Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _marg »

Thanks Glenn,

Dan I intend to respond to your post in which you brought up McCullagh's section "the significance of counter evidence" but in order to do so I am going to quote (which is one of the reasons it's taken me so long).. p 29 & 30 (for context). I've been meaning to get to that for some time, but there's too much else to do in the summer and once again I'm gone for the weekend..so it won't be until next week.
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Glenn,

Marge, Bruce suggested that some talented authors may be able to consciously change their use of noncontextual words and phrases. In the 1993 study by Tim Hiatt and John Hilton, only one author was able to do so, and that was William Faulkner in "As I lay Dying." This book is described as a "stream of consciousness" work, which seems to have some likeness to automatic writing. It is in a narrative form by something like fifteen characters in the story.

The conclusion reached by the Berkeley Group is that an author would have to deliberately act to change his normal writing style, and then very few would be able to do so, as evidenced by the Hiatt and Hilton study.


I’m confused by the above. You first say Faulkner’s stream of consciousness work exhibited change in word frequency between characters, but then you say this can only be done deliberately. I’m I missing something?
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Marg,

I’m having difficulty answering your long posts of recent date. They seem like restatements that don’t address my previous responses. It seems like a lot of quibbling over a very simple point, which is your use of ad hocs to escape counter evidence. I use the trick-hat theory only because it’s so clear. You might regret using it now, but you hung onto it for pages and pages. If you don’t like the ad hoc label, another way to look at it is begging the question—which is using the assumption that your theory is true to invent an answer that only works if one agrees to the assumption. In either case, it’s a game that doesn’t interest me. If I haven’t made my point with you, I’m quite certain that I have with other readers.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _MCB »

Dan, Proverbs 25:24.

Have you ever searched Shakespeare's plays? I found some interesting parallels with I and II Nephi in "The Tempest."
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _GlennThigpen »

Dan Vogel wrote:Glenn,

Marge, Bruce suggested that some talented authors may be able to consciously change their use of noncontextual words and phrases. In the 1993 study by Tim Hiatt and John Hilton, only one author was able to do so, and that was William Faulkner in "As I lay Dying." This book is described as a "stream of consciousness" work, which seems to have some likeness to automatic writing. It is in a narrative form by something like fifteen characters in the story.

The conclusion reached by the Berkeley Group is that an author would have to deliberately act to change his normal writing style, and then very few would be able to do so, as evidenced by the Hiatt and Hilton study.


I’m confused by the above. You first say Faulkner’s stream of consciousness work exhibited change in word frequency between characters, but then you say this can only be done deliberately. I’m I missing something?



Dan, at this point I am only repeating how the book "As I Lay Dying" is described. I don't know exactly what a "stream of consciousness" production entails. I don't know how it works.

I also have not been able to examine a copy of the Hiatt/Hilton paper. But evidently Faulkner was able to change the use of non-contextual words as he changed narrators, something like fifteen, in the book. According to Bruce, of the control authors that Hilton used (Samuel Clemens, Robert Heinlein, Samuel Johnson, William Faulkner) Faulkner was the only one that was able to change his wordprints.

The Berkeley Group asserted that this can only be done deliberately, and evidently by a very talented author who is aware of his contextual word usage.

I do not know how a "stream of consciousness" can allow an author to easily change his or her wordprints depending on the character. I don't know if this phenomena has been exhibited by authors other than Faulkner who used the "stream of consciousness" technique to produce their literature. There is some confusion in my mind on this and I am going to be doing some more reading upon the subject.

Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Glenn,

Dan, at this point I am only repeating how the book "As I Lay Dying" is described. I don't know exactly what a "stream of consciousness" production entails. I don't know how it works.

I also have not been able to examine a copy of the Hiatt/Hilton paper. But evidently Faulkner was able to change the use of non-contextual words as he changed narrators, something like fifteen, in the book. According to Bruce, of the control authors that Hilton used (Samuel Clemens, Robert Heinlein, Samuel Johnson, William Faulkner) Faulkner was the only one that was able to change his wordprints.

The Berkeley Group asserted that this can only be done deliberately, and evidently by a very talented author who is aware of his contextual word usage.

I do not know how a "stream of consciousness" can allow an author to easily change his or her wordprints depending on the character. I don't know if this phenomena has been exhibited by authors other than Faulkner who used the "stream of consciousness" technique to produce their literature. There is some confusion in my mind on this and I am going to be doing some more reading upon the subject.


Stream of consciousness writing can be spontaneous, but not necessarily. I think your comparison to automatic writing is what confused me.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Post Reply