>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'.
Shor 'nuff!
and goes on to say
>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.)?
Far be it from me to provide an apologium for positivist-based
conventional psychology!
But I assume that it makes as much sense to them as Kellian
constructivism does to us, and I base myself on kelly's "constructive
alternativism" in saying so.
No, what interests me more is why conventional psychologists haven't paid
more attention to the likes of ourselves: the Neimeyers did a most
interesting history of pcp which addressed this them, and I wrote one or
two items on this myself.... and -still_ they don't take any notice!
Kindest regards,
Devi Jankowicz
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%