To Devi

BF102454 (
Tue, 26 Aug 97 20:39:51 +0100

Dear Devi,
you wrote:

>Well, the equivalence of "lay" and "scientific" theories is at the heart
>of Kelly's own work. Or, in distinguishing between "scientific", "naive",
>and "official psychologists' " knowledge, are youseeking to say something
>more subtle?
>I seem to recall that the early chapters of Bannister and Fransella's
>"Inquiring Man" addresses the issue in these terms.

I believe also it is true that the equivalence between 'naive' and
'official' psychological theories it is a basic assumption of kelly's
theory. All people, in fact, are psychologists. This is the sense,
according to me, of Bannister and Fransella's title 'Inquiring Man'.
Everything that has been written starting from this assumption it is,
necessarily, its own development. Well, by the light of this equivalence
what is the sense of professional psychology (academic, scientific,
etc.)? Very threatenig question for many professional psychologists and
their theories. There is a sort of contents war. To my way of thinking,
Kelly's theory is a professional theory. But, this equivalence isn't a
threat for Kelly. Not at all! Formality, high level of abstraction and
reflexivity are all features that distinguish it from others theories.
Theory of theories, it has a sense like professional approach.
Equivalence isn't identity.
In my work about lay and professional theories I am interested in both
the equivalence and the identities. The focus are systems, cultural ideas
(not only personal knoweledge), their relationships and implications.
Did I understand your perplexity? Have I been sufficiently, perfidiously

Kind regards,

Massimo Giliberto

Massimo Giliberto

Centro di Psicologia e Psicoterapia Costruttivista
via S. Lucia 35, 35139 Padova, Italy
tel./fax +39 49 658268