Some quick comments on recent posts

****** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930507A ******

    I really don't like to comment after just reading the screen
    but today I'm grading exams (see previous post for question)
    and preparing for the arrival of my grandchildren to attend
    the graduation ceremony of my son. Mistakes can be corrected

    RM (930506.0900) I may be mistaken but I thought I read that
    one of the reviewers of your most recently rejected papers on
    the "H" in HPCT cited Gary's paper which lead to you challenging
    Gary to a contest in Durango this Summer. Did I dream this or
    what? If I did dream it it is still a possiblitity.

    Remember, data do not speak for themselves or other wise; all
    data (like experience) must be interpreted thus you have to make
    sense of data from the "others" point of view to have any chance
    to convince them to consider your model as worthwhile. This it
    seems to me is what HPCT "tells" anyone (who understands it)
    about what you have to do to get another to reorganize; you have
    to put you foot in the door to get inside. If you try to use a
    Marken tank the other will just burn the house down (note this
    sentence is an illustration of using a Tucker tank). I think
    you have to cast the data in PCT terms and then convince the
    researcher that your interpretation is relevant to their "theory".
    Persuade gently don't beat into submission! Let's just look at
    the "bystander" research for a moment.

    I can not give you all the data from the studies but I would if
    I were trying to convince others that a PCT view "accounts for a
    greated ammount of variance" (like 100%) than the current studies
    do. I would point out that this line of research began with trying
    to "explain" an event that no one had any good data on - the beating
    and killing of a woman named "Genovese" (sp?) in NYC. Ask the
    question: What were all those people that heard her cries for help
    (assuming someone heard her) "conrolling for"? I think there is
    some evidence from other work that people who don't help another
    are either "controlling for" (1) someone else will do it or (2) I
    am afraid that that person will get me if I do call for help. But
    one of the most important actions that does not occur in these
    situations is that no one (including self) tells the person to help.
    When a request for assistance is made from another person that is
    known to the "requestee" help is usually given (I think that the
    story about those kids that saw Denny being beaten in the LA riot
    confirms this characterization). This is beginning to look to me
    like a PCT interpretation of the data. I think that it would be
    convincing to those who have done this research (obviously much
    more detail has to be offered). [PART OF WHAT I HAVE JUST WRITTEN

    I think to convince another you have to "get inside" her interpre-
    tative scheme and try to show how yours makes sense. I will not
    claim that I have been very successful with very many people over
    the years of trying to do this but I believe it will work better
    than just saying "you're wrong, stupid".

    Finally, another comment on data from tracking studies. As Rick
    has noted recently (I don't know what post it was) the results
    from these studies are EXTRAPOLITATED to other actions of a person.
    I have tested this on many of my students and I will tell you that
    this extrapolation ONLY makes sense AFTER one understands PCT; it
    is extremely difficult for most people to apply this to their own
    actions (Hacker's problem with this research is quite different
    even though some of you believe that if you just "read the book"
    you will understand - sorry, this advice is not only contrary to
    PCT [remember there is no information IN the book; one TAKES from
    a book] BUT in my experience with trying to have students learn
    PCT I do not use BCP because it is to difficult). So, use "data"
    that a person understands and translate it into PCT terms. Since
    each person is a living control system this should not be that
    difficult to do - begin with "what is the person controlling for"
    and go from there onward and upward.