D.  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 „realš 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 „subjectiveš 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 „witnessš 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 222                                                                                                                               D. Nahl

Spring 1981                                                                                                                             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 imaginingš which follow its occurrence in interior dialog. The „domain of thoughtsš 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:  [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.]]]  Behavioral consequences of the SI are evidently detrimental to the person in this case.  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.  Now, at the point where I realized I was delusional in my basic assumptionsųthere 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.  „It comes out that I feel a certain way I wouldn‚t have expressed if I hadn‚t talked to her.š  Through talking to others I can see/hear how I have responded with feeling.  One doesn‚t necessarily know how one has responded, and talking with others brings it out, depending who, etc.

 

p. 74  „Speculative realityš            „ordinary delusions and perceptual illusionsš (21a4)

 

Talk with others can also bring out illusions rather than real insights; i.e., stamping in wrong designations rather than discovering them.

 

BACK TO INDEX