Re: A stimulating article

Tue, 26 Sep 1995 17:02:45 +1000

Professor Mancuso

Thanks for the quick reply

I've got my thinking cap on again

Once again thanks


Alastair Anderson

>I wonder if you could comment on a few things for me?
>1. Would you agree that the notion of Bipolarity and Dichotomy should be
>distinguished as seperate concepts? In my view Bipolarity is about meaning
>whereas Dichotomy is about the way in which one rates that meaning.
>Sometimes the two are coincident. Further a person may choose to rate an
>element in a dichotomous way but this need not mean that the constuct is
>Bipolar. It just means that the construct is meaningful as a dimension.
>2. What do you think about the idea of treating constructs as fuzzy sets
>named according to the emergent pole as long as the implicit pole is either
>the semantic opposite (Bipolar) or is meaningful as a dimension for the
>3. Would you agree that if a construct is not a meaningful dimension then it
>could be split into two fuzzy sets onr for the explicit pole and one for the
>implicit pole and rated accordingly without necessarily eliciting the
>implicit pole?
> The kinds of questions you raise stand as exemplars of the
>considerations which would encourage us to think of our theory as "neo-pcp."
>We can try to turn to areas of study which will prompt coherent responses to
>such questions.
> I would need to think carefully before I would answer your questions.
>At this immediate moment, however, I would ask you to indicate the conceptual
>basis of your view that bipolarity is about MEANING whereas dichotomy is about
>THE WAY IN WHICH ONE RATES THAT MEANING. What occasions your distinction? Do
>you want us to agree with an inference that seems to lie behind this
>distinction, namely, that the way in which one rates meaning is not necessarily
>coincident with the meaning which the construct [and its poles] have within
>that person's system? Also, what is your concept of BIPOLAR ? Do you mean that
>the construct stands as a straightforward NEGATIVE-POSITIVE? That there are no
>gradations along the construct?
> My construction of bipolarity forms around the idea that a construct
>MUST be marked by two ends -- and both ends MUST stand as applicabale to inputs
>which the person then construes. If you look at my discussion of the range
>corollary, you will see that I assume that fuzziness diminishes as the
>certainty of placing the input at one or the other end of construct increases.
>As I read you questions, this construction would match what seems to be
>suggested in your second question.
> My immediate reaction to your third question would be something like
>this. If a construct cannot be validated, it becomes less and less useful.
>The person then, in a process someting like metaphor making, can invent a new
>pair of constructs from the construct that once acted to provide effecive
>anticipation for certain inputs. The new pair of constructs, however, will
>emerge unless both ends of each resulting construct can clearly function to
>categorize and then to anticipate the flow of inputs surrounding the
>[putative?] situations in which those constructs are applied.
> I said that I would need to "think about" your questions -- There!!! I
>did some rather rapid thinking. Now, I should dig out some good studies of
>cognitive processes that could stand as useful to support my rapidly formed
> Do I provide some frame for the issues you raise?
> Best wishes
> Jim M. . . .