>>243592380It's not hard; just that in any field that is mostly conceptual, seperating the weed from the chaff is a tremendous task. I have the fortune that I work with a very vulnerable, but "rich", group of people (gifted children, but the kind that can no longer go to school and is seeing a fourth therapist because the first three didn't make a difference).
Most of these children have "autism", "ADHD", "dyslexia", etc. But it's pretty obvious to any casual observer that these labels (as well as the "gifted" label) tell very little about the child. The label functions only as a categorization of the behaviour that the child learned itself in an attempt to adapt to the system in which it functions.
In my view, most of these children were normal, and their erratic behaviour could always be explained and understood through understanding the system around the child. Also the premise of this book btw:
https://www.bol.com/nl/p/kind-en-familielot/1001004002632619/?Referrer=ADVNLGOO002008P-G-89205212042-S-853898326731-1001004002632619&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuqyc07TO5wIVB-J3Ch02CAeJEAQYASABEgITAvD_BwE.
Ah well, long story short: I had to conclude that we know nothing about cognition. All our knowledge focuses on the behavioural aspects of psychology, and most of the rest of psychology seems unaware of its own assumptions. We try to describe how the child works, but not why. And in that we assume that how the child functions may be unchangeable.
Socionics was the first system that provided me a sense of why (different children respond differently to otherwise similar situations). And it allowed me to predict the effectiveness of certain interventions, or how to motivate a child.
Anyway, no time to further respond to your points. They even removed the thread for Christ's sake. What I wanted to say: share a throwaway email. We're in a process of hiring new people, and that means I'm in a process of teaching people about our methods. I'll share with you when I have anything.
