tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post7908614475673217277..comments2024-03-24T20:50:06.083-04:00Comments on Lessons in Psychology: Freedom, Liberation, and Reaction: Objectivity, Subjectivity and the Gospel TruthWynn Schwartz, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-31688071069049487932016-11-09T15:21:46.141-05:002016-11-09T15:21:46.141-05:00I imagine I have not replied to this in two years ...I imagine I have not replied to this in two years because you are doing philosophy, and we are doing psychology. I am not interested in doing philosophy, but if you are still out there and want to hear some psychological replies to you questions, I will set some out.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240907387224016346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-56386620762316436172014-01-25T19:15:14.375-05:002014-01-25T19:15:14.375-05:00Let me get to it then. Let's go back to the or...Let me get to it then. Let's go back to the original definition of Person.<br /><br />"A Person is an individual whose history is, paradigmatically, a history of Deliberate Action in a Dramaturgical pattern."<br /><br />I am going to ignore Paradigmatically at first, because its definition already assumes person-hood. <br /><br />Let's look at Deliberate Action: (http://obaat.euodp.com/deliberate_action.htm)<br /><br />"A case of behavior in which we know what we're doing and are doing it on purpose.<br />A form of behavior in which the individual behaving not merely knows that that is what he is doing, but also chooses to do it.<br />The central concept of behavior—if there were no cases of this kind, there would be no cases of any kind.<br />A form of behavior in which the person<br />engages in an Intentional Action,<br />knows that that is what he is doing, and<br />has chosen to do that."<br /> <br />The above description works just as well for describing behavior in animals, or any kind of life form, as a matter of fact. One would think that 'knowing' and 'choosing' excludes the behavior of an amoeba, for instance, but it doesn't. If you keep in mind that 'knowing' and 'choosing' is usually associated with humans, but that it doesn't have to be, the picture changes somewhat. For that to make sense you need to go and look at what it means to 'know' something, or 'choose' something. An amoeba 'knows' and 'chooses' as well. 'Knowing' is a state you get to by processing information. An amoeba processes information as well. And on the basis of that process, it 'chooses' what it will do. <br /><br />You may be thinking that this is trivial, but it isn't. It also doesn't reduce humans to simple deterministic decisions. What it does is create a basis of understanding that moves beyond a human centered one. If you agree that an amoeba can both know and choose, then you have to ask yourself what exactly makes us, as humans so special. And once you find the answer, maybe then you could include that in a more comprehensive definition, that doesn't need to employ cheap tricks.<br /><br />The reason I am focusing on the above, is because I read in an explanation of Descriptive Psychology in Wikipedia. It stated: <br /><br />"The original impulse for the creation of DP was dissatisfaction with mainstream approaches to the science of psychology.[1] Of particular importance was the perception that psychology had paid insufficient attention to the pre-empirical matters essential to good science, and especially to the creation of a foundational conceptual framework such as other sciences possessed. Later authors noted that this lack of a conceptual scaffolding was responsible for the fragmentation of psychology; i.e. for its lack of any unifying, broadly accepted "standard model."<br /><br />If you are at all serious about creating a 'foundational conceptual framework' then you have to pay attention to the assumptions inherent in the terms you use.<br /><br />I have been reading a lot by Daniel Dennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dennett) and he looks like the kind of guy you should be talking to.<br /><br />Peace.<br />Canis Philoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075311033304802145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-62365490867620811902014-01-25T19:14:45.657-05:002014-01-25T19:14:45.657-05:00I have been reading up about Descriptive Psycholog...I have been reading up about Descriptive Psychology and the terms/concepts it uses. I will start with the concept Person. <br /><br />The descriptions, or definitions, that I found on the site Clarke posted (http://obaat.euodp.com/concept.htm) causes a problem. Most of these definitions already assumes an understanding of what a 'person' is. In the same way that Clarke does in his blog on the topic.It is a circular explanation because you start with an inherent understanding of what a 'person' is, in order to explain person-hood. <br /><br />Let me see if I can clarify. Imagine you have to explain what a 'person' is to an alien life form. To be able to do that, you will draw on your your own understanding of the concept. In your mind the concept was developed through a process of elimination, meaning, by excluding qualities that does not 'fit' in with the general understanding of what a 'person' is. One of those excluded concepts, is that of 'animal'. In our general understanding 'animal' and 'person' are mutually exclusive concepts. And I know one can call a person an animal, but what you are doing is assigning animal qualities to a person. When you describe what a 'person' is, you have an image of a human being in your mind as a basis for person-hood. Meaning, that your base assumption, is that a human being is a person. If you purely look at the concept 'person' you will find that that is an erroneous assumption.<br /><br />Say you were to make a list of qualities that constitutes a 'person'. Let's use the definition I found on the DP site Clarke posted.<br /><br />"A Person is an individual whose history is, paradigmatically, a history of Deliberate Action in a Dramaturgical pattern."<br /><br />You can see in the above definition the assumption of a human as central to the definition. Yet, if you look closely at the definition, you will also see that this basic assumption is unnecessary. <br /><br />The first word used is 'individual'. This word is used to describe humans. You can talk of individual animals as well, but when you do that you usually need to create the context first, to clarify that you are not talking of a human. If someone references an individual in the way it is done above, the immediate assumption is, that you are talking of a human. <br /><br />Now look at the use of 'Paradigmatically'. In the definition of this word you state "Regarded as representative or typical.