Talk:Bicameral mentality

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)

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.

• It is quted extensive in the works of Frank R. WallaceSochwa 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

==

Some significant features of Jayne's model are not much discussed here. His view was that the ancient society, with its low level of technology and rigid caste system, did not present the continuity of novel situations that required rational, self-conscious decision making to determine a course of action. Most actions were pre-determined by prevailing circumstances. He proposed that living from habit, convention and instinct meant that people did not develop the sense of interiority that we recognise as modern self-consciousness. Instead moments of unusual novelty, stress or uncertainty stimulated an inner voice which was regarded with awe, identified as the voice of the societies' king / god and obeyed unquestioningly without further reflection. Indeed, his theory is that it was leaders of the society - the annointed kings - who were most frequently called upon to deal with complex and novel circumstances and who had the privilege of most frequently hearing advice from the gods.

Jayne missed seeing the possibility that, rather than receding into an aberrant hallucinatory phenomenon, the inner voice has become universal, mundane and everyday. I hear a voice in my head all the time. It is not a rare or remarkable event for me, as possibly it was for the ancients. It proposes instructions and solutions to problems, recalls information, and offers a fairly continuous commentary on events. So frequent has this voice become that I regard as a central feature of my psyche and I identify it as (part of) Me. I believe Jayne's focus on auditory hallucinations is a red-herring... the ancients' voices have not gone away. What has changed is our relationship to the inner voice and its increased frequency, as we have become habituated to the phenomenon. (Sorry you can't use this in the article ... my original "research".) 213.70.98.66 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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.

theory is true. responses are holding —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandmasterofHeck (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the neutrality template. - RoyBoy 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see to editing in action, but having just come across the article, it doesn't appear much different than the descriptions of the original biased state. I don't believe that whoever wrote the original section necessarily tried to write that way, but it reads almost like a persuasive essay. I'm not sure how to suggest any improvements other than those mentioned above, but I think I should point out that even with the changes that have been made, it does not seem non POV. Thanks for all you've done already --Romulus (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming by it still seems that the responses section of this article remains surprisingly sparse in criticism and heavy on support. It's not very well organised and reading through it still seems as though this concept is well-supported as canon in the psychological community. Perhaps this is the case. However, this could also be a function of being a relatively obscure theory; it has not received much criticism because few people know of it. At the very least, the responses section seems to have ballooned substantially without gaining clarity. Reading it does not help understand where this theory lies in the general academic discourse. This should be changed. 67.164.41.90 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue, I think, is that Jaynes is very much on the fringes of psychology/cognitive science and has effectively been ignored by those who don't support him. An example quote, unrelated to Jaynes in particular yet possibly related in a weak sense, comes from Fodor (2001); "It strikes me as wildly implausible that the structure of human cognition changed radically a few hundred years ago (For that matter, it strikes me as wildly implausible that the structure of human cognition has *ever* changed radically)." Finding criticism of Jaynes' views is difficult for this reason, and I suspect it would even be difficult to find more than two or three dozen papers that explicitly support him. Burnage13 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article having heard about Jaynes' work for the first time today and looking for a straightforward exposition and discussion of his work. On the whole, good job, I'd say. But, the I found the Responses section very unsatisfactory. As previous commentators have noted, there is a serious POV problem in this section, which has simply not been addressed by subsequent editors. Remember, folks, this is an encyclopedia. It's not the job of editors to make arguments for or against anything presented in the article, but simply to present arguments that have been made in published sources in the appropriate section. Rebuttals to criticism have no more place in the Responses section than do criticisms in the main presentation of the subject. Editors, have mercy on your readers; the back-and-forth of criticism and response makes the article confusing. I think that it is also per se a violation of NPOV.

I have therefore restored the POV tag to this section. Please do not remove it solely on the grounds that you think the section is fine the way it is. If you think that the criticisms require a response, then create a new section for that. Mrrhum (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed the section "Criticisms and Responses," which seems to me more accurate. I've also deleted the last paragraph, which pointed to an outside source without providing a reference. Finally, I moved the second-to-last paragraph to the end of the first section, where it seems more appropriate. Mrrhum (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Anthropology question

