[From Rick Marken (2002.09.30.0915)]
I am taking the liberty of posting a private post I received from Dag Forssell. I
am also posting my reply to that post. I'm posting it because I think it shows
clearly that the basis for the "hate Rick" campaign is not just my purported lack
of sensitivity to the feelings of others. The "hate Rick" campaign, as you will
see below, results from the fact that I believe the wrong things about PCT : I
"violate PCT science". Indeed, Dag has determined that my mindreadings.com
website cannot be recommended as a PCT resource, mainly (but not exclusively)
because it includes a demo of a forbidden variant of the PCT model, the UEC.
Since attempts to purge me of my "non-PCT" ideas (I think they are the ones I've
mentioned before: the idea that people can be controlled, the idea that a person
is controlling another even when nothing need by done to get that other to do what
is wanted and the idea that a person who breaks a rule has not necessarily chosen
the consequences of that behavior. I guess I can add the UEC to the list of
"heresies") have been unsuccessful it looks to me like the "hate Rick" thing will
continue, no matter how nice and thoughtful I become.
Best regards
Rick
···
---------
Here's is Dag's post to me:
[From Dag Forssell (2002 09.29.1210)]
>[Rick Marken (2002.09.28.1900)]
>But as I reflect on this I think that unquestionably the worst mistake
>I've made in the context of CSGNet (I think that's what you mean) was
>assuming that Tom Bourbon (who was not on CSGNet at the time) would be
>completely in agreement with Bill Powers and I regarding the issues
>discussed in the now infamous "coercion debate". I don't think I've ever
>been more mistaken about anything in my life. And it's still costing me.
For Tom's perspective on the coercion debate, please take another look at
the 1998 Vancouver conference tapes.
Tom stood up (you can fast forward and look for him standing up) on three
different occasions during the conference, protesting the violations of PCT
science that were part and parcel of that one-sided "debate." I seem to
remember that you asked for the third tape way back, Rick. You have to
review all three. I am hard pressed to access my supply right now.
As you note, this entire "debate" was aimed at Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon,
while everyone knew that they were not reading CSGnet. Apparently, you felt
that any serious PCTer is obligated to read CSGnet. I don't think so.
You appear to be, above all, dedicated to and controlling for the greatness
of Richard Hubris Marken. This comes through again and again in your
polemics. I think you would be far more productive if you changed your
attitude to Richard Humble Marken (More in line with William Humble Powers,
Phil Humble Runkel and Tom Huble Bourbon, men who may not be as "brilliant"
as you) and edited your posts carefully so they deal with PCT science, just
like your scientific articles do. Your posts would be more thoughtful and
far shorter. This would eliminate the impression that you always want the
last word, and respect for you would be restored.
Rick, you promised Tom on the foredeck of the cruise in 1998 that you would
withhold judgement on RTP until you knew what you were talking about. Your
word was not your bond. You continued with numerous completely unscientific
sniper attacks.
A large problem with CSGnet discussions involving you is your frequent lack
of scientific rigor while you claim to be an authority, setting yourself up
as a thought policeman. For gross lack of scientific thinking, witness for
example your BS reply to my request for a PCT-scientific explanation of the
Universal Error Curve earlier this year, followed by your suggestion that
Bill's reply (which was a serious reply, thanks Bill) was the same as yours
-- which it was not, by any measure. This was followed by your repeated,
snooty observation that now that the UEC curve had been explained, maybe
all those unwashed would get it. Someone observed, correctly, that your
reply to me was something Bandura or Locke might have endorsed and you
would have jumped on if it came from anyone else but yourself.
I am not planning to review this spring's UEC thread, instructive as it may
be, mostly because I have more significant and pressing things to do,
personally and for PCT, as well as because the UEC should die a quiet
death. But at that time back in the spring when I thought I would, I
prepared by reviewing the thread on the UEC I created a year or two back.
