A person chooses for him- or her self that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he or she anticipates the greater possibility for extension and definition of his or her system.
An odd constructivist (George Kelly's) way to tell that we are the ones choosing among the alternatives that which helps us to have better predictions of what is about to happen and therefore, we are the ones responsible for the choices we make. (Personal Construct Psychology, Choice Corollary) I guess I should explain what is the construct and why it is dichotomized, but since I am dedicating my post to the matter of CHOICE rather than theory of personal constructs, I will dare to omit the explanation, although I have started with the citation narrowly connected to the theory. Sorry.
In case you like the stories about everything being God's will, product of destiny, luck, coincidence, I suppose that my blog post will come as annoying. So, don't read it.
Why have I started my blog post with that sentence?
For us enrolled into psychotherapy courses, the unnecessary usage of theory in a real life is almost a habit. It's how we tend to practice and review what we study. And frankly, this sentence to me is one of the eye-opening points in theory that made me accept the responsibility for the things happening in my life.
We tend to see ourselves often as the victims of circumstances, toys tossed around in the game of destiny and often without any control of what is going on with our lives. However, even the standpoint of accepting that we cannot establish any control of our lives is a choice in one's understanding of the world. The alternative could be that he gets in touch with his own incapability to make sense of what's happening to him.
The way we understand life, the way we act in our lives (or choices not to act) are very much dependent on our way of construing. Construing is making sense of something, is understanding.
One can argue and say, how can cancer be a choice? How can living in poverty be a choice? I could accept the comment and add, those are not the matter of choice, but the attitude towards both is.
In many of the life's crucial moments, so far, I was quite aware of what I was choosing. Sometimes even the illogical decisions made perfect sense to me, and even though they were considered crazy, irrational to many, they were clear to me. Our thinking isn't irrational. It has it's own internal logic.
So...
Not sending the application for some program you liked is bad, but it is better than dealing with what comes after you realize that you are accepted and that many things around you need to change.
Breaking up with the guy with whom the future is pretty much safe, so to tell, guaranteed and pleasant is much easier than living with a fact that you have settled although you believed that there is more to love than what you have already.
Entering the argument when it is quite obvious that you will be penalized is a more acceptable choice than the one to stand back and think of yourself as a coward.
Different actions link to what's crucially important to people. The highest instances in one's personal conceptions of his personality are not the matters easily sacrificed. So, whatever we do, we choose to defend them. We make our choices accordingly.
Think of your own choices? What were the alternatives?
What were you testing with your choice?
In every behavior there is a hypothesis. Behind the hypothesis, there is a certain conception, preconception of how things function. There is a certain focus on some variables.
Instead of blaming the confounding variables which interrupted your experiment, consider yourself as the part of it who actively contributed by posing certain conditions. See what were your choices, what were the conditions you set up to test your hypothesis.
What are the theories you can't give up on?
An odd constructivist (George Kelly's) way to tell that we are the ones choosing among the alternatives that which helps us to have better predictions of what is about to happen and therefore, we are the ones responsible for the choices we make. (Personal Construct Psychology, Choice Corollary) I guess I should explain what is the construct and why it is dichotomized, but since I am dedicating my post to the matter of CHOICE rather than theory of personal constructs, I will dare to omit the explanation, although I have started with the citation narrowly connected to the theory. Sorry.
In case you like the stories about everything being God's will, product of destiny, luck, coincidence, I suppose that my blog post will come as annoying. So, don't read it.
Why have I started my blog post with that sentence?
For us enrolled into psychotherapy courses, the unnecessary usage of theory in a real life is almost a habit. It's how we tend to practice and review what we study. And frankly, this sentence to me is one of the eye-opening points in theory that made me accept the responsibility for the things happening in my life.
We tend to see ourselves often as the victims of circumstances, toys tossed around in the game of destiny and often without any control of what is going on with our lives. However, even the standpoint of accepting that we cannot establish any control of our lives is a choice in one's understanding of the world. The alternative could be that he gets in touch with his own incapability to make sense of what's happening to him.
The way we understand life, the way we act in our lives (or choices not to act) are very much dependent on our way of construing. Construing is making sense of something, is understanding.
In many of the life's crucial moments, so far, I was quite aware of what I was choosing. Sometimes even the illogical decisions made perfect sense to me, and even though they were considered crazy, irrational to many, they were clear to me. Our thinking isn't irrational. It has it's own internal logic.
So...
Not sending the application for some program you liked is bad, but it is better than dealing with what comes after you realize that you are accepted and that many things around you need to change.
Breaking up with the guy with whom the future is pretty much safe, so to tell, guaranteed and pleasant is much easier than living with a fact that you have settled although you believed that there is more to love than what you have already.
Entering the argument when it is quite obvious that you will be penalized is a more acceptable choice than the one to stand back and think of yourself as a coward.
Different actions link to what's crucially important to people. The highest instances in one's personal conceptions of his personality are not the matters easily sacrificed. So, whatever we do, we choose to defend them. We make our choices accordingly.
Think of your own choices? What were the alternatives?
What were you testing with your choice?
Instead of blaming the confounding variables which interrupted your experiment, consider yourself as the part of it who actively contributed by posing certain conditions. See what were your choices, what were the conditions you set up to test your hypothesis.
What are the theories you can't give up on?
