From: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks)
Subject: Re: Colbys-Weizenbaum and Overcoming Depression 2.0
Reply-To: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
	<C0o16u.49F@cs.bham.ac.uk> <1993Jan11.163329.28409@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:14:37 GMT

>>>>> "BC" == B Chandrasekaran <chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:

BC makes several interesting points in a previous posting.  I need
to quote a long paragraph; the point I will try to make after the
quotation is not in disagreement with the expressed judgement of
either alternative BC considers, but to point out that the implicit
dichotomy doesn't cover all the options.

  BC> iii.  The problem with the electronic shrink is how it is
  BC> presented.  If the reason to use it is to give emotional comfort
  BC> to the patient by implying that there is an agent in the
  BC> computer that "cares" about the patient, or that the designers
  BC> of the program (say, the Colbys) "care" about the patient (the
  BC> individual patient, not patients in general), I think such use
  BC> may be fair game for criticism.  If, however, the shrink is used
  BC> as a device by which relevant knowledge can be brought to bear
  BC> on the patient's situation, an analysis is made, and plausible
  BC> therapeutic options are suggested (including encouraging the
  BC> patient to think in a certain way), that seems to me beyond
  BC> reproach.  I think that at least in the current state of the
  BC> art, there is every reason to view such computers as cognitive
  BC> agents, without necessarily attributing to them the full range
  BC> of attributes of a mind.

I sometimes find it useful to interact with even something as limited
and brittle as the gnuemacs "doctor" (a version of Eliza), *without*
expecting *either* advice or emotional support.  Rather, it helps me
clarify for myself what I'm actually thinking and feeling.  Having to
type it out in words seems to require thinking it through more
thoroughly than I do even when I make a point of sitting quietly and
conducting an internal dialogue.

I suppose that journal-keeping may serve a similar function for some.
But I never got in that habit; and the impermanence of an interactive
session is usefully somewhat loosening.  Also, even though I know
exactly what's going on inside the program, its responses and
questions can sometimes take me by surprise and make me try to look at
something in a way I would not have come up with in a solo internal
dialogue.  This effect would probably be more frequent and more
interesting in a sophisticated program, say one which knows the right
times to ask "Do you really believe that?" and so on.

This self-clarification effect, if I recall, was the basis on which
Jung recommended the I Ching even to westerners who reject any
supernatural basis for the outcome of a casting.  (This remains
different from saying that it's a compilation of wisdom which you can
read for advice.)  If, like me, one doesn't really believe that the
selection of the text had anything to do with one's situation, there
are advantages to a computer interaction which EVEN BY SURFACE
MANIPULATION seems to bear on the topics one brings up.
--
Mitch Marks    mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.