Re: The Missing Self

tomer jackobson (
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:35:07 -0700

Chad L. Hagans wrote:
> Mr. or Ms. Jacobson:
> I hope I am understanding your concern correctly. Let me try to address
> what I perceive it is. According to Kelly's Organization Corollary, our
> constructs are arranged hierarchically, such that superordinate constructs
> are defined by their subordinate constructs. For example, my superordinate
> construction of myself as "intelligent" may be undergirded by subordinate
> notions of myself as "having a good memory" or "performing well on tests."
> Superordinate constructs are particularly resistant to change, and can
> therefore be said to define relatively stable aspects of a person (i.e.,
> the "self").
> These superordinate constructs may also inform what we experience in our
> daily lives. For example, I may gather evidence daily to support my
> superordinate construction of myself as "intelligent," and ignore evidence
> that invalidates that view of myself (Kelly's notion of hostility).
> Therefore, I may experience an "A" or an "F" on a test differently from
> someone whose superordinate constructions do not involve "intelligence," or
> whose subordinate constructions of "intelligence" do not involve test
> performance.
> This is my first somewhat scholarly entry on the mailbase; so I'd like the
> more learned PCP people out there to step in if you feel I've misinformed
> Mr. or Ms. Jacobson.
> Chad Hagans
> At 07:29 AM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >after reviewing kelly`s approche to human behavior we came across few
> >questions regarding the cons of the theory . in most of the theorys that
> >are common among modern psychology there is a significant "room"to the
> >"self" concept . kelly`s assumpsions of the human cognitive structures
> >is left without this integrative asspect and hence my question is how
> >can we accept kelly`s whole view while the last seem to fail to explain
> >what we can expirience in our every day life`s ? (i.e a workink system
> >that intergate`s our belifes or constructs etc. )
> >regards /
> >tomer jacobson .
> Chad L. Hagans
> Department of Psychology
> University of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611
> <>

chad .
1 . it`s mr. jacobson .
2. thank you for your time .
3. english is not natural to me ( i live in the midlle east .)
4. I don`t think that what that you described in your reply is a propper
allternative to the original self that i was reffering to . you
wrote about the structure that was offered by kelly and I agree with
you that this structure can explain the stability asspect that we can
expirience in our self notion of ourself..BUT where is the connection
between all of this constructs ? try to draw this hierarchicall model
and look at it with the integrative prizma , when I do so I find that
you get a good explenation to the human system if we had only one
construct say ""intelligent"- but we have hundreds of them where is the
connection point ? the "self" concept in most of the popular notions of
the human personalety(say ADLER ,ROGERS,etc.) is formed to explain this
INTEGRATIVE asspect that you and I can sense even now , there is got to
be a CPU ( like in a computer) in ourself , and kelly`s approche is lack
to define it ...well as far as I see / know about it .