再请教一题

christineq · 发表于 2004-3-15 17:07:00

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?（A）

(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

tangyi79 · 发表于 2004-3-15 17:19:00

答案是C么？

christineq · 发表于 2004-3-15 17:30:00

是A，不太懂

tangyi79 · 发表于 2004-3-15 19:40:00

哦，有点明白了。

that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

如果the part that replies 不聋的话，那么回答问题应该是”Yes“。

如果回答是“No“，就说明两个部分没有分离，就是说the part that replies 还是认为自己是聋的。

稍微有点绕。

jnlvo · 发表于 2004-3-15 21:01:00

og上有比较权威的解释。

christineq · 发表于 2004-3-16 10:19:00

拜托告诉我怎么找到好吗？

christineq · 发表于 2004-3-16 10:45:00

还是不懂，帮帮我吧

lawyer_1 · 发表于 2004-3-16 23:07:00

其实问题的关键是: 既然两部分已分离,那麽THE THAT REPLIES回答NO的依据是什麽?为何不回答YES.

mariezhu · 发表于 2004-3-16 23:12:00

weiyu · 发表于 2004-3-18 22:51:00

原文推理: 被催眠主体可以区分于其它主体, 被催眠主体回答了No(Evidence)->它们可以区别于被催眠主体中的聋子; A反对了原文推理的Evidenceffice

ffice" />

本贴相关题目 OG-2015-CR-62OG-2015-CR-62
OG-13-CR-62
OG-12-CR-63
... (KAWX)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

再请教一题