Rick Marken wrote on 971103.1430 about writers who say something
that sounds compatible with PCT and said that he didn't necessarily feel
like studying what else they had to say.
I certainly agree with his reasoning.
--Phil R
[From Hank Folson (971106)]
>Phil Runkel (971105)
> Rick Marken wrote on 971103.1430 about writers who say something
>that sounds compatible with PCT and said that he didn't necessarily feel
>like studying what else they had to say.
>
> I certainly agree with his reasoning.
The words of researchers, writers, etc. often pop up on CSGnet. All too
often they are simply anecdotes that do not represent the actual position
of the source.
Any statement is simply a "behavior". Under PCT, you can not tell what
perceptions a person is controlling just by observing their behavior.
If we really understand and apply PCT, we will not use anecdotes unless
identifying them as such. (An anecdotal comment can be quite valuable if
it stimulates thinking.) For the work of anyone (inside or outside of the
PCT circle) to be useful, we must have some reason to believe we know what
variables related to the subject they are/were controlling.
Sincerely, Hank Folson