You would only read one side of a debate? And only listen to others views?
When philosophers of opposing schools univocally denounce a system of philosophy, it would be wise to at least believe them until one has the time to investigate further. I do no know Scientology very well, but you can bet I'm not going to look into it unless I have an hour or two to kill.
I have read a little of Skinner. Honestly, I find his conception of the person morally reprehensible, and were his theories of a "utopian" society to be adopted, we would most likely find ourself in a fascist state.
(1) People's subjectivity is formed through conditioning. I.e., people'ss subjectivity is formed through a structuring of possibility.
(2) This structuring of possibility from the object, the possibility of action upon action, is called power.
(3) This structuring of possibility is enveloped by results of punishment and reward.
----Result 1: People's subjectivity is formed by the tendency to act according to the reward granted to them by power.
(1) People's genetic code has a great effect on the predetermination of their actions.
(2) The variances of a genetic code can create wildly different persons.
Result 2: Different people react differently.
(1) The more efficient a system is, the more powerful it is.
(2) The less possibility a person has, the more powerful a system is.
Result 3: Power results from a drive to bifurcation of possibility
(1) [via results 2 and 3] Power necessarily must adapt to both the breadth of difference and the drive to efficiency.
(2) People constitute themselves as a subject through cognition.
(3) Science is the leading epistemological tool of the modern day. Science has a power to structure facticity.
(4) Science proves that people's thoughts come from biological make up and conditioning. They are their behavior.
Result 4: Power is made more efficacious by convinving people that they are their behavior.
(1) [via result 1 and prop 3 of result 4] People's behaviors can be conditioned to what is scientifically best for them.
(2) People are constituted as a polyvalent biological being which nevertheless ought exist under power's bifrucation of pleasure/pain.
Result 5: Power controls the individual.
(1) That being which more often structures possibilty is the more powerful being.
(2) Society structures possibility more often than the the individual structures power.
Result 6: Society is power.
(1) In certain conditions, one individual can control society.
(2) If people only have a choice to the good as given by the scientific society, they will be conditioned by that one individual.
Result: That individual is power.
Yeah he doesn't say that at all but it's a common "criticism".
I don't think it's a very good criticism. Most of that is only valid if it's applied on top of the current society with the specific goal being to control them.
This isn't what skinner was advocating, or what he thought.
I remember reading a dialogue between him and some opposing psychologists at the time.
He came off extremely logical and reasonable while the others babbled like children about emotional crap and didn't listen to what he said at all.
I did, initially, think his theory was full of crap and "morally reprehensible". But it's not, it's just hard to understand. You have to read a lot of it until you realise that all of these emotional judgements people throwing at his theory is like arguing with physicists about why the world being round is an affront to god.
The only reason that one was ever resolved is people could actually go around the world and come back from the other angle. But you can't do that to people.
And like I said I don't think it's the full picture. I don't think conditioning, classical or operant, is the only guiding force. I don't dismiss internal cognizing. But Social Psych, taking a completely different approach to him, has shown that people are guided much more by their environment than anyone ever initially thought. (They also showed that individual differences are important though: one dissenting opinion can affect many examples of social behavior). Behavioral therapy has been one of the most successful clinical interventions in the last 100 years. Cognitive Behavior Therapy is built upon it.
My main beef with the main objections to Skinner though is this:
I don't think explaining where morals come from means you logically have to drop morals. That doesn't make any sense, what are you two? You know where they come from? That's good! There's still reasons they exist! How does their reason for existing get dissolved because you know where they come from?
This way of thinking just lets you better evaluate them. This knee jerk reaction of "morals morals lol" is not even an argument. It's an emotional opinion.
He did have morals. He just worded them in the terminology of his theory, so you never see the word morals again. He did this because it's not a useful word. It's too general, like love or snow to an eskimo. Which snow are you talking about? Eskimos want to know.
He really was born in the wrong time, he even said he didn't believe his own tools (conditioning) were the only ways to explain people.
My personality text book even took him out this year, saying he wasn't a theory. Even my lecturer was against that.
It's sad because it's a really useful view to take to contrast more internalised ones but in a few decades unless someone reexplains him properly he's going to be painted as a dictator training book.
Go and read his shit properly, then you can talk to me about it. I don't want to hear what philosophy has to say about Skinner, I want to hear what you have to say about Skinner.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
You would only read one side of a debate? And only listen to others views?
When philosophers of opposing schools univocally denounce a system of philosophy, it would be wise to at least believe them until one has the time to investigate further. I do no know Scientology very well, but you can bet I'm not going to look into it unless I have an hour or two to kill.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
What, in my syllogisms, could be reduce to anything but a logical criticism? You do realize that I used logic to attack his theories, right? Aaaaaaaand it's not parroting back other people's opinions. I used Foucault and Chomsky to short-circuit the stuff of Skinner's I've read.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
What, in my syllogisms, could be reduce to anything but a logical criticism? You do realize that I used logic to attack his theories, right? Aaaaaaaand it's not parroting back other people's opinions. I used Foucault and Chomsky to short-circuit the stuff of Skinner's I've read.
