From Greg Williams (940416)
From Rick Marken (940415.1900)
Apparently, some concern has been expressed that my
posts create an aura of hostility in what should be the
peaceful meadows of CSG-L. I have been accused in public
(by Greg) and in private as acting as an enforcer of PCT
"political correctness". I, of course, labor under the
delusion that my arguments are based on my understanding of
the PCT model. "Political correctness" implies that when I
argue against an idea like "changing perceptions is the
same as controlling perceptions" my argument is based on
current fashion, not on the structure of a real, working
model.
Your characterization of PCT correctness is not at all what I meant.
Perhaps other accusers meant what you say above, but I did not. It
would be interesting, I think, to explore the "political" nature
(which I consider as "meta" to the actual PCT models -- at least as
currently construed) of some claims made by various PCTers. Also, it
would be interesting to explore alternative models. Very little of
this has been done on the net, in part because of your "enforcement"
posturing, which in my experience has tended to lead to artificial
closure of discussion in these areas.
I find the notion that I am enforcing PCT
"political correctness" such a stupifyingly ridiculous
characterization of what I am doing that I don't really
even know what to say. So I will say no more. As usual,
the real forces of "political correctness" win by default; I
have been pegged by the thought police and, like poor
Rushdie, I'll just have to go underground. The real
"political correctness" brigade -- those who are care more
about HOW things are said than about WHAT is said --
have sucked the vitality from scientific discussion and
numbed all sense of humor. And, I might add, make a mockery
of their own understanding of people as control systems.
Speaking only for myself, it seems obvious that many times in social
interactions, the _how_ makes great differences. I don't think that
the _how_ is all important, but it is often important. To disregard
the how is, at least sometimes, to ignore the other living control
systems whose reference signal structures must be considered if you
are to meet your own goals. I believe that Rick is mistaken if he
believes that the following two statements _should_ have equivalent
effect when spoken to most people: "Here is a model that works better
than your model." "Here is a model that works better than your stupid
model." That mistake can be very costly in terms of speeding the
mainstreaming of PCT in psychology (one of _my_ higher-level goals),
in my opinion.
So I am just not going to post for a while. That way I can
get some work done, anyway. And everyone on the net
will be able to experience a welcome relief from any
potential censure for "political incorrectness".
I have always been saddened when anyone has left CSGnet. I myself left
for several months because I felt that Rick was not taking me
seriously and that there was nothing I could say that would change the
situation -- that there was zero probability for true dialog. I tried
long and hard to increase that probability, but to no avail. In the
present case, it is my perception that Rick is leaving in order to
score points as a "victim." It is also an easy way out, avoiding
discussion of the meaning of "PCT correctness." He has made his decree
about how the situation must be (since that is how it appears to him),
and now it is time for him to disappear to prevent true dialog. The
same story, as always? It is very tempting to characterize Rick's
abrasiveness, his tactlessness, his trivializing of others' points of
view, and, now, his leaving, all as means to avoid mutual dialog.
I still look forward to having discussions about PCT with Rick. But
not until he stops posturing so as to prevent genuine two-way
communication.
As ever,
Greg
P.S. I was going to say something about not having Tricky Rick to kick
us around any more, but that would have been tactless. :-))