SATS Principal has degrees from "degree mill"?

People tend to rationalize whatever they do under the "In my case, the behavior is justifiable" (the First Amendment in the Human Constitution, New Revisionist Edition).

For instance, I justify my participation here and otherwhere on the "No matter what I personally would do or would not do, or what I personally believe, there is enlightenment to be had, and the other participants are, behind it all, valuable human beings with valid points of view" principle. That some here or otherwhere would say things that I myself would hope not to say, is a personal mechanism in my soul.

Therefore, as to the specifics -- I would strive to not engage in those things mentioned. I would strive instead to calmly counsel others to avoid the trap of anger, an effort seen here:

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/articles/OnInternetEmotions.html

I would strive instead to accept responsibility for my own shortcomings, rather than curse Lykambes:

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/WeStillCurseLykambes.html

I would strive to correct my own behavior, and seek forgiveness for my own sins towards my fellow humans:

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/WhenIHaveSinned.html

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/IWishThatICouldSay.html

And, because I realize that I am a flawed creature, I strive to remember that the source of forgiveness is Undeserved Grace:

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/Remember.html

Which brings to my mind my grade 12 art teacher, Mr. Pelech, one of the nicest people I've ever known. One day in class, with no provocation, he looked at me, and said,

"The one concept I wish people could understand, Quinn, is just what Undeserved Grace really means. What it really means."

So, Janko, although I would condemn those specific things in myself, I am trying instead to accuse myself before accusing others, reminding myself to mind my own tongue. It's not easy sometimes, but it's the way the spirit has convicted me.

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/LambdaTongue.html

 

That old thread sounds like old times at Hoover High...sigh.

 

Re: Re: Re: SATS Principal has degrees from "degree mill"?

Sing it in the streets! Sing it from the rooftops! Sing it in the karaoke bars (just not to the tune of "Material Girl", please)!

You can please some of the people, some of the time, but never all of the people, all of the time. Trying to pull that off is a Fool's Errand -- like looking for a left-handed monkey wrench to fix the skyhook with so one can make another bucket of steam. To ascribe motives to Dr. X as to why he or she decided to earn such-and-so degree is like trying to herd cats. Maybe Dr. X had no one to please but him or herself.

Everyone has his or her reason for seeking any particular degree, and everyone knows his or her own acceptable maximum cost and minimum return.

Sure, sure, some do it for the perceived increase in "prestige" that a title will sometimes bring, just as some will engage in public acts of charity for the feel-good PR such acts can sometimes bring. Some will do it because HR (having just learned of the hostile takeover by YoYoCorp, which demands degrees of all employees) just walked into the room and declared "Everyone here needs a degree by the end of the month, or you're out!" Some will think, that by having a few postnomimals, they can squeak in that raise in pay for which they've been praying. Some will do it because, like Everest, it's "there". Some will take it as a personal challenge, to be conquered. Some will do it to be "different from Dad/Mom/Uncle Joe". Some will do it because they're bored and need a diversion. Some will do it because they're sick and tired of their high school rival "Lance Sterling" having gone and earned a Ph.D. in Popularity at Harvard. Some will do it because the tuition is a tax deduction, and if they're going to give to charity, it might as well be to the Church of Academia.

But these things all apply to both accredited and unaccredited degree seekers.

When a third-party gets into the mix ex post facto, the forensic research as to whether or not this or that person is "out-worthy" just (to me at least) seems so mind-other-people's-businessly. It can wear the clothes of Civic Minded Nobility, but in a large, large number of cases, there is no corpus delecti -- that is, no reason to believe any transgression has actually occurred. There's just a school name, a person's name, a web-link, an online CV, and a lot of conjecture and innuendo, and personal interpretation. (Maybe there's some liberal use of chicken entrails to determine that those who are selected for pillorying are really guilty of something.)


Joe Bloggs has a degree from XYZ,
And that place is a mill, I think I've read,
A friend of mine told me his dog did earn
A Ph.D. there -- so let's Joe Bloggs burn!

We do not know at all what Bloggs did do
To earn a doctorate from them, 't is true,
But since it has no accreditation,
We must then assume the thing's negation.

Since I do not know Bloggs personally,
It matters not the facts are cursory,
And if his burning turns out a mistake,
I'll just repeat, "XYZ smelled though fake!"

I don't know how he got his current job,
But can assume he's an ignorant slob,
Even though I haven't seen him perform --
You see, his degree just does not conform!

So I'll burn the house down that he has built,
Without a modicum of pang or guilt,
Without need for silly verified facts,
For his alma mater of UA smacks.

And if I'm wrong, and this upon me proved,
To make amends I shall not be behooved,
And I myself shan't overly berate...
(XYZ's only licensed by the state).


(The above only rhymes if you say XYZ like a Canadian, the way it's supposed to be pronounced. )

 

I know that some members of DI are said to be RA or the highway. I don't care to explore the truth of that.

I am not!

My BA and ThB are from a school which then was not accredited! Neither do I think it can be anywhere shown that I have ever said that accredited (either RA or national ) degrees are the only good degrees. I do agree that to some extent a good degree is that which does good for the degree holder. But I have other criteria than just that.

However, my UA BA served to get me into both a teacher certificate program at the RA accredited USD and into a MA ,in the subject of the BA, in the RA accredited Point loma Univ (then called Pasadena Coll because it was in Pasadena in '66-68). So, in my case the UA BA did me good.

It further is true that many earned in my discipline masters degrees from the (then) UA Bob Jones or Detroit Baptist and a couple of others too and the utility still is high because these grads of these UA schools nevertheless are accepted into and succeed in higher grad programs in accredited schools. In such cases the UA degrees did them good too!

I can also without too much difficulty imagine a case where one who is very scholarly does a doc at a school which those in academe perceive as very substandard because he or she doesn't give a rip about what others may think. I remember, eg, (sorry I forget his name) the Australian "duck doctor" who apparently had written a scholarly work on that subject and was awarded consequently a doc from a UA school. The man made the doc so to speak! If it brings him good, that is good.

But forgive me if I remain unconvinced that in my own area of Theological Studies, and by that I mean systematic, exegetical, and historical Theology, that it will often happen that a very substandard doc will be made into much at all by the man (in the sense of being able to do scholarly products) ! Few on their own are able to acquire the languages, learnings, and research skills which are the foundation of doing credible doc work in Theology. Therefore, to a great extent I think in my own discipline it is rather that the grad and post grad studies which make the man and not the man the doc.

It follows that in my discipline , in my view, a reason for doing doc work is to experience and express genuine doc level rigor. If it can be shown that a UA Theological school requires such rigor, then I don't care if it is accredited or not. But I doubt if that often can be shown.

And I suppose that ,like in so many things, the proof of quality is what one can do, not what school one has attended. As evidence of this principle being followed in Christian academia, Dallas Seminary and TEDS regularly admit doc applicants from SOME FEW unaccredited schools!! Dallas and TEDS look at what grads from such UA schools CAN DO! On the other hand, Dallas and TEDS know very well what usually is lacking in the learnings of those from other substandard Theological schools. What I am saying is that here are examples of UA degrees being accepted at high levels IF the holders of these degrees are enabled by those degree programs to do what Theology grads should be able to do.

The evidence of the quality of the work done for a degree in these cases is not the name of the school or its accreditation ; the evidence is the effect of that work on the learner in terms of what the grad can do .

But here is where I draw the line in my own, remember, discipline of Theological Studies: I disvalue the notion that one should get an insubstantial doc because the good it will bring him is self importance.

Regarding my own area of learning, I think my discipline itself deserves one's best. Part of the good one should get is the conviction that he has honestly done what he should have done to earn that degree. I really doubt that very many, except the most naive and the most self-centered , who get insubstantial docs in Theology feel very good about themselves for doing that. They know what they lack even if they are unaware of the fact that they lack the respect of their peers who chose the more substantial routes to earn the Theology doc. .

Perhaps that is one reason why Peppler decided to get the Unizul D.Th. And it seems that decision has brought him much good. The good is his efforts at SATS and the knowledge that his peers respect him for getting a more rigorous degree than those he formerly chose to do.

I admit that one doing Theology may have much different motives than one doing a doc in other areas of study. But at least for my discipline and IMO when it comes to studying Theology seriously it may be that it is not the opinion of others but conscience which makes us cowards.

Bill

 

Thanks, Bill!

Thanks, Bill, for your informative and well-balanced post.

You've said, in your words, a lot that I can personally learn from, and I would hope others feel the same.

