The Informant

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers 92000.09.20.0104 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0919.1005)]

I consider this a completely counterproductive post. Don't
you, on reflection?

No. Actually it simply points out what has been obvious for a long time.

How would you like to be subjected to the same sort of personal attack?
Isn't it likely that the person attacked will push back rather than
suddenly reforming? What is so productive, what is accomplished, by
pointing out "what has been obvious for a long time"? Are you retracting
your previous statements that Rick Marken shouldn't indulge in personal
attacks?

It seems to me that Marken's main (occasional) intellectual error is that
of jumping to conclusions about other people's motivations and then
refusing to alter his opinion. It's what I call the "favorite enemy
syndrome," also known as the "straw man" syndrome. But Rick is far from the
only person on CSGnet who practices this approach. You and Dag Forssell and
Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford all have done it. I try not to, but maybe I do it,
too; you'll have to tell me. It would be amusing to see all the missiles
being aimed at glass houses, missiles whose points of origin can be traced
to other glass houses, if it weren't so discouraging.

Among all the horrible things Rick is purported to have done, it seems to
me that the one most resented is to insist on "PCT correctness". I have
felt the resistance to that, too, when I try to insist. But how can one
present a theory and the thinking and experimenting to support it if one is
willing to back off from it any time it seems that someone has a different
idea that conflicts with it? Are competing theories to be preferred
whenever disputing them might hurt someone's feelings? Is PCT such a junior
idea in the world of science that its proponents must be polite to
believers in older concepts while the same courtesy is not to be expected
in return?

I admit that when someone expresses opposition to some PCT concept because
of personal beliefs or long-held opinions, my tendency is to back off and
avoid a confrontation. It hardly seems worth the effort to present
counterarguments when the boringly predictable result will be nothing but
increased insistence that in this particular case, PCT must be wrong
(however right it may be in other cases in which the defender has no stake).

But is this the right way to get PCT considered seriously? If the people
who claim to take it seriously defer to everyone else, why should everyone
else take it seriously, too? If all older concepts are to be respected
simply because someone wants to hold onto them, without regard to logic or
rigor, why should we bother to demand logic and rigor of ourselves?

I have no answers to these questions. Obviously I am unable to come up with
just the right approach that will convince others that PCT is at least as
competent a theory as any others that have been offered. I am all too often
reminded of a crocheted motto that hung in my grandmother Alice's house 70
years ago; when I was little I didn't understand what it meant, but I do,
now. It said "Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion
still."

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0920.1013)]

Bill Powers 92000.09.20.0104 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2000.0919.1005)]

>> I consider this a completely counterproductive post. Don't
>> you, on reflection?
>
>No. Actually it simply points out what has been obvious for
a long time.

How would you like to be subjected to the same sort of
personal attack?

Were I to be guilty of the same rigidity of thought, I would hope some
one would point it out to me.

Isn't it likely that the person attacked will push back rather than
suddenly reforming? What is so productive, what is accomplished, by
pointing out "what has been obvious for a long time"? Are you
retracting
your previous statements that Rick Marken shouldn't indulge
in personal
attacks?

Rick is incapable of abstaining from personal attacks as far as I can
tell. Arguing that he shouldn't do this is tantamount to arguing that my
dogs should pull their weight around the house by mowing the lawn.

It seems to me that Marken's main (occasional) intellectual
error is that
of jumping to conclusions about other people's motivations and then
refusing to alter his opinion. It's what I call the "favorite enemy
syndrome," also known as the "straw man" syndrome. But Rick
is far from the
only person on CSGnet who practices this approach. You and
Dag Forssell and
Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford all have done it. I try not to, but
maybe I do it,
too; you'll have to tell me. It would be amusing to see all
the missiles
being aimed at glass houses, missiles whose points of origin
can be traced
to other glass houses, if it weren't so discouraging.

If I did not know you better, I would read this as, "All the world save
me and thee, and at times I have doubts about thee..."

Among all the horrible things Rick is purported to have done,
it seems to
me that the one most resented is to insist on "PCT
correctness". I have
felt the resistance to that, too, when I try to insist. But
how can one
present a theory and the thinking and experimenting to
support it if one is
willing to back off from it any time it seems that someone
has a different
idea that conflicts with it? Are competing theories to be preferred
whenever disputing them might hurt someone's feelings? Is PCT
such a junior
idea in the world of science that its proponents must be polite to
believers in older concepts while the same courtesy is not to
be expected
in return?

