< This example suggests a fundamental question: who is "right" in
< such a situation, i.e., given competing alternative constructions
< how to choose which is right/correct (in addition to email
< comments critical of saying someone IS xxx, Kelly recommends
< caution even in the instance a prediction is successful). OK,
< if TRUTH does not exist as such, are all constructions equally
< right/valid/morally acceptable ??
Regards,
Bob Green
A very neat example, and one which demonstrates the kind of decision
making that drove some (of us) clinical psychologists out of the applied world
into the safer world of theory making!!!!
Obviously, considering the social context in which we operate, you can
call together the diagnostic team, label him as PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC, and
feed him some neat chemicals which will "cure" his "disease."
Of course, I envision a different world in which we see him more as you
protray him -- a person who does not respond to our invalidation of his self
role definitions. Let's start with that.
Who offers the RIGHT construction of his self role??? Wow.... not me,
not you, not him. Now we have a real dilemma! How about not worrying about who
can offer the RIGHT definition? Why hestitate to regard it as a matter of
working from a construction which will fit the context? And why not set up a
rule something like this -- "If you can't get six people to validate your self
definition, in actual social interactions, we must keep you under supervision.
When we come down to it, do we act on a rule something like this???
I look forward to your response???~!!!
Jim Mancuso
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%