David Antin | In Place of a Lecture

David Antin

In Place of a Lecture : Three Musics for Two Voices by David Antin

New York City, USA: Aspen Communications, 1970

[32] pp., 3.8 x 20.2 cm., staple-bound

Edition size unknown

An oblong artists' book designed by George Maciunas, for inclusion in Aspen Number 8, which was edited by Dan Graham and designed by Maciunas. The book contains a text to be performed jointly by David and his partner Eleanor Antin, in three alternating voices:

"A FARMER FROM NEARBY WHIDBEY ISLAND VISITED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON. HE HAD WITH HIM A CARVED WHALEBONE AND CLAIMED THAT IN HIS HANDS THE BONE WAS AN EXTREMELY POWERFUL INSTRUMENT CAPABLE OF DETECTING THE EXISTENCE OF EVEN SMALL QUANTITIES OF WATER. TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM HE SAID THAT SEVERAL OF HIS NEIGHBORS ON WHIDBEY HAD TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO BRING IN WATER WELLS. FINALLY THEY HAD CALLED UPON HIM FOR HELP. HE HAD TAKEN HIS WHALE BONE, GRASPED ONE FORK IN EACH HAND, AND WALKED SLOWLY OVER THE GROUND. SUDDENLY THE POINT OR APEX OF THE BONE HAD DIPPED SHARPLY TOWARD THE GROUND. WHEN HIS NEIGHBORS HAD DRILLED WELLS AT THE POINTS HE HAD LOCATED IN THIS FASHION, THEY HAD FOUND WATER. WHAT WAS THE FARMER'S NAME? FARMER BROWN. THE FARMER ADDED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HIS PARTICULAR POWER. HIS NEIGHBORS WERE UNABLE TO USE THE WHALEBONE IN LOCATING WATER. IT HAD TO BE IN HIS HANDS BEFORE IT WOULD DIP SHARPLY INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF WATER. HE WAS SOMEWHAT DISTURBED BY HIS ABILITY AND HE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THE UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGISTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EXAMINING HIM AND TELLING HIM WHY IT WAS THAT HE WAS ABLE TO USE THE BONE SO EFFECTIVELY WHILE OTHERS COULD NOT. HE HIMSELF THOUGHT IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH "MAGNETISM" THAT EMANATED FROM HIS BODY. WHY DID HE GO TO A PSYCHOLOGIST? IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS MAGNETISM WHY DIDN'T HE GO TO A PHYSICIST OR SOME OTHER NATURAL SCIENTIST? MAYBE HE THOUGHT IT WAS SOME KIND OF SPIRITUAL SICKNESS. BUT IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS MAGNETISM WHY WOULD HE THINK OF SICKNESS? WELL MAYBE HE THOUGHT IT WAS SOME PECULIARITY OF HIS BODY. THEN WHY NOT A DOCTOR? ANYWAY, HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE HIS ABILITY SO THAT THE PSYCHOLOGISTS COULD SEE FOR THEMSELVES. PERHAPS THEN THEY COULD EXPLAIN IT TO H I M. I'M STILL NOT SURE I UNDER STAND WHY HE WENT TO A PSYCHOLOGIST. BUT HE DID. AT THIS POINT IN HIS STORY THE FARMER TOOK A PAPER CUP AND FILLED IT WITH WATER AND PLACED THE CUP ON THE FLOOR. APPARENTLY EVEN HIS NEIGHBORS WERE DISTURBED. OTHERWISE WHY DID THEY WAIT SO LONG TO CALL ON HIM? HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WAITED SO LONG? IT SAYS "FINALLY THEY HAD CALLED UPON HIM..." ALSO, WHERE DID THE WHALEBONE COME FROM? IT WAS CLEARLY A DIVINING ROD "A CARVED WHALEBONE." IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FIND WATER. DID IT BELONG TO THE FARMER OR TO ONE OF HIS NEIGHBORS WHO WAS UNABLE TO USE IT? IF IT BELONGED TO A NEIGHBOR, HOW DID THE FARMER EVER DISCOVER HIS GIFT? IF IT BELONGED TO THE FARMER, WHY DID HIS NEIGHBORS BOTHER TO TRY USING IT THEMSELVES? AT THIS POINT IN THE STORY THE FARMER TOOK A PAPER CUP AND FILLED IT WITH WATER AND PLACED THE CUP ON THE FLOOR. HE THEN GRASPED THE WHALEBONE AND HELD IT STIFFLY IN FRONT OF HIM AS HE MOVED SLOWLY ABOUT THE ROOM. WHEN THE APEX OF THE BONE PASSED OVER THE CUP OF WATER HIS ARMS TREMBLED SLIGHTLY AND THE BONE DIPPED TOWARD THE GROUND. THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN AND REMARKED THAT THE FORCE WAS SO POWERFUL HE WAS ALMOST UNABLE TO KEEP THE BONE IN HIS GRIP. I WONDER HOW CLOSE IT HAD TO BE? HOW PRECISELY HE COULD LOCATE THE WATER. SUPPOSING