求解~ OG63

jasonlover

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist,
they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are
dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation
described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

虽然OG有解释，其他选项也大概能排除掉，但是不明白这题的逻辑是什么？
这个推理过程好像很绕， 是什么推出来的呢？
求解~ 救助~

xiexiang

我觉得吧
是说这人催眠之后分成两半 一半聋的一半说话
seperate parts就说两半没联系
那为什么说话的那半一定要说no呢 因为聋的那半是真的听不见
如果一定说no的话意思不就是说话的那半是和聋的那半有联系嘛~~

jasonlover

感谢回答~    ”如果一定说no的话意思不就是说话的那半是和聋的那半有

联系嘛“——为什么不能回答yes ,因为只能回答no， 我觉得这是在

strengthen~

如果真“感觉”听不见了，那有可能就是看到人说话嘴有动，可是自己听不见

，所以回答no.
“他们为什么不能回答yes?"  那这个问题是怎么暴露出原文的weakness的呢
如果回答yes, 就说明在用hearing part, 从而他们根本没有deaf part, 那是

不是否定了”When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf “这

个背景呢， 可是貌似好像不能否认背景？
继续求解啊~

cckjenius

看og 的 reasoning ，很清楚的，大概的思路是这样的，依照理论，

hearing part 和 deaf part是分开的，没有关联的. 如果要回复催眠师的问题

应该是启用了hearing part, 因为如果用deaf part 的话，应该完全没有回应。

所以我们可以认为他是启用了hearing part 的。 为什么是回答no 呢？如

果是催眠师问他的是“ can you hear me ?" 他更应该回答yes 而不是 no.

jaffa23

zhangzhenpairs,也就是说这个weaken的是 催眠师根本没有把实验者催眠这个前提，而不是 arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects aredissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies 这个解释咯？

haileywang

就是说这个weaken的是 催眠师根本没有把实验者催眠这个前提，而不是 arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects aredissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies 这个解释咯？
这个问题我也想问