What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Mercutio]

I don't know, which is why I asked. Perhaps there is no meat-eater diatribe, and so the veggie diatribe is annoying in its one-sidedness.

Having worked at a vegetarian daycare, and having dear friends who are vegans, I know the anti-carnivore diatribe. Having worked in restaurants, I know the anti-veggie diatribe.

Food bigotry? If someone claims that eating meat is cruel and inefficient, that's bigotry?

We have had threads about this. Claiming it in the absence of evidence, or at times against available evidence, is certainly prejudiced (in the literal sense of the word).

That rather rules out discussing just about everything, doesn't it?

Only if one rules out discussion for that sort of reason. It seems to me that both sides, in this thread, asked the other to think before they speak. My view was that both sides deserve pity.

Hey, I am a glutton. I love vegetarian food, so think the carnivores should be pitied. I love meat, so the vegetarians deserve pity as well. To hold such extreme views about other people based on their eating habits just seems silly to me. Don't we have other more important things to base our extreme views on, like race or religion? (that was irony. I am pointing out that prejudice based on food is still prejudice, the same thing we tend to decry in other situations.)

IA--Bigot, on dictionary.com:"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Perhaps I read too much into the two views--vegetarians or meat-eaters being asked to think before they speak--but to me they seemed to fit the definition.

 

[Mercutio]

That's interesting. To me, behaviorism works much better as an analogy for creationism, due to its minority position among mainstream scientists, and its inferior explanatory power.

Well, it only counts as explaining something if you actually do explain it. "Goddiddit" has remarkable explanatory power, from the creationist view.

 

[IllegalArgument]

That's interesting. To me, behaviorism works much better as an analogy for creationism, due to its minority position among mainstream scientists, and its inferior explanatory power.

/eagerly awaits Merc's response.
// Sits down with popcorn in hand.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I am a glutton. I love vegetarian food, so think the carnivores should be pitied. I love meat, so the vegetarians deserve pity as well. To hold such extreme views about other people based on their eating habits just seems silly to me. Don't we have other more important things to base our extreme views on, like race or religion? (that was irony. I am pointing out that prejudice based on food is still prejudice, the same thing we tend to decry in other situations.)

Your problem is that you just can't make up your mind. Decide what you want to eat!

Oh wait, I can't decide either. I don't eat red meat, but I do eat fish and poultry. What a fence-sitter I am!

~~ Paul

 

[Jas]

I don't get it. How does the vegetarian diatribe differ in kind from the meat-eater diatribe? Perhaps it's just that the meat-eater diatribe is the default?

Well, I don't remember ever sitting down to a salad or a falafel and having someone walk up to me and telling me I'm [insult random insult here]. Or be gardening and have people approach out of nowhere to tell me that I'm [insert some other pointless drivel here]. I enjoy vegetarian food, don't get me wrong, but being as I don't lecture strangers or coworkers on their food preferences, I do expect the same courtesy. I realize that not all vegetarians do this, but quite a few do.

 

[Mercutio]

Your problem is that you just can't make up your mind. Decide what you want to eat!

I have decided. My ideal would be to go to a wonderful restaurant with another person who appreciates food, and not leave until we had had everything on the menu. It might take a while...

Oh wait, I can't decide either. I don't eat red meat, but I do eat fish and poultry. What a fence-sitter I am!

Hypocrite!!!

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I don't remember ever sitting down to a salad or a falafel and having someone walk up to me and telling me I'm [insult random insult here]. Or be gardening and have people approach out of nowhere to tell me that I'm [insert some other pointless drivel here]. I enjoy vegetarian food, don't get me wrong, but being as I don't lecture strangers or coworkers on their food preferences, I do expect the same courtesy. I realize that not all vegetarians do this, but quite a few do.

If it makes you feel better, Tony Bourdain (in "Kitchen Confidential") has some choice things to say about vegetarians...and I have witnessed on more than one occasion meat-eaters teasing the veggie-burger-munching friend...

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, it only counts as explaining something if you actually do explain it. "Goddiddit" has remarkable explanatory power, from the creationist view.

Given that cognitivism doesn't reject the study of behavior, its explanatory power is at least as great as that of behaviorism. Given that there are phenomena which are not adequately explained by behaviorist doctrine, it seems valid to posit other explanations. It differs from creationism (which both explicitly rejects evolution and fails to present anything more than a naive critcism of evolutionary theory) in these important ways. Comparing it to creationism is the intellectual equivalent of character assassination.

But I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll state my extreme view: behaviorist doctrine was demolished forty years ago, but you'd never be able to infer that from the behavior of behaviorists.

 

[epepke]

If it makes you feel better, Tony Bourdain (in "Kitchen Confidential") has some choice things to say about vegetarians...and I have witnessed on more than one occasion meat-eaters teasing the veggie-burger-munching friend...

Since we're on extreme beliefs, that's because veggie-burgers are ridiculous. There are many fine vegan foods, including the aforementioned salads and falafel. Why fixate on "veggie burgers" or "vegetarian sausage" or that other crap? I don't cut meat and paint it green so that it looks like brussel sprouts.

