Where's the theory, Hal?

[From Rick Marken (931003.2100)]

One limitation of PCT as far as I can yet see is that the
model offers no predictions as to how choices of shift in reference
signals affect disturbance levels.

Along with "no model of emotions" you can add the above to what
I'm sure will become a long and ignored list of limitations of PCT.
In fact, PCT does predict how shifts in reference signals affect
disturbance levels -- NOT AT ALL. Variations in disturbance levels
are completely independent of variations in reference levels.

By the way, I share the assumption that perception controls behavior

You share it with virtually ALL social scientists EXCEPT for PCTers.
As I noted to Gavan Lintern, this re-wording is VERY common -- and
NOT accidental (despite your "woops" post it is clear that you believe
that perception controls behavior as much as behavior controls perception;
PCT shows that it only works one way; perception IS ONLY controlled).

, and haven't in any way meant to
question the importance of that assumption.

Control systems control perceptions; this is a FACT about
the way control systems work; it is not an assumption.

Whenever
any outsider questions the limits of a paradigm, I don't expect
insiders to be eager to spend time discussing the matter.

I'm eager. I bet most PCTers are eager. I'm sure "uncommitted"
observers on the net are eager. What are the limits of the PCT
model? We want to know. Please demonstrate these limitations
(which we are sure exist); how else do you perfect a model other
than by finding out where it has problems. Unfortunately, the only
limitations I have heard from you have not been limitations at all;
just gross misunderstandings of the operation of the PCT model.

It is probably true that if y'all stop writing back to me I will
eventually give up and go away.

I don't want you to leave; I just want you to learn.

Meanwhile, as I keep writing, I learn through conflict.

An extremely good demonstration of Bill's point that conflict
is a probably not good for anything -- including learning PCT.

I think it is a moot point whether I understand PCT or you
understand me.

I think it is the central point. Nothing you have said suggests
that you understand anything about PCT other than the vocabulary
(perception, reference signal, control, levels). You don't seem
to understand much about the real world phenomenon that PCT is
dealing with (despite your apparent interest in the "real world")
nor about the workings of the real model that explains these
phenomena.

I don't know if I understand you because the only time you
explained your theory all you talked about was two "sides" of
people and you never said whether my interpretation of your
"theory" was correct (my interpretation being that your
theory says that the two sides of people compete with each
other for expression at any time; sometimes the nice side wins
and people are nice; sometimes the bad side wins and people are
bad). Is this your theory Hal? Please. Yes or no. If "no" then
please give the correct interpretation.

it should be
no surprise that my model of the distinction between violent and
democratic interaction takes a book to describe, and even then remains
to be explained further.

My rule of thumb is: if I can't explain a theory to someone in one or
two minutes then the theory is probably BS. I can explain PCT to someone
in a minute -- they might not understand it, agree with it or like
it after I explain it, but it can be done. Give it a shot Hal. Just
gimme the basic emmis, here. What's your theory?

Meanwhile, I have tried to describe it
briefly this way and that, message after message.

Well, then gimme some feedback; was the "sides" idea part of the
theory? Did I interpret that part of the theory correctly?

As to models representing definitions of situations rather than
reality itself, many are the "hard" scientists who have agreed with me

Excuse me if I remain underwhelmed by the idols of the tribe.

My model accounts for the transition that occurs when Rabin and Arafat
switch from failing to recognize one another to accommodation, as
another for instance.

So can ours. But tell me, how does you model do it. WHAT IS YOUR
MODEL???

Are you really trying to figure out what I'm saying, Bill, or just
trying to dismiss my problems as not yours?

Speaking for myself -- I am trying to figure out what you are
saying and WHY you are saying it. I actually know what you are
saying; I just have trouble with what you are "meaning". Frankly,
most of what you say seems to be an excellent example of the
"dormative principle" that Bill just posted on. You seem to be
explaining phenomena (conflict, cooperation, ets) in terms of them-
selves (conflict is a result of people's conflictive nature; cooperation
comes from their cooperative nature) . Too much "dormative principle"
leads to dormative behavior on my part...zzzzzzz.

Good night

Rick