
theory. Thats not to say that others would not have useful input, you need
to be the final judge.

Marc