Psychology, Robert S. Woodworth [android based ebook reader .txt] 📗

is closely related to the {373} unreliability of testimony that was mentioned before under the head of "unintentional memory". [Footnote: See pp. 346-348.] Facts recalled are facts previously observed.

It is true, of course, that recalled facts can be compared and new facts be observed by the comparison. We may recall how John looks, and how James looks, and note the fact, not previously observed, that they look alike. A great deal can be inferred in this way by a person who is sitting in his room far from the objects thought about. But this noting of the relationships of different objects is a very different matter from observing what is there, in a single object or scene. What is there can only be observed when you are there.

The Question of Non-Sensory Recall

Many observed facts are not strictly facts of sensation, though observed by means of the senses. Let us suppose, for an example, that your attention is caught by the bright green new leaves at the tips of the branches of an evergreen tree in summer, and that you notice also the darker green of the older leaves further back along the branches, and, exploring deeper, find leaves that are dead and brown, while still further in they have all fallen off, leaving bare branches reaching back to the trunk; so that you finally "see" how the tree is constructed, as a hollow cone of foliage supported by an interior framework of branches. All this has meant a lot of different reactions on your part, and the final "seeing" of how the tree is constructed would scarcely be called a sensation, since it has required mental work beyond that of simply seeing the tree. It is a response additional to the strictly sensory response of seeing the tree.

Now the question is whether this additional response can be recalled, without recalling at the same time the primary {374} response of seeing the tree. Can we recall the fact observed about the tree without at the same time seeing the tree "in the mind's eye"? Must we necessarily have an image of the tree when we recall the way the tree is constructed?

Since getting the general sensory appearance of the tree, and observing the way it is constructed, are two different responses, it seems quite conceivable that either fact should be recalled without the other; and no one doubts that the sensory appearance of the tree can be recalled without the other observed fact coming up along with it. But many authorities have held that the non-sensory fact could not be recalled alone; in other words, they have held that every recalled fact comes as a sensory image, or with a sensory image. Persons with ready visual imagery are of course likely to get a visual image with any fact they may recall. But persons whose visual imagery is hard to arouse say that they recall facts without any visual image. I who write these words, being such a person, testify that while I have been writing and thinking about that tree I have not seen it before my mind's eye.

It is true, however, that I have had images during this time--auditory images of words expressing the facts mentioned. Another individual might have had kinesthetic images instead of either visual or auditory. But can there be a recall of fact without any sensory image?

On this question, which has been called the question of "imageless thought", though it might better be called that of "imageless recall", controversy has raged and is not yet at rest, so that a generally accepted conclusion cannot be stated. But the best indications are to the effect, first, that vague and fleeting images, especially of the kinesthetic sort, are often present without being detected except by very fine introspection, some image being pretty sure to come up every few seconds when we are engaged in silent thought or {375} recall; but, second, that images are not present every second of the time, and that at the instant when a non-sensory fact is recalled it is apt to be alone.

Hallucinations

Since a vivid mental image may be "in all respects the same as an actual sensation", according to the testimony of some people, the question arises how, then, an image is distinguished from a sensation. Well, the image does not usually fit into the objective situation present to the senses. But if it does fit, or if the objective situation is lost track of, then, as a matter of fact, the image may be taken for a sensation.

You see some beautiful roses in the florist's window, and you smell them; the odor fits into the objective situation very well, till you notice that the shop door is shut and the window glass impervious to odors, from which you conclude that the odor must have been your image.

You are lost in thought of an absent person, till, forgetting where you are, you seem to see him entering the door; he "fits" well enough for an instant, but then the present situation forces itself upon you and the image takes its proper place.

You are half asleep, almost lost to the world, and some scene comes before you so vividly as to seem real till its oddity wakens you to the reality of your bedroom. Or you are fully asleep, and then the images that come are dreams and seem entirely real, since contact with the objective situation has been broken.

Images taken for real things are common in some forms of mental disorder. Here the subject's hold on objective fact is weakened by his absorption in his own desires and fears, and he hears reviling voices and smells suspicious {376} odors or sees visions that are in line with his desires and fears.