There is nothing wrong with PCT correctness. I assume we are all in
favor of it. Rick's problem is that he confuses a simple (one might even
say simplistic) model with the correct PCT model. His model of the
situation "formerly known as coercion" works equally well to describe a
maximum security prison and a Montessori school. (As he himself reminds
us constantly.) Many of us find this too blunt an instrument to be of
much use in the real world. Nevertheless, he persists in beating us over
the head with it.

I admit that when someone expresses opposition to some PCT
concept because
of personal beliefs or long-held opinions, my tendency is to
back off and
avoid a confrontation. It hardly seems worth the effort to present
counterarguments when the boringly predictable result will be
nothing but
increased insistence that in this particular case, PCT must be wrong
(however right it may be in other cases in which the defender
has no stake).

Frankly, I am unaware, with a few exceptions, of any opposition to a PCT
concept. Certainly not on my part, Dag's part, or Tom's part. At least
one person on this list has strong religious beliefs which lead him to
express opposition to some features of the HPCT model, but you would be
the first to admit that these particular features are not yet supported
by enough data to make them compelling. Or have I misread you?

But is this the right way to get PCT considered seriously? If
the people
who claim to take it seriously defer to everyone else, why
should everyone
else take it seriously, too? If all older concepts are to be respected
simply because someone wants to hold onto them, without
regard to logic or
rigor, why should we bother to demand logic and rigor of ourselves?

This is not relevant to the points I have seen raised on CSGnet. Perhaps
you are confusing this list with another.

I have no answers to these questions. Obviously I am unable
to come up with
just the right approach that will convince others that PCT is
at least as
competent a theory as any others that have been offered. I am
all too often
reminded of a crocheted motto that hung in my grandmother
Alice's house 70
years ago; when I was little I didn't understand what it
meant, but I do,
now. It said "Convince a man against his will; he's of the
same opinion
still."

Does this apply to you and Rick as well?

BG

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (2000.09.20.1100)

[From Bill Powers 92000.09.20.0104 MDT)]

Among all the horrible things Rick is purported to have done, it seems to
me that the one most resented is to insist on "PCT correctness".

For myself, besides the rudeness and attempts at cuteness, is his acceptance
of anything you have written as PCT. In fact, I have been referred to time
and time again to B:CP for the PCT perspective on almost everything. I do
not take everything you say as PCT because to me PCT at present consists of
a few lines of code, a few highly corrobated emipirical facts, a distinctive
though nacent methodology, and a distinctive though nacent system concept of
"what, how, and why" . To say that "rate coding" or 11 levels or MOL or RTP
or almost anything is THE PCT answer is both false and squashes developing
ideas. It is the argument by authority. To endlessly bring up how one
political group is clearly acting in an un-PCTish way, even with winks--I've
seen plenty, probably enough, has, does, and will end up shooting us all the
the crotch. And then the typical reponse about only the noble interest of
science is ridiculous, even if true. Its a get-out-of-jail card and carte
blanche to do what he has done for 10 years. Ten years. And this comes up
every year. Every year. I don't think it will stop. He has reorganized
himself into an internally consistant hole. And it does not help when he
openly admits that the only person he defers to is you. This CANNOT lead to
rational discussions. Instead, it can, has, and (my bets) will consistantly
lead to _everyone else_ doing the non-PCT thing, paranoid accusations of
"other", discussions on how when you "get it" its an epihany, and (my
favorite) comparing himself to Darwin's bulldog. That might sound romantic
but its comes off as megaomania that justifies being a jerko.
Almost, everyone that has met Rick in person thinks he's a nice fellow. But
on the net something happens, see above.
Unfortunately, I don't have any recommendations.

i.

[Bill_Powers1]

Hi, Isaac -

I'm sick of hearing how much everyone hates Rick, and why. I'm sick of
holier-than-thou scientism from all sides. It won't take much more of this
to convince me that I have more to gain than to lose by chucking the whole
thing. That's beginning to sound just a wee bit attractive, which is a
place I've never been before.

