[From Rick Marken (931201.0800)]--

Bill Powers (931130.1545 MST) to Bruce Nevin (931130.1053 EST),
Rick Marken (931129.1300) --

You guys are arguing just to be arguing.

I don't think so. I am trying to explain conflict (intra and
interpersonal) from a PCT perspective. As I said in my last post
(931130.1500) to Bruce, some of the theoretical substance of the
PCT approach to conflict was described by Kent McClellend at the
last CSG meeting and I believe that a description of Kent's (not
Ken's -- sorry Kent) work is available in a paper. Or perhaps Kent
could summerize his work on the the net.

The "data" you're arguing about is a STORY, made up by an author.

Not really. I have been couching my descriptions of conflict in
terms of the story. But my conclusions about conflict did not
depend on the validity of the story. I certainly didn't mean to
be treating the story as data; just a context for discussing the
model. Detailed analyses of REAL conflicts would require rather
extended therapy sessions (using a verbal version of "the test") to
determine what the conflicted person is controlling for and why. But
I think it's fine to discuss the MODEL of conflict in the context
of the Mary Poppins story; it's just a bit crazy to TEST the PCT
model (or any other model of conflict) in terms of the story. I never
suggested doing such a thing; and I never pointed to any part of the
story as evidence for the PCT model. All I did was describe how PCT
would explain the conflicts (as described). But I would be happy to
shift from the Mary Poppins conflict to the x/y conflict that I can
create in a tracking experiment or the interpersonal conflict that
I'm sure Tom Bourbon has found in his two person tracking studies.
But, unfortunately, there is no rubber meeting the road in these
lab studies so people might be inclined to think that they don't
relate to "real" conflicts -- like those described in "Mary Poppins".