However, the idea that if a therapist could supply constructs to a client
and the latter could use them, this would show "validity" seems more
likely, to me, to prove that the client can subsume the therapist's
construct system ("sociality" on the client's part) rather than the
validity of using those constructs?
And if a construct is, as Kelly said, a way in which two things are similar
to each other and different from a third, isn't any unipolar "construct"
simply one where the nature of the implied third element hasn't been
identified or articulared? I know nothing about therapy, but to my naive
view, that sounds a bit sloppy and potentially dangerous or at least
misleading - how do you know what someone really means unless you also know
what they don't mean? (Unless you are relying on the fac that you are both
e.g.white, male and protestant, and assuming that you share a common
construction?) Isn't one of the key ways in which people's construct
systems differ, the use of opposite poles that are not like those of
others? It's what they don't say that is interesting, often, rather than
the fact that they agree with you or appear to use the same words.
This is a case of fools rush in where angels fear to tread - as a mere
careers counsellor/trainer, I guess I should duck below the parapet now!
Best wishes
Marcus
Marcus Offer
National Institute for Careers Education & Counselling
27 Vale Way
Kings Worthy
Winchester
SO23 7LL
Tel 01962 885619
Fax 01962 881411
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%