In particular, this statement hits home:

I have replaced "Theology" with "N" above, since I feel it can apply to more than just Theological studies.

That is where the pedal hits the metal. It is possible for people to deceive themselves completely in the first regard, however, as discussed in [Kruger & Dunning]. This is why, at the very least, the unaccredited institution must insist on adequate advisors and external examiners for those who would tackle the doctorate there. This form of "accreditation" is very topic-oriented, and very valuable to the learner, not just as a defense mechanism, but so as not to end up admiring one's own navel without cause.

If one goes through that, however, in the end -- the only person one really has to convince, in the end, about being a true doctor of the discipline is oneself. And the only way to do that is to treat the discipline like a much beloved spouse.

But I digress....

[Kruger & Dunning] Justin Kruger & David Dunning, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 1121-1134.

Available in HTML here: http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

 

Quinn

In my own case , I became assured myself of the quality of my work by seeing others convinced of the integrity of my doctoral efforts when they evaluated my dissertation . That is why I was pleased when profs from three South African "accredited" universities, experts all in own my narrow area of interest, plus a fourth informal reader with an RA doc in Biblical studies who is a tenured prof at an RA school, agreed that my work was deserving of the qualification given me by Unizul. Had these qualified four not valued my product, I suppose my conviction of its worth would have wavered.

Bill

 

Re: Thanks, Bill!

Quinn - I've come to really appreciate your contributions and I'm glad that you're taking time away from your busy schedule to continue this discussion. My concern with your statement above is twofold.

First, it lends itself to a specific brand of cultural relativism where someone manages to "convince themself" that their work has attained that high level of quality when, in fact, it has not. We know that this can occur when the faculty of the university in question is, itself, substandard. No number of faculty reviewers is sufficient if they themselves are frauds.

My second concern is that your statement presupposes that the degree seeker is an ethical person. We know for certain that this is not always (or even often) the case. Tens of thousands of people have simply bought degrees from blatant degree mills. Do you really believe that the ultimate authority on the deservedness of a degree should be the individual who is "earning" the degree? You don't see any conflict of interest in that?
Thanks for entertaining my questions.
Jack

 

Re: Re: Thanks, Bill!

 

Re: Re: Re: Thanks, Bill!

And I presume that in any given population there will be a substantial number of unethical persons. To do otherwise would be foolish, not to mention dangerous.
Jack

 

Thanks Quinn. Please understand that I did not ask you to accuse anyone. I asked you whether such actions as I listed were wrong in your eyes. You said they were. You then spoke genially about grace. I appreciate your post.

 

In the last few days, something particular occurred as regards my advisor and the current chapter of my dissertation (7), which is now all but completed.

A few days back more than that, I had considered tackling implementing a meta-S grammar for what are called the Catalan numbers. But I was, I admit, afraid to attempt such a thing. Although meta-S grammars have been written for the factorial language, the prime language, the Collatz language, the hailstone language, and any number of other languages that are either not in the literature at all in grammar form, or only very, very rarely (due to their difficulty to express in formal grammar terms), the Catalan language appeared to me to be in a class all its own.

As I look back at my 23 October 2005 dissertation diary entry, I see that I was trying to deceive myself into a rationale for not tackling this language by saying that there were already enough unique and significant §-grammars in the dissertation, and, indeed, by the standards of grammar theory, this is very true, and my advisor agreed.

However, that said, this man is a world class mathematician with very, very high expectations of me, who is taking time out of his professorial and lecturing duties to advise me on this beast of a dissertation. He was not about to permit me to hide from a result that was (in his opinion) within the grasp and scope of the work. While he did not insist I attempt it (nobody is going to insist on such a thing -- since, well, it likely has never been done -- and to insist that something specific which has never been done be tackled would be too strong) -- he strongly encouraged me to make the attempt.

I expected I would fail. I knew I would fail. I'd come up against some nasty grammars before, but nothing quite like the Catalan language. But, it is the chapter on "Applications in Combinatorics" and the Catalan language is a combinatorial language. So I took that encouragement to heart.

And did something (after one day of analysis and 2 hours of implementation) that I had no notion I was capable of at all.

