Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:56:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Justifying the Blues
X-To:         CSGnet <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

From Greg Williams (920727)

Rick asked what is wrong with PCT. From the point of view of non-PCT
psychologists, there are several possibilities, including the following:

  Its name sounds illiberal: "Control! Ugh!"

  Its origins are suspect: "Sprung virtually full-blown from the musings of a
physicist who never paid his dues in psychology."

  Its origins are dated: "This is supposed to be revolutionary, using WWII
technological ideas?"

  It is too bold: "Where is the empirical data for the details of the
mechanisms of hierarchical control proposed in HPCT?"
  (and/or)
  It is not bold enough: "PCT (no H) consists of truisms already well
elucidated by nonPCT theories."

  It has few supporters, even after many years: "So how could it be
important?"

  Several PCTers are Rank Outsiders, even Rebels: "Rabble rousers!!"

  No Significant Psychologists have prominently expressed their support for
PCT: "So how could PCT be Significant?"

  Several of its supporters have associated with "fringe scientists,"
particularly "cyberneticians": "The implication is that PCT probably is as
sterile as most of cybernetics with regard to important issues in psychology."

  Its supporters are often arrogant, unaccommodating, disrespectful, and
impatient with nonPCTers: "Screw 'em!!!"

  In critiques of conventional psychological ideas, PCTers have focused on
stimulus-response theories, which are dead anyway: "When will they catch up to
the state-of-the-art?"

  Some PCTers seem ignorant of much of the conventional psychological
literature: "Why don't they read more and say less?"

  PCTers appear bent on emphasizing the differences and minimizing the
similarities between their ideas and those of others: "Foul! We're supposed
to all be in this together."

  Its early publications have not led to a sustained research program
evidenced by a series of publications in leading psychology journals: "If
PCTers can't get their stuff past peer reviewers, why should anybody else be
interested in it?"

  It isn't useful for clinical work: "We don't want to tell our clients that
THEY are in control!"
  Or for applied psychology: "We don't want to tell ourselves that the
SUBJECTS are in control!"
  Or for government-sponsored studies: "PCT talks about individuals, not
masses, and the grant overseers don't give a damn about individuals."

  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it provides a basis for folk-
psychological beliefs in individual autonomy and lack of environmental
determinism: "PCT is wishful thinking -- dream on, PCTers!"

Balanced against all of the above is one "right":

  PCT (but not necessarily the details of HPCT) has greater explanatory
ability than any other contemporary theory in psychology (at least that I've
seen, and I've looked pretty far and wide): "A minor point."

I'm sure other PCTers can add to the list. Rick's blues appear amply
justified -- but nobody promised a rose garden for psychological
revolutionaries. My prescription: ignore the "wrongs" and concentrate on
publicizing the "right." In particular, I suggest showing how PCT can explain
numerous empirical findings already in the literature. That should keep PCTers
too busy to be depressed.

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU