The science of groups

I obviously have vastly different reference signals regarding what
is and is not the science of groups. The following passage sent immediate
error signals in my own understanding of the science of groups:

< ... Psychology is really the science of groups; unfortunately it thinks
<its about individuals and this is mainly self-deception. Now that I think
<of it, the only places PCT has been able to have ANY impact on conventional
<psychology is where psychology is REALLY about individuals....

        Before I explain my problem with this passage, let me introduce
myself. My name is Von Bakanic. I am a sociologist at the College of
Charleston. I was a student of Clark McPhail and Chuck Tucker. I have
been reading your dialogue for several months, but did not comment because
I did not feel knowledgable enough to make a contribution. However, this
issue concerns me enough to overcome my reserve.

        If psychology is really the science of groups, what pray tell is
sociology? Self-aware conventional psychology? Does this imply that
sociologists are a lost cause as PCT converts? And what is implied in the
use of "REALLY". Is this a truth claim? I thought you folks were
interested in perception, not "reality". Can anyone clear up my confusion?

                                              Regards, Von

···

_____________________________________________________________________
Von Bakanic (803) 792-7105
Dept. of Sociology internet address:
College of Charleston bakanicv@ashley.cofc.edu
Charleston, S.C. 29424