Blog Post: “Can You Ever Really Get Inside Someone Else’s Head?”

 Can You Ever Really Get Inside Someone Else’s Head?

512px-Man-inside-note-headNew post on my blog, “Making Meaning: Constructing Understandings in a Confusing World.”

We often speak of “getting inside someone else’s head.” When we talk this way, we usually mean that we wish to understand things as others do so that we can grasp what otherwise might seem like utterly incomprehensible behavior. If we could get inside the heads of our boss, our significant other, or that bloviating political candidate on TV then we just might be able to know what they are up to and why.

Book Chapter on Integrative Constructivism

1118508319Forthcoming chapter on integrative constructivism in The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology:

Excerpt:

Personal construct psychologists have historically had an uneasy relationship with constructivism. Some have objected to it on philosophical grounds, arguing that George Kelly’s (1955, 1991a, 1991b) personalconstruct psychology (PCP) is best viewed as a critical realist, not constructivist, approach (Noaparast, 1995; Stevens, 1998; Warren, 1998). Others have worried that constructivism has the potential to overshadow PCP, placing the latter in a precarious position (Fransella, 1995, 2007). Others still have argued that constructivism is broad and ill-defined—or, at the very least, is less theoretically and methodologically developed than PCP (Fransella, 1995; Winter, 2014). These concerns arise in part because constructivism and its precise relationship to PCP typically go unspecified. To remedy this, I present four premises of an integrative constructivism and address how PCP—in conjunction with other forms of constructivism—both fits within it and contributes to it. My goal is to offer a meta-framework that lets PCP maintain its own integrity as a theoretical unity, while also offering a set of shared premises that permit PCP’s inclusion under a superordinate integrative constructivist banner.

Full reference:

Raskin, J. D. (2016). Personal construct psychology in relation to an integrative constructivism. In D. A. Winter & N. Reed (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (pp. 34-44). London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Psychologist Attitudes about DSM-5 Paper Available as Advance Online Publication

home_coverMy coauthored article with Mike Gayle on psychologist attitudes toward the DSM-5 is now available as an advance online publication. Check it out.

Reference

Raskin, J. D., & Gayle, M. C. (2015). DSM-5: Do psychologists really want an alternative? Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022167815577897

Abstract

Only two published studies, both from the early 1980s, have specifically examined psychologist attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The current article rectifies this by presenting the results of a recent survey of attitudes toward the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5. Though the DSM has changed over the years, psychologist attitudes toward it have remained remarkably consistent. Although more than 90% of psychologists report using the DSM, they are dissatisfied with numerous aspects of it and support developing alternatives to it—something that psychologists over 30 years ago supported, as well. The finding that almost all psychologists use the DSM despite serious concerns about it raises ethical issues because professionals are ethically bound to only use instruments in which they are scientifically confident.