I've appreciated all the engagement, and confess I am a neophyte to
PCT. On the other hand, I'm paying pretty close attention to the
explanations I'm receiving and sensing I have a firmer and firmer
grasp of the assumptions underlying the model. I have a predilection
for focusing on the assumptions of any new model I encounter, and
taking for granted that meaningful results consistent with the model
can be produced. It is therefore of secondary interest to me master
the internal workings of the model.
My interest is its own reward for me. It is for y'all in PCT and on
this network to decide whether you want to attend to constructs
exogenous to your model and to concede them more reality than Bill
concedes Magnus Hedberg. I'm heartened that you continue to respond
to these issues, even if you feel a continuing need to reiterate that
I am not discussing things in endogenous PCT terms.
For my part, I find it richly educational not only to explore what
others tell me is exogenous to my frameworks of inquiry, but to test
my capacity to explain my choice of models or frames to those like
PCT-ists in whose world my problem is not a problem (as a sociologist
told me early in my career). Presumably, y'all are not just wanting
to talk to the converted. Here I am. You can take me as I am or
leave me be (and even delete my messages unread). No hard feelings.
l&p hal