Re: truth

Hemant Desai (
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:35:26 -0600 (CST)

Bill Chambers wrote:

> Jim Mancuso,
> My name is Bill Chambers.You know this because you wrote me a pompous letter
> some years ago, hiding then behind the anonymity of voiceless mail. I want
> to assure you and anyone else on the net that I will be glad to speak with
> any of you over the phone. Meanwhile, try telling the truth even if it
> concerns the pains of little people who have underwritten the hubris of the
> people who get to have names.
> Bill Chambers
> (706) 234-2378

Dear Bill, Jim, Bob and other persons interested in truth and ethics:

My experience with this list is that only some ideas/posts receive feedback,
and only certain individuals (not coincidentally those with an unusually
"high status"--read as editors/authors/organizational/board members etc.)
are acknowledged and validated while many others (students, newcomers,
and lesser mortals) are either ignored or so it would seem, sometimes
deliberately misconstrued and invalidated personally and professionally.

The many issues that Bill Chambers has brought up, to my mind, shed
serious doubt on the ethicality/legality of behavior by certain
members of the PCP establishment (you know who you are--your silence
is a sure sign of guilt).

Although I am a newcomer to Kelly's work (and attended NAPCN on my own
steam and out of curiosity) my hand was shaken by only two individuals
--not counting grad students and nonAmericans of course--i.e.,
Bob Neimeyer and Jim Mancuso. All the other 'holy higher ups" either
acted like I wasn't there or that I had not presented a paper on the
possibility/inadequacy of culture as a construct in "PCP".

Speaking of PCP, the exchange between Bill Chambers and Bob Neimeyer
is very interesting. The lack of response to a new participant, in my
experience, is not unique to PCP. However, I do note the following
transformation that seems to have occured between Kelly's original
work (PPC) and the interpretation by _some_ of his well-organized
followers (somewhat distinct from the NAPCN setup, the JCP editorial
board, and this list but then again not quite).

That historical (and convenient for some) change:

The Psychology of "personal constructs" (PPC, Kelly, 1955)

which has become:

Personal Construct "Psychology" (NAPCN, EPCA, IJPCP, JCP, etc)

Also, coincidentally, the INTERNATIONAL jrn of PCP changes to good old
All-American "Journal of Constructivist Psychology". What would be of
interest, in view of the ethical breaches alluded to here and on
several posts, if ALL _rejected_ manucripts (with explanations of
course) from IJPCP and JCP are released to members of this list who
volunteer for ad hoc editorial duties for that journal.

Then, people and scientists could then make up their own minds about
the expertise of editorial decisions that have been made in construct-
ivistic psychology. (What say, Bob? Do you have the requisite love of
truth and courage to take on such a venture? Or is it, like tenure,
a life-time position that you have created or been given?)

(And respond ASAP, or may your conscience bother you forever...) :<

Anyway, there are two problems: Are Bill Chambers experiences unique
to his setting (Florida, etc.)? I think not. I can recall earlier
posts on this list which detailed horror stories which were very
similar. Those postings were also ignored.

In fact, a prominent European "personal construct networker"
insisted that an apology to Bob Neimeyer be made when somebody pointed
out that this list was being used for mercenary purposes (postings ads of
constructivist video tapes, if I remember right, featuring some hot-shot
PCP clinicians). Again, suppression of the right to expression.

Second, is this list serving some people better that it serves others?
In other words, is this list is as much an instrument of abuse for
those who have the power to control the verbal expressions of other
individuals? It would seem so, given Bob N.'s recent post which told Bill
C. clearly that Bob was not responsible for what had happened to Bill
in any way (perhaps his advisor/brother/best pal was?) and that any
concerns about this matter should be directed to (ha-ha) Univ of Fl

Thus, I conclude that the notion of a PCP serves those that have created
and actively maintain its "boundaries and frontiers". At this point in
time, the movement and its work appears more a fictional tribute to
Kelly's ghost (witness Europe's Matrix of decision being published for
the second time!) than any genuine search for truth or ethical values.

Of course, this is a worrying thought that needs to be clarified--
especially by those voyeurs on this list who are silent when it is
convenient for them--isn't that what discussion groups are for anyway?

Hemant Desai
Univ of Nebraska