How stable is common sense psychology and can it be transcended? Reply to Valsiner

Common sense is defined as the set of implications that all members of a given culture take for granted. The stability of common sense as a necessary condition for the maintenance of human relationships and societies is emphasized. Changes may and do occur. However, they can only take place in a very slow and piecemeal fashion in order to maintain intelligibility at all times. Transcendence of common sense by scientific psychology is difficult to envisage, since the phenomena studied are structured by that same common sense, and since communication about them also presupposes common sense. llanscendence through direct negation literally makes no sense.     

The logic of psychological treatment

Empirical studies of technical and therapist variables in treatment cannot yield valid generalizations because of the uniqueness of each case. Professional practice must, instead, be seen as an application of a psychological "calculus", which follows logically from definitions of given concepts. Seven necessary rules are suggested for psychological treatment: 1. Regard the client-in-her/his-surroundings-system (cs-system) as your unit of reference and get to know this system. 2. Tolerate initial ambiguity and do not generalize from other persons in other life situations. 3. In matters relevant for treatment, do not objectivize, i.e. pronounce something to be true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, but always subjectivize, i.e. emphasize that FOR P something is true or false, etc. 4. Maintain your independence relative to the cs-system you work with. 5. Understand the persons in the cs-system. 6. Respect the persons in the cs-system. 7. Care for the persons in the cs-system.     

Non-empirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments

Five studies published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and selected without advance knowledge of their contents, were analyzed with respect to the epistemic and modal status of their hypotheses. It was found that the general hypotheses were a priori and noncontingent (necessarily true), whereas the local auxiliary hypotheses were empirical and contingent. Hence, the data were only relevant for the latter. It is conjectured that such pseudoempirical studies may abound in contemporary psychology. They remain undiscovered because researchers unreflectively believe that all propositions that can be related to data are empirical and that psychological terms need not be defined. Only when terms are defined and presuppositions (axioms) are stated, can one determine the epistemic and modal status of a given proposition, and, hence, whether or not a study is pseudoempirical.     

The psychologic of forgiving

Psychologic is an attempt to systematize the commonsense psychology embedded in ordinary language. In this system, the concepts of respect, anger, and guilt, are directly linked, since messages of disrespect, and only those, create anger in the receiver and guilt in the sender. This paper deals with the process of forgiving, whereby respect is reaffirmed and anger and guilt are alleviated. Forgiving depends on clarification of misunderstanding as well as on apology and atonement. The distinction between forgiving others and forgiving oneself is treated. It is concluded that what goes on inside persons and between persons has the same structure.