Talk:The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind/Archive 1

Misc
"continued work has not provided support for the idea"

This isn't true if you consider deMause's work to indirectly support Jaynes. I get the strong impression that they didn't know about each other but their respective theories fit together like a lock and key. It's just that they're attacking the same problem from slightly different angles.

Incidentally, fitting Jaynes' theory to deMause's fills holes in both of them. The result is amazing. Has anyone addressed the issue of desemination of consciousness throughout the world in such a short period?

why did we not see isolated populations with Bicameral minds?

Who supports Jaynes?
"Some authorities, however, consider Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offered conditional support ... Some scholars suggest that Jaynes' theory describes a real event ..." -- Can anybody firm up just who said authorities and scholars might be? -- 11 October 2005

Content Migration 12/20
Migrating the "theory" content from "Julian Jaynes" page to "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" as this has been suggested by others and is the standard across Wikipedia.

Due weight tag
From reviewing discussions at Talk:Julian Jaynes, it appears at a glance that this article goes out of its way to emphasize positive responses to this work to a degree that does not reflect the balance of reliable sources. The article could likely benefit from an integration of the Commentary and Criticisms subsections, as this can allow for a more natural presentation of diverse reactions to the work. The list of conferences influenced by the work need citations to independent sources establishing the significance of the conferences and verifying their relationship to this work. signed,Rosguill talk 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
How can this article not so much as mention the fact that the theory is almost universally regarded by scientists, historians of science, and philosophers of science, to be a paradigmatic case of pseudoscience? Most of its most significant claims are hopelessly untestable, and most of Jayne's arguments are based on confirmation bias and evidential selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.98.70 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your statement is complicated, but the simple answer to your question is that nothing should be stated without a source. Can you provide, say, one source to support any of your assertions? Who says that Jaynes's theory is a "paradigmatic case" of anything? Is there any analysis to support the claim that it is "pseudoscience", or is that just name-calling on your part? How do you know there is an "almost universally" shared agreement with YOUR opinions? Find a relevant, reliable source and go from there...  Of course, if you find sources that echo your opinions and similarly provide no actual analysis, they would neither support your argument nor help to improve the article. And remember: the sole purpose of the talk-page is to improve the article, not to debate the theory. B.Sirota (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)