Who 'Loves' PCT

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.20.1126)

Gregory Kane is a columnist for the Baltimore-Sun newspaper. I think this article has a great deal of relevance to CSGnet and PCT.

I refer to Gregory’s statement in this column; "People who don’t give a tinker’s damn about you will tell you what you want to hear, or what they think you want to hear. People who love you will tell you what you need to hear. "

As a black conservative he goes against the trend of ‘victimization’ most liberal folks feel blacks endure. I see a parallel to PCT here.

How often have we heard over the years how much PCT has been ‘victimized’ by its ‘enemies’ and villified by those who have competing theories.

The essence of this article is not to deny that these injustices do not indeed exist, but what can and should be done about them.

Personal responsibility is important. Acknowledging that something is not working as Bill Powers alluded to yeaterday in a reply to Martin Taylor is the first step in trying to make things ‘right’. Opening up the ‘tent’ and encouraging other ideas might also help.

It seems to me the ‘enemies’ of PCT; Namely, myself, Bruce Gregory, Bill Williams, and countless others who have vanished from the CSGnet landscape over the years actually ‘love’ PCT a great deal more than the people who simply ‘rubber stamp’ every word that comes out of the mouth of Bill Powers.

Marc

‘We Love Black Folks Contest’ has revealed some real losers

Gregory Kane

Originally published Nov 20, 2004

Gregory Kane

Gregory Kane

···

Gregory Kane

BILL COSBY’S Wednesday visit to Baltimore did nothing for me but bring back a bad memory, one only a week old.

None of this was Cosby’s fault, mind you. My experience occurred in Cambridge, Mass., during my three days at a liberal re-education camp. You know it better as the college formerly called Harvard University.

OK, so I’m kidding.

A little.

I spent three days in Cambridge, where members of the Trotter Group, an organization of black columnists, held their annual meeting. There were several symposiums held with liberal cognoscenti in the Charles Hotel and at several places on the Harvard campus. One was in the Nieman Foundation’s Knight Center, where Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint led a discussion called “How Right Was Bill Cosby?”

After admitting that Cosby had erred in his assertion that teen pregnancy was rising and clarifying the comedian’s data about the drop-out rate among black teens (it is as high as Cosby said) Poussaint, apparently assuming that all black columnists have liberal DNA, asserted that “You wouldn’t expect [Justice] Clarence Thomas to love black people. You wouldn’t expect black conservatives to love black people.”

I felt compelled to mention to Poussaint that, as a conservative who loves black people, I had a problem with his assertion. At any rate, I didn’t know there was a contest going on. Will all the winners of the “We Love Black Folks Contest” please raise their hands?

I don’t know who started this nonsense about who loves black folks the most, but I do know this: People who don’t give a tinker’s damn about you will tell you what you want to hear, or what they think you want to hear. People who love you will tell you what you need to hear.

So who loves black people the most? Those of us, no matter what our politics are, who say that blacks can’t blame white racism for all - or even most - of what afflicts us and that we have to take some responsibility for doing things ourselves? Do those blacks who say racism and the system hold black folks back while patronizing those black parents who have no interest in their children’s education really “love” black folks?

Is loving black people telling them that pouring more money into public schools will save public education or is it those black conservatives who said, long before Cosby did, “Hey, it’s the parents, stupid” who are showing the love?

Well, it can’t be us black conservatives, according to Poussaint. We “don’t love” black people. Poussaint isn’t the first to utter this nonsense, of course. I’ve had some e-mailers, callers and letter writers tell me that all the time. When I remind them that two of the most famous black conservatives, Booker T. Washington and Birmingham, Ala., businessman A.G. Gaston, did more for black folks in one day than detractors of black conservatives have done all their lives, the commentators move the goal posts.

Washington and Gaston, they will contend, weren’t “real” black conservatives.

Once they’re done rewriting history with a wave of the hand, they get back to telling me how Mr. Justice Thomas has single-handedly reduced the quality of life for every black man, woman and child living in America. Thomas and other black conservatives “don’t love” black people, you know, certainly not the way other factions within the black body politic love it.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Black Panther Party, the revolutionary faction, showed its love for black people by having its members intimidate, alienate and terrorize black nationalist groups the Panthers labeled “pork chop nationalists.”