IT WAS VERY PRECISE AND LED HIM TO A WATER COOLER. IF THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE AVAILABLE WHAT IF IT LED HIM TO A WATER PIPE? THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN. WOULD IT LEAD HIM TO ICE? OR STEAM? OR ICE CREAM? DO YOU THINK IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO ANY RESERVOIR OF WATER? IT COULDN'T, BECAUSE IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO TOO MANY THINGS. ME IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO LEAVES. THE WATER CONTENT OF LEAVES IS VERY HIGH. IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO CUCUMBERS. MAYBE THE FARMER WAS TIRED OF TREMBLING? TREMBLING? THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN AND REMARKED THAT THE FORCE WAS SO POWERFUL HE WAS ALMOST UNABLE TO KEEP THE BONE IN HIS GRIP. THE PSYCHOLOGIST THANKED THE FARMER FOR HIS DEMONSTRATION AND SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO TEST THE FARMER'S ABILITY TO LOCATE WATER UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, BUT THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE SOME PREPARATION. WOULD THE FARMER BE AGREEABLE TO RETURNING FOR THESE TESTS NEXT WEEK. THE FARMER AGREED AND PROMISED TO RETURN AT AN APPOINTED TIME. NOW IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE "EVIDENCE" THE FAR ME R CITED AS TO HIS ABILITY IS NOT THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO A TRAINED SCIENTIST. THE FARMER WASN'T CITING EVIDENCE. HE WANTED TO FIND OUT WHY HE HAD THE ABILITY TO DISCOVER WATER AND NOBODY ELSE DID. HE WAS DISTURBED BY HIS PECULIARITY. HE WASN'T AT ALL DISTURBED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD IN FACT DISCOVER WATER. WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE SATISFACTORY? TO WHOM? HOW SHALL THE CLAIM OF THE FARMER BE INVESTIGATED? I WASN'T AWARE THAT HE WAS MAKING A CLAIM. HE HAD A PROBLEM. LET US SEE HOW THE PSYCHOLOGIST DESIGNED AN EXPERIMENT WHICH WOULD YIELD DATA BEARING UPON THE PROBLEM. THE PSYCHOLOGIST HAD A PROBLEM. BUT THEY WERE NOT THE SAME PROBLEM. WHEN THE FARMER RETURNED TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY THE NEXT WEEK HE WAS GREETED BY THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND TAKEN TO ONE OF THE LABORATORY ROOMS. SPREAD AROUND THE FLOOR OF THE ROOM WERE 10 PIECES OF PLYWOOD ABOUT 1 FOOT BY 1 FOOT IN SIZE. NUMBERS FROM 1 TO 10 HAD BEEN MARKED UPON THE TOP OF EACH SQUARE. THE PIECES OF PLYWOOD WERE RESTING ON TIN CANS ABOUT NO. 2 IN SIZE. THE PSYCHOLOGIST EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD USED A TABLE OF RANDOM NUMBERS AND HAD PICKED 5 CANS TO BE FILLED WITH WATER WHILE THE REMAINING 5 WERE LEFT EMPTY. WHAT WAS THE FARMER'S NAME? FARMER BROWN. NO, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS WHY THE FARMER DIDN'T RECEIVE A NAME. THE PSYCHOLOGIST DIDN'T RECEIVE A NAME EITHER. BUT THEY NAMED THE ISLAND. A LOT OF TIMES. WHIDBEY ISLAND. ONE. TWO. TWICE, THEY NAMED THE ISLAND AND THE UNIVERSITY. IT WAS WHIDBEY ISLAND AND WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY AND WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND IT WAS A PSYCHOLOGIST. A PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY. THEY DIDN'T WELL WHY DIDN'T THEY NAME THE PSYCHOLOGIST. I DON'T KNOW. THEY DIDN'T NAME THE PEOPLE AT ALL. THEY EVEN DESCRIBE THE WHALEBONE WITH GREAT PARTICULARITY. HE DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE PEOPLE AT ALL. IT WAS A CARVED WHALEBONE WITH AN APEX AND TWO FORKS THAT IS TO SAY TWO BRANCHES COMING TO A FORK AND THE FARMER HAD OWNED IT AND THE FARMER HAD NO NAME. NO. AND HE ALSO HAD NO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS EITHER. HE WASN'T TALL, HE WASN'T SHORT, HE WASN'T FAT, HE WASN'T SKINNY. BUT HE TREMBLED. BUT HE TREMBLED. I WAS THINKING THAT. WE'RE AWARE THAT HE TREMBLED AND HE WAS AND HE WAS UPSET AND HE WAS UPSET AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST GREETED THE FARMER HE ALSO HAD