Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:56:28
In reply to Re: Is there another part to that?, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 21:45:49
> Oh phooey. Well, shall we come up with alternative number three?
Already have, Dinah. That is what my paper is about :-)
>I really think there should be alternative number three or four or five.
I am hoping we won't need a four or five... I am quite fond of three, you see :-)
> Given that a result is possible (and I suppose that one theory is that it isn't possible),
Ah. Well the 'theory' that it isn't possible, or that it is just a load of BS is pretty much the origins of the Socio-Cognitive Model. It seems to me that the Socio-Cognitive Model is pretty much just that phrased in good old behaviourist terminology.
It seems a little silly to say that the phenomena doesn't exist. Given that the number of people who met criteria near the close of the last century was estimated to be in the tens of thousands and all.
Seems that they have to say 'yes, lots of people DO meet criteria'. So then they need to account for why they meet it. Thats where the behaviourist bit comes in.
>human beings are just too complicated to have only one way to reach that result. Don't you think?
Yup. I allow for that... Better than the current two options, I believe ;-)
PS. You will have to answer me over on writing (if you haven't already) to get the next bit. Three post rule etc etc.
Need to go off on a bit of a tangent now...
It is necessary background stuff that needs to be said in order to understand my theory (which comes later) though. It might be tough going. You don't need to understand it all. But IMO it is worth a try...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/476483.html