Where Do We Go From Here?

[From Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)]

This seems like an appropriate time of the year to thank _everyone_ on CSGnet
for helping me expand my knowledge base of PCT. I feel fortunate to have
stumbled somewhat randomly into this place [and blithely unaware that some
_fundamental_ reorganization was lying in wait for me ;-)].

While I am truly grateful for the ideas shared here, I must hasten to add that
the rancorous tone of some exchanges can make CSGnet a very unpleasant
experience at times. In the latter instances I try to glean any good wheat
lying amidst all the verbal chaff, and I also know that there are usually
some good science based intentions underlying most positions no matter how
rudely they are communicated.

I am also frustrated that the wonderfully informative and elegant PCT
framework remains sequestered from the main streams of intellectual inquiry.
So many fields could benefit from this perspective, and be actively involved
in its testing, revision and elaboration. I can't imagine what it must be
like for those of you who have invested so much time and energy in its
development. You have unearthed a Rosetta Stone of inestimable potential
value to humanity, and have made good progress in it's initial
decipherment...but no one "out there" seems to care much at this point! This
dilemma led me to purloin the subject of Bill's last chapter in MSOB for the
title of this post--indeed, "Where _do_ we go from here?"

I think it well worth some bandwidth to ponder two questions that appear
central to the future of this enterprise:
        � What _really_ accounts for this state of affairs?
        � Could PCT proponents go up a level and _collaborate_[!] to change this situation?

WRT the first question, I am well aware of the embattled Rodney Dangerfield
posture that many take vis a vis rejection by professional journals and the
like. While no doubt sadly accurate, this sort of explanation can become a
facile excuse for not exploring new ways to scale, circumvent, or destroy the
barricades. It does not get us very far.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to look within before turning to identify
external impediments. In my limited experience here, I perceive several
factors that inhibit a wider awareness of PCT:
        � An appalling lack of respectful collegiality both within CSGnet and
apparently with researchers in other fields.
        � A paranoid, almost xenophobic isolationism
        � Use of conflictive forms of communication rather than dispassionate,
persuasive, respectful argument.
        � A lack of any consensus as to any shared priorities, responsibilities and
directions for PCT.

On several occasions I have read glorious, insightful descriptions of how a
knowledge of PCT can transform interpersonal relations [even entire
societies!], would the participants just realize that they can't control each
other. In this view, negotiated solutions are the only way conflicted views
can be resolved. To do this the parties have to view the situation from a
position where they can determine what needs to be changed.

Do we practice what we preach? I don't get much sense of such an awareness
here. Unfortunately, I am more often reminded of Al Capp's caricatures of the
United Nations in L'il Abner which was populated by a bunch of zany, bickering
potentates so involved with their own agendas that they couldn't even agree on
the day of the week. [Oops--there I go with one of those damned ad hominem
attacks ;-)]

So what are the up-a-level views out there on these questions? Indeed, _are_
these the right questions? I don't have any coherent suggestions at this
point. Maybe making good science these days _does_ require drawing long
knives and leaving lots of blood on the field to win a skirmish. Still, it
seems terribly counterproductive and enervating. Alternatively, I think the
record in science and OD shows that individual empowerment and clear goal
orientation can produce outstanding results.

Regards,

Bill Curry

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

[From Dick Robertson,991127.0733CST]

Bill Curry wrote:

[From Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)]

This seems like an appropriate time of the year to thank _everyone_ on CSGnet
for helping me expand my knowledge base of PCT. I feel fortunate to have
stumbled somewhat randomly into this place [and blithely unaware that some
_fundamental_ reorganization was lying in wait for me ;-)].

While I am truly grateful for the ideas shared here, I must hasten to add that
the rancorous tone of some exchanges can make CSGnet a very unpleasant
experience at times. In the latter instances I try to glean any good wheat
lying amidst all the verbal chaff, and I also know that there are usually
some good science based intentions underlying most positions no matter how
rudely they are communicated.

Your thoughtful post makes some telling points.

I am also frustrated that the wonderfully informative and elegant PCT
framework remains sequestered from the main streams of intellectual inquiry.
So many fields could benefit from this perspective, and be actively involved
in its testing, revision and elaboration. I can't imagine what it must be
like for those of you who have invested so much time and energy in its
development.

Well, I've just finished writing a book in which I offer some of the applications from PCT that
I have found useful in living my life as one more new tool for surviving in the tough times that
a lot of social critics claim lie on the horizon. I also try to show how PCT can account for
the kind of degeneration of a civilization's basic principles (that many of these same critics
see) that Oswald Spengler proposed a century ago. I'll let you know how it feels as the
publisher's rejections roll in, if that would help you imagine how it feels.

You have unearthed a Rosetta Stone of inestimable potential
value to humanity, and have made good progress in it's initial
decipherment...but no one "out there" seems to care much at this point! This
dilemma led me to purloin the subject of Bill's last chapter in MSOB for the
title of this post--indeed, "Where _do_ we go from here?"

I hope my book might add to taking a direction. I wonder if anyone would want to read the first
chapter if I posted it on the net and tell me whether it has anything interesting in it--really
that is, I'm beyond being buttered up anymore I think.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to look within before turning to identify
external impediments. In my limited experience here, I perceive several
factors that inhibit a wider awareness of PCT:
        � An appalling lack of respectful collegiality both within CSGnet and
apparently with researchers in other fields.