NEIGHBORS HE HAD NEIGHBORS HE DID HAVE NEIGHBORS AND WERE THE NEIGHBORS UPSET? WE LL, THEY WAITED ALONG TIME BEFORE COMING TO HIM. THEY WERE RELUCTANT TO CALL ON HIM? YEAH, SO THEY WERE SOMETHING. THE NEIGHBORS WERE RELUCTANT TO CALL ON HIM BUT CAME TO HIM AT LAST HE TREMBLED. HE WAS UPSET. THEY WERE PROBABLY SOMEWHAT DISTURBED. THE PSYCHOLOGIST WASN'T TROUBLED. HE MERELY GREETED THE FARMER. IT SAID HE GREETED THE FARMER. RIGHT. DID HE WELCOME HIM BACK TO THE LABORATORY WHEN HE CAME BACK? HE WAS GREETED AND THEN HE RETURNED TO THE LABORATORY. HE WAS GREETED AND THEN TAKEN TO ONE OF THE ROOMS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PSYCHOLOGIST SAID WHEN HE GREETED HIM? "HELLO, FARMER BROWN?" "HOW DO YOU DO, FARMER BROWN?" "COME THIS WAY, FARMER BROWN?" "I HOPE YOU'RE ALL SET, FARMER BROWN, HEE, HEE, HEE?" "WERE READY FOR YOU, FARMER BROWN?" PERHAPS THE FARMER WAS NOT NAMED FARMER BROWN. HE SAID, "I'M READY FOR YOU, ABRAHAM." AND THEN ABRAHAM SAID, "I AM READY." "I AM READY DOCTOR." THE DOCTOR SAID, "COME THIS WAY ABRAHAM." AND ABRAHAM FOLLOWED HIM OUT. ABRAHAM WAS WEARING A BUCKSKIN SUIT. NO, PROBABLY NOT. HE WAS WEARING HE WAS WEARING OVERALLS. OVERALLS. HE MAY HAVE GOTTEN DRESSED UP BETTER TO SEE THE PSYCHOLOGIST. WELL HE MAY HAVE EXPECTED AN EXPERIMENT OF SOME SORT SO MAYBE HE WAS JUST WEARING OVERALLS EVERYDAY CLOTHES BUT HE COULD HAVE WORN SUNDAY CLOTHES. NO, I IMAGINE THE FARMER WAS WEARING HIS SUNDAY SUIT. BUT SINCE HE DIDN'T CONFESS TO A PRIEST I DOUBT IF HE WAS RELIGIOUS. THAT'S RIGHT, SO WHAT DID HE HAVE A SUNDAY SUIT FOR? FOR WEDDINGS OR FUNERALS. A SUNDAY SUIT IS FOR GOING DRIVING INTO TOWN. GOING INTO TOWN. FARMERS GO INTO TOWN IN THEIR REGULAR OVERALLS. I'VE SEEN THEM. THAT'S TRUE. MAYBE IT WAS FOR GOING TO THE FIREMAN'S ANNUAL DINNER. RIGHT, OR GOING TO THE UNIVERSITY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S AUXILIARY PERHAPS HE GOT DRESSED UP YOU THINK HE REGULARLY VISITED THE UNIVERSITY? NO, BUT PERHAPS HE DID THIS TIME. SO MAYBE HE PUT ON HIS GOOD SUIT WELL, IT WAS THE SUIT THAT HE PROBABLY WORE WHEN HE WENT OUT. NOW THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS WEARING IS A CURIOUS POINT. WAS THE PSYCHOLOGIST WEARING A SUIT ALSO? BY THE WAY I WOULD EXPECT THAT HE WOULD WEAR HIS REGULAR WORK CLOTHES WHEN HE CAME IN BECAUSE HE ALWAYS DID IT AND HE USED THE WHALEBONE IN HIS REGULAR WORK CLOTHES. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE DID THE FIRST TIME HE CAME BUT NO, HE ALSO DID THE EXPERIMENT THEN HE HAD TO SHOW HIM I SUSPECT THAT HE CAME BOTH TIMES IN HIS REGULAR WORK CLOTHES BECAUSE HE WAS PROBABLY GETTING VERY SUPERSTITIOUS ABOUT THE WHOLE THING AND MAYBE HE THOUGHT THE MAGNETISM HE WANTED TO COME AS HE ALWAYS CAME WHEN HE DEALT WITH IT. SO ABRAHAM ARRIVED IN HIS WORK CLOTHES THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS DRESSED IN A SUIT PROBABLY WITHOUT THE JACKET AND WITH THE TIE OPEN RIGHT. WITH THE TIE LOOSE AND THE SHIRT OPEN AT THE TOP BUTTON. MAYBE HIS SLEEVES ROLLED UP. MAYBE HIS SLEEVES ROLLED UP BECAUSE HE HAD JUST PLACED PLYWOOD OVER CANS AND THE KNEES OF HIS SUIT WELL HE COULD HAVE GIVEN ORDERS HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT. AND THE KNEES OF HIS SUIT... IF I KNOW PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES HE HAD DONE IT HIMSELF. THERE WAS NOBODY TO DO IT FOR HIM? PROBABLY NOT. THERE'S NO OTHER PEOPLE SO ... PROBABLY THERE WAS NO MONEY TO BE SPENT ON USING ASSISTANTS FOR THIS EXPERIMENT SO THAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S KNEES WERE STILL DIRTY FROM CRAWLING AROUND ON THE FLOOR PLACING PLYWOOD OVER TIN CANS. YOU DON'T THINK THE FLOOR WAS CLEAN? PROBABLY NOT OVERLY CLEAN. PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES ARE NOT SWEPT WITH THAT IMMENSE REGULARITY WELL THIS WAS ONE OF THE ROOMS. THAT'S RIGHT. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SMALL ROOM THAT WASN'T FREQUENTLY USED. WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DUSTY. MMM. WELL THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE IT OVERLY CLEAN CONSIDERING THE FARMER WORKED OUT IN THE EARTH ANYWAY. AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS WEARING A SHARK SKIN SUIT WITHOUT THE JACKET UNLESS IT WAS THE SUMMERTIME IN WHICH CASE HE WAS PROBABLY WEARING A TROPICAL SUIT WITHOUT THE JACKET. WHAT COLOR TROPICAL SUIT? TAN. A TAN TROPICAL SUIT AND A WHITE-ON-WHITE TRANSPARENT SHIRT WITH SHORT SLEEVES SO HE DIDN'T HAVE THE SLEEVES ROLLED UP. THAT'S RIGHT. AND PROBABLY A TIE PIN. AND PINK FRECKLY ARMS BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HAD WELL PERHAPS FRECKLED ARMS BARE ARMS AND YELLOW HAIR RECEDING YELLOW HAIR I WAS THINKING OF YELLOW HAIR ON HIS ARMS AND HE HAD RECEDING YELLOW HAIR ON HIS HEAD AND STEEL RIMMED GLASSES UNLESS HE WAS A SNAPPY PSYCHOLOGIST AND WORE SHELL RIMMED GLASSES AND HE LOOKED LIKE A VILLAGE INDEPENDENT DEMOCRAT WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE UNLESS HE WAS A VERY HANDSOME YOUNG MAN WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE AND HE HAD VERY DARK HAIR WITH VERY BLUE EYES. AND HE WORE A TURTLE NECK SWEATER NOT IN THE SUMMER HE DIDN'T. NOT IN THE SUMMER. HE WORE A SWEAT SHIRT AND THE FARMER WAS SOMEWHAT IRRITATED AT HIM BECAUSE THE FARMER WAS WEARING A SUNDAY SUIT AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS WEARING A SWEAT SHIRT. ALL RIGHT. GO ON. WHAT DID ABRAHAM SAY? NOT ABRAHAM. GOD. SAID THAT HE HAD USED A TABLE OF RANDOM NUMBERS AND HAD PICKED 5 CANS TO BE FILLED WITH WATER WHILE THE REMAINING 5 WERE LEFT EMPTY. WINSTON. WHO'S WINSTON? WINSTON HOROWITZ. IS THE DOCTOR? AND WHO'S THE FARMER? ABRAHAM. NO, ABRAHAM? JUST PLAIN ABRAHAM? ABRAHAM. HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER 5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS OF WATER. EGGERS? ABRAHAM EGGERS. IT'S GOOD. ABRAHAM EGGERS HAD REPORTED TO WINSTON HOROWITZ HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER 5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS WITH WATER AND UNDER 5 OTHERS WINSTON HOROWITZ 5 OTHER SECTIONS WHY COULDN'T HE BE CALLED WINSTON? BECAUSE HE HAD JEWISH PARENTS? THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO NO. I'M NOT ANTI-SEMITIC. HE WAS CALLED WINSTON. HE EVEN PRECEDED THE CIGARETTE. HE MAY HAVE BEEN NAMED AFTER WINSTON CHURCHILL. HIS MOTHER AND FATHER REMEMBERED THAT SPEECH "ON THE BEACHES..." "WE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE BEACHES- "WE WILL FIGHT THEM IN THE CITIES... " "BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS" OH THAT. AND HIS PARENTS HAD WITH TEARS IN THEIR EYES REMEMBERED FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT AND WOULD HAVE CALLED HIM FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT BUT THEY REMEMBERED THE SPEECH OF WINSTON CHURCHILL AND THEY NAMED HIM WINSTON HOROWITZ. MAYBE BECAUSE IF HIS NAME WAS FRANKLIN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FRANKIE AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT NAME THINKING IT WAS VULGAR. BUT WINSTON HE WOULD JUST BE CALLED WINSTON ALL THE TIME WELL THEY WERE OR WINNIE THEY PROBABLY HAD NEVER HEARD WINNIE AND WOULD HAVE IMAGINED WINSTON LENT A CERTAIN DIGNITY AND PROBABLY WOULD ALWAYS HAVE CALLED UPON THE REMEMBRANCE OF CHURCHILL BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY WINSTON THEY HAD EVER HEARD MAYBE HE'S WINSTON DELANO WINSTON DELANO HOROWITZ? THAT'S QUITE POSSIBLE WINSTON DELANO HOROWITZ BUT NOBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT BECAUSE HE PROBABLY SIGNED IT WINSTON D. HOROWITZ WHICH HE USED TO SIGN ALL HIS CHECKS. IF HIS NAME WAS WINSTON HOROWITZ THEY ASSUMED WINSTON WOULD HAVE REMINDED EVER Y ONE OF CHURCHILL WHEREAS IT REMINDED EVERYONE OF THE CIGARETTE LATER. THAT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT. IN THOSE DAYS THEY HAD LUCKY STRIKES WHICH HAD GIVEN UP ITS GREEN. WAS IT LUCKY STRIKE THAT HAD THE GREEN PACKAGE AND THE GREEN METAL CASE THEY HAD RALEIGHS