Chris Evans wrote:
> You do often sound as if you would like the end of that
> construction of things. You certainly sound, and I have always
> construed that you are, doing what you do through altruistic
> motivations. I think you do good that way and love and respect
> you for doing it. I just think you sound preemptive and incurious
> about the people who hold "the medical" construction and
> sometimes I feel the need to throw my defence of that
> construction system into the discussion 'cos I think constructivism
> will get further by thinking more about it than just by trying to
> replace it with another construction.
>
> Why shouldn't someone argue that their construction has some
> need/right to be taken seriously because it's altruistic?
I might try to apologize for sounding preemptive {can one who holds a
strong position "sound" otherwise in this short messages.
I want to defend myself, however, from a charge of being "incurious" I
like to make the claim that I have read and analyzed more articles on
schizophrenian than has any other psychologist. I am not sure how I could
ascertain that.... but, in writing our first book, I read and closely
analyzed 374 studies aimed at clarifying the construction schizophrenia.
And of course, I must have read and studied several dozen books on the
topic. Since that book was published -- 18 years ago -- I must have read
and analyzed another 200 articles [see my files]. Perhaps reading and
analyzing all this material was done as amy obligation to engage a
necessary, but drudge task [rather than out of curiousity]. Nevertheless, I
think that I should be exonerated from being construed as "incurious."
Also, I raised the issue of altruism because reviewers easily can [and
did] accuse us of "doing harm to patients and their families." I would
rather believe that those of us who hope to prompt the development of
alternate constructions do so in order to be of use to society and to
persons and families who are urged to regard their selves and their kin as
victims of a dread disease. That is, I, too, would like to have my motives
construed on the what I see as the positive pole of the cosntruct
selfidh-altruistic.
In making this response I am not attempting to belabor Chris's
observations. I do hope, however, that my position reflects what I believe
to be my intention.
Thanks for your indulgence....
Jim
Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~mancusoj
A website dedicated to a personal view of Per-
sonal Construct Psychology
--------------53796F1A50483F164997DC50
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Chris Evans wrote:
You do often sound as if you would like the end of
that
construction of things. You certainly sound, and I have
always
construed that you are, doing what you do through altruistic
motivations. I think you do good that way and love and respect
you for doing it. I just think you sound preemptive and incurious
about the people who hold "the medical" construction and
sometimes I feel the need to throw my defence of that
construction system into the discussion 'cos I think constructivism
will get further by thinking more about it than just by trying to
replace it with another construction.
Why shouldn't someone argue that their construction has some
need/right to be taken seriously because it's altruistic?
I might try to apologize for sounding preemptive
{can one who holds a strong position "sound" otherwise in this short messages.
I want to defend myself, however, from a charge
of being "incurious" I like to make the claim that I have read and
analyzed more articles on schizophrenian than has any other psychologist.
I am not sure how I could ascertain that.... but, in writing our first
book, I read and closely analyzed 374 studies aimed at clarifying the construction
schizophrenia. And of course, I must have read and studied several
dozen books on the topic. Since that book was published -- 18 years
ago -- I must have read and analyzed another 200 articles [see my files].
Perhaps reading and analyzing all this material was done as amy obligation
to engage a necessary, but drudge task [rather than out of curiousity].
Nevertheless, I think that I should be exonerated from being construed
as "incurious."
Also, I raised the issue of altruism because reviewers
easily can [and did] accuse us of "doing harm to patients and their families."
I would rather believe that those of us who hope to prompt the development
of alternate constructions do so in order to be of use to society and to
persons and families who are urged to regard their selves and their kin
as victims of a dread disease. That is, I, too, would like to have
my motives construed on the what I see as the positive pole of the cosntruct
selfidh-altruistic.
In making this response I am not attempting to belabor
Chris's observations. I do hope, however, that my position reflects
what I believe to be my intention.
Thanks for your indulgence....
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~mancusoj
A website dedicated to a personal view of Per-
sonal Construct Psychology
--------------53796F1A50483F164997DC50--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%