It was interesting to note that just prior to the 1998 conference, when the
coercion "debate" was some two years old, Issac asked you for a definition
of coercion. In rapid succession, you provided numerous attempts to define
coercion. Isaac quickly showed the ridiculous implications of each. I think
the problem with much of this is that PCT is basic. RTP is based on
extrapolated conclusions from PCT and is easy enough to attack. Any
discussion of coercion, it seems to me, is also an extrapolation from
conclusions based on PCT. The mistake is not to discuss, but to pretend
that the discussion is pct science, and that you are the expert on the
subject matter.
I do not choose to loathe you or even dislike you. It is certainly not
productive. Serves no purpose whatsoever. I like you just fine when we get
together. I want you to be a serious, respected PCTer, not someone serious
PCTers stay away from or ridicule on CSGnet because you are both
unscientific and disrespectful. For my own sake as a teacher of PCT,
publisher of PCT materials on the web and in print, and that of PCT of
course, I want to be able to recommend www.mindreadings.com as a PCT web
resource when I list PCT websites on www.PCTresources.com. Currently, your
site cannot be recommended.
Please review the various items with a critical eye toward telling the
visitor what is PCT and what is not. At the end of the long string of posts
on the UEC last spring, both Bill and you concluded that there was nothing
to the UEC, but you have not followed through by removing the UEC crap I
originally objected to from your website.
Your headings for demos run something like
What to do
What it's about
What to notice
What works best
Perhaps if you were to add a short discussion of "How this illustrates the
science of PCT" or "How this relates to the science of PCT" you would find
yourself significantly enhancing some demos while eliminating many altogether.
I started writing this post as a reply for CSGnet, but I don't think that
would be good for anyone. Please, just think seriously about your whole
attitude and modus operandi. Above all, examine your systems concepts, who
you are, what you want to accomplish.
Best, Dag
-----
And here is my reply to Dag
Hi Dag --
Gee, what set this off? All I said was that I was surprised that Tom disagreed
with me. I didn't say Tom was wrong or that he was a bad person or anything.
For Tom's perspective on the coercion debate, please take another look at
the 1998 Vancouver conference tapes.
I have seen the Vancouver tapes. I know that Tom has another perspective. He
thinks that he is not controlling other people when those other people do what he
wants. I disagree with him about this. I haven't been able to persuade Tom that
he is wrong and he hasn't been able to persuade me that I am wrong. That's the
way it goes. There shouldn't be any acrimony.
Tom stood up (you can fast forward and look for him standing up) on three
different occasions during the conference, protesting the violations of PCT
science that were part and parcel of that one-sided "debate." I seem to
remember that you asked for the third tape way back, Rick. You have to
review all three. I am hard pressed to access my supply right now.
I've had the tapes for some time and went over them again a year or so ago when I
made one of my occasional attempts to get friendly with Tom. The tapes show
exactly what I thought; Tom giving a talk explaining why people are not being
controlled when their references are aligned with those of the controller. That's
what he thinks PCT says about interacting control systems. I don't.
As you note, this entire "debate" was aimed at Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon,
while everyone knew that they were not reading CSGnet. Apparently, you felt
that any serious PCTer is obligated to read CSGnet. I don't think so.
The debate was aimed at some ideas that Ed and apparently also Tom endorse: the
idea that people cannot be controlled, the idea that one is not controlling a
person if the person is not resisting and the idea that a person who violates a
rule has chosen the consequence of violating the rule. The debate would have been
aimed at Ed and Tom if we had made ad hominum attacks on them, such as saying
that they are controlling for their own greatness or that they lack scientific
rigor.
You appear to be, above all, dedicated to and controlling for the greatness
of Richard Hubris Marken. This comes through again and again in your
polemics.
I'm sorry it looks that way to you.
Rick, you promised Tom on the foredeck of the cruise in 1998 that you would
withhold judgement on RTP until you knew what you were talking about. Your
word was not your bond. You continued with numerous completely unscientific
sniper attacks.