AND CHESTERFIELD. NO THEY HAD A GREEN METAL CASE WHICH THEY PHILIP MORRIS THERE WAS IN FACT AN AD THAT SAID "LUCKY STRIKE GOES TO WAR" WHICH MEANT THAT THE LUCKY STRIKE GAVE UP ITS GREEN BECAUSE THE GREEN WAS A METALLIC INVOLVED A METALLIC COLOR AND THEY GAVE IT UP FOR THE WAR EFFORT. OH REALLY? YES, IN FACT WHEN I WAS IN KANSAS LAST YEAR TED BERRIGAN AND/ PICKED UP SEVERAL OF THE OLD CANS OF LUCKY STRIKE WITH THE GREEN PAINT ON THEM AND THEN WE REMEMBERED THE SLOGAN "LUCKY STRIKE GOES TO WAR. "AND I THINK THAT THEY HAD NOT KNOWN OF THE BRANDS LIKE WINSTON. THEN YOU SEE THE PSYCHOLOGIST AS BEING VERY YOUNG. YES I THINK HE PROBABLY WAS A YOUNG PSYCHOLOGIST YOU SEE HIM AS BEING SOMETHING LIKE 27 PROBABLY. HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN VERY OLD BUT I DOUBT IT. PROBABLY EVERYONE ELSE KEPT SENDING HIM LOWER AND LOWER IN THE ECHELON AND FINALLY HE WAS SENT HERE. THEY PROBABLY GAVE HIM TO THE YOUNGEST SNAPPIEST YOUNG DOCTORATE AROUND. ONE WHOSE PROJECTS WERE NOT INVOLVED TO SUCH AN EXTENT. OF COURSE HE HAD TO HAVE THE TIME. THEY HAD TO HAVE THE TIME TO EVEN CONSIDER THE SUBJECT. THEY GAVE HIM TO THE FREE DOCTORATE. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A YOUNGER MAN. ANY OF THE EUROPEANS WOULD HAVE SOUNDED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ANYWAY IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN AN AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A EUROPEAN BORN BEHAVIORIST AND THERE ARE OLDER AMERICAN BEHAVIORISTS BUT I SOMEHOW SEE HIM AS A YOUNG 27, 28 YEAR OLD PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE FARMER? NAMED AFTER WINSTON CHURCHILL. AND WHAT ABOUT ABRAHAM? I SEE ABRAHAM AS BEING A MIDDLE-AGED MAN. I WOULD THINK OF ABRAHAM AS BEING ABOUT 50. WHY DON'T YOU GO ON? YES. HE EMPHASIZED BUT ABRAHAM WASN'T AWARE OF HIS GIFT I DON'T THINK UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY NO. PROBABLY IT WAS A LATE DISCOVERY. HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER 5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS WITH WATER AND UNDER 5 OTHER SECTIONS WERE DRY CANS AND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EMPTY AND FILLED CANS WAS PURELY A RANDOM ONE. THE PSYCHOLOGIST NOW WANTED THE FARMER TO TAKE HIS WHALEBONE AND ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE 10 SQUARES OF PLYWOOD INTO 2 GROUPS ONE GROUP WOULD BE THE 5 COVERING THE CANS FILLED WITH WATER AND THE OTHER GROUP WOULD BE THE 5 COVERING THE EMPTY CANS THE FARMER DID NOT NEED TO MAKE HIS CHOICE IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER HE WAS MERELY TO DIVIDE THE SET OF 10 SECTIONS INTO 2 GROUPS OF 5 EACH. LET US EXAMINE THIS EXPERIMENT IN SOME DETAIL. WE SHALL PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE KINDS OF CHOICES THE FARMER MIGHT MAKE THE HYPOTHESIS WHICH THE EXPERIMENTER IS TESTING AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS IS TO BE MADE. THE PSYCHOLOGIST MAY REASON IN THIS WAY, "LET US ASSUME THAT THE FARMER DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PARTICULAR POWERS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO LOCATE PERHAPS YOU SHOULD CALL THE FARMER ABRAHAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST DR. HOROWITZ AS YOU READ. DR. HOROWITZ MAY REASON IN THIS WAY, "LET US ASSUME THAT ABRAHAM DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PARTICULAR POWERS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO LOCATE WATER WITH HIS WHALEBONE THAT THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH IS OPERATING IN DETERMINING HIS CHOICE IS CHANCE." THIS IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS WHICH THE EXPERIMENT IS DESIGNED TO TEST. THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE EXPERIMENT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED IN A SIMPLE WAY BY THE RULES FOR PERMUTATIONS AND COMBINATIONS. PERMUTATIONS REFER TO THE NUMBER OF ARRANGEMENTS (ORDERS) IN WHICH A SET OF n DISTINCT OBJECTS MAY BE ARRANGED. IN GENERAL THE NUMBER OF PERMUTATIONS OF n DISTINCT OBJECTS TAKEN r AT A TIME IS GIVEN BY THE EQUATION nPr = n!