求助 OG10-79

Mayanist

79. 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?

怎么连解释都看不懂啊？

Since the question elicits a reply, the question was presumably heard, but presumably not by the part that is deaf. The explanation’s obvious weakness, therefore, is that it fails to indicate why the part that replies would reply as if it were the part that is deaf. Choice A points to this failure and is the best answer. 是不是反dissociated这个结论啊？如果dissociated，那么回答问题的部分只可能与听到问题的部分是同一个部分，答案必须为YES，对吗？

Since the question elicits a reply, the question was presumably heard, but presumably not by the part that is deaf. The explanation’s obvious weakness, therefore, is that it fails to indicate why the part that replies would reply as if it were the part that is deaf. Choice A points to this failure and is the best answer. 是不是反dissociated这个结论啊？如果dissociated，那么回答问题的部分只可能与听到问题的部分是同一个部分，答案必须为YES，对吗？

只有不dissociated，才有可能回答No，除非回答No的人不诚实。

请指点，谢谢！

找到讨论贴了，http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&replyID=1879358&id=200268&skin=0

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-16 7:46:18编辑过]