再问og-79

hzbaoyan

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 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?
答案是A，请问D为什么不对呢？我看了以前讨论的这道题，也有人问D的，但是没有清楚的回答阿。有谁帮忙解释一下阿，多谢啦

hzbaoyan

哦。。。。我好像明白一点了。谢谢大侠！

Andrea625

按照题中假设，被催眠的部分1和实验中回答的部分2是分隔的不同部分，2回答（no）是基于1受到催眠（被暗示deaf）后推理得来的回答。2回答no，实际上2是听到的，2没有受到催眠，因为2回答了。可以证实回答的部分2是听到了。

但是这个回答no，与上述被催眠的部分1和实验中回答的部分2是不同部分且互相分割开来是矛盾的。如果是分割开来的，那回答的部分2对于被催眠的部分1是无法了解和沟通的。他不可能依据被催眠的部分1的状态来回答。而应根据他自己部分（2）的状况回答，而2听到了问话，2不是deaf，他应该回答的是yes。

答案问为什么2不回答yes，指出了上述矛盾。

这么解释对吗？

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-6-14 14:59:46编辑过]

usdream

The question is that now that the subject has already been divided into two parts, one deaf and one normal, and they are separated why the normal part answer in terms of the deaf part rather than its own.

I think it's what the explanation of OG means.

But what I have to point out is this problem is quite bizarre and XDF's Fei Fei has already deleted it.  

绿袖子

这个题目真的很讨厌。虽然我看了很多遍也知道大概意思，但还是觉得不够理解

lindazhou

option D and E, I am still feel confused. please give me some tutorial . thanks

davidcopper

题干要求找出explanation的weakness,而那个explanation根本是牛头不对马嘴,如果听不见,压根就不会回答,如果听见了,就应该回答yes,那些人回答了,表明听见了,可是却回答no,于是应该解释为什么他们是回答no而不是yes

ashi822001

我的理解：根据Some theorists的 解释“dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.” 那么replies 应该是“yes”.但是“Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?”这一反问，说明 Some theorists的解释是不对的。

Pudding

這題雖然終於看懂了, 可是如果讓我自己從頭推導出中間的關係, 我一定還是講不清楚...

即便是看懂了, 我也只知道為什麼A是對的, 還是說不清楚為什麼其他四個不對...

真是混亂啊...(而且看這道題的時候不曉得為什麼一直聯想到衛斯理, 沒辦法專心, 呵呵...)

aaa1sss

from the explain for the truth, three results can be induced, one is the truth " answer 'no'", and another is the "answer is yes"  or ' no reply'. Therefore, the logical from only one possiblity can not got the explain.  we only offer that why someone does not rely "yes" or 'no answer ' will weak the conclusion.

On the other hand, from the statements of the "yes", "no" or " no reply" are possible answers for the sujects, and then the explain will be got.

please discuss it.