I think you have a point there. I has puzzled me for a long time. I know some of the chief
actors here personally and I can tell you they are sweet guys in person. I have never been able
to figure out how the evil twin keeps taking their place on the net.

So what are the up-a-level views out there on these questions? Indeed, _are_
these the right questions? I don't have any coherent suggestions at this
point. Maybe making good science these days _does_ require drawing long
knives and leaving lots of blood on the field to win a skirmish.

Reading Kuhn between the lines, or I guess, "The Double Helix, " you might get the impression
that the answer to that last question is, Yes. Human beings after all are, even before being
scientists, pack animals perhaps sharing with wolves, etc., the need to establish who are the
alpha males and all that.

Best, Dick R.

[From Bill Curry (991127.1300 EST)]

Dick Robertson (991127.0733CST) in re
Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)

> I am also frustrated that the wonderfully informative and elegant PCT
> framework remains sequestered from the main streams of intellectual inquiry.
> So many fields could benefit from this perspective, and be actively involved
> in its testing, revision and elaboration. I can't imagine what it must be
> like for those of you who have invested so much time and energy in its
> development.

Well, I've just finished writing a book in which I offer some of the applications from PCT that
I have found useful in living my life as one more new tool for surviving in the tough times that
a lot of social critics claim lie on the horizon. I also try to show how PCT can account for
the kind of degeneration of a civilization's basic principles (that many of these same critics
see) that Oswald Spengler proposed a century ago. I'll let you know how it feels as the
publisher's rejections roll in, if that would help you imagine how it feels.

Sounds very interesting, Dick. Spare me the pink slips though--I'll control
for buying it on Amazon!

> You have unearthed a Rosetta Stone of inestimable potential
> value to humanity, and have made good progress in it's initial
> decipherment...but no one "out there" seems to care much at this point! This
> dilemma led me to purloin the subject of Bill's last chapter in MSOB for the
> title of this post--indeed, "Where _do_ we go from here?"

I hope my book might add to taking a direction. I wonder if anyone would want to read the first
chapter if I posted it on the net and tell me whether it has anything interesting in it--really
that is, I'm beyond being buttered up anymore I think.

Count me in please. BTW, I recall Bruce N. giving some pointers that we
should conserve bandwidth in the archives by circulating papers, mss, etc. off
line by request.

> In my limited experience here, I perceive several
> factors that inhibit a wider awareness of PCT:
> � An appalling lack of respectful collegiality both within CSGnet and apparently with researchers in other fields.

I know some of the chief actors here personally and I can tell you they are sweet guys in person.

I have no doubt about that, and I look forward to meeting everyone in person
some day. I really do respect the passion, knowledge and dedication shown
here in unraveling and debating the implications of PCT. I guess it's the
side effects vs. the real CVs being controlled that accounts for unawareness
of the impact of communication _style_ [and some equally unintended and
deleterious consequences for PCT as an area of joint scientific inquiry].

> Maybe making good science these days _does_ require drawing long
> knives and leaving lots of blood on the field to win a skirmish.

Human beings after all are, even before being scientists, pack animals perhaps sharing with wolves, etc.,
the need to establish who are the alpha males and all that.

But surely, Dick, those forms of coercion, baiting and going for the jugular
can't occur in PCT-land! :wink: Maybe we should look at some of the other, more
enobling aspects of the pack--like a bonded sense of community being the real
key to its evolutionary success.

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

[From Rick Marken (991127.1830)]

Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)

Nice post Bill.

I am also frustrated that the wonderfully informative and elegant
PCT framework remains sequestered from the main streams of
intellectual inquiry. So many fields could benefit from this
perspective, and be actively involved in its testing, revision
and elaboration.

As you can probably tell, I am too.

I think it well worth some bandwidth to ponder two questions
that appear central to the future of this enterprise:
   � What _really_ accounts for this state of affairs?
   � Could PCT proponents go up a level and _collaborate_[!]
to change this situation?

I think the answer to both questions is the same. It is
simply that PCT, in some way or another, eventually ends
up being a disturbance to one or more cherished beliefs or
practices of nearly everyone who comes in contact with it.
That explains why PCT has remained insulated from the main
streams of intellectual inquiry; it is a disturbance to
cherished beliefs and assumtions about how living systems
work. But I think it also explains why PCT proponents (like
me) seem "unable to go up a level and collaborate". I presume
what you are referring to here is all the fighting on CSGNet.

I think what happens is this: People come to CSGNet all
excited about PCT. Proponents of PCT (like me) assume that
the new aficionados have come to learn, examine (test) and
extend PCT. But in the midst of our discussions, we proponents
of PCT (usually Bill and/or myself) say something about -- or
based on -- PCT that meets with resistance. We've clearly
disturbed some cherished belief. This quickly turns into a
useless "'tis so, 'taint so" battle where there will be no
resolution. The appropriate thing to do in this situation
(which Bill does far better than me) is, as you say, "go
up a level" and see that one is in a fruitless conflict and
just drop the matter.

I think I have a hard time doing this because my conscious
point of view is so firmly stuck in "teacher" mode; I want
to teach people PCT and I keep assuming that everyone who
comes to CSGNet has come because they have abandoned the
desire to grind all other "axes" (cherished beliefs) and
they want to learn PCT, wherever that may lead. The
problem, of course, is that no one wants to be taught (or
learn!) that one of their cherished beliefs is wrong.

