Though I am not a *pure* constructivist I will give my response to your
question, the way I construe PCT.
Focusing on the uniqueness of each individuals construct system, it becomes
easy to ignore the similarities of an individuals or societies construct
systems. Ill use an analogy. The constructivist approach assumes that
since everyone is different shapes and sizes they cannot wear mastproduced
clothing off the rack, even the socks have to be taylor knit.
There are a great many social constructs that are extremely useful to
learn and apply. It is important for us to learn even the *useless* or
*harmful ones* (superstitions etc.) in order to understand and predict
others behviours. Sometimes therapy involves helping individuals to
re/learn such constructs. Having them reinvent the wheel may be an
unneccessary waste of resources.
I have found that helping clients change their non-verbal (visceral)
constructs has been more fruifully handled by others I see Neuro-linguistic
programming techniques as en extension/refinement of Kellys ideas.
My impression is the PCT has become so preoccupied with grids and dug so
deeply into exploring the uniqueness of the construction process that it
has dug itself a deep hole. I hope this way of construing will be shown to
be off base by my more knowledgble list users.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%