06 Feb 1995 08:32:25 -0500

To me, the comments about whether an individual is in a
priviliged position when it comes to construing reminds me of a
patient (I will call him Bill) I see at work. He consistently
construes himself as well and quite calm. In contrast, many
people in his community, still live in some dread of this man who
often behaves in an aggressive, intimidating and demanding
manner. Unfortunately, Bill's prediction that he should be
released is regularly frustrated because staff and a review
tribunal do not share his construction. While he has access to
all manner of internal phenomena which he may not express to
others, his construing does not seem to have proved very useful.
At times Bill explains his predicament in terms of his being
persecuted because of religious or political reasons. As his
sense of persecution increases and his behaviour becomes more
difficult to anticipate, his chance of release diminishes.
Clearly numerous other constructions are possible, eg, Bill
should be free to live as he chooses until he breaks the law at
which time he should be dealt with by the legal system or he
should not remain hospitalised on the basis of judgments which
have limited predictive validty.

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 ??

Bob Green