This last debate has taught me several things (some of
which I already knew but, I guess, was unwilling to accept).
First, of course, is that it is the rare person, indeed,
who comes to PCT with no axe to grind. Second, having an
axe to grind that is completely incompatible with some
aspect of PCT has nothing to do with whether or not a
person gets enthusiastic about PCT. And, finally, you
can't force a person to put down their axe and see things
your way.

I keep getting confused because CSGNet was created as an
alternative to direct confrontation with conventional
psychologists, with whose axe I am most familiar. As Bill
Powers says in the MSOB chapter from which you take the
title of your post:

  But when the realization came of the true gulf that
  separated PCT from conventional pstchology...it became
  appareent that PCT would simply have to progress on
  its own, not through being merged into the mainstream
  as I had always hoped (p. 130-131).

CSGNet was going to be the place where PCT could progress
on its own, without fighting against the mainstream. What
confused me was finding that it's not just "mainstream"
psychologists who have axes that are incompatable with PCT.
Many of those outside the mainstream -- and _inside_ the
PCT stream -- have axes too. So people come to CSGNet all
excited about PCT; they say something (or ask a question);
I give an answer based on my understanding of PCT (under the
assumption that the person is interested in my answer)
and suddently find myself in a fight, defending PCT.

I'm on CSGNet because I'm not interested in defending
(or selling) PCT anymore; I did that for years when I was
a professor and it's not fun (or possible). I was trying to
sell (or defend) PCT to people who had a vested interest
in having PCT be anything but PCT. I want CSGNet to be the
place where PCT can make "progress on its own"; I want to
deal with people who want PCT to progress; not with people
who want to have PCT disappear or become something else.
But I certainly have no interest in limiting participation
in CSGNet only to those who have no "anti-PCT" axes to
grind.

So I think what I will try to do, from now on, is get out of
useless conflicts as soon as I see that there is resistance
to something I say. I can usually make my PCT point in a
post or two. Resistance usually becomes obvious after one
or two exchanges. I will try to continue a discussion only
if an effort is clearly being made to turn the contested
point into a well articulated hypothesis that can be
tested by modeling and/or observation. And after this, if the
discussion does not turn to efforts to design an experiment
or working model to test the hypothesis, then the discussion
will be over for me.

I guess the hard part will be living without defending
myself from the many "fans" of PCT who think I am full
of horse-do do. But c'est la vie.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams [991127.2202) ]

[From Rick Marken (991127.1830)]

Just some comments to show Rick that you are in fact part of the problem.
The question is whether you want to be part of a solutuion.

I think the answer to both questions is the same. It is
simply that PCT, in some way or another, eventually ends
up being a disturbance to one or more cherished beliefs or
practices of nearly everyone who comes in contact with it.
That explains why PCT has remained insulated from the main
streams of intellectual inquiry; it is a disturbance to
cherished beliefs and assumtions about how living systems
work.

Except of course for you and Bill. Could you please explain the exclusivity
you and Bill seem to have for understanding BT. Do you really think You Bill
and Mary are the only ones who have a clue? My guess is yes, and that's one
of the probems.

But I think it also explains why PCT proponents (like

me) seem "unable to go up a level and collaborate". I presume
what you are referring to here is all the fighting on CSGNet.

Could you elaborate this?

I think what happens is this: People come to CSGNet all
excited about PCT. Proponents of PCT (like me) assume that
the new aficionados have come to learn, examine (test) and
extend PCT. But in the midst of our discussions, we proponents
of PCT (usually Bill and/or myself) say something about -- or
based on -- PCT that meets with resistance. We've clearly
disturbed some cherished belief. This quickly turns into a
useless "'tis so, 'taint so" battle where there will be no
resolution. The appropriate thing to do in this situation
(which Bill does far better than me) is, as you say, "go
up a level" and see that one is in a fruitless conflict and
just drop the matter.

So coming up with different explanations, or ways of talking about something
are not options. Do you really consider yourself a "good' teacher? I think
you _know_ BT well. I also think you have a difficult time explaining it to
others. This is over 10 years Rick. I think your a poor teacher. You often
provide good concise ideas about BT but that is not the same as teaching a
subject.

I think I have a hard time doing this because my conscious
point of view is so firmly stuck in "teacher" mode;

We have different definitions of what "teacher" means.

I want
to teach people PCT and I keep assuming that everyone who
comes to CSGNet has come because they have abandoned the
desire to grind all other "axes" (cherished beliefs) and
they want to learn PCT, wherever that may lead. The
problem, of course, is that no one wants to be taught (or
learn!) that one of their cherished beliefs is wrong.

Why not provide the test and really find out why people come on CSG net. I
am not joking. If someone has other interestes or is unwilling to do basic
reading and study, why bother. But if on the other hand someone does show
some interest then I think you need to develop a new "teaching" strategy.
Your old one is worthless.

This last debate has taught me several things (some of
which I already knew but, I guess, was unwilling to accept).
First, of course, is that it is the rare person, indeed,
who comes to PCT with no axe to grind. Second, having an
axe to grind that is completely incompatible with some
aspect of PCT has nothing to do with whether or not a
person gets enthusiastic about PCT. And, finally, you
can't force a person to put down their axe and see things
your way.