 

[Mercutio]

Given that cognitivism doesn't reject the study of behavior, its explanatory power is at least as great as that of behaviorism.

So, where it agrees with behaviorism, it is right? You might find amusing the reciprocal comment, that all of cognitive psychology is subsumed under the "antecedent control" area of behaviorism.

Given that there are phenomena which are not adequately explained by behaviorist doctrine, it seems valid to posit other explanations.

Note how these other explanations owe a great deal to behaviorism. Very rarely are inner causes posited any more, for instance. And of course, while it seems valid to posit other explanations, it does not help to use explanatory fictions and circularly defined "causes".

It differs from creationism (which both explicitly rejects evolution and fails to present anything more than a naive critcism of evolutionary theory) in these important ways. Comparing it to creationism is the intellectual equivalent of character assassination.

I believe that was the intent of the quote. This is the extreme view thread, after all. Cognitive psychology has made a strawman out of Watson's Behaviorism, applied the label to all behaviorists, and argued against a fossil that has long been extinct. Behaviorists have moved on; there are more behaviorists at work now than ever, in more varied work than cognitive psychologists would dream possible from their stimulus-response charicature.

But I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll state my extreme view: behaviorist doctrine was demolished forty years ago, but you'd never be able to infer that from the behavior of behaviorists.

A funny kind of demolition then, wouldn't you say? Especially since many of the methods and theoretical assumptions of behaviorism are now part of cognition, social psych, personality, developmental...At the Mind, Brain, and Consciousness seminar in LA this past May, I was surprised to see the cognitive neuroscientists coming to conclusions that behaviorists had suggested 20 years ago...but then, of course, as a behaviorist I would see that, and not realize that I have been dead for 40 years...

 

[Mercutio]

Since we're on extreme beliefs, that's because veggie-burgers are ridiculous. There are many fine vegan foods, including the aforementioned salads and falafel. Why fixate on "veggie burgers" or "vegetarian sausage" or that other crap? I don't cut meat and paint it green so that it looks like brussel sprouts.

I agree--and I just don't get veggie bacon! There are wonderful veggie foods--why pretend something is something it is not?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Vegetarians want something to cook on the grill other than plain veggies. So they slopped some ground-up veggies together with a coagulating agent and formed it into a burger. I suspect there are also hot dog-shaped coagulated veggie blobs.

You can take the meat out of the eater, but you can't take out the desire for BBQ.

~~ Paul

(This wasn't insulting to veg-heads, was it?)

 

[Roboramma]

Well, I don't remember ever sitting down to a salad or a falafel and having someone walk up to me and telling me I'm [insult random insult here]. Or be gardening and have people approach out of nowhere to tell me that I'm [insert some other pointless drivel here]. I enjoy vegetarian food, don't get me wrong, but being as I don't lecture strangers or coworkers on their food preferences, I do expect the same courtesy. I realize that not all vegetarians do this, but quite a few do.

Actually, it isn't as rare as you think, at least not in my experience, and I'm not a veggie.
For instance: when I was growing up my younger sister decided to turn vegetarian. Family meals which centered around meat did not change at all, she was just given more potatoes. Most nights one of my brothers or both would harass her for not eating meat. I'm very impressed that she kept it up for all those years.
Or how about this: I live in Shanghai, when I first moved here a few months ago my boss took me out to dinner. Most meals here are eaten comunally, ie. many shared dishes are ordered. Almost all had meat, which i was fine with. The conversation quickly turned to an indian coworker who doesn't eat meat. All sorts of jokes and insults were thrown about (he wasn't there). I was quiet at this point until someone said something to me dirrectly, at which point I said, "Actually, I respect him for it, it's not easy being vegetarian." silence.

Those two anecdotes aside, it can be difficult for vegetarians eating out with friends or family. Many restaurants don't have very good vegetarian options (though that has changed in recent years) and many meat-eaters don't want to go to pure veg restaurants.

 

[mumblethrax]

Note how these other explanations owe a great deal to behaviorism. Very rarely are inner causes posited any more, for instance. And of course, while it seems valid to posit other explanations, it does not help to use explanatory fictions and circularly defined "causes".

I don't disagree that behaviorism has influenced the development of cognitivism. I think terming something so obvious and universal to human experience as the mind an explanatory fiction betrays behaviorism's highly counter-intuitive ideological bias. The circular argument really only works if you're a behaviorist; if you admit functional analysis, it's not circular.

I believe that was the intent of the quote. This is the extreme view thread, after all.

A fair point, and yours is nothing like the most aberrant.

But many of the extreme views expressed here are actually thinly veiled attacks on the perceived extreme views of others.

A funny kind of demolition then, wouldn't you say? Especially since many of the methods and theoretical assumptions of behaviorism are now part of cognition, social psych, personality, developmental...

