Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2004, at 1:06:08
In reply to Re: 1.2, posted by smokeymadison on December 20, 2004, at 17:04:16
I really don't like the cognitive bias / deficit idea either. While there is some evidence that delusional subjects reason differently from non-delusional subjects it is hard to sort whether these differences in reasoning CAUSE the delusion, or are CAUSED BY the delusion. We can just flip the order again :-)
(ok, I'll admit this to you in a slightly sneaky manner... I don't like the bias / deficit idea because it is implicit that delusional subjects are DEFECTIVE in some way. I don't think this helps with compassion and attempts at empathy and understanding particularly. Also, in the literature 'delusional subjects' invariably become PATIENTS (yeech, talk about 'other') or SCHIZOPHRENICS (people are not their diagnosis, didn't ya know?) If the only mark I ever make is that people with mental illness get called 'subjects' in the literature instead (thats subjects of experience - just like you or me - though maybe that favours the anomalous experience model slightly...) well, then I would consider myself to have done something very worthwhile indeed).
I go on to consider that maybe delusional subjects are attempting to convey something slightly different by their delusional utterances than what we take them to be conveying. This semes to be lateral in a similar way to what you suggest (though you should be the judge). Maybe it is us who has missed the point.
I like your 'ability' idea. The only trouble is that that would mean that delusional subjects should OUTPERFORM normal subjects on some or other cognitive task. Actually (much to my amusement) delusional subjects have been found to perform closer to Bayesian norms of probabilistic reasoning than non-delusional controls! This is not typically the way that this finding is presented in the literature, however, it is typically presented as evidence that 'delusional subjects judge that they are certain on the basis of less evidence than non delusional controls'. But normal subjects are too conservative in their judgements of certainty (when measured against bayesian norms of probabilistic reasoning). Perhaps I should emphasise this as a superior performance?!
> thanks for the mind benders! you are really making me think!You are most welcome. Thanks for making me think in return. I am pleased and flattered that someone has made it this far! Really, I truely am :-) One does start to worry that nobody gives a d*mn really. Nobody at my university is working on this issue so I am pretty much working in isolation - though I do have contacts in Australia.
Anyway, just in case you are worried about how much I am going to be going on for (you or anyone else) 10 sections. Then that is it, I shall call it a day, I promise :-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:431950
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20041210/msgs/432332.html