Talk:Bicameralism (psychology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merge

what do you think about the merge? Spencerk 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a redirect. The Origin of Consciousness is notable enough that it warrants having its own page with a link to the article on bicameralism. A person looking for information on The Origin of Consciousness may not want all the information on bicameralism; he may just want the information about the work. – Mipadi 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
hi mipadi. there was alot of repitition in the two pages. does origin of conciousness discuss more than bicameralism? or is bicameralism a more general idea than those expressed in origin of conciousness? i dont think so, my impression is that they are just discussing the same thing. maybe in the bicameralism article the section titled Julian Jaynes could be changed to origin of conciousness and the redirect could use a # or whatever.  ? Spencerk 20:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
This article, as of now, talks almost solely about The Origin of Consciousness. Personally, I think the redirect should go the other way (Bicameralism (psychology) to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind), if at all. – Mipadi 23:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I only know bicameralism from the book. I don't think there are that many other uses of the word outside the book by Jaynes. patrickw 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who here has really read Jaynes?

it seems like there is significant confusion about Jaynes' theory. Some editors have either not really read Jaynes or maybe they did so a long time ago and forgot. Not having read Snow Crash I don't know how Stephenson reworks the theory but I suspect reading Jaynes through Stephenson may be the culprit.

Anyone else here read Jaynes recently or is it down to me to fix it all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratylus22 (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and fix! I heard the guy give a talk sometime in the 80's and he was amazing. I've been wanting to read the book ever since, but I looked at it once or twice and it seemed too deep for me. Phr (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the book within the last year. I can get a copy of it from the Library and work on any issues that need working. Let me know of anything specificly.149.165.90.22 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've loaned my copy out (as I do with any book I want to disseminate) and when I get it back I should be able to do this article justice. I want to put in a few hours and rewrite the whole thing to eliminate errors and confusion and clearly summarize the theory. There are only two or three secondary authors who have directly used Jaynes, but I think there is also some pop-cultural residue that can be covered. But Jaynes' theory is clearly the core of the topic.

I came upon this page while looking to refresh my memory of Jaynes's theory and from what I do recall, I do not think that what I just saw written here is likely correct, or perhaps merely not sufficient. My memory was that Jaynes opined that the development of the ability to shape one's own internal narratizing may have shifted societally between the Iliad and the Odyssey. This is something I wanted to bring into the article about the noosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere Certainly the Odyssey continues to have a profound effect in suggesting story framing to future narrators, with the trickster - the character who can think one thing and do another - a very popular subject.

[edit] Mind or brain?

The intro paragraph starts with this sentence:

In psychology, bicameralism is a controversial theory which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking," and a second part which listens and obeys.

But in the next paragraph the text says: “the bicameral mentality was the normal state of the human mind everywhere as recently as…”

I wonder if “brain” is accurate in the intro paragraph? Shouldn’t it be replaced by “mind” or “psyche”?

—Cesar Tort 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if “brain” is accurate in the intro paragraph? Shouldn’t it be replaced by “mind” or “psyche”?

I think the second paragraph should read 'human brain'. 'Mind' and 'psyche' are ambiguous terms. The brain is a lump of cells, but the nature of the 'mind' and 'psyche' are what is under discussion here.

[edit] Minor change of wording

I changed: "...Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations cause increased activity in these areas of the brain."

to: "...Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain."

The original text claimed an effect of brain activity (hallucinations) was the cause of the activity itself, which is ridiculous. The cited research merely claims a correlation, so I changed the text to match the citation.

Looks good. - RoyBoy 800 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Origin of Consciousness - Book Cover.jpg

Image:Origin of Consciousness - Book Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses Section

The Responses section of this article seems to consistently be in favor of the Bicameralism theory. Responses against Bicameralism, where included, are criticized or demonstrated to be insufficient. I was just passing through when I noticed this, and I'm not sure how mainstream Bicameralism is supposed to be, but it strikes me as not canon. Therefore, the outpouring of support and suppression of criticism may be odd. Should there be a more balanced way of framing this section? 69.181.77.150 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to support the above request for a more balanced critique of this theory. For something so far from mainstream, this article provides *no* avenues to opposing arguments. This could be, of course, a result of the work not considered falsifiable? Regardless, some attempt to balance this article would be greatly appreciated. I would do it myself, but am having a hard time finding such critical references.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.210.226 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph under Responses states that those opposed to this lacked the expertise to comment, misunderstood it, or were being dogmatic. It states that these were the three types of responses. That seems overly biased, but seeing as I am not familair with this theory, I can't change it myself. Phoenix1177 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I was also just passing through and this section made me strongly consider adding an NPOV tag to the page. Someone with relevant expertise really should revise it. Thefellswooper (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely interesting work (I affirm Dawkins' view). But it's just as definitely not mainstream, and the article must reflect that.DavidOaks (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if people contributing to this page would please read and understand Jaynes' definition of consciousness before editing this page. If you are confused about the theory you are doing a disservice by confusing everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.179.181 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove citated attempts to tone down the POV in this article. --Work permit (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we don't follow every criticism with a rebutal in the responses section. Instead, weave "rebuttals" into the text of the following paragraphs. I've made a first pass. The section reads better, has of a more NPOV tone, and gets the points accross. --Work permit (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - just trying to point out how off some of these persistent statements were. I've added an additional criticism by Dennett, moved the rebutal to the following paragraph, added a citation for it, and added the Buchsbaum citation for the rebuttal to Shapiro and Assad. Overall it reads more balanced but with less misinterpretation. Someone should consider removing the neutrality flag.