How does this theory mesh wiht anthropology? That is, Australia and New Guinea were peopled something like 40,000 years ago, long before the posited change in consciousness. Why should their consciousness have changed to the modern form at the same time as the change happened in hte Mediterranean area? If it didn't, why can't Native New Guineans be given EKGs, PETscans, etc, to see whether/how their brain function is different from ours? Virginia-American (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article so biased? Why isn't a problem like this mentioned? Why isn't the mainstream view explained in any detail? Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur; I think this is probably THE most obvious challenge to the theory. If you raise, say, an Australian Aboriginal into a typical Western setting, why should they develop a typical Western consciousness anyway, as seems to be usually the case? People all around the world would have to had developed this "new consciousness" at the same time to justify this sort of thing; but it is difficult to imagine how and why this simultaneous global emergence of consciousness might have happened. However, even if it did happen, then some Jaynesians' claims that such societies are still bicameral is of no use to the argument. Either way, the theory seems rubbish.KelilanK (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic process criticism

I removed

The book was, however, reviewed by a number of prominent academics prior to publication, including Stanford psychologist Ernest Hilgard, psychologist Isodor Chein, an anonymous anthropologist, and several others.<ref>{{cite book |last= Kuijsten |first= Marcel | title= Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited |publisher= Julian Jaynes Society |year= 2007 |isbn=0-9790744-0-1 | pages = 40–43 |nopp= true}}</ref>

not bcz i'm sure it doesn't IMO belong in the "Critique" section following the sent abt lack of (formal academic) peer review, but bcz it is incomplete: it is implicitly OR by being placed there w/o a statement from a neutral academic that it substantially mitigates the criticism that it follows. It's absurd to just insinuate that three presumably handpicked specialists, one apparently known only to JJ, satisfy the concerns that have led to the system of review by collegially chosen scholars who remain unknown to the author.
I recall being impressed (as with Victor Davis Hanson, BTW) with his ability to draw on a background in Classics in support of a hypothesis in a superfically unrelated field, but i'm not the kind of person he needs to impress re the topic of that 'graph. Perhaps the cited pgs in turn say who has said so, but we need names (not including that of the Founder and Executive Director of the Julian Jaynes Society).
--Jerzy•t 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Daniel Smith-sourced sentence

I could be mistaken, but as written

Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes's theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the recent book Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination by Daniel Smith.<ref>Smith, Daniel (2007). Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination.</ref>

has the ring of, and creates the presumption of, OR. Tell us more on this discussion pg abt what Smith says, so we have a chance of overcoming that presumption.
--Jerzy•t 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Re section Jaynes' case for bicameralism of the accompanying article:

"Provided food" or even "offered food", maybe, but "fed food" (or "fed") means stuffing one mouthful into their mouth and not being able to feed them a second mouthful until maggots consumed it and crawled away. The behavior is far-fetched (for a person able to feed themself, being fed is an invasion of personal space permitted only to lovers, rather than even a luxury of monarchs, and if tried it would probably undercut the illusion of life) and what evidence there could be of such acts is hard to imagine; it would be more plausible -- *if* that is what JJ said -- that he misinterpreted descriptions of platters of being *left* in front of them. More likely a WP editor did the misinterpretation.
--Jerzy•t 06:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That bit's particularly weird because, assuming a less melodramatic phrasing, that isn't very different to the way modern people treat the dead. Is he suggesting how they treated them was wildly different to the way people have globally treated the dead, even in the last few hundred years? 86.161.255.213 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Full-text references that are supportive or critical of Jaynes' theory

Commentary by Sher (2000) that briefly reviews Jaynes' theory, Asaad and Shapiro's (1987) criticism, and three articles from 1999 that are supportive of aspects of the bicameral mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1407719/pdf/jpn00086-0025.pdf

A brief review and critical analysis of Jaynes' theory by Cavanna et al. (2007):

http://users.vianet.ca/beckettt/critical%20reappraisal%20of%20bicameral%20mind.pdf

The following article (particularly the first 7 pages) cites evidence in support of Jaynes' theory and responds to the criticisms offered by Asaad and Shapiro (1987) and Cavanna et al. (2007):

http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynesian_volume3_issue1.pdf

76.123.177.103 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)BicameralGoogler

Bicameralism in Stephenson

This article just came up on a talk forum I was reading. The bicameral mind is stated here to be an important concept in Neal Stephenson's second novel Zodiac. I read this book long ago and remember it only as a good ecologically-themed adventure yarn, with no serious exploration of consciousness issues, in contrast to his later books Snow Crash and Diamond Age. But perhaps my memory has tricked me. If someone remembers the book more clearly than I, and knows the statement in this wiki article is wrong, would you please remove it? Also, is it in Big U? Thank you. 173.66.1.39 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)