Bill

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (2000.09.20.1620)

Hi, Isaac -

Hey Bill,

I'm sick of hearing how much everyone hates Rick, and why. I'm sick of
holier-than-thou scientism from all sides.

But he doesn't change one bit and you are the only one that he pays
attention to, by his own admission.
Often these were smart, interested, and understanding people that simply
refuse to have anything to do with CSG because of Rick. Thats not a
bandwagon that is what happens when someone/anyone acts that way. And the
offense is defended by the offended not "getting PCT" and "well, i didn't
intend..but I am just am interested in science"..it is a great example of
scienticism. Instead, it is not scientism to expect someone to not be nasty
and reference you to pg.X or Website-V for the "official" PCT stance if you
disagree. It is scientism to say one spreadsheet explains the variety of
complex social interactions without evidence or that you are a historic
neccessity like "Darwin's bulldog".

It won't take much more of this
to convince me that I have more to gain than to lose by chucking the whole
thing. That's beginning to sound just a wee bit attractive, which is a
place I've never been before.

You had more to lose by kicking Rick repeatedly in the balls ten years ago
when this started.
Maybe that would actually get him to change one bit. I don't think anything
would now, but to put this in perspective when you're gone (Rick's younger)
than I can't imagine him listening to anyone at all. And most likely people
will leave him to bitch and moan and mumble about how "i'm the bulldog" to
himself.

i.

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

this is the grammatically correct version..

···

----- Original Message -----
From: isaac <kurtzer@brandeis.edu>
To: <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: The Informant

i.kurtzer (2000.09.20.1620)

> Hi, Isaac -

Hey Bill,

> I'm sick of hearing how much everyone hates Rick, and why. I'm sick of
> holier-than-thou scientism from all sides.

But he doesn't change one bit and by his own admission you are the only

one that he pays

attention to.
These complaints do in fact come from all sides over the course of many

eyars. Often these were smart, interested, and understanding people that
simply

refuse to have anything to do with CSG because of Rick. That is not a
bandwagon, that is what happens when someone/anyone acts as he

does/did/likely will. And when the

obnoxiousness is defended by the poor bloke not "getting PCT" and "well, i

didn't

intend..I am just interested in science"..that is a great example of
scienticism. It is scientism to say one spreadsheet explains the variety

of

complex social interactions without evidence, or that you are a historic
neccessity like "Darwin's bulldog", or refer any alternative to reference

pg X of the "official" PCT stance that also has no evidence or evidence
collected in the very ways that are suspect within PCT methodologies.

> It won't take much more of this
> to convince me that I have more to gain than to lose by chucking the

whole

> thing. That's beginning to sound just a wee bit attractive, which is a
> place I've never been before.
>

You had LESS to lose by kicking Rick repeatedly in the balls ten years ago
when this started.
Maybe that would have actually got him to change one bit. I don't think

anything

would now, but to put this in perspective: when you're gone (Rick's

younger)

than I can't imagine him listening to anyone _at all_. Most likely people
will leave him to bitch and moan and mumble about how "i'm the bulldog" to
himself.

i.

[Sand_Dollars]

I don't hate Rick! I like him immensely.

···

Hi, Isaac -

I'm sick of hearing how much everyone hates Rick, and why. I'm sick of
holier-than-thou scientism from all sides. It won't take much more of this
to convince me that I have more to gain than to lose by chucking the whole
thing. That's beginning to sound just a wee bit attractive, which is a
place I've never been before.

Bill

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.21.0930)]

Shannon Williams (2000.09.20), Kenny Kitzke (2000.09.21):

Thanks you guys! That's very sweet of you! I really do
appreciate it.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Gary_Cziko3]

[From Gary Cziko 2000.09.25 0140 GMT]

I apologize for taking so long to respond to Rick's (2000.09.18.1045
et al.)] posts about my experiences with RTP. I usually don't get
around to checking CSGnet daily and so it often takes me a while to
discover that I have been asked a question or an issue is being
discussed that I should participate in.

I should first say that I made only two one-day visits to the RTP
school in Bolingbrook, IL, when Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon were also
visiting. I visited several classrooms, visited the Responsible
Thinking Center (or whatever it was called in that school) which was
not doing much business (only one or two students there, I recall),
and saw Ed presenting to the teachers of the school.

