From Greg Williams (921008 - 2)
Bill Powers (921008)
At no
point, however, did the environment have any effect on the most
fundamental critical variable of all: accuracy of replication.
Controlling that is the point of the whole shebang.
But you admit that the environment can have great effect on what you consider
"surface" phenomena. It appears that you explicitly agree with me that both
radical organismism and radical environmentalism are wrong, because the (to
you) "significant" variables don't depend on the environment and the (to you)
"insignificant" variables do depend on the environment. So, we end up with
what I've referred to as organismic/environmental "co-determination" of (some)
variables. That's all I've been lobbying for. Of course, you seem to believe
that organismism in some sense is vindicated if the (to you) "significant"
variables do not depend on the environment. I still think they do, in
important ways, but I don't need them to for what I've been calling "co-
determination." "Critical variable organismism" -- a limited version of
organismism -- is, I think, compatible with the kind of "co-determination"
I've been arguing for. Your admitting "co-determination" of (to you)
"insignificant" variables is enough for me right now. Even with "critical
variable organismism" (or maybe it should be "evolutionism"?), the result is
an explicit step away from radical organismism.
This leads to the need to consider why anyone would or would not decide to be
interested in having explanations of or, more generally, in understanding and
dealing with, how someone's (to Bill) "insignificant" variables can be
influenced by that person's environment (both living and non-living parts).
Maybe Clark McPhail could help begin to answer this question. Or maybe victims
of con artists could help. Or maybe welfare mothers. Or TV watchers. Or drug
addicts. Or parents. Or children. Or teachers. Or students. Or counselors. Or
prisoners. Or most anyone engaged in and/or studying social interactions.
The resulting data might help to convince some PCTers that the slogan "No one
can control you" -- meaning that no one make you want what you don't want --
merits a "Big deal! I can still have plenty of problems -- and plenty of
benefits -- due in part to others controlling their OWN perceptions which
depend on what I do. And those problems/benefits aren't insignificant TO ME!"
Best,
Greg