MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017224796 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2010.0025

"What is Natural in Me": David Copperfield , Faculty Psychology, and the Association of Ideas

2010· article· en· W2017224796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyson Stolte

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsnobodySurpriseNarrativePower (physics)ParagraphNatural (archaeology)PsychoanalysisComplaintLiteratureSign (mathematics)PsychologyPhilosophyHistoryArtLawSocial psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"What is Natural in Me":David Copperfield, Faculty Psychology, and the Association of Ideas Tyson Stolte, Winner of the 2009 Hamilton Prize (bio) David Copperfield begins the narrative of his life by musing on the gifts with which he was born. In the novel's second paragraph, he jokes about the inborn ability ascribed to him by neighbourhood women on account of the time of his birth: the ability to see ghosts and spirits. In the rest of the novel, David returns often, in a more serious vein, to the claim that at least some of his mental faculties are innate. Writing of his power of observation, for instance, he contends that "most grown men who are remarkable in this respect, may with greater propriety be said not to have lost the faculty, than to have acquired it" (11).1 This same inborn power of observation, moreover, provides the clue by which we learn that David's complaint about being sent to Murdstone and Grinby's is founded on the innate gifts that were thereby nearly wasted. As he explains, It is a matter of some surprise to me, even now, that I can have been so easily thrown away at such an age. A child of excellent abilities, and with strong powers of observation, quick, eager, delicate, and soon hurt bodily or mentally, it seems wonderful to me that nobody should have made any sign in my behalf. (132) In other words, while critics may have found in David a rather bland Everyman, this is not how Dickens—or David—would have us see him. Instead, we sense the novel's approval of Micawber's assessment that the young David's mind "is a rich soil teeming with latent vegetation" (221): the seeds of David's future success, his substantial innate gifts, are there at birth, only waiting to burst forth. Knowing as we do from Forster's Life of Charles Dickens (1872-74) that Dickens drew upon his own experiences at Warren's Blacking Factory for his depiction of David's suffering at Murdstone and Grinby's, it almost goes without saying that David, in insisting on his inherited gifts, sounds very much like his author. But sound like Dickens he does. Dickens's autobiographical fragment includes a passage nearly identical to the one above, also stressing innate gifts: It is wonderful to me how I could have been so easily cast away at such an age. It is wonderful to me, that, even after my descent into [End Page 55] the poor drudge I had been since we came to London, no one had compassion enough on me—a child of singular abilities: quick, eager, delicate, and soon hurt, bodily or mentally—to suggest that something might have been spared, as certainly it might have been, to place me at any common school. (qtd. in Forster 1: 21) It is peculiar, then, that in the little that has been written about this novel's engagement with contemporary psychology, critics have asserted that it draws on associationism, a body of psychology that denies the existence of innate gifts.2 Such readings are problematic, not only because association psychology fails to acknowledge the inborn abilities on which both David and Dickens insist but also because the 1840s and 1850s saw associationism at the heart of passionate debate in the periodical press and popularly perceived as a threat to religious belief and to the promise of immortality. This essay seeks to restore David Copperfield (1849-50) to its position in the midst of such psychological controversy. I assert the significance of this debate to Victorian culture at mid-century as well as its role in shaping the world imagined in the novel. Against the seeming critical consensus that this is a novel deeply indebted to associationist psychology, then, I argue for David Copperfield's immersion in the still-dominant—and spiritually informed— Scottish faculty psychology of its day, the psychology against which Victorian commentators invariably set associationism. Guided by the Victorian belief that fiction represented a viable means of contributing to scientific knowledge, I read the novel alongside and as in some ways parallel to the numerous articles on the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.031
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207