Renegade members of the Nation of Islam showed their love for black folks in 1973 by massacring several black women and children belonging to the Hanafi Muslim sect in Washington, D.C.

Several years later, Hanafi Muslims, seeking what they called “justice” for the 1973 murders, took several hostages and committed one murder. The victim? A black reporter for Howard University’s radio station. I guess we could say the reporter was “loved” to death.

Two members of a “pork chop nationalist” group headed by Ron Karenga - the same guy who gave us Kwanzaa - shot two members of the Black Panther Party to death in 1968. In the spirit of love, of course.

Liberal blacks frequently show their love - as the Congressional Black Caucus did several years ago - by questioning the intellectual capabilities of black students and implying they’ll flunk standardized tests not even created.

With love like this going around, maybe black folks need somebody black who’ll hate us a little.

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.1110)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.20.1126)--

How often have we heard over the years how much PCT has been 'victimized' by its 'enemies' and villified by those who have competing theories.

I can think of only one time, and that was in response to a paper by Bandura and Locke that appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology a year or so ago. Jeff Vancouver was going to write a response which may have been published already.

It seems to me the 'enemies' of PCT; Namely, myself, Bruce Gregory, Bill Williams, and countless others who have vanished from the CSGnet landscape over the years actually 'love' PCT a great deal more than the people who simply 'rubber stamp' every word that comes out of the mouth of Bill Powers.

Loved not wisely but too well, perhaps. Like Desdemona, I can do without that kind of "love".

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.20.2027)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.1110)]

I can think of only one time, and that was in response to a paper by
Bandura and Locke that appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology a
year or so ago. Jeff Vancouver was going to write a response which may
have been published already.
Apparently you missed the main thrust I was attempting to make. Let me try and spell it out for you.

You, Bill Powers, and others, have often carped about the lack of respect you get from others when trying to present PCT to others and it seems that the focus of the ire is usually on the others for their lack of either willingness to ‘change’ and accept new ideas or their inability to ‘understand’ PCT.

I have been on CSGnet for over 12 years now and I have yet to see either you or Bill take a critical look in the mirror and ask some hard questions about why PCT has failed to attract the kind of attention everyone feels it should haved received, but hasn’t, yet.

If you have read George Richardson’s book, Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory, you may want to read it again.

Bill Powers was not the first, nor will he be the last, and he certainly is not the only current person theorizing about control and behavior.

It is extremely unfortunate that some people confuse the ‘love’ of a concept and theory with the necessary ‘love’ of an individual.

Politically Marken, I think your a horse’s ass, BUT I don’t care about your political views. Trying to tell me that PCT is the justification for your political views is a joke, because I can tell you that control is the reason for my views as it is and as it_must_ be for EVERYONE.

So PCT needs to account for the cognition of Adolph Hitler and Stalin as well as Mother Teresea. But as Powers has alluded to often, PCT is NOT currently about cognition, and I believe it is.

But this seems to be an area that is taboo to talk about on CSGnet because Powers doesn’t want to talk about it and that is a shame, for all.

Yes, it would all be largely speculation, but what the hell is the current discussions on the hierarchy now anyway? Rocket Science?

Why not try and expand the tent and get some ideas flowing. The fact of the matter is that PCT is no different then it was 35 years ago. Is that progress?

Can we answer any question today that we couldn’t 35 years ago with the same theory?

Will Rogers once said;" If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" After 35 years don’t you think you owe it to yourselves to ask some tough questions?

Is it really everyone else’s fault that PCT has not garnered more attention?

Loved not wisely but too well, perhaps. Like Desdemona, I can do
without that kind of “love”.

You bet I ‘love’ the PCT concept and I will forever be indebted to Bill Powers for his fine work. But I don’t need to agree with all of his speculations and I certainly don’t have to like the way he treats people, especially me. So please don’t confuse my love of his work for the lack of respect I have for him as a human being.