It's funny that the last debate like all before them have never taught you
that _you_ are part of the problem. you talk as if the problem exists
outside of your contributions. They don't. Start taking some responsibility
for side effects ( people leaving the net and not learning ) of your
"teaching".

I keep getting confused because CSGNet was created as an
alternative to direct confrontation with conventional
psychologists, with whose axe I am most familiar. As Bill
Powers says in the MSOB chapter from which you take the
title of your post:

BT goes way beyond Psychology. But I have to say that all have recieved
equal non treatment on CSGnet. BT is not about Psychology. It's about the
Life Sciences. With Psychology simply being one _small_ part.

CSGNet was going to be the place where PCT could progress
on its own, without fighting against the mainstream. What
confused me was finding that it's not just "mainstream"
psychologists who have axes that are incompatable with PCT.

So? things did not work out the way you had hoped. Bill C's post was about
stopping this whining and doing something positive. We have heard this
before Rick. Anything new to contribute?

Many of those outside the mainstream -- and _inside_ the
PCT stream -- have axes too. So people come to CSGNet all
excited about PCT; they say something (or ask a question);
I give an answer based on my understanding of PCT (under the
assumption that the person is interested in my answer)
and suddently find myself in a fight, defending PCT.

So?

I'm on CSGNet because I'm not interested in defending
(or selling) PCT anymore; I did that for years when I was
a professor and it's not fun (or possible). I was trying to
sell (or defend) PCT to people who had a vested interest
in having PCT be anything but PCT. I want CSGNet to be the
place where PCT can make "progress on its own"; I want to
deal with people who want PCT to progress; not with people
who want to have PCT disappear or become something else.
But I certainly have no interest in limiting participation
in CSGNet only to those who have no "anti-PCT" axes to
grind.

So I think what I will try to do, from now on, is get out of
useless conflicts as soon as I see that there is resistance
to something I say. I can usually make my PCT point in a
post or two. Resistance usually becomes obvious after one
or two exchanges. I will try to continue a discussion only
if an effort is clearly being made to turn the contested
point into a well articulated hypothesis that can be
tested by modeling and/or observation. And after this, if the
discussion does not turn to efforts to design an experiment
or working model to test the hypothesis, then the discussion
will be over for me.

Rick you are a mountain of strength. Is this your idea of a teaching
strategy? If so your doomed for more failure and distress..

I guess the hard part will be living without defending
myself from the many "fans" of PCT who think I am full
of horse-do do. But c'est la vie.

You mis-understand. ( me at least :slight_smile: ) From a BT perspective you are a
genius. You know whatever needs to be known. It's your non-BT skills and
knowledge that's horseshit. Outside of BT you have _NO_ clue. But I'll give
you a hint that might help. Start looking in the mirror every once in a
while.

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (991127.0044) ]

[From Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)]

I think a short answer is that most people really don't care. It shows in a
lot of ways.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (991128.0756 EST)]

Rick Marken (991127.1830)

I think the answer to both questions is the same. It is
simply that PCT, in some way or another, eventually ends
up being a disturbance to one or more cherished beliefs or
practices of nearly everyone who comes in contact with it.

Why do you think this might be so? It seems to be an effect unique to PCT.
ones--this is not the case. My conjecture is that the situation would be
improved if you took care to distinguish between the model and what the
model is designed to explain. Rather than arguing that using the word
"choose" in a particular context is dishonest, it might be more productive
to state that the term "choose" is not used that way in PCT. You might then
tell us how the term is used in PCT. This kind of factual reporting might
avoid unnecessary conflict based on simple misunderstanding.

It would be helpful, too, if you took more care to indicating what you were
proposing to explain using a PCT model. Using a simple model of coercion to
describe complex personal interactions invites misunderstanding. We all
agree, I believe, that any society must ultimately rely on coercion to
maintain civil order, but this does not mean that coercion is the proper
mechanism to model all or even most interactions. Some of your arguments
seem to be based on the unexamined assumption that you, and you alone, are
privy to the reference levels of individuals that seem to some of us to
exist only in your imagination,

There are times when you seem to confuse idealogical and scientific
questions. I suspect that everyone on this list favor negotiations. Yet most
of us accept the fact that there are constraints, such as speed limits, that
we have a very limited ability to negotiate. In my experience, most people
do not feel that these constraints are coercive even though we agree that
ultimately coercion may be used to enforce them. Of course, you can generate
coercive reactions by violating or attempting to violate the constraints.

That explains why PCT has remained insulated from the main
streams of intellectual inquiry; it is a disturbance to
cherished beliefs and assumtions about how living systems
work. But I think it also explains why PCT proponents (like
me) seem "unable to go up a level and collaborate". I presume
what you are referring to here is all the fighting on CSGNet.

Most of what you call "fighting" seems to me at least to be based on
attempts to convince you that more elaborate models are called for. Since
there is rarely any data being discussed, you can, and often do, defend the
simplest possible model. It is often too simple as far as others are
concerned.

