(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.25.11.14NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.24.1400)]
Gavin Ritz
(2011.11.25.9.45NZT)
RM: OK, I believe
you did not intend to be rude. I think you behavior seemed rude because, as you
say, you are trying to understand PCT from a particular point of view.
That’s what I mean by “agenda”. It a point of view from which one
tries to understand control theory (because on first encounter control theory
seems to be consistent with that point of view). Many (most) people come
to PCT with an existing point of view and when they try to understand PCT from
that point of view it always gets in the way of their own understanding of PCT.
And it also results in unnecessary conflicts.
GR: Rick this is really the most strangest comment I have ever
heard, how can I wipe all existing points of view, you don’t even know
what my points of view are.
Sorry, I just mean your
point of view about how behavior works; the point of view that seems to be
affecting your ability to understand PCT.
Wow that’s pretty precise.
GR: I’m not a psychologist I have trained in the dark arts of
engineering at one the top engineering schools of the world, my ideas are
grounded in solid science. I have been then for decades in the people game
(human resources) where I have profiled thousands of people using very solid
theoretical based science to do this.
If you “profiled
people” using “solid theoretical based science” then this
science must have been a science of people. It is this “science” that
I consider a point of view that would interfere with your understanding of PCT.
Perhaps you could explain the science you are talking about and I can try to
explain why it is inconsistent (or not) with the science of PCT.
Try Requisite Organization (Elliot Jaques).
GR: I have evidence and theory and corroboration of some of these
theories I used. I will never throw them out because PCT says I should.
Perhaps
you could describe the theories and evidence that supports them and then I’ll
have a better idea of why you would never throw them out.
I’m
not here to prove other peoples theories to you, why should I bother.
Would
you really never throw them out, by the way? Is there no observation that would
lead you to throw out your theory. There are certainly observations that would
lead me to throw out PCT.
GR: No theory is ever just thrown out they get bootstrapped and
proved and reproved form different points of view.
Not
quite true. PCT shows that we do have to throw out the causal theory of
behavior, for example.
It’s
not a theory it’s voodoo.
RM: If you (or
anyone) really want to understand PCT and contribute to its development
you have to try to do something that is extremely difficult to do:
stop trying to understand PCT in terms of any of your existing points of view
and start basically from scratch.
GR": This comment from someone who is so attached and
understands PCT so deeply is troubling. This is not how science works in any
way at all, in fact the exact opposite.
Why not? I didn’t say you
have to accept PCT. I said that you can’t understand it until you set aside
your attachment to other points of view. Once you understand PCT you can
develop ways to test it to see if it should be rejected (or changed).
Now this is what I can agree on.
RM: Your field of study psychology with which you have replaced
with PCT, is voodoo
But isn’t your field of
study psychology as well?
What who said that? You see you already have
a position that is just not correct at all.
Or is human profiling a
new sub-discipline of physics?
Try Requisite Organization. (Elliot Jaques). Logic and mathematics
and language.
Cheers got to go have work, have a fun
turkey killing.
GR