On the question of universality, it actually seems to apply pretty broadly and pretty accurately to many folks. In fact, I’d actually be very interested if you (or someone) could present one or more groups of humans who cannot be well understood within this framework.
I’ve thought about several types of mental abnormalities humans sometimes possess, but at most they just seem to require you to understand additional complications introduced by abnormalities rather than break the constructive development theory model. However I can only think up so many things so fast, so perhaps I have missed a case in my thinking that would not yield so easily.
By “not universal”, I don’t necessarily mean that you can’t fit most into the theory, I mean the theory doesn’t help me understand most people I interact with, and it doesn’t help me understand myself.
There are way more biases and weightings in decisionmaking than this binary approach to actor/acted-upon, and most actions have relationships between hundreds of things, each with different levels of influence and counter-influence.
I agree. I do not see this as a single theory that explains everything, only an important theory that explains a very important thing. Human minds are messy, real systems with lots of complexities, so of course any model will have to give up some resolution to be useful.
I’m sorry that it doesn’t help you understand yourself or others better. The fact that it doesn’t is a major reason why I think we need to put more effort into developing it, and I hope my posting this will increase the exposure enough to attract the attention of others who are more focused on solving the problem of helping other people better themselves.
On the question of universality, it actually seems to apply pretty broadly and pretty accurately to many folks. In fact, I’d actually be very interested if you (or someone) could present one or more groups of humans who cannot be well understood within this framework.
I’ve thought about several types of mental abnormalities humans sometimes possess, but at most they just seem to require you to understand additional complications introduced by abnormalities rather than break the constructive development theory model. However I can only think up so many things so fast, so perhaps I have missed a case in my thinking that would not yield so easily.
By “not universal”, I don’t necessarily mean that you can’t fit most into the theory, I mean the theory doesn’t help me understand most people I interact with, and it doesn’t help me understand myself.
There are way more biases and weightings in decisionmaking than this binary approach to actor/acted-upon, and most actions have relationships between hundreds of things, each with different levels of influence and counter-influence.
I agree. I do not see this as a single theory that explains everything, only an important theory that explains a very important thing. Human minds are messy, real systems with lots of complexities, so of course any model will have to give up some resolution to be useful.
I’m sorry that it doesn’t help you understand yourself or others better. The fact that it doesn’t is a major reason why I think we need to put more effort into developing it, and I hope my posting this will increase the exposure enough to attract the attention of others who are more focused on solving the problem of helping other people better themselves.