The Relevance of Blind Men

[from Gary Cziko 920717.1000]

I'm back after a wonderful two weeks in France and Switzerland. I ran into
some very strange reference levels in France, though. The truckers were
controlling for stopping traffic on the highways to protest new driving
regulations. It took us over 12 hours to drive from Paris to Geneva
(usually a 5 1/2 trip), and we were lucky to have gotten through at all.

Rick Marken (920712.1200)

I found out why Psych Review didn't even send my "Blind men"
paper out for review. According to the editor it was because:

"It would need to speak more directly to current psychological
issues and theorizing. One would need to see more clearly a connection
between what you are talking about and the issues that dominate
psychological theorizing today."

Would it really be all that hard to show more explicitly how your paper is
relevant to current psychological theorizing? Why not take some "trendy"
perspectives in cognitive psychology today and discuss how it fits one part
of the elephant. And there are lots of stuff still being published in the
behavioral journals to show the other parts of the pachyderm. You could
also refer to the growing body of experimental results which support PCT.
I think you have the framework for a dynamite paper. PCTers can see how it
is relevant without this added stuff, but the mainstream psychological
community cannot. You have to give them a bit more help. I say, give
Kintsch another shot before giving up on _Psychological Review_.--Gary


Gary A. Cziko Telephone: (217) 333-4382
Educational Psychology FAX: (217) 244-0538
University of Illinois E-mail:
1310 S. Sixth Street Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990