I believe that I promised not to say anything about the results of implementing
the program until I had visited schools in which it had been implemented. I
didn't promise not to criticize practices that RTP said it carried out.
A large problem with CSGnet discussions involving you is your frequent lack
of scientific rigor while you claim to be an authority, setting yourself up
as a thought policeman. For gross lack of scientific thinking, witness for
example your BS reply to my request for a PCT-scientific explanation of the
Universal Error Curve earlier this year, followed by your suggestion that
Bill's reply (which was a serious reply, thanks Bill) was the same as yours
-- which it was not, by any measure. This was followed by your repeated,
snooty observation that now that the UEC curve had been explained, maybe
all those unwashed would get it. Someone observed, correctly, that your
reply to me was something Bandura or Locke might have endorsed and you
would have jumped on if it came from anyone else but yourself.
Dag, I think you really have to learn the difference between ad hominum attacks
and substantive argument. Telling me that I lack scientific rigor, that I claim
to be an authority, that I am a thought policeman, that I make snooty
observations, or that what I say is something that Bandura and Locke might
endorse doesn't really help me understand what is wrong with the substance of my
argument. Can you see that this is simply name calling? What you should try to
do is explain what it is that you disagree with me about and then point out --
using models, analysis or data -- what is wrong with what I said.
I am not planning to review this spring's UEC thread, instructive as it may
be, mostly because I have more significant and pressing things to do,
personally and for PCT, as well as because the UEC should die a quiet
death. But at that time back in the spring when I thought I would, I
prepared by reviewing the thread on the UEC I created a year or two back.
It was interesting to note that just prior to the 1998 conference, when the
coercion "debate" was some two years old, Issac asked you for a definition
of coercion. In rapid succession, you provided numerous attempts to define
coercion. Isaac quickly showed the ridiculous implications of each. I think
the problem with much of this is that PCT is basic. RTP is based on
extrapolated conclusions from PCT and is easy enough to attack. Any
discussion of coercion, it seems to me, is also an extrapolation from
conclusions based on PCT. The mistake is not to discuss, but to pretend
that the discussion is pct science, and that you are the expert on the
subject matter.
I think the discussion of RTP practices was based on PCT. We actually developed
models to illustrate our points. Apparently few were convinced by our points;
maybe we did a lousy job of illustrating those points. But I think we stuck to
the science.
I do not choose to loathe you or even dislike you.
Well, this is the first post of this sort that I've ever gotten from someone who
didn't loath or dislike me;-) I wish you would do what I suggested in an earlier
post on the net: hate my ideas, not me. If you could focus on the ideas then
maybe you could attack the ideas, using data and models, rather than me,
personally.
I want you to be a serious, respected PCTer, not someone serious
PCTers stay away from or ridicule on CSGnet because you are both
unscientific and disrespectful.
And I want the same for you.
For my own sake as a teacher of PCT,
publisher of PCT materials on the web and in print, and that of PCT of
course, I want to be able to recommend www.mindreadings.com as a PCT web
resource when I list PCT websites on www.PCTresources.com. Currently, your
site cannot be recommended.
Really! How interesting. Could you explain why?
Please review the various items with a critical eye toward telling the
visitor what is PCT and what is not. At the end of the long string of posts
on the UEC last spring, both Bill and you concluded that there was nothing
to the UEC, but you have not followed through by removing the UEC crap I
originally objected to from your website.
But I don't think the UEC crap is crap. It's a _possible_ explanation for an
observed phenomenon . However, if you can explain to me, in a convincing,
scientific way, why the UEC is crap, I'll be happy to remove it.
I started writing this post as a reply for CSGnet, but I don't think that
would be good for anyone.
Do you mind if I post this reply to the net? I think it would be good for people
to see what I have to deal with.
Please, just think seriously about your whole
attitude and modus operandi. Above all, examine your systems concepts, who
you are, what you want to accomplish.
OK.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
But anyway, visit my website www.trainingsraum.de which