You're still a murderer. Killing hours like a killer.
We are not the most corrupt city, we are just the most theatrically corrupt.
And if you don't like jazz or blues I don't know what to tell you other than enjoy being wrong about much of the pleasures of life.
Jazz and blues ruined the one decent place I had to go on Friday nights.
Jazz and blues is NAP music.
Then you are listening to the wrong Blues, or you have ADD.
Some of us just have SUBTRACT.
Booo
I was going to make it a half-musical pun, something like "Some of use just have SUB TRACs" but I decided to just be my usual annoying self instead by making no sense and not being funny at all.
I am awesome.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Fucking Rangers.
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I was going to make it a half-musical pun, something like "Some of use just have SUB TRACs" but I decided to just be my usual annoying self instead by making no sense and not being funny at all.
Man my uncle is being such a god damned tool. You know that fine line between showing enthusiasm and being a condescending cumguzzler? Well, he must be flatfooted because he's trampling the line.
He finally got back into messing around more with his music, beat mixing, sampling for longer tracks, etc. So he comes down stairs, "yeah so I just turned this :47 track into a 3:11 second. I could give you that track and the best editing program money can buy and I could come back in a year and you wouldn't be able to do what I did tonight".
And it's not like he says this stuff specifically to me (I just happened to be down here on my laptop), it's just the way he is. One day I'm going to turn towards him,
"Yeah? I bet if I come back in a year you'll still be unemployed".
Organichu on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
What, in my syllogisms, could be reduce to anything but a logical criticism? You do realize that I used logic to attack his theories, right? Aaaaaaaand it's not parroting back other people's opinions. I used Foucault and Chomsky to short-circuit the stuff of Skinner's I've read.
To be honest, I wasn't able to follow that properly. I don't know the terms and they're not self evident.
I was reacting to you saying you rejected him morally. And the last result is a neutral statement. So what if an individual has power? He's also being shaped by the society you know. They can punish the individual.
You can't reductionise Skinner, it's an interactionist theory. You miss the point.
Anyway, here's your results as I was able to follow them.
Result 1: People's subjectivity is formed by the tendency to act according to the reward granted to them by power. Yeah sure that's one way to put it. Remember I read subjectivity differently to you but I was able to remember that philosophy uses it differently.
Result 2: Different people react differently.
Yeah sure.
Result 3: Power results from a drive to bifurcation of possibility
....I couldn't follow this. I only left the prior statements out because it confuses this little list. I don't get this at all, I think it's wrapped up in philosophical terms I don't know.
Result 4: Power is made more efficacious by convinving people that they are their behavior. I'm getting more lost here because I couldn't follow 3.
Result 5: Power controls the individual. Again.
Result 6: Society is power.
Welcome to the human race.
(1) In certain conditions, one individual can control society. What conditions?
(2) If people only have a choice to the good as given by the scientific society, they will be conditioned by that one individual. What? They have to agree to it? If they don't see this as a good thing that's going to be a negative reinforcement. This is a massive simplification of the process.
Result: That individual is power.
So?
That last result is a moral judgement. So what? Power is bad? I don't get why that is a criticism. That individual is not exempt from the forces acting upon everybody else.
And I couldn't follow 3 4 and 5 because I didn't get 3. Can you explain that better?
Also I was kinda ranting because so many people just go Morality so I probably misrepresented what you said, sorry.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
Actually, from my limited experience, Chicago is a pretty great place to be.
No real human being would want to.
It was an assault between two women in a casino on New Years 2007 - basically bar fight
Bar fights are hard enough to win already and we had crappy witnesses and such
Oh well
I've been in a couple.
I only really hear about the corruption.
And looking at their arts and culture oh god home of jazz and blues...
She lost the bar fight and the trial? That's gotta hurt.
Yeah he doesn't say that at all but it's a common "criticism".
I don't think it's a very good criticism. Most of that is only valid if it's applied on top of the current society with the specific goal being to control them.
This isn't what skinner was advocating, or what he thought.
I remember reading a dialogue between him and some opposing psychologists at the time.
He came off extremely logical and reasonable while the others babbled like children about emotional crap and didn't listen to what he said at all.
I did, initially, think his theory was full of crap and "morally reprehensible". But it's not, it's just hard to understand. You have to read a lot of it until you realise that all of these emotional judgements people throwing at his theory is like arguing with physicists about why the world being round is an affront to god.
The only reason that one was ever resolved is people could actually go around the world and come back from the other angle. But you can't do that to people.
