Once the spectacularity and the novelty of Psychology of Architecture in the early 60s wore off, we found ourselve in a period of resolution, or of perhaps quiet and scarcely conspicuous but constant and expansive work. We no longer have those passionate discussions between those defending the role of the Social Sciences in design processes and those wanting to protect their own smallholding from the violation that the intervention of the Social Sciences represents. Although in the 60s it might have seemed that a tendency existed to see design and planning as a sociological or psychological act, the failure of the course taken and the crisis of faith in Science has led us to a redistribution of roles in this interdisciplinary relationship. As we have said, for some, the abandonment of whatever contribution the Social Sciences could make was final, for they expected specific and stable behavioural responses to specific situations, and this is something the Social Sciences will never give due to their epistemology.Yet we can see how in the official syllabus of training courses in Polytechnics Psychology and the Social Sciences are gradually introduced. The justification is clear. As we read in the justification of some of the programmes analysed, tradicionally architects worked for people with whom they shared a system of cultural values and kept with them direct contact. At present this situation has changed and architects when they have to design dwelling units for anonymous people determine on enforcing their own values upon the user. It is necessary then, at an educational level, to bring closer user and designer.