This is very close to what I was going to propose, except I intended to say something snarky like: We *already* do nomothetic studies of dreams. The results of which are gathered and used in sleep labs all over the country.
But it sounds like y'all are talking about doing a nomothetic study of what people *say*, not what they dream. When someone talks about the content of their dreams, can you trust them to tell the truth? ... to know the truth? I'd argue, no. They're making up a *story* about what they just experienced. The same is true about, say, self-reporting alcohol consumption ... or whether or not you'd help a person in an argument with an abusive spouse. Narrative is untrustworthy. On 5/19/20 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I settled on soliciting from my colleagues around the country as variable a > set of song samples and then published on what was true of all of them. The > extremes of that sample also gave us grounds to say what a mockingbird > “could” do. I suppose this was “nomothetic” research, but it also had an > idiographic taint. > > Could this sort approach be used with dreaming? -- ☣ uǝlƃ -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