I think what happens is this: People come to CSGNet all
excited about PCT. Proponents of PCT (like me) assume that
the new aficionados have come to learn, examine (test) and
extend PCT. But in the midst of our discussions, we proponents
of PCT (usually Bill and/or myself) say something about -- or
based on -- PCT that meets with resistance. We've clearly
disturbed some cherished belief. This quickly turns into a
useless "'tis so, 'taint so" battle where there will be no
resolution. The appropriate thing to do in this situation
(which Bill does far better than me) is, as you say, "go
up a level" and see that one is in a fruitless conflict and
just drop the matter.

Again, sticking to telling us what the model is what you are trying to
explain using the model might go a long way to minimize fruitless conflict.

I think I have a hard time doing this because my conscious
point of view is so firmly stuck in "teacher" mode; I want
to teach people PCT and I keep assuming that everyone who
comes to CSGNet has come because they have abandoned the
desire to grind all other "axes" (cherished beliefs) and
they want to learn PCT, wherever that may lead. The
problem, of course, is that no one wants to be taught (or
learn!) that one of their cherished beliefs is wrong.

Your teaching method is highly unproductive. You also have a penchant for
blamig your students when they fail to "get" something. In my experience
this approach leaves much to be desired.

This last debate has taught me several things (some of
which I already knew but, I guess, was unwilling to accept).
First, of course, is that it is the rare person, indeed,
who comes to PCT with no axe to grind.

This interpretation only succeeds in "confirming" your model. Until you
examine that model critically, progress is unlikely.

Second, having an
axe to grind that is completely incompatible with some
aspect of PCT has nothing to do with whether or not a
person gets enthusiastic about PCT. And, finally, you
can't force a person to put down their axe and see things
your way.

Especially when "your way" involves grinding the biggest axe of all.

So I think what I will try to do, from now on, is get out of
useless conflicts as soon as I see that there is resistance
to something I say. I can usually make my PCT point in a
post or two. Resistance usually becomes obvious after one
or two exchanges. I will try to continue a discussion only
if an effort is clearly being made to turn the contested
point into a well articulated hypothesis that can be
tested by modeling and/or observation.

If you see fit to take your own adice, things might well improve
dramatically.

Bruce Gregory

···

from my experience with other theories--including some pretty outrageous

from Dick Robertson,991128.0850CST]

Bill Curry wrote:

[From Bill Curry (991127.1300 EST)]

Dick Robertson (991127.0733CST) in re
Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)

Count me in please. BTW, I recall Bruce N. giving some pointers that we
should conserve bandwidth in the archives by circulating papers, mss, etc. off
line by request.

Good point.

> I know some of the chief actors here personally and I can tell you they are sweet guys in person.

I have no doubt about that, and I look forward to meeting everyone in person
some day. I really do respect the passion, knowledge and dedication shown
here in unraveling and debating the implications of PCT. I guess it's the
side effects vs. the real CVs being controlled that accounts for unawareness
of the impact of communication _style_ [and some equally unintended and
deleterious consequences for PCT as an area of joint scientific inquiry].

> > Maybe making good science these days _does_ require drawing long
> > knives and leaving lots of blood on the field to win a skirmish.

> Human beings after all are, even before being scientists, pack animals perhaps sharing with wolves, etc.,
> the need to establish who are the alpha males and all that.

But surely, Dick, those forms of coercion, baiting and going for the jugular
can't occur in PCT-land! :wink: Maybe we should look at some of the other, more
enobling aspects of the pack--like a bonded sense of community being the real
key to its evolutionary success.

Yes, I guess that's what your original post was aiming at. But, isn't it curious that the same old patterns keep cropping up
here? I keep wondering if it isn't that we all control for very personal Pvs at higher priority than cooperating on building PCT
as part of science.

Best, Dick R.

from [ Marc Abrams (991128.1108) ]

From Dick Robertson,991128.0850CST]

> Count me in please. BTW, I recall Bruce N. giving some pointers that we
> should conserve bandwidth in the archives by circulating papers, mss,

etc. off

> line by request.

Good point.

Maybe not. If the off-line papers have something to do with the post the
archives lose and so do future viewers. "Bandwidth" is not a problem in the
archives.

Marc.

[From Bill Curry (991128. EST)]

Marc Abrams (991127.0044) in re

Bill Curry (991126.1635 EST)

I think a short answer is that most people really don't care. It shows in a
lot of ways.

Perhaps not the least being the brevity of your post :wink: and your less than
dispassionate analysis of Rick's response. Why not stick your neck out Marc
and take a shot at my questions from a CSG systems level rather than
perpetuating the interpersonal finger-pointing, which as we know will only
perpetuate conflict?

       >> � What _really_ accounts for this state of affairs?
       >>� Could PCT proponents go up a level and _collaborate_[!] to change
this situation?

Regards.

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

from [ Marc Abrams (991128.1253) ]

[From Bill Curry (991128. EST)]

Perhaps not the least being the brevity of your post :wink: and your less

than

dispassionate analysis of Rick's response.

There is a lot I have to say about this and you know it. I just don't feel
it would be productive. Rick is not Prime enemy #1 but he just does not have
a clue how much he contributes to all the non-BT nonsense that goes on.
Bruce Gregory made some excellent points in, (Bruce Gregory (991128.0756
EST)])

Why not stick your neck out Marc
and take a shot at my questions from a CSG systems level rather than
perpetuating the interpersonal finger-pointing, which as we know will only
perpetuate conflict?

