[From Dick Robertson] (940808.2000CDT)
Over the last 20 years only three people have been doing PCT
research.
I object to that statement.
Best, Dick R.
[From Rick Marken (940807.1130)]
Paul George (940805 16:00) --
Of course a major reason for 'slow' progress may have been that
affordable computers with sufficient power only became available in
the last 5-10 years.
Or it could be becuase, over the last 20 years only three people have been
doing PCT research, and doing it in their spare time to boot, while
other people were leaning over their shoulder saying "yeah, but why
don't you guys study something really important, like the kind of
things those AI and complex systems people are studying?". Sheeez.
Tom Bourbon (940805.1719) and (940805.1801)--
I agree with everything you say, Tom, only more so.
I think one of the things that Paul George doesn't quite appreciate yet is
that PCT is not an alternative explanation of the "facts" that psychology
has already "discovered". According to PCT, nearly all the facts of
psychology are hogwash; there is almost nothing in psychology
(including most cognitive science, AI, etc) for PCT to explain. When
we are asked "how would PCT explain such and such" it usually turns
out that "such and such" is just words used to describe an (often non-
replicable) statistically significant result (averaged over many people)
that seemed "psychologically significant" for a brief, trendy time. PCT
doesn't explain random phenomena; it explains control.
Best
Rick