Hi:
Ana Almeida wrote a message appealing to the hallowed idea of monism. Indeed,
the psychological functioning operates with a biological system. Obviously, we
need to be sure that what we say about psychological processes takes that
agreed upon construct into account.
I will, however, quote two psychologists for whom I have great respect --
Donald Hebb said something like, "We should never make a psychological
statement that is at odds with what we know about physiology and anatomy."
Ulrich Neiseer said something like, "Psychology is not something to do until
the physiologist comes along."
When I speak of a psychological point of view, I am working from my overall
theory of person functioning. I "know" what my position is. From my position
I will attempt to apply my constructs to any issue I encounter relative to
person functioning. I have presented my position in many different fora, and
when I address the issues which I address, I would like to believe that the
persons who might show an interest in my position have attempted to understand
my position. That is my first job as a psychologist -- to develop a position
from which I can view human behavior.
When I attempt to address an issue, I will follow the advice of Hebb and
Neisser. I do not see a need to ground my statements in a physiological or
anatomical statement. I have, in working out my position, come to a set of
conclusions about the relationships of behavior to physiology and anatomy.
From my position I will unequivocally declare: "No particular behavior is
regulated, determined, etc., directly by physiology or anatomy. Genes do
regulate the development of physiology and anatomy, but once the physiology and
anatomy are developed, then the principles or selective exposure and
differential susceptiblity are brought up to explain the relationship of
physiology and anatomy to person behavior. [What are differential
susceptibility and selective exposure? How come an advertiser can claim that,
"Blondes have more fun?" Selective exposure??? How come men are professional
football players? Differential susceptibility???]
As a psychologist, when I read a statement like, "Depression is found to be
genetically related," I ask? How? What kind of physical structure, which is
regulated by genes, is related to depression? Aha -- are you trying to tell me
that depression is a "Basic emotion?" Why do you construe the demeanor of a
person in terms of the construction depression? What is your construction of
emotion? How do you fit physiology and anatomy into your construction of
emotion? Explain that thoroughly!
And, that is the general line of what I try to do as a psychologist. I
take the basic position that humans develop all kinds of construct systems from
which they build their anticipatory self constructions -- anticipatory life
narratives. If someone tells me a depression narrative as a self narrative, I
ask myself, "How did the person develop the depression narrative? Why does
he/she believe that his/her self can be construed within the depression
narrative?
I cannot grant to any person the validity of a construction which says that
"depression can be treated by xyz drug," and/or that a person IS depressed.
Persons construe themselves and others as depressed. I have no reason to take
recourse to using physiology or anatomy to explain depression, per se.
In short, I take my task, as a psychologist, to build good stories about
how people build stories -- and that requires that I use my stories
reflexively; to explain my own story building, as well.
When I advocate against the use of the diagnostic narratives to explain
human behavior, I intend to object immediately against defining psychology as a
venture aimed explaining the IS of a person, as though placing a person in a
category is a telling of a "good story."
So, those are some of the ways in which I define MY anticipatory self story
as I define my self role as a psychologist.
Of course, we all need to build our personal anticipatory self narratives.
I again recommend that we discontinue seeing our role, as psychologists, in
terms of applying diagnostic narratives.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------5852C564C5C1641B23D72147
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi:
Ana Almeida wrote a message appealing to the hallowed idea of monism.
Indeed, the psychological functioning operates with a biological system.
Obviously, we need to be sure that what we say about psychological processes
takes that agreed upon construct into account.
I will, however, quote two psychologists for whom
I have great respect -- Donald Hebb said something like, "We should never
make a psychological statement that is at odds with what we know about
physiology and anatomy." Ulrich Neiseer said something like, "Psychology
is not something to do until the physiologist comes along."
When I speak of a psychological point of view, I
am working from my overall theory of person functioning. I "know"
what my position is. From my position I will attempt to apply my
constructs to any issue I encounter relative to person functioning.
I have presented my position in many different fora, and when I address
the issues which I address, I would like to believe that the persons who
might show an interest in my position have attempted to understand my position.
That is my first job as a psychologist -- to develop a position from which
I can view human behavior.
When I attempt to address an issue, I will follow
the advice of Hebb and Neisser. I do not see a need to ground
my statements in a physiological or anatomical statement. I have,
in working out my position, come to a set of conclusions about the relationships
of behavior to physiology and anatomy.
From my position I will unequivocally declare: "No
particular behavior is regulated, determined, etc., directly by
physiology or anatomy. Genes do regulate the development of physiology
and anatomy, but once the physiology and anatomy are developed, then the
principles or selective exposure and differential susceptiblity
are brought up to explain the relationship of physiology and anatomy to
person behavior. [What are differential susceptibility and selective
exposure? How come an advertiser can claim that, "Blondes have more
fun?" Selective exposure??? How come men are professional football players?
Differential susceptibility???]
As a psychologist, when I read a statement like,
"Depression is found to be genetically related," I ask? How?
What kind of physical structure, which is regulated by genes, is related
to depression? Aha -- are you trying to tell me that depression is
a "Basic emotion?" Why do you construe the demeanor of a person in
terms of the construction depression? What is your construction
of emotion? How do you fit physiology and anatomy into your construction
of emotion? Explain that thoroughly!
And, that is the general line of what I try to do
as a psychologist. I take the basic position that humans develop
all kinds of construct systems from which they build their anticipatory
self constructions -- anticipatory life narratives. If someone tells
me a depression narrative as a self narrative, I ask myself, "How did the
person develop the depression narrative? Why does he/she believe that his/her
self can be construed within the depression narrative?
I cannot grant to any person the validity of a construction
which says that "depression can be treated by xyz drug," and/or that a
person IS depressed. Persons construe themselves and others as depressed.
I have no reason to take recourse to using physiology or anatomy to explain
depression, per se.
In short, I take my task, as a psychologist, to
build good stories about how people build stories -- and that requires
that I use my stories reflexively; to explain my own story building, as
well.
When I advocate against the use of the diagnostic
narratives to explain human behavior, I intend to object immediately against
defining psychology as a venture aimed explaining the IS of a person,
as though placing a person in a category is a telling of a "good story."
So, those are some of the ways in which I define
MY anticipatory self story as I define my self role as a psychologist.
Of course, we all need to build our personal anticipatory self narratives. I again recommend that we discontinue seeing our role, as psychologists, in terms of applying diagnostic narratives.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------5852C564C5C1641B23D72147--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%