Re: Pampered Girls make Dangerous Doctors

Robin Hill (BSRAH@TWP.AC.NZ)
Fri, 3 May 1996 09:33:40 +1300

Bill (and others)

I have been listening in to your discussions for some months.
Sometimes I have read all the messages, and sometimes deleted them
without reading. My mailbox sometimes gets too cluttered.

Bill, your recent posting challenging our knowledge of PCP, and
concepts such as eigenvalues and so on, rang a bell with me. I
happen to be one of those with a depleted understanding of these
concepts, but I don't feel bad about that. I'm not trying to be a
PCP guru or expert. I subscribe to PCP simply because what I know of
the theory and methods, makes more plausible sense to me than other
theories and methods. Perhaps there are a number of subscribers like
me, who are really on the periphery of the PCP community. Actually, I
simply find the tools in the PCP toolbox particularly powerful. The
theory makes those tools and my use of them even stronger (I know
what I'm on about when I use them). PCP also helps me to struggle
with things that other theories and approaches in psychology don't
help me with, or which constrain the alternative actions open to me.
I probably could explain my subscription to PCP by the fundamental
postulate and corollaries, if I so chose. I don't think it matters
that I'm less intelligent than most of the rest of you, nor that my
PhD probably isn't worth the paper its written on (in fact, all it
represents is a heck of a lot of hard work - none of which was
profound), and so on.

Bill, throughout your postings you refer to the _Kelly Cult_. While I
may be reading more into this than mere words suggest, I notice you
don't refer to it as the _PCP Cult_. I have been wondering if this
_Kelly Cult_ is just a choice of labels, or if your choice of words
is deliberate. I must admit that when I attended the Townsville PCP
Congress, as a less experienced academic, I was surprised to find
myself among people who held Kelly up as some sort of Messiah, and
who held his original books up as some sort of bible. At the
conference there were many readings from the bible. Has this
anything to do with what you mean by _Kelly Cult_ and riding Kelly's
coat-tails? If so I can identify with that. However, I note that
you yourself, refer us back to Kelly's original writings too - but
presumably not affording it bible status. I'm
not sure that I find readings from the Kelly bible and lauding the
Kelly Messiah all that healthy in an academic community - thats
probably why I subscribe but remain periphery. I leave that deep
stuff to those who want to dig deep.

I should like to add that I have found some of the so-called gurus
and members of the so-called Kelly Cult very polite, courteous, and
welcoming to a new comer. Most have made an effort to give me
encouragement and to respond to my enquiries. I include Bill here
too. I wrote to him seeking a reference to circumgrids around 1989,
and received back a very encouraging letter wishing me goodwill with
my PhD studies. I felt four inches taller and proportinately more
motivated to see the thing through to fruition (it was during my
self-doubt stage).

Kind regards to everyone. I think there is a bit of childish
nonsense going on in this mail-list at present. However, by reading in a
moderating tone of voice, I'm actually learning a great deal. I
would favour a cessation of the puerile aspect in the mail I receive.
It diminishes the satisfaction I get from being on this mail-list.

Dr. Robin Hill
The Waikato Polytechnic
New Zealand.