Teaching PCT might be a better term

From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1332)]

In a message dated 5/17/2006 12:12:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2006.05.17.0910)]

Marc Abrams (2006.05.16.2109)

I think it’s because I am not trying to sell PCT.

Than why the “need” to publish?

To put stuff out there for people to evaluate and buy or not as they
choose. I try to make a convincing case for PCT but I’m not trying to
sell it – that is, I’m not trying to convince people against their
will.
Like economics, you are out of your league here. Do you honestly believe that good sales people make a living by trying to convince people to buy things they don’t need or want?

Dream on pal.

No one had to sell PCT to me.
Rick, no one can “sell” anything to anyone else. People “buy” what they need and want from others. Do you understand the distinction?

Only a con man “sells” and he/she does that by making promises that cannot be kept or offering things that just don’t exist.

I once ran into someone selling houses in heaven and believe it or not he was doing a bang up job of making money. Why? because people wanted to believe that they existed and this jerk made it all seem possible, but that is a crime, not “sales”.

Like many other things you have a stilted and distorted view that I won’t bother with because I know through our “discussions” on economics you are only interested in what you think you know is the case. The truth is of little concern to you.

I publish in the hopes that there
are others out there, like me, who are experts in conventional
psychology with a willingness to fairly and competently evaluate
evidence that strongly suggests that the foundations of that discipline
are based on a misconception.
Your delusional on many counts but most importantly about yourself.

You are not on an academic track. Why have a web site?

So that people can easily access to my work.
No rick, why do you want people to have easy access to your work? So they may “buy” it, right?

I wouldn’t try to sell PCT because I don’t believe it is the correct
control formulation

Well, I guess that let’s you out as the person who will fund my endowed
chair in PCT.
I guess so, sorry. But that is why I suggested you write the Cog Sci text. You should have about as easy a time of publishing such a text as you would getting a chair so good luck.

I thought that since you have been so successful at
selling you would need a tax write - off and an endowed chair would be just the ticket. Ah well.
I could use a tax write off, and one of the reasons I was successful selling was not trying to sell things to folks that they had no use for like PCT.

But please don’t misunderstand, PCT can be made to be “sellable” but that would require that you would actually have to go out and learn why folks might want to “buy” it and at what “price”.

But since you are such an expert in economics, part of it should be no issue for a man of your talents.

My goal is to put the data and models out there for
others to see and evaluate on their own.

Yes, and it seems the “evaluations” are coming in with a resounding,
“Who cares”.

Actually, the most common evaluation is “We already know that”.
Same thing.

Sure you can. Produce things people want and they will buy it.

Yes. I could do that. But then I would be a Prius salesman.
No, you would be an honest successful salesman. What a twisted sense of self you have. Produce something that people want rather than what you want to provide and the people are jerks for not wanting what you are offering.

Talk about having a screwed up set of values.

You can’t have it both ways my friend. Either you want others to buy
your ideas or you don’t. If you don’t you have no need for publishing
and certainly no need to “teach” PCT.

Of course I want others to buy my ideas. I just don’t want to force
these ideas on them.

You can’t. Haven’t you learned anything? Apparently not. Exactly what have you learned about people from control?

That two control systems in conflict should avoid each other? What insight.

You think you know about control & human behavior and you have no real clue. You are so focused in on minutia and your toy models that you have lost sight totally of the big picture.

You are no further along in your understanding of what control means to human behavior than you were 20 years ago. You and Powers have built a very strong Maginot line and I hope your very comfortable behind it.

So, yes, I am trying to sell PCT.

Make up your mind pal, its getting very confusing.

But there are serious constraints on what I am willing to do to get PCT sold. The
main constraint is the PCT model itself. I won’t make false claims
about what PCT is (and I won’t tolerate such claims from others) even
if I know that such claims will make PCT more attractive to an audience
and might even “close the deal” on selling PCT.

This is all a lie. What the actual PCT model shows and what you have attributed to that model over the years have been vastly different. You attribute emotions to the model and none currently exist. You attribute the use of memory to the model and Bill has not yet settled on a way of representing it yet.

You attribute a great deal to the model that your imagination tells you is feasible but has not been tested or modeled yet.

So leave your piety at the door.

You make PCT attractive to others, NOT by lying about its characteristics, but by talking about things that other people have an interest in and that they may find useful. NOT what you like or care about.

