Re: Truths about Lies about Lies
Mon, 4 Mar 1996 02:44:26 -0500

I have been silently watching this thread for a while and particularly
appreciate and agree with Devi's statements regarding everyone's behavior
involving this thread.

I have appreciated Kelly's work and have used it without benefit of a coterie
since 1980 as it was an extension of my own implicit theories. I have used
it techniques I have derived for use in the field of residential treatment.
I am not served by any particular coterie although look to the Journal as
the center of my resources regarding PCP. I do hope that I am not missing
anything regarding the theory's advancement due to the need to ensure that we
have like minded editorial content of a particular coterie.

I last attended the conference in 1987. During that conference I met Bill
Chambers who was asking some tough questions about grid research and many of
the measures used then. I had read several of his studies. I also read and
spoke to Jack Adams-Weber, Patrick Slater, Richard Bell, Fay Franscella, Al
Landfield, and James Mancuso at the time who also wrote on grids.

These are certainly the most prominent names in the grid field at the time I
apologize if I have left anyone out but it is late).

Since then, research on grids seems to have slowed and I have not seen as
much growth in this area represented in the journal with truly new work and

I am wondering if Mr. Chambers is not showing a problem of reluctance to
challenge and replicate studies. Are we looking critically at the measures
we are generating? I know I saw little work done to refute his
interpretations or to test his measures. Please show me where I am missing

I have been a suscriber to the journal since its inception but have often
been disappointed in its content (although I cannot say I have contributed to
it myself). The Journal has very little critical of anyone's work and few
questions are asked. How is this possible? Is everyone always right the
first time? I have purchased the journal to support the study of the Theory.
I hope we are working to advance that theory through tough well researched

Mr Chambers presents a position that may be disheartening to proponents of
the theory. One in which we are not asking tough enough questions in the
name of unity. Festinger had a very large coterie in 1957 in presenting the
theory of Cognitive Dissonance. He presented a very coherent theory with a
great deal of apparent and correlative support.

He hated and shunned Dr. Bem who in 1965 began a long series of studies
regarding Self-perception Theory using his data. The long and bitter battle
over what was the best way to read and interpret his results refined the
theory at the time and improved science. This needs to be a goal of research
no matter how painful. PCP is a specialized theory with few people studying
its methods. There is only one Journal. It better include all sides of
questions or they will not be asked.

I would like us to settle the bitterness by a graduate student again looking
at death threat and other measures and working toward what are the most valid
measure through experimental clinical studies. Al Landfield has made immense
contributions to this field. His reputation neither lives nor dies on the
reputation of this one or anyone else's single statistical technique.
Studies built on those measures assuming validity do.

Further study seems more productive than creating statistical packages which
analyze using all possibly valid measures while people in the field are
unable to be certain as to what those measures really mean. When measures
are not valid wrong interpretations are made and the theory is less
predictive. I get anxious and threatened by this possibility.

I do not have the statisical background or knowledge to follow all of the
discussion but I would appreciate the enlightenment on these issues that Mr.
Chambers, Mr. Adams-Weber, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Mancuso could give. You may do
so on the net or perhaps in a special issue of the Journal. I welcome a
discussion of the state of grid research and as Mr. Chambers has suggested,
perhaps Jack Adams Weber could select all of the major proponents and
opponents for an extended discussion of grid research. Let us answer all the
open questions regarding grid research.

Perhaps an introduction to grids may also be in order for those unfamiliar
with grids if other "viewers" might it who can not hope to follow the
postings otherwise. I will admit to having little understanding of the grids
recently posted (Mandela, etc). Perhaps I am not alone and others might
admit to needing some background to understand their implications.


John Fallon
Thresholds Rehabilitation Center