<br />For example, a Person typically engages in Deliberate Action. Deliberate Action is representative of what persons do; thus, periods without deliberate actions must be explained or accounted for.<br /><br />For example, persons who are unconscious are not engaged in deliberate action because they are unconscious."<br /><br />This word is again used to draw a distinction between humans and animals, which we assume do no engage in deliberate actions. If you dig deeper into what Deliberate Action signifies, you come to "A case of behavior in which we know what we're doing and are doing it on purpose.<br />A form of behavior in which the individual behaving not merely knows that that is what he is doing, but also chooses to do it."<br /><br />Here you find 'knowing' and 'choosing'. Both concepts that are not clear either. One could ask, 'What does it mean to know something?' or 'What does it mean to 'choose' something?' Very problematic concepts on their own, because their own meanings are riddled with assumptions and is very confusing. Again though, they are both concepts we like to associate exclusively with humans.<br /><br />We generally don't think of animals, or bacteria, as 'knowing' or 'choosing'.<br /><br />You may be thinking round about now 'What is this silly person going on about? Of course we are talking about humans.' Yes, we are talking about humans, but Person was chosen as central concept in this theory, NOT human. What I am trying to show, is that Person and Human are not interchangeable concepts. <br /><br />Canis Philoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075311033304802145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-62971061393585102522014-01-24T17:10:01.620-05:002014-01-24T17:10:01.620-05:00Thank you for the reply, Clark, but could you do m...Thank you for the reply, Clark, but could you do me a favor? Could you supply me with your own background and point of view? <br /><br />I am wondering what you are trying to accomplish with your reply, and your blog. Which was an interesting read, by the way. Thank you for the link.<br /><br />I am aware of what a concept is, thank you. In the link you provided, it is described from a philosophical point of view. I am more interested in the formation of a concept. Meaning, how it 'happens' in your mind. From the philosophical point of view, you treat a concept (X) as a 'thing'. I don't think you can do that. Not even in the case of concrete concepts, such as 'table' or 'tree'. One has to recognize that the actual tree, is not the same as the concept 'tree'. An actual tree is one expression of a general concept, 'tree'. My question regarding concepts is, how are they formed? And I am hoping that understanding the process, will help me understand concepts better.<br /><br />As for your definition of the concept 'Person'. I don't mean to put you down, but your definition and explanation is very sloppy. If your aim is to clarify, you missed it. If your aim was to define, then you stepped in the same hole anyone trying to write a definition, does. <br /><br />I read an article on Wynn's blog (no disrespect intended, it is simply easier to use first names. Mine is Andre') about how people are not the only persons. The reason he could even write an article like that, is because 'person' as a concept, is NOT linked to humans only. The concept 'person' is separate from the actual individual you can describe as a person. And behavior is probably the worst category you can choose to define person-hood by. <br /><br />You also allude to Free Will and Determinism in your explanation. That is a completely different topic that needs to be properly discussed before adding it to any kind of recipe.<br /><br />It is great that you are thinking about these things though, and I would enjoy a continuing conversation very much.<br /><br />Andre' JacobsCanis Philoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075311033304802145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-74134985128999475292014-01-24T16:25:51.629-05:002014-01-24T16:25:51.629-05:00Check out Clarke Stone's response to your comm...Check out Clarke Stone's response to your comment. Wynn Schwartz, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-49864432975322671612014-01-24T16:19:11.733-05:002014-01-24T16:19:11.733-05:00Canis, you might like to start with Descriptive Ps...Canis, you might like to start with Descriptive Psychology, One Bite at a Time (OBaaT), perhaps at the concept of "concept". <br /><br />http://obaat.euodp.com/concept.htm<br /><br />You are right about psychology trying to play with the big boys. They couldn't because they didn't have the right pre-empirical conceptual structure. You can read my essay on that here.<br /><br />http://euodp.com/2013/08/person-the-central-concept-of-dp/<br /><br />cjs<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240907387224016346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-27132003279524597242014-01-22T10:57:50.569-05:002014-01-22T10:57:50.569-05:00The dynamics of jury selection and behavior is a g...The dynamics of jury selection and behavior is a good example of what is <br />being discussed. If it is determined that a community has a bias against a <br />defendant, then a change of venue may be carried out.<br />During jury selection, lawyers question potential jurors to assess bias and <br />competence.<br />This is an example from a trial in Golden, CO. The defendant was a man with <br />a homeless aspect who had been drinking and who had slowed down to five mph <br />during a snowstorm to avoid hitting anything.<br />Defense attorney: Is it OK to drink and drive?<br />Potential juror #1: Oh hell no, my aunt was a drunk and she got killed <br />driving.<br />Potential juror #2: It depends; the Colorado Driver's Manual states how much <br />alcohol a person can imbibe and still be OK to drive.<br />Defense attorney: Do you have any prejudice against the defendant? Contrast <br />with: do you have any prejudice against this unfortunate disheveled <br />defendant?