Narcissism seems to be just as important a trait as Methods and Engineering

So if I am a salesman,
I am the most ineffective kind: an honest one,

No Rick, you’re ineffective because you are a terrible salesperson and most importantly, dishonest with yourself. You are a blowhard.

or at least, as honest
as I can be within the limits of my ability to understand my “product”:
the PCT model of behavior.

You don’t understand your “product” even though you may understand how it works but most importantly you have no real understanding of why anyone might need it or what they can do with it.

You really think being a good salesperson is being a con man. Ken Kitzke and Fred Nichols might disagree with you here Rick although I know Bill Powers is of a similar persuasion.

Your position is one of folks thinking the “wrong” thing. My
position
is one of ignorance.

I agree with you there!

Cute Rick, I’ll give you two points for creatively manipulating and
rearranging what I said, but here is a sad instance of your falling
back to personal attacks when things start coming apart for you.

Sorry. It was a shoulder level fast ball over the center of the plate.
What could I do? :wink:

I wouldn’t have expected anything less from you.

Because they are all done from the same theme. Science is not about
collaboration. It is about falsification and you have not attempted to
falsify PCT or the Hierarchy.

Every experiment I have done is an attempt to falsify HPCT.

The same experiment? Rick, do you know the definition of psychotic?

Its someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results each time.

I must admit, I have never seen a more creative use of one experiment (tracking task) in my life.

If a tracking task was a food, you could make a different meal for a year off the same food. But others are not so impressed.

The fact
that they didn’t falsify it doesn’t mean that falsification was not
possible. The fact that you don’t know this kind of justifies my
response to your fast ball.

There is no “justification” for your “fastball”. You’re a lowlife that can’t scrape himself off the gutter.

I may very well be ignorant about many things, but I don’t come close to the arrogance and hubris you have regarding your ignorance, and believe me, it is bountiful.

You think you are real slick but greasy probably better describes who and what you are all about.

(From Bryan Thalhammer [2006.05.17.1355 LT])

Marc Abrams, arriving full-blown on track 13. Marc Abrams said with regard to a fellow human being:

* "you are out of your league here" (not a serious player)
* "Dream on pal" (that the respondent was a dreamer)
* "The truth is of little concern to you."
* "Your [sic] delusional on many counts but most importantly about yourself."
* "...for a man of your talents." (That is, NO talents)
* "What a twisted sense of self you have."
* "Talk about having a screwed up set of values."
* "Haven't you learned anything? Apparently not."
* "What insight." (That is, NO insight)
* "you have no real clue."
* "You are so focused in on minutia and your toy models that you have lost sight totally of the big picture."
* "You are no further along in your understanding"
* "...its getting very confusing." (that is, YOU are confusing)
* "So leave your piety at the door." (the hearer is very impious)
* "Narcissism" (attributed to the hearer)
* "ineffective because you are a _terrible_ salesperson"
* "dishonest with yourself."
* "You are a blowhard."
* "you have no real understanding..."
* manipulator
* "your falling back to personal attacks when things start coming apart for you."
* "...do you know the definition of psychotic?" (That is the hearer is psychotic)
* "You're a lowlife that can't scrape himself off the gutter."
* "...I don't come close to the arrogance and hubris you have regarding your ignorance, and believe me, it is bountiful."
* "You think you are real slick but greasy probably better describes who and what you are all about."

Mmmmm wowsers. 25 or so. That am a lot of ad hominems.

When, Marc, will you burn yourself out and go away?

--B.

[From Rick Marken (2006.06.17.1230)]

Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1332)--

Rick, no one can "sell" anything to anyone else...

I once ran into someone selling houses in heaven and believe it or not he
was doing a bang up job of making money. Why? because people wanted to believe
that they existed and this jerk made it all seem possible, but that is a
crime, not "sales".

I see. So you can't sell anything to anyone but if you do (which you can't) it's a crime.

I know through our "discussions" on economics you are only
interested in what you think you know is the case. The truth is of
little concern to you.

Really? Let's try one. Do you believe that economic growth (measures as the rate of change in GDP) is increased or decreased by increasing taxes? How would you test to determine whether or not your belief is true?

one of the reasons I was successful selling was not trying to sell
things to folks that they had no use for like PCT.

I agree. So your recommendation would be that if I want to sell something to people (which can't be done, anyway) I should sell them something they want, like cognitive neuroscience (which seems to be a pretty hot item these days), rather than something they don't want (like PCT). I guess I just don't want to do that. People want a lot of things that I think are demonstrably terrible for them (religion and the Bush administration being two great examples). I'm not interested in selling something just because people want it.

