[From Rick Marken (940228.0900)]
Any comments/suggestions on my review of Glasser's "Control Theory
Manager" would be greatly appreciated. I'd especially like to hear
from Autumn Winter for a reality therapy perspective.
Marcos Rodrigues -- I plan to be in Wales for the conference for sure.
Bill Powers (940226.0800 MST) --
[PCT science] can't be done by four or five people scattered around the
country doing experiments in their spare time on themselves and their
families with home computers and no money, while making a living doing
something else.
Yet this is the situation as it's been since the publication of "Behavior:
The control of perception" (BCP) - - 21 years ago! I think the degree to
which PCT has failed to develop as a science -- even among those who are
ostensibly it's advocates -- is a phenomenon worthy of consideration in
it's own right. Of course, the phenomenon can be explained in terms of
control theory itself -- small comfort to the four or five of us who are
actually trying to DO PCT science. Here's how Bill describes it:
I think that any distinterested party who has been following csg-l for two
or three years must have noticed how many _different_ ideas are ranged
against PCT. Practically every approach to human behavior, it seems, is
disturbed by the statements that PCT generates. Objections to PCT arise
from every quarter, even quarters that staunchly disgree with each other.
Objection to PCT is actually very rare in the world outside of csg-l.
It's really rather refreshing to see such objections, like the recent
critiques of PCT from Pepinsky and Dundeen. It would be nice to hear
anti-PCT tirades like this coming from scientifically competent
sources -- but we never get them. Nevertheless, it's always nice to hear
people just come out and say "I hate PCT". At least these people are being
honest in acknowleging that PCT is producing an enormous error for them.
Far more insidious are the people who claim that
the basic concepts of PCT were anticipated in his field or are contained
in it.
There have been many people this persuasion in the 21 years since the
publication of PCT; more often than not, they are supporters of PCT. But
there are still only 4 or 5 people doing PCT science. Why? I think
it's because many (most?) supporters of PCT people see PCT ideas as
"anticipated in his field or ... contained in it". In order to see PCT
this way, it is ALWAYS necessary to REJECT some important parts of PCT --
the parts that are NOT seen as "anticipated in his field or...contained in
it". So parts of PCT are accepted (which is nice) but parts are necessarily
rejected as well (which is not so nice -- because it usually means that we
have lost a potential participant in PCT science). The fact that this is
happening is probably only evident ot the four of five of us who are doing
PCT science; Bill Powers puts it this way:
The fact that a person...might accept and reject different parts of [PCT]
isn't evident unless you're paying attention to ALL the objections, as we
who sit here in the middle necessarily do.
Is there any solution to this problem? I doubt it. For the time being
(which may be be for many years to come) the four or five of us who are
doing PCT science will just have to do what we can. Maybe in another decade
it will be 6 or 7 of us doining PCT science if the 4 or 5 of us
post research ideas to csg-l whenever they occur.
I would be interested in any suggestions others migh have for increasing
participation in PCT science.
Best
Rick