Re: Introspection: The Science of Experience

Date: Mon Oct 30 1995 - 11:31:03 GMT

 Donna here again,i THINK i've finally mastered this!

> We do have optional reading material on the reality of repressed
> memories. This might be a good time for you all to read it. I have
> 15 pages -- on paper, alas. So you have to come by and photocopy it.
> Each of you should come by this week and duplicate a copy.

I'll call as soon as possible for a copy,it sounds like interesting

> Hypnosis is another topic we can discuss if the seminar wishes. Bring
> it up next Friday

I'd like to hear others ideas on hypnosis,i have to admit i don't
know very much about it,only what i've seen on television,but it
seems like an interesting idea.

> (1) Introspection is NOT a way, total or partial, to test or confirm
> the accuracy of recovered memories (or of anything), for the very
> reason you mention; and asking experimental subjects to introspect is
> not a partial introspective method, because then the experimenter's
> data are not the subject's experiences (the experimenter has no access
> to those, only the subject does); the data are the subject's reports.
> Studying what subjects report under different experimental conditions
> (e.g., whether or not they see a very faint light) is not the method of
> introspection. It is behavioural analysis. The outcome of a light
> detection experiment would not be about the experience of light, it
> would be about the subject's ability detect the light. As we shall see,
> when we consider things like masking and blindsight, the detection
> could occur without any experience at all.

Here we seem to be back to square one again.On Friday we began to
discuss behaviour, which started to make sense to me.But as you
pointed out, Stevan when we concentrate on behaviour we are forgetting
about the thing which psychology is supposed to study, ie experiance.
As you said above some things can occour without any experiance at
all,does this therefore mean that psychologists are'nt interested in
this type of human reaction?

I understand what you are saying about introspection.I was
origionally a little confused because i thought the idea of
introspection was to try and 'get inside someone elses mind',
thats why i brought up the hypnosis idea.

I now understand that the idea is to try and figure out the private
events in each of our minds.I know i probably should have realised
this earlier,but better late than never i suppose.

(I probably still have it all wrong,but hey 'cest la vie'.Is'nt this
what thinking psychologically is all about?)

> (2) There is controversy about whether hypnosis really alters
> experience (takes away pain, recovers memories) or just produces
> behavioural compliance -- and here is the point: introspection can
> never be the basis for confirming whether it's one or the other. (Think
> about it.)

I understand what you mean,thanks for taking the time to explain it.
well,i must go,looking forward to your replys.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:24:13 GMT