# Where Do We Go From Here?

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [November 26, 1999, 9:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398 "1999-11-26T21:47:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry2)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 1999, 9:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/1 "1999-11-26T21:47:07Z")

</div>

[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:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� What \_really\_ accounts for this state of affairs?  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� 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:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� An appalling lack of respectful collegiality both within CSGnet and  
apparently with researchers in other fields.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� A paranoid, almost xenophobic isolationism  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� Use of conflictive forms of communication rather than dispassionate,  
persuasive, respectful argument.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� 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](mailto:capticom@olsusa.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 1999, 1:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/2 "1999-11-27T13:50:06Z")

</div>

[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:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry2)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 1999, 7:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/3 "1999-11-27T19:05:29Z")

</div>

[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! 😉 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 2:26am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/4 "1999-11-28T02:26:10Z")

</div>

[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:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� What \_really\_ accounts for this state of affairs?  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;� 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:

&nbsp;&nbsp;But when the realization came of the true gulf that  
&nbsp;&nbsp;separated PCT from conventional pstchology...it became  
&nbsp;&nbsp;appareent that PCT would simply have to progress on  
&nbsp;&nbsp;its own, not through being merged into the mainstream  
&nbsp;&nbsp;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/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 3:34am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/5 "1999-11-28T03:34:49Z")

</div>

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 🙂 ) 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 5:46am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/6 "1999-11-28T05:46:02Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 12:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/7 "1999-11-28T12:56:19Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 2:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/8 "1999-11-28T14:55:49Z")

</div>

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! 😉 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 4:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/9 "1999-11-28T16:12:29Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry2)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 4:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/10 "1999-11-28T16:39:22Z")

</div>

[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 😉 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?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> � What \_really\_ accounts for this state of affairs?  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>� 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 6:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/11 "1999-11-28T18:03:08Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (991128.1253)]

> [From Bill Curry (991128. EST)]

> Perhaps not the least being the brevity of your post 😉 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? 🙂

Marc

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> . What \_really\_ accounts for this state of affairs?  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>. 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Kodish](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c0e974/32.png) [@Bruce\_Kodish](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Kodish)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 6:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/12 "1999-11-28T18:59:16Z")

</div>

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

\<\<

You mis-understand. ( me at least 🙂 ) 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 7:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/13 "1999-11-28T19:15:49Z")

</div>

[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\_😉 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/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 7:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/14 "1999-11-28T19:30:09Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 1999, 11:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/15 "1999-11-28T23:54:52Z")

</div>

[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/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry2)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 1999, 1:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/16 "1999-11-29T01:57:32Z")

</div>

[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 😉 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](mailto:capticom@olsusa.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 1999, 8:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/17 "1999-11-29T08:19:53Z")

</div>

[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](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams3)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 1999, 2:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/18 "1999-11-29T14:15:44Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 1999, 2:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/19 "1999-11-29T14:41:40Z")

</div>

[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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 1999, 3:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398/20 "1999-11-29T15:09:53Z")

</div>

[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.

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/where-do-we-go-from-here/12398.md?page=2)