And what is more, that grammar is the only > O(n^2) language that has ever been demonstrated in the meta-S calculus -- clocking in at O(n^2+m), for some m between log n and n log n. Because it represents the only language that has ever been shown to show greater-than-cubic time complexity -- it is worth more to me as a researcher in this adaptive calculus than any of the other languages -- since it contains properties that make it the most "time complex" language tackled -- and these properties can be formally explored in a way that was not previously possible.

Had I given in to fear -- I would not have succeeded in killing those two birds with the same stone.

But my achievement these last few days pales by far in comparison to the point of the message I am typing now:

Had my advisor not been the kind of world class mathematician I knew he was when this venture into the dissertation began -- I would never have known what the limits of my research were.

Had he been sloppy, lazy, less than interested in seeing these results reach their peak -- I'd have likely been allowed to give in to my fear and trepidation, and the final result would have been a work without a key result in the whole. I may have been smug with the other languages in there that no one else has implemented in grammar formalisms -- but I would not have succeeded in exceeding my own limits. That came about only because the person responsible for my academic growth during this process was on the ball and was not willing to just let me do what I felt was possible.

And I would wish that kind of dissertation advisor on anyone taking the time out of their daily life to write one of these beasts.

In my optimism (yes, Jack Tracey -- optimism can be dangerous, I know), I like to believe that this is what those seeking a doctorate by dissertation seek: to succeed at exceeding what they felt were their "limits". Only if someone who is beyond those limits or is at least capable of recognizing those limits is overseeing our efforts can such an effect become possible. The scholar may falter, may halt just before an interesting result -- and store it away in his or her conscience, feeling guilty for not having pushed that extra bit forward -- but only under a competent advisor who gives a damn about the difference can that all too human desire to shirk the exceeding of such limits become possible. At least with fools like me.

And that is where I would hope people would take care when selecting any program. Unless they want a cake walk. But who wants a cake walk, with so many cookies to be had?

 

Of course, I never said anything about optimism, but you knew that. As for cake walks, it seems clear that you are not looking for the easy way of obtaining your degree. This speaks well of you. However, you seem to be having difficulty in acknowledging that there are many, many people who would gladly take the easy route and who will select their committee with exactly that in mind.
Jack

 

Briefly digressing to the original discussion point (well actually the second!):

I think if somebody knows they have purchased a degree from a mill that is wrong.

If their degree is from a legal, but unaccredited school that is not wrong.

If they gained a degree from a 'questionable' school then we could all argue all day if the school was actually questionable and if they were wrong if it was...(as Kirkland says). I think only the person in case knows the truth in each instance.

As an aside I sense a bit of Glasnost in this thread. Gregg should be credited for that. For what it is worth I have noticed a real heightened sensitivity in his approach since taking on the moderator role.

Hey Quinn, us Brits rhyme 'Z' with read as well you know...

Peace,

Dave C.

 

I seldom use bulletin boards and so I confess to a high degree of ignorance in the use and abuse of this means of communication. I must state that I am appalled at the ignorant and blatant slander committed by so many dear Christian 'brothers'! Does the text Mtt 18:15 not apply to electronic communications? A lot has been said about ethics and morality yet few posters seem to worry about the ethical issues of using a persons name without the benefit or either facts or enquiry! If anyone requires the facts concerning Peppler's ITS and NU doctoral qualifications then I suggest they should make polite, courteous and 'Christian' enquiry to [email protected].

 

On one end of the scale, there is the libertarian view that the candidate ought to have full autonomy in his or her educational decisions, and on the other end there is the statist view that the candidate is a chicken in a field of chicken-hawks, and the chicken needs the full protection of regulation to keep from becoming someone's dinner.

When the state isn't doing enough, in the view of the statists, then it's time to take the matter into one's own hands, form a posse, and do what it should have been doing in the first place: rid the world of those evils as we see them.

So, some Joe Bloggs earns his doctorate at a school that the state has somehow allowed to be loop-holed through -- grab the torches, pick up the phone, fire up the email.....

In the absence of evidence of an actual transgression, that is, lacking corpus delicti, that's akin to vigilantism, (and even with corpus delicti -- if not properly handled -- it's still akin to vigilantism) and it's just plain, outright dangerous. And the irony of that situation is this: the statists call for more rule of law, less self-appointment (of universities), but somehow it makes perfect sense to become self-appointed (self-evaluated) watchdogs, without need for state approval to become marshals in the ol' west of distance education. Grab the nearest gardening implement, hammer it into a gun, and get out there and do that good ol' fashion G-manning.