/(n- r) WHERE n! IS CALLED FACTORIAL n AND REPRESENTS (n)(n-1)(n-2) AND SO ON OR THE PRODUCT OF ALL THE SUCCESSIVE INTEGERS FROM n TO 1. IN THE PROBLEM AT HAND THE NUMBER OF ORDERS IN WHICH 5 SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD MAY BE SELECTED FROM THE AVAILABLE 10 IS 1OP5 = 10!/(10-5)! = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)/(5)(4)(3)(2)(1) = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6) = 30,240. THIS FIGURE GIVES US EVERY POSSIBLE ORDER I.E. ANY I OF THE 10 SECTIONS MAY BE SELECTED FIRST. THIS CHOICE MAY BE FOLLOWED BY ANY I OF THE REMAINING 9. THIS CHOICE MAY BE FOLLOWED BY ANY 1 OF THE REMAINING 8 AND SO ON UNTIL 5 HAVE BEEN SELECTED BUT IN THIS EXPERIMENT THE PSYCHOLOGIST IS NOT GOING TO DEMAND THAT THE FARMER SELECT THE SET OF 5 CANS CONTAINING WATER IN THE PARTICULAR ORDER IN WHICH THE PSYCHOLOGIST PUT THE WATER INTO THEM OR IN ANY OTHER PARTICULAR ORDER. ALL THAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST IS INTERESTED IN IS THE SET OF 5. ONCE THE SET HAS BEEN SELECTED AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED THE SET OF 10 5 8 2 3 SELECTED IN THAT ORDER IS EQUIVALENT TO THE SET 8 3 2 10 AND 5 SELECTED IN THAT ORDER OR IN ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORDER. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE SET OF 5 SELECTED OBJECTS OR SECTIONS MAY THEMSELVES BE ARRANGED IN (5)(4)(3)(2)(1) = 120 ORDERS ACCORDING TO FORMULA 5. THUS DIVIDING 30,240 BY 120 ORDERS WE OBTAIN 252 WAYS IN WHICH A SET OF 5 OBJECTS MAY BE SELECTED FROM 10 IF THE ARRANGEMENT IS IGNORED. IN GENERAL THE NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS (ARRANGEMENT IGNORED) OF n DISTINCT OBJECTS TAKEN r AT A TIME IS GIVEN BY THE EQUATION nCr = NPR/rPr = n!/(n-r)!/r! = n!/r!(NR)! OR IN THE PRESENT PROBLEM 1OC5 = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)/[(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)][(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)] = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)/(5)(4)(3)(2)(1) = 30,240/252. NOW THE BEST THAT ABRAHAM COULD POSSIBLY DO IN THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT WOULD BE TO SELECT THE PARTICULAR SET OF 5 WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THOSE WITH WATER IN THE CANS AND THIS PARTICULAR SELECTION WOULD BE 1 OUT OF 252 POSSIBILITIES. IF ONLY CHANCE FACTORS WERE OPERATING IN DETERMINING THE SELECTION AND THIS EXPERIMENT WAS REPEATED AN INDEFINITELY LARGER NUMBER OF TIMES, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT THIS PARTICULAR SET TO BE SELECTED WITH A FREQUENCY APPROACHING 1/252. THUS 1 DIVIDED BY 252 GIVES A VALUE OF .004 (MORE PRECISELY .00397) AND THIS MAY BE REGARDED AS A PROBABILITY. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER WE SHALL REGARD PROBABILITY AS A STATEMENT CONCERNING THEORETICAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY. WE SAY THAT THE VALUE OF P IS .004 OR THAT THIS RESULT WOULD BE EXPECTED BY CHANCE ALONE ONLY ABOUT 4 TIMES IN 1000. THIS VALUE OF P IS OBVIOUSLY SMALLER THAN .05 WHICH WE AGREED TO REGARD AS SIGNIFICANT. WE ALSO AGREED THAT A SIGNIFICANT VALUE OF P WOULD RESULT IN A REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS BEING TESTED. HENCE IF ABRAHAM IS ABLE TO CHOOSE THIS PAR SET OF 5 WITH THE AID OF HIS WHALEBONE THEN WE SHOULD UNDOUBTEDLY FEEL THAT THE PROBABILITY OF THIS OCCURRING BY CHANCE ALONE IS SUFFICIENTLY SMALL THAT THE HYPOTHESIS WITH ITS RELATED ASSUMPTIONS IS NOT CONSIDERED TENABLE. AT THIS POINT WE SHALL DO WELL TO CONSIDER WHAT THE REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS MEANS. IF THE HYPOTHESIS IS REJECTED THIS MEANS ONLY THAT THE EXPERIMENTER IS NOT WILLING TO ASSUME THAT CHANCE DETERMINED THE SELECTION. IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE WHALEBONE HAS HAD ANY PARTICULAR INFLUENCE UPON ABRAHAM'S CHOICE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH. THE PSYCHOLOGIST MIGHT BE WILLING TO ASSUME OR INFER THAT THE WHALEBONE PLAYED SOME PART IN ABRAHAM'S SELECTION BUT HE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DO THIS ONLY IF OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS HAD BEEN RULED OUT IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLS. WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS? WITHOUT THE EXPERIMENTER KNOWING ABOUT IT ABRAHAM MAY HAVE USED THE TOE OF HIS FOOT TO TAP THE CANS UNDER THE BOARD. SINCE IN THIS MANNER THE CANS FILLED WITH WATER COULD EASILY BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EMPTY CANS IT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR A PERFECT SELECTION UPON ABRAHAM'S PART. IF THIS WAS THE BASIS OF ABRAHAM'S SELECTION THEN OBVIOUSLY THE WHALEBONE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CHOICES. ABRAHAM MIGHT EVEN DENY THAT HE HAD USED THIS CUE THE SOUND OF THE CAN WHEN TAPPED WITH HIS FOOT IF QUESTIONED ABOUT IT. BUT THE PSYCHOLOGIST KNOWS THAT MANY OF OUR CHOICES AND JUDGMENTS DR. HOROWITZ? BUT DR. HOROWITZ KNOWS THAT MANY OF OUR CHOICES AND JUDGMENTS ARE BASED UPON FACTORS OF WHICH WE ARE NOT AWARE. IT WOULD BE DR. HOROWITZ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE RULED OUT BY OBSERVATION OR BY SOME OTHER CONTROL THIS POSSIBILITY. AGAIN DR. HOROWITZ WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ABRAHAM HAD NOT TAPPED THE TIP OF THE WHALEBONE ON THE TOPS OF THE PLYWOOD SECTIONS. IF ABRAHAM HAD DONE THIS HIS CHOICE MIGHT BE DETERMINED BY THE DIFFERENCES IN SOUND OF THE SECTIONS COVERING THE WATER-FILLED CANS AND THE SECTIONS COVERING THE EMPTY CANS. HE COULD THUS MAKE A PERFECT SELECTION OF THE FIVE WATER-FILLED CANS AND THE EXPERIMENTER WOULD REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE BUT NOTE AGAIN THAT THE REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF ABRAHAM'S CLAIM CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE OF THE WHALEBONE. ANOTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE PERFECT SELECTION MIGHT BE THAT DR. HOROWITZ HAD SPILLED SOME OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR IN FILLING THE CANS. THIS WATER MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY MOPPED UP BUT SLIGHT CUES MAY HAVE REMAINED THE ABSENCE OF DUST OR THE CLEANLINESS OF THE FLOOR UNDER THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD CONTAINING WATER AS A RESULT OF THE MOPPING MIGHT PROVIDE CUES FOR ABRAHAM'S CHOICE. OR PERHAPS DR. HOROWITZ GAVE SOME SIGN A HOLDING OF HIS BREATH OR AN UNCONSCIOUS BITING OF HIS LIPS AS ABRAHAM MOVED THE WHALEBONE OVER THE SECTIONS CONTAINING WATER. ABRAHAM'S CHOICE MIGHT THUS BE BASED UPON ONE OF THESE UNCONSCIOUS GESTURES OR REACTIONS OF DR. HOROWITZ WITHOUT OF COURSE DR. HOROWITZ AND PERHAPS EVEN ABRAHAM BEING CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THESE CUES WERE THE BASIS OF ABRAHAM'S CHOICE. WHEN WILL HE EVER GET TO THE WHALEBONE? OR WHEN WILL THE WHALEBONE GET TO HIM? LOOK SUPPOSING A MAN COMES BY WHILE ABRAHAM IS OUT IN THE FIELD WITH HIS WHALEBONE.. AND HE COMES B Y SOMEHOW IN A HELICOPTER AND HE TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS OF ABRAHAM... AND ABRAHAM IS BENT OVER HIS WHALEBONE AND HE TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS FROM RIGHT ABOVE HIS HEAD AND YOU SEE THE TOP OF ABRAHAM'S HEAD AND HIS BACK AND IT'S BENT AND YOU SEE HIS ARMS DOWN AND HE DEVELOPS THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THERE IS NO WHALEBONE. HE JUST LOOKS LIKE A HUNCHBACK. WHAT IF ABRAHAM'S LYING? WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? THAT WOULD MEAN THAT HE NEVER FOUND WATER OUT IN THE FIELD BUT IT WOULD MEAN THAT HE'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT IN THE LABORATORY OR IT WOULDN'T BE WORTH HIS WHILE. WELL, HE'D BE FOUND OUT TOO QUICKLY. SO THAT THE QUESTION OF LYING IS NOT A QUESTION OF HIS HAVING NO POWER BUT HIS HAVING POWER TO FIND THE WATER IN A LABORATORY. OR HAVING POWER OVER PSYCHOLOGISTS. WHICH IS THE POWER OF FINDING WATER IN A LABORATORY. SO ABRAHAM SPECIALIZES IN PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES. AND HE'S NEVER FOUND WATER IN THE FIELD. BUT HE HAS A WHALEBONE. AND HE COMES IN. AND HE DEMONSTRATES HIS POWER WITH THE WHALEBONE OVER A PAPER CUP. AND THEN HE TELLS DR. HOROWITZ, "I CAN FIND WATER IN THE FIELD, LOOK." AND HE'S CONFIDENT THAT WHEN DR. HOROWITZ SETS UP THE EXPERIMENT SOMEHOW OR OTHER HE'LL FIND WATER, NOW DR. HOROWITZ SUSPECTS SOMETHING OF THIS SORT. DR. HOROWITZ HAS ALREADY IN EXAMINING THE EVENT CONSIDERED THAT ABRAHAM HAS FORCED HIM INTO ERRORS OF NEGLIGENCE OR ERRORS OF PHYSICAL INADEQUACY. THAT'S RIGHT, HE CAN'T HEAR HIM WHEN HE TAPS WITH HIS FOOT AND THAT HE CAN'T HEAR HIM THAT HE CAN'T SEE LEAN OVER AND TAP THE CANS WITH THE WHALEBONE. OR FINALLY THAT ABRAHAM HAS THAT HE'S SLOPPY AND LEAVES WATER ALL OVER THE FLOOR THAT HE'S GOTTEN HIM NERVOUS ENOUGH TO BE SLOPPY AND LEAVE SPOTS OF WATER ON THE FLOOR OR THAT ABRAHAM MANAGES TO ELICIT FROM HIM PHYSICAL CUES INVOLUNTARILY THAT IS HOLDING HIS BREATH. GOES PALE. DR. HOROWITZ SEEMS TO BE WAITING FOR ABRAHAM. AND ABRAHAM.. AND TO EXPECT THAT HE WAS THAT HE WAS VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABRAHAM. AND ABRAHAM SEEMS TO BE WAITING FOR DR. HOROWITZ. HE'S LOOKING FOR DR. HOROWITZ AND DR. HOROWITZ IS LOOKING FOR HIM. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK HE FOUND IT? HE DIDN'T FIND IT. HE MUST HAVE FOUND IT OR DR. HOROWITZ WOULDN'T HAVE ABANDONED THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. WELL HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT MORE THAN 3 TIMES. WHY NOT? HE'D HAVE GOTTEN BORED. SAY HE DID IT TWICE. DID WHAT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL HOW MANY CANS DID HE FIND? FIVE. WHAT IF HE FOUND 4? ON THE FIRST TRY OR THE SECOND? ON THE FIRST TRY. THEY'D RUN THE EXPERIMENT AGAIN. WHAT IF HE FOUND IT ON THE SECOND? THEY'D STILL HAVE TO RUN IT AGAIN. WELL WHAT IF HE FOUND 4 ON BOTH SHOTS? THE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONCLUSIVE. IN A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT THESE FACTORS AND MANY OTHERS THAT THE EXPERIMENTALIST MAY SUGGEST MUST BE CONTROLLED IF LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE TO BE DRAWN CONCERNING THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT. IT IS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THESE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE DERIVED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE EXPERIMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE CONTROLS EXERCISED. THEY DO NOT COME FROM THE TEST OF THE STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS. THE STATISTICAL TEST INDICATES ONLY THE PROBABILITY OF A PARTICULAR SET OF RESULTS UPON THE BASIS OF THE STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTED, NAMELY THAT CHANCE ALONE IS DETERMINING THE OUTCOME. IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE FARMER BASES HIS CHOICE ON THE WHALEBONE OR THAT THE WHALEBONE IS IN ANY WAY INFLUENTIAL IN DETERMINING THE OUTCOME. IF THE EXPERIMENTER REJECTS THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE HE MUST STILL EXAMINE THE STRUCTURE OF HIS EXPERIMENT AND THE NATURE OF HIS EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLS IN MAKING WHATEVER EXPLANATION HE DOES MAKE AS TO WHY HE OBTAINED THE PARTICULAR RESULTS HE DID. NEED LESS TO SAY MOST PSYCHOLOGISTS IN TERMS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF EXPERIMENTS UPON RELATED PROBLEMS WOULD WANT TO EXAMINE CRITICALLY AND CAREFULLY THE EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLS IN THE FACE OF PERFECT RESULTS UPON THE PART OF THE FARMER. THE ACCUMULATED EVIDENCE UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVINING RODS IN LOCATING WATER IS NEGATIVE."

David Antin died on this day in 2016.