ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2113|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG12——63,weaken题,不适应这种选项,请教

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-9-27 23:26:19 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
63. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deafand are then asked whether they can hear thehypnotist, they reply, "No."
Some theorists try to
explain this result by arguing that the selves ofhypnotized subjects are dissociated into separateparts,
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?
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-9-28 10:29:08 | 只看该作者
这道我也很头痛,看解释看半天
板凳
发表于 2011-9-29 12:22:50 | 只看该作者
看完OG我是这样理解的,提上说科学家解释被催眠的人被分解为两部分,一部分是deaf的,一部分是来reply的也就是not deaf的。当被问到是否能听见时,回答的这部分是not deaf的,所以他们更应该回答Yes。所以科学家的解释不成立。这个选项很好的削弱了科学家的解释。
地板
发表于 2011-9-29 20:51:28 | 只看该作者
尽管被实验者回答No 听不见,但真的听不见的人不会知道实验人员问他们什么,因而会说yes?
绝不可能针对问题回答no
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-27 08:03
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部