The Zombie Poll

[President Bush]

If any philosophy is true, is it not impossible for there to be a perspective outside it from which to referee?

Tsk, tsk.

 

[hammegk]

.... Skinner would argue that what we see as an act of creation is better seen as our acting as a locus for multiple lines of determination in our environment.

I'd agree. Yet Skinner, and you, overlook the words "our" and "acting". That's where free-will -- and Intent -- enter the equations that otherwise rule. And that is the non-mathematizable problem that makes a zombie a zombie.

 

[President Bush]

When we dismiss the spontaneous generation of maggots and look to the environment...we find flies. Oh, and biology. When we want to look scientifically at human behavior, we must again look outside the thing that is influenced, to the environment (social and physical) that does the influencing. ...so the quote has maggots and bacteria in it.

A plague o' both your houses!

 

[Mercutio]

I'd agree. Yet Skinner, and you, overlook the words "our" and "acting". That's where free-will -- and Intent -- enter the equations that otherwise rule. And that is the non-mathematizable problem that makes a zombie a zombie.

Skinner did not overlook those words. His theory, in marked contrast to Watson's behaviorism, posited an active organism acting on its environment. The environment selects those behaviors, of course, reinforcing some and punishing or extinguishing others.

Like evolution by natural selection, the question of an initial start is not part of the theory at all; the theory works only with an active organism. This is not "overlooking" the problem, it is choosing to focus on an answerable question. (There are, unless memory fails me, some modern classical conditioning researchers who are continuing to research a stimulus-response model--albeit a much more complex and biologically-grounded one than Pavlov would recognize--which would attempt to show initial causation of a behavior. For Skinner, it would not have mattered to Operant Conditioning whether behavior got a jump-start from reflex or from will; once an organism was active, however, its behavior was influenced by environment in a lawful fashion, and this was the domain of Operant Conditioning.)

 

[hammegk]

Skinner did not overlook those words. His theory, in marked contrast to Watson's behaviorism, posited an active organism acting on its environment.

Changing the words "our" and "acting" to "active organism acting" doesn't accomplish much, does it.

What "acts"?

 

[President Bush]

... the problem with Behaviorism is that people don't like that it robs them of individual agency...

The Behaviorist actually engaged in stimulus/response conditioning is robbed of no such thing, of course.

I won't speak for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, or autistic individuals who may be benefitting from this stimulus/response conditioning. Good for Behaviorism in that respect.

Though I've wondered, as a philosophical point, how, if things are materially determined - as in Behaviorism - the Behaviorist steps out of the chain of cause and effect and decides how who is being programed by the stimulus/response conditioning is then conditioned. Since given the suppositions of behaviorism, the programming itself would have to, also, already be determined. It doesn't add up.

But I'll let that go. These things don't matter to the Behaviorist engaged in stimulus/response conditioning on others, apparently, in need of it.

What about those folks working (internally) on their own developmental progression? It is here that Behaviorism breaks down totally, I believe, having no mechanism to account for, much less deal with, such activity.

 

[Mercutio]

The Behaviorist actually engaged in stimulus/response conditioning is robbed of no such thing, of course.

One cannot be robbed of what one never possessed. The same thing holds true for The Behaviorist, of course. It is merely easier and more dramatic to see in those other cases.

I won't speak for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, or autistic individuals who may be benefitting from this stimulus/response conditioning. Good for Behaviorism in that respect.

My textbook for the upcoming semester applies Behaviorism to cultural issues; students' papers in previous semesters have tackled everything from AIDS in sub-saharan Africa, to sexual assault on college campuses, to obesity in school-aged children, to litter cleanup and prevention in a local community.

The principles work. Anyone who looks at the evidence can see that.

Though I've wondered, as a philosophical point, how, if things are materially determined - as in Behaviorism - the Behaviorist steps out of the chain of cause and effect and decides how who is being programed by the stimulus/response conditioning is then conditioned. Since given the suppositions of behaviorism, the programming itself would have to, also, already be determined. It doesn't add up.

As we have said before in this thread, Skinner does not claim to step out of that chain at all; in fact he claims outright that anyone else in his shoes would be acting the same way. He does not take credit for his accomplishments, but credits his environment (and goes into detail about it). You are right about one thing; if he did claim to be out of the chain, that would not add up.

But I'll let that go. These things don't matter to the Behaviorist engaged in stimulus/response conditioning on others, apparently, in need of it.