Powers was always fearful that if newcomers to CSGnet saw the ‘warts’ of PCT they may not want to spend the necessary time to learn it properly. I say that more people have turned away from PCT because of the lack of acceptance of possible alterantives to the speculative ideas Powers has presented.as unalterable ‘facts’ (like the hierarchy).

As long as it’s speculation, who cares? If Martin Taylor wants to explore Mutuality ket him do it. If I feel Mutuality might help me get to where I want to go maybe I can work with Martin in setting something up that will help both of us.

Powers rsponse to Martin yesterday was a shame and a challenge. Martin Taylor is NOT in competition with Bill Powers, yet Bill positioned Martin’s work that way. Was that supposed to foster communication and the search for the truth we all want?

Bill, how do you expect others to get excited about your work when you refuse to do likewise for them? 35 years and counting, maybe one of these days you’ll wake up.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2200)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.20.2027)

You, Bill Powers, and others, have often carped about the lack of respect you get from others when trying to present PCT to others

I don't believe either Bill Powers or I have ever "carped" about what you say is the lack of respect we get when trying to present PCT. If either of us ever has carped about this then you should have no trouble finding evidence of it in the archives of CSGNet. But I don't think you will find any such carping at all.

I have been on CSGnet for over 12 years now and I have yet to see either you or Bill take a critical look in the mirror and ask some hard questions about why PCT has failed to attract the kind of attention _everyone_ feels it should haved received, but hasn't, _yet_.

Then you have missed those discussions. I have certainly asked myself many times why PCT has failed to attract many adherents. I think I've answered that to my satisfaction, at least with respect to why more of my colleagues in experimental psychology haven't been attracted to it: it's because PCT shows that the foundations of the discipline are wrong and not many people who have made a career based on those foundations are likely to abandon that career (or the false foundations) even in the face of compelling evidence. They are control systems, after all.

Bill Powers was not the first, nor will he be the last, and he certainly is not the only current person theorizing about control and behavior.

That's correct. He just happens to be the only one who has explicitly recognized that the behavior of a control system is organized around the control of its own perceptual inputs. And he is the only one who has correctly explained what this means for understanding the behavior of living control systems. See my review of one book about control theory written by some psychologists who study behavior from a control theory perspective: Control theory for humans: Quantitative approaches to modeling performance by Jagacinski and Flach (NJ: Erlbaum, 2002). The review is at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/BookReview.htm

I think the review explains pretty well why just theorizing about control and behavior is not enough to give the theorist the correct perspective on the behavior of living control systems.

as Powers has alluded to often, PCT is _NOT_ currently about cognition, and I believe it is.

This is nonsense. Bill himself has published a study of "cognitive control". And several others (Dick Robertson and David Goldstein come to mind), including myself, have done and published studies of control of cognitive variables. RIght now on the net we are discussing a cognitive control task (identifying words with pictures and vice versa) that would tell us something about the relative level of cognitive perceptual variables in the hierarchy.

Powers was always fearful that if newcomers to CSGnet saw the 'warts' of PCT they may not want to spend the necessary time to learn it properly.

Where do get this stuff? Bill has been very forthcoming regarding what he thinks are the shortcomings (warts, if you will) of PCT. Both he and I have been trying to persuade people to join us and do the work (research and model building) necessary to remove those warts. And many have joined.

I say that more people have turned away from PCT because of the lack of acceptance of possible alterantives to the _speculative_ ideas Powers has presented.as unalterable 'facts' (like the hierarchy).

Why should anyone accept any idea simply because someone offers it? Alternative ideas will be accepted when evidence is presented that they have merit. Evidence consists of working models (to show that the ideas are coherent) and experimental tests of these models. These are the terms on which we base our acceptance of any idea, including, most especially, PCT itself.

Powers rsponse to Martin yesterday was a shame and a challenge.

It sounded like a very reasonable and measured explanation of how to go about testing models when fitting different models to the same data has been pushed to the limit and resulted in a tie.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400