I got an idea. why don't we each ( everyone on CSGnet) talk about how we are
helping BT either expand it's horizon's beyond it's current state, How we
make it or will make it easier for others to learn BT and how we are
currently doing so. That about sums up your questions. Now how about some
answers? You want to start? :slight_smile:

Marc

       >> . What _really_ accounts for this state of affairs?
       >>. Could PCT proponents go up a level and _collaborate_[!] to

change

···

this situation?

Regards.

Bill
--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

In a message dated 11/27/99 7:43:53 PM, marc.abrams@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:

<<

You mis-understand. ( me at least :slight_smile: ) From a BT perspective you are a

genius. You know whatever needs to be known. It's your non-BT skills and

knowledge that's horseshit. Outside of BT you have _NO_ clue. But I'll give

you a hint that might help. Start looking in the mirror every once in a

while.

[991128.10:41PST Bruce Kodish]
Dear Marc,
You can consider the following question rhetorical: Why do you continue this
namecalling, baiting (in my opinion) manner of nudging? I have observed from
earlier posts of yours that you seem to have a genuine concern and interest
in PCT? In the last discussion, I found Rick a model of composure in the face
of lots of provocation.
Personally, I found your posts irritating (of course I created the
irritation, didn't I?) and generating very little light but much heat. What
gives Marc? I'm asking this out of genuine concern for your insides. Look in
your own mirror, will you! I promise to do the same.
Respect to the Maximimum,
Bruce Kodish

[From Rick Marken (991128.1110)]

Marc Abrams (991127.2202)--

Just some comments to show Rick that you are in fact
part of the problem.

I agree; I meant my post as a confession. I am a _big_
part of the problem; I create the problem by trying to
get people to adopt (and by defending) my point of view.

Do you really think You Bill and Mary are the only ones who
have a clue?

No.

Me:

Do you really consider yourself a "good' teacher?

Not really. I just said I like to teach. Some people have
said I'm OK at it; others (like you) think I'm terrible.

But if on the other hand someone does show some interest
then I think you need to develop a new "teaching" strategy.
Your old one is worthless.

I agree. I described the new one; stop when resistance
persists. Stop immedately when resistance takes the form of
"You don't know what you're talking about. Let me explain
how control systems really work". You can't teach people
who have a vested interest in not learning.

you talk as if the problem exists outside of your
contributions.

The problem of people coming to PCT with axes to grind
is a problem that exists outside of me. The problem of
me trying to get these people to abandon their axes, in
what might sometimes seem like impolite posts, is
definitely my problem -- that is, I am responsible for
trying to control other people, and I'm trying to
abandon this goal.

Start taking some responsibility for side effects (people
leaving the net and not learning ) of your "teaching".

I take responsibility for my sometimes excessive efforts
to get people to abandon their non-PCT axes. I can't take
responsibility for people leaving the net; that outcome was
not what I intended.

Bill C's post was about stopping this whining and doing
something positive. We have heard this before Rick.
Anything new to contribute?

I wasn't whining. I was suggesting something positive for
me to do; I will stop arguing. If people are obviously
fighting for a point that I know is wrong I'm not going
to go to the mat anymore. I'll just drop it.

Me:

I think the answer to both questions is the same. It is
simply that PCT, in some way or another, eventually ends
up being a disturbance to one or more cherished beliefs or
practices of nearly everyone who comes in contact with it.

Bruce Gregory (991128.0756 EST)

Why do you think this might be so? It seems to be an effect
unique to PCT.

I don't think it's unique to PCT. But I think there are
more axes out there that conflict with PCT because PCT
is about something that people deal with every day, that
they care about deeply and about which they already have
rather firm convictions: the behavior of other people.

Rather than arguing that using the word "choose" in a
particular context is dishonest, it might be more productive
to state that the term "choose" is not used that way in PCT.

But this wasn't the problem. You could substitute any synonym
for "choose" into "I see you have chosen X" (for example,
"I see you have done X" or "I see you intended to do X")
and it would still be dishonest (or just wrong) from a
PCT perspective. Your discourse on "choice" as conflict
resolution was excellent but it had nothing to do with the
problem with saying "I see you have chosen..." when all you
are seeing is a person's overt behavior.

Me:

And, finally, you can't force a person to put down their
axe and see things your way.

Bruce G.

Especially when "your way" involves grinding the biggest
axe of all.

Exactly! I don't know if it's really the _biggest_:wink: but,
yes, my axe is PCT. As I said, CSGNet is for learning
and developing the PCT model of human nature. We certainly
don't discourage questions or (especially) proposals for
critical tests of PCT. I just don't want to waste a lot of
time defending the theory and/or it's applications from
people with other (far smaller;-) axes to grind. I think
every non-PCT axe ginder has been answered by the PCT
axe grinders over the past 10 years. It's all in the
archives. I'm done wasting my time on fruitless conflict.

I think the way to make CSGNet more worthwhile is to start
using it as a basis for developing coherent proposals for
research and modeling that will test crucial features of the
PCT. How about it?

Best

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Gregory (991128.1429 EST)]

Rick Marken (991128.1110)]

But this wasn't the problem. You could substitute any synonym
for "choose" into "I see you have chosen X" (for example,
"I see you have done X" or "I see you intended to do X")
and it would still be dishonest (or just wrong) from a
PCT perspective.

