Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms

Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"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?


There is too much said in this area to know everything.
I dropped by to learn and express an interest in AI, not
necessarily to discuss Skinner. That said, the fashion
of skinnerism is everywhere. There is no way to avoid him.
What he offered is too seductive, too tempting to ignore.
The question is do we appreciate the implications of what
he preached? Is there any thoughts on its limitations.

Desired behavior, good and mad, models for behavior, innate
and cultural, rules, predictions, assumptions, projections,
constraints, goals and control. Eventually we'll all speak
the language without knowing it. Behave in whatever way the
culture demands, as we are expected to behave for fear of
being confused for some other type of behavior. Eventually
it will become a done deal, as we all communicate by the
same thought, until that time we have a choice.

As far as A.I is concerned i am still undecided as to what
Behaviorist offers, maybe you'd care to humor me on this
point.

That said, the science isn't one thing, there are competing
philosophies to that 'science', some choosing to connect the
observable to physiologically, to biology and by implication
to a keener sense of circumstance, others though say the
science is just about the observable. Defined thus, it is
accepted as little better than a statistical science.
Probabilities used to define behavior, and thus the person.

What scares me is the implications of a 'science' which
purposefully detaches itself from the observed, a science
which remains on the outside, the judgments which follow
without question. and worst, is accepted by the burocrates
on that basis. I am thinking of all those paper pushers,
book worm with knowledge of but no real understanding, least
ways not enough to question what they practice.

You'll pardon my rhetoric, i am not questioning what the
science says it observes, i am not questioning the categories
it creates for those observations, what i question are those
who would use this science to limit expression to what this
science claims to predict.
.