&&&&&& CHUCK TUCKER 951120.11:15 &&&&&&
I am planning to write something more extensive about THE
TEST but I can't seem to get a lull in the conversation
where I can "jump in" (how disturbing!) but when I write
what I write my major point is that THE TEST has never
been done in any designed and systematic manner between
human beings W/O the "researcher" knowing in advance the
CV and having a very narrow specification of the disturbances.
Note that I am NOT saying that people don't frequently
disturb one another or test each other for CVs but it has
not been done in a systematic manner w/o knowing the CV and
in most instances actually programming it. THERE IS NOTHING
INTRINSICALLY WRONG WITH DOING THIS EXCEPT VERY FEW PEOPLE
(even excluding "social scientists") CAN SEE SUCH DEMOS AS
RELEVANT TO THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR OR THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY
EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS; IT JUST DOESN'T COMPUTE! (Rick, it
is much more complicated than just saying these people don't
know PCT; they actually do and use it constantly but these
demos don't make a connection with them) I will later use
the conversation on CSG-L to support my assertions above.
What actually prompted by "outburst" above was the post by
Frans Plooij (95119.1600) wherein he actually notes some
research that he (and others) have done which seems to
support the PCT notions of Powers regarding reorganis(z)tion.
Finally someone with some research! But what I especially
wish to highlight is his statement that there is some
research "out there" that can be INTERPRETED so as to be
consistent with PCT. If I am not mistaken his first book
did not employ PCT to begin with but rather used it to
interpret the data after the fact. Yes, this can be done,
has been done and should continue to be done. But the
danger is doing what the radical behaviorists complained
about and supposedly tried to correct - imputing internal
activities that are just a restatement of the output (also
noted as imputing motives and describing instincts). This is
a real danger and it occasionally happens on CSG-L.
On this tact of interpretating data in PCT terms I suggest
two books for candidates:
Deci, Edward L. WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO: The Dynamics of
Interpersonal Autonomy. NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1995 BF 575 .A88 D45 ISBN 0-399-14047-6
Goleman, Daniel. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. NY: Bantam
1995 ISBN 0-553-09503-X
WARNING: None of the research mentioned in these books is
done using PCT or the procedures suggested for PCT
research BUT most of the "data" can be fairly
well interpreted as supporting PCT.
Regards,
Chuck