Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms

Wolf wrote:
ck wrote:
[...]


Thanks for the heads up, i'm really after a discussion on the
implications, as oppose to the definitions attached to cause
and effect.

Er, I have no idea what you mean by this. What's a definition attached to cause and effect? What implications do you want to discuss? You can't discuss implications if X if what you mean by X is something other than what I mean by X. IOW, from your comments sofar I see you talking about something that I don't recognise as the behaviourist stance. So I'd like to know what you think you are talking about. Then maybe we can get to some implications.

Ok skinner, from the little i've read, was supposedly against the
coercive use of that science, and given the instincts of the human
being at its center, it would have to be in someway coercive. This science to go by its definitions might as well be the science of
freewill, since everything including what we take to be our will
is subsumed by this science. My question relates to the subversion
of our will using the knowledge amassed by this science.

Then there's the implications in a science which by definition
doesn't need to ask questions. All it needs to know is apparently
there in the observable. Man and beast treated the same way. On
that basis you can make any assumption you like so long as it
matches the data. The same observation could have many causes, but
this science would only be concerned with what it saw. There seem
little need by this science to connect to the intangibles of
behavior, the history, or experience, or physiology of the person.
What are the implications when this is used to judgment. Behavior
without concern for circumstance, quite a contradiction.

Further implications come with the cultural basis for behavior,
the differences between them and us, the observer and the observed.
How does one allow for those whose behavior is informed by this
appreciation for the artificiality of culture. Philosophically
i would say we see ourselves in the observed, seeing first what
we are, or are not, before we see the person. Being only human,
we see our learned models, before we see what is before us.

I could go on. This isn't so much a discussion the minutia
of the science, but humanness which comes with everything we do.
Its about the difference between theory and practice, the
difference between the science, where it is controlled, and the
technology made of that science, where it is not. Away from
the text book or the diligent professional, what would this
science become? Another religion? Do we see the person or the
definitions bound to the numbers. Definitions whose truth belie
their function.


What of the effects we haven't yet charted for this
science? Who thinks ahead? You might start with the few on the
receiving end of this science, all the differences between
theory and daily chore of its practice.

You're confusing science with technology. When it comes to the technology of persuasion and control, all successful persuaders/controllers, of whatever religious or political orientation, have used thoroughly behaviouristic methods, although most of them have taken great care to dress them up as something else - "freedom of choice" is a popular one nowadays, especially in the USA.

I am after the interpretation made by those called to apply
this science to life. ours is a goal oriented culture, which
cheats to make the job easy. The culture is populated by the
practitioners who aren't much concerned with detail, just
meeting his goals. This the real world context for this science.
I am questioning the human qualities any burocrasy, where is
the psychological understanding on the way psychology is applied. ;)


Its interesting to see GS ask for definitions of positive
reinforcement, when even Father Skinner acknowledged what
applies for one person won't necessarily apply to another.

Erm, by this reasoning, bridge building has the same problems. What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. Except of course for general principles. Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. You, for example, have certainly been positively reinforced to behave politely, etc -- all the behaviours that make it possible for people to get along with each other. I mean, you weren't born with them, were you? Most of that reinforcement occurred below your level of consciousness, by which I mean you weren't aware that your behaviours were reinforced, nor which ones, only that you were getting along nicely with some other person(s).

General principles aside, my point is how do you know what is
positive, from what is negative? As skinner himself said
there are no fixed rules for what one person will take to as
positive or negative. I suppose observation would be key, but
then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer.
When it comes to people watching, this science is as much about
the observer as it is about the observed.


On a practical level, out amoungst the masses there wouldn't
be any room in its practice to recognize the subjectivity of
this area. Its a science of models and probabilities looking
to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth.

Huh???? Without some example of what you have in mind by "subjectivity in this area", I can't parse this comment. Kindly elucidate. The second sentence is no clearer than the first. What do you mean by "preordained behaviour"? What do you man by "looking to make truth [of something]"? And if by "routine to prove its worth" you mean something like the tedious gathering of data in repeated experiments and observations, well, that's a price paid in all sciences that I have knowledge of (and did lab work in in my younger days.) If you means something else, kindly elucidate.

Ok, an explanation. I am talking from the point of view of the
application of this science, where it is asked to produce a
particular behavior, or make a judgment of behavior.

My understanding is this science,[ at least post skinner], is
based on a form or empiricism, a collation of cause and effect
leading to classifications of behaviors. I am saying those who
follow this science will turn those classifications into
expectation, hard and fast rules. Almost as if to validate
these models, the same behaviors would be sought. Leading to
a kind of paradox since the observer is not immune to the
model. In that way behavior becomes preordained, limiting.
When i talk of making truth, i am really talking about this
validation of the model, and the need to make the behavior
fit the model we think we know.

Its worst if your function was limited to finding behavior x,
as oppose to just charting all the behaviours you saw before
you. Again the practice is riddled with subjectivity. As for
the point about repetition, i am talking here of a kind of
self interest, this science is only justified if it can
deliver what it claims, behavior. The particular point is we
are talking about people and a science which needs people to
be predictable.

How do you achieve this? Needless to say this science supplies
the answers. Again the point is about the applied science.


As for agenda, our cleric GS would do well to consider the
future proscribed by Father Skinner.

I suggest you look up the difference between "proscribed" and "prescribed." You are saying something quite contrary to your intentions, insofar as I can infer them from your comments above and in previous posts.

ah hum... yes i of course meant "prescribed".

And FWIW, I react negatively to use of "its" as "it's". ;-)


;-)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What implications do you want to discuss? ... receiving end of this science, ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Science deals with observable, verifiable, identifiable phenomina. ... source and the observer and as it is impossible for the observer to ... the +/- operator when you are computing speeds as seen in the other FoR. ... Lorentz for the aether that Lorentz was trying to recessitate after MMX ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... ethos of this 'science' as his ideology. ... forces on the observer a kind of bureaucracy of observation. ... What did Skinner ... Stimulus and Response." ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)