Of course, it works both ways. Anyone electing to go the route of a self-evaluating unaccredited institution cannot expect the state -- the state that the candidate disregarded by electing to attend a non-accredited (or equivalent, where there is no "accreditation" -- private sector) university -- to suddenly add its imprimatur to the degree. The state will likely say "it's legal and valid" but then add "but we cannot comment as to its meaning and value" (much in the same way the Louisiana Board of Regents declared such of my ACU Ph.D.).

Now, as pertains to the amorphous International Body of Scholars (the Church of Academia, if you will permit me the language) -- that is another story. The BoS already works in its own mysterious ways. We all know that a degree from X is not seen to be as "prestigious" as a degree from Y, for any X and Y you can think of, where X and Y hold equal legal/accredited status. It has been my experience, however, that very many scholars from the upper ranked schools are quite gracious when it comes to passing such prestige-calls. The higher one's personal satisfaction that one has done one's own work to get what one has, the lower the need to press others' accomplishments down -- or so has been my observation.

And as I was typing this, I hit the "Preview Reply" button and noted a (justifiably, IMO) angry response from one "Dr Chris". This is one of the social prices of eternal self-appointed vigilance in other people's business; for the people concerned are certainly not "Joe Bloggs" or "Dr. X" or "Monsieur Untel" or "Joe Average Citizen" or "Johnny Casestudy." They are living, breathing human beings who, like all living, breathing human beings, make decisions that are full and rich with details of which "Joe Random Observer" knows nothing at all.

The Internet is not new, but society has not yet seemed to learn that the new medium, with its tendency to have people's names appear "in public" does not make those people politicians and public property. The social consequences of that lesson to be learned, I fear, are not heartening. I learned this lesson in two ways: by being the object of public ridicule, and by, publicly lashing out at others in anger. It's all just too easy, too slippery a slope, and if for no other reason than the preservation of our basic humanity, I pray that such would stop and society would get its head wired on straight as we learn to see the Internet not as a means of lashing out, but binding together.

 

Dear Dr. Chris,

I feel privileged to be a member of the DegreeInfo forum, defer often to the honesty and knowledge I discern in others here and hesitate to believe that libel, in this thread, has been committed. Can you show me where I or others have erred?

The Bible, I believe, applies to all in life. Mtt 18:15 applies, to my understanding, to slights between brothers. I would argue that malicious presentation of a bogus credential - and none have said that such has happened - would be something one has done to society and the resulting discussion thereon may well happen in the public arena.

The discussion has long moved on to the ethics of publically wincing at another's degree program. If you have the facts to which you allude or would like to comment upon the subject on hand, please feel most welcome to do so.

Cordially,
Mark Sykes

 

===

Dr. Chris:

I am not so sure that degreeinfo is a church and so I am unconvinced that the text you reference covers what here is said.

But as you are aware of this thread and have chosen to enter it, and as you have publicly expressed yourself here, I have a question for you which I hope you publicly will answer:

Accreditation seems to be much a concern in South African higher education. I like that. SATs desired to be accredited itself, and when I applied at Unizul, I was required to evidence that my masters degrees were accredited. Accreditation is in SA deemed important!

As you are a South African educator and the principal of an accredited school , would you publicly clarify for us the accreditational status of Newport University when you got your PhD there and the accreditational status of International Theological Seminary when you got your ThD there?

Thanks,


Bill

 

I am very sorry that this thread exists at all.

If you want to know whom to worry about with "degrees", go to the thread in the UA forum about the Randocks on bail. Look at Gregg's excellent post on that thread. Know who your enemies are. You can find them there. The person discussed in this thread is not one of them.

I am quite prepared, on the basis of personal knowledge, to stake whatever reputation I have on this board upon the italicised following statement. I should have said this earlier but have been preoccupied with critical illnesses and a death in the parish.

I know from much observation and from extensive personal contact with Dr Chris Peppler that he is an honourable man and one of the genuinely great figures in utterly legitimate distance education.

