RE: The Province of the Mind
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
This piece felt very purposefully crafted. Its structured and formal tone appear to be an intentional nod to the parallel of science. It delved into technical exploration and explication of scientific findings and tried hard (intentionally again) to remain neutral. It's a thoughtful and compelling piece with, dare I say, almost a bias away from delving into emotional connection. I say almost, because you allow the scientist's humanity to escape through the chinks in his stoic persona as you share his internal monologue with your readers. And then he breaks, at the end, when he helps his 'subject' back into her wheelchair, showing us that, humanity cannot be constrained for long. It was an interesting, well-researched piece, that ended with further internal conflict withing the researcher's mind. Some may consider that the end didn't give us closure, but I think this lack of resolution at the end was intentional because the experiment was not yet over, and was as much about whether the researcher could ignore his own bias as the results he was to analyse from his subject. If there was one thing I could offer as constructive feedback it would be that there are a few dense paragraphs of scientific exposition that I think could easily have been relayed through dialogue between Anna and the researcher, especially as she opened the conversation about her suitability for the tests and his internal monologue was about how her physical traits didn't matter, that it was her mind that was being explored, and the science bit was about bias.... this could have played into a great conversation setting Anna's mind at ease and showing the researcher's thinking processes.
As an aside, my husband and I often discuss 'confirmational bias' in life and how people unknowingly fall under its spell, albeit that the process is somewhat sub-consciously driven. I wonder how much of this is at play with scientists who allow their emotions to get involved? It seems this is why approaches like'double blind' testing are put in place.
Thank you for this great comment and thoughtful feedback. This is one of the stories that felt as is someone was dictating, and I was just writing it down. I agree with your comments.
You're right on this account about the dense exposition. Unfortunately, it could not be resolved through dialogue prior to or during the test because the scientist was trying to only say what's necessary to avoid biasing the participant responses beforehand, a common problem in real-world research. So he was succinct in his dialogue. Perhaps it could have been handled after the experiment when the participant is allowed to ask questions in a more relaxed and informal manner, but then the reader wouldn't get a heads up about the key issue. I do think you're right, I would just need to think harder about showing not telling and that sounds like hard work 😄
Thank you!
You brought up another important point that I forgot to respond to in my initial reply.
The biases that us humans have are fiendish, and double-blind studies are one way to deal with these issues, but sometimes this cannot be done for various reasons, and other methods have to be used like (ethical) deception or misdirection, so the person being tested doesn't become aware of the true nature of the study and behave unnaturally.
Not to get too much into the weeds, but I think that one mistake in psychology research is not including the scientist as part of the methodology. We like to think that the researcher is neutral and impartial, but the influence of the observer and the environment in which testing takes place could affect the experiment and should be addressed more formally.
This is too much thinking for a Saturday, but I love the topic! :)