Remember, the stimulus/response conditioning is not Skinner's Radical Behaviorism, but another branch, classical or respondent conditioning. I will assume that your use of the term is due to unfamiliarity with the technical terms. Other than that, the statement is false on the face of it; the Behaviorist is quite clearly influenced by his or her environment. Your claims to the contrary are, I assume a misunderstanding on your part and not any active attempt to create a strawman. Anyone who takes the time to actually listen to the "on having a poem" talk cannot be simply assumed to be arguing in bad faith; I am assuming you are sincere, but simply inaccurate at this point.

What about those folks working (internally) on their own developmental progression? It is here that Behaviorism breaks down totally, I believe, having no mechanism to account for, much less deal with, such activity.

Once again, a more complete understanding would show this to be inaccurate. Part of the "radical" of Radical Behaviorism is Skinner's inclusion of internal behavior, which Watson's (obsolete, methodological) Behaviorism dismissed. Your private behavior is absolutely treated the same as your public behavior; it is subject to contextual analysis to determine its antecedents and consequences in the environment; these antecedents and consequences may then be manipulated in order to manage private behavior. My summer class in Behavior Modification used a supplemental text by Watson & Tharp that is specifically geared toward questions like this last of yours. In its 9th edition now, it has the luxury of years of use in systematic programs, through which data have been collected in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the book's methods.

It is a bit pricey (on my salary, anyway), but has gotten rave reviews from my students, and from others on this forum to whom I have recommended it.

 

[Mercutio]

Changing the words "our" and "acting" to "active organism acting" doesn't accomplish much, does it.

What "acts"?

I do, you do, we do, they do...I did not mean to imply otherwise, nor is this a problem for Behaviorism. What it is, is a "deep" question that can be answered trivially or never answered deeply enough for anyone's satisfaction. If the trivial answer is fine...great. If not, then the question is not one that gives us a pragmatic answer. Behaviorism can progress in either case.

 

[hammegk]

True. The Question is one for each individual -- behavorists too.

Damn 'ghosts in the machines'.

 

[Apathia]

True. The Question is one for each individual -- behavorists too.

In Korean Zen, it's called the "Hwadu." The most basic form of it being, "Who is it that asks?"

Damn 'ghosts in the machines'.

Will they ever give us the answers? lol
And how about that Deus Ex Machina?
I'm tired of the actors in white robes and phoney beards.

My own house doesn't appear to be haunted, but there is this greased pig that I could never catch and now simply has free range in the place.

 

[President Bush]

One cannot be robbed of what one never possessed. The same thing holds true for The Behaviorist, of course.

A behavioral psychologist is not an agent?

As we have said before in this thread, Skinner does not claim to step out of that chain at all; in fact he claims outright that anyone else in his shoes would be acting the same way. He does not take credit for his accomplishments, but credits his environment (and goes into detail about it). You are right about one thing; if he did claim to be out of the chain, that would not add up.

Does a behavioral psychologist not employ method in helping human beings modify their behavior? Who makes the determination as to the course followed? Is there a choice involved?

Remember, the stimulus/response conditioning is not Skinner's Radical Behaviorism, but another branch, classical or respondent conditioning. I will assume that your use of the term is due to unfamiliarity with the technical terms. Other than that, the statement is false on the face of it; the Behaviorist is quite clearly influenced by his or her environment. Your claims to the contrary are, I assume a misunderstanding on your part and not any active attempt to create a strawman. Anyone who takes the time to actually listen to the "on having a poem" talk cannot be simply assumed to be arguing in bad faith; I am assuming you are sincere, but simply inaccurate at this point.

The application of operant conditioning called behavior modification doesn't involve a stimulus response through reinforcement and punishment?

Once again, a more complete understanding would show this to be inaccurate. Part of the "radical" of Radical Behaviorism is Skinner's inclusion of internal behavior, which Watson's (obsolete, methodological) Behaviorism dismissed. Your private behavior is absolutely treated the same as your public behavior; it is subject to contextual analysis to determine its antecedents and consequences in the environment; these antecedents and consequences may then be manipulated in order to manage private behavior.

I am under the impression that Skinner denied the reality of freedom and self actualization.

I have one more question for you, Mercutio: why are you involved in this debate with me?

 

[Mercutio]

A behavioral psychologist is not an agent?

Define "agent". A behavioral psychologist is an active organism, but so are others. A behavioral psychologist is part of the environment of others, just as others are part of the environment of the BP. There is nothing about that title that exempts the BP from environmental contingencies of reinforcement.

