Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Broadbent was wrong to suppose that the psychological effects of unattended stimuli can only depend on properties of which the inattentive perceiver can be aware.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Broadbent's supposition depends on the assumption that the processes supporting personal-level awareness are linear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The linearity assumption about the processes supporting personal-level awareness is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Subliminal priming studies (Dehaene et al. 1998) demonstrate that masked stimuli alter behavior without reaching conscious threshold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If unattended stimuli causally influence behavior via non-conscious pathways, their effects cannot be constrained by awareness conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Broadbent's filter model presupposes a single bottleneck, but parallel processing architectures allow stimulus effects prior to any awareness gate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Marcel's (1983) dissociation experiments show semantic processing of stimuli subjects explicitly deny perceiving, evidencing sub-personal semantic effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any theory limiting unattended-stimulus effects to awareness-accessible properties cannot accommodate documented semantic priming without conscious access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.