I cannot recall ever witnessing a teacher asking "the questions," so
I can't provide an informant's account of how the questioning
operates. For this and other aspects of the program I did not
witness, I relied on Ed Ford's description of how RTP operates in my
account in _The Things We Do_.

I did witness the most peaceful and quiet elementary-school
cafeteria, hallways, and classrooms I had ever seen. I was also very
impressed by Ed's and Tom's critical stance toward the school and its
teachers, noting ways in which things could be improved even though I
saw very little that I would criticize.

When I wrote that teachers don't control the behavior of the
children, I should have perhaps written that teachers don't control
their behavior in the traditional way of using carrots and sticks.
The "questions," as I understand them (remember, I don't recall ever
seeing them being used), give the students the opportunity to reflect
on what they are doing, what the rules are, and to change their
behavior to fit the rules.

But of course, it is still control of behavior (or more precisely,
teachers controlling their perceptions of the students' behavior).
So if there is another edition of my book, I will attempt to make
this clearer (especially if the only other choice is an S-R
interpretation of what is happening in the school, which of course is
nonsense!).

Thanks, Rick, for pointing out my lack of precision in my description
of my RTP experiences. Criticism is good for me. But that belief
stems from my Popperian/Darwinian view of the origin of knowledge and
its improvement, and I can understand how others on CSGnet might be
offended by some of Rick's criticisms.

--Gary

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.25.0940)]

Gary Cziko (2000.09.25 0140 GMT) --

When I wrote that teachers don't control the behavior of
the children, I should have perhaps written that teachers
don't control their behavior in the traditional way of using
carrots and sticks...

That would have been _much_ better.

But of course, it is still control of behavior...

Yes. And there's nothing wrong with that!!

I still highly recommend your book; it is _excellent_
(heck, I wrote the cover blurb).

Thanks for the reply.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.18.1045)]

On pages 253-255 of _The Things We Do_, Gary Cziko discusses
the Responsible Thinking Program (RTP). Gary says he has
personally witnessed the program in action ("in an elementary
school near Chicago") so he is presumably aware of what "really
goes on" in an RTP school. Gary says that the RTP process -- what
goes on in an RTP school -- is "easy to describe" (p. 254) so,
although I myself have not visited an RTP school, perhaps I can
rely on Gary as an informant. Since RTP is easy to describe, I will
assume that Gary's description of RTP in his book is a reasonably
good description of what really goes on in RTP schools. Since
Gary is also on CSGNet I hope he will correct me if I have
misunderstood (or misrepresented) his description of the RTP
process.

The first thing Gary says about the process is what the teachers
don't do: they don't use reward or punishment (or promises or
threats of them). Next, he says that students engaging in disruptive
behavior "are asked a series of questions by the teacher". Next
he says that students who need help learning how to behave
responsibly "go to a responsible thinking classroom where a full
time teacher-counselor helps them develop a plan for change to
be submitted to the classroom teacher for approval". Gary says
that "at no time is a student told what to do or not to do".
I take this to mean that the students who need help learning
how to behave responsibly go to the responsible thinking classroom
of their own; they are not told to go.

So the RTP process does look pretty simple to describe. The only
thing the teacher has to do is ask a series of questions when the
students engage in disruptive behavior. What I question are some
of Gary's conclusions about what he has described. In particular,
Gary says "Most important, it [the RTP process] removes from
teachers the onus of attempting to control students' behavior and
allows them to devote their energies to teaching" (p.255). This
suggests that the teachers are not asked to control student
behavior. But if this is the case, I don't understand why the
teachers are supposed to ask the series of questions at all.

I think we have a situation here that is very similar to the
one we are discussing with respect to the salivation reflex.
One way of looking at salivation is the way Bruce Abbott sees it;
as a response to the stimulus of food. Similarly, one way of
looking at the RTP questions is the way Gary sees it; as
a response to the stimulus of disruptive behavior. If these
views are correct then control is, indeed, not involved in either
case and Gary is correct to say that the RTP teacher is not
attempting to control the student.