I'm afraid you've lost me. What is wrong with, "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again."?

I think
every non-PCT axe ginder has been answered by the PCT
axe grinders over the past 10 years. It's all in the
archives. I'm done wasting my time on fruitless conflict.

Just to satisy my curiosity, what non-PCT axe am I grinding?

I think the way to make CSGNet more worthwhile is to start
using it as a basis for developing coherent proposals for
research and modeling that will test crucial features of the
PCT. How about it?

I suggest we start by only attempting to model real, rather than imagined,
data.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (991128.1600)]

Me:

But this wasn't the problem. You could substitute any synonym
for "choose" into "I see you have chosen X" (for example,
"I see you have done X" or "I see you intended to do X")
and it would still be dishonest (or just wrong) from a
PCT perspective.

Bruce Gregory (991128.1429 EST) --

I'm afraid you've lost me. What is wrong with, "I see you
have pulled little Suzie's hair again."?

Nothing. My example, however, was an allusion to our
previous discussion. X refers to an _imposed consequence_
of the observed action. It would be dishonest (or wrong)
to say "I see you have gone to study hall" or "I see you
intended to go to study hall" if going to study hall is
the not yet performed but to be imposed consequence of
the observed action (pulling Suzie's hair).

Just to satisy my curiosity, what non-PCT axe am I
grinding?

I have no idea.

I suggest we start by only attempting to model real,
rather than imagined, data.

Sounds good to me. That's always been my preference.
Do you have an idea for an experiment?

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bill Curry (991128.2055 EST)]

I have taken the liberty to edit and compile excerpts to date from the various
posts that were responsive to my two initital questions on this thread. In
some instances where a point could be applicable to anyone or everyone, I have
substituted collective pronouns for the singular "you".

My purpose was to capture these thoughts in one place so they will be easy to
refer back to and amend with other suggestions. One of my frustrations with
some really great threads is that they eventually run out of energy and some
significant thoughts get sucked into the archival quicksand. Also there is no
mechanism at the conclusion of a run to concisely sum up what has been
learned, added or changed by all those keyboard hours of expended energy. Am
I the only one who thinks this is a problem?

My assessment of this thread is that some real cooperative and constructive
progress is in the making here. Of course I'm wearing my PCT rose-colored
glasses :wink: but gee, the world does look a whole lot clearer when wearing them!

Thank you all for your forthright and thoughtful contributions!

Regards,

Bill

···

****************************************************
Excerpts responsive to the question: What _really_ accounts for this state of
affairs [re PCT & CGGnet]?

Dick Robertson (991127.0733 CST)

It has puzzled me for a long time. I know some of the chief actors here
personally and I can tell you they are sweet guys in person. I have never been
able to figure out how the evil twin keeps taking their place on the net.

Human beings after all are, even before being scientists, pack animals perhaps
sharing with wolves, etc., the need to establish who are the alpha males and
all that.

Bill Curry (991127.1300 EST)

I guess it's the side effects vs. the real CVs being controlled that accounts
for unawareness of the impact of communication _style_ -- and some equally
unintended and deleterious consequences for PCT as an area of joint scientific inquiry.

Rick Marken (991127.1830)

It is simply that PCT, in some way or another, eventually ends up being a
disturbance to one or more cherished beliefs or practices of nearly everyone
who comes in contact with it. That explains why PCT has remained insulated
from the main streams of intellectual inquiry; it is a disturbance to
cherished beliefs and assumtions about how living systems work. But I think it
also explains why PCT proponents (like me) seem "unable to go up a level and
collaborate". I presume what you are referring to here is all the fighting on CSGNet.

... proponents of PCT ... say something about -- or based on -- PCT that meets
with resistance. We've clearly disturbed some cherished belief. This quickly
turns into a useless "'tis so, 'taint so" battle where there will be no resolution.

Bruce Gregory (991128.0756 EST)

Some ... arguments seem to be based on the unexamined assumption... [of being]
privy to the reference levels of individuals...

There are times when [some] seem to confuse idealogical and scientific questions.

Since there is rarely any data being discussed, [some] can, and often do,
defend the simplest possible model. It is often too simple as far as others
are concerned.

Rick Marken (991128.1110)

The problem of me trying to get these people to abandon their axes, in what
might sometimes seem like impolite posts, is definitely my problem -- that is,
I am responsible for trying to control other people, and I'm trying to abandon
this goal.

I take responsibility for my sometimes excessive efforts to get people to
abandon their non-PCT axes.

Dick Robertson (991128.0850 CST)

But, isn't it curious that the same old patterns keep cropping up here? I keep
wondering if it isn't that we all control for very personal Pvs at higher
priority than cooperating on building PCT as part of science.

****************************************************
Excerpts responsive to the question: "Could PCT proponents go up a level and
_collaborate_[!] to change this situation?"

Bill Curry (991127.1300 EST)

Maybe we should look at some of the other, more enobling aspects of the [wolf]
pack--like a bonded sense of community being the real key to its evolutionary success.

Rick Marken (991127.1830)

The appropriate thing to do in this situation ... is, as you say, "go up a
level" and see that one is in a fruitless conflict and just drop the matter.

