> Travis Gee's comments incite me to enter the fray though I am not a
> clinical psychologist. Isn't it possible that we confuse "sociality" and
> "commonality"? How far is commonality necessary as a basis for sociality?
I tend to think it's the other way around: sociality is the necessary
basis for commonality. In addition, I think it's important to keep in
mind that we have constructs regarding many things of which we have little
if any direct experience, and that even professional scientists probably
developed the greater part of their scientific construct systems by
construing those of others (through textbooks, lectures, journal articles
etc.). The part of our construct system that is the result of our own
"experimentation" may be relatively small, whether we are professional or
personal scientists. From birth (I would say) we begin construing others'
construct systems and appropriating them (or at least our constructions of
them). We're good enough at this that a high level of commonality within
communities is the result. And the longer people have been engaging in
sociality with each other (to the exclusion of outsiders), the more
similar their construct systems are likely to be.
Regards,
Tim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim Connor, M.S. "Psychotherapy is not
Pacific University an applied science, it
School of Professional Psychology is a basic science in
2004 Pacific Avenue which the scientists
Forest Grove, OR 97116 USA are the client and his
<connort@pacificu.edu> therapist"
--George Kelly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%