Does a behavioral psychologist not employ method in helping human beings modify their behavior? Who makes the determination as to the course followed? Is there a choice involved?

Yes, it depends on your level of analysis, and a qualified yes.

1) A BP uses, in a systematic fashion, the same environmental influences that modify your behavior if the BP is not there. It is a similar thing to the difference between selective breeding and evolution; breeding uses the principles of natural selection, but under the control of the breeder rather than the unplanned contingencies of the "natural" environment (yes, the distinction between natural and man-made is arbitrary). 2) If all you are looking at is the client, then the client and therapist work together to make the determination. If you wish to look at the antecedents and consequences of these behaviors, you will find that "who makes the determination" may or may not be a reasonable question (it could be another person's influence, or it may be "natural" contingencies of reinforcement and punishment). For any given analysis, we pragmatically decide what we are trying to change, and work back to where we are able to manipulate. Yes, our own behavior is under the influence of other contingencies, but all behavior is--that is not a reason to sit and do nothing. 3) Choice is an interesting area in behaviorism. There is a huge literature regarding choice, but behaviorists approach it a bit differently from the notion of "free choice". Any time there is more than one option in terms of behaviors to engage in, an organism is in a choice situation. This does not mean that the choice is freely made by the organism; rather, the area of study examines what the factors are in the various options that lead an organism to choose one option or another. Systematic changes in options lead to systematic changes in "choice"; it is clearly under the control of environmental variables.

The application of operant conditioning called behavior modification doesn't involve a stimulus response through reinforcement and punishment?

Technically, as you express it here, no. Operant conditioning looks at behaviors as they are influence by stimuli (where "stimulus" is defined as "anything that can potentially influence a behavior", and "behavior" and "response" are synonymous, but are defined in a molar rather than molecular sense--that is, defined as extended in time, measured by rate, for example) which occur after the behavior: namely, reinforcers and punishers. It is not "stimulus response" (which typically is used when looking at reflexive behaviors elicited by a stimulus), but "response stimulus" (where a behavior's rate is influenced by reinforcers or punishers that follow that behavior).

So...yes, reinforcement and punishment are involved, but "stimulus response" is more than just oversimplification; it is more applicable to a completely different area of behaviorism.

I am under the impression that Skinner denied the reality of freedom and self actualization.

Denied the reality? Sorry, this is completely separate from what I said. Private behaviors such as thinking, remembering, etc., are things that you do. They are behaviors. That was my point. If you wish to modify your [depressed, for example] thinking, the book I mentioned will help. "Freedom" and "Self-actualization" are not behaviors, but concepts with ties to various theoretical approaches, inferred from some classes of behaviors. Skinner does not so much "deny their reality" as have no need to invent these particular fictions.

I have one more question for you, Mercutio: why are you involved in this debate with me?

That one is easy: I have a long history of reinforcement for this category of behavior. For over 20 years, I have engaged in this sort of behavior, both professionally and casually; it has been a rich source of reinforcement for me.

 

[Apathia]

"Freedom" and "Self-actualization" are not behaviors, but concepts with ties to various theoretical approaches, inferred from some classes of behaviors. Skinner does not so much "deny their reality" as have no need to invent these particular fictions.

Having done my homework on Radical Behaviorism, I just want to make a comment for the sake of the President's understanding.
"Freedom" and "Self-Actualization" are technical terms used in schools of Psychology Skinner critiqued. It would be a mistake to read into this that behavior therapies call for a mindless, passive, client who is simply to be modified by soley external means. Rather the client is given liberating tools that empower her to take charge of her life and grow.
Behavior perspectives help clarify what an individual's personal growth is about. A Cognative or Transformational approch, may help you understand why your addiction is undesirable, but breaking the habits takes savvy effort and new courses of action.
Your choosing and acting on your choices isn't taken away from you.

Now if you ascribe to an absolute, ontological self with an ontological free will,
Then talk of cause and effect in relation to your decisions, may seem to threaten who you are. But such an absolute isn't really necessary, and our Response/ability lies in being a participant in the flow of life, rather than a seperate outsider. Our sense of transcending our habitual ego selves is integral to being an ego self. It comes in a single package. The Transcendent is in each moment that you Pay Attention.

"But he's saying my self is a fiction!"
Yes. And that is a valuable bit of liberating knowledge, because now you can become creative.

