Rue L. Cromwell (cromwell@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU)
Wed, 06 Sep 1995 11:12:42 -0400 (EDT)

>On 3 Sep 1995, Lindsay Oades wrote:
>> 1) Instead of being based on simple symptom listing and categorisation, the
>> "constructivist DSM" could employ 'professional constructs' defining disorder
>> in terms of imbalances between psychological processes - eg tight and loose
>> construing -a la Winter and Kelly
>> 2) Instead of listing and categorising symptoms similarities and differences
>> in meanings of peoples experiences (and/ or the narratives they employ or are
>> employed about them) within the above defined 'disorders'.
>> 3)The diagnostic process would aim in no way to adopt any quasi-realist feel.
>> That is, it would serve the purpose of a direction for assisting the client-
>> a transitive diagnosis- forming the basis of Leitner's dispositional
>> assessment.
>> 4)"Being constructivist DSM", rather simply matching disorder with treatment
>> (and making the mistake of treating the therapist as a fixed-effect) it
>> that there would be more interest in matching client, therapist and treatment
>> approach by epistemic assumptions.
>> These are just a few initial ideas. What do people think?
>> Lindsay G Oades
>> Wollongong
>I found both the original paper and these comments to be very exciting.
>I personally have been working with an alternative theory of personality
>which is in a very early stage but I thought some of it was relevent here.
>The traditional theory of personality is based on the idea that the world
>is filled with objects and these objects have characteristics that are
>inherent to them. Thus, if you are wearing a red shirt, the "red" is a
>property of the shirt. This is, in tern, based on the same 19th century
>mechanistic science that the DSM comes from.
>In my own work, I am examining what would be the implication of applying
>modern quantum physics as a model instead of the old Newtonian model.
>In my approach, the idea is that personality is NOT a characteristic of a
>person. Rather, it is a product of the interaction of the person's
>behavior (motor activity) and the observer's interpretation of that
>behavior. In PCP terms, personality is the result of the constructs
>produced by the observer.
>If anyone is interesed, I'd be happy to discuss it further.
> Jack

Your assumptions are precisely those of J. R. Kantor's interbehavioral
theory. He was a rebel against both Watson and Skinner, and, interestingly,
it was in his journal, Psychological Record, that Kelly chose to publish in
his early days at Fort Hays State Teachers College in Kansas. What goes
around comes around.



Rue L. Cromwell