Talk:George Kelly (psychologist)

message: Get yo facts straight, kelly died on 1966...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.48.252 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Boys

message: ooops, that was me who just put in george kelly's biography.  once again, i was not logged in.  oh well.  feb 16 2004, morimom
The document on George Kelly should really include a link to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_construct_psychology
There was a biased description of psychology as a "soft science", inherently prone to observer bias. I altered this to "social sciences" and the say that observer effect can influence outcomes, rather than necessarily does. --DivineAna 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone asked: "What about Kelly's theories about Personal Constructs? I think this was his main contribution to Psychology and it is almost forgotten in the article. Can someone update this please?"  
I'll try: Many psychologists, at least to my experience, are not aware of the significance of Kelly's life-work. The notion of personal constructs (and the 'personal scientist' metaphor) that he proposed have not made it into the mainstream of academia. This is so especially in the land of his birth, USA (where I had post-graduate training in clinical and educational psychology). After studying Kelly's ideas and their impact for over a decade now, my view is that his legacy is a very sound and humanistic approach to understand individual thought and behavior. Morever, 'the psychology of personal constructs' (Kelly, 1955) is a most useful contribution to many fields, especially to the philosophy of social science. (GAK society (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of constructs? 

message: Not sure about the "Aaron Cristobal" - should that read "George Kelly"? I'm just a visitor trying to find out about Kelly, but that name makes the paragraph a non sequitur.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manskybook (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph two beginning 

message: Under the central and key section of the article it is stated that:
 Kelly's is the only personality theory ever laid out as a testable scientific 
 treatise with a fundamental postulate and a set of corollaries.
There is no specific, verifiable source for this statement, it is a monumentally bold statement, and seems to me to be unarguably contentious.
It claims that Kelly's "treatise" is:
scientific
In what way is this word being used?  Although it is reasonably clear that throwing a chicken at a wall while drunk is not a scientific act I am sure that a good lawyer could make a case for even this.  As a term that unambiguously and universally divides thought and experiment into two discrtete camps I think it falls with all other attempts to achieve this feat - by the wayside.  Here and in most cases I believe the term is mere peacocking.
testable
Has someone tested it Kelly's "treatise", and if so how and what was it claimed the tests showed?  No further information is provided as far as I can see.  If kelly's "scientific treatise" had been tested, assuming that what is cited below the statement is capable of being "scientifically" tested, then there will I am sure be those who have not been able to replicate the results predicted by the treatise.  
Starting at the beginning with the claimed postulate it appears to me to fail on account of innate circularity.  What are these "processes" that are referred to if they are psychological and if they are psychological then how could they not be processed by the person psyhologically.  What "channelized" means is unclear and I suggest an inherently untestable claim.
I would be very interested to hear of how the so called corollaries are testable.  Is it claimed that they are scientific or that ass a whole the postulate and corollaries become scientific?
Taking the first one given as an example: 
 "a person anticipates events by construing their replications"
As we build perception from experience this seems to be a tautology.  In what way can anticipation be said exist, as distinct to fantasy, if it does not contain some "replication"?  I would like to know of the experimental design used to test this claim, and the others.
LookingGlass (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "only one" ?! 

message: Hello, I am interesting in editing more information about this article by creating a new article section to define all of the corollaries. I already gathered plenty information about each corollaries. I will also provide a link on the article page for the new section.  If anyone can provide me more suggestions for further editing, I will very appreciated for your helps. -- --Minyi Ruan (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New article section creating

message: Can anyone provide a list of influences? I added an infobox, but it could use a bit more information. Trogyssy (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added John Dewey as an influence, with references. Biogeographist (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences