X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 10:15:46 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:15:46 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Misc

[From Rick Marken (920727.1000)]

Wayne Hershberger (920726)

>      Will you please bring the IBM version of your
>spreadsheet program to Durango this week?

Will do; though can't we down load it from Silvert's list when
we are there?

>      Regarding your lonely lament earlier today, are there
>things the CSG Group is not currently doing that it could be
>doing that might hasten the general acceptance of the
>"truth" we are championing.

Definitely worth talking about. But I think a few beers and good
company will fix me up in no time.

Greg Williams (920727)

Great list of "what is wrong with PCT" ideas. Some we can do nothing
about, of course, but I have some quick answers to a couple:

>  It is too bold: "Where is the empirical data for the details of the
>mechanisms of hierarchical control proposed in HPCT?"

Answer: Where is the empirical data supporting the details of other
models of behavior??

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

Oops.  Sounds like me when I'm not singin' the blues.

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

I've read it (and referred to it). Where's the beef? Actually, this has
been a bit of a sore spot for me; when I do try to refer to the existing
literature reviewers very often say that I have "got it wrong" (the theory,
that is). This is annoying (and one reason why I have resorted to
word for word quotes when referring to the theories of others) but it is
an expected result of having a non-working implementation of a theory;
it's just words, and we all know how ambiguous these can be.

>  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."

Good point. But it's hard to compromise in science, as Galileo discovered
("and yet, it turns").

> 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.

I would be happy to do this. But what I have discovered (recently) is that
most (say 90%+) of these empirical findings are of such LOW QUALITY
(being statistical results -- the highest degree of relationship I found
while perusing published studies was .90; not bad, but still not good
enough for doing modeling) that they are really NOT RESULTS. Trying to use
PCT to explain the empirical findings in the psychological literature would
be like using PCT to explain Rhine's mental telepathy data or the winner's
of the last five races at Hollywood Park. An unfortunate implication of PCT
is that there are almost NO empirical findings of any use to the PCT
modeller in the current, standard psychological literature. PCTers may
not have collected hugh amounts of research data in big research projects
but I've looked through a lot of journals lately and unless one considers
noisy statistical results to be data, conventional psych ain't got much
data either.

Ah. That felt better.

Best regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU