criminal psychology-第66节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
rdly be able to answer。 He nowhere finds support； or he seeks one of his own； and naturally finds the wrong one。 So the information that an ordinary traveler brings home is mainly identical with what he carries away； for he has ears and eyes only for what he expects to see。 For how long a time did the negro believe that disease pales the coral that he wears？ Yet if he had only watched it he would have seen how foolish the notion was。 How long； since Adam Smith； did people believe that extravagance helps industry； and how much longer have people called Copernicus a fool because they actually saw the sun rise and set。 So J。 S。 Mill puts his opinions on this matter。 Benneke＇1＇ adds； ‘‘If anybody describes to me an animal； a region； a work of art； or narrates an event； etc。； I get no notion through the words I hear of the appearance of the subject。 I merely have a problem set me by means of the words and signs； in the conception of the subject； and hence it depends for truth mainly upon the completeness of earlier conceptions of similar things or events； and upon the material I have imaginatively at hand。 These are my perceptual capital and my power of representation。''
＇1＇ E。 Benneke： Pragmatische Psychologie。
It naturally is not necessary to ask whether a narrator has ever seen the things he speaks of； nor to convince oneself in examination that the person in question knows accurately what he is talking about。 At the same time； the examiner ought to be clear on the matter and know what attitude to take if he is going to deal intelligibly with the other。 I might say that all of us； educated and uneducated； have apprehended and remember definite and distinct images of all things we have seen； heard； or learned from descriptions。 When we get new information we simply attach the new image to the old； or extinguish a part of the old and put the new in its place； or we retain only a more or less vigorous breath of the old with the new。 Such images go far back； even animals possess them。 One day my small son came with his exciting information that his guinea pig； well known as a stupid beast； could count。 He tried to prove this by removing the six young from their mother and hiding them so that she could not see what happened to them。 Then he took one of the six； hid it； and brought the remaining five back to the old lady。 She smelled them one after the other and then showed a good deal of excitement； as if she missed something。 Then she was again removed and the sixth pig brought back； when she was restored to her brood； she sniffed all six and showed a great deal of satisfaction。 ‘‘She could count at least six。'' Naturally the beast had only a fixed collective image of her brood； and as one was missing the image was disturbed and incorrect。 At the same time； the image was such as is created by the combination of events or circumstances。 It is not far from the images of low…browed humanity and differs only in degree from those of civilized people。
The fact that a good deal of what is said is incorrect and yet not consciously untrue； depends upon the existence of these images and their association with the new material。 The speaker and the auditor have different sets of images； the first relates the new material differently from a second； and so of course they can not agree。＇1＇ It is the difficult task of the examiner so to adapt what is said as to make it appropriate to the right images without making it possible for incorrect interpretations to enter。 When we have a well…known money…lender as witness concerning some unspeakable deal； a street…walker concerning some brawling in a peasant saloon； a clubman concerning a duel； a game…warden concerning poaching； the set of images of each one of these persons will be a bad foundation for new perceptions。 On the other hand； it will not be difficult to abstract from them correctly。 But cases of this sort are not of constant occurrence and the great trouble consists in once for all discovering what memory…images were present before the witness perceived the event in question。 The former have a great influence upon the perception of the latter。
＇1＇ Cf。 H。 Gross's Archiv； XV； 125。
In this connection it should not be forgotten that the retention of these images is somewhat pedantic and depends upon unimportant things。 In the city hall of Graz there is a secretary with thirty…six sections for the thirty…six different papers。 The name of the appropriate journal was written clearly over each section and in spite of the clearness of the script the depositing and removing of the papers required certain effort； inasmuch as the script had to be read and could not be apprehended。 Later the name of the paper was cut out of each and pasted on the secretary instead of the script； and then； in spite of the various curly and twisted letters； the habitual images of the titles were easily apprehended and their removal and return became mechanical。 The customary and identical things are so habitual that they are apprehended with greater ease than more distinct objects。
Inasmuch as we can conceive only on the basis of the constancy and similarity of forms； we make these forms the essence of experience。 On the other hand； what is constant and similar for one individual is not so for another； and essences of experience vary with the experiencer。
‘‘When we behold a die of which we can see three sides at a time； seven corners； and nine edges； we immediately induce the image or schema of a die； and we make our further sense…perception accord with this schema。 In this way we get a series of schemes which we may substitute for one another'' （Aubert）。 For the same reason we associate in description things unknown to the auditor； which we presuppose in him； and hence we can make him rightly understand only if we have named some appropriate object in comparison。 Conversely； we have to remember that everybody takes his comparison from his own experience； so that we must have had a like experience if we are to know what is compared。 It is disastrous to neglect the private nature of this experience。 Whoever has much to do with peasants； who like to make use of powerful comparisons； must first comprehend their essential life； if he is to understand how to reduce their comparisons to correct meanings。 And if he has done so he will find such comparisons and images the most distinct and the most intelligible。
Sense…perception has a great deal to do in apprehension and no one can determine the boundary where the sense activity ends and the intellectual begins。 I do not recall who has made note of the interesting fact that not one of twenty students in an Egyptian museum knew why the hands of the figures of Egyptian was pictures gave the impression of being incorrectnobody had observed the fact that all the figures had two right hands。
I once paid a great deal of attention to card…sharping tricks and as I acquired them； either of myself or from practiced gamblers； I demonstrated them to the young criminalists。 For a long time I refused to believe what an old Greek told me： ‘‘The more foolish and obvious a trick is； the more certain it is； people never see anything。'' The man was right。 When I told my pupils expressly； ‘‘Now I am cheating；'' I was able to make with safety a false coup； a false deal； etc。 Nobody saw it。 If only one has half a notion of directing the eyes to some other thing； a card may be laid on the lap； thrust into the sleeve； taken from the pocket； and God knows what else。 Now who can say in such a case whether the sensory glance or the intellectual apprehension was unskilful or unpractised？ According to some authorities the chief source of error is the senses； but whether something must not be attributed to that mysterious； inexplicable moment in which sensory perception becomes intellectual perception； nobody can say。
My favorite demonstration of how surprisingly little people perceive is quite simple。 I set a tray with a bottle of water and several glasses on the table； call express attention to what is about to occur； and pour a little water from the bottle into the glass。 Then the stuff is taken away and the astonishing question asked what have I done？ All the spectators reply immediately： you have poured water into a glass。 Then I ask further with what hand did I do it？ How many glasses were there？ Where was the glass into which I poured the water？ How much did I pour？ How much water was there in the glass？ Did I really pour or just pretend to？ How full was the bottle？ Was it certainly water and not； perhaps； wine？ Was it not red wine？ What did I do with my hand after pouring the water？ How did I look when I did it？ Did you not really see that I shut my eyes？ Did you not really see that I stuck my tongue out？ Was I pouring the water while I did it？ Or before； or after？ Did I wear a ring on my hand？ Was my cuff visible？ What was the position of my fingers while I held the glass？ These questions may be multiplied。 And it is as astonishing as amusing to see how little correctness there is in the answers； and how people quarrel about the answers； and what extraordinary things they say。 Yet what do we require of witnesses who have to describe much more complicate
