Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms


"ck" <ck_NoSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Mi4oi.32$mo.25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"ck" <ck_NoSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gj2oi.160$S91.91@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
I wonder if you recognize the psychology in your reply.
Speak on my terms, by my definitions or else my assumption
of you follows.

I wonder if you recognize your own behavior, or for that
matter the behavior which follows as a matter or course
by the practice and acceptance of this 'science'. Daddy
skinner knows best. Don't you mess with my God.

An alternate interpretation is that you are, in fact (speaking
colloquially), an idiot.

Well rather than resort to an exchange of insults, as you
seem predisposed to. I might agree with you and go as far
as to say i would be an idiot, if i were exposed to knowledge
that i failed to comprehend. You however have not made anything
like that attempt. Your definition of an idiot appears to be
one who doesn't share the same extent of knowledge as you.

Even then there's a distinction to be made between one who
knows and one who understand. There's even the duplicity of
what purports to be knowledge. Take nothing for granted,
question everything.

So GS, in the spirit of knowledge and philosophy do you
understand the implications of the knowledge you look to
share, or do you remain on the surface of this new religion.
What psychology rules your behavior?

[I don't have a quarrel with you or even this branch of the
science, but rather with the implication as man with all his
errors, looks to control man and all his potential.]

Skinner used to say that the critics of behaviorism and behavior analysis
alternated between criticizing the possibility of a science of behavior and
criticizing the implications of the science. I hope you appreciate the irony
of this. As to responding to you in a substantive fashion, I can do that.
But first you have to say something worth more than simple insult. The fact
is, many behaviorists have addressed this issue, including Skinner. What
have they said? How is it that you don't know the answer to this?




.