Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:54:10 -0500
Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain

Attach file.
Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

People are the ultimate givens in psychology.
There would be no summation of the traits,
archetypes or any other labels for the parts =

of people, without the person. The person, in
all her complexity, exists whether or not there
is a method to say she exists. And sensitive
people can experience her, whether or not it
is through a grid technique. The person is the
territory. I am only suggesting a means of
mapping the territory, and that map will only
be a partial map. A partial map is better than
no map, however, especially if it is an accurate
map. Otherwise we frequently just have the =

words of people who think truth is nothing but
a social convention. Some of them appear to =

derive great pleasure when some of us get =

lost, following their instructions.
As far as my being opaque- it is difficult
to speak my mind in a forum that is
politically hostile to the truth and to my =

person. The only thing I am trying to avoid =

is being thrown off the net before I can =

share the fruit of 20 years of my intellectual
labor. So much of what I have been saying
with mathematics is directly relevant to
some of the other events on this net. It can
be hard sometimes to keep the two
separate. I am, after all only a person. =

The bandwagon is a system in which
one's identity is filtered through the
construct of "Utility to the Bandwagon."
There are the leaders and then there are
those little trait-like people (crazy,
vitriolic, etc.) who either add up to the
leaders or are shunned.
As I read your postings to me I usually
assume that you are working from point
to point, trying to understand the =

thoughts of someone who has done a =

lot of thinking on his own- and who may
use words somewhat idiosyncratically
sometimes. Sometimes I wonder,
however, if you are not just looking for
incidental mistakes. I have said many
things now. They add up- at least to me
and my computer- to a psychometrics
that is more humanistic than is the
traditional approach to grids. This is
significant, not only to the users of =

grids, but to those who become =

entwined in the PCP culture.The culture
has been partly shaped by years of
psychometric assumptions. New
comers probably are unaware of these
assumptions that creep into the
defintions of our group process =

constructs. I am quite willing to talk =

about the politics of terms like
"loose thinking", "schizy",
" nontraditional", and so forth, but I =

prefer to predicate my arguments on
a psychometric alternative to the =

It would be helpful to me to know which
of my assertions, if any, you agree with.
You say "of course, that
neither a child, nor "Mary" is just a =

social convention. They are people. But
let's not use this observation as an =

excuse to avoid a scrutiny of the
constructs that are used by the
researcher to design and interpret the
study." I do not believe I am avoiding
scrutiny from anyone. For the record, my
dead child was not just a social convention
and the pain she endured was not a social
convention. Nor has been my own pain nor
that of my wife and two other daughters.
Let us scrutinize the ramifications of our
claims to fame.
The mathematics of grids put construct
theory on the map. It got the old boys
their tenure and their freebie's to the
vacation conferences and their chances
to cultivate followers who would carry on
their often unscrutinized assumptions. Of
course they may not have been much as
mathematician's themselves, but the publics
interest in Kelly was driven largely by a
fascination with grids. Look back in the
literature and you will see that I am right.
I am using mathematics as a way of
formulating psychological models.
Psychological models have impacts on
real people. It is apparently unfashionable
to be rigorous with grid math these days.
Let there be no mistake. My daughter's
face is with me always. I am telling the
truth for the sake of her memory and for
other little children who may feel pain, at
least in part, because of the social =

conventions of people who call themselves
personal construct psychologists. This is
serious business to me and not just an
intellectual peeing contest. So lets get
on with the great conversation.
Specifically, which points of mine do =

you agree with, and which not?
Bill =