But, as in the case of salivation, there is another way to look
at the RTP questions. Just as salivation _might_ be part of a
process of controlling some variable, such as the texture of food
in the mouth, the RTP questions _might_ be part of a process of
controlling some variable, such as student behavior in the
classroom. As in the case of salivation, you can't tell, just
by looking, whether the observed behavior (RTP questions) is,
indeed, a response to stimulation (involving no control) or
part of a control process. In both cases, in order to tell
whether or not control is occurring you have to do The Test.

So, Gary, did you see any Test-like evidence that the RTP
questions are, indeed, nothing more than a response to the
stimulation of disruptive behavior? Did you see no evidence
that the teachers were asking the questions as the means of
controlling some variable, such as student behavior in
the classroom? When the teachers ask the questions do they
have no interest at all in the results, in terms of student
behavior, of the questioning? If a student continues to
disrupt, does the teacher keep asking the same "series
of questions" over and over again?

Also, when the students who need help learning how to behave
responsibly go to the responsible thinking classroom is the
teacher "out of the loop" on this? Does the teacher do nothing
when a student needs help with responsible thinking? Do
students always know on their own when they have to learn
how to behave responsibly? Do the students who need such
help always "go" to the responsible thinking classroom on
their own? I believe it when you say that the students are
never told what to do. So I believe that the teachers never
say "go to the responsible thinking classroom". But do the
teachers really do nothing at all to get the students to go
to the responsible thinking classroom? Do the teachers seem
not to be controlling for getting students who need help into
the responsible thinking classroom?

I can see that in order to answer these questions I would
have to go to RTP schools myself to see what's really going
on. But I'm hoping that you, Gary, will be able to act as my
informant. Since you have been to RTP schools and, presumably,
convinced yourself that the teachers in these schools are not
attempting to control the students, I would like to know on
what basis you came to that conclusion.

Of course, if teachers are being asked to control student
behavior using the questions and, perhaps, other methods (such
as the behave-or-leave "choice") that might help explain why
teachers often have such a hard time "...giving up their belief
that they are responsible for their students behavior..."
(as you noted on p 254). I could see how a teacher might get
confused if she were told that a program can be used to
produce a particular result involving student behavior (students
who behave responsibly, say) but that that program involves
no control of student behavior. You would basically be telling
the teacher that you can give her control of student behavior by
not controlling student behavior. That's got to be a tough one
for the teachers to work out.

I look forward to seeing your comments on this. Thanks in
advance.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0918.1433)]

Rick Marken (2000.09.18.1045)

You really are clueless, aren't you. This latest effort to demonstrate
that you are right shows that you have learned nothing from your
experiences on CSGnet. I'm not surprised, because I have never seen any
evidence of flexibility on your part, not to mention sympathy or
compassion. You are a machine that will destroy anything and everything
in order to prove it is right. Too bad, because the course you have
established will never get you where you want so desperately to be.

BG

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (2000.09.18.1830)

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.18.1045)]

I'm assuming that when you titled your post "the informant" you were not
controlling for the standard implication that "informant" entails. Namely,
a person that is telling you about hidden/secret/and presumably upsetting
things. I will assume that this is just lousy control in an attempt to be
cute rather than a half-conscious desire to be nasty.

i.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.18.1420)]

i.kurtzer (2000.09.18.1830)

I'm assuming that when you titled your post "the informant" you
were not controlling for the standard implication that "informant"
entails

I was using the word "informant" as it's defined in my Webster's
New Collegiate (I just looked it up): one who gives cultural or
linguistic data in response to interrogation by an investigator.

I will assume that this is just lousy control in an attempt to be
cute rather than a half-conscious desire to be nasty.

You assumption is half correct. It was excellent, not lousy,
control, as it turns out ("informant" has exactly the meaning
I meant to convey). But it was not an attempt to be cute ot nasty.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.19.0327 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.0918.1433)--

Rick Marken (2000.09.18.1045)

You really are clueless, aren't you. This latest effort to demonstrate
that you are right shows that you have learned nothing from your
experiences on CSGnet.

I consider this a completely counterproductive post. Don't you, on reflection?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0919.1005)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.19.0327 MDT)

I consider this a completely counterproductive post. Don't
you, on reflection?

No. Actually it simply points out what has been obvious for a long time.
Rick provides a perfect example that persistent errors do not always
lead to reorganization. No matter how often he fails, Rick never varies
his approach. A challenge to reorganization theory if I ever saw one.

BG