D.À Nahl
Psy 661
10-11-79
Witnessing
versus Introspection:
The goal of the introspective
techniques as presented by Lieberman in his article (1979) is the prediction
and control of behavior by the psychologist of subjects i.e., external control
and prediction of individual behavior by the clinician or researcher in a
laboratory. Even in the case of clinical psychology this is so. The client
wishes to gain more control over their daily life, so the psychologist gives
the person techniques or interventions to practice, e.g., the example of
systematic desensitization for controlling phobias. The therapist does not deal
with the daily round conditions of the client, but rather introduces some
external control. Although a reported change by the client of their overt
behavior is considered an adequate index of change of behavior due to the
intervention psychologists as a rule do not accept reports as a ?real? index of
change. Instead, they feel a methodological need to correlate changes in
behavior with other behavior so that they
may infer that a change has in fact occurred. In other words, verbal
reports must be verified or a high correlation must be evident before the
verbal report can stand a. evidence. These are muddy waters due to the
avoidance of using verbal reports on the assumption that their veracity must be
determined before verbal reports can be admissible or informative.
By contrast, the witnessing
approach used in Psych 222 by James and Gordon has a different goal. The
purpose of the witnessing approach, where students make written reports of
their daily experiences, including the sentences they say to themselves, their
thoughts, feelings, awareness?s, etc., is to give the students a method for
becoming familiar with their thinking habits, networks of categorization on
their daily round, titles they employ to remember the myriad things of daily
life in community, patterns of logic, value systems, etc. Since the purpose of obtaining
what is normally considered ?subjective? data on a person is to allow a person
to systematically trace down their thinking habits, to see it as it occurs in
daily round settings, to be affected by this new awareness on their daily
round, the veracity issue is not relevant. Gordon and James point out that the
-person is the only ?witness? to his or her actuality, therefore whatever is
inter-personally observable is only a fraction of the person?s experience. The
goal of the witnessing approach is to give a person a method whereby they can
view themselves as an object, or from the point of view of the other people--an
external viewpoint on the self.
|
|
Psych 222ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ D.
Nahl
Spring 1981ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4/6/81
Practicing
Naming and Tracing Standardized
Imaginings
in Interior Dialog
A Standardized Imagining which
occurs in Interior Dialog sets up a domain of future responses
in one?s behavior, i.e., the implications of the ?standard imagining?
which follow its occurrence in interior dialog. The ?domain of thoughts? and
reactions are created in the person?s behavior and linked as a network across
time. For example, one can trace the effects in one?s behavior of identified standardized
imaginings by self-observation: [I am taking three credits in independent
research:À [SI = What I think the
professor wants ((talking with him regularly and reporting on my progress
in writing of the paper)) [[which I am not inclined to prepare to do, so I
avoid him and make plans to meet with him, don?t do it, worry?. etc.]]]À Behavioral consequences of the SI are
evidently detrimental to the person in this case.À Further, upon discussing the SI with a huddle-buddy who is a
teacher experienced in the context of student-teacher role relationship, I was
able to realize that the SI was delusional, since I was actually
incorrect in my assumptions (proved to me through analysis with this
independent research credit.À Now, at
the point where I realized I was delusional in my basic assumptions?there I was
able to see through the trick of the particular SI and there by
identified it as a standardized imagining in interior dialog, which sets
up a domain of future speech-role responses.
Things get realized through talk
with others.À ?It comes out that
I feel a certain way I wouldn?t have expressed if I hadn?t talked to her.?À Through talking to others I can see/hear
how I have responded with feeling.À
One doesn?t necessarily know how one has responded, and talking with
others brings it out, depending who, etc.
p. 74À ?Speculative reality?ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ?ordinary delusions and perceptual illusions? (21a4)
Talk with
others can also bring out illusions rather than real insights; i.e., stamping in
wrong designations rather than discovering them.