[From Rick Marken (930331.0900)]
From Ken Hacker [930330]--
Apologies for unwarranted arrogance are just as bad as the arrogance
originally identified. BTW, I was being exceptionally NICE by using
the word arrogance. Other terms were not used when they could have
been.
I never apologized for unwarrented arrogance because I never thought
I was being arrogant -- warrented or not; that was your perception,
remember? But why all the anger? Why the (surpressed) desire to call
me names? Whatever I said must have really pushed on one or two
controlled variables. I know that when this happens, it seems like one
is being attacked personally, doesn't it? Actually, I don't think I
have ever attacked you personally, have I? What I have "attacked"
(it feels like an attack when someone disturbs a controlled variable)
is the IV-DV approach to research in the behavioral sciences and the
underlying justification (causal model) for its use. My guess is that
you are trying to perceive the IV-DV methodology as a reasonable approach
to achieving your research goals. One hint of this is in your reply
to Bill Powers:
KEN HACKER [930330]:
Bill, I sense that you want me to say that I will attribute increased
recall or retention to the learning program. Aha. BUT, I am not doing
that. I am going to attribute whatever significant differences there
are to what the subjects appear to need to learn what I am trying to
teach them with the program.
So, from your perspective,the IV-DV methodology you are using is fine,
even when your goal is not to determine a causal relationship between
the IV and DV. You will simply "attribute" the differences to needs
inside the subjects. I suppose it would seem arrogant of me to ask you
to describe your model of how the subject's need to learn is expected
to interact with the learning program to determine the results you
observe in the experiment?
Since we seem to be dealing with my criticism of IV-DV research on
a purely verbal level (you seem to eschew mathematics and modelling,
for example) then as long as you can generate sentences that let you
perceive your controlled variables as under control, I can't be much
more than an uninformative disturbance, and you should be able to
maintain your perception of yourself as the winner of this "debate".
So, congratulations.
If you were more secure in what you are doing with PCT, perhaps you would
not have to launch daily attacks on what other people with other
perspectives are doing.
The only "attack" of this nature that I can recall is when we discussed
the potentially severe, negative consequences that might result from
basing individual behavior on statistical findings. This "attack" was
not based particularly on PCT and I didn't really participate in it much.
So I would really like to know what you consider a "daily attack on
what other people and other perspectives are doing"? I have a feeling
that what you consider an "attack" is what I would consider a "dis-
cussion". I really have no intention of attacking you, your perspective
or your friends and their perspectives. I'm just trying to describe PCT.
If you think I'm "attacking" please give me examples. Is Bill Powers
attacking too, or am I the only attacker? Could you please give me an
example of an "attack" from one of my posts. I will apologize, if I
perceive it as an attack too; especially if it is a personal attack.
By the way, here are some examples of what I perceive as personal
attacks:
You apply what you know about psychology to all of social science. That
is inane.
Using "wrong" instead of "inane" would have made this sound much less
like a personal attack.
There are many points of view in social and behavioral sciences
and you continue the fallacy of monolithic sameness for them. It is
not a big lie; it is a HUGE lie!
Again "wrong" might have sounded less personal than "lie".
Dare I also suggest that the megalomania about Galileo is a distraction
from what PCT is attempting?
I consider the implication that I am a megalomanic (who considers
meself as great as Galileo) to be a personal attack. I'm just a
sensative guy, I guess.
Translation: Only Marken knows who to do research - c'mon!!
Can we please drop this pretentious bullshit?
And I am pretentious too.
These are what I would call personal attacks. I don't mind them;
I understand where they are coming from and I hope they suceeded
in helping you control whatever it was you needed to control.
But for discussions on CSG-L I prefer substantive discussions.
What is the strength of PCT -- the limitations of
non-PCT? Or the explanatory value of PCT within itself?
I believe that I have been trying to point out the strengths of PCT and
the limitations of non-PCT models in behavioral science. You seem to
think that I am just attacking people and perspectives. So help me out
here -- just show me what you consider to be an "attack". Or is my
asking for this an attack? or is my guessing about my asking about this
being an attack, an attack? etc.
I would hope
the latter because I am convinced that much, not all, of the former is
unmitigated bullshit.
If you think that much, but not all, of PCT is unmitigated bullshit (UB)
then it would help everyone (but especially those of us who are
promulgating this UB) if you would explain just what you consider to be
the UB in PCT. It would also help if you would show why it is UB.
Best
Rick