home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!MCIMAIL.COM!0004972767
- Message-ID: <95920727194859/0004972767ND1EM@mcimail.com>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:48:00 GMT
- Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET>
- From: Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
- Subject: Blues, 2 (%)
- X-To: CSGnet <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Lines: 32
-
- From Greg Williams (920727-2)
-
- >Rick Marken (920727.1000)
-
- GW>>My prescription: ignore the "wrongs" and concentrate on
- GW>>publicizing the "right." In particular, I suggest showing how PCT can
- GW>>explain numerous empirical findings already in the literature. That should
- GW>>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.
-
- I would be surprised if high quality results amount to as much as 2% of the
- total.
-
- >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.
-
- Still, the good 2% (or maybe more) would keep PCTers busy for a long time in
- ways which could be perceived as relevant by non-PCT psychologists. In fact,
- there's more than enough to keep PCTers busy for a long time just in the sub-
- sub-sub-field of limb trajectories!
-
- Greg
-