Being, Becoming, and Corresponding Regressions
Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:29:28 -0500
Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain

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

Thank you for going back and reading
the Core posting. I think you've got the
essential idea of polarization. Do you
acknoweldge that this polarization allows
us to determine which of two variables is
derived from the other (Y from X1). If you
do, then you are agreeing to something
very profound. If the method of
corresponding regressions really does
this, then we can unfold the genetic roots
of constucts. No other grid method can do
this. And people outside of PCP have
wanted something like this for a very long
For example, right now I am helping
a nursing professor with her study of burn
out in nurses. She has a couple of =

dependent variable measures of burnout.
She has about 20 variables she thinks
contribute to the generation of burnout. =

With out corresponding regressions, her
analysis will be amibiguous and probably
ignored. She can put the predictors of
burnout in a stepwise regression, but this
will not tell her which predictors formally
cause (are building blocks) of burnout. =

Some of her predictors may only be =

correlated dependent variables of burnout.
Theories to put into LISREL are a dime a
dozen and the results are speculative.
The professor also can't really go out and
subject all these nurses to many years of =

differering conditions in order to
experimentally see which ones cause
burnout. Corresponding regressions should
tell her which of the predictors formally
cause burnout, however, just by measuring
existing variables. =

There are literally thousands of other
applications of corresponding regressions.
I think that corresponding regressions has
great relevance to construct theory and that
construct theory can help others use
corresponding regressions meaningfully
in their constructions of things like nurse
burnout. =

Now, back on to PCP and corresponding
regressions. My assertion is that the
person is the ultimate reality in construct
psychology. This is consistent with Aristotle's
belief that the existing object/person is the
ultimate substance or reality. Aristotle thought
that the final cause of the person was not
simply form, but the will of nature to be itself. =

He thought the ultimate or final cause of things
pointed us to the future, pulling the present
and past to a higher potential. This is
consistent with Kelly's belief that we are
future oriented, pulled by our natural potential
to make sense of the world. This is where we
derive our freedom. But we also have what the
existentialists call throwness. We are not just
potential in the future, we are also existing in
the now. Our freedom comes from our ability
to create alternative constructions. But we work
with things- existing building blocks of our
experience. We do not create out nothingness,
even if we do use the implicit freedom to vary
that nothingness (spatial possibilities of
rearrangement) provides. We create through
nothingness and from existing structures. =

Thus our constructions can vary from context
to context, but the building blocks of the
alternative constructions still have structure.
These structures are added up in the immediate =

construing of the person, who in turn has her
ultimate cause in the balance between her
substantial being and her implicit potential.

Thus it is not anything goes, as the Sophists
would have us believe. It is "you are by nature
free to pursue your potential, but constrained
by your existing nature- including your
intelligence." For Aristotle, intelligence was
rooted in the ultimate substance of being that
is unconstrained by form. This does not exist,
except in potential. And it is something very
much like what some folks call God. The
absence of form would present no constraints
on freedom. It would be the complete synthesis; =

a seamless unity, rather than iconoclastic chaos
and subsequent mob rule. Ultimate being is
total freedom, but it is nonetheless being. It
is to this horizon that both Kelly and Aristotle
pointed us. For now, however, we've got some
building blocks to ponder. Corresponding =

regressions may help us in this endeavor.
What do you think?