Such false sensations are called "hallucinations". An hallucination is an image taken for a sensation, a recalled fact taken for a present objective fact. It is a sensory response, aroused by a substitute stimulus, without the subject's noticing that it is thus aroused instead of by its regular peripheral stimulus.

Synesthesia.

Quite a large number of people are so constituted as to hear sounds as if colored, a deep tone perhaps seeming dark blue, the sound of a trumpet a vivid red, etc. Each vowel and even each consonant may have its own special color, which combine to give a complex color scheme for a word. Numbers also may be colored. This colored hearing is the commonest form of "synesthesia", which consists in responding to a stimulus acting on one sense, by sensations belonging to a different sense. Whether the persons so constituted as to respond in this way are constituted thus by nature or by experience is uncertain, though the best guess is that the extra sensations are images that have become firmly attached to their substitute stimuli during early childhood.

Free Association

Mental processes that depend on recall are called "associative processes", since they make use of associations or linkages previously formed. When some definite interest or purpose steers the associative processes, we speak of "controlled association", contrasting this with the "free association" that occurs in an idle mood, when one thought simply calls up another with no object in view and no more than fleeting desires to give direction to the sequence of thoughts.

Revery affords the best example of free association. I {377} see my neighbor's dog out of my window, and am reminded of one time when I took charge of that dog while my neighbor was away, and then of my neighbor's coming back and taking the dog from the cellar where I had shut him up; next of my neighbor's advice with respect to an automobile collision in which I was concerned; next of the stranger with whom I had collided, and of the stranger's business address on the card which he gave me; next comes a query as to this stranger's line of business and whether he was well-to-do; and from there my thoughts switch naturally to the high cost of living.

This is rather a drab, middle-aged type of revery, and youth might show more life and color; but the linkages between one thought and the next are typical of any revery. The linkages belong in the category of "facts previously observed". I had previously observed the ownership of this dog by my neighbor, and this observation linked the dog and the neighbor and enabled the dog to recall the neighbor to my mind. Most of the linkages in this revery are quite concrete, but some are rather abstract, such as the connection between being well-to-do (or not) and the high cost of living; but, concrete or abstract, they are connections previously observed by the subject. Sometimes the linkage keeps the thoughts within the sphere of the same original experience, and sometimes switches them from one past experience to another, or even away from any specific past experience to general considerations; yet always the linkage has this character, that the item that now acts as stimulus has been formerly combined in observation with the other item that now follows as the response. One fact recalls another when the two have been previously observed as belonging together.

But suppose, as is commonly the case, that the fact now present in my mind has been linked, in different past {378} experiences, with several different facts. Then two questions demand our attention: whether all these facts are recalled; and, if not, what gives the advantage to the fact actually recalled over the others that are not recalled.

The answer to the first question is plain. The fact first present in mind does not call up all the associated facts, but usually only one of them, or at least only one at a time. My neighbor, in the example given, though previously associated with a dozen other facts, now calls up but two of these facts, and those two not simultaneously but one after the other. We see a law here that is very similar to a law stated under the head of attention. There, we said that of all the objects before us that might be noticed only one was noticed at a time; and here we say that of all the objects that might be recalled to mind by association only one is recalled at a time. Both statements can be combined into the one general "law of reaction" which was mentioned before, that of all the responses linked to a given stimulus (or complex of stimuli) only one is actually aroused at the same instant, though several may be aroused in succession, provided the stimulus continues.

In revery, the stimulus usually does not continue. The first fact thought of gives way to the fact that it recalls, and that to one that it recalls in turn, and so on, without much dwelling on any fact. But if we do dwell on any fact--as upon the thought of a certain person--then this stimulus, continuing to act, calls up in succession quite a number of associated facts.

If, then, only one of the several facts associated with the stimulus is recalled at once, our second question presents itself, as to what are the factors of advantage that cause one rather than another of the possible responses to occur. The fact first in mind might have called up any one of several facts, having been linked with each of them in past {379} experience; and we want to know why it recalls one of these facts rather than the rest.

The factors of advantage in recall are the factors that determine the strength of linkage between two facts; and they are:

the frequency with which the linkage has occurred;
the recency with which it has occurred; and
the intensity with which it has occurred.

If I have frequently observed the connection of two facts, the linkage between them is strong; if I have recently observed their connection, the linkage between them is strong till the "recency