...what I will try to do, from now on, is get out of useless conflicts as soon
as I see that there is resistance to something I say. I can usually make my
PCT point in a post or two. Resistance usually becomes obvious after one or
two exchanges. I will try to continue a discussion only if an effort is
clearly being made to turn the contested point into a well articulated
hypothesis that can be tested by modeling and/or observation. And after this,
if the discussion does not turn to efforts to design an experiment or working
model to test the hypothesis, then the discussion will be over for me.

Marc Abrams (991127.2202)

Start taking some responsibility for side effects...

Bruce Kodish (991128.10:41PST )

Look in your own mirror, will you! I promise to do the same.

Bruce Gregory (991128.0756 EST)

My conjecture is that the situation would be improved if [we] took care to
distinguish between the model and what the model is designed to explain.
Rather than arguing that using the word [X] in a particular context is
dishonest, it might be more productive to state that the term [X] is not used
that way in PCT. [We] might then tell ... how the term is used in PCT. This
kind of factual reporting might avoid unnecessary conflict based on simple misunderstanding.

It would be helpful, too, if [we] took more care to indicating what [we] were
proposing to explain using a PCT model. Using a simple model ... to describe
complex personal interactions invites misunderstanding.

sticking to telling us what the model is [,and] what you are trying to explain
using the model might go a long way to minimize fruitless conflict.

Rick Marken (991128.1110)

CSGNet is for learning and developing the PCT model of human nature. We
certainly don't discourage questions or (especially) proposals for critical
tests of PCT. I just don't want to waste a lot of time defending the theory
and/or it's applications from people with other axes to grind

I think the way to make CSGNet more worthwhile is to start using it as a basis
for developing coherent proposals for research and modeling that will test
crucial features of the PCT. How about it?

Marc Abrams (991128.1253)

I got an idea. why don't we each ( everyone on CSGnet) talk about how we are
helping [PCT] either expand it's horizon's beyond it's current state, How we
make it or will make it easier for others to learn [PCT] and how we are
currently doing so.

Bruce Gregory (991128.1429 EST)

I suggest we start by only attempting to model real, rather than imagined, data.

Rick Marken (991128.1600)

Sounds good to me. That's always been my preference. Do you have an idea for
an experiment?

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

[From Rick Marken (991129.0820)]

Bill Curry (991128.2055 EST)--

Also there is no mechanism at the conclusion of a run to concisely
sum up what has been learned, added or changed by all those
keyboard hours of expended energy.

I think it would be great if someone would act as a sort of referee
and try to sum up the main points of each thread. I think that the
final summary should be agreed to by all parties to the thread. But
I agree that such a summary could be very useful. Would you like to
be the first referee? Maybe you could put together a summary of the
two sides of the debate about "giving a choice" and see if we can
agree on what we disagree about.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (991129.0853) ]

[991128.10:41PST Bruce Kodish]

Dear Marc,
You can consider the following question rhetorical: Why do you continue

this

namecalling, baiting (in my opinion) manner of nudging?

We are all intitled to our opinion. Rick has been serving up heeping
servingss of self serving dribble. ( in my opinion ). Who continues to blame
everyone but himself for everything. Even his latest post talks about how he
is to blame because he wabts to teach so much. What garbage. He wouldn't
think to look at his methods. Just at the failings of others not to
"understand" him". But in direct answer to your question. I refuse to be
politically correct and get another heart attack. my emotions are on my
sleeve. You don't like it? Hit the delete key.

I have observed from
earlier posts of yours that you seem to have a genuine concern and

interest

in PCT?

You don't know me from a hole in the wall. So don't pretend to.

In the last discussion, I found Rick a model of composure in the face
of lots of provocation.

Good for you. As I said before I don't take jive very well and Rick is full
of it.

Personally, I found your posts irritating (of course I created the
irritation, didn't I?)

Don't read 'em.

and generating very little light but much heat.

Exactly what it was intended to do. They were not aimed at you nor did they
address feelings I had for the way _you_ behaved. You don't like it.? Sorry.

What gives Marc?

I think I have explained myself pretty well. I refuse to be stressed out by
anyone.

I'm asking this out of genuine concern for your insides.

Why are you concerned with my insides?

Look in your own mirror, will you! I promise to do the same.

I do _everyday_

Respect to the Maximimum,

To those you respect. Don't feed me your polkitical correctness crap.

Marc

[From Bruce Nevin (991129.0940 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991128.1108) --

From Dick Robertson,991128.0850CST --

> Count me in please. BTW, I recall Bruce N. giving some pointers that we
> should conserve bandwidth in the archives by circulating papers, mss,

etc. off

> line by request.

Good point.

Maybe not. If the off-line papers have something to do with the post the
archives lose and so do future viewers. "Bandwidth" is not a problem in the
archives.

My suggestion was to post papers on a server and to send to CSG-L only the
instructions for downloading them. The reason was to avoid "coercing"
everyone on the list to download the paper whether they want it or not.
This can be a problem for people with slow modem connections. The archive
issue can be solved very simply by downloading a copy of the paper to the
archives.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:12 AM 11/28/1999 -0500, Marc Abrams wrote:

[From Bill Powers (991129.0807 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991128.1429 EST)--

I'm afraid you've lost me. What is wrong with, "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again."?

...

I suggest we start by only attempting to model real, rather than imagined,
data.

Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you see. " ... and
that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a non-factual statement
about what you imagine.

Best,

Bill P.