Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms


"TruthSlave" <TS@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f7kaqk$ud3$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"ck" <ck_NoSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xiani.27726$vA3.25481@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"ck" <ck_NoSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JPSmi.39265$ri2.21894@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JGCASEY wrote:
On Jul 17, 12:46 am, ck <ck_NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"ck" <ck_NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZtmi.35012$3j1.18067@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Cj8mi.26127$2v1.458@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Instead, his view was that, for example,
some
circumstance strengthens some core responses (let's look at
tacts for
the
moment) and then the core responses become temporally organized
as a
function of contingencies that produce other units that we call
grammar
and
syntax (these are autoclitics). The utterance is often emitted
as a
complete
occurrence, not assembled after "the early parts" are emitted.
Skinner
felt
that Spoonerisms provided evidence that this, in fact, was the
case
since
later parts of the response appeared to exert control over
earlier
parts.
That seems like an over-analysis.
I'm not sure about Spooner. But for most people, spoonerisms
are
used (and coined) because they are fun. When my father used to
mention "Thud and Blunder" movies, it was because he thought
that
was a better description than "Blood and Thunder".
I was specifically talking about "non-deliberate" Spoonerisms.
You seem
to be talking about those that are produced via rule-following,
and these
are not of much interest. Still, the fact that there may be
"thuds" and
the characters frequently seem to make the worst of blunders
suggest some
of the processes operating that I described, though I never heard
of the
term "Blood and Thunder." If you are talking about Spoonerisms
that
"occur to people" (i.e., not the product of a deliberate
rule-generated
transposition) and are funny, your explanation is not far off
from mine -
except for the lack of the "explanation" part.
To follow your point, i would also add the greatest benefit in
observing spoonerism is the clue they provide to the normal
generation of language. You say spoonerisms represent the
Should read ------> You could say

normal mechanisms gone slightly asquew.
No I don't.
To which you would no doubt reply -- no i wouldn't ;-/
GS is limited to radical behaviorist terminology and a radical
behaviorists world view. I don't think AI actually interests
him at all.


Then i look forward to crossing swords with GS.

Behavioral-ism as an scientific idea might be an interesting
exercise in categorization, however when its applied as
blind creed, it takes on other properties which has little
to do with any kind of scientific rational. It becomes a
means to order, with the mantle of 'science' used to justify
that order.

Man treating man as dumb beast, because he can, with the
ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. Its a science
lending itself to a world order around the idea behaviour,
the oldest part of our being exploited ahead of thought.

The very title detaches the 'subject' from the observer, it
forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation.
Behaviour as explaination for everything leading to a view
where the whole becoming less than the sum of its parts.
Reductionism lending its self to less. Less thought, less
scrutiny, less questions. One doesn't so much question as
attribute. Its statistics leading to facts without any real
understanding. Definitions/acceptances bound to statistics
before any real understanding of why?

Please don't get be started on this 'science'.
Let's give you a little quiz. What is the behaviorist view of
"thinking." Imagination? What would a behaviorist say about the charge
of reductionism? How does the methodology of behavior analysis differ
from that of most of psychology? What did Skinner champion as the most
important dependent variable? Why? What did Skinner mean when he talked
about "the natural lines of fracture"? Discuss this in terms of his
paper "On the Generic Nature of Stimulus and Response." How is an
operant response class defined? What is the definition of a reinforcer?
What is "negative punishment? What was Skinner's view on the ethics of
punishment and aversive control? What is a mand? A tact? An autoclitic?
What did Skinner mean by "pre-current behavior?" What were the main
points made in "The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms"? What
was Skinner's take on how most of psychology reacted to Bridgeman's
discussion of "operationism"? How did Skinner respond to charges that
behavior analysis was "atheoretical"?
You might as well call this voodoo science skinnerism.

This is the same man paraphrasing Nietzsche, what do you suppose
was the point there? It wasn't just about psychology, it was
about a whole direction for life. Man as lab rat, poked with
no care by those informed by this doctrine our feelings is
nothing but behavior. Man as magician, using this science
of base instincts, to command order by the crudest motives.

Were this science left operate in its own domain, it would
be of little concern to me. What i question is the cheats
which comes when what we grow to depend on, is determine by
virtue of that dependency to be successful, and the rest of
us follow its apparent success by adopting its creed in
every other walk of life.

I don't question its core understandings, what i question is
the doctrine, where the model understand is confused with
model applied.

Behavioralism is to this coming century, what Darwin was
to the last. A mode of thought none will be able to oppose,
simple because so much will be invested in its doctrine. How
did we manage before Darwin, how did will we manage after
behaviouralism. This bleak view of humanity as mere lab
rat is what i question, not the core biological observation
from which it takes its power.

Of course there will be those so caught up with the word on
the page of this bible that they fail to see its purpose.
Such people won't notice until its too late the effects
this 'science' is having on our core interactions, the
pups at large playing with its easily transcribed modes
of behaviour.

The irony as the autonomous man is create to facilitate
the power of this new order. Makes me to wonder, is this
really how we evolves a greater capacity for thought, or
just about the crudest level of control.

Okie-dokie. I see you don't need me to show what an idiot you are.

And once again...

Skinerism is not so much about understanding as about
control. Its not about thought, its about obedience.

Its the control and obedience observed in the cage
lab animal. A destiny outlined by this science for man.

Its a science practiced in the margins on a few before
it finds the many, finds them as new modes of behavior.
Skinerism. The clever part of this science is that not
even the practitioners are immune from their changed
states. Mind set so they can't see to escape their new
condition.

You sir are the high priest transfixed by the power
of this new bible. Looking now to swap chapter and
verse. Dare you see this doctrine and its truthful
context? Or will just follow its apparent success
without thought?

Adapted and loving it...

This type of thing has been addressed before. What has been said? You don't
know, do you? And what does that show, moron? Why nothing less than the
control exerted over you by those that peddle this crap. Interesting, ain't
it?



.

Quantcast