But please don't misunderstand, PCT can be made to be "sellable" but that
would require that you would actually have to go out and learn why folks might
want to "buy" it and at what "price".

But that's exactly what I don't want to do. I know that I could sell PCT the way Rove sold Bush. But I would hate myself in the morning. :wink:

You make PCT attractive to others, _NOT_ by lying about its characteristics,
but by talking about things that other people have an interest in and that
they may find useful. _NOT_ what _you_ like or care about.

Yes. I agree with this. But I think there is some movement toward showing how PCT might be of useful to particular groups. Tim Carey, for example, is doing a great job of showing how PCT can be useful to counselors. Bruce Abbott's work could be of interest of operant conditioners. But, I agree, more could be sone to show how PCT could be useful to people.

Every experiment I have done is an attempt to falsify HPCT.

The same experiment? Rick, do you know the definition of psychotic?

No. Many different experiments, but they might look the same to you if you haven't studied them carefully.

Richard S. Marken, PhD
Psychology
Loyola Marymount University
Office: 310 338-1768
Cell: 310 729 - 1400

Hello Bryan, Rick, Martin, and others who can't resist squeezing that zit:

I know it itches and smarts, but if you keep scratching at it like that, it will just spread and come back worse. Just leave it alone and the urge will gradually die away.

I once climbed a large fir tree behind my grandmother's house in Salem, Oregon, carrying Uncle Karl's binoculars, to look at Mount Hood. On the way down a limb broke, I think, and I fell ten feet into the undergrowth, which turned out to be solid poison oak. It took two weeks to rejoin the world, during which I heard things like the above at frequent intervals. Of course I scratched, and it did spread and get worse, until I learned just to let the ointment work, and wait.

Bryan, you collected a nice bunch of irritating statements there, But scratching will not make them stop coming , nor will despairing, or being earnestly helpful, or intellectually encouraging, or forgiving, or being logical, or getting mad put an end to them. Poison oak can't help being poison oak; it's not malicious, or evil, or calculating, or out to get you. It's just what it is, and the wise person learns not to fall into a patch of it twice.

Best,

Bill P.

Ah the final curtain. The big Kahoonah himself crawls out from under his rock to address his dedicated troops.

Its amazing how quickly the discussion went from “signals” to what an asshole I am.

Funny when you have no answers how quickly other topics start looking attractive.

But I’m grateful. I never really understood just how two-faced and phony Martin Taylor was.

I hope the next president gives you as much to talk about as this last one did otherwise there might not be any discussion at all on this list.

Bill, you can go slither back under your rock.

In a message dated 5/17/2006 5:27:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

Hello Bryan, Rick, Martin, and others who can’t resist squeezing that zit:

I know it itches and smarts, but if you keep scratching at it like
that, it will just spread and come back worse. Just leave it alone
and the urge will gradually die away.

I once climbed a large fir tree behind my grandmother’s house in
Salem, Oregon, carrying Uncle Karl’s binoculars, to look at Mount
Hood. On the way down a limb broke, I think, and I fell ten feet into
the undergrowth, which turned out to be solid poison oak. It took two
weeks to rejoin the world, during which I heard things like the above
at frequent intervals. Of course I scratched, and it did spread and
get worse, until I learned just to let the ointment work, and wait.

Bryan, you collected a nice bunch of irritating statements there, But
scratching will not make them stop coming , nor will despairing, or
being earnestly helpful, or intellectually encouraging, or forgiving,
or being logical, or getting mad put an end to them. Poison oak can’t
help being poison oak; it’s not malicious, or evil, or calculating,
or out to get you. It’s just what it is, and the wise person learns
not to fall into a patch of it twice.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2006.05.17.1740)]

Bill Powers wrote:

Hello Bryan, Rick, Martin, and others who can't resist squeezing that zit:

Eeeuuu.

Poison oak can't
help being poison oak; it's not malicious, or evil, or calculating,
or out to get you. It's just what it is, and the wise person learns
not to fall into a patch of it twice.

It turns out that I'm not allergic to poison oak.

But I think of dealing with Marc more like dealing with rhubarb, which is poisonous when eaten raw but makes an exquisite dessert when properly prepared! And I've gotten some nice, private compliments on my rhubarb pie;-)

Bon appetit

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400