63. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated
from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most
serious weakness in the attempted explanation
described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any
special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the
hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the
same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same
for all subjects?
我怎么看怎么想不通原文中的学者解释部分;另外,OG上的解释也令我一头雾水。大家帮帮忙给解释一下吧,谢谢啦
我是这样想的,你帮我看看有没有道理。
既然那些回复的人是被催眠的,而且告知他们是deaf,那么在被问到能否听见的时候,他们当然要回答yes么,因为他们之前就在催眠的情况下被告知了么
1.从题目回答:
当reply的self回答时,回答应该是yes,I can hear you.这也是选项A说的.因为回答的部分和听不见的部分分开的,回答得一定是回答的Self,在任何情况下都是Yes。只有在他和听力SELF联系的时候,才可能有NO的存在,否则它根本不知道NO。
2。从答案回答:
这个回答要能"chanllenge 两个part Self是分开的,"也就是说1。没有两个Self,2即使有也联系着。答案中,只有AE出现了Self,E中,说same for all subjects, 明显跑题,所以不要。
哪一个问题指出了理论中的缺陷?
根据这个理论,被催眠的人将自己分为两部分:听力和聋的部分。所以,当他们回答催眠师的问题时,他们一定要用听力部分;明显的,如果他们那时用的龙的部分,它们不会听见问题,也就不会回答。所以,如果他们用听力的部分,像理论家说的那样的话,为什么他们会回答,不?听力部分应该逻辑上回答,YES。
翻译了一下答案,又有了新思路,这题太变态啦~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~蝴蝶阿
....the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the pat that replies.
一个人的听力被分成了两份,一份听不见,一份听得见。听不见的那一份不会给出回答,所以给出回答的一定是听得见的那一份,但是听的见得那一份回答的一定是YES,I can hear, 所以,他证明了,理论家的理论不正确。
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |