Talk:Julian Jaynes

Neutrality

I have not read anything written by Jaynes, but it seems that both this article and the one on bicameralism suffer from the same problems: the articles are mostly about The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and seem to be biased. The reception section only talks about positive reception, and the criticism just talks about how the critics are wrong or have failed to understand his theory, with every critic being followed by some kind of explanation on why it is wrong. I am not from the field, but his idea seem to be far from the mainstream in psychology and this should be made clear in both articles. Even more, the sentence 'Rejection, of course, is not refutation' is completely absurd in the article, as this is an article an not a debate: if his work is rejected by the scientific community, this should be mentioned and not discussed. Vms42 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I can agree with you, partially, but not fully because I don't fully understand your POV complaints: editorial 'bias' might be a problem; but is a discussion of Jaynes's book really a problem in this article? (1) This biographical article would be pointless without some discussion of the book, although the book deserves a complete article to itself (the Bicameralism article is totally inadequate). I think the article makes very clear that different, even contradictory opinions exist about Jaynes's ideas. Concerning POV and balance, that should be enough. If you have evidence that his work is refuted, i.e. that his ideas have been proven false, I'd be happy to hear about it. Otherwise, I think POV is resolved.

(2) The sentence {'Rejection, of course, is not refutation'}, which you say is "absurd" (and have deleted), is perhaps unnecessary, although I think it states a simple truth that may not occur to every reader, and it follows from the direct quotation that preceded it. It is not an opinion about the quoted critic, nor an editor's correction of factual error in the quoted criticism. The direct quotation from that source is not an argument against anything Jaynes wrote, but is an argument that biases will lead people to 'accept' or 'reject' Jaynes's arguments. Even so, I don't protest your deletion if that satisfies your POV complaint.

(3) Perhaps biases have indeed had more influence than people think. There are notable sources who discuss the reaction to Jaynes and the debate about his ideas as an important topic in itself, including the assumption that Jaynes has somewhere, somehow been refuted, and the claim by his 'supporters' that his 'detractors' often make mistakes. So perhaps the editing problem is how to mention this "controversy" without it sounding like POV bias. Can we delete the POV? B.Sirota (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the same impression in relation to the criticism section that is more about refuting criticism than presenting it... —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with PaleoNeonate. This bio page isn't quite a hagiography, but it is very tilted toward praise. The lede rather presumptuously refers to his theory as a "solution" to a philosophical problem, rather than a PROPOSED solution, or similar qualification typically used for academic theories. It also refers to him as a "researcher" at Yale and Princeton, technically correct but glossing over the lack of PhD that probably kept him from a tenure track position at the latter university.

The Life section says he accepted a master's from Yale, but "refused" their PhD -- did he actually earn one? The only evidence for his alleged stance is a generic reference to Woodward and Tower's entire book, without a page number or direct quote.

The passionate defense by B.Sirota cuts both ways: sure, a major theory that has flaws is not disproven by details; on the other hand, a theory that has been largely superseded by neuroplasticity (see Michael Merzenich much of whose work was published after Jaynes died) might still be valuable in that it points to key topics that had been largely overlooked. Martindo (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, thoughtful, interesting and subtle. You point out that facts are missing, and indeed the current Wiki articles about Jaynes, his book, and his theories fall short of full, fair and accurate coverage. Editors are certainly to blame, myself included. The "criticism section", not being relevant, is gone from this "bio" article, so it's not clear where the 'tilting toward praise' is evident; if it's there, is it unwarranted?

A Wiki "bio" is biographical, but not a full biography: emphasis is normally on facts relevant to the person's notability; your concern seems to be about credibility, which might be relevant if there are notable issues that cast doubt on credibility. Would Jaynes's work be more respectable or would he seem more praiseworthy, if he flaunted his PhD? No doubt some readers think so.

You wonder whether he achieved PhD or not, and you say the article is 'glossing over' his 'lack of PhD'. Is it a significant absence, or just confusing? Jaynes did indeed earn and get PhD for his early research at Yale despite his objections to institutional emphasis on credentials. The facts can certainly be added for clarification and for substance.

Finally, the summary (in the bio) of Jaynes's theories does not do him justice. My evidence is your conclusion that 'neuroplasticity' theory in any way diminishes or "supersedes" Jaynes's psycho-historical theory. His book specifically argued for plasticity as a necessary component of the transition from ancient bicamerality to consciousness; but neuroplasticity alone does not touch the specific cultural and historical details that Jaynes theorized about. I have been working for some time on a major rewrite of the bicameral hypothesis because I don't think piecemeal edits can prevent or reduce misunderstandings. When I'm done, the other articles, I hope, might be improved. B.Sirota (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Move to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?

When a person is primarily known for one of their works, usually the redirect is towards that work. It's awkward that it's the other way around here. Almost the entirety of the article is about the book. As examples: The ==Jayne's Theory== section starts "In his book[...]", the beginning to ==Reception and influence== is "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and the entirety of ==Controversy and criticism== is about the book. (Similarly, Bicameralism (psychology) could be merged in; it too is almost entirely about the book).

I don't want to be too bold here (it's a big change). Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I am implementing this change. DRTZ212 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. This person is not notable in any way beyond that single publication, so the bio material should be summarized and merged to the book article. The vast majority of this "bio" is actually about the book and its content and reactions to it, so it's a WP:CFORK. It actually leans strongly toward being an outright WP:POVFORK representing the viewpoint of his fan club, since it disguises almost all controversy (though our article on the book is hiding a lot of that, too, including the fact that modern cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related fields do not support Jaynes' claims at all).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. It's worse than I thought. This has even been further forked to a third article, Bicameral mentality. What a trainwreck.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE

Our article is presently treating this subject and his work as if generally well-accepted science, when it is not. While certain aspects of his model have "inspired" later research into things like schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, this research has not proven him correct about a "bicameral mind", nor has any research in any discipline shown that his broader notion of concsciousness developing only a few millennia ago is supportable by any evidence.

This WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE) problem is present in both this bio article and the article on the book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. And these should probably re-merge (into the article on the book), since the person is not notable for anything other than the one book.

This WP:CFORKing into two article has doubled the maintenance burden and doubled the problematic PoV-pushing in support of Jaynes as a proper scientist and his idea as scientifically valid, while offering no benefit of any kind to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC); clarified 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Many have said that, and I've asked them for sources, but they have been unable to provide them. I have searched myself, and while it is easy to source "controversial", I've not found any sources that explicitly call it "fringe". Skyerise (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the theory deserves it's own article, as there are many sources that cite it. Though it is much more commonly referred to as "Bicameral mind" than the current title Bicameral mentality, my recent move proposal failed. Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Um, virtually no sources anywhere ever literally call anything "fringe". It is largely a WP term (albeit adopted from the off-site phrase "fringe science", but that is not a technical term, it's an everyday-parlance term). We arrive editorially and internally at a decision that something is WP:FRINGE (or not) by means of a WP:DUE assessment of all the available reliable source material on the subject. And, yes, it certainly is very easy to find sources demonstrating that Jaynes' idea is "controversial" but there is nearly zero indication in either of these articles that this controvery exists or what it is about, and this bio article in particular is badly whitewashing and trying to hide the controversy and promote the viewpoint of his hero-worship organization. Just that fact that such a thing exists is a very bad sign.

Next, there is no such thing as "deserve" here; WP is not about passing value judgments on "importance" or "fame". It is entirely and only about WP:GNG, and there is virtually zero in-depth coverage of Jaynes in reliable, independent sources that is not primarily coverage of his book, so this erstwhile bio should merge to the book article, since the person is not notable for anything at all beyhond that specific work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your last assertion is simply not true. I have thoroughly gone through Bicameral mentality. It is sourced primarily to independent, third-party sources with very few citations to Jaynes himself. Skyerise (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, Jaynes' hypothesis more recently has been included in various text books in several different fields. I have listed many of them in the further reading section of that article. Skyerise (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following very closely. Nothing in my "last assertion" has anything to do with whether the book or the idea it proposes should be an article, but with whether the bio should be an article. All three of these need to merge into a single article, since they are content forks and pretty much WP:POVFORKs all about the same thing. Almost all the content in the bio article is repetition (with a different PoV skew) of material in the book article, and the most of the book and hypothesis articles are also repeats, though with some additional independent material at the latter for somewhat better balance. I wasn't aware of the third (hypothesis) article until you pointed it out. For all I know there may be yet a fourth or even more PoV forks. It's not okay to even have two of these much less 3+.

However, even the hypothesis article has related problems to some extent. While it is more inclusive of the criticism and including enough of it (from a certain era and sector) to lean already in the FRINGE direction, it is missing most of the more recent conclusions of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related fields (the super-concise gist of which is that the best accepted current view is that consciousness as we know it arose simultaneously with complex language and various other complex behaviors somewhere in the 70–35 kya range). Various ethology and animal pyschology studies of primates are also of relevance.

Overall, Jaynes's ideas about concsciousness are much like Joseph Campbell's about religion and mythology, and John Grey's "Mars and Venus" quasi-psychology, and the Timothy Leary/Robert Anton Wilson/Antero Alli eight-circuit model of consciousness: all are extremely theoretical, inductive, metaphor-driven philosophical ideas, not scientific models, which have become popularized and even influential among a certain class of quasi-educated non-skeptics looking for simplistic, easy answers to bewilderingly complex questions (and which have attracted remarkably cult-like followings), but which are not well received by modern specialists in the related fields and are strongly contradicted by actual evidence and proper science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well then. I really don't see that what you have said is a valid reason for merging. I'll look into removing excess duplication later, but our usual application of summary style seems adequate to address your actual concerns. Skyerise (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to remind myself about the meaning of FRINGE wrt what if anything it says about the contrast between:

1. a theory which has very little support because some other theory (or theories) garner the support of the overwhelming majority of researchers; and:
2. a theory which has minority support in a field where multiple theories abound without a clear favorite; and finally:
3. a theory which has very little support in the context of some field of scientific inquiry in which no theory has much support, or there are no other theories, or such theories as there are are basically educated speculation because of the paucity of evidence for any of them.

I believe the guideline addresses mostly #1. Most of the theories that come to mind when I think about fringe theories are in group 1; some even have dedicated articles. Others are in group 2, such as the origin of life, the origin of sexual reproduction, quantum interpretations of the behavior of subatomic particles, origin and evolution of the Universe, origin of language, human migration patterns, factors driving evolutionary change, and the nature of dark matter and energy, and I wouldn't call any of the supporting theories FRINGE (well, any I've heard of; no doubt there are crackpot theories in every field)—there's just a lot of disagreement. I would think that the origin of consciousness is possibly type 3. It seems to me, that to declare something FRINGE does not mean that it has very little, or even no support (apart from its proponent), but that a ratio or proportion is involved, where a fringe theory has very little, or even no support among X number of competing theories. I don't know what X should be, but it can't be zero, and still call a theory FRINGE, imho. I think that is what makes me balk in labeling Jaynes's theory as fringe, and I would not label it so. On what basis would we declare it FRINGE— that nobody has a better idea, but Princeton folks think he's kooky? Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, there are still whole books being written about Jaynes's book. Here are excerpts from "The 'Other' Psychology of Julian Jaynes: Ancient Languages, Sacred Visions and Forgotten Mentalities" (2018):

"Critically acclaimed but controversial, The Origin was far ahead of its time. Now Jaynes's theories are increasingly gaining traction in a number of fields." (Intro); and:

"Jaynes's theories are increasingly receiving the attention they deserve, as recent advances in neurology and dozens of brain imaging studies support and confirm his ideas." (Intro)

McVeigh portrays all sides, and cheerfully reports Jaynes's colleagues' assessment of him as an "educated kook". Nevertheless, if these are reliable reports, they would seem to rule out FRINGE, at least from groups 1 and 2.

Brian J. McVeigh is "an American scholar of Asia who specializes in Japanese pop art, education, politics, and history. He is also a theorist of cultural psychology and historical changes in human mentality." (per Wikipedia article). See other works by Brian J. McVeigh. Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose merge. Jaynes is notable, the book is notable, and bicameral mind is notable. Merging is not the needed solution, rather removing material in excess of summary style would be the indicated course of action. As it is, there really is not a lot of duplication, most of the material in the biographical article is biographical. Most of the material in the article about the book is an overview of content and book reviews. Most of the details of the hypothesis are in the correct article. There isn't actually a problem here, and if you think there is, you should tag the parts of each article you believe are problematic. Keeping the articles separate is most compatible with how our category system is designed to work, with the person in people categories, the book in book categories, and the hypothesis article also with the appropriate categories for its content. Your proposal would have just the author's name showing up in non-people categories, or the book article showing up in people categories, which is ugly and confusing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it can be fixed without merging, don't merge. Skyerise (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)