<br /><br />During a trial, the jury forms a community with jurors producing public <br />versions of themselves. They are presented with evidence (facts or an <br />approximation thereof) and asked to decide within a reasonable doubt. They <br />can use a combination of criteria (mens rea): what was going on in the <br />defendant's mind (subjective) and what about his/her actual behavior <br />(objective). They engage in a dialogue, with a basis of what they share ( <br />components of individual reality) and what they exchange (including Dawkin's <br />memes, if you are so inclined). From 'BoP', any one of them can think:'I <br />have to vote for acquittal, but my critic is saying he's guilty.'.<br /><br />The scientific method resulting in science applied to the development of new <br />technology in turn applied to the production of media/artifacts (guns, <br />aircraft, etc.) is a good example of objectivity. Nature ends up deciding <br />whether or not an artifact will work.<br /><br />In a community, regarding dress, a custom is an unremarkable social practice <br />and a value is an endorsed and appreciated state of affairs. As an example, <br />take a certain Middle Eastern country where it is customary to cover hair <br />and a value is modesty of dress. This country has religious police <br />monitoring the dress of persons; they carry cans of red paint and brushes to <br />paint the bare skin of women whom they deem are dressed inappropriately.<br />A policeperson sees a Western woman with uncovered hair and bare shoulders <br />except for straps. Given that she is a foreigner, she is not expected to <br />conform to local standards. What about values? The police have a set of <br />guidelines regarding what is acceptable, these correspond to desired <br />standards. Their demonstration of judgment and lack of bias will attest to <br />their competence and objectivity. <br /> pat aucoinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-79782945308288951842014-01-20T22:54:30.744-05:002014-01-20T22:54:30.744-05:00Great! Let me state my current position on the iss...Great! Let me state my current position on the issue, as I understand it.<br /><br />A little background first though, so you can see where I am coming from. <br /><br />I am currently an English teacher in South Korea. I run my own little academy along with a Korean business partner. I am intensely interested in human behavior, so having my own little 'thing' going here gives me ample opportunity to observe and try stuff. Nothing inhumane!<br /><br />I studied Psychology in University, but became completely disillusioned with the whole field. I also majored in Philosophy and English literature and found a wealth of knowledge regarding the human condition in both these subjects. The only reason I mention the above, is to give you an idea of where I am looking from.<br /><br />On to business though. Please keep in mind that I am not any kind of expert about anything really, and I am very much aware of it. I dabble in these kinds of issues because that is where my interests lead me.<br /><br />Firstly, I have a massive issue with Psychology trying to be a science. When I was studying, I constantly had this feeling that Psychology was trying to prove to the other sciences, that it could also play with the big boys. I felt that as far as group psychology was concerned, and where you could apply math and averages, the scientific approach was fine, but it all fell apart once you tried to apply it on an individual level. This is something that seriously bothered me. It kind of reminds me of physics where you can apply Newtonian physics to the macro level of existence, but it completely falls apart when you drill down to the subatomic level.<br /><br />As for objectivity and subjectivity. I came to the tentative conclusion that there is no such thing as objectivity. Not in the true sense of the word anyway. I guess one can say that there is something such as 'functional objectivity' but if you really focus on the concept, it disappears the closer you look. To me it seems that objectivity and subjectivity have exaxtly the same basis, but they are different expressions of the same 'thing'. <br /><br />Another issue I have is with 'concepts' and I have a feeling that a better understanding of concepts will lead to a better understanding of subjectivity and objectivity as well.<br /><br />OK, there you have it. I know that my position may appear a little on the 'loony' side, but these are issues I have been thinking about for a while, so I am more than willing to engage in an open minded discussion about all or any. I don't exactly know where to start though, since this is your backyard, so feel free to start where ever you feel comfortable. <br /><br />Cheers.Canis Philoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075311033304802145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-9472331397301806552014-01-20T13:43:32.672-05:002014-01-20T13:43:32.672-05:00Not a silly question but one that for the moment I...Not a silly question but one that for the moment I'll give a short answer. People in the Descriptive Psychology community are engaged in examining the role communities play in what counts as science. Science is, I think, properly conceptualized as involving methodologies and stances in the service of minimizing bias and accordingly attempts to achieve an objective understanding of people and their worlds. Whether it comes from postmodern programs overplaying the relativity of knowledge, or theological and metaphysical claims regarding objective truth, the concept of "objectivity" is evoked and presents problems. Claims of objectivity may have enforced consequences from what counts as science to who counts as an "expert witness" in a trail. Claims of objectivity involves culturally significant social practices. I want to think publicly about those practices and their implications, and provide a record for my colleagues and students. And I want to engage you. Clearly a work in progress.Wynn Schwartz, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-3100612194128014792014-01-20T10:53:40.457-05:002014-01-20T10:53:40.457-05:00I would love to engage you in a discussion about t...I would love to engage you in a discussion about these issues. I would like to know why you wrote the piece though. It may seem like a silly question, but would you humor me and answer it anyway?Canis Philoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01075311033304802145noreply@blogger.com