I was careful to distinguish between behaviorist doctrine and behaviorist methodology, so I don't think the latter can be admitted in defense of the former.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't disagree that behaviorism has influenced the development of cognitivism. I think terming something so obvious and universal to human experience as the mind an explanatory fiction betrays behaviorism's highly counter-intuitive ideological bias. The circular argument really only works if you're a behaviorist; if you admit functional analysis, it's not circular.

Functional analysis is the heart of behaviorism. Actually manipulating antecedents and seeing effects on behavior is crucial. Merely inferring causation after the fact is what is circular. Tell me how one has ever either manipulated or measured the mind without manipulating environment and measuring behavior, and you will have made your point. And please, don't think behaviorism is stuck at Watson's year--modern behaviorists recognise private behavior such as thinking and remembering; they just think of them as behaviors, not as "mind". Thinking is obvious; remembering is obvious. It is obvious that we can do these, and that our doing these things is influenced by our environmental contingencies. What is not obvious is that it requires a "mind" to do so; that is circularly inferred. (Progress is being made, of course; we speak now of a descriptive label of "type A behavior pattern" rather than an inferred inner cause "type a personality".)

I was careful to distinguish between behaviorist doctrine and behaviorist methodology, so I don't think the latter can be admitted in defense of the former.

Both are quite obviously still there, and quite influential. Eschewing inner causes in favor of environmental causes, for instance, is at the heart of virtually any application of social or cognitive psychology; if we wish to see a change in performance, we change some element of the situation. It is so basic that one forgets that it is a contribution of "behaviorist doctrine".

Not that you are, but for the casual observer I wish to make a note--it is important that the reactions to behaviorism are not reactions to the stereotype of behaviorism as Watson defined it. The behaviorism of 40-50 years ago was a methodological behaviorism, and radical behaviorists reject it. Other sciences progress; so does behaviorism. We would not argue against biology because we disagree with the "4 humours" theory.

 

[Jas]

If it makes you feel better, Tony Bourdain (in "Kitchen Confidential") has some choice things to say about vegetarians...and I have witnessed on more than one occasion meat-eaters teasing the veggie-burger-munching friend...

And I tease my friends all the time as well. They tease me for ordering blue steak one day and tofu the next (granted, there's a lot more steak than tofu). With people you know, that's just the individual boundaries you set.

I'm talking about complete strangers going off about what's wrong with meat (be it ethical objections, health opinions, whatever), and more importantly, what's wrong with YOU for eating meat. I realize that this is the minority, but it's pretty annoying.

 

[Jas]

Actually, it isn't as rare as you think, at least not in my experience, and I'm not a veggie.
...

Like I said in above post, that's a personal boundary thing among friends/family. And 'Haha, hope you like your sprouts!', is a bit different than comparing someone to a Nazi (a la Peta billboard).

(and yes, I realize that this isn't all vegetarians)

Many restaurants don't have very good vegetarian options (though that has changed in recent years) and many meat-eaters don't want to go to pure veg restaurants.

And I fully agree with you on that. But how does that excuse people calling me a murderer because I eat meat?

 

[Melendwyr]

Time to fess up. What do you admit to being a little too emotional/irrational about?

Being "extreme" has nothing to do with being excessively emotional. Nor with being irrational. An "extreme" view is one that is in one of the far ends of a distribution. That doesn't make it irrational, emotionally-based, or untrue.

 

[Luke T.]

Being "extreme" has nothing to do with being excessively emotional. Nor with being irrational. An "extreme" view is one that is in one of the far ends of a distribution. That doesn't make it irrational, emotionally-based, or untrue.

But there is a good chance it is one or more of those things.

When we think of the term "extremist", I think most of us associate a certain amount of over the top emotionalism in our personal definition. A fanatic.

And I think you weren't reading between the lines very well. This part of the JREF forum has a high emotional content. Maybe if we all took a look at the things we know send us off the rational path a little bit, we could examine how each of us could calm the waters around here. If I allow myself to get too strident on a topic, I should take a look at what point I should refrain from further participation so I don't spoil it for everyone else. It is possible I can get so mad at someone in a topic that it taints every interaction I have with them from then on, leaking all over the forum.

If I am mad and showing it, it no longer matters if I am right.

Nuke North Korea! If only we could get away with it and still look ourselves in the eye! I love it!

There are some folks around here who will never back down. Who must be right instead of happy or useful to this forum. Who constantly "nuke north korea". But if enough of us know when to just walk away, those people will no longer control the tone around here the way they do.

 

[epepke]

I agree--and I just don't get veggie bacon! There are wonderful veggie foods--why pretend something is something it is not?

Yes, that has always puzzled me.

People take soy protein and fat, processed, texturized, homogenized, hydrogenated, spooged, munged, and kerfabulated. Then they color some of it, doubtless with the finest organic annato, picked by union Nicaraguan freedom-fighters, and transported on the backs of goats. They arrange the two artistically so that it looks as much as practicable like something an ancient Nordic might have cut out of the side of a pig with a stone hand-axe.

Someone call Freud. Quick!