[FRIAM] IS: Research on Dreams WAS: hidden

Tue May 19 19:22:20 EDT 2020

Well, yes, but for which mill??

If one accepts dream reports as proxies for dreams, what is the universe to which one is generalizing?  

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Research on Dreams WAS: hidden

Memories and the accounts thereof are considered valid dream material and it is well known that they have an imperfect relationship to the dream.  It doesn't matter.  Even if a person makes up.a dream; it is grist for the mill.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 19, 2020, 2:29 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> > wrote:

This is very close to what I was going to propose, except I intended to say something snarky like: We *already* do nomothetic studies of dreams. The results of which are gathered and used in sleep labs all over the country.

But it sounds like y'all are talking about doing a nomothetic study of what people *say*, not what they dream. When someone talks about the content of their dreams, can you trust them to tell the truth? ... to know the truth? I'd argue, no. They're making up a *story* about what they just experienced.

The same is true about, say, self-reporting alcohol consumption ... or whether or not you'd help a person in an argument with an abusive spouse. Narrative is untrustworthy.

On 5/19/20 1:20 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>  wrote:
> I settled on soliciting from my colleagues around the country as variable a set of song samples and then published on what was true of all of them.  The extremes of that sample also gave us grounds to say what a mockingbird “could” do.  I suppose this was “nomothetic” research, but it also had an idiographic taint. 
> 
> Could this sort approach be used with dreaming? 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200519/e10acc60/attachment.html>