And like I said I don't think it's the full picture. I don't think conditioning, classical or operant, is the only guiding force. I don't dismiss internal cognizing. But Social Psych, taking a completely different approach to him, has shown that people are guided much more by their environment than anyone ever initially thought. (They also showed that individual differences are important though: one dissenting opinion can affect many examples of social behavior). Behavioral therapy has been one of the most successful clinical interventions in the last 100 years. Cognitive Behavior Therapy is built upon it.
My main beef with the main objections to Skinner though is this:
I don't think explaining where morals come from means you logically have to drop morals. That doesn't make any sense, what are you two? You know where they come from? That's good! There's still reasons they exist! How does their reason for existing get dissolved because you know where they come from?
This way of thinking just lets you better evaluate them. This knee jerk reaction of "morals morals lol" is not even an argument. It's an emotional opinion.
He did have morals. He just worded them in the terminology of his theory, so you never see the word morals again. He did this because it's not a useful word. It's too general, like love or snow to an eskimo. Which snow are you talking about? Eskimos want to know.
He really was born in the wrong time, he even said he didn't believe his own tools (conditioning) were the only ways to explain people.
My personality text book even took him out this year, saying he wasn't a theory. Even my lecturer was against that.
It's sad because it's a really useful view to take to contrast more internalised ones but in a few decades unless someone reexplains him properly he's going to be painted as a dictator training book.
Go and read his shit properly, then you can talk to me about it. I don't want to hear what philosophy has to say about Skinner, I want to hear what you have to say about Skinner.
But that's okay. I was laughing at the guy both times. It was hilarious.
We are not the most corrupt city, we are just the most theatrically corrupt.
And if you don't like jazz or blues I don't know what to tell you other than enjoy being wrong about much of the pleasures of life.
Killing is murder you motherfucker.
Jazz and blues ruined the one decent place I had to go on Friday nights.
Jazz and blues is NAP music.
Man did you see that game? It was such a game!
It was totally all like... game.
Then you are listening to the wrong Blues, or you have ADD.
Was out with friends
I link for you.
You're still a murderer. Killing hours like a killer.
It was that blues where the asshole just kind of rambles on like a jackass hipster and then does hour-long guitar solos.
Some of us just have SUBTRACT.
Booo
I was going to make it a half-musical pun, something like "Some of use just have SUB TRACs" but I decided to just be my usual annoying self instead by making no sense and not being funny at all.
I am awesome.
Yeah, I can hear the guys upstairs howling about it
I have more important shit to be mad about.
All my posts I direct toward you are crafted from nothing but love. And puppies. Especially puppies.
I am being the best troll ever.
In order to be a good troll your trolling would have to be less blatantly obvious.
And amusing.
He finally got back into messing around more with his music, beat mixing, sampling for longer tracks, etc. So he comes down stairs, "yeah so I just turned this :47 track into a 3:11 second. I could give you that track and the best editing program money can buy and I could come back in a year and you wouldn't be able to do what I did tonight".
And it's not like he says this stuff specifically to me (I just happened to be down here on my laptop), it's just the way he is. One day I'm going to turn towards him,
"Yeah? I bet if I come back in a year you'll still be unemployed".
To be honest, I wasn't able to follow that properly. I don't know the terms and they're not self evident.
I was reacting to you saying you rejected him morally. And the last result is a neutral statement. So what if an individual has power? He's also being shaped by the society you know. They can punish the individual.
You can't reductionise Skinner, it's an interactionist theory. You miss the point.
Anyway, here's your results as I was able to follow them.
Result 1: People's subjectivity is formed by the tendency to act according to the reward granted to them by power. Yeah sure that's one way to put it. Remember I read subjectivity differently to you but I was able to remember that philosophy uses it differently.
Result 2: Different people react differently.
Yeah sure.
Result 3: Power results from a drive to bifurcation of possibility
....I couldn't follow this. I only left the prior statements out because it confuses this little list. I don't get this at all, I think it's wrapped up in philosophical terms I don't know.
Result 4: Power is made more efficacious by convinving people that they are their behavior.
I'm getting more lost here because I couldn't follow 3.
Result 5: Power controls the individual.
Again.
Result 6: Society is power.
Welcome to the human race.
(1) In certain conditions, one individual can control society. What conditions?
(2) If people only have a choice to the good as given by the scientific society, they will be conditioned by that one individual. What? They have to agree to it? If they don't see this as a good thing that's going to be a negative reinforcement. This is a massive simplification of the process.
Result: That individual is power.
So?
That last result is a moral judgement. So what? Power is bad? I don't get why that is a criticism. That individual is not exempt from the forces acting upon everybody else.
And I couldn't follow 3 4 and 5 because I didn't get 3. Can you explain that better?
Also I was kinda ranting because so many people just go Morality so I probably misrepresented what you said, sorry.
you been watching the wire eh
Take a quick look at the 20th century