Julian Jaynes Is Not for the Intellectually Fainthearted — But Breaking Jaynesian Psychology Down into Four Hypotheses Makes Things Easier

By Brian J. McVeigh

Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).

I first encountered Julian Jaynes’s The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind almost 45 years ago. Though the book made sense to me, I could see why people would reject its arguments. Nevertheless I assumed that once carefully explained, people may not agree but would at least be able to discern a certain logic behind Jaynesian psychology. How naïve I was.

Read the complete text from this episode here:

https://www.julianjaynes.org/2022/06/07/julian-jaynes-is-not-for-the-intellectually-fainthearted/

Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

The Need to Acknowledge Bicameral Vestiges: Jaynesian Psychology Finds Support not just from the Ancient World

By Brian J. McVeigh

Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).

This post is inspired by a recent exchange I had with a commentator who saw little value in relying on biblical accounts as evidence to support Jaynes’s theories because they were “fairytales.” Presumably such a criticism could be extended to other writings that constitute humanity’s extensive religious tradition. It is worth responding to this line of critique because it is not an uncommon reaction from those who find fault with Jaynes (and for what it’s worth, Jaynes did not set out to explain the origins of religion; his research was on the origin of consciousness).

Read the complete text from this episode here:

https://www.julianjaynes.org/2022/04/26/the-need-to-acknowledge-bicameral-vestiges/

Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Disentangling Inner Speech, Self-dialogue, and Auditory Hallucinations: The Mind Is a Machine for Sociopsychological Communication

By Brian J. McVeigh

Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).

How are inner speech, self-dialogue, auditory imagery, and hallucinations related? And what exactly are hallucinations? Some have suggested that hallucinations are caused by a monitoring defect in inner speech (also termed inner voice, silent speech, subvocal speech, covert speech, self talk, internal monologue, verbal thought, etc.) (Fernyhough, The Voices Within, 2016). Such a claim, however, ignores the overwhelming evidence concerning hallucinations before about 1000 BCE. Any theoretical linkage must take into account one crucial datum: hallucinations were central to normal sociopsychological functioning. Hallucinations, which were ubiquitous in the ancient world, were a mechanism for social control (until about the first millennium BCE). The “monitoring defect” hypothesis confuses matters: Rather than hallucinations resulting from a problem with inner speech, inner speech is a type of watered-down hallucination. This is why, arguably, for some an inner voice possesses agent-like properties or is accompanied by a felt presence, suggesting vestigial bicameral mentality.

Read the complete text from this episode here:

https://www.julianjaynes.org/2021/10/26/disentangling-inner-speech-self-dialogue-and-auditory-hallucinations/

Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.