May 18th?, X:XX XM
*Psychologist George Kelly was born in Kansas, but left with his family when he was four to Colorado. The land they were homesteading there had no water, however, so the family soon returned to Kansas. This type of pragmatism illustrates one of Kelly’s major contributions to psychology: Personal Construct Theory. (We’re going to call it PCP)
The idea is that people develop schemas and constructs to describe how the world around them works. Each one is individual to the person that thinks it. (Hence, cognitive…) The metaphor most often used is that of a scientist. Each individual in this case is like a scientist in that they have this theory of “how stuff works,” and any time something works the way they expect it to, this theory is strengthened. Conversely, when things don’t turn out to fit their ‘theory,’ then the theory is abandoned.
After a while, Kelly started to teach at Fort Hays State College in Kansas. One of the things he noticed there dealt with his patients. He discovered that a client’s condition would be improved if you gave him or her an explanation for the problem. Yes, you read that correctly. It doesn’t matter what the explanation is. It only has two requirements:This is sort of related to the PCP because the people are benefiting from being given a construct from which to work (one with which they don’t disagree, on account of stipulation 1) and are improving because of it. Actually more important is that the client is able to see their situation differently, but that’s not the focus of this entry.
- It has to account for the facts as the client understands them, and
- it had to suggest the usefulness of looking at the situation in a different way.
Lately, I’ve been trying to construct (pun intended) my entries as more insightful, rather than just regurgitation one’s schedule or taking quizzes and posting them (the two biggest sins of internet journals). In a bit, I’ll start posting a few story-entries, things less abstract or insightful, but still entertaining. But recent times have been insightful times, and I’ve been thinking about things a lot. I’m starting to get my old clarity back.
Having remembered old G Kelly up there, a question popped into my head: Am I really as insightful as I think I am? Do I really know what I’m talking about when I talk about myself? How much of it is just an explanation making me feel better about my situation? How do I know, or how does any psychoanalyst know, when we’re right?
I used to pride myself on the kind of thinking I did. I used to think I really knew how and why I do the things I do. Henceforth, I plan to stop being so arrogant. I’ll still introspect. I’ll still try to glean what I can from the experiences I have, but let me go on record right now as saying that no explanation for things that I ever offer (or have offered, for that matter) should be considered absolute anymore. Is that mokay?*Actual date of entry unknown
Love and kisses,
Andrew