 

[President Bush]

A behavioral psychologist is an active organism, but so are others. A behavioral psychologist is part of the environment of others, just as others are part of the environment of the BP. There is nothing about that title that exempts the BP from environmental contingencies of reinforcement.

Why, then, do you answer with

One cannot be robbed of what one never possessed. The same thing holds true for The Behaviorist, of course.

when in response to your observation that

Behaviorism is that people don't like that it robs them of individual agency...or so they believe.

I pointed out "The Behaviorist actually engaged in stimulus/response conditioning is robbed of no such thing, of course."

Is it a reinforcement/punishment thing?

1) A BP uses, in a systematic fashion, the same environmental influences that modify your behavior if the BP is not there. It is a similar thing to the difference between selective breeding and evolution; breeding uses the principles of natural selection, but under the control of the breeder rather than the unplanned contingencies of the "natural" environment (yes, the distinction between natural and man-made is arbitrary). 2) If all you are looking at is the client, then the client and therapist work together to make the determination. If you wish to look at the antecedents and consequences of these behaviors, you will find that "who makes the determination" may or may not be a reasonable question

Admitting determinism finally?

(it could be another person's influence, or it may be "natural" contingencies of reinforcement and punishment). For any given analysis, we pragmatically decide what we are trying to change, and work back to where we are able to manipulate. Yes, our own behavior is under the influence of other contingencies, but all behavior is--that is not a reason to sit and do nothing. 3) Choice is an interesting area in behaviorism. There is a huge literature regarding choice, but behaviorists approach it a bit differently from the notion of "free choice".

Admitting determinism finally?

Operant conditioning looks at behaviors as they are influence by stimuli (where "stimulus" is defined as "anything that can potentially influence a behavior", and "behavior" and "response" are synonymous, but are defined in a molar rather than molecular sense--that is, defined as extended in time, measured by rate, for example) which occur after the behavior: namely, reinforcers and punishers. It is not "stimulus response" (which typically is used when looking at reflexive behaviors elicited by a stimulus), but "response stimulus" (where a behavior's rate is influenced by reinforcers or punishers that follow that behavior).

So...yes, reinforcement and punishment are involved, but "stimulus response" is more than just oversimplification; it is more applicable to a completely different area of behaviorism.

You've jumped through a number of hoops here. In response to my comment:

The application of operant conditioning called behavior modification doesn't involve a stimulus response through reinforcement and punishment?

Still can't tell whether you answered yes or no.

Denied the reality? Sorry, this is completely separate from what I said. Private behaviors such as thinking, remembering, etc., are things that you do. They are behaviors. That was my point. If you wish to modify your [depressed, for example] thinking, the book I mentioned will help. "Freedom" and "Self-actualization" are not behaviors, but concepts with ties to various theoretical approaches, inferred from some classes of behaviors. Skinner does not so much "deny their reality" as have no need to invent these particular fictions.

Freedom is a fiction?

You are sped, Mercutio!

That one is easy: I have a long history of reinforcement for this category of behavior. For over 20 years, I have engaged in this sort of behavior, both professionally and casually; it has been a rich source of reinforcement for me.

Remind me not to go on a long trip with you.

 

[hammegk]

Wannabe materialists have all the problems. Deflection and denial #1; ontology is a pantload ....

Yet the problem - the most real problem any of us will ever face - "Why does reality seem dualistic?" just won't behave itself out of existence.

 

[Apathia]

Wannabe materialists have all the problems. Deflection and denial #1; ontology is a pantload ....

Yet the problem - the most real problem any of us will ever face - "Why does reality seem dualistic?" just won't behave itself out of existence.

It's here to stay. There just wouldn't be any reality to speak of without it.

I guess my attempt to salvage some humanity "beyond freedom and dignity" was lame. I've done some more reading today. Paradoxically there is humanity in Skinner. But as usually where there is humanity in any social engineering plan, it gets lost in the execution.

Nevermind, the more I read, the less I can find to salvage. The execution of the individual comes at the very beginning of the program.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The execution of the individual comes at the very beginning of the program.

Is that a problem?

 

[Apathia]

Is that a problem?

Maybe not, the way I feel today in my chronically unemployed state.
If my individualism had been put to rest early on, I'd be a productive member of society now, with a six figure salary.

 

[President Bush]

Is that a problem?

Think of Behaviorism as Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What a dramatically profound mis-representation of Behaviorism.