tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post3423228089833825068..comments2024-03-24T20:50:06.083-04:00Comments on Lessons in Psychology: Freedom, Liberation, and Reaction: Empathy, Intentional Action, and The Person ConceptWynn Schwartz, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-59983009816436237562015-11-04T13:07:41.157-05:002015-11-04T13:07:41.157-05:00I see, observe, or recognize states of affairs as ...I see, observe, or recognize states of affairs as particular states of affairs with whatever significance they hold for me as an actor-observer. My knowledge comes from observation and thought (Ossorio, Place, Maxim A6). The competent knowledge of the parameters is implicit in seeing a behavior as intentional, as having significance. In making a parametric analysis of a behavior, we make what is implicit, explicit. I don't see your wants or knowledge. I see what you do as a performance in the world. But that performance has meaning to me. Also, keep in mind that what is implicit is not necessarily inferred except in special cases where inference is the performance or process of thought. Wynn Schwartz, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-40366448796685638212015-11-04T12:38:08.331-05:002015-11-04T12:38:08.331-05:00I guess I'm still confused by your terms. &qu...I guess I'm still confused by your terms. "Seeing", "observing", "recognizing", what's the difference? I'm trying to avoid the trap of saying things like, "All you really observe are the performance and achievement (or sense data, or whatever), and you infer (or your brain makes up, or whatever) the rest." So if not by observation, how do we have knowledge of the other parameters?Greg Colvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13086606618190397595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-1964150201630599132015-11-04T07:52:23.484-05:002015-11-04T07:52:23.484-05:00Greg, as an observer you see the performance and a...Greg, as an observer you see the performance and achievement. But seeing a performance as a "meaningful" intentional action logically presupposes the rest of the parameters. When we see something as intentional we also recognize what we take to be its significance. When we observe something as meaningful the fact of it having meaning requires some knowledge, more of less, of what the actor wanted, knew, knew how to do, and so on. Wynn Schwartz, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-32103284932412643652015-11-03T23:49:00.860-05:002015-11-03T23:49:00.860-05:00About a half-hour in you are introducing the param...About a half-hour in you are introducing the parameters of behavior, and say a few times that what you observe (have access to, have direct access to) are Performance and Achievement." Which implies we must know about the other parameters by some means other than observation. So not that P and A are sense data, just that they seem to take a similar place in your logic.Greg Colvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13086606618190397595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-51809234527078576162015-11-03T20:54:11.602-05:002015-11-03T20:54:11.602-05:00Thanks Greg, but notice that in Wil's and Gil&...Thanks Greg, but notice that in Wil's and Gil's empathic engagement diagram of Wil's Cognizant Action, the value of his Knowledge Parameter is (S of Gil's P---A). That is, Wil's recognition of what he takes as the Significance of Gil's Performance and Achievement. Not just some sort of sense representation of Gil's P and A. This is the perception of behavior as a whole, since the value of S is the recursive unfolding of Gil's intentional action. Will recognizes, more or less, what Gil is up to. I haven't re-listened to my lecture but if I said otherwise, I misspoke. Wynn Schwartz, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03689137521075228568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8547886101764404344.post-51915143722547844662015-11-03T18:32:17.944-05:002015-11-03T18:32:17.944-05:00Thanks, Wynn. Both for giving the lecture and sha...Thanks, Wynn. Both for giving the lecture and sharing it here. I found your discussion of anxiety and competence very helpful personally. And your fleshing out of the A-O-C diagram in terms of forms of behavior description is a very nice notational and conceptual advance. But I did have a problem with your statement that as observers we have "direct access" to Performance and Achievement, but only mental representations of Want, Know, and Knowhow. When I studied perception with J.J. Gibson there was a strong commitment in psychology and neuroscience that all we really perceive is the physical stimulation of our senses, and that from there it's unconscious cognitive/neural processes. (35 years later that commitment remains.) J.J. said said no, we perceive the world, as a whole. If understand you, you are following the same flawed logic. If so, I say no, we perceive behavior, as a whole.Greg Colvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13086606618190397595noreply@blogger.com