![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 3:22:00
After considering the above three theories I am now in a position to outline an alternative position on alters, which I will call multiple systems theory. According to multiple systems theory (or a multiple systems version of the intentional stance) it may be legitimate in some cases to interpret or view the behaviour of one subject as being best predicted and thus explained by multiple intentional systems being associated with a single body.
Different alters (intentional systems) are observed to behave in distinctively different ways. They would thus seem to have different sets of beliefs and desires that function to produce the behaviour of the body when that system is in control. The behaviour, and the beliefs and desires that are attributed in order to predict and explain the behaviour are largely incompatible between systems - which is why there is an advantage to postulating more than one such system. Internally the systems (as sets of beliefs and desires) are largely non-contradictory, and evolve in comprehensible ways. This is not a feature of episodes of psychosis, or psychotic voices. The sets of beliefs and desires thus constitute distinct intentional systems, or selves. So what does the multiple systems view buy us? I maintain that in some cases the multiple systems view buys us predictive and explanatory leverage that we cannot obtain from the single system view. In the 20% of subjects whose presentation is blatant and in the majority of diagnosed cases, it would appear that multiple systems theory has predictive leverage over the single systems view.
Where the single system view had to allow for unpredictable and inconsistent, irrational behaviour the multiple systems view buys us an account with greater predictive and explanatory power. I maintain that given the predictive advantage of the multiple systems view we may consider that in virtue of this it gives us a greater explanatory advantage as well. This being so the multiple systems view is the most descriptively adequate account that we have of these subjects behaviour. It would also seem to be the most charitable view with respect to making the best sense that we can of these subjects behaviour, as we no longer have to attribute defects in impulse control, rationality, consistency, or coherence.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:33:48
In reply to (vi) Multiple systems theory, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 3:22:00
This is my therapist's pragmatic take on it.
If something helps in understanding behavior, or conceptualizing a problem, there's no reason not to make use of it.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 1, 2005, at 18:36:34
In reply to Re: (vi) Multiple systems theory » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:33:48
> This is my therapist's pragmatic take on it.
:-)
> If something helps in understanding behavior, or conceptualizing a problem, there's no reason not to make use of it.
Ah.
I also go a bit further than that...
If something gives us predictive leverage (that we can get by no other method) then it is TRUE. So attributing mental states to people (like that they believe certain things and that they have certain desires or goals) allows us to predict their behaviour in a way that we cannot by appealing to physics or behaviourism. The grain is different. You can't capture actions at lower levels. It is in virtue of the predictive leverage that we have that intentional state attributions can be true. So it is TRUE that Dinah believes certain things. People really do have beliefs and desires (which the behaviourists deny).But by the same token they are the wrong sorts of things to be found by neuroscientists.
The same with the self. Or selves. But there is also an indeterminacy... So there I have to say that different (apparantly incommensurable interpretations) are both true. But there is nothing further to decide between them. It really is indeterminate - but they are both true in so far as they are both valid interpretations that give us predictive leverage.
But one interpretation is more charitable than the other.
ANd now I am just rambelling - sorry.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Writing | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.