The quantitative psychology is much more simple that the qualitative one, but the human being not only is compound of mathematical or logical and experimental systems, but he goes much more there. In this sense, consensus has existed. The Socioconstruccionismo, that is not presented/displayed in the article of Takings Ibez, was defined by Kenneth Gergen like movement, a set of theoretical elements in pogresin, lax, abierto and with changing and vague contours, more than as a theoretical doctrine strongly coherent and stabilized. It privileges his instituting dimension over his instituted dimension, its character of process over his product character, more or less finished. The knowledge is in the mind of the individuals, neither the words are the reflection nor of the mind nor of a preexisting nature.
Following Gergen, the main source of the words that we used on the world is in the social relation. Many writers such as Sam Lesser Wharton offer more in-depth analysis. From this angle which we called conociiento is not the product of individual minds, but of the social interchange; is not the fruit of the individuality but the one of the interdependence. (Gergen, 1989, p.19). Thus, the reality would be constructed in the significant interaction that they realise the human beings and, for this reason, moves away of the Positivismo that is limited to use, since I have commented previously, one methodology based on the observation, experimentation, contrast, etc. This constructed reality, of dynamic form, is internalizada by the individuals through the socialization. It introduces the historical factor and the interpretative character of the human being. The language like powerful constructor of the reality.
As one has specified in the debate and following Ibez Takings, the construccionista perspective is that one that it rejects that it is the reality the one that dictates the speeches on the reality and that selects those that is adapted. The knowledge is, simply, relative. The construccionismo comes to dissolve to the subject dichotomy/object, affirming that no of these two organizations exists properly regardless of the other, do not constitute separated organizations, questioning the own concept of objectivity.