I cannot vouch for his ITS or NU degrees but his later University of Zululand degree "trumps" them upon any reasonable basis of enquiry. Dr Peppler has done absolutely nothing in my awareness of him and his school since 2000 that I would characterise in any way, shape, or form as millist, shill, or other reprehensible behaviour. You know me, Al. I am always at the ready to call a millist a millist and a shill a shill and a degree-liar a degree-liar. Peppler is not one.

I believe that any student can enroll in SATS with entire confidence. Everything in SATS' institutional conduct (under the leadership of Dr Peppler) has been, since my first awareness of the institution in 2000, completely forthright, academically progressive and substantial, conducted first under the aegis of Unizul and latterly under its own "freestanding" authorisation by SA government authorities.

I reiterate to young Mr Sorrell that I know that he can enrol in SATS with a happy heart and every confidence of receiving a fine education, a South African government-accredited (to use US terminology) degree, and contact with a whole raft of genial, responsible, helpful, and academically tough-minded individuals amongst the stsaff and instructors at SATS.

In sum, not that Dr Peppler likely gives a rat's ass about my opinions on anything--why should he?--Chris Peppler is a good and decent man running a good and decent school. He is trustworthy. He is honourable. He is rigorous. His latest degree is accredited (in the US sense) and in every way legitimate.

Long ago and far away our beloved--none of my overblown rhetoric, just plain speaking there--Dr Bill Grover got a UA degree, and says so. Bill and Chris are grad school alumni of the same SA university. IF BILL GROVER IS KOSHER CHRIS PEPPLER IS KOSHER. I commend Chris Peppler to anyone as a fellow-combatant for distance education of the most reputable sort, and SATS as a citadel of the same. I don't amount to squat next to what Chris Peppler has done with SATS. But I am glad and honoured to be on the same side with him.

Janko the Mad Priest, BA, MDiv, MA {all RA, by the way}

 

It has not been my experience that this is the case, which is the cause of my hesitation in acknowledging such. Were it my experience that that were the case, I might acknowledge it with a "it has been my experience" clause. But it hasn't been.

Now, this is not to say that I haven't come across people looking for the most inexpensive route, and seeing unaccredited universities as being a vehicle for that. I haven't come across any credible person (I don't consider Dr. Milton Goldblatt -- or whatever that guy was calling himself!) who has said to me either publicly or privately, "I don't want to do any real work for this, I just want the degree handed to me."

Now, my theological bent, despite my secular optimism, is that Man has no good in him. In this theological matter, I tend towards Spurgeon's view of the heart:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0456.htm

(My theological background is strongly Calvinist, and I tend towards being of the "5 point" variety, q.v. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm )

That said, however, it is not for me to judge the agenda and motives of men and women who elect to pursue any particular route to a degree. What did the Spurgeon-meister have to say about that matter? "I know how it is with some Christians; they have grown in grace so wonderfully, that they want everybody to be up to their height, and not three-quarters of an inch below it." (See Psalms 138:6-8 for where the matter sits as to who gets the credit for slaking towards perfection. But, as someone far more qualified in matters theological than I am just posted in this thread -- this isn't a Church, so I'll hold off on the Scripture and the Spurgeon, lest the forum be declared tax-exempt. )

Moreover, the phrase "with exactly that in mind" would tend towards my being a mind-reader. As an author of (egads!) literary fiction, rather than as purely a computer scientist, I try to understand the human condition, and this to some degree requires trying to understand the "mind" of human beings, in a general sense, to be sure. It means observing human behavior, and attempting to capture it on paper in some modified, pasteurized, palatable form.

Indeed, the novel Janus Incubus explores a young man's progression from gifted young adult to deceptive doppleganger, to his ultimate fall at the hands of his pride. That the novel is still being used (AFAIK) as an undergraduate psychology text, is perhaps in some small way a testement to the fact that perhaps I do understand the human mind as it pertains to such matters. However, that said, and all things considered, the author of fiction has a tool at his or her disposal -- he or she can form the minds of his or her dramatis personae at will and whim. When he or she doesn't know what some character has "in mind" -- he or she can simply put it there. While this is an effective literary device, it surely would be quite dangerous for an author to come to believe that such techniques carry from the writing of fiction to the world of real, living, breathing human creatures. (The DMS-N, for whatever that N is now, probably has a classification for authors who have come to believe they hold such awesome capacities!) I certainly don't pretend to have such awesome skills